Budapest Transport Closely Held Corporation. Customer satisfaction & customer relationship management at BKV in Budapest

Átírás

1 Budapest Transport Closely Held Corporation Customer satisfaction & customer relationship management at BKV in Budapest April 17, 2008

2 Actualities and forecast of modalsplit and motorization Legend: Budapest region Automobile/1000 inhabitants Year individual public transport 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

3 BKV s network and statistics Number of passengers carried: billion / year bus 41.3% tram 26.3% metro and underground 22.0% Trolley bus 5.9% suburban railway 4.5% Inhabitants: 1,863,000 people Fare revenues: billion HUF ~ 181,466,000 euro Outputs: 5.44 billion passengerkm / year 21.3 billion seatkm / year

4 BKV s network and statistics Service in the 28 surrounding settlements Length of total network: km 233 bus lines 28 tram lines 14 trolleybus lines 3 metro lines 4 suburban railway lines Average circulation speed: 16.5 km/h Number of stops: 4,924 Total number of headcount: 12,679

5 Household surveying area 164 zones in Budapest 24 surrounding settlements served by BKV Together 50,627 households

6 Sampling households in Budapest and its surrounding 1 dot = 5 households Survey method: CAPI - Computer Aided Personal Interview Number of households Within Budapest Outside Budapest Weekdays 30, % 7, % Weekends 7, % 3, %

7 Specific number of trips according to the age and the vehicle ownership Average in Budapest: 2,26 Legend Number of cars in the household: 0 1 >1 together

8 Average journey distance Average journey distance: Budapest: 6,87 kms/journey Whole surveying area: 7,01 kms/journey

9 Mobility characteristic Mobility is greater in Budapest than in the surroundings; in the city, than in the suburban region; in households with car; in active population; among young people (19-39 years old); people using mobile phone or internet. Mobility doesn t closely depend on incomes Summary: a competitive city with competitive people claims more mobility.

10 Modal split (at weekdays) % I. II. III. IV. V. VI. VII. VIII. S-W Buda IX. X. XI. XII. XIII. XIV. XV. XVI. XVII. XVIII. XIX. XX. XXI. XXII. XXIII. Budapest N-W Buda N-E Pest S-E Pest Suburban together Alltogether

11 Factors affecting modal split Modal split is 61-39% in Budapest on weekdays On weekends and by the town border crossing movements public transport rate is under 50% => increased competition 50-70% of passengers have chance to choose between transport modes => competition is undecided, balance between transport modes Inelasticity of disclaiming of car using

12 Passenger circulation figure I. weekdays weekends Passenger/day/2 directions

13 Passenger circulation figure II. Scale: Passengers/day/2 directions

14 Procession of journeys schedule Legend Budapest surroundings

15 To what extent are you satisfied with BKV regarding the following elements of services? 1. keeping the timetable 6. number of BKV-lines 11. cleanliness of vehicles & stops 2. calculatability of journey times 7. frequency 12. safety in vehicles & stops 3. crowdedness in vehicles 8. price of tickets & passes 13. staff behaviour 4. number of neccessary transfers 9. discounts 14. level of passenger information 5. choice of tickets & passes 10. possibilities to buy a ticket 15. image of BKV car driver other traveller Budapest 4 3,5 3 satisfaction 2,5 2 1,5 1 0,

16 Under which circumstances would you be ready to use PT instead of car? better passenger information Budapest, szgk. modern vehicles much cheaper PT faster PT less transfer more frequent PT more metro lines better comfort 0,00 5,00 10,00 15,00 20,00 25,00 30,00 35,00 40,00 45,00 %

17 How would you buy your season ticket? Legend current system is good transfer bank automat SMS don t have season ticket

18 Try with this! What do you mean about fare dodgers?

19 Why do you mostly use car? (as driver) other 100% have to move a lot 80% 60% faster 40% more comfortable 20% becouse of the job 0% Buda Pest N-W Buda district S-W Buda district N-E Pest district S-E Pest district

20 Would you mind using P+R facilities?

21 Results and conclusions Mostly home-based trips (85%) => compliance of public transportation depends on reaching residential zones 16% of passengers rightly traveling free of charge P+R system has big reserve Mostly proper with current ticket office system (47%) Needs for modern systems like SMS and transfer Highly tolerating fare dodgers

22 TravelSmart in Budapest Pilot project initiated by BKV, focus on PT Project title: Choose public transport! Sept 2007 Febr 2008 Based on TravelSmart experience in Western- Europe (soft measures, communication) Sample areas of recent PT developments 2000 households contacted. Each is car owner! Finally, 241 households took part in the whole process Regular, detailed notes on all actual PT trips were required during the research period! 342 travelling diaries

23 TravelSmart in Budapest General aims: less car transport, more PT, modal shift on individual level Direct aims to give information on PT services to potential users to get information on attitudes to get feedback on recent PT developments Motivation package: leaflet, gifts, timetables of local lines, travelling diary, 20 single tickets free (mostly appreciated) Interviews in each participant household: face to face: 1st, 3rd by phone: 2nd Personal communication was highly acknowledged by the participants

24 Results Attitudes Satisfaction: Metro, suburban rail, tram The biggest advantages of PT 1st: no worry about parking 2nd: you can listen to sg else Who refused to participate: They don t see relationship between number of cars and congested transport Car-owners think that PT promotion is an intervention to their private life! Night PT services highly ranked

25 Results - Attitudes Ha az ember BKV-val utazik, legalább nem kell aggódnia a parkolás miatt. Ha az ember BKV-val közlekedik, akkor utazás közben tud másra is figyelni. Ha többen használnák a BKV-t, kevesebb lenne a dugó, és kevésbé and károsítanánk less harmful a környezetet. effects on environment Ha már egyszer dugóban If there kell is állni, already jobb kocsiban a congestion, ülni, mint másokkal then összezsúfolódva. it is better to sit in a car If you use PT you don t need to worry about parking If you use PT you can listen to sg else during the journey If more people used PT it would bring less congestion Riding bike in Bp is a madness Buying PT ticket/pass is still cheaper Budapesten biciklivel közlekedni őrültség. Még mindig olcsóbb a BKV jegyet, bérletet megvásárolni, mint egy kocsit fenntartani. than maintaining a car It is Rossz bad látni, to see hogy that szinte only minden 1 person autóban sits csak in egy-egy each ember car. utazik. Aki fontos pozíciót tölt be, nem If teheti you meg, have hogy an bizonyos important helyekre job you can t use PT e.g. to reach a meeting place (pl. tárgyalásra) BKV-val Mióta új, tisztább, alacsonypadlós járművek is közlekednek (pl. Volvo busz,) vonzóbb a közösségi have közlekedés been introduced Budapesten. Az autó nemcsak közlekedési eszköz, hanem az ember társadalmi rangját is mutatja. PT has been more attractive in Bp since low floor vehicles Car is not only a transport mode, it represents your place in the society. Nowadays only those people use PT who can t afford a car & fuel Bp still has a better PT than many European cities. Manapság csak az ül BKV-ra, akinek nem futja autóra, benzinre. Budapesten még ma is sokkal jobb a közösségi közlekedés, mint sok más európai városban % 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Teljesen Fully egyetért agree Inkább Rather egyetért agree Inkább Rather nem ért disagree egyet Egyáltalán Fully nem disagree ért egyet nt/nv No answer Don t know

26 Results Willingness to change Yes, if More P+R Price proportional to journey length Less transfer is needed from one PT line to another Better frequency of PT services rather hard measures

27 Results Willingness to change If there will ha több be P+R more parkoló P&R lenne Ha a rövidebb If you utazásokra should kevesebbet pay less kellene for fizetni, a shorter mint a hosszabbakra. journey If you needed less transfer ha kevesebbszer between kellene lines átszállni If services had gyakrabban a better járnának frequency a járatok If ha there kisebb lenne will a be zsúfoltság less crowd a közösségi on közlekedési PT vehicles járatokon ha a közösségi If közlekedés PT will gyorsabb be faster lenne If congestions ha súlyosabbá will become válnának a more közúti forgalmi serious dugók If vehicles ha will a járművek be more kényelmesebbek comfortable lennének ha a közlekedési If interchanges csomópontok will akadálymentesítve be barrier-free lennének ha a közlekedési csomópontok If interchanges tisztábbak, rendezettebbek will be cleaner lennének If parking will be more ha drágulna expensive a parkolás ha If a PT közösségi will be közlekedés better társadalmilag accepted elfogadottabb generally lenne % 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Would use PT surely more biztosan gyakrabban valószínűleg Likely gyakrabban more often ez It nem doesn t számítanamatter nt/nv often No answer Don t know

28 Future target groups Who would mostly accept and take part in such a project: Women, especially young mothers Middle-aged couples, families Middle-class people Students about getting the driving licence but still having a student pass

29 Follow up In this research we found: people want rather hard measures Potential impacts of better communication is still to be measured Participants made some suggestions and wait for the realization. If they won t see progress, they will feel that this project was useless! How to take into account? Advanced methodology would be helpful for the optimal use of feedbacks

30 A next project could Be longer Follow up Have a bigger sample Extend the geographical area Involve other transport modes, stakeholders, institutions Put more emphasis on environmental issues and sustainability Have more and refined questions whether individual modal shift could be achieved by soft measures only

31 Budapest Transport Closely Held Corporation Thank you for your attention!