Passengers satisfaction with public transport services in Helsinki in 2008

Passengers satisfaction with public transport services in Helsinki in 2008 SUY Marko Vihervuori B: 6/2009

Publisher HELSINKI CITY TRANSPORT Planning Unit DESCRIPTION Date of publication 14.8.2009 (original 9.3.2009) Author(s) Marko Vihervuori Name of publication Passengers satisfaction with public transport services in Helsinki in 2008 Abstract Helsinki City Transport constantly measures passengers satisfaction with public transport services in Helsinki with the help of questionnaires. In 2008 altogether 12,401 passengers were asked to evaluate different quality factors. Respondents gave public transport an overall mark of 4.03, which was a lower than the year before (4.13). The scale varies from 1 = poor to 5 = excellent. The mark went down with regard to the service in all modes of transport, except for VR commuter trains. 2007 2008 Tram passengers 4.12 4.02 Bus passengers 4.09 3.98 Metro passengers 4.22 4.12 Commuter train passengers (VR) 4.01 4.04 Total 4.13 4.03 In tram traffi c satisfaction with available room and fl uency of travelling were better marked than earlier. Satisfaction with driver s information skills and driver s customer service went down, compared to the previous year. In bus traffi c passengers gave better marks for available room and driver s manner of driving. Satisfaction with driver s information skills and transfer conditions were lower than the year before. In metro traffi c, improvements were observed in available room, fl uency of travelling and station cleanliness. Satisfaction with vehicle tidiness and functioning of indication signs were lower than the year before. In commuter train service (operated by VR) satisfaction with public order and punctuality were better marked than earlier. Satisfaction with functioning of indication signs and station cleanliness went down, compared to the previous year. Key words Public transport, passengers satisfaction Other information Layout: Mirva Ilmoniemi, translation: Jarmo Kalanti Series number ISSN-number ISBN-number HKL series B: 6/2009 1459-725X 978-952-5640-22-9 Printing place and year Language Pages Appendices Helsinki 2009 English 21 4 Passengers satisfaction with public transport services in Helsinki in 2008 1

2 Passengers satisfaction with public transport services in Helsinki in 2008

Foreword This publication contains the results of the survey measuring passengers satisfaction in 2008. The averages of marks for quality factors have been calculated by line, by mode of public transport and, in the bus traffi c, by tender object and by operator. The results will be exploited to develop public transport, in staff schooling, and in the calculation of bonuses for tendered operators. The survey also contains valuable information on passenger profi les. The survey has been assisted by 4 6 students who have, on vehicles, distributed questionnaires to passengers, and collected them fi lled in. The fi eld work has been coordinated by research assistant Pirjo Pakonen. The results have been processed by system planner Esko Kokki. The report has been drawn up by head of traffi c research Marko Vihervuori. The report has been translated by Jarmo Kalanti and laid out by Mirva Ilmoniemi. Further enquiries can be posed to the undersigned at tel. +358 9 310 35835. Helsinki, 14 August 2009 Marko Vihervuori Passengers satisfaction with public transport services in Helsinki in 2008 3

Contents Foreword 3 1. Introduction 6 2. Sample structure 7 3. Frequency of free riding 8 4. Passengers overall mark for public transport services in Helsinki in 2008 9 5. Passengers satisfaction with mode of public transport 10 5.1 Satisfaction with operator and with public transport system 10 5.2 Changes in different quality factors 12 6. Passengers satisfaction with different operators 16 7. Passengers marks by line-section and by line in bus service 19 Appendices Appendix 1 Passangers satisfaction by line in 2008 23 Appendix 2 Passangers satisfaction by tender object in 2008 25 Appendix 3 Passangers satisfaction by operator in 2008 28 Appendix 4 Questionnaire 30 4 Passengers satisfaction with public transport services in Helsinki in 2008

Figures Figure 1. Passengers overall mark for public transport services in Helsinki 2004 2008. 9 Figure 2. Marks for operators, by mode of transport, semi-annually 2004 2008. 11 Figure 3. Marks for public transport system, by mode of transport, semi-annually 2004 2008. 11 Figure 4. Marks for different quality factors, by mode of transport, in 2007 and 2008. 12 Figure 5: Marks for drivers performance in tram traffic, semi-annually 2004 2008. 13 Figure 6: Marks for drivers performance in bus traffic, semi-annually 2004 2008. 14 Figure 7: Marks for different factors of public transport system, in tram traffic, semi-annually 2004 2008. 14 Figure 8: Marks for different factors of public transport system, in bus traffic, semi-annually 2004 2008. 14 Figure 9: Marks for different factors of public transport system, in Metro traffic, semi-annually 2004 2008. 15 Figure 10: Marks for different factors of public transport system, in commuter train (VR) traffic, semi-annually 2004 2008. 15 Figure 11: Marks for bus drivers customer service, by operator, semi-annually 2004 2008. 16 Figure 12: Marks for bus drivers information skills, by operator, semi-annually 2004 2008. 17 Figure 13: Marks for bus drivers manner of driving, by operator, semi-annually 2004 2008. 17 Figure 14: Marks for vehicle tidiness in bus traffic, by operator, semi-annually 2004 2008. 17 Figure 15: Marks for travel comfort (indoor fittings) in bus traffic, by operator, semi-annually 2004 2008. 18 Figure 16: Marks for public order on vehicle in bus traffic, by operator, semi-annually 2004 2008. 18 Figure 17. Number of customer feedback to bus operators per million passengers, by operator, in 2005 2008. 19 Figure 18: Changes in marks for bus line-sections 2007 2008, in percentage terms. 19 Figure 19: Marks for operators of City Centre bus lines, in 2007 and 2008. 20 Figure 20: Marks for public transport system in City Centre, in 2007 and 2008. 20 Figure 21: Marks for operators of bus lines in North-Western Helsinki, in 2007 and 2008. 20 Figure 22: Marks for public transport system in North-Western Helsinki, in 2007 and 2008. 20 Figure 23: Marks for operators of bus lines in Northern Helsinki, in 2007 and 2008. 20 Figure 24: Marks for public transport system in Northern Helsinki, in 2007 and 2008. 20 Figure 25: Marks for operators of bus lines in North-Eastern Helsinki, in 2007 and 2008. 21 Figure 26: Marks for public transport system in North-Eastern Helsinki, in 2007 and 2008. 21 Figure 27: Marks for operators of bus lines in Eastern Helsinki, in 2007 and 2008. 21 Figure 28: Marks for public transport system in Eastern Helsinki, in 2007 and 2008. 21 Figure 29: Marks for operators of transverse bus lines, in 2007 and 2008. 21 Figure 30. Marks for transverse public transport system, in 2007 ja 2008. 21 Passengers satisfaction with public transport services in Helsinki in 2008 5

1. Introduction Helsinki City Transport has measured passengers satisfaction with transport services in Helsinki since 1995. Questionnaires have been fi lled in on all tram routes, on the Metro, and on bus lines with at least 1,600 daily passengers. As for commuter trains (operated by VR), the interviews have been carried out at the stations of Malmi, Malminkartano and Puistola. The objective is to get an opinion of approximately 11,000 passengers annually. The survey activity is going on throughout the year, except for the month of December. Passengers satisfaction is followed up with a quarterly output, and a report is published semi-annually. This report contains the results of the whole year 2008. The passengers have been interviewed from Monday to Thursday between 6 a.m. and 6 p.m., and on Friday between 6 a.m. and, at latest, 2 p.m. The number of chosen interviewees is determined by route quotas, and by morning peak, day time and evening peak-hours in relation to the distribution of passenger volumes. The objective is to get at least 100 opinions for each route annually. The most frequented lines have had larger samples. Passengers on neighbourhood bus lines were not interviewed. On bus, tram and Metro an assistant has distributed passengers, chosen by random, a map consisting of a questionnaire with pen and writing pad. The passengers have been asked to evaluate different quality factors on the respective line and to return the questionnaire map to the assistant when exiting. As for commuter trains, the assistant has interviewed passengers at stations. The assistant has completed every returned questionnaire with date, time and respective line number (or name of train station). Since the beginning of the year 2008 the scale of passengers satisfaction has varied from 1 (poor) to 5 (excellent). Earlier the scale varied from 4 (poor) to 10 (excellent). In this publication the data from the years 2004 2007 has been converted into the new scale by using coeffi cients resulting from different questions and line numbers. The conversion is not linear because of different variance within the scales, it is, for instance, easier to give the mark 4 in a scale 1 5 than to give 9 in a scale 4 10. The passengers may use the different scales with a different severity, so that time series on the marking of different factors are not always congruent. The survey also contains information on passenger profi le and such questions as what kind of tickets the passengers use, whether they could have taken the journey on their own car, and in which city or commune they live in. 6 Passengers satisfaction with public transport services in Helsinki in 2008

2. Sample structure The passenger survey is not a sample in statistical terms, because the age distribution of and other background information on passengers is impossible to get in advance. It is not possible that the assistant starts with asking a passenger on his or her background and then refuses to continue with unsuitable interviewees. This kind of proceeding would irritate the passengers and delay the survey. To minimize a possible bias in the results, the assistants have been instructed to pick up the interviewees so randomly as possible with regard to their background (age, sex etc.). The passenger profi le of the respondents was as follows. Tram Bus Metro Train Total Respondents: 2,075 8,549 1,025 752 12,401 Gender: Male 31 % 28 % 32 % 28 % 29 % Female 69 % 72 % 68 % 72 % 71 % Age: 15 19 5 % 8 % 5 % 5 % 7 % 20 29 28 % 24 % 25 % 22 % 25 % 30 44 28 % 27 % 33 % 29 % 28 % 45 59 23 % 25 % 25 % 32 % 25 % 60 15 % 17 % 11 % 12 % 16 % Ticket type: Travel card period 70 % 78 % 74 % 75 % 76 % Travel card value 18 % 14 % 16 % 15 % 15 % Single ticket 7 % 5 % 7 % 5 % 5 % Other 5 % 3 % 4 % 5 % 3 % City of residence: Helsinki 86 % 93 % 87 % 90 % 91 % Espoo, Kauniainen 5 % 2 % 3 % 1 % 3 % Vantaa 4 % 3 % 6 % 6 % 4 % Elsewhere in Uusimaa and Itä-Uusimaa 2 % 1 % 3 % 2 % 2 % Elsewhere in Finland 3 % 1 % 1 % 2 % 1 % Travelling on this route: At least 4 days a week 54 % 58 % 68 % 72 % 59 % 2 3 days a week 23 % 21 % 17 % 14 % 20 % One day a week 10 % 8 % 6 % 6 % 8 % Rarely 14 % 13 % 9 % 8 % 13 % Transfer of public vehicle: Journey with 2 transfers or more 7 % 13 % 14 % 8 % 12 % Journey with one transfer 40 % 42 % 48 % 47 % 42 % Journey without transfer 52 % 45 % 38 % 45 % 45 % Possibility to take the journey in one s own car: Possibility to take car 29 % 28 % 35 % 37 % 29 % No possibility 71 % 72 % 65 % 63 % 71 % Passengers satisfaction with public transport services in Helsinki in 2008 7

3. Frequency of free riding It is usual to ask a couple of variable questions not related to passengers satisfaction. In spring 2008 it was asked if the passenger had travelled without a ticket during the last 6 months. The same question was asked also in spring 2007. Travelling without a ticket was signifi cantly more common among travellers on rail transport than among travellers on bus. During the last six months had travelled without a ticket Respondent travelled on Spring 2008 Spring 2007 tram 17 % 21 % bus 10 % 10 % metro 20 % 16 % local train 13 % 22 % All passangers 12 % 13 % The mode of transport in the table refers to the actual mode the respondent used. The distribution does not tell how often or in which mode of transport the passengers have travelled without a ticket. Travelling without a ticket was intentional Respondent travelled on Spring 2008 Spring 2007 tram 34 % 54 % bus 32 % 46 % metro 30 % 29 % local train 43 % 36 % All passangers 33 % 45 % The share of those travelling without a ticket was a little lower and noticeably less intentional in spring 2008 than the previous year. This suggests that a more intense ticket control and the publicity on it have had positive effects. 8 Passengers satisfaction with public transport services in Helsinki in 2008

4. Passengers overall mark for public transport services in Helsinki in 2008 Respondents gave public transport an overall mark of 4.03, which was signifi cantly lower than the year before, when it was 4.13. The overall mark is the average of overall marks of each mode of public transport weighted by respective passenger amounts. The overall marks by the passengers on internal lines of Helsinki were worse for all modes of transport than in the previous year. The overall mark for the commuter train service was slightly better than the year before. 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Of passengers on tram 4.05 4.07 4.06 4.12 4.02 Of passengers on bus 4.06 4.09 4.07 4.09 3.98 Of passengers on Metro 4.18 4.20 4.20 4.22 4.12 Of passengers on train 4.13 4.22 4.17 4.01 4.04 Of passengers on tram, bus and metro 4.09 4.11 4.10 4.14 4.03 All passengers 4.09 4.11 4.11 4.13 4.03 5.0 4.5 4.0 Tram Bus Metro Train 3.5 3.0 K-04 S-04 K-05 S-05 K-06 S-06 K-07 S-07 K-08 S-08 Semi-annual period Figure 1. Passengers overall mark for public transport services in Helsinki 2004 2008. There was little difference between the residents of Helsinki and other passengers with regard to the overall mark. The residents of Helsinki were, however, a little more satisfi ed with the Metro than others. Passengers satisfaction with public transport services in Helsinki in 2008 9

5. Passengers satisfaction with mode of public transport 5.1 Satisfaction with operator and with public transport system Questions on different quality factors relate to the line on which the respondent was travelling. One part of the questions measures the operators performance and another part the public transport system in Helsinki. Time table punctuality is involved in both parts, because it refers to the system in tram and bus traffi c, and in Metro and VR commuter train service punctuality refers to operators. Factors measuring operator: - Drivers customer service - Drivers information skills - Drivers manner of driving - Time table punctuality - Vehicle tidiness - Travel comfort (indoor fi ttings) - Public order and security on vehicle Factors measuring public transport system: - Time table punctuality - Seat availability and room - Travel smoothness (speed) - Transfer conditions (from one vehicle into another) - Waiting conditions at stops Marks for operators 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Change 2007 2008 Tram service 3.99 3.98 3.99 4.00 3.81-0.19 Bus service 3.86 3.85 3.80 3.82 3.67-0.15 Metro service 4.33 4.30 4.27 4.25 4.09-0.16 Local train service 3.79 3.85 3.82 3.70 3.86 +0.16 Tram, bus and Metro together 4.01 4.00 3.99 4.00 3.83-0.17 All together 4.00 4.00 3.99 3.99 3.83-0.16 Marks for overall public transport system service Tram service 3.98 3.98 4.02 4.01 4.10 +0.09 Bus service 4.12 4.15 4.12 4.12 4.16 +0.04 Metro service 4.17 4.10 4.04 4.06 4.16 +0.10 Local train service 3.74 3.81 3.70 3.68 4.01 +0.33 Tram, bus and Metro together 4.09 4.09 4.07 4.07 4.14 +0.07 All together 4.08 4.08 4.06 4.06 4.14 +0.08 The marks for operators went down, compared to the previous year, by -0.19 on tram routes and by -0.15 on bus routes, and by -0.16 on the Metro. The passengers satisfaction with commuter train operation improved by 0.16, so that it got the best mark since the introducing of the time series in 2004. The public transport system mark for tram service improved by 0.09, for bus by 0.04, for the Metro by 0.10 and for VR commuter train service by 0.33. 10 Passengers satisfaction with public transport services in Helsinki in 2008

5.0 4.5 4.0 Tram Bus Metro Train 3.5 3.0 K-04 S-04 K-05 S-05 K-06 S-06 K-07 S-07 K-08 S-08 Semi-annual period Figure 2. Marks for operators, by mode of transport, semi-annually 2004 2008. 5.0 4.5 4.0 Tram Bus Metro Train 3.5 3.0 K-04 S-04 K-05 S-05 K-06 S-06 K-07 S-07 K-08 S-08 Semi-annual period Figure 3. Marks for public transport system, by mode of transport, semi-annually 2004 2008. Passengers satisfaction with public transport services in Helsinki in 2008 11

5.2 Changes in different quality factors Changes between 2007 and 2008 The most remarkable changes in the marks from the year 2007 to 2008 occurred in the following quality factors. Changes in all quality factors can be seen in fi gure 4. In tram service the most remarkably improved factors were seating room and travel smoothness. The most remarkable negative changes occurred with drivers information skills as well as with drivers customer service. One third of the deterioration of customer service results from a changed question of this factor. In bus service the most remarkable change was the improvement of seating room and of drivers manner of driving. The most remarkable negative changes occurred with drivers information skills and with transfer conditions TRAM SERVICE Drivers customer service Drivers information skills Drivers manner of driving Punctuality Vehicle tidiness Travel comfort (indoor fittings) Seat availability Timetable suitability Travel smoothness Transfer conditions Public order on vehicle Waiting conditions BUS SERVICE Drivers customer service Drivers information skills Drivers manner of driving Punctuality Vehicle tidiness Travel comfort (indoor fittings) Seat availability Timetable suitability Travel smoothness Transfer conditions Public order on vehicle Waiting conditions M ETRO SERVICE Drivers manner of driving Punctuality Vehicle tidiness Seat availability Timetable suitability 2008 2007 In Metro service the best improvers were seating room, travel smoothness and station tidiness. The biggest falls compared to the previous year were registered in vehicle tidiness and functioning of information signals. In commuter train service (VR) public order and punctuality were remarkably better marked than in the previous year. Negative development was noticed in functioning of information signals and in station tidiness. Travel smoothness Order and safety on vehicle Station tidiness Functioning of information signals LOCAL TRAIN SERVICE Drivers manner of driving Punctuality Vehicle tidiness Seat availability Timetable suitability Travel smoothness Order and safety on vehicle Station tidiness Functioning of information signals 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 Figure 4. Marks for different quality factors, by mode of transport, in 2007 and 2008. 12 Passengers satisfaction with public transport services in Helsinki in 2008

Development between 2004 and 2008 Figures 5 10 show the development of different quality factors since the year 2004, semi-annually. In tram and bus service the development of drivers performance is depicted. By drivers performance is meant drivers customer service, information skills and manner of driving. The development of marks for different quality factors of the public transport system is depicted as well. The tram drivers performance has become worse especially with regard to information skills as well as to customer service, on the basis of the marks. A decreasing trend in terms of information skills can be noticed for some time, but in spring 2008 both marks fell remarkably, compared to earlier years. In tram service, a third of the deterioration in the mark results from a changed question of drivers customer service. Therefore, the time series is not quite congruent. The question about drivers information skills remained practically unchanged. In tram traffi c, the passengers have to deal with the driver only when buying a ticket or asking for information. This emphasizes the importance of being served, while in bus traffi c the passenger cannot avoid meeting the driver (except those boarding through the middle door with prams etc.). This explains also the fall of both marks in tram service, while in bus service such a fall is hardly noticeable. In tram service, as a part of public transport system, transfer conditions, waiting conditions, seating room and travel smoothness got better marks, but punctuality was weaker than before. In tram service the fl uctuation of marks has been rather strong during recent years. A clear trend has been noticeable only with regard to time table punctuality, with falling marks for a couple of years. In bus service transfer conditions deteriorated compared to the previous year and a falling trend of punctuality has been noticeable already for about four years. Other marks have remained rather stable. The marks for the Metro have remained high, except for punctuality, which was worse than the year before. The mark for station tidiness is signifi cantly lower than for other factors. However, this mark has slightly turned upwards. In VR commuter train service the marks have been lower compared to corresponding fi gures of the Metro. Annual fl uctuations have accompanied the train service, so that no clear trend can be seen. 5.0 4.5 4.0 3.5 Drivers customer service Drivers information skills Drivers manner of driving 3.0 K-04 S-04 K-05 S-05 K-06 S-06 K-07 S-07 K-08 S-08 Semi-annual period Figure 5: Marks for drivers performance in tram traffic, semi-annually 2004 2008. Passengers satisfaction with public transport services in Helsinki in 2008 13

5.0 4.5 4.0 3.5 Drivers customer service Drivers information skills Drivers manner of driving 3.0 K-04 S-04 K-05 S-05 K-06 S-06 K-07 S-07 K-08 S-08 Semi-annual period Figure 6: Marks for drivers performance in bus traffic, semi-annually 2004 2008. 5.0 4.5 4.0 3.5 Punctuality Seat availability Travel smoothness Transfer conditions Waiting conditions 3.0 K-04 S-04 K-05S-05 K-06 S-06 K-07S-07 K-08 S-08 Semi-annual period Figure 7: Marks for different factors of public transport system, in tram traffic, semi-annually 2004 2008. 5.0 4.5 4.0 3.5 Punctuality Seat availability Travel smoothness Transfer conditions Waiting conditions 3.0 K-04S-04 K-05S-05 K-06S-06 K-07S-07 K-08S-08 Semi-annual period Figure 8: Marks for different factors of public transport system, in bus traffic, semi-annually 2004 2008. 14 Passengers satisfaction with public transport services in Helsinki in 2008

5.0 4.5 4.0 3.5 Punctuality Seat availability Travel smoothness Station tidiness 3.0 2.5 K-04 S-04 K-05S-05 K-06S-06 K-07 S-07K-08 S-08 Semi-annual period Figure 9: Marks for different factors of public transport system, in Metro traffic, semi-annually 2004 2008. 5.0 4.5 4.0 3.5 Punctuality Seat availability Travel smoothness Station tidiness 3.0 2.5 K-04 S-04K-05S-05 K-06S-06 K-07S-07K-08S-08 Semi-annual period Figure 10: Marks for different factors of public transport system, in commuter train (VR) traffic, semi-annually 2004 2008. Passengers satisfaction with public transport services in Helsinki in 2008 15

6. Passengers satisfaction with different operators In focus are bus operators Helsingin Bussiliikenne Oy (HelB), Concordia Bus, Pohjolan kaupunkiliikenne (PKL) and Veolia Transport. Examined are the marks for the quality factors which the operators can contribute to. The average mark of each operator for each quality factor is the result of the mark of a single route weighed by its weekday boardings. The best mark for drivers customer service has mostly received the operator PKL. In 2008 the best mark received Veolia, which in a longer trend has been rather equal with HelB and Concordia. Drivers information skills have downright collapsed for all operators, compared to the previous year. The trend has been downwards already for a longer period, but, compared to autumn 2007, there is a signifi cant fall in the marks. The fall seems to even out for most of the operators, but only PKL has succeeded in turning the mark into a slight upwards direction. As for drivers manner of driving the lines operated by PKL were marked best. PKL has improved this mark for a couple of years. HelB and Concordia have been rather stable, Veolia has experienced more fl uctuations. The difference in marks between operators for vehicle tidiness has varied rather signifi cantly. Passengers have been most satisfi ed with the buses of PKL for years. The lowest mark received Concordia, HelB and Veolia were a little better marked. The best mark for travel comfort (indoor fi ttings) has received PKL already for years, Veolia went down most, and others went down less remarkably. Public order on vehicle got a grade around 4.5 for all operators, which is a very good mark. Veolia improved, others remained approximately on their previous levels. 5.0 4.5 4.0 HelB Concordia PKL Veolia 3.5 3.0 K-05 S-05 K-06 S-06 K-07 S-07 K-08 S-08 Semi-annual period Figure 11: Marks for bus drivers customer service, by operator, semi-annually 2004 2008. 16 Passengers satisfaction with public transport services in Helsinki in 2008

5.0 4.5 4.0 HelB Concordia PKL Veolia 3.5 3.0 K-05 S-05 K-06 S-06 K-07 S-07 K-08 S-08 Semi-annual period Figure 12: Marks for bus drivers information skills, by operator, semi-annually 2004 2008. 5.0 4.5 4.0 HelB Concordia PKL Veolia 3.5 3.0 K-05 S-05 K-06 S-06 K-07 S-07 K-08 S-08 Semi-annual period Figure 13: Marks for bus drivers manner of driving, by operator, semi-annually 2004 2008. 5.0 4.5 4.0 HelB Concordia PKL Veolia 3.5 3.0 K-05 S-05 K-06 S-06 K-07 S-07 K-08 S-08 Semi-annual period Figure 14: Marks for vehicle tidiness in bus traffic, by operator, semi-annually 2004 2008. Passengers satisfaction with public transport services in Helsinki in 2008 17

5.0 4.5 4.0 HelB Concordia PKL Veolia 3.5 3.0 K-05 S-05 K-06 S-06 K-07 S-07 K-08 S-08 Semi-annual period Figure 15: Marks for travel comfort (indoor fittings) in bus traffic, by operator, semi-annually 2004 2008. 5.0 4.5 4.0 HelB Concordia PKL Veolia 3.5 3.0 K-05 S-05 K-06 S-06 K-07 S-07 K-08 S-08 Semi-annual period Figure 16: Marks for public order on vehicle in bus traffic, by operator, semi-annually 2004 2008. Passengers satisfaction with public transport services is also monitored with the help of separate passenger feedbacks. The objective is to use them as complementary signals to passenger surveys. The majority of feedbacks are complaints on a service factor, such as time table, operation, staff behaviour, tariffs etc. The number of customer feedback to bus operators, per one million passengers, by month, during the period 1.1.2005-31.12.2008 is shown below. Because feedback mostly concerns a single line, the operators are compared with each other, even if they have not always been able to have infl uence on the reason of a feedback. Number of passenger feedbacks 2008 HKL as operator Tram 1,400 Metro 500 Other feedback to HKL 5,200 HKL, in total 7,100 Bus operators 8,300 of which service lines 200 Other partners 100 Total 15,400 The survey results for an operator are mostly supported by the separate passenger feedback. 18 Passengers satisfaction with public transport services in Helsinki in 2008

200 HelB Concordia Veolia PKL feedback / million passangers 150 100 50 0 1/2005 3/2005 5/2005 7/2005 Figure 17. Number of customer feedback to bus operators per million passengers, by operator, in 2005 2008. 7. Passengers marks by line-section and by line in bus service The bus routes are divided into sections on the basis of which part of the city they serve. A division into six sections of Helsinki is commonly used: City Centre bus lines, North-Western, Northern, North-Eastern, Eastern, and transverse bus lines. The operator s performance was best marked on transverse bus lines, with 3.73, and worst on Eastern bus lines, with 3.61. The best mark, 4.22, for the public transport system was given to transverse bus service, and the worst mark, 4.12, for City Centre bus service. The general enforcement of 9/2005 11/2005 1/2006 3/2006 5/2006 7/2006 9/2006 11/2006 1/2007 3/2007 5/2007 7/2007 9/2007 11/2007 1/2008 3/2008 5/2008 7/2008 9/2008 11/2008 transverse public transport and the popularity of line 550 ( Jokeri ) may be visible in these marks, although the respondents are asked to evaluate only the line they are travelling on. The marks for both the operator and the public transport system decreased, compared to the year before. The marks for the transport system decreased clearly less than for the operator. The weakening of driver s information skills explains most of the decrease. Change 2007-2008 City centre lines North-Western lines Northern lines North-Eastern lines Eastern lines Transverse lines Transport system Operator -6% -5% -4% -3% -2% -1% 0% Figure 18: Changes in marks for bus line-sections 2007 2008, in percentage terms. Passengers satisfaction with public transport services in Helsinki in 2008 19

In the following are fi gured the marks for operators of each line-section, by line, in 2007 and 2008. Only the lines are shown of which there are observations in both periods of comparison. 14 14B 15,A 16 14 14B 15,A 16 Line 17 18 20 2008 2007 Line 17 18 20 2007 2008 21V 21V 22 22 23 23 55,A 55,A 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 Mark 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 Mark Figure 19: Marks for operators of City Centre bus lines, in 2007 and 2008. Figure 20: Marks for public transport system in City Centre, in 2007 and 2008. 39 40 39 40 Line 41 42 43 2007 2008 Line 41 42 43 2007 2008 45 45 47 47 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 Mark 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 Mark Figure 21: Marks for operators of bus lines in North- Western Helsinki, in 2007 and 2008. Figure 22: Marks for public transport system in North-Western Helsinki, in 2007 and 2008. 62 63 62 63 Line 64 65A 2007 2008 Line 64 65A 2007 2008 66A 66A 67 67 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 Mark 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 Mark Figure 23: Marks for operators of bus lines in Northern Helsinki, in 2007 and 2008. Figure 24: Marks for public transport system in Northern Helsinki, in 2007 and 2008. 20 Passengers satisfaction with public transport services in Helsinki in 2008

68,X 68,X 69 69 70T 70T 70V 70V 71 71 71V 71V Line 72 73 74 75 2007 2008 Line 72 73 74 75 2007 2008 75A 75A 76A,B 76A,B 77 77 77A 77A 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 Mark 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 Mark Figure 25: Marks for operators of bus lines in North- Eastern Helsinki, in 2007 and 2008. Figure 26: Marks for public transport system in North-Eastern Helsinki, in 2007 and 2008. 80 80 81,B 81,B 82 82 83 83 84 84 85 85 86 86 88 88 Line 89 90 92 94,V 94A 94B 2007 2008 Line 89 90 92 94,V 94A 94B 2007 2008 95 95 96 97,V 98 96 97,V 98 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 Mark 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 Mark Figure 27: Marks for operators of bus lines in Eastern Helsinki, in 2007 and 2008. Figure 28: Marks for public transport system in Eastern Helsinki, in 2007 and 2008. 50 50 51 51 52 52 52A 52A 52V 52V Line 53 54 57 58,B 59 78 79 2007 2008 Line 53 54 57 58,B 59 78 79 2007 2008 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 Mark 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 Mark Figure 29: Marks for operators of transverse bus lines, in 2007 and 2008. Figure 30. Marks for transverse public transport system, in 2007 ja 2008. Passengers satisfaction with public transport services in Helsinki in 2008 21

APPENDICES 22 Passengers satisfaction with public transport services in Helsinki in 2008

Appendix 1 Passangers satisfaction by line in 2008 HKL Planning unit 16.7.2009 EK PASSENGERS' SATISFACTION BY LINE IN 2008 Line 1. Drivers' 2. Drivers' 3. Drivers' 4. Punctuality 5. Vehicle 6. Travel 8. Seat 9. Timetable 10. Travel 11. Transfer 12. Order, 13. Waiting 14.Inform. 17. Station 18. Functioning Total service information skills way of driving tidiness comfort availability suitability smoothness conditions safety conditions availibility tidiness of information Operator System Tram Boardings N 1,A 10 896 138 4,01 3,88 3,94 3,68 3,65 3,75 4,40 4,35 4,07 4,15 3,99 3,77 4,08 3,85 4,06 3B,T 46 625 547 3,84 3,89 3,79 3,54 3,36 3,71 4,11 4,46 4,06 4,19 3,90 3,73 4,22 3,72 4,03 4,T 32 872 373 3,85 3,89 3,81 3,97 3,70 3,80 3,74 4,55 4,23 4,21 4,23 3,93 4,24 3,81 4,14 6 20 100 171 3,89 3,96 3,88 3,89 3,72 3,90 3,99 4,63 4,07 4,27 3,90 3,72 4,32 3,87 4,10 7A,B 32 582 331 3,87 3,94 3,90 3,58 3,62 3,75 4,06 4,51 4,16 4,13 4,07 3,73 4,20 3,82 4,06 8 17 178 164 3,86 3,86 3,90 3,76 3,73 3,98 4,25 4,58 4,24 4,21 3,86 3,81 4,30 3,87 4,13 9 7 382 48 3,75 3,73 3,62 3,70 3,92 4,04 4,42 4,52 4,26 4,26 4,04 3,81 4,13 3,81 4,14 10 34 571 303 3,96 3,90 3,89 4,08 3,68 3,81 4,02 4,63 4,24 4,29 4,21 3,87 4,18 3,85 4,19 Tram total 202 206 2 075 3,88 3,90 3,85 3,78 3,62 3,80 4,05 4,54 4,16 4,21 4,04 3,80 4,22 3,81 4,10 Bus 14 8 257 140 3,77 3,74 3,61 3,72 3,78 3,67 4,01 4,46 3,84 4,17 4,50 3,77 4,35 3,71 4,10 14B 2 421 121 3,77 3,71 3,67 3,85 3,85 3,78 4,30 4,59 4,16 4,17 4,44 3,75 4,34 3,76 4,20 15,A 1 633 115 3,87 3,66 3,71 3,89 3,95 3,89 4,58 4,45 4,38 4,36 4,29 3,79 4,30 3,82 4,26 16 2 582 120 3,77 3,38 3,56 3,31 3,84 3,83 4,76 4,47 4,05 4,10 4,53 3,50 4,24 3,68 4,12 17 5 114 72 3,99 3,64 3,70 3,57 4,07 3,90 4,67 4,46 3,99 4,10 4,62 3,46 4,17 3,86 4,13 18 8 287 179 3,81 3,78 3,68 3,38 3,95 3,96 4,34 4,41 3,71 4,04 4,59 3,88 4,34 3,84 4,09 20 6 571 121 3,80 3,76 3,47 3,48 3,76 3,85 4,40 4,42 3,91 4,09 4,56 3,86 4,29 3,73 4,13 21V 4 375 177 3,62 3,45 3,37 3,58 3,58 3,44 4,50 4,50 3,93 4,05 4,63 3,86 4,12 3,49 4,15 22 2 238 128 3,84 3,80 3,67 3,57 3,63 3,65 4,77 4,57 4,08 4,13 4,63 3,48 4,28 3,72 4,19 23 5 532 120 3,83 3,67 3,64 3,13 3,69 3,67 4,35 4,36 3,94 4,11 4,41 3,53 4,28 3,70 4,01 39 5 911 114 3,71 3,64 3,60 3,53 3,60 3,57 4,35 4,40 3,83 3,91 4,61 3,71 4,32 3,62 4,08 40 4 308 119 3,91 3,64 3,63 3,97 3,96 4,00 4,49 4,50 4,16 4,17 4,51 3,98 4,24 3,83 4,25 41 3 677 125 3,88 3,65 3,69 3,97 3,72 3,71 4,56 4,58 4,12 4,20 4,57 3,75 4,36 3,73 4,26 42 3 730 120 3,84 3,65 3,56 3,58 3,64 3,71 4,60 4,51 4,05 4,15 4,42 3,87 4,22 3,68 4,18 43 5 571 121 3,69 3,32 3,52 3,69 3,68 3,71 4,44 4,48 3,91 4,14 4,48 3,76 4,31 3,58 4,15 45 2 913 120 3,72 3,46 3,67 3,84 3,86 3,88 4,39 4,45 3,96 4,27 4,42 3,72 4,41 3,72 4,18 47 852 118 3,81 3,46 3,70 3,59 3,70 3,59 4,56 4,54 4,22 4,20 4,70 3,62 4,38 3,65 4,23 50 3 912 120 3,77 3,76 3,66 3,67 4,06 3,91 4,59 4,63 4,08 4,23 4,69 3,79 4,34 3,83 4,25 51 4 435 120 3,86 3,64 3,79 3,71 3,75 3,64 4,76 4,46 4,03 4,06 4,59 3,85 4,26 3,74 4,22 52 3 787 130 3,80 3,55 3,65 3,18 3,74 3,65 4,75 4,47 3,97 4,00 4,53 3,98 4,35 3,68 4,15 52A 1 074 54 3,88 3,35 3,69 3,87 3,38 3,23 4,83 4,58 4,46 3,88 4,59 3,52 4,33 3,51 4,26 52V 705 50 3,83 3,71 3,83 3,77 3,96 3,56 4,77 4,44 4,35 4,26 4,74 3,86 4,24 3,78 4,30 53 412 61 4,12 4,19 4,01 4,24 4,19 4,19 4,98 4,82 4,58 4,33 4,82 4,02 4,43 4,14 4,53 54 3 282 175 3,75 3,59 3,64 3,81 3,64 3,61 4,47 4,45 4,22 4,00 4,56 3,72 4,31 3,65 4,19 55,A 4 271 118 3,87 3,67 3,68 3,56 3,98 4,01 4,38 4,46 3,98 4,20 4,49 3,84 4,24 3,84 4,14 57 4 438 123 3,83 3,74 3,74 3,86 3,86 3,73 4,85 4,52 4,15 4,00 4,65 3,90 4,41 3,78 4,29 58,B 9 153 129 3,93 3,62 3,72 3,90 4,08 3,99 4,21 4,50 4,03 4,17 4,63 3,73 4,36 3,87 4,19 59 2 547 123 3,92 3,65 3,85 4,08 4,15 4,06 4,58 4,65 4,38 4,32 4,76 3,76 4,40 3,93 4,37 62 1 987 118 3,63 3,40 3,62 3,68 3,68 3,44 4,64 4,29 4,04 4,02 4,35 3,72 4,21 3,55 4,12 63 5 303 133 3,76 3,54 3,72 3,70 3,83 3,76 4,51 4,51 4,08 4,28 4,57 4,06 4,31 3,72 4,25 64 4 862 126 3,99 3,80 3,89 4,09 4,07 4,02 4,66 4,47 4,16 4,16 4,50 4,07 4,35 3,95 4,31 Passengers satisfaction with public transport services in Helsinki in 2008 23

65A 11 387 72 3,75 3,75 3,58 3,17 3,75 3,74 4,20 4,43 3,83 4,25 4,63 3,80 4,31 3,71 4,08 65B 3 940 109 3,62 3,47 3,38 3,31 3,80 3,87 4,60 4,38 3,80 4,11 4,46 3,96 4,28 3,63 4,11 65X 5 013 108 3,55 3,45 3,40 3,72 3,70 3,48 4,47 4,14 3,98 3,86 4,63 3,90 4,26 3,52 4,12 66A 8 490 73 3,49 3,38 3,28 3,35 3,49 3,42 4,13 4,38 3,69 4,29 4,47 3,60 4,14 3,41 4,01 66B 2 053 108 3,69 3,53 3,57 3,77 3,71 3,74 4,56 4,49 4,00 4,13 4,58 4,06 4,28 3,65 4,23 67 6 573 126 3,66 3,38 3,55 3,93 3,67 3,59 4,17 4,48 3,94 4,12 4,38 3,79 4,29 3,57 4,14 68, X 3 789 121 3,85 3,53 3,64 3,87 3,84 3,82 4,70 4,45 4,08 4,07 4,57 3,93 4,53 3,74 4,28 69 6 077 131 3,78 3,59 3,65 3,59 3,79 3,80 4,61 4,56 4,00 4,02 4,45 3,83 4,26 3,72 4,17 70T 6 370 120 3,85 3,66 3,66 3,48 3,68 3,70 4,57 4,40 3,88 3,95 4,53 3,94 4,32 3,71 4,13 70V 4 281 121 3,71 3,49 3,54 3,62 3,66 3,45 4,25 4,50 3,99 4,09 4,51 3,89 4,38 3,57 4,15 71 7 917 108 3,70 3,63 3,60 3,90 3,82 3,74 4,36 4,52 4,16 4,23 4,41 3,99 4,45 3,70 4,25 71V 901 63 3,78 3,64 3,52 4,04 3,62 3,56 4,55 4,53 4,17 3,88 4,61 3,73 4,40 3,62 4,24 72 6 980 120 3,81 3,68 3,61 3,39 3,59 3,59 4,28 4,43 4,02 4,02 4,46 3,79 4,20 3,66 4,07 73 5 830 131 3,65 3,31 3,43 3,54 3,42 3,44 4,40 4,31 3,96 3,99 4,33 3,72 4,36 3,45 4,08 74 1 931 120 3,70 3,56 3,55 3,72 3,63 3,60 4,48 4,24 3,91 3,98 4,44 3,60 4,40 3,61 4,10 75 5 878 120 3,67 3,75 3,54 3,69 3,77 3,72 4,47 4,48 4,00 3,93 4,45 3,75 4,17 3,69 4,12 75A 1 083 109 3,65 3,53 3,72 3,90 3,78 3,74 4,80 4,38 4,43 4,08 4,49 3,67 4,21 3,68 4,25 76A,B 2 995 129 3,80 3,50 3,58 4,03 3,65 3,65 4,76 4,43 4,38 3,81 4,49 3,74 4,20 3,64 4,23 77 4 630 137 3,81 3,59 3,66 3,75 3,64 3,71 4,44 4,40 4,27 4,09 4,24 3,98 4,23 3,68 4,18 77A 3 542 144 3,84 3,67 3,70 3,77 3,52 3,63 4,60 4,36 4,28 4,07 4,32 3,57 4,13 3,67 4,14 78 5 126 120 3,61 3,45 3,50 3,71 3,52 3,57 4,65 4,52 4,21 4,14 4,31 3,71 4,20 3,53 4,18 79 7 676 133 3,79 3,63 3,61 3,78 3,53 3,60 4,44 4,51 4,16 4,13 4,30 3,72 4,41 3,63 4,18 80 5 427 122 3,66 3,68 3,62 3,77 3,66 3,77 4,41 4,39 4,28 4,18 4,33 3,73 4,18 3,68 4,16 81,B 4 183 186 3,81 3,61 3,51 3,98 3,55 3,61 4,72 4,54 4,46 4,31 4,40 3,66 4,28 3,62 4,29 82 5 360 125 3,69 3,58 3,46 3,73 3,57 3,61 4,47 4,52 4,36 4,26 4,17 3,80 4,25 3,58 4,20 83 1 399 126 4,14 3,60 4,04 4,18 4,34 4,19 4,84 4,36 4,46 4,17 4,56 3,83 4,27 4,06 4,33 84 3 545 120 3,77 3,42 3,51 4,00 3,53 3,55 4,28 4,40 4,10 4,13 4,17 3,79 4,21 3,56 4,14 85 4 881 126 3,59 3,33 3,59 3,78 3,68 3,70 4,36 4,20 4,10 4,11 4,42 3,83 4,26 3,58 4,13 86 4 925 114 3,64 3,59 3,70 3,79 3,58 3,42 4,48 4,42 4,35 4,25 4,40 3,87 4,34 3,59 4,24 88 1 679 122 3,69 3,53 3,54 4,03 3,79 3,77 4,64 4,45 4,41 4,26 4,62 3,80 4,21 3,66 4,30 89 1 496 128 3,73 3,56 3,52 4,16 3,67 3,78 4,73 4,59 4,60 4,24 4,53 3,82 4,20 3,65 4,36 90 2 588 124 3,79 3,64 3,83 4,02 3,73 3,92 4,77 4,56 4,50 4,06 4,43 3,87 4,20 3,78 4,30 92 3 732 121 3,68 3,47 3,50 3,64 3,47 3,61 4,40 4,27 4,32 4,10 4,22 3,56 4,15 3,55 4,08 94,V 4 331 129 3,72 3,52 3,66 3,70 3,39 3,54 4,40 4,38 4,20 3,97 4,31 3,71 4,16 3,57 4,10 94A 3 300 117 3,63 3,47 3,58 3,84 3,67 3,56 4,69 4,48 4,41 4,09 4,25 4,03 4,10 3,58 4,24 94B 3 185 48 3,67 3,39 3,56 4,00 3,77 3,68 4,71 4,38 4,50 3,94 4,27 3,46 4,06 3,61 4,17 95 2 465 122 3,87 3,63 3,61 3,54 3,48 3,58 4,30 4,26 4,15 4,02 4,25 3,54 4,12 3,63 4,02 96 5 117 122 3,76 3,46 3,51 3,97 3,46 3,62 4,35 4,24 4,33 3,98 4,17 3,74 4,14 3,56 4,12 97,V 2 787 246 3,67 3,36 3,60 3,83 3,53 3,53 4,60 4,28 4,16 4,14 4,17 3,65 4,27 3,54 4,14 98 1 527 118 3,76 3,63 3,59 3,97 3,53 3,65 4,60 4,37 4,25 4,09 4,29 3,80 4,25 3,63 4,20 Bus total 298 529 8 549 3,76 3,59 3,60 3,68 3,72 3,70 4,46 4,44 4,07 4,11 4,46 3,79 4,28 3,67 4,16 Metro 192 000 1 025 4,37 4,45 3,43 4,29 4,55 4,63 3,91 4,12 3,46 4,09 4,09 4,16 Local train 17 100 752 4,28 3,83 3,39 3,78 4,41 4,44 4,09 4,35 3,01 3,94 3,86 4,01 T, B, M 692 735 11 649 3,81 3,71 3,89 3,92 3,61 3,74 4,29 4,50 4,25 4,15 4,19 3,79 4,22 3,83 4,14 HKL (T, M) 394 206 3 100 4,10 4,10 3,52 4,17 4,54 4,39 3,98 4,17 3,94 4,13 Total 709 835 12 401 3,81 3,71 3,90 3,92 3,60 3,74 4,28 4,50 4,26 4,15 4,18 3,79 4,22 3,83 4,14 24 Passengers satisfaction with public transport services in Helsinki in 2008

Appendix 2 Passangers satisfaction by tender object in 2008 HKL Planning unit EK PASSENGERS' SATISFACTION BY TENDER OBJECT IN 2008 1. Drivers' 2. Drivers' 3. Drivers' 4. Punctuality 5. Vehicle 6. Travel 8. Seat 9. Timetable 10. Travel 11. Transfer 12. Order, 13. Waiting 14. Information Total Object Line Boardings N service information skway of driving tidiness comfort availability suitability smoothness conditions safety conditions availibility Operator System 29 51 4 435 120 3,86 3,64 3,79 3,71 3,75 3,64 4,76 4,46 4,03 4,06 4,59 3,85 4,26 3,74 4,22 52 3 787 130 3,80 3,55 3,65 3,18 3,74 3,65 4,75 4,47 3,97 4,00 4,53 3,98 4,35 3,68 4,15 52A 1 074 54 3,88 3,35 3,69 3,87 3,38 3,23 4,83 4,58 4,46 3,88 4,59 3,52 4,33 3,51 4,26 52V 705 50 3,83 3,71 3,83 3,77 3,96 3,56 4,77 4,44 4,35 4,26 4,74 3,86 4,24 3,78 4,30 Total 3,84 3,58 3,73 3,53 3,72 3,59 4,76 4,48 4,08 4,03 4,58 3,86 4,30 3,69 4,20 30 57 4 438 123 3,83 3,74 3,74 3,86 3,86 3,73 4,85 4,52 4,15 4,00 4,65 3,90 4,41 3,78 4,29 79 7 676 133 3,79 3,63 3,61 3,78 3,53 3,60 4,44 4,51 4,16 4,13 4,30 3,72 4,41 3,63 4,18 Total 3,80 3,67 3,66 3,81 3,65 3,65 4,59 4,51 4,16 4,08 4,43 3,79 4,41 3,69 4,22 33 14 8 257 140 3,77 3,74 3,61 3,72 3,78 3,67 4,01 4,46 3,84 4,17 4,50 3,77 4,35 3,71 4,10 14B 2 421 121 3,77 3,71 3,67 3,85 3,85 3,78 4,30 4,59 4,16 4,17 4,44 3,75 4,34 3,76 4,20 Total 3,77 3,73 3,62 3,75 3,80 3,69 4,08 4,49 3,91 4,17 4,49 3,77 4,35 3,72 4,12 35 21V 4 375 177 3,62 3,45 3,37 3,58 3,58 3,44 4,50 4,50 3,93 4,05 4,63 3,86 4,12 3,49 4,15 65A 11 387 72 3,75 3,75 3,58 3,17 3,75 3,74 4,20 4,43 3,83 4,25 4,63 3,80 4,31 3,71 4,08 65B 3 940 109 3,62 3,47 3,38 3,31 3,80 3,87 4,60 4,38 3,80 4,11 4,46 3,96 4,28 3,63 4,11 65X 5 013 108 3,55 3,45 3,40 3,72 3,70 3,48 4,47 4,14 3,98 3,86 4,63 3,90 4,26 3,52 4,12 66A 8 490 73 3,49 3,38 3,28 3,35 3,49 3,42 4,13 4,38 3,69 4,29 4,47 3,60 4,14 3,41 4,01 66B 2 053 108 3,69 3,53 3,57 3,77 3,71 3,74 4,56 4,49 4,00 4,13 4,58 4,06 4,28 3,65 4,23 Total 3,62 3,54 3,43 3,39 3,66 3,60 4,32 4,38 3,84 4,16 4,57 3,81 4,23 3,57 4,09 41 78 5 126 120 3,61 3,45 3,50 3,71 3,52 3,57 4,65 4,52 4,21 4,14 4,31 3,71 4,20 3,53 4,18 90 2 588 124 3,79 3,64 3,83 4,02 3,73 3,92 4,77 4,56 4,50 4,06 4,43 3,87 4,20 3,78 4,30 96 5 117 122 3,76 3,46 3,51 3,97 3,46 3,62 4,35 4,24 4,33 3,98 4,17 3,74 4,14 3,56 4,12 98 1 527 118 3,76 3,63 3,59 3,97 3,53 3,65 4,60 4,37 4,25 4,09 4,29 3,80 4,25 3,63 4,20 Total 3,71 3,51 3,57 3,89 3,54 3,66 4,56 4,41 4,31 4,06 4,28 3,76 4,18 3,60 4,18 42 23 5 532 120 3,83 3,67 3,64 3,13 3,69 3,67 4,35 4,36 3,94 4,11 4,41 3,53 4,28 3,70 4,01 Total 3,83 3,67 3,64 3,13 3,69 3,67 4,35 4,36 3,94 4,11 4,41 3,53 4,28 3,70 4,01 43 67 6 573 126 3,66 3,38 3,55 3,93 3,67 3,59 4,17 4,48 3,94 4,12 4,38 3,79 4,29 3,57 4,14 Total 3,66 3,38 3,55 3,93 3,67 3,59 4,17 4,48 3,94 4,12 4,38 3,79 4,29 3,57 4,14 44 70T 6 370 120 3,85 3,66 3,66 3,48 3,68 3,70 4,57 4,40 3,88 3,95 4,53 3,94 4,32 3,71 4,13 70V 4 281 121 3,71 3,49 3,54 3,62 3,66 3,45 4,25 4,50 3,99 4,09 4,51 3,89 4,38 3,57 4,15 Total 3,79 3,59 3,61 3,54 3,67 3,60 4,44 4,44 3,92 4,01 4,52 3,92 4,34 3,65 4,14 45 72 6 980 120 3,81 3,68 3,61 3,39 3,59 3,59 4,28 4,43 4,02 4,02 4,46 3,79 4,20 3,66 4,07 Total 3,81 3,68 3,61 3,39 3,59 3,59 4,28 4,43 4,02 4,02 4,46 3,79 4,20 3,66 4,07 46 22 2 238 128 3,84 3,80 3,67 3,57 3,63 3,65 4,77 4,57 4,08 4,13 4,63 3,48 4,28 3,72 4,19 Total 3,84 3,80 3,67 3,57 3,63 3,65 4,77 4,57 4,08 4,13 4,63 3,48 4,28 3,72 4,19 Passengers satisfaction with public transport services in Helsinki in 2008 25

1. Drivers' 2. Drivers' 3. Drivers' 4. Punctuality 5. Vehicle 6. Travel 8. Seat 9. Timetable 10. Travel 11. Transfer 12. Order, 13. Waiting 14. Information Total Object Line Boardings N service information skway of driving tidiness comfort availability suitability smoothness conditions safety conditions availibility Operator System 47 62 1 987 118 3,63 3,40 3,62 3,68 3,68 3,44 4,64 4,29 4,04 4,02 4,35 3,72 4,21 3,55 4,12 Total 3,63 3,40 3,62 3,68 3,68 3,44 4,64 4,29 4,04 4,02 4,35 3,72 4,21 3,55 4,12 51 17 5 114 72 3,99 3,64 3,70 3,57 4,07 3,90 4,67 4,46 3,99 4,10 4,62 3,46 4,17 3,86 4,13 Total 3,99 3,64 3,70 3,57 4,07 3,90 4,67 4,46 3,99 4,10 4,62 3,46 4,17 3,86 4,13 52 50 3 912 120 3,77 3,76 3,66 3,67 4,06 3,91 4,59 4,63 4,08 4,23 4,69 3,79 4,34 3,83 4,25 58,B 9 153 129 3,93 3,62 3,72 3,90 4,08 3,99 4,21 4,50 4,03 4,17 4,63 3,73 4,36 3,87 4,19 59 2 547 123 3,92 3,65 3,85 4,08 4,15 4,06 4,58 4,65 4,38 4,32 4,76 3,76 4,40 3,93 4,37 Total 3,89 3,66 3,73 3,87 4,09 3,98 4,37 4,56 4,10 4,21 4,67 3,75 4,36 3,87 4,24 53 64 4 862 126 3,99 3,80 3,89 4,09 4,07 4,02 4,66 4,47 4,16 4,16 4,50 4,07 4,35 3,95 4,31 Total 3,99 3,80 3,89 4,09 4,07 4,02 4,66 4,47 4,16 4,16 4,50 4,07 4,35 3,95 4,31 54 84 3 545 120 3,77 3,42 3,51 4,00 3,53 3,55 4,28 4,40 4,10 4,13 4,17 3,79 4,21 3,56 4,14 85 4 881 126 3,59 3,33 3,59 3,78 3,68 3,70 4,36 4,20 4,10 4,11 4,42 3,83 4,26 3,58 4,13 86 4 925 114 3,64 3,59 3,70 3,79 3,58 3,42 4,48 4,42 4,35 4,25 4,40 3,87 4,34 3,59 4,24 88 1 679 122 3,69 3,53 3,54 4,03 3,79 3,77 4,64 4,45 4,41 4,26 4,62 3,80 4,21 3,66 4,30 89 1 496 128 3,73 3,56 3,52 4,16 3,67 3,78 4,73 4,59 4,60 4,24 4,53 3,82 4,20 3,65 4,36 Total 3,67 3,47 3,59 3,89 3,63 3,60 4,44 4,37 4,25 4,18 4,39 3,83 4,26 3,59 4,20 55 15,A 1 633 115 3,87 3,66 3,71 3,89 3,95 3,89 4,58 4,45 4,38 4,36 4,29 3,79 4,30 3,82 4,26 Total 3,87 3,66 3,71 3,89 3,95 3,89 4,58 4,45 4,38 4,36 4,29 3,79 4,30 3,82 4,26 56 20 6 571 121 3,80 3,76 3,47 3,48 3,76 3,85 4,40 4,42 3,91 4,09 4,56 3,86 4,29 3,73 4,13 42 3 730 120 3,84 3,65 3,56 3,58 3,64 3,71 4,60 4,51 4,05 4,15 4,42 3,87 4,22 3,68 4,18 Total 3,81 3,72 3,50 3,52 3,72 3,80 4,47 4,45 3,96 4,11 4,51 3,86 4,26 3,71 4,14 57 39 5 911 114 3,71 3,64 3,60 3,53 3,60 3,57 4,35 4,40 3,83 3,91 4,61 3,71 4,32 3,62 4,08 45 2 913 120 3,72 3,46 3,67 3,84 3,86 3,88 4,39 4,45 3,96 4,27 4,42 3,72 4,41 3,72 4,18 Total 3,71 3,58 3,62 3,63 3,69 3,67 4,36 4,42 3,87 4,03 4,55 3,71 4,35 3,66 4,12 58 40 4 308 119 3,91 3,64 3,63 3,97 3,96 4,00 4,49 4,50 4,16 4,17 4,51 3,98 4,24 3,83 4,25 Total 3,91 3,64 3,63 3,97 3,96 4,00 4,49 4,50 4,16 4,17 4,51 3,98 4,24 3,83 4,25 60 73 5 830 131 3,65 3,31 3,43 3,54 3,42 3,44 4,40 4,31 3,96 3,99 4,33 3,72 4,36 3,45 4,08 Total 3,65 3,31 3,43 3,54 3,42 3,44 4,40 4,31 3,96 3,99 4,33 3,72 4,36 3,45 4,08 61 74 1 931 120 3,70 3,56 3,55 3,72 3,63 3,60 4,48 4,24 3,91 3,98 4,44 3,60 4,40 3,61 4,10 Total 3,70 3,56 3,55 3,72 3,63 3,60 4,48 4,24 3,91 3,98 4,44 3,60 4,40 3,61 4,10 62 75A 1 083 109 3,65 3,53 3,72 3,90 3,78 3,74 4,80 4,38 4,43 4,08 4,49 3,67 4,21 3,68 4,25 76A,B 2 995 129 3,80 3,50 3,58 4,03 3,65 3,65 4,76 4,43 4,38 3,81 4,49 3,74 4,20 3,64 4,23 77A 3 542 144 3,84 3,67 3,70 3,77 3,52 3,63 4,60 4,36 4,28 4,07 4,32 3,57 4,13 3,67 4,14 Total 3,80 3,58 3,66 3,89 3,61 3,65 4,69 4,39 4,34 3,97 4,41 3,65 4,17 3,66 4,19 63 80 5 427 122 3,66 3,68 3,62 3,77 3,66 3,77 4,41 4,39 4,28 4,18 4,33 3,73 4,18 3,68 4,16 81,B 4 183 186 3,81 3,61 3,51 3,98 3,55 3,61 4,72 4,54 4,46 4,31 4,40 3,66 4,28 3,62 4,29 82 5 360 125 3,69 3,58 3,46 3,73 3,57 3,61 4,47 4,52 4,36 4,26 4,17 3,80 4,25 3,58 4,20 Total 3,71 3,62 3,53 3,81 3,60 3,67 4,52 4,48 4,36 4,24 4,29 3,74 4,23 3,63 4,21 26 Passengers satisfaction with public transport services in Helsinki in 2008

1. Drivers' 2. Drivers' 3. Drivers' 4. Punctuality 5. Vehicle 6. Travel 8. Seat 9. Timetable 10. Travel 11. Transfer 12. Order, 13. Waiting 14. Information Total Object Line Boardings N service information skway of driving tidiness comfort availability suitability smoothness conditions safety conditions availibility Operator System 64 53 412 61 4,12 4,19 4,01 4,24 4,19 4,19 4,98 4,82 4,58 4,33 4,82 4,02 4,43 4,14 4,53 Total 4,12 4,19 4,01 4,24 4,19 4,19 4,98 4,82 4,58 4,33 4,82 4,02 4,43 4,14 4,53 65 54 3 282 175 3,75 3,59 3,64 3,81 3,64 3,61 4,47 4,45 4,22 4,00 4,56 3,72 4,31 3,65 4,19 Total 3,75 3,59 3,64 3,81 3,64 3,61 4,47 4,45 4,22 4,00 4,56 3,72 4,31 3,65 4,19 66 41 3 677 125 3,88 3,65 3,69 3,97 3,72 3,71 4,56 4,58 4,12 4,20 4,57 3,75 4,36 3,73 4,26 43 5 571 121 3,69 3,32 3,52 3,69 3,68 3,71 4,44 4,48 3,91 4,14 4,48 3,76 4,31 3,58 4,15 47 852 118 3,81 3,46 3,70 3,59 3,70 3,59 4,56 4,54 4,22 4,20 4,70 3,62 4,38 3,65 4,23 Total 3,77 3,45 3,60 3,78 3,70 3,70 4,49 4,52 4,01 4,17 4,53 3,74 4,33 3,64 4,20 67 69 6 077 131 3,78 3,59 3,65 3,59 3,79 3,80 4,61 4,56 4,00 4,02 4,45 3,83 4,26 3,72 4,17 Total 3,78 3,59 3,65 3,59 3,79 3,80 4,61 4,56 4,00 4,02 4,45 3,83 4,26 3,72 4,17 68 75 5 878 120 3,67 3,75 3,54 3,69 3,77 3,72 4,47 4,48 4,00 3,93 4,45 3,75 4,17 3,69 4,12 77 4 630 137 3,81 3,59 3,66 3,75 3,64 3,71 4,44 4,40 4,27 4,09 4,24 3,98 4,23 3,68 4,18 Total 3,73 3,68 3,59 3,72 3,71 3,72 4,46 4,44 4,12 4,00 4,36 3,85 4,20 3,69 4,14 69 16 2 582 120 3,77 3,38 3,56 3,31 3,84 3,83 4,76 4,47 4,05 4,10 4,53 3,50 4,24 3,68 4,12 Total 3,77 3,38 3,56 3,31 3,84 3,83 4,76 4,47 4,05 4,10 4,53 3,50 4,24 3,68 4,12 70 55,A 4 271 118 3,87 3,67 3,68 3,56 3,98 4,01 4,38 4,46 3,98 4,20 4,49 3,84 4,24 3,84 4,14 Total 3,87 3,67 3,68 3,56 3,98 4,01 4,38 4,46 3,98 4,20 4,49 3,84 4,24 3,84 4,14 71 18 8 287 179 3,81 3,78 3,68 3,38 3,95 3,96 4,34 4,41 3,71 4,04 4,59 3,88 4,34 3,84 4,09 Total 3,81 3,78 3,68 3,38 3,95 3,96 4,34 4,41 3,71 4,04 4,59 3,88 4,34 3,84 4,09 72 83 1 399 126 4,14 3,60 4,04 4,18 4,34 4,19 4,84 4,36 4,46 4,17 4,56 3,83 4,27 4,06 4,33 Total 4,14 3,60 4,04 4,18 4,34 4,19 4,84 4,36 4,46 4,17 4,56 3,83 4,27 4,06 4,33 73 92 3 732 121 3,68 3,47 3,50 3,64 3,47 3,61 4,40 4,27 4,32 4,10 4,22 3,56 4,15 3,55 4,08 94,V 4 331 129 3,72 3,52 3,66 3,70 3,39 3,54 4,40 4,38 4,20 3,97 4,31 3,71 4,16 3,57 4,10 94A 3 300 117 3,63 3,47 3,58 3,84 3,67 3,56 4,69 4,48 4,41 4,09 4,25 4,03 4,10 3,58 4,24 94B 3 185 48 3,67 3,39 3,56 4,00 3,77 3,68 4,71 4,38 4,50 3,94 4,27 3,46 4,06 3,61 4,17 95 2 465 122 3,87 3,63 3,61 3,54 3,48 3,58 4,30 4,26 4,15 4,02 4,25 3,54 4,12 3,63 4,02 97,V 2 787 246 3,67 3,36 3,60 3,83 3,53 3,53 4,60 4,28 4,16 4,14 4,17 3,65 4,27 3,54 4,14 Total 3,70 3,47 3,59 3,76 3,54 3,58 4,51 4,35 4,29 4,04 4,25 3,67 4,14 3,58 4,13 74 63 5 303 133 3,76 3,54 3,72 3,70 3,83 3,76 4,51 4,51 4,08 4,28 4,57 4,06 4,31 3,72 4,25 Total 3,76 3,54 3,72 3,70 3,83 3,76 4,51 4,51 4,08 4,28 4,57 4,06 4,31 3,72 4,25 75 68,X 3 789 121 3,85 3,53 3,64 3,87 3,84 3,82 4,70 4,45 4,08 4,07 4,57 3,93 4,53 3,74 4,28 71 7 917 108 3,70 3,63 3,60 3,90 3,82 3,74 4,36 4,52 4,16 4,23 4,41 3,99 4,45 3,70 4,25 71V 901 63 3,78 3,64 3,52 4,04 3,62 3,56 4,55 4,53 4,17 3,88 4,61 3,73 4,40 3,62 4,24 Total 3,75 3,60 3,61 3,90 3,81 3,75 4,48 4,50 4,14 4,16 4,47 3,95 4,47 3,70 4,26 Passengers satisfaction with public transport services in Helsinki in 2008 27