CALGARY TRANSIT 2013 CUSTOMER SATISFACTION SURVEY DECEMBER HarGroup. M anagement Consultants

Transcription

1 CALGARY TRANSIT 2013 CUSTOMER SATISFACTION SURVEY DECEMBER 2013 HarGroup M anagement Consultants

2

3 Table of Contents Executive Summary... i 1.0 INTRODUCTION Survey Methodology Factors to Consider for the 2013 Survey Reporting OVERALL SERVICE PERFORMANCE CUSTOMERS' PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIFIC SERVICE OFFERINGS Ratings of Service Attributes Importance of Service Attributes Comparisons of Customer Expectations and Perceived Performance of Service Attributes Service Components and Experiences Perceived Change in Services Unregistered Complaints CHARACTERISTICS OF TRANSIT USE Transit Use Frequency and Duration of Transit Use Modes of Transit Used Travel Periods Trip Purpose Travel Patterns CUSTOMER CHOICE AND COMMITMENT Main Reason for Transit Use Choice to Use Transit Customer Commitment Customers Recommendation of Transit SERVICE EXPANSION AND FUNDING Service Expansion Priorities Funding Service Expansion INFORMATION SERVICES AND COMMUNICATION Use of Information Services Quality of Information Services Quality of Information Provided on Various Issues OBSERVATIONS FOR WEST SERVICE AREA Modes of Transit Used West Service Area Performance Ratings of Service Attributes West Service Area CONCLUDING REMARKS APPENDICES HarGroup Management Consultants, Inc.

4

5 Executive Summary Calgary Transit conducts an annual customer satisfaction survey to assess Calgarians' use, perceptions and expectations for Transit services. In November 2013, a total of 500 interviews were conducted with Calgary Transit customers for the annual Customer Satisfaction survey. Calgarians who use Transit services at least once a week qualify to be respondents for the survey. Respondents were interviewed by telephone (including landlines and mobile phones). HarGroup Management Consultants Inc. was engaged to field the survey and report the results. Key Findings Customer Satisfaction Ratings Have Been Increasing Over the Past Few Years - An upward trend in overall satisfaction ratings has been observed over the past few years. Indeed, in 2013, the greatest proportion of respondents stated excellent for overall satisfaction since the 2000 survey. Further, ratings have been increasing for many service attributes over the past two years, particularly service frequency and length of travel time. Respondents were More Likely to Indicate Services Had Improved in 2013; Yet Support Declined for Fare Increases to Fund Service Improvements - Just over one in four respondents reported that Transit service was better (a lot or a little), which is among one of the higher proportions of respondents agreeing that Transit services have improved as compared to previous results. Conversely, support for fare increases to fund service improvements has shown a significant decrease over the past few years, with half of respondents stating they would be in favour (fully or conditionally) of a fare increase in This finding shows the lowest level of support for fare increases since this question has been included survey. Findings Reveal Shift to LRT Use, Particularly among West Service Area Customers Changes have been observed in the data due to the West LRT extension. In 2013, a shift to LRT use over bus use occurred with approximately half of all survey respondents citing use of both buses and CTrains (vs. bus only or CTrain only). This proportion is higher than observed in previous surveys, mainly due to a decline in bus only use. Similarly, the mode of transit used among West Service Area customers shifted to both bus and CTrain from bus only. Evidence in the Survey Results Suggests Offering a Mix of Information Sources is Important Customers are increasingly using more than one method to obtain information from Calgary Transit. In 2013, almost two-thirds of respondents indicated using more than one information source. This proportion is larger than observed in previous surveys. The most common sources of information used by respondents were the TeleRide system, Calgary Transit website, Google Transit and Calgary Transit on Twitter. HarGroup Management Consultants, Inc. - i -

6 A Greater Proportion of Respondents Agreed that Transit is an Influential Part of Their Lives Over the past few years, findings have shown an increase in the extent to which Transit is an influential part of customers lives. For instance, in 2013, more respondents agreed (strongly or somewhat) that Transit is an important choice in their life and lifestyle, that availability of Transit services influences their choice of where they live, that they consider using Transit for every trip they make, and that they use Transit to go to multiple places throughout their journey. As well, in 2013, a greater proportion of respondents strongly agreed (vs. somewhat) with most of these statements as compared to results from previous surveys. More Respondents Strongly Agreed that Transit Offers a Safe and Pleasant Experience for Customers In 2013, a greater proportion of respondents strongly agreed (vs. somewhat agreed) with most statements offered about various Transit service components and experiences as compared to previous years. For instance, more respondents strongly agreed that overall they feel Calgary Transit bus and CTrain drivers operate their vehicles safely, they feel safe while travelling on transit, other passengers are usually well behaved, Calgary Transit vehicles normally arrive at their stop at the scheduled time, their experience while travelling on buses and CTrains is usually pleasant, and there is generally a bus stop or CTrain station within a reasonable distance of their origin and destination. HarGroup Management Consultants, Inc. - ii -

7 1.0 INTRODUCTION Calgary Transit has conducted customer satisfaction surveys to gain insights into Calgarians use and perceptions of its services since The surveys provide Calgary Transit with information about public transit use among Calgarians, customers needs and expectations for service delivery, as well as potential areas or priorities for improvement. Calgary Transit uses the information for planning future services within the city. This report presents the results of the. 1 The survey addresses specific measures that Calgary Transit employs to gauge Calgarians use and perceptions of its services, which are summarized below. To measure travel behaviour among Transit customers. To measure customers' perceptions of service performance. To measure customers' satisfaction with various service factors. To identify customers' perceptions about importance of service factors. To examine customers' perceptions of customer service provided by Transit representatives. To examine customer loyalty among Transit users. To examine customers' priorities for service provision. To assess factors that contribute to customers choosing to use Transit services. HarGroup Management Consultants, Inc. was engaged by Calgary Transit to field the survey and report the survey results. 1.1 Survey Methodology The Calgary Transit Customer Satisfaction Survey was first initiated in From year to year, there are modifications to the instruments used in the surveys; however content and structure have generally been maintained over the past two decades (a copy of the 2013 survey instrument is presented in Appendix A). As well, the methodology applied to the surveys has been fairly consistent each year except that fielding periods have varied ranging from September to December (see Appendix B) and mobile phones have been accessed in addition to landline phones in recent years. 2 The 2013 survey was fielded in November. 1 The annual survey is part of a longitudinal measurement system that includes a biennial non-user survey. The non-user survey was not conducted in In 2013, 54% of interviews were conducted with mobile phones and 46% with landline phones. Using this sampling approach limits the need for weighting data (e.g. younger respondents and male respondents are accessed more readily through mobile phones than landline phones). HarGroup Management Consultants, Inc

8 Survey specifications include: A total of 500 interviews conducted with Calgarians who are at least 15 years of age and had ridden Calgary Transit buses or CTrains regularly (at least once a week on average). Potential respondents are selected from the Calgary population using a computerized random-digit dialling process to ensure complete randomization of the survey samples. Both landline (46%) and cell phone (54%) numbers are included in the samples. Analysis of the final call results suggests that approximately 42% of potential respondents qualified for the (see Appendix C). Basic extrapolation of these results would suggest that the total population of regular customers is estimated to be approximately 396,000 (Table 1.1). Factors Calgary Civic Census Table 1.1: Estimated Transit Customers (Aged 15 and Older) Survey Year , , , , , , , , , , , ,000 Transit Users 38% 36% 39% 43% 38% 47% 48% 44% 43% 43% 38% 42% Estimated number of Transit 276, , , , , , , , , , , ,000 customers Non-Users 62% 64% 61% 57% 62% 53% 52% 56% 57% 57% 62% 58% Estimated number of Non- Users 451, , , , , , , , , , , ,000 A sample size of 500 yields a margin of error of ±4.4% within a 95% confidence interval, for the Calgary Transit regular customer and non-user populations (as defined for the survey). Expressed differently, if the survey were to be conducted within the same populations again, in 19 surveys in 20 the results would likely remain within ±4.4% of the results presented in this report. The margins of error are computed for the entire samples and analyses based on sample subsets will generally not achieve the same level of confidence. Respondent Profile Demographic data are gathered from respondents to gauge possible changes in customer characteristics. These data are presented in Appendix D. Generally, characteristics of respondents from the are consistent with those observed in previous survey years (e.g. younger Calgarians under 25 years of age). Calgary Transit has designated Service Areas throughout Calgary that are illustrated in Figure 1.1. Using the demographic data from the survey, the sample is over representative of northwest Calgarians (6% over representation). HarGroup Management Consultants, Inc

9 This over representation is similar to previous survey data, which ultimately may suggest that residents in northwest Calgary are more likely to use Calgary Transit services compared to residents of other Service Areas. Figure 1.1 Service Area Boundaries North Central North West North East Centre City West LRT System South East South West HarGroup Management Consultants, Inc

10 1.2 Factors to Consider for the 2013 Survey Several factors are worth noting in considering the information presented in this report about the 2013 survey findings. West LRT The West LRT line opened in December, 2012, including six new LRT stations between downtown and 69 Street S.W. The West LRT project included a totally revamped bus network in 21 communities. Upgrading of northeast LRT platforms The City of Calgary is upgrading all northeast existing Calgary Transit LRT platforms to accommodate the operation of four-car trains in In fall 2013, construction was completed for the Rundle, Marlborough and Franklin stations. As well, construction started in June 2013 for Lions Park, University and Victoria Park/Stampede Stations and is expected to be completed in December Chinook Station Reconstruction In January 2013, the Chinook station and bus terminal were closed for redevelopment as part of The City s preparation to accommodate four-car CTrains. Chinook Station reopened in September Service Expansion In August 2012, the northeast line of the CTrain was extended to the Saddletowne station (a three kilometre extension). At the Saddletowne Station, 121 parking stalls were developed. While this expansion occurred in 2012, the effects may be relevant to findings in the 2013 survey. 1.3 Reporting The remaining sections of the report present the results of the 2013 Customer Satisfaction Survey. Basic frequencies of survey question results are presented in the report. As well, various statistical procedures have been used within the analyses to assess significance of contrasting responses of respondents. These analyses provide additional insight into the data and allow for a greater degree of certainty in statements of inference. Data from previous survey waves are also presented for comparative purposes. HarGroup Management Consultants, Inc

11 2.0 OVERALL SERVICE PERFORMANCE For over a decade, customers have been asked to rate Calgary Transit's overall quality of services. In their assessment, survey respondents have been asked to rate overall services provided by Calgary Transit in the seven days prior to being interviewed. Data presented in Figure 2.1 reveal that approximately three-quarters of 2013 survey respondents (75%) gave a rating of excellent or good. A further one in five (20%) gave a rating of satisfactory, which translates into 95% of customers providing a positive rating to Calgary Transit services. Figure 2.1: Overall Service Quality Performance Rating 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 20% 25% 24% 19% 24% 18% 20% 13% 18% 23% 20% 19% 20% 25% 57% 58% 49% 48% 47% 54% 46% 48% 20% 14% 21% 24% 23% 22% 25% 30% 21% 24% 56% 49% 45% 48% 50% 50% 23% 26% 24% 20% 3% 1% 3% 4% 0% 2% 6% 5% 3% 2% 5% 7% 7% 10% 1% 1% 2% 5% 1% 1% 4% 2% 6% 5% 4% 1% 1% 1% Excellent Good Satisfactory Poor Very Poor Analysis of the data gathered over the past decade reveals that satisfaction with overall quality of services has been fairly consistent during this time with minor fluctuations in higher or lower levels of satisfaction (e.g. combined excellent, good and satisfactory ratings). That said, ratings of excellent and good have increased over the last three years. Further, in 2013, excellent was cited by the largest proportion of respondents since the 2000 survey. HarGroup Management Consultants, Inc

12 3.0 CUSTOMERS' PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIFIC SERVICE OFFERINGS Customers are asked to rate specific service attributes of Calgary Transit's performance, service components and experiences. The issues examined address a range of service offerings provided through Calgary Transit Divisions. This section of the report presents customers' perceptions of these service offerings and explores perceived gaps for services. 3.1 Ratings of Service Attributes Ratings for various service attributes offered by customers in the 2013 survey are presented in Figure 3.1 on the next page. Overall, these data suggest that 2013 respondents have favourable impressions of Transit s performance. For example, the majority of respondents rated all but one service attribute as being either 'excellent' or 'good'. Indeed, not being overcrowded was the only attribute that did not rate well among most respondents with just over a third (37%) rating it as excellent or good. Nonetheless, the ratings of excellent or good provided to service attributes of 'service frequency' and 'being on time' are worth noting as nearly two-thirds (65%) of respondents provided these ratings for service frequency and just under six in ten (57%) for being on time. These two attributes are noteworthy because they are rated lower than most of the others, but, as will be presented later in the section and has been noted consistently over the time that Calgary Transit has conducted this survey, represent important aspects of services among customers. From a historical perspective, there have been fluctuations observed in the data over the years (Figure 3.2) that the survey has been conducted. Since 2011, ratings have been increasing for certain attributes (see Appendix E), particularly service frequency and length of travel time. HarGroup Management Consultants, Inc

13 Figure 3.1: Performance Ratings of Service Attributes Convenience of purchasing tickets and passes (n=479) 37% 46% 13% 4% 0% Having access to bus stops/ctrain stations (n=497) 29% 53% 13% 4% 2% Having courteous and helpful staff (n=471) 26% 53% 15% 5% 1% Directness of trip (n=484) 25% 52% 18% 5% 1% Providing for customer safety and security (n=489) 25% 52% 17% 6% 1% Service to places I want to go (n=496) 23% 52% 18% 6% 1% Providing scheduling and route information (n=482) 23% 52% 20% 5% 1% *The times the first vehicle starts, and the last vehicle stops operating on the day on routes you use (n=448) 25% 48% 18% 7% 3% Convenience of connections and transfers (n=434) 19% 51% 21% 7% 2% Cleanliness (n=499) 15% 55% 23% 6% 1% Length of travel time (n=496) 18% 50% 23% 7% 2% Value for money (n=493) 19% 48% 23% 9% 1% **Information made available about changes to Calgary Transit service and fares (n=477) 15% 51% 26% 7% 1% Service frequency (n=498) 14% 51% 23% 9% 3% **Information made available about disruptions of Calgary Transit services (n=483) 18% 43% 23% 13% 2% Being on time (n=498) 15% 42% 29% 12% 2% Not being overcrowded (n=494) 10% 27% 32% 23% 8% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Excellent Good Satisfactory Poor Very Poor Note: *In surveys previous to 2013, the item was Start and stop times on routes you use **New item added in 2013 HarGroup Management Consultants, Inc

14 Figure 3.2: Historical Performance Ratings of Service Attributes 90% 80% Convenience of purchasing tickets and passes Having access to bus stops/ctrain stations* Having courteous and helpful staff % of Respondents Indicating Excellent or Good 70% 60% 50% Directness of trip Providing for customer safety and security Providing scheduling and route information Convenience of connections and transfers Cleanliness Length of travel time 40% Value for money Service frequency 30% Being on time Not being overcrowded 20% HarGroup Management Consultants, Inc

15 Table 3.1 presents alternative analysis of the overall ratings presented above. Service attributes are grouped by various Calgary Transit Divisions that have responsibility (or at least are mostly responsible) for delivering. For all Divisions, there are service attributes that respondents rated highly; still, a few service attributes for some of the Divisions are rated lower by respondents (for example, attributes such as being on time and not being overcrowded'). The intent of this analysis is to assist Divisions with identifying service attributes that they may be responsible for and, possibly, identifying additional attributes that might be explored with respondents. Division Table 3.1: Divisional Service Attributes % Stating Excellent Service Attributes or Good Safety and Security Providing for customer safety and security Transit Planning Facilities Having access to bus stops/ctrain stations n/a Directness of trip (number of transfers) Convenience of connections and transfers Length of travel time Facilities Cleanliness Convenience of purchasing tickets and passes Service to places I want to go n/a Providing scheduling and route information *The times the first vehicle starts and the last vehicle stops operating for the day on Service Design routes you use Value for money **Information made available about changes to Calgary Transit service and n/a n/a n/a n/a 66 fares Service frequency Not being overcrowded Courteous and helpful staff Operations **Information made available about disruptions of Calgary Transit services n/a n/a n/a n/a 61 Being on time Note: Organized by average response for all items *In surveys previous to 2013, the item was Start and stop times on routes you use **New item added in Importance of Service Attributes Respondents were asked to rate the importance of various Calgary Transit service attributes. Figure 3.3 presents rankings among attributes based on responses of being most or second most important. The three attributes identified as being highest in importance (rated as either first or second most important) according to 2013 survey respondents were being on time (57%), service frequency (32%) and not being overcrowded (17%). HarGroup Management Consultants, Inc

16 Providing scheduling and route information 1% 2% Figure 3.3: Importance of Service Attributes (% of Respondents) Being on time Service frequency Not being overcrowded Providing for customer safety and security Having courteous & helpful staff Value for money Length of travel time Service to places I want to go Directness of trip (number of transfers) Info made available about disruptions of Calgary Transit services** Availability of Parking Info made available about changes to Calgary Transit service and fares** Other 6% 5% 4% 3% 4% 3% 3% 3% 1% 1% 1% 7% Convenience of connections and transfers 2% 3% The times the first vehicle starts, and the last vehicle stops operating for the day for the routes you use* 2% 3% Having access to bus stops/ctrain stations 3% 1% Convenience of purchasing tickets and passes 1% 1% 17% 7% 7% Cleanliness 1% 5% 8% 7% 10% 40% 16% 17% 0% 20% 40% 60% Most Important 2nd Most Important Note: *In surveys previous to 2013, the item was Start and stop times on routes you use **New item added in 2013 It is worth noting that 'being on time' and 'service frequency' have historically (since 1999) been ranked as the two most important attributes among respondents, as presented in Table 3.2. Actually, the rankings of these two attributes dramatically exceed those of other attributes, especially 'being on time,' which in some respects demonstrates the extent that these service attributes mean to customers. HarGroup Management Consultants, Inc

17 Table 3.2: Importance of Service Attributes (Most & Second Most Important) Service Attributes % of Respondents Being on time Service frequency Not being overcrowded Providing for customer safety and security Having courteous and helpful staff Value for money Length of travel time Directness of trip n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Service to places I want to go n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Cleanliness Convenience of connections and transfers The times the first vehicle starts, and the last vehicle stops operating for the day on routes you use* n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Information made available about disruptions of Calgary Transit services** Having access bus stops/ctrain stations*** Providing scheduling and route information Convenience of purchasing tickets and passes n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Availability of parking n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 1 Information made available about changes to Calgary Transit services** n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 1 Other n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 1 *In surveys previous to 2013, the item was Start and stop times on routes you use. **New item added in 2013 ***In surveys previous to 2010, the item was 'Easy access to bus stops 3.3 Comparisons of Customer Expectations and Perceived Performance of Services Attributes Analysis is conducted to compare customers' expectations for services to their perceptions of how well Calgary Transit performs these services. The purpose of this analysis is to assess whether or not Calgary Transit is meeting or exceeding customers' expectations, particularly for those services that they consider to be most important to them. Services are ranked highest to lowest based on customers' expectations (relative importance) of priority. These rankings are compared to their perceptions of Calgary Transit performance (satisfaction HarGroup Management Consultants, Inc

18 ratings) to determine if services that are of higher priority to customers are also perceived to be performed well. If a higher ranked service attribute receives a performance rating that is lower than most other service attributes, then it is identified as a service attribute that may not be fully meeting customer expectations. Alternatively, a service attribute that ranks low in customer expectations but higher than average in performance ratings might be identified as a service attribute in which Calgary Transit exceeds customer expectations. These kinds of results can be used by Calgary Transit to better understand whether or not customer expectations are being met and, possibly, if allocation of resources might be considered. The analysis begins with comparative assessments of stated and relative importance of service attributes to customers perceptions of services provided by Calgary Transit (see Appendix E) 3. This analysis shows that there are some similarities between stated and relative rankings of importance, especially for service attributes such as 'being on time, service frequency, not being overcrowded, and providing for customer safety and security ; however there are also other service attributes that become more prominent such as length of travel time, 'service to places I want to go,' cleanliness, and times the first vehicle starts and the last vehicle stops, when relative importance rankings are considered. Similar findings have been observed in previous survey results. The consistencies of these findings among previous surveys emphasize the suitability of these examinations, although it should be noted that there is instability in some of the longitudinal results and, as such, some caution should be used in observing these results. Further insight can be gained about service attributes and how respondents perceive Calgary Transit to be addressing service priorities. Comparing customer expectations (relative importance ratings) to that of perceived Calgary Transit performance (satisfaction ratings) reveals possible service attribute priorities that might be considered in future service planning of Calgary Transit. This analysis is presented in Figure 3.4 for the 2013 survey results (Appendix E includes survey results from 2006 to 2012). Essentially, the analysis identifies service attributes in which customers have higher than average expectations and perceive lower than average performance (Q1), higher than average expectations and perceive higher than average performance (Q2), lower than average expectations and lower than average performance (Q3) and lower than average expectations and higher than average satisfaction (Q4). There are various ways to interpret these data such as service attributes in Q4 may be given lower priority in future planning and in Q1 higher priority. 3 Note: Similar analyses with data from the 2006 to 2012 data are also presented in Appendix E. HarGroup Management Consultants, Inc

19 Figure 3.4: Expectations/Performance Comparisons 2013 (Axes set at 40% Expectation and 3.8 Performance) Expectations (Relative Importance - Correlated Scores) 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% Poor Q1 Q3 J M J Satisfactory C A C A B S ME O D P U T V N L H B Performance (Inverted Mean Scores) F Q Good Q Q2 Q4 Excellent Q1 Higher Expectation/ Lower Performance A. Service frequency C. Being on time H. Length of travel time M. Cleanliness Q2 Higher Expectation/ Higher Performance E. Times first vehicle stops and last vehicle stops O. Directness of trip P. Providing for customer safety and security S. Service to places I want to go Q3 Lower Expectation/ Lower Performance B. Value for money D. Convenience of connections and transfers J. Not being overcrowded U. Information made available about disruptions V. Information made available about changes Q4 Lower Expectation/ Higher Performance F. Providing courteous and helpful staff N. Providing scheduling and route information Q. Convenience of purchasing tickets and passes T. Having access to bus stops/ctrain stations Table 3.3 takes all of the information that has been developed between 2006 and 2013 and identifies similarities and differences drawn from these analyzes. Several interesting observations become apparent when considering the findings across the various years in which the analysis has been performed. Being on Time and Service Frequency These service attributes have consistently been placed in Q1 (Higher Expectations/Lower Performance) since Length of Travel Time Has been situated in Q1 for most of the surveys. Convenience of Connections and Transfers Has shifted from Q1 to Q3 for the first time since However, the positioning of this item in the figure shows that the shift is slight as it is nearly at the intersect of the two axes and, therefore, still close to Q1. HarGroup Management Consultants, Inc

20 Classification Q1. Higher Expectation/ Lower Performance Table 3.3: Expectations/Performance Comparisons Year Being on time Service frequency Convenience of connections and transfers Length of travel time Having courteous and helpful staff Being on time Service frequency Convenience of connections and transfers Length of travel time Being on time Service frequency Convenience of connections and transfers Not being overcrowded Having courteous and helpful staff Being on time Service frequency Convenience of connections and transfers Value for money Start and stop times for service Having courteous and helpful staff Being on time Service frequency Convenience of connections and transfers Length of travel time Having courteous and helpful staff Being on time Service frequency Convenience of connections and transfers Length of travel time Value for money Having courteous and helpful staff Being on time Service frequency Convenience of connections and transfers Length of travel time Being on time Service frequency Length of travel time Cleanliness Q2. Higher Expectation/ Higher Performance Providing for customer safety and security Value for money Providing for customer safety and security Value for money Providing scheduling and route information Providing for customer safety and security Value for money Length of travel time Length of travel time Having access to bus stops/ctrains Services to places I want to go Cleanliness Providing scheduling and route information Services to places I want to go Directness of trip Providing for customer safety and security Q3. Lower Expectation/ Lower Performance Q4. Lower Expectation/ Higher Performance Not being overcrowded Cleanliness Easy to access vehicles Convenience of purchasing tickets and passes Providing scheduling and route information Easy access bus stops Not being overcrowded Cleanliness Easy to access vehicles Convenience of purchasing tickets and passes Easy access bus stops Providing courteous and helpful staff CTrain station amenities Bus stop amenities Easy to access vehicles Convenience of purchasing tickets and passes Providing scheduling and route information Cleanliness Easy access bus stops Route layout Not being overcrowded CTrain station amenities Bus stop amenities Easy to access vehicles Convenience of purchasing tickets and passes Providing scheduling and route information Cleanliness. Providing for customer safety and security Directness of trip Not being overcrowded Cleanliness Value for money Stop and start times for service Convenience of purchasing tickets and passes Providing scheduling and route information Providing for customer safety and security Directness of trip Services to places I want to go Start and stop times for service on routes Having access to bus stops/ctrain stations Not being overcrowded Not being over crowded Cleanliness Convenience of purchasing tickets and passes Providing scheduling and route information Having access to bus stops/ctrain stations Providing for customer safety and security Directness of trip Start and stop times for service Service to places I want to go Convenience of purchasing tickets and passes Providing for customer safety and security Directness of trip Providing courteous and helpful staff Times the first vehicle starts and last vehicle stops Not being over crowded Value for money Convenience of connections and transfers Info made available about disruptions Info made available about changes Convenience of purchasing tickets and passes Providing scheduling and route information Having access to bus stops/ctrain stations Providing courteous and helpful staff Value for money Note: For each classification, two types of responses are presented. The upper row shows responses that have been identified for classifications at least three times over the past five survey years. The second row presents changes that have occurred among years (no more than two survey years in five). Possible area to concentrate on. HarGroup Management Consultants, Inc

21 Further analysis presented in Figure 3.5 compares overall satisfaction with value for money ratings. Typically, these two measures have followed similar patterns in terms of increases and decreases, except for a deviation from this pattern in In 2013, survey results showed an increase in ratings for overall satisfaction, while value for money remained flat. 90% Figure 3.5: Comparison of Satisfaction And Value for Money Ratings % of Respondents Indicating Excellent or Good 80% 70% 60% 50% Value for Money Satisfaction 3.4 Service Components and Experiences Survey respondents were presented with a series of questions about service components and experiences to further gauge their perceptions of Transit services. Responses to these queries are presented in Figure 3.6. For the most part, based on the 2013 results, these data suggest that the majority of respondents have favourable impressions about the service components and experiences that were tested. Actually, almost all respondents strongly or somewhat agreed that Transit operators operate vehicles safely (96%), there is generally a bus or CTrain station within reasonable distance of their origin and destination (94%), their experience while travelling on Calgary Transit vehicles is usually pleasant (94%), they feel safe when travelling on Transit (93%), and bus drivers are knowledgeable about the service they provide (93%). To a slightly lesser extent they agreed that bus drivers usually greet them in a friendly manner (88%), other passengers are usually well behaved (88%) and Calgary Transit vehicles normally arrive at their stop at the scheduled time (80%). Historically, (Figure 3.7) though year to year ratings of these service components have fluctuated somewhat over the past decade, they have for the most part remained similar over the past three to four years (see Appendix E). However, statistical differences were observed in the degree of agreement for certain service components in 2013 as compared to previous survey years. For instance, a larger proportion of respondents strongly agreed (vs. somewhat agreed) that overall they feel Calgary Transit bus and CTrain drivers operate HarGroup Management Consultants, Inc

22 their vehicles safely, they feel safe while travelling on transit, other passengers are usually well behaved, Calgary Transit vehicles normally arrive at their stop at the scheduled time, their experience while travelling on buses and CTrains is usually pleasant, and there is generally a bus stop or CTrain station within a reasonable distance of their origin and destination. Figure 3.6: Service Components Overall, I feel Calgary Transit bus and CTrain drivers operate their vehicles safely (n=499) 56% 40% 4% 1% There is generally a bus stop or CTrain station within reasonable distance of my origin and destination (n=497) 57% 37% 4% 2% My experience while traveling on Calgary Transit buses and CTrains is usually pleasant (n=494) 44% 50% 5% 1% I feel safe when traveling on transit (n=499) 49% 44% 5% 1% Bus drivers are knowledgeable about the service they provide (n=421) 46% 47% 5% 2% The bus drivers usually greet me in a friendly manner (n=430) 44% 44% 9% 2% Other passengers are usually well-behaved (n=497) 28% 60% 9% 4% Calgary Transit vehicles normally arrive at my stop at the scheduled time (n=488) 34% 46% 14% 6% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Strongly agree Somewhat agree Somewhat disagree Strongly Disagree HarGroup Management Consultants, Inc

23 Figure 3.7: Historical Comparison of Service Component and Experiences Ratings 100% Overall, I feel Calgary Transit bus and Ctrain drivers operate their vehicles safely 90% There is a bus stop/ctrain station near my origin/destination I feel safe when travelling on transit % of Respondents Indicating Somew hat or Strongly Agree 80% 70% My experience when travelling on Calgary Transit buses and Ctrains is usually pleasant Bus drivers are knowledgeable about the service they provide The bus drivers usually greet me in a friendly manner Other passengers are usually well-behaved 60% Calgary Transit vehicles arrive at my stop at the scheduled time Peace Officers on the CTrain demonstrate professionalism 50% I feel there are sufficient Protective Officers on the Ctrain to ensure my personal safety HarGroup Management Consultants, Inc

24 3.5 Perceived Change in Service The majority of respondents (59%) to the 2013 survey asserted that overall Transit service in their community had remained the same in the year prior to the survey (Figure 3.9), which is similar to historical findings. In terms of improved services, just over one in four (28%) suggested that Transit service was better, which is among one of the higher proportions of respondents agreeing that Transit services have improved. Figure 3.8: Perceived Change in Transit Service during Past Year 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 5% 8% 7% 6% 10% 7% 5% 4% 4% 6% 6% 8% 7% 11% 10% 10% 15% 14% 19% 16% 13% 14% 16% 21% 17% 18% 18% 17% 69% 64% 58% 60% 50% 58% 63% 60% 67% 60% 63% 63% 63% 59% 5% 4% 7% 6% 3% 6% 9% 10% 7% 8% 9% 4% 4% 7% 4% 9% 9% 12% 8% 6% 5% 9% 7% 8% 3% 3% 5% 5% 6% 4% 2% 1% 3% 4% 3% 2% 3% 4% 2% 7% 3% 3% A Lot Better A little Better Stayed the same A little worse A lot worse Didn't use/dk Historically, Transit customers have generally cited increased service frequency as the primary reason they perceived services to have improved (Table 3.4). While this item remained one of the more common responses in 2013, identified by nearly a quarter (23%) of respondents, expansion of CTrain service/line extension was the highest reason cited for improvement (25%). This item has received notable increases since 2012 as compared to previous years, typically a result of opening of extensions to the LRT system (e.g. Crowfoot and Saddleridge extensions and, for 2013, the West LRT extension). Being on time was also commonly cited. Respondents who indicated that services were worse over the past year were asked why. Table 3.5 reveals the reasons offered by respondents. The most commonly cited reasons were overcrowded (30%), not being on time (23%), service frequency (13%), and staff not courteous or helpful (13%). It is worth noting that overcrowded has received the greatest proportion of comments over the past three years. HarGroup Management Consultants, Inc

25 Reasons 1999 (n=76) 2000 (n=89) Table 3.4: Reasons for Perceived Changes A lot or a little better % of Respondents (n=108) (n=100) (n=140) (n=105) (n=85) (n=84) Expansion of CTrain service/ctrain line extension Service frequency Being on time New services Not being overcrowded Having courteous and helpful staff Length of travel time Providing schedule and route information Having access to bus stops/ctrain stations * Convenience of connections and transfers Providing for customer safety and security Cleanliness Service to places I want to go* Information made available about disruptions of Calgary Transit service** n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 1 Information made available about changes to Calgary Transit service and fares** n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 0 Directness of trip (number of transfers) n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Convenience of purchasing tickets and passes Value for money The times the first vehicle starts and the last vehicle stops operating for the day on routes you use* Reliability of service n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 1 n/a 0 Other Don't know *Worded differently than in previous years **New question added in (n=94) 2009 (n=94) 2010 (n=108) 2011 (n=127) 2012 (n=117) 2013 (n=142) HarGroup Management Consultants, Inc

26 Reasons Table 3.5: Reasons for Perceived Changes A little or a lot worse % of Respondents (n=45) (n=51) (n=56) (n=63) (n=67) (n=68) (n=82) (n=100) (n=52) (n=42) (n=56) (n=41) (n=48) (n=30) Overcrowded Not being on time Service frequency Staff not courteous or helpful Lack of expansion of CTrain services/ctrain line extension Length of travel time Inconvenient connections and transfers Lack of new services Scheduling and route information Not having access bus stops/ CTrain stations* Lack of customer safety and security Information made available about changes to Calgary Transit service and fares** n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 3 Lack of cleanliness Service to places I want to go* Information made available about disruptions of n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 0 Calgary Transit service** Directness of trip (number of transfers) n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Inconvenient purchasing of tickets and passes n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 2 0 Lack of value for money The times the first vehicle starts and the last vehicle stops operating for the day on routes you use* n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a CTrain breakdowns/ service disruptions n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 22 n/a 0 Lack of parking availability n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 5 n/a 0 Other Don t know n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a *Worded differently than in previous years **New question added in 2013 HarGroup Management Consultants, Inc

27 3.6 Unregistered Complaints Approximately one in four respondents (22%) considered contacting Calgary Transit within the three months prior to being surveyed to lodge a service complaint, but did not actually do so (Figure 3.9), which is similar to levels reported in previous survey waves. Figure 3.9: Unregistered Complaints 100% 80% 25% 21% 30% 27% 26% 29% 31% 27% 23% 23% 26% 26% 24% 22% 60% 40% 20% 75% 79% 71% 72% 74% 71% 69% 73% 77% 77% 74% 74% 76% 78% Yes No 0% Data presented in Table 3.6 reveal that the most commonly cited reasons for not registering a complaint were that the issue was not important enough or the respondents did not believe that complaining would do any good, which are historically the most common reasons for not registering a complaint. Other commonly cited reasons in 2013 were that respondents couldn t get through on the complaints line or that they didn t have enough time or were too busy to register a complaint. HarGroup Management Consultants, Inc

28 Table 3.6: Reasons for Not Registering Complaint % of Responses Reasons (n=104) (n=108) (n=153) (n=135) (n=144) (n=159) (n=154) (n=140) (n=140) (n=122) (n=124) (n=122) (n=114) (n=104) Wasn't important enough Didn't think it would do any good Couldn't get through on complaints line Didn't have time/too busy n/a n/a < Didn't know how to make a complaint *** Forgot Didn t know the number to call to make a complaint *** Didn t want to get anyone in trouble 3 0 Someone else complained n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a <1 2 0 Was too upset to call 2 0 Other Total *** Didn t know how to make a complaint and Didn t know the number to call to make a complaint were combined prior to 2012 HarGroup Management Consultants, Inc

29 4.0 CHARACTERISTICS OF TRANSIT USE This section of the report examines Transit use among regular Transit customers. 4.1 Transit Use As can be seen in Figure 4.1, just over two in five (42%) Calgarians aged 15 and over were regular Transit customers in This proportion is similar to portions observed since 2009, except for a slight decrease noted in % Figure 4.1: Regular Transit Customers 80% 33% 38% 38% 36% 39% 43% 38% 47% 48% 44% 43% 43% 38% 42% 60% 40% 20% 67% 62% 62% 64% 61% 57% 62% 53% 52% 56% 57% 57% 62% 58% Yes No 0% Frequency and Duration of Transit Use The average number of weekly one-way trips using Transit services among customers in the 2013 survey was 8.0 (Table 4.1). This is generally consistent with previous survey results, which have ranged from approximately 7 to 9 oneway trips per week. Frequency of Use - Weekly Table 4.1: Weekly Transit Use By Regular Transit Customers (Average Trips Per Week One-Way) % of Respondents (n=) One to Three Times Four to Seven Times Eight to Ten Times More than Ten Times Total Average Mean= Weekly Frequency of Use s.d= Note: A one-way trip is counted as one trip and a trip to and from a destination as two trips. HarGroup Management Consultants, Inc

30 Further, in 2013, Transit customers who took between one and seven trips per week were most likely to use a ticket from a book of tickets as their fare payment method, followed by cash. In comparison, Transit customers who took eight or more trips per week were most likely to use an adult monthly pass as fare payment (Table 4.2). Table 4.2: Weekly Frequency by Primary Fare Payment Method (Average Trips Per Week - One Way) One to Three Times (n=84) Four to Seven Times (n=106) % of Respondents Eight to Ten Times (n=249) More than Ten Times (n=60) Total (n=499) Fare Payment Method Adult Monthly Pass Ticket from a book of tickets Universal Pass/U-Pass Cash Youth Monthly Pass Senior Citizen Pass Low Income Transit Pass Day Pass Don't pay Use Free Fare Zone only Total Number of Responses In terms of duration of transit use, just over half of regular Transit customers (55%) indicated that they had been using Transit services for more than five years (Figure 4.2). These data are generally consistent with most other years. Figure 4.2: Duration of Transit use 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 15% 13% 12% 11% 11% 7% 12% 14% 10% 10% 12% 12% 36% 33% 34% 37% 37% 34% 39% 36% 39% 35% 37% 34% 24% 22% 26% 24% 21% 27% 26% 24% 27% 33% 28% 30% 25% 32% 29% 30% 25% 33% 23% 26% 24% 22% 23% 25% Note: Mean, median and standard deviation statistics presented in Appendix E. 1yr or less > 1yr to 5yrs > 5yrs to 14yrs More than 14yrs HarGroup Management Consultants, Inc

31 4.3 Modes of Transit Used Among 2013 survey respondents, approximately half (49%) used both buses and CTrains as shown in Figure 4.3. This proportion is higher than observed for previous survey years, mainly due to a decline in bus only use (Appendix E). Figure 4.3: Modes of Transit Used 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 37% 40% 41% 34% 32% 32% 33% 33% 34% 32% 32% 29% 22% 33% 41% 39% 38% 45% 45% 42% 41% 44% 41% 39% 46% 43% 49% 36% 21% 21% 22% 21% 24% 27% 26% 23% 25% 29% 23% 28% 31% 29% Bus Only Both Bus and Ctrain Ctrain Only Figure 4.4 shows typical modes of transportation used by respondents among various Service Areas. In five of the seven Service Areas (North West, West, North East, South West and South East), respondents typically use both buses and CTrains. In North Central they use mainly buses, while City Centre respondents typically use CTrains only (see Appendix E for survey data). It is worth noting that a significant shift in mode of transit used was observed in the West, from use of buses only to use of both buses and CTrains. This change is likely influenced by the introduction of the West LRT line. HarGroup Management Consultants, Inc

32 Figure 4.4: Typical Modes of Transportation among Service Areas North Central North West North East Centre City West South East Legend: Mainly Bus Both South West Mainly CTrain LRT System HarGroup Management Consultants, Inc

33 4.4 Travel Periods Transit customers were queried as to what time period they use Calgary Transit most often. Rush Hour Only was the most common response with just over half of respondents (59%) offering this travel time (Figure 4.5). This has historically been the most common time during which Transit customers stated that they were most likely to travel (see Appendix E). Figure 4.5: Most Frequent Travel Time 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 56% 51% 48% 39% 49% 48% 52% 59% 56% 56% 54% 54% 59% 19% 23% 24% 20% 22% 15% 18% 20% 19% 15% 15% 15% 15% 17% 13% 14% 18% 19% 19% 15% 20% 15% 19% 20% 19% 14% 7% 10% 15% 9% 17% 26% 9% 8% 10% 10% 10% 11% 11% Rush Hour Only Non-Rush Hour Rush Hour/Other Time No Specific Time Year As can be seen in Table 4.3, Rush Hour customers use Transit more frequently than do other user segments; in particular, customers who use Transit during Rush Hour and Other Times. This finding is consistent with results associated with previous surveys. Table 4.3: Weekly Transit Use By Travel Periods (Average Trips Per Week) % of Respondents Rush Hour/ No Specific Measure Rush Hour Only Non-Rush Hour Other Time Time Mean s.d Mean s.d Mean s.d Mean s.d Mean s.d Mean s.d Mean s.d Mean s.d Mean s.d Mean s.d Mean s.d Mean s.d HarGroup Management Consultants, Inc

34 Figure 4.6 shows the proportion of respondents indicating that they travel during rush hour ('rush hour only' and 'rush hour and other times'). While this proportion has fluctuated over the years, the 2013 data is similar to recent years, aside from the data found in 2009 which displayed a large decrease in rush hour customers. Figure 4.6: Rush Hour Customers Annual Comparisons 80% 70% 67% 71% 73% 69% 67% 66% 66% 68% 67% 74% 72% 71% 75%75% 73% 73% 60% 50% 53% 56% 60% 55% 40% % As is evidenced by data presented in Figure 4.7, respondents who use Transit during time periods other than Rush Hour generally do so during the weekday midday (68%). The proportion of customers using Transit during these times has fluctuated historically (note: the number of respondents is considerably lower than 500, see Appendix E), though customers who use Transit in the weekday midday typically make up the majority of users who ride Transit during non-rush hour periods. Figure 4.7: Travel Periods Other than Rush Hour 80% 60% 73% 81% 70% 54% 54% 61% 56% 81% 71% 61% 64% 69% 65% 68% Weekday Midday 40% 20% 0% 21% 17% 15% 10% 22% 17% 19% 15% 20% 13% 14% 19% 20% 15% 26% 17% 25% 29% 22% 30% 11% 29% 8% 14% 17% 20% 12% 12% Evening Weekend HarGroup Management Consultants, Inc

35 4.5 Trip Purpose 100% Figure 4.8 shows data about purposes for which respondents used Transit services. Historically, work has been the main purpose that respondents were using Transit services, followed by school, and this is the case for Figure 4.8: Trip Purpose 80% 46% 44% 47% 48% 39% 42% 48% 48% 48% 41% 47% 52% 49% 46% Work 60% School Social/ Recreational 40% 20% 19% 18% 24% 20% 18% 19% 18% 21% 14% 15% 12% 12% 11% 18% 12% 13% 12% 13% 22% 21% 18% 21% 21% Shopping Personal Business 20% 0% 12% 11% 11% 11% 11% 12% 10% 13% 13% 13% 11% 9% 10% 14% 13% 8% 10% 11% 9% 10% 11% 8% 14% 12% 10% 14% 12% 10% 9% 8% 9% 10% Travel Patterns In the survey, respondents were asked a series of questions that can be used to depict typical trips taken by customers using Calgary Transit. As will be seen, these travel patterns have been used to estimate length of travel time using Calgary Transit among customers. To begin, respondents were asked how they typically get to the first bus stop or CTrain station as part of their Transit trips (Table 4.4). These data show that a significant majority of users (82%) walk to their first bus or CTrain, and some drive and either use park and ride (11%) or park nearby (3%). Table 4.4: Method Used to Get to Bus Stop/CTrain Station % of Responses Method Used (n=500) (n=500) (n=500) (n=498) Walk Drive, use park and ride Drive, park nearby Passenger in another vehicle (carpool, kiss n ride, etc.) Cycle <1 1 <1 1 Other <1 <1 <1 <1 Total HarGroup Management Consultants, Inc

36 This data is consistent with findings from previous surveys, with the exception of 2012, where there was a slight decrease observed in the proportion of respondents that walk and a slight increase in the proportion that drive, and use Park and Ride. For respondents who walk to their first bus or CTrain, it usually takes them about six minutes (average: 6.1 minutes, Table 4.5) to reach a bus stop or CTrain station. In some regards, these data, and the level of precision offered in the respondents' answers (e.g. quite a few respondents stated 2, 3, 4, etc. minutes as the length of time their walk takes), may suggest that some Transit customers are exceedingly engaged and, possibly, sensitive about their trip experiences. They seem to know exactly how much time it takes them to get to their bus stop or CTrain station and may expect the same kind of precision of Calgary Transit; possibly helping to explain why respondents put so much emphasis on the service attribute of being on time (see Figure 3.3). Table 4.5: Length of Typical Walk to First Bus/CTrain % of Respondents Number of minutes (n=415) (n=428) (n=384) (n=409) 0 to 2 minutes to 4 minutes minutes minutes minutes More than 10 minutes Total Average Length of Walk Mean=5.9 Mean=5.8 Mean=6.4 Mean=6.1 Median=5.0 Median=5.0 Median=5.0 Median=5.0 s.d=4.63 s.d=4.9 s.d=5.9 s.d=5.1 Nonetheless, further analysis shows that respondents who walk to CTrain stations take about 8 minutes (average of 8.0 minutes, s.d. 5.4) and bus stops take 5 minutes (average of 5.4 minutes, s.d. 4.3). HarGroup Management Consultants, Inc

37 Respondents were also asked to estimate the length of time it takes to travel on a typical trip when using Calgary Transit. Table 4.6 shows that the average travel time in 2013 was about 37 minutes, which is consistent with previous surveys. Table 4.6: Length of Typical Trip Time % of Respondents Number of minutes (n=498) (n=496) (n=498) (n=495) 15 minutes or less to 30 minutes to 45 minutes to 60 minutes More than 60 minutes Total Average Length of Trip Time Mean=39.2 Mean=37.4 Mean=35.6 Mean=37.2 Median=35.0 Median=30.0 Median=30.0 Median=30.0 s.d=26.4 s.d=23.6 s.d=23.4 s.d=21.0 Further analysis shows that the average length of trip for respondents who mainly use both buses and CTrains is considerably longer than those who use only buses or CTrains. Figure 4.9 shows that the average trip for bus and CTrain customers is 46 minutes, which is 12 minutes longer than trips taken by bus only customers, and 23 minutes longer than trips taken by CTrain only customers. These findings are consistent with the observations of previous surveys. Figure 4.9: Average Trip Times by Method(s) of Transportation Used All respondents Bus and CTrain users Bus only users CTrain only users 2011 (n=496) 2012 (n=498) 2013 (n=495) 2011 (n=212) 2012 (n=178) 2013 (n=243) 2011 (n=145) 2012 (n=165) 2013 (n=107) 2011 (n=138) 2012 (n=155) 2013 (n=145) HarGroup Management Consultants, Inc

38 Figure 4.10 shows that Transit customers who use both buses and CTrains are most likely to use buses before they use CTrains. Figure 4.10: Use of Buses and CTrains (n=500) 100% 80% 60% 40% 40% 37% 30% 5% 7% 6% 41% 8% Use both buses and CTrains Use buses first Use CTrains first 20% Only use bus or CTrain 0% A further set of questions asked respondents to identify their experience with using transfers. Figure 4.11 reveals that many customers do not use transfers (41%). However, of those who do, they are most likely to use one or two transfers. The average number of transfers per trip is Historically, a larger proportion of customers reported using one or two transfers in 2013 as compared to previous survey years (Appendix E). 100% Figure 4.11: Number of Transfers 80% 60% 54% 45% 45% 51% 41% None One Two 40% 20% 0% 29% 35% 35% 32% 39% 14% 15% 14% 14% 17% 3% 5% 1% 4% 1% 2% 2% 2009 (n=500) 2010 (n=500) 2011 (n=519) 2012 (n=500) 2013 (n=497) Three Four Five or more HarGroup Management Consultants, Inc

39 Respondents who incorporate transfers into their Calgary Transit trips are willing to wait just over ten minutes (12 minutes in 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013) to transfer to another Calgary Transit vehicle (Table 4.7). Table 4.7: Length of Time Willing to Wait for Transfer % of Respondents Number of minutes (n=276) (n=284) (n=241) (n=289) About 5 minutes (0-7 minutes) About 10 minutes (8-12 minutes) About 15 minutes (13-17 minutes) About 20 minutes or more (18 minutes or more) Total Mean=11.8 Mean=12.3 Mean=12.0 Mean=11.9 Average Length of Time Willing to Wait Median=10.0 Median=10.0 Median=10.0 Median=10.0 s.d=6.6 s.d=6.6 s.d=7.3 s.d=8.2 Taking into account all of the information presented above, it is possible to estimate the travel times of various types of Calgary Transit customers (Figure 4.12). Essentially, the average trip for a customer is about 48 minutes including walking to the bus stop/ctrain, traveling on a bus or CTrain and waiting for a transfer. 4 Travel times for customers who use both buses and CTrains are considerably longer than those who use only buses or CTrains. As well, among bus and CTrain users, it seems the average trip for those who use the CTrain first has increased slightly as compared to previous surveys, while the average trip for those who use the bus first has decreased. 4 Note: The calculation for transfer waiting time is the average length of time willing to wait for a transfer taking into account the average number of transfers taken per trip. HarGroup Management Consultants, Inc

40 Figure 4.12: Average Trip Times by Method(s) of Transportation Used Total Estimated Minutes Bus and CTrain users - Use CTrain first CTrain only users Bus only users Bus and CTrain users All respondents 2011 (n=496) 2012 (n=498) 2013 (n=495) 2011 (n=212) 2012 (n=178) 2013 (n=243) 2011 (n=145) 2012 (n=165) 2013 (n=107) 2011 (n=138) 2012 (n=155) 2013 (n=145) 2011 (n=31) 2012 (n=28) 2013 (n=38) Bus and CTrain users - Use bus first 2011 (n=181) 2012 (n=150) 2013 (n=205) Length of time to get to bus stop/ctrain station Travel time Willingness to wait for Transfer HarGroup Management Consultants, Inc

41 Reasons Captive Riders Less expensive Calgary Transit 5.0 CUSTOMER CHOICE AND COMMITMENT Transit customers are asked a series of questions to examine reasons for using Transit services and their commitment to using Transit rather than other transportation options. This section of the report explores these issues by considering reasons for using Transit, influences on choice, continued use and willingness to recommend Transit services. 5.1 Main Reason for Transit Use (Captive and Choice Riders) Over the past decade, Calgary Transit has used a question to understand reasons for why Calgarians use Transit services. The data presented in Table 5.1 show the results of this question over the past decade. Several responses in particular have been used to identify Calgarians who have limited choice but to use Calgary Transit services, and these have been termed Captive Riders (those who cited not having a car available or not driving). Over the years, Captive Riders have been the most commonly identified segment representing approximately a quarter to a third of respondents (36% in 2013). Choice Riders, comprising all non-captive riders, choose to use Calgary Transit rather than other transportation options at their disposal. Essentially, the proportions of respondents giving each main reason for using Calgary Transit in 2013 are mainly consistent with data from the past decade. Table 5.1: Main Reason for Using Transit % of Respondents (n=500) (n=502) (n=501) (n=495) (n=499) (n=494) (n=498) (n=499) (n=499) (n=495) (n=495) (n=520) (n=496) (n=489) Avoid parking Avoid traffic Faster travel time Convenient service* Comfortable/ Relaxing Environmental reasons Transit pass included in tuition n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a <1 <1 1 2 < n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Other < Total *Note: Specifications of convenience service as incorporated in 2010, which resulted in coding into other categories. If a respondent is not identified as a Captive Rider, they are a choice rider in that they choose to use Calgary Transit rather than other transportation options. Choice Riders include respondents who provided answers other than Captive Riders. HarGroup Management Consultants, Inc

42 5.2 Choice to Use Transit Over the past few years, respondents have been offered a series of statements about influences of choice to use Calgary Transit. Figure 5.2 presents respondents opinions about their choice to use Transit services. These data reveal that nearly nine out of ten respondents (87%) consider Transit to be an important choice in their lives and lifestyle and that availability of Transit services influences their choice of where they live (84%). Approximately three in four consider using Transit for each trip they take (75%). Further, about six in ten respondents (62%) use Transit to go to multiple places throughout their journey. As well, in 2013, a greater proportion of respondents strongly agreed (vs. somewhat) with most of these statements as compared to results from previous surveys (Appendix E). These findings would suggest that Transit is an influential part of their lives. Figure 5.2: Influences of Choice 100% 80% 33% 40% 36% 36% 44% 35% 42% 43% 47% 47% 27% 33% 27% 26% 35% 25% 28% 23% 22% 28% 60% 40% 20% 0% 36% 36% 33% 43% 41% 41% 35% 34% 46% 36% 42% 45% 47% 40% 49% 33% 36% 43% 32% 37% 19% 13% 22% 14% 12% 14% 22% 26% 18% 23% 28% 22% 26% 13% 17% 10% 12% 10% 8% 10% 7% 5% 5% 5% 4% 10% 11% 10% 8% 6% 8% 11% 11% 11% 8% 14% 18% 19% 18% 11% (n=497) (n=497) (n=515) (n=495) (n=487) (n=479) (n=479) (n=504) (n=480) (n=473) (n=494) (n=494) (n=514) (n=497) (n=489) (n=478) (n=497) (n=493) (n=479) (n=463) Calgary Transit is an important choice in my life and lifestyle The choice of where I live or will move to is influenced by the availability of Calgary Transit service For each trip I make I consider using Calgary Transit I use Calgary Transit to go to multiple places throughout my journey Strongly agree Somewhat agree Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree 5.3 Customer Commitment Respondents were presented with a series of statements to assess their level of commitment to using Transit services. Those surveyed were asked to select the statement that most closely reflects their feelings toward using Calgary Transit. The statements posed to respondents are presented below, preceded by terms used to describe the segments of respondents who selected the statement as most closely representing their feelings. Committed - There are many good reasons to continue using Calgary Transit, and no good reasons to change to another method of travel. HarGroup Management Consultants, Inc

43 Ambivalent - There are many good reasons to continue to use Calgary Transit, but there are also many good reasons to change to another method of travel. Uncommitted - There are few good reasons to continue to use Calgary Transit, and there are many good reasons to change to another method of travel. Approximately two in five respondents (41%) to the 2013 survey identified with the statement associated with being committed customers (Figure 5.3). Just over half of respondents (51%) selected the statement that groups them as ambivalent. These proportions have tended to fluctuate throughout the years; however, those reported in the last three years represent slightly more ambivalent respondents than those who could be described as committed. 100% Figure 5.3: Customer Commitment 80% 45% 52% 50% 48% 50% 47% 50% 47% 53% 43% 56% 39% 41% 41% 60% 40% 20% 50% 44% 43% 43% 41% 45% 44% 46% 40% 48% 38% 53% 52% 51% Commited Ambivalent Uncommited 0% 5% 4% 6% 9% 8% 8% 6% 7% 7% 9% 7% 8% 7% 8% Customers' Recommendation of Transit Another form of measuring customer commitment or loyalty is to consider their willingness to recommend Transit services to family or friends. Figure 5.4 shows that three-quarters (75% - frequently/sometimes) of those surveyed recommend Transit services, while one-quarter (25%) never do so. For the most part, these findings are similar to those observed previously. However, it is worth noting that the proportion of those who sometimes recommend Transit services is higher than observed since % 80% Figure 5.4: Frequency of Transit Recommendations 17% 18% 23% 24% 27% 24% 26% 22% 20% 20% 20% 22% 22% 23% 60% 40% 52% 52% 47% 52% 47% 43% 47% 42% 48% 43% 44% 47% 47% 52% Frequently Sometimes Never 20% 0% 31% 30% 30% 24% 26% 33% 28% 35% 32% 37% 36% 31% 31% 25% HarGroup Management Consultants, Inc

44 6.0 SERVICE EXPANSION AND FUNDING Calgary Transit has examined respondents' priorities for service expansion and whether respondents support fee increases to fund these opportunities. This section of the report presents findings associated with these queries. 6.1 Service Expansion Priorities Respondents were given an opportunity to articulate their opinions about the one most important thing they would like to see Calgary Transit change or improve. It should be noted that the wording of this question changed slightly for the 2013 survey previously respondents had been asked to identify the top priority for Calgary Transit to invest in for further service improvements. As such, caution should be used when interpreting historical data. Table 6.1 on the following page shows that respondents thought investments in service design and fleet and facilities were most important. These two types of improvements account for just over half (56%) of the improvements that were suggested by respondents. HarGroup Management Consultants, Inc

45 Table 6.1: Service Expansion Priorities % of Responses % of Responses Priority Category (n=453) (n=515) (n=456) (n=467) Specific Priority (n=453) (n=515) (n=456) (n=467) More on-time service More frequent bus service Ensure there is no overcrowding More current service information (disruptions, etc.) Service Design More/earlier/later bus/ctrain service More frequent CTrain service More frequent service (nonspecific) Make connections better/easier GPS tracking on buses n/a n/a n/a 1 More/bigger CTrains Improve fleet (cleaning/maintenance/new vehicles) More/bigger buses Fleet/Facilities Improve shelter/station facilities n/a n/a 3 3 (heating, cleaning etc.) More available parking at Ctrain stations More shelter facilities Improve bus routes Expand CTrain line (generally) Expanded service (generally) Routes/Planning More direct routes Southeast LRT LRT to the airport < Expand Northwest LRT 1 <1 2 <1 West LRT Lower fares/don't increase fares Electronic fare payment system n/a n/a 1 1 Costs/Fares Free parking/reduced rates at n/a n/a 1 <1 CTrain stations Safety/Security More/better security Improve information services Public Provide schedule information at Awareness 1 1 <1 <1 bus stops/ctrain stations More friendly/courteous drivers Staff Improve customer service n/a n/a n/a 1 Better training for drivers <1 Nothing/Satisfied Nothing/satisfied Other Other Total Total Number of responses Number of responses HarGroup Management Consultants, Inc

46 6.2 Funding Service Expansion Respondents were queried on their willingness to support fare increases within the context of the aforementioned service expansion priorities. In 2013, half of respondents (50%) stated that they would be in favour (fully or conditionally) of a fare increase whereby funds generated would be directly applied to service improvements (Figure 6.1). This finding shows the lowest level of support for fare increases since this question has been included in the survey. Figure 6.1: Support for Fare Increases to Fund Service Additions 100% 80% 35% 39% 36% 41% 47% 38% 35% 32% 44% 40% 39% 40% Yes 60% 40% 23% 10% 27% 6% 23% 8% 21% 21% 23% 20% 31% 13% 16% 15% 10% 17% 13% 17% 10% 15% 18% 17% 10% 13% Conditional Yes Maybe/Perhaps No Unsure 20% 32% 27% 31% 23% 18% 17% 28% 34% 26% 29% 29% 33% 0% Note: Previous data are presented for this query, even though the question changed somewhat in Respondents who answered that they would conditionally support a fare increase in the future were queried about the factors on which that support depended (Table 6.2). For just over four in ten (44%), the fare increase would have to be perceived as reasonable (could not be too much). This proportion is higher than observed in previous years and, as such, might further indicate customers hesitancy to support higher fares. Other common responses were that customers would need to be able to see improvements (24%), that Calgary Transit would be accountable that they could verify that the funds were being used for improvements (11%), and that revenue would be directly applied to specific improvements (9%). HarGroup Management Consultants, Inc

47 Table 6.2: Factors For Supporting Fare Increases 2010 (n=55) % of Responses 2011 (n=64) 2012 (n=63) 2013 (n=41) Condition As long as increases are not too much Customers could see improvements Accountable (could verify funds are used for improvements) Revenue directly applied to specific improvements Went to increasing fleet (trains/buses) Fare increase can be justified/no other way to raise funds Other Total Number of Responses All of the respondents reached were asked if they thought additional Transit service should be paid for by an increase in property taxes or fares (Figure 6.2). An increase in Transit fares was thought to be most appropriate by respondents to the 2013 survey, with just under half (48%) agreeing with this position. This finding is lower than observed in previous surveys. Figure 6.2: Appropriateness of Potential Funding Sources HarGroup Management Consultants, Inc