Bus Mystery Traveller Survey Full-year Results 2010/2011

2

Contents

Page

1. Introduction 3

2. Methodology 4

3. Key results 5

4. Results, tables and charts 2010/11 7

5. Technical annex - Mystery Traveller Survey 15

3

1. Introduction

Passenger Focus is an independent public body set up by the Government to protect the interests of Britain’s rail passengers and England’s bus passengers outside Lon-don, coach passengers on scheduled domestic services and tram passengers. We are funded by the Department for Transport but our operations and policy-making are inde-pendent of government.

As part of Passenger Focus acquiring the remit for bus passenger representation, Passenger Focus took over management and publication of the Bus Mystery Traveller Survey from the DfT in April 2009.

Each quarter, 1200 journeys are assessed by ‘mystery travellers’. Mystery travellers are researchers trained to assess aspects of the journey objectively and consistently. Ob-jectivity was enhanced by a training video and assessor briefing notes. The work was carried out across nine urban areas: the six Passenger Transport Executive (PTE) areas of Greater Manchester, Merseyside, South Yorkshire, West Yorkshire, West Midlands and Tyne and Wear; and three non PTE areas: Bristol, Nottingham and Leicester. The areas of Bristol, Nottingham and Leicester are grouped for reporting under the title of ‘Non PTE’ areas.

The journeys were chosen to give good coverage of the urban centres and outer area journeys and include as many operators and services as possible, particularly the more frequent services.

The DfT first commissioned this work in 2006 to address concerns that the high scores achieved in bus passenger satisfaction research reflected low expectations on the part of bus passengers. Results of the Bus Mystery Traveller Survey have been published annually since 2007-08. In addition to annual results, Passenger Focus now publishes results biannually.

4

2. Methodology

This report presents the key results from the Bus Mystery Traveller Survey for the full financial year 2010-2011, comprising four quarters of approximately 1200 journeys each.

Mystery travellers complete a questionnaire for each journey. The questions cover the environment at the bus stop, the bus itself, the punctuality, quality of the journey and the behaviour of the driver. Rating questions have scales from 0 to 10, with defined marking systems to enhance objectivity and consistency across the survey. The 0 to 10 scores are then multiplied by 10 to give a ‘points out of 100’ score. The ‘points out of 100’ score enables comparison with some of the scores from the DfT Bus Satisfaction Survey.

5

3. Key results

Overall (see Table 1)

• Overall scores are largely similar to those achieved in 2009/10.• Assessors rated bus journeys highly, with ‘overall satisfaction’ scoring 78 points out

of 100 compared to 79 in 2009/10.• The highest overall ratings were given for the ‘overall level of graffiti on the bus

exterior’ and the ‘clarity of the route number/destination on the front of the bus’ with scores of 98 and 97 points respectively out of 100 for both indicators.

• The composite indicators for ‘ease of boarding/alighting’ and ‘exterior cleanliness’ scored highly at 88 and 86 points respectively out of 100 each.

• The lowest rating was given for the ‘helpfulness of driver and consideration for passengers’ at 66 points out of 100, followed by ‘cleanliness of bus stop/shelter’ at 72 points out of 100.

• There were limited differences in ‘overall satisfaction’ across different areas, with scores ranging from 74 points out of 100 to 82 out of 100. Tyne and Wear continues to be the highest scoring area for overall satisfaction.

Bus stop information (see Table 3)

• Across all areas 79 per cent of bus stops had shelters.• The majority of bus stops had timetable information. Where there was a shelter

present, 96 per cent had a legible timetable. For bus stops without a shelter, 85 per cent had legible timetable information.

• A minority of (24%) bus stops have countdown displays. These countdown displays were working correctly in the majority of cases.

Quality of driving and driver behaviour (see Table 6)

• Scores for ‘appropriateness of speed’ were higher at 80 points out of 100 than those given for ‘general smoothness of ride’ at 74 points out of 100. Scores for both of these indicators do not appear to be greatly affected by the type of weather or by bus type.

• The score for ‘helpfulness of driver and consideration for passengers’ for all areas is 66 points out of 100 (Table 1). The type of question asked of the driver does not appear to noticeably affect this score. As per 2009/10, the score for ‘helpfulness of driver and consideration for passengers’ is lowest in the West Midlands at 57 points out of 100 and highest in South Yorkshire and Tyne & Wear at 78 points out of 100.

666

Punctuality (see Table 7)

• Overall 81 per cent of buses arrived within the punctuality window of one minute early to five minutes late – a one point increase on the 2009/10 results. Overall 10 per cent of buses were early and 9 per cent late. The percentage of buses arriving on time was highest in Tyne & Wear and the Non PTE areas at 91 per cent - (see Table 7). The percentage of late running buses was highest during the 15:00 to 15:59 period (see Table 8).

• As 2009/10, the overall satisfaction scores were lower when buses were late. Scores remained the same regardless of whether the buses were early or on time (see Table 10).

Litter (see Table 9)

• The ‘level of litter’ on the bus tended to increase throughout the day, with the average score for all areas decreasing from a score of 90 out of 100 between 07:00-07:59 to a low of 67 out of 100 between 18:00-18:59 (see Table 9). Increasing absence of litter is represented by increasingly higher points out of 100 scores.

4. Results Tables and Charts for 2010-2011

Table 1: Average scores for all indicators by area

All Areas Gtr-Man

Mersey-side

South Yorks

Tyne & Wear

West Mids

West Yorks

Non PTE

Areas

General measuresYour overall satisfaction with this bus trip 78 78 76 78 82 74 81 77Cleanliness of bus stop / shelter 72 73 79 79 81 61 72 69Helpfulness of driver & consideration for passengers 66 64 63 78 78 57 69 62Appropriateness of Speed 80 79 75 82 81 75 86 83General smoothness of ride 74 73 69 79 77 71 77 74Level of graffiti (bus interior) 88 89 90 94 89 80 87 90Presence of etching on windows (bus interior) 91 95 97 96 90 78 92 95

CrowdingAvailability of lower deck seating 79 81 73 80 74 81 84 82Availability of upper deck seating 91 89 * * * 91 93 94Crowding - composite measure 82 82 74 81 75 83 86 85

Interior cleanlinessCleanliness of seating 77 76 76 83 83 69 75 81Cleanliness of windows (bus interior) 73 78 80 77 82 58 73 69Level of litter (bus interior) 76 74 78 74 79 75 78 80Interior cleanliness - composite measure 75 76 78 78 81 68 75 77

Clarity of route number / destinationClarity of route number / destination - front 97 98 91 95 96 97 99 98Clarity of route number / destination blinds - back 92 94 86 92 96 90 96 92Clarity of route number / destination - composite measure 94 96 89 94 96 93 98 95

Exterior cleanlinessOverall cleanliness of exterior - front, side and back 74 76 80 80 83 62 82 66Overall level of graffiti on bus exterior 98 98 98 100 98 97 95 99Exterior cleanliness - composite measure 86 87 89 90 91 80 89 83

Ease of boarding / alightingCloseness of bus to kerb - boarding 87 87 83 93 90 82 92 84Closeness of bus to bus stop - boarding 91 87 84 91 90 92 95 95Closeness of bus to kerb - alighting 87 86 83 92 90 84 94 84Ease of boarding / alighting - composite measure 88 87 84 92 90 86 94 88

7

Chart 1: Overall satisfaction scores by area, 2010-2011

Chart 2: Average overall scores for selected indicators, 2010-2011

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

All Areas Tyne & Wear West Yorks Gtr. Man South Yorks Non PTE Merseyside West Mids

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Your overall satisfaction with this bus trip

Helpfulness of driver and consideration for

Interior cleanliness (composite measure)

Crowding (composite measure)

Exterior cleanliness (composite measure)

Ease of boarding / alighting - composite measure

Clarity of route number / destination (composite

)

8

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

All Areas Tyne & Wear West Yorks Gtr. Man South Yorks Non PTE Merseyside West Mids

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Your overall satisfaction with this bus trip

Helpfulness of driver and consideration for

passengers

Interior cleanliness (composite measure)

Crowding (composite measure)

Exterior cleanliness (composite measure)

Ease of boarding / alighting - composite measure

Clarity of route number / destination (composite

measure)

8

Table 2: Average scores for key indicators in comparison with BPSS, 2010-2011 *

Mystery TravellerSurvey (MTS)

Bus PassengerSatisfaction Survey

(BPSS)

Difference (BPSS -BMTS)

Overall satisfaction 78 Not availableCleanliness at the bus stop 72 Not availableDriver behaviour and attitude 66 Not availableCrowding 82 Not availableInterior cleanliness 75 Not availableExterior cleanliness 86 Not availableSmoothness and freedom from jolting 74 Not available

* See Technical Appendix.

9

Table 3: Bus stop information, 2010-2011

All Areas Gtr-Man

Mersey-side

South Yorks

Tyne & Wear

West Mids

West Yorks

Non PTE

Areas

Shelters at Bus StopsBus stops without shelters 21% 31% 17% 33% 5% 15% 21% 21%Bus stops with shelters 79% 69% 83% 67% 95% 85% 79% 79%

Bus stops without sheltersNo timetable available 14% 23% * 6% * 9% 16% 18%Timetable available 86% 77% * 94% * 91% 84% 82%

Of which not legible 1% 2% * 0% * 2% 3% 0%Of which legible 85% 75% * 94% * 89% 81% 82%

Bus stops with sheltersNo timetable available 3% 2% 3% 6% 2% 3% 4% 2%Timetable available 97% 98% 97% 94% 98% 97% 96% 98%

Of which not legible 1% 1% 1% 2% 1% 1% 3% 1%Of which legible 96% 97% 96% 92% 97% 97% 93% 97%

Countdown display information (all bus stops)No countdown display present 76% 97% 86% 65% 81% 74% 54% 72%Present 24% 3% 14% 35% 19% 26% 46% 28%

Present but not working 3% * * 2% 1% 4% 3% 4%Present and working correctly 21% * * 32% 18% 22% 43% 24%

* sample size too small for analysis (less than 100)

Table 4: Ticketing 2010-2011

All Areas Gtr-Man

Mersey-side

South Yorks

Tyne & Wear

West Mids

West Yorks

Non PTE

Areas

Cash faresCorrect ticket issued 99% 98% 100% 99% 100% 99% 98% 99%Incorrect ticket issued 1% 2% 0% 1% 0% 1% 2% 1%

Day pass/ other non cash faresBoarding recorded 93% 87% 68% 100% 99% 98% 92% 97%Boarding not recorded 7% 13% 32% 0% 1% 2% 8% 3%

10

Table 5 - Accessibility 2010-2011

All Areas Gtr-Man

Mersey-side

South Yorks

Tyne & Wear

West Mids

West Yorks

Non PTE

Areas

Boarding

Bus stop obstructed (boarding)Stop was obstructed 2% 2% 1% 2% 3% 4% 2% 2%Stop was not obstructed 98% 98% 99% 98% 97% 96% 98% 98%

Stop was obstructed (boarding)Closeness of bus to kerb 64 * * * * * * *Closeness of bus door to stop 67 * * * * * * *

Stop was not obstructed (boarding)Closeness of bus to kerb 87 87 83 93 90 82 92 84Closeness of bus door to stop 91 87 84 91 90 92 95 95

Alighting

Bus stop obstructedStop was obstructed 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 4%Stop was not obstructed 98% 98% 98% 98% 98% 98% 98% 96%

Stop was obstructedCloseness of bus to kerb (alighting) 71 * * * * * * *

Stop was not obstructed (boarding)Closeness of bus to kerb (alighting) 87 86 83 92 90 84 94 84

* sample size too small for analysis (less than 100)

11

Table 6: Driver behaviour and quality of ride, 2010-2011

All Areas Gtr-Man

Mersey-side

South Yorks

Tyne & Wear

West Mids

West Yorks

Non PTE

Areas

General smoothness of ride (overall) 74 73 69 79 77 71 77 74

By weather conditionsDry 74 74 69 79 78 72 76 75Some rain 73 * * * 75 69 * *Heavy rain 74 * * * * * * *Other 70 * * * * * * *

By type of busSingle decker Hoppa Midi 73 71 69 78 76 70 78 72Articulated Bus * * * * * * * *Double Decker 76 77 * 81 * 72 76 77

Appropriate of speed (overall) 80 79 75 82 81 75 86 83

By weather conditionsDry 80 80 74 82 82 75 86 84Some rain 79 * * * 80 73 * *Heavy rain 79 * * * * * * *Other 77 * * * * * * *

By type of busSingle decker Hoppa Midi 79 78 74 81 80 74 87 82Articulated Bus * * * * * * * *Double Decker 82 81 * 85 * 76 85 85

Helpfulness of driver and consideration for passengersWhat time is the last bus back from …? 77 * * * * * * *Does this bus go close to … e.g. station? 64 63 63 78 76 58 60 61Where can I get a bus timetable for this route? 70 * * * * * * *How long will it take to get to …? 66 * * 78 82 54 66 *Does this service run on a Sunday? 72 * * * * 65 * *How much is a day pass? 68 * * * * * * *Other 59 * * * * * * *

* sample size too small for analysis (less than 100)

Table 7: Punctuality, 2010-2011

All Areas Gtr-Man

Mersey-side

South Yorks

Tyne & Wear

West Mids

West Yorks

Non PTE

Areas

Early 10% 19% 17% 5% 2% 11% 7% 4%On Time 81% 68% 76% 83% 91% 81% 80% 91%Late 9% 14% 7% 12% 7% 9% 12% 5%

** on time is defined as between one minute before and five minutes after the time scheduled

12

Chart 3: Punctuality by area, 2010-2011

Table 8: Percentage of buses running Table 9: Score for litter in bus by timelate by time of day, 2010-2011 of day, 2010-2011

Time of dayPercentage of buses running late - all areas

Time of day Score for litter in bus - all areas

07:00-07:59 8% 07:00-07:59 9008:00-08:59 10% 08:00-08:59 8209:00-09:59 8% 09:00-09:59 80

10:00-10:59 7% 10:00-10:59 7811:00-11:59 7% 11:00-11:59 7712:00-12:59 7% 12:00-12:59 77

13:00-13:59 9% 13:00-13:59 7514:00-14:59 8% 14:00-14:59 7415:00-15:59 15% 15:00-15:59 73

16:00-16:59 14% 16:00-16:59 69

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

All Areas Gtr. Man Merseyside South Yorks Tyne & Wear West Mids West Yorks Non PTE

Early

On Time

Late

13

16:00-16:59 14% 16:00-16:59 6917:00-17:59 11% 17:00-17:59 7018:00-18:59 8% 18:00-18:59 67

13

Table 10: Overall satisfaction, 2010-2011

All Areas Gtr-Man

Mersey-side

South Yorks

Tyne & Wear

West Mids

West Yorks

Non PTE

Areas

Overall satisfaction with this bus trip, 2010-2011 78 78 76 78 82 74 81 77

Overall satisfaction for trips made from bus stops:Without a shelter 77 78 * 77 * 74 80 75With a shelter 78 79 76 79 82 74 82 77

Overall satisfaction for trips made where the bus arrived:Early 78 79 * * * * * *On Time 78 79 77 79 82 73 84 77Late 72 * * * * * * *

Overall satisfaction for trips made from bus stops where:A timetable was not available 75 * * * * * * *A timetable was available but illegible * * * * * * * *A timetable was available and legible 78 79 75 78 82 74 82 77

Overall satisfaction for trips made from bus stops where:A countdown display was not present 77 78 75 79 82 74 82 75A countdown display was present but not working 76 * * * * * * *A countdown display was present and working correctly 79 * * 78 * 75 81 82

* sample size too small for analysis (less than 100)

14

5. Technical Annex

The report produces five composite measures. These are based on the results of the component measures shown in the table below. The composite measure is an arithmetic average of the summated results for the component measures, thus if one component measure has a great number of results, it will have a proportionately greater influence on the average. A detailed technical appendix on how the survey is conducted is available on the Passenger Focus website.

Composite measure Component measures

Crowding Availability of lower deck seatingAvailability of upper deck seating

Interior cleanliness Cleanliness of windows (bus interior)Cleanliness of the seatingLevel of litter (bus interior)

Clarity of route number/destination Clarity of route number/destination - frontClarity of route number/destination blinds - back

Exterior cleanliness Overall cleanliness of exterior - front, side and backOverall level of graffiti on bus exterior

Ease of boarding/alighting Closeness of bus to kerb - boardingCloseness of bus door to bus stop - boardingCloseness of bus to kerb - alighting

Comparison of Mystery Traveller and Bus Passenger Satisfaction Surveys

Some indicators from the Bus Passenger Satisfaction Survey (BPSS) can be usefully compared to the more objective Mystery Traveller Survey (MTS) and a comparison is shown in Table 2. It should be noted that the correspondence between the indicators from the two surveys is not exact:

• Satisfaction with ‘cleanliness at the bus stop’ as measured in the BPSS takes into account any graffiti that may be present. Graffiti is explicitly excluded from the score given by MTS assessors.

• The satisfaction with ‘comfort on the bus’ given by respondents to the BPSS has been compared to the composite indicator for ‘crowding’ taken from the MTS. The MTS measure for ‘crowding’ is based on the scores given for availability of seating on the bus

• The ‘interior cleanliness’ score given for the MTS is a composite, while the score for the BPSS is a single indicator

• The ‘exterior cleanliness’ score for both indicators includes graffiti.

15

777

© 2011 Passenger Focus

Passenger Focus Freepost (RRRE-ETTC-LEET) PO Box 4257 Manchester M60 3AR

0300 123 2350 www.passengerfocus.org.uk info@passengerfocus.org.uk

Passenger Focus is the operating name of the Passengers’ Council