final report for glk lpt csi final report 2014.pdf · klang/shah alam 2.58 300 775 damansara 1.09...
TRANSCRIPT
1
Final Report for GLK LPT CSI
© 2014 Ipsos. All rights reserved. Contains Ipsos' Confidential and Proprietary information and may not be disclosed or reproduced without the prior written consent of Ipsos.
Ipsos Loyalty
Prepared for:
14-071934-01 P. Speedy 2_Full Report_Final_v3
January 2015
2
Table of contents
Research Overview
Public Transport Users
Non-Public Transport Users
Perception of Public Transport
1
2
3
4
5 Awareness of SPAD
6 Executive Summary
3
4
Research Background and Objectives
One of our country’s aspirations is to transform Kuala Lumpur to one of the 20 most liveable
cities in the world. And to achieve this aspiration, one very important step would be to ensure
that an efficient and effective public transport system is in place.
With this objective in mind, SPAD would like to understand the general perception on what
most people currently think about the public transport system in Kuala Lumpur and how to
further improve on the public transport system to help achieve the target.
5
Research Design
Coverage: Selected Corridor line in Kuala Lumpur (Ampang,
Cheras, Kajang, Seri Kembangan, Klang, Shah Alam,
Damansara, Sungai Buloh, Kepong, Selayang, Rawang
and Ulu Kelang)
Sample Definition: (1). Public Transport Users
(those who have used any mode of public
transportation in the past 3 months)
(2). Non-Public Transport Users
(those who have not used any mode of public transport
in the last 3 months)
Methodology: Face to face interview using computer tablet
Sample Size: Total sample size: N=2,462
Public Transport Users (n=1,645)
Non-Public Transport Users (n=817)
Length of Interview: Approximately 15 minutes
Fieldwork Period: 24-Nov-2014 till 2-Jan-2015
6
Target Achievement vs. Actual Achievement
Corridor Line PT Users TargetPT Users Achieved
Non-PT Users Target
Non-PT Users Achieved
Ampang/Ulu Kelang 200 200 100 100
Cheras/Kajang 200 207 100 100
Seri Kembangan 200 200 100 107
Klang/Shah Alam 200 200 100 100
Damansara 200 215 100 100
Sungai Buloh/ Kepong 200 211 100 100
Selayang/Rawang 200 205 100 108
Ulu Klang 200 207 100 102
TOTAL 1,600 1645 800 817
Peak vs. Non
PeakSurvey Hour
PT User
Target
PT Users
Achieved
Non-PT
Users
Non-PT Users
Achieved
AM Peak 6:00am – 10:00am 400 414 200 211
AM Off-Peak 10:01am-12:00pm 400 411 200 202
PM Off-Peak 2:00pm-4:00pm 400 418 200 202
PM Peak 5:00pm-8:00pm 400 402 200 202
7
Weighting
• Given that population in each corridor line differs we will need to weight the data accordingly
to reflect the universe.
• Please see below the weighting factor applied and actual vs. weighted sample size for each
corridor line
Corridor LineWeighting Factor Unweight Sample
Size
Weighted Sample
Size
Ampang 0.43 300 130
Cheras/ Kajang 0.81 307 248
Seri Kembangan 0.86 307 265
Klang/Shah Alam 2.58 300 775
Damansara 1.09 315 344
Sungai Buloh/ Kepong 0.59 311 184
Selayang /Rawang 1.13 313 354
Ulu Klang 0.52 309 162
Total Sample Size: - 2462 2462
9
10
Improvement is observed in many areas amongst both PT and
non PT users.
Satisfactions by PT , non PT
users and their reasons
PT and non PT users are significantly
happier with the public transports in
Greater Klang Valley as compared to
2013.
The main reasons for people to use
public transports are because
stations are near the user’s house
and they don’t need to worry about
parking issue.
That said, convenience is the most
important reason for PT users to be
satisfied with public transports. And, on
the other hand, punctuality is the
driver of dissatisfaction.
Likewise, these are also the key
reasons why non PT users are not
using PT – don’t like waiting and no
stations near the house / office.
Despite, their perception about PT is
getting better.
Perception about PT
Satisfaction with overall public transport’s information has also
improved significantly, especially KJ Line and KTM. They are
also being perceived as the best across most factors measured
such as value for money, secure and safe, reliable and many
more… Their achievement should be recognized and
appreciated to encourage others to outperform them.
RapidKL Bus and Metrobus, on the other hand, do not posses
positive images. Clean interior, sufficient transport and good
level of security and safety are not being associated highly.
Compared to last year, both PT and non PT users have
significantly better perception on public transports in most
aspects.
Corresponds to the higher satisfaction and better perception, PT
and non PT are more willing to recommend the services to
their associates. This will certainly encourage more people take
up the services and reduce the amount of private transport on
the road.
SPAD awareness
Despite better achievement this year, awareness of SPAD has,
unfortunately, declined. SPAD should undertake more
promotional activities to inform the public about your presence
and initiatives to develop the public transport in Malaysia. This
will also help to improve your image as the Land Public Transport
Commission
11
Frequency of service, interchange & interconnectivity, easy of
journey planning and ease of interchange are the key areas of
focus in order to drive satisfaction. Besides, SPAD can also…
Improve punctuality and
frequency of service to
impress not only PT users
but also to encourage non
PT users to start using it.
Access the feasibility
of having more
stations in housing
and commercial area
so that it’s convenient
for more people.
Advertise SPAD’s
initiative to improve
public awareness,
perception and usage
of public transport
Monitor bus service
(RapidKL Bus and
Metrobus) as they are rated
low in various aspects
(especially staff, cleanliness
and security)
Recognize KJ Line and
KTM’s achievement to
encourage better
performance by everyone
next year. Also to set a
higher benchmark for all.
Avoid crowded condition
(especially during peak
hours) to increase riding
comfort and security by
having more regular service
and sufficient public
transport
Spot check taxi
drivers to ensure
that they are
charging fairly using
meter so that it’s
value for money
Learn from other
developed cities as not
many feel that the PT
network in Kuala Lumpur is
better than in most other
South East Asian capital
cities
12
14
80
6864
69
5449 51
14
7
59
4137
34
25 25
18
41
34
2216
118
52 1 0
RapidKL Bus KTM Komuter KJ Line Taxi Metrobus Ampang Line KL Monorail KLIA Express Airport Coach
Ever Used Past 3 months Most often
There’s significant increment in the usage of most public transport. RapidKL Bus has taken the lead from KTM
to be the most frequent used public transport this year. KJ Line’s most often used have also increased
significantly. This could be due to the extension of sampling point in Kelana Jaya, Petaling Jaya, Setiawangsa
and Wangsa Maju.
Sample Size: Weighted base n=1645Q1a. Have you ever used the following mode of public transport for any kind of purposes? (MA)Q1b. Please let me know which of the following modes of public transport have you used in the past 3 months? (MA)Q1c. Can you please let me know the mode of public transport you use most often? (SA)
Use most often
52 36 20 62 46 31 37 21 8 53 31 14 30 15 7 35 20 10 19 5 1 7 3 1 4 1 02013:
2014:
Public Transport Used
= significantly higher than 2013 at 95% Confidence interval (CI)
= significantly lower than 2013 at 95% Confidence interval (CI)
15Sample Size: Weighted base: N=1645*Public Transport User onlyQ6. Some of reason for using XXX as your most often mode of Public Transport(MA)
Reason for using Public Transport
46% 45% 42% 33% 26% 12%
Cheaper than
driving
Avoid rush
hours traffic
No parking
issueStation near
house / office
No driving
licenseNo private
vehicle
No private vehicle (54%)
Station near house / office
(47%)
Station near house / office
(56%)
No parking issue (59%)
No private vehicle (53%)
No parking issue (59%)
Top reason
for using
most often
used public
transport
Main reason for using public transport is because of convenience – there are stations near users house / office
and no need to worry about parking issue. Bus (RapidKL and Metrobus) users however have different reasons.
17
Customer Satisfaction Index
Sample Size: Weighted base =n=1645*Public Transport user onlyQ12. Using 5 points rating scale, where 1 is not at all satisfied and 5 is very satisfied, hw would you rate the overall satisfaction with public transport available in Kuala Lumpur (SA)
1
1
7
8
44
23
40
54
9
14
2013(n=1637)
2014(n=1645)
Not satisfied at all (1) 2 3 4 Very satisfied (5)
5% are
dissatisfied
18% are
satisfied
86
2014
71
2013
Mean
3.7
3.5
CSI for public transport has improved significantly from 71 last year to 86 this year. Top 2 box has increased by
almost 20%.
CSI = rated 5 + 4 + satisfied 3
18
Overall Satisfaction with each Public Transport
Sample Size: Weighted base: n=1645 (Public Transport Users only)*Small base sizeQ12. Using 5 points rating scale, where 1 is not at all satisfied and 5 is very satisfied, hwwould you rate the overall satisfaction with public transport available in Kuala Lumpur (SA)
65(3.7)
RapidKL Bus
n=57450
(3.5)
CSI 2014: 85
CSI 2013: 72
61(3.6)
KTM
n=26548
(3.5)
CSI 2014: 90
CSI 2013: 72
70(3.7)
Ampang Line
n=124
62(3.7)
CSI 2014: 89
CSI 2013: 79
62(3.6)
KL Monorial
n=23*37
(3.4)
CSI 2014: 73
CSI 2013: 64
83(4.1)
KJ Line
n=320
61(3.7)
CSI 2014: 92
CSI 2013: 79
74(3.7)
Taxi
n=20342
(3.4)
CSI 2014: 87
CSI 2013: 66
76(3.8)
KLIA Express
n=14*58(3.9)
CSI 2014: 90
CSI 2013: 77
60(3.6)
Metrobus
n=11141
(3.3)
CSI 2014: 74
CSI 2013: 63
= 2014 T2B
= 2013 T2B
(x.x) = mean
This impressive result is observed in most public transport. Train services (KTM, LRTs and KLIA Express) are
leading with high CSI score. On average, only 1 out of 10 users (except for KL Monorial, 20%) are dissatisfied.
The rest are neutral.
= significantly higher than 2013 at 95% CI
= significantly lower than 2013 at 95% CI
19
Overall Satisfaction by Corridor Lines
Sample Size: Weighted base: n=1645 (Public Transport Users only)*Small base sizeQ12. Using 5 points rating scale, where 1 is not at all satisfied and 5 is very satisfied, hwwould you rate the overall satisfaction with public transport available in Kuala Lumpur (SA)
85(3.9)
Cheras
n=207
48(3.5)
CSI 2014: 94
CSI 2013: 72
83(3.9)
Ulu Kelang
n=207
48(3.5)
CSI 2014: 91
CSI 2013: 72
63(3.6)
Ampang
n=20066
(3.7)
CSI 2014: 86
CSI 2013: 81
59(3.6)
Seri Kembangan
n=200
54(3.6)
CSI 2014: 80
CSI 2013: 75
74(3.9) Damansara
n=215
33(3.1)
CSI 2014: 89
CSI 2013: 55
73(3.7)
Sungai Buloh
n=211
33(3.3)
CSI 2014: 85
CSI 2013: 60
58(3.8)
Klang
n=200
49(3.5)
CSI 2014: 87
CSI 2013: 71
73(3.9)
Selayang
n=205
35(3.3)
CSI 2014: 78
CSI 2013: 63
= 2014 T2B
= 2013 T2B
(x.x) = mean
Majority of the locations have shown significant improvement. Ampang’s top 2 box satisfaction has fallen
slightly but CSI has increased by 5 points. This means even though most have given a neutral score, they are
generally satisfied.
= significantly higher than 2013 at 95% CI
= significantly lower than 2013 at 95% CI
20
Reason for Satisfaction
Total
(n=1426)RapidKL Bus
(n=490)
KTM
(n=230)
KJ Line
(n=293)
Taxi
(n=172)
Metrobus
(n=90)
Ampang
Line
(n=116)
Convenient 42% 33% 61% 35% 41% 37% 56%
Efficiency & Reliability 14% 14% 12% 23% 8% 5% 27%
Punctuality 13% 15% 3% 24% 4% 17% 18%
Price 12% 12% 8% 11% 17% 13% 16%
No of stations /
frequency 10% 13% 9% 5% 14% 13% 7%
Interior Comfort 9% 9% 8% 12% 7% 8% 6%
Safety 4% 3% 3% 6% 4% 6% 1%
Sample Size: Weighted base: n=1645 (Public Transport Users only)Q13. Why did you give a rating of XXX on the overall satisfaction with public transport available in Kuala Lumpur?
Almost half of the satisfied users are delighted with the convenience of the services, especially the Single group
(48%). This is probably because they do not have their own vehicle.
21
Reason for Dissatisfaction
Total
(n=219) RapidKL
Bus
(n=84)
KTM
(n=35)
KJ Line
(n=27*)
Taxi
(n=31)
Metrobus
(n=21*)
Ampang
Line
(n=8*)
KL
Monorial
(n=7*)
KLIA
Express
(n=1*)
Punctuality 48% 51% 57% 38% 42% 48% 57% 15% -
Interior Comfort 18% 8% 22% 36% 9% 22% 23% 44% 100%
Convenient 10% 11% 10% 11% 5% 8% 28% 15% -
Driver's attitude 8% 8% 10% - 14% 11% - - -
Fairness of price 8% 5% - 7% 29% 11% - - -
Efficiency &
Reliability 4% 1% 2% 4% 5% 15% - - -
Safety 3% - 7% 2% 4% 10% - - -
No of stations /
frequency 3% 4% 2% 6% 2% - - - -
Sample Size: Weighted base: n=219 (Public Transport Users only)Q13. Why did you give a rating of XXX on the overall satisfaction with public transport available in Kuala Lumpur?
Lack of punctuality is still the main reason of dissatisfaction and this is consistent for all type of public
transports. Interior comfort is also an issue for KTM, KJ Line and Metrobus.
22
Overall Information Satisfaction – Clarity of Route Map
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
2
0
9
1
1
1
0
3
5
0
19
7
2
11
13
14
26
24
32
100
54
65
51
64
45
60
57
53
47
0
25
28
38
24
41
24
17
19
16
0
Not at all satisfied (1) 2 3 4 Very satisfied (5)
79 4.0 66
93 4.2 100
89 4.2 81
88 4.1 72
86 4.3 72
84 4.1 80
74 3.9 NA
72 3.9 65
63 3.7 52
0 3.0 68
Total (N=1645)
KLIA Express (n=14*)
KL Monorail (n=23*)
KJ Line (n=320)
KTM Komuter (n=265)
Ampang Line (n=124)
Taxi (n=203)
RapidKL Bus (n=574)
Metrobus (n=111)
Airport Coach (n=1*)
MeanTop2Box
(T2B) 2013Top2Box
(T2B) 2014
Sample Size: Weighted base: n=1645*Public Transport Users only*Caution Small base size (less than n=30)Q15. Overall satisfaction with information available in public transport system in KL (Clarity of route map)
Overall satisfaction with clarity of route map has improved significantly, especially in KJ Line and KTM. Almost
all (91%) of the people age 40 to 44 are impressed with this aspect this year.
= significantly higher than 2013 at 95% CI
= significantly lower than 2013 at 95% CI
23
Overall Information Satisfaction – Ease of reading
timetables
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
3
0
1
1
4
0
1
5
11
0
24
9
13
16
13
22
26
33
39
100
45
32
58
39
57
50
53
40
40
0
27
59
28
44
26
28
19
21
10
0
Not at all satisfied (1) 2 3 4 Very satisfied (5)
72 4.0 60
91 4.5 81
86 4.1 68
83 4.2 67
83 4.0 73
78 4.1 90
72 3.9 NA
61 3.8 54
50 3.5 43
0 3.0 68
Total (N=1645)
KL Monorail (n=23*)
KJ Line (n=320)
KTM Komuter (n=265)
Ampang Line (n=124)
KLIA Express (n=14*)
Taxi (n=203)
RapidKL Bus (n=574)
Metrobus (n=111)
Airport Coach (n=1*)
Mean T2B 2013T2B 2014
Sample Size: Weighted base: n=1645*Public Transport Users only*Caution Small base size (less than n=30)Q15. Overall satisfaction with information available in public transport system in KL (Clarity of route map)
Ease of reading timetables has also improved - significantly more users are delighted with KJ Line, KTM,
Ampang Line and RapidKL Bus. Although Metrobus shows improvement, the ease of reading its timetable is still
the lowest. They could learn from RapidKL Bus.
= significantly higher than 2013 at 95% CI
= significantly lower than 2013 at 95% CI
24
Overall Information Satisfaction – Clarity of the fare
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
1
0
1
2
4
0
23
2
10
15
15
22
25
31
33
100
39
21
61
30
40
33
50
39
40
0
37
77
28
54
44
45
24
28
23
0
Not at all satisfied (1) 2 3 4 Very satisfied (5)
76 4.1 67
98 4.8 63
89 4.2 82
84 4.4 80
84 4.3 73
78 4.2 90
74 4.0 45
67 3.9 68
63 3.8 53
0 3.0 68
Total (N=1645)
KL Monorail (n=23*)
Ampang Line (n=124)
KJ Line (n=320)
KTM Komuter (n=265)
KLIA Express (n=14*)
Taxi (n=203)
RapidKL Bus (n=574)
Metrobus (n=111)
Airport Coach (n=1*)
Mean T2B 2013T2B 2014
Sample Size: Weighted base: n=1645*Public Transport Users only*Caution Small base size (less than n=30)Q15. Overall satisfaction with information available in public transport system in KL (Clarity of route map)
On clarity of fare, Ampang Line is still the best, followed by KJ Line and KTM. However, other public transports
also show marginal improvement, except for RapidKL Bus which remain constant.
= significantly higher than 2013 at 95% CI
= significantly lower than 2013 at 95% CI
25
Perception about Public Transport
Sample Size: Weighted base: n=1645*Public Transport Users onlyQ7. How do you feel about each of the following statement
88
73
70
69
69
67
66
65
65
64
64
63
61
Value for money
Ease of use
Good level of security and safety level
Reliability of services
The ease of interchangeability
Clean interior
Ease of journey planning
Sufficient transport for people
Sufficient ticket machine
Sufficient frequency of service
Excellent Interchange & interconnectivity
Availability of park and ride facility
Helpful staff
T2B 2014 Mean 2014
4.2
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.8
3.9
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.7
3.8
3.7
3.7
69
58
58
51
52
56
54
49
51
47
50
48
51
T2B 2013 RapidKL
Bus
Metrobu
s
Ampang
LineKJ Line
KTM
KomuterTaxi
87% 86% 83% 93% 92% 72%
68% 65% 76% 79% 80% 67%
62% 53% 56% 82% 79% 69%
63% 67% 65% 68% 79% 68%
62% 62% 70% 80% 72% 65%
55% 49% 64% 84% 79% 67%
58% 58% 67% 80% 74% 61%
57% 54% 66% 76% 75% 61%
64% 68% 66% 65% 71% 53%
52% 56% 63% 74% 77% 64%
60% 46% 68% 76% 70% 61%
57% 39% 67% 75% 68% 63%
52% 45% 62% 62% 74% 63%
Perception about public transport improved significantly across all areas and all public transports. RapidKL Bus
and Metrobus are least associated with most statements. They could learn from KJ Line and KTM which posses
positive images.
= significantly higher than total at 95% CI
= significantly lower than total at 95% CI
= significantly higher than 2013 at 95% CI
= significantly lower than 2013 at 95% CI
26
Drive Analysis – Importance of Factors
Frequency of service
Interchange and interconnecting
Clarity of the fare
Ease of journey planning
The ease of interchange
Security and safety
Sufficient transport
Park and ride facility
Easiness of reading the time table
Interior cleanliness
Clarity of the route map
Ease of use
Value for money
Sufficient of ticket machine
Helpful staff
Reliability of services
Overall
satisfaction
with PT in
GKL/KV
Most important factor
Least important factor
Key drivers but low satisfaction
Key drivers but low satisfaction
We ran a driver analysis to understand the importance
of each factor in driving overall satisfaction. Frequency
of service, interchange & interconnectivity, clarity of
fare, easy of journey planning and ease of interchange
are the key drivers to a high overall satisfaction.
Among these, satisfaction with the ones highlighted in
red are among the lowest. Increase in satisfaction on
these parameters can lead to improvement in overall
satisfaction with PT in GKL/KV.
The most important factors in 2013 were:
1. sufficiency of transport and ease of reading time
table
2. frequency of service
3. ease of reading time table, and
4. interchange & interconnecting
However, frequency of service and interchange &
interconnecting have became more important this year.
27
Likelihood to Continue
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
8
0
0
2
0
0
0
2
2
0
6
3
0
19
6
8
9
13
21
24
16
29
100
53
74
53
57
66
48
50
44
52
0
25
20
39
34
19
28
26
26
16
0
Highly unlikely (1) 2 3 4 Highly likely (5)
78 4.0 64
94 4.1 72
92 4.3 82
90 4.2 71
86 4.0 53
76 4.0 67
76 4.0 67
70 3.7 59
68 3.8 65
0 3.0 66
Total (N=1645)
KL Monorail (n=23*)
Ampang Line (n=124)
KJ Line (n=320)
Taxi (n=203)
RapidKL Bus (n=574)
KLIA Express (n=14*)
Metrobus (n=111)
KTM Komuter (n=265)
Airport Coach (n=1*)
Mean T2B 2013T2B 2014
Sample Size: Weighted base: n=1645*Public Transport Users only*Caution Small base size (less than n=30)Q14. How likely are you to continue using public transport in KL in future?(SA)
Corresponds to the higher satisfaction, PT users are also more likely to continue using the services, especially
LRTs, Taxi, RapidKL Bus and Metrobus.
= significantly higher than 2013 at 95% CI
= significantly lower than 2013 at 95% CI
29
Likelihood to Recommend
Sample Size: Weighted base: n=1645 (Public Transport Users only)*Small base sizeQ22. How likely are you to recommend public transport in Kuala Lumpur to your friends/ relatives?(SA)
35(6.9)
Total
N=164530
(6.5)
NPS 2014: -24
NPS 2013: - 38
33(6.7)
KTM
n=26538
(6.8)
NPS 2014: -25
NPS 2013: -31
53(7.5)
Ampang Line
n=12438(6.8)
NPS 2014: 3
NPS 2013: -25
25(6.6)
KL Monorial
n=23*32
(6.9)
NPS 2014: -33
NPS 2013: -34
23(6.4) KJ Line
n=320
20(6.4)
NPS 2014: -49
NPS 2013: -44
52(7.4)
Taxi
n=20339
(6.8)
NPS 2014: 5
NPS 2013: -27
65(7.5)
KLIA Express
n=14*48
(7.6)
NPS 2014: 8
NPS 2013: 11
34(6.8)
Metrobus
n=11140
(6.7)
NPS 2014: -26
NPS 2013: -27
= 2014 T3B
= 2013 T3B
(x.x) = mean
35(6.9)
19(6.2)
NPS 2014: -27
NPS 2013: -47
0(4.0)
Airport coach
n=1*
0(6.2)
NPS 2014: -100
NPS 2013: -66
RapidKL Bus
n=574
Likelihood to recommend also increased in most PT, some are significant like KJ Line, taxi and Ampang Line.
= significantly higher than 2013 at 95% CI
= significantly lower than 2013 at 95% CI
33
35
Non Public Transport Users Profiles
Gender
Male
64%
Female
36%
Race
Chinese
58%
Malay
32%
Indian
8%
Age
18-29 30-44 45≥
48% 34% 18%
Monthly Household Income
14%
30%
43%
7%
<RM2.5K RM2.5K -
RM5KRM5K-
RM10K
>RM10K
Average: RM5,855
Gender
Male
80%
Female
20%
Race
Chinese
12%
Malay
72%
Indian
14%
Age
18-29 30-44 45≥
58% 30% 12%
Monthly Household Income
37%41%
16%
3%
<RM2.5K RM2.5K -
RM5KRM5K-
RM10K
>RM10K
Average: RM 4,051
Car users Motorcycle users
Majority of motorcycle users are young Malay males. Whereas the car users are Chinese male and they are also
more affluent.
36
Public Transport Usage
8%
29%27%
18%
13%
24%
31%
25%
10%
5%
0-5% 6-10% 11-15% 16-20% 21% and above
Monthly average spending
Car
Motorbike
Sample Size: Weighted base: n=817*Non-Public Transport User onlyQ16. Can you please let me know the mode of private transport you use most often (SA)Q17. Monthly average spending on car/ motorbike as a percentage of monthly personal income (SA)
74%
2014
(72%)
2013
26%
2014
(28%)
2013
uses cars uses motorcycles
8% 33% 29% 29% 21% 21% 19% 6% 9% 2%2013:
2014:
Car and motorcycle usage remain consistent as 2013. There’s also no significant changes in their monthly
spending; car users still spend significantly more than motorcycle.
Average: 12.5%
Average: 9.4%
37
Reason for Not Using Public Transport
Total
(n=817) Car
(n=596)
Motor
(n=221)
2014 2013 2014 2013 2014 2013
Do not like waiting 67% 51% 70% 54% 58% 45%
No station near my house/ office/ place
I want to go47% 55% 50% 56% 40% 51%
Need to follow the PT time schedule 46% 33% 48% 33% 41% 31%
The arrival time of desired PT is never
on time41% 30% 43% 29% 36% 34%
Very crowded especially during peak
hours31% 14% 33% 15% 26% 11%
Taking PT is dangerous (e.g.
pickpocket etc.)18% 10% 21% 12% 11% 7%
Others 7% 9% 5% 11% 11% 5%
Sample Size: Weighted base: n=817*Non-Public Transport User onlyQ18. Reason for not using public transport in Kuala Lumpur (MA)
Non public transport users generally don’t like waiting and they also claim that there’s no stations near their
residences. This could be improved by providing more frequent service and extend the accessibility.
A quarter of the female raise the issue of safety while taking public transport.
38
Likelihood to consider & Overall Satisfaction
Sample Size: Weighted base=n=817*Non-Public Transport user onlyQ19. Likelihood to consider if there was a train/LRT/Monorail/Bus Station within 1km from home/ workplace, how likely would you to use public transport Q20. General perception of public transport in Kuala Lumpur (SA)
3
7
6
20
36
32
38
27
30
29
25
26
10
5
6
Motorcycle owerns
Car owners
Total
Not at all satisfied (1) 2 3 4 Very satisfied (5)
Overall Satisfaction
9%Dissatisfied
21%Satisfied
32 2.9 17
30 2.9 15
39 3.2 22
T2B
2014Mean
T2B
2013
31 41 2.9 20 47
30 46 2.8 18 50
34 27 3.1 27 39
2014 2013
T2B B2B Mean T2B B2B
Likelihood to consider if PT
was available within 1KM
7%Dissatisfied
20%Satisfied
13%Dissatisfied
25%Satisfied
It’s good to see improvement in overall perceived satisfaction by non PT users. Likelihood to consider also rise
significantly if PT is easily accessible. This is mainly driven by the married Malays.
= significantly higher than 2013 at 95% CI
= significantly lower than 2013 at 95% CI
39
40
Perception on Public Transport
69
67
59
58
56
56
55
55
53
48
44
36
Using PT in GKL/KV offers good value for money
Comprehensive PT network in GKL/KV
The PT network is very safe to use and offers good security
Easy to transfer from one train system to another
The PT network has improved in the past few years
Most people in GKL/KV will use PT at least once every 3
months
The government is committed to improving PT in GKL/KV
PT is for people like me
It is easy for me to take PT to get to and from where I live
The PT in GKL/KV is modern and up to date
Using PT is often quicker than making the same journey by car
The PT network in Kuala Lumpur is better than in most other
South East Asian capital cities
T2B 2014
48 79 57 49 31
51 77 59 48 34
50 70 59 37 32
43 67 52 40 25
49 64 55 39 35
42 63 48 40 31
45 61 51 42 32
40 70 55 24 12
40 64 49 30 23
39 56 45 32 26
42 53 51 26 24
35 41 41 26 25
PT user PT non-user
2014 2013 2014 2013
Sample Size: Weighted base: n=2462 *All RespondentsQ21. Now, I would like to understand your perception of public transport in KL, using a scale of 1 to 5
T2B 2013
Although the perception on public transport is still significantly lower amongst non PT users, its’ scores have
improved significantly as compared to last year. This implies SPAD’s initiatives are working and should be
continued to reduce the gap with PT users.
= significantly higher than 2013 at 95% CI
= significantly lower than 2013 at 95% CI
41
Likelihood to Recommend
35(6.9)
PT user
n=1645
30(6.5)
NPS 2014: -24
NPS 2013: - 38
= 2014 T3B
= 2013 T3B
(x.x) = mean
Sample Size: Weighted base: n= 2645*Public Transport User OnlyQ22. How likely are you to recommend public transport in Kuala Lumpur to your friends/ relatives?(SA)
28(6.2)
Total
N=2645 22(6.0)
NPS 2014: -37
NPS 2013: - 53
15(5.0)
PT non user
n=817
7(4.9)
NPS 2014: -64
NPS 2013: - 82
12(4.8)
Car owner
n=596
5(4.6)
NPS 2014: -66
NPS 2013: - 83
22(5.4)
Motorcycle
owner
n=221
13(5.4)
NPS 2014: -59
NPS 2013: - 72
With the higher satisfaction and more positive perceptions, likelihood to recommend rises across all segments.
= significantly higher than 2013 at 95% CI
= significantly lower than 2013 at 95% CI
44
45
3
11
47
33
6
5 Excellent
4
3
2
1 Poor
Awareness and Association with SPAD
Sample Size: Weighted base: N=2462Q26. Aware of SPAD (SA)Q27. Now, I’m going to read out some statement about SPAD, please let me know if the statement is true or false. There is no right or wrong answer just answer based on what you feel Q27a. How would you rate SPAD in terms of fulfilling its responsibility?
26%
43%
34%
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
2012 2013 2014
Aware of SPAD
Overall (T2B) PT user PT non-user
2014 2013 2014 2013 2014 2013
Responsible for development of PT
in Malaysia89% 86% 91% 88% 84% 82%
Land PT commission in Malaysia 81% 92% 82% 90% 79% 94%
Responsible for drawing up policies,
planning and regulating all aspects
of PT services in Malaysia
68% 76% 68% 77% 68% 75%
An organization you can directly
address your thoughts on PT to in
Malaysia
66% 69% 65% 69% 68% 70%
Rating of SPAD in terms of
fulfilling its’ responsibility
PT user
(T2B): 44%
Mean: 3.4
PT non-user
(T2B): 31%
Mean: 3.1
Aware of SPAD
PT user PT non-user
2014 2013 2014 2013
33% 42% 34% 46%T2B: 39%
Mean: 3.3
Awareness of SPAD deteriorates significantly amongst both PT and non PT users. Though people are aware of
SPAD’s key responsibility (to develop PT in Malaysia), lesser are able to relate SPAD with the rest of the
statements.
Majority are neutral in terms of rating SPAD to be fulfilling its’ responsibility.
= significantly higher than 2013 at 95% CI
= significantly lower than 2013 at 95% CI
47
Thank You!
© 2013 Ipsos. All rights reserved.
This document constitutes the sole and exclusive
property of Ipsos. Ipsos retains all copyrights and
other rights over, without limitation, Ipsos'
trademarks, technologies, methodologies,
analyses and know how included or arising out of
this document. The addressee of this document
undertakes to maintain it confidential and not to
disclose all or part of its content to any third party
without the prior written consent of Ipsos. The
addressee undertakes to use this document solely
for its own needs (and the needs of its affiliated
companies as the case may be), only for the
purpose of evaluating the document for services of
Ipsos. No other use is permitted.