Final Report Summary - METPEX (A MEasurement Tool to determine the quality of the Passenger EXperience)
Executive Summary:
METPEX arose out of the need to increase sustainable transport and reduce carbon emissions in urban areas. One way of achieving this would be by increasing the number of users of public (and active) transport. A necessary first step in shifting perceptions of PT is the need to create a set of inclusive, reliable and validated measurement instruments to measure the quality of whole, multi modal journeys. Two central arguments of METPEX were that 1) travellers would only be attracted to public/active forms of transport if they are perceived to be of high quality; 2) that the whole journey experience needs to be the focus of attention as this corresponds to mobility patterns.
Existing measurement instruments were reviewed to have several shortcomings. For example, they may have been developed to measure just one stage of the journey (e.g. the journey on a tram, train, or bus), rarely included transitional points or reported results (e.g. issues with stations and stops) which were not the direct responsibility of the commissioning operator, may not have been validated, were not inclusive and failed to consider the whole journey.
Therefore METPEX aimed to develop a set of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) which could be used by transport operators and authorities, local authorities and other interest groups to measure the quality of the whole journey experience. The project sought to capture multimodal experiences by measuring travel experiences from journey planning to arrival at destination, allowing for measurement of multimodal experiences derived from the use of buses, trains, trams, urban waterways, walking, cycling and driving. Mindful of the need to be inclusive the project specifically addressed the needs of ‘traditionally hard to reach groups’. These were defined as commuters, women, travellers with children or other dependents, the elderly, young people, rural dwellers, commuters, those on low incomes, with communication difficulties and mobility impairments.
In order to develop the KPIs the relative importance of over 1000 potential factors was evaluated. The most important of these for each transport mode, traveller type and quality factor were used to create the METPEX measurement instruments delivered to travellers in retrospective (paper based and web online), real time (game and navigation apps) and focus groups formats. Trials of these tools were conducted in Bucharest, Grevena, Coventry, Rome, Vilnius, Dublin, FIA network, Stockholm and Valencia in order to collect Pan European data from which the final KPIs could be developed. The results showed that overall travel satisfaction reported by different travel mode users correlate with different key determinants, different user groups have different needs, the determinants of satisfaction may vary depending on the main travel modes and the complexity of the journey (in terms of trip composition). The effects of insecurity and tension among special needs travellers in particular may damage their confidence to travel independently as and when they want. Using the results, a series of robust KPIs were developed which may be used to measure overall satisfaction, or different aspects of the journey, for different user groups and modes of transport. The results were fedback to stakeholders in order to inform current transport systems, assess the usefulness of the METPEX toolset and inform the business plan.
In summary, METPEX has:
• Conducted two Pan European surveys in order to develop KPIs
• Gathered feedback from stakeholders to inform future development of the METPEX toolset and assess the impact of user experience on transport policy;
• Delivered a conference, policy recommendations, communication and business plan
• Created a matrix for the evaluation of innovative technologies to support integrative accessibility
• Developed a method for the classification of land use types in connection with accessibility, and a new definition of accessibility
• Developed strategies for creating accessible and optimized transport systems
Project Context and Objectives:
SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND MAIN OBJECTIVES
1. CONTEXT OF PROJECT
European cities increasingly face problems caused by transport and traffic. The question of how to enhance mobility while at the same time reducing congestion, accidents and pollution is a common challenge to all major cities in Europe.
Efficient and effective urban transport can significantly contribute to achieving objectives in a wide range of policy domains, for example the efficiency of the EU transport system, socio-economic objectives, energy dependency, or climate change. These depend on actions taken by national, regional and local authorities and transport operators which may in turn be restricted by (for example) lack of resources and knowledge of traveler needs.
At its highest level, the aim of METPEX has been to improve the quality of whole journey experiences by providing transport authorities, operators, service providers and other stakeholders with tools to enable them to improve mobility and the experience of all travellers. Such tools will increase organisational efficiency by reducing the need to produce and validate bespoke tools, enable benchmarking and the targetting of future investment into areas which are perceived by travellers as most unsatisfactory. Investing in these areas will lead to increased use of public and active forms of transport, and more integrated services. Improving mobility in turn will lead to higher quality of life.
Therefore the project has focussed attention on three areas:
1. more inclusive and robust tools to measure passenger experience
2. ways in which innovative technologies supporting integrative accessibility may be evaluated
3. strategies for creating accessible and optimised transport systems taking into account the connection between land uses types and accessibility
Overcoming the poor perception of public transport through increasing its quality is a key issue for transport operators and authorities. However, the achievement of operational, quantitative performance targets has been priotised over quality issues and itegrative issues – which may be harder to measure and address. Removal of barriers and improving access for all citizens to public transport may help create a modal shift in transport behaviour away from private fuelled vehicles. Enabling wider access to safe, secure, convenient, comfortable and economical public transport will in turn support the EU’s carbon reduction targets by leading to an increase in the number of people who use public or active forms of transport.
Central to METPEX has been the development of Key Performanc Indicators (KPIs) to measure the quality of the whole (door-to-door) journey passenger experience (including private or individual forms of transport such as walking, bicycling and car sharing), as a starting point to understanding where improvements need to be made from the travellers perspective. Reliable measurement instruments form the basis for robust data collection. However simply providing the data will not lead to improvements unless there is an appetite, commitment and resources for doing so. Unfortunately operators many not have sufficient incentives to improve quality. Standards, policies, operational procedures and regulations may need to be developed to ensure inclusive mobility.
Although many studies have been conducted at both National and EU levels on mobility behaviour, there is no single measurement instrument which can be used to gather information about the whole journey passenger transport experience from journey planning to arrival at destination. The lack of such a validated instrument, taking as its unit of analysis the whole journey experience, makes it difficult to understand the barriers faced by active (walking and cycling), public (e.g. bus, metro, tram, light rail, train) or intermodal transport users (e.g. bus-train, cycle-train, bus-walk-train). It is then difficult to collect initial data reliably, make comparisons, ensure validity and reliability of data, develop international, multi modal transport benchmarks and standards and to provide a coherent picture of the passenger experience across Europe.
The complexity of urban environments, reduced employment opportunities and the pressure on operators to increase profitability and service efficiency, and the availability of travel information all effect individual decisions on whether, when and how to travel and the quality of the travel experience. This complexity and the changing context of whole journey experiences requires the development of a measurement instrument which acknowledges and measures new mobility patterns, changing transport policy priorities and passenger perceptions and expectations.
The development of an inclusive, validated instrument is seen as the first step in creating high quality, user centred, integrated, accessible public transport services which are capable of attracting and retaining public transport users whilst meeting sustainability targets. Such a tool needs to provide reliable data which can be used by transport providers, policy makers, vehicle designers and municipalities to measure in order to assess where changes need to be made to increase efficiency, effectiveness and attractiveness of service delivery.
Therefore the primary aim of METPEX was to develop an intelligent measurement instrument which could be used to measure the quality of the whole journey, multimodal passenger experience across Europe. The outputs of such a tool could provide important information for transport providers, operators, municipalities and policy makers that are tasked with the development of sustainable, more efficient and passenger friendly services.
2. SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL OBJECTIVES
1. To develop an integrated approach to the measurement of the whole journey passenger experience that takes into account human (physiological, perceptual, cognitive, sensory and affective) socio-economic, cultural, geographic and environmental factors.
2. To assess the costs of ‘inaccessible transport’ for different sectors of society (such as those from low income groups, rural communities, the elderly, disabled and those with lower levels of literacy).
3. To assess the extent to which the measurement of the passenger experience can be used to drive innovation and attention to transport quality from the customer’s perspective in the transport industry.
4. To evaluate the passengers experience from different regions of Europe and to support the integration of regional transport networks into an European transport network
5. To facilitate the harmonization of travel behaviour research and analysis across European Union Member States.
These were mapped on to a number of SMART objectives and fulfilled as follows:
S01: To ‘map’ the passenger journey experience, identifying critical stages of journeys where quality of service matters in relation to a seamless travel experience.
• This desktop research was completed in WP2 in the first 6 months of the project
SO2: To develop and define by the end of year one a set of passenger experience variables informed by a review of current methodologies and best practice, as well as a clearly developed understanding of user requirements derived from primary research.
• WP2 completed this in the first year of the project. Critical reviews were undertaken of international, national, regional and project based initiatives to assess consistency and best practice in the use of quality indicators. A pilot study was also conducted to develop initial variables.
S03: To produce, an innovative on-line, multi-platform Passenger Experience (METPEX) Measurement tool based on previously defined set of passenger experience variables and designed to be used to capture users’ whole journey experience, especially barriers to accessibility and service quality.
• WP3 produced, online multiplatform methods to gather the quality of the passenger experience, for all stages of the journey in real time and retrospectively. This was supported by back end administrative services to adapt, verify, and monitor response rates.
SO4: To complement the on-line METPEX tool with a suite of low-tech tools, designed simultaneously to enable data to be captured from users without access to electronic media.
• During the research it was confirmed that the requirements of traditionally hard to reach groups were still not being gathered systematically. Questionnaires, structured interviews, and focus group protocols were developed for each site to reach these groups.
S05: To implement and validate the METPEX on and off-line tools through testing in 8 sites chosen to reflect geographical, political and cultural differences as well as transport system types.
• WP4 designed and analysed the results of the month long survey of the tools conducted in October 2014 at 8 sites.
S06: To produce, during the first 10 months of year 3, a suite of reports that analyse the findings, outcomes and learning from the validation exercise. A comparative report will also be generated to synthesise findings, outcomes and learning across the different sites.
• WP5 undertook extensive analysis of the data from the trials reported in a number of deliverables. Comparative reports were also made for each city.
S07: To frame the METPEX project findings in the context of the scientific and practical state of the art as it relates to the development and implementation of transport indicators and subsequently develop a set of indicators that can quantitatively evaluate quality and accessibility related issues.
• Multivariate analysis and other techniques were used to develop KPIs to form the basis of reliable and validate tools for transport operators, authorities and other stakeholders
S08: To develop a Transport Services Quality and Accessibility Evaluation Manual in order to support practitioners in applying service quality and accessibility indicators to evaluate transport systems and to compare findings with those from the METPEX project.
• WP5 produced material and instructions for third parties to use METPEX outputs independently.
S09: To assess wider socio-economic and land-use issues and their relationship with accessibility and mobility in partner regions.
• WP6 produced a new definition of accessibility taking into account contemporary understanding of land used patterns and developed a set of principles and strategies for optimising transport systems towards integrative accessibility, and an analysis of innovative technologies and their applicability in different socio-economic contexts.
S10: To work alongside key project stakeholders to disseminate results against benchmark criteria, evaluate the extent to which passenger related information can effect change and discuss the implications of results for the creation of a more effective, seamless, accessible travel system in each of the trial sites.
• Stakeholder meetings were held in all WPs with local and national stakeholders throughout the project. A project conference and a policy report detailing how passenger information can inform local and national policies was produced by WP7 at the end of the project.
3.FULFILMENT OF OBJECTIVES
The objectives and actions proposed in METPEX met the topics addressed in the call through:
1. Provision of a METPEX tool that can be used to improve the quality of mobility solutions which recognise the user’s need for accessible seamless travel.
• The final measurement instrument consists of a series of KPIs, which can be used in isolation to measure the quality of the experience, for a specific user or transport mode, or in tandem to evaluate a whole transport system.
2. Development of a tool that is ‘innovative’ in two complimentary ways.
• Social media was explored as a means of collecting real-time information using a game and bespoke questions linked to journey profile, the traveler and their progress on the journey.
• Especial consideration was given to the traditionally hard to reach groups, through the development of compatible, but non technologically dependent measure instruments (questionnaires, focus groups and structured interviews) in order to capture the experience of travellers who do not have high levels of computer or other forms of literacy, or access to high end technology. In this way METPEX fulfilled its commitment to gather the experiences of those from the most travel disadvantaged groups in the EU.
3.Validation of METPEX approach through its use in eight sites across Europe (Coventry, Stockholm, Dublin, Valencia, Rome, Grevena, Vilnius and Bucharest and FIA network).
• Data was gathered and analysed from each site in order to validate the METPEX approach and to gather data which could be used for the derivation of quality indicators.
4. Development of quality indicators which recognise passenger (age, demographics, disability), cultural diversity and multimodal, informed travel patterns.
• The meta-analysis of METPEX trial data combined with analysis of previous research was used to develop Key Performance Indicators which could be used by organisations and authorities to measure the quality of the whole journey or different parts thereof for a wide range of traveller groups, including those from traditionally hard to reach groups.
5.Analysis and measurement of the derived quality indicators checking the suitability for determining the benchmarks.
• The quality of the derived information and the KPIs was evaluated in terms of its scope, usefulness and actionability and presented to local stakeholders.
6. Examining and measuring innovative and integrated transport solutions in the trial sites to assess accessibility issues.
• Reports were compiled for each site based on the results of the survey and fedback to local stakeholders. This also provided an opportunity for stakeholders to provide additional requirements for the final system
7. Understanding the mobility requirements of a heterogeneous but growing group of travellers to establish inclusive, cost-effective solutions.
• The METPEX tools supported gathering the mobility requirements of a diverse range of users, including women, travellers with children and dependents, rural dwellers, those with disabilities (physical and cognitive), from low socio economic groups and with low levels of literacy.
8. Development of advanced methodologies for Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) from a system perspective
• Derived KPIs were measured in terms of their measurability, specificity, timeliness, originality, independence and usefulness. An evaluation matrix was also developed for stakeholders to use to evaluate innovative integrative technologies and strategies proposed to develop accessible and optimised transport systems taking into account land use patterns.
Project Results:
MAIN SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL RESULTS AND FOREGROUNDS
1. BACKGROUND METHODOLOGY
Creating accessible transport systems requires the consideration of many factors from interface and interaction design (such as the design of vehicles and ticketing machines) to external factors, such as resources (which may affect, for example, concessionary travel) and technological innovation (e.g. intermodal travel codes, route planning apps). Taking a user centred approach, espoused by the ergonomics discipline; these factors may be plotted using the hexagon spindle (H-S) model (Woodcock, 2012). Placing the user at the centre of the hexagon, this model enables the systematic representation and enquiry of the wide range of factors, which may affect perceived satisfaction of the whole journey. A truly inclusive transport system should optimise each factor for each user. In order to prioritise areas to address, operators and authorities need to know where different user groups are dissatisfied with the quality of service.
FIGURE 1: WOODCOCK’S APPLICATION OF BENEDYK AND WOODCOCK’S HEXAGON SPINDLE MODEL TO TRANSPORT DESIGN
The H-S model also recognises that when performing any task or goal, a user interacts with different features of the system at different times, and each of these interactions needs to be optimised. For example in cycling home from work, it is not sufficient to optimise the design of the bike, without looking at the quality of the cycleway. The whole journey needs to be considered. A series of unsatisfactory interactions may lead to a journey being abandoned or re-planned using different transport modes, as depicted in Figure 2. For sustainability, this is key, as dissatisfaction with public transport services may mean that personal transport modes are adopted. For example, if trains are always delayed and connections missed by a commuter, s/he may simply drive to work. Also different parts of the goal (getting from A to B) might be accomplished using different transport mode, each element of which needs to be optimised.
FIGURE 2: SPINDLES SHOWING POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF POOR TRAVELLER EXPEREIENCE
The research conducted in METPEX considered several issues related to the model:
• the development of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) addressed travellers’ touch points with different transport services and infrastructure at all layers of the model,
• consultation with stakeholders considered managerial factors relating to data collection and usage,
• of the external factors, land use and its relation to accessibility was the main factor which was considered.
The H-S model can be used to enumerate and systematise factors from which surveys can be developed, which in turn can provide data for the creation of valid and reliable KPIs. These are quantifiable measures that can be used to gauge or compare performance in meeting strategic and operational goals. Knowing the quality indicators for a particular mode of transport, traveller group, or the whole journey would enable companies to target investment effectively. Having developed these in the context of a Pan European project means that they can be used throughout the EU and that they have been developed and assessed by international experts. This increases the validity and robustness of the tools, whilst at the same time providing an open source set of KPIs related specifically to quality (as opposed to operational issues).
With this overall approach in mind, the scientific and technical results are presented in terms of the gaps in knowledge, and the contributions of METPEX in following areas:
• Key Performance Indicators – their development and evaluation (WPs 2 and 5)
• Technological Innovation – the use of real time data collection (WP3)
• Barriers to accessibility in traditionally hard to reach groups (WP4)
• Stakeholder engagement and requirements (WP2 and 8)
• Land use and transport - strategies, definitions of accessibility and evaluation matrix for integrative technology (WP6)
The final section of the report addresses the ways in which METPEX outputs may be used by transport stakeholders to improve the quality of transport provision.
2. DEVELOPMENT OF KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
The METPEX measurement instruments were informed by existing research relating to measuring the quality of passenger experience, transport journeys, infrastructure and different traveller groups, consultation with stakeholders and a pilot study. The scope of the review and key findings our outlined below.
2.1 REVIEW OF EXISTING INDICATORS
European transport policy aims to ensure safety and security in all modes of transport and provide a high quality, reliable service to achieve competitive advantage and grant sustainable mobility to EU citizens, with higher standards set in each document. Increasing efficiency of current transport systems is one of the main goals in creating competitive advantage. EU Documents consulted included White Paper 1992 – The future development of the common transport policy, European Commission Communication 1998; Developing the citizens network, White paper 2001 – European transport policy for 2010: time to decide, European Commission Communication 2006, Green paper 2007 – Towards a new culture for urban mobility, Action Plan on Urban Mobility 2009, White paper 2011 (Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area, Communication from the commission to the European Parliament and the council: A European vision for Passengers.
Indicators have increased in clarity and sophistication over time, and have variously included flexibility, speed, reliability, frequency, price, passenger rights, safety, integration, accessibility, flexibility, information availability, compensation, user rights, transparency, rapid/high speed transportation, territorial cohesion, air transport services indicators, basic and advanced quality criteria, security, environmental impact, energy efficiency, journey duration, qualified staff, noise level, pollution, congestion, personal security, privacy and data protection, sustainability, safety in extreme weather, accessibility, reimbursement, transparency of information and costs, information and help availability. Likewise, there has been a growing distinction between different categories of users, with specific mention of passengers in general or EU citizens, people with reduced mobility (including elderly), urban passengers, people with accessibility issues, tourists, migrants and migrating labour force , elderly
In terms of passenger mobility, safety is a top priority, with reliability and quality of service less emphasized. Although indicators were used in each document, no common definition of passenger transport quality or quality indicators emerged.
In terms of gaps in knowledge, although policy documents have regarded people with reduced mobility and the elderly as special groups with limited accessibility, women and commuters from economically challenged rural areas have not been addressed. Likewise, although active modes of transport have been highlighted as important in strategic and policy papers few guidelines have been provided on how these modes should be developed or the variables that might lead to conditions likely to increase walking or cycling.
UNE-EN 13816 distinguished expected quality as the level of quality users anticipate. Objective as the level of quality operators want to offer; produced quality as the quality acquired in the daily operations, defined by its impact on clients; perceived quality as the level of quality perceived by passengers during the journey. This may depend on context and personal experience. The criteria used relate to service offered, accessibility, information, time, customer service, comfort, safety and environmental impact – some of which are used in the studies reviewed. The USP of METPEX is that it focuses on measuring the perceived quality of the whole journey.
Many existing survey tools measure aspects of the quality of the passenger experience. These have arisen out of national initiatives (such as Transport Focus surveys in UK), bespoke in house surveys (created for specific operators and authorities) or from EU projects such as CIVITAS Plus MODERN, ELAN, and ARCHIMEDES and those already completed in CIVITAS II such as: SMILE, MOBILIS and SUCCESS. With EU policy increasingly featuring mobility over transport a need has been created to look at whole journey experiences in order to promote mobility that is efficient, safe, secure and environmentally friendly. Open source KPIs dealing with quality aspects for all user groups and modes of transport provides a foundation for future EU transport research and other stakeholders who may not have the resources to develop and validate their own measurement instruments.
The projects have similar goals i.e. to provide sustainable and reliable transport service for all citizens (with special mention of making transport services more comfortable for vulnerable users – disabled, users with reduced mobility and/or elderly). However, no concrete guidelines were provided on the quality of service to be expected or how it could be measured. At its core, passenger transport service quality comprised of comfort, safety, price, speed, frequency, reliability, accessibility and sustainability with some modifications to take in to account local issues (e.g. rural services in Ireland and gendered related issues in Sweden). Although cycling infrastructure was mentioned, walking was not. Open source KPIs dealing with quality aspects for all user groups and modes of transport provides a foundation for future EU transport research and other stakeholders who may not have the resources to develop and validate their own measurement instruments.
TABLE 1: EUROPEAN AND NATIONAL PROJECTS AND STANDARDS REVIEWED
Project/mode of transport User groups Focus of results
PUBTRANS4LL/ Public transport (PT) People in wheelchairs, persons with walking impairments, elderly, blind and visually impaired, deaf and hearing impaired, small people, pregnant women and persons with children, persons with luggage Vertical differences between steps, vehicle and platform
WISETRIP/ International Elderly and disabled, eco-sensitive, price sensitive, other special groups Journey planning needs
NICHES+/PT Older people, school children, reduced mobility users Human motivation for mobility, lack of systematic knowledge
ACCESS2ALL/PT Mobility impaired, elderly, sensorially and visually impaired, environmentally sensitive, all people Physical infrastructure
CITYMOBIL/ Innovative transport systems Acceptance, quality of service
CLOSER/ Transport chain Seniors and people with special needs, children, foreigners and inexperienced passengers Knowledge sharing
INTERCONNECT/ Local and regional interconnections Wasted time , high costs, poor information, poor quality
CONNECT/ Flexible transport services Design of vehicle, passenger safety and security, travel comfort, special requirements for certain groups, capacity, seat comfort and leg room, comfort while boarding, temperature, on trip passenger information, payment system, luggage space.
EBSF/Bus Doors, real time information, shelter, adaptation to demand
MEDIATE/PT Elderly and disabled Accessible vehicles, built environment, ticketing, seamless travel, fare policies, tailored services.
MODSAFE/ Urban guided transport systems Safety, security, comfort and sustainability
The reviews showed a lack of consistency in what is measured, how it is measured, and which groups were consulted and a lack of representation of measures for active forms of transport. This means that the intended outcomes of METPEX, to harmonise transport research are valid.
Public transport initiatives over the last decade aimed at increasing environmental awareness and promotion of sustainable public transport were reviewed to establish the commonalities and differences in the measures used. These included Eltis (European local transport information service, Europe's main portal on urban mobility); Citizen's Network Benchmarking Initiative; Urban transport benchmarking initiative; and CIVITAS initiatives (ELAN, Plus MODERN, ARCHIMEDES). Table 1 outlines the European and national projects and standards reviewed.
Train, bus, air and maritime operators tended to try to differentiate their offerings in terms of customer service, extra customer service, or ticketing quality indicators, different KPIs were used to measure the quality of these differentiators. A sample of 21 of national studies were also reviewed and reported as shown in Table 2.
TABLE 2: NATIONAL STUDIES REVIEWED
Country Number of projects Identifier or focus of review
Spain 7 INTERBUS PROJECT, REACTIVA PROJECT, Attitudes to private and public transport: psycho-social and structural factors, MOBITRANS PROJECT, Quality improvement in public transport systems as the crux of sustainable mobility, Trends in Passenger Transport and Freight Energy use in Spain, UNIACCESS PROJECT
UK 2 National Rail Transport Survey, National Passenger Survey,
Sweden 3 Kollektivtrafikbarometern, Surveys by SL and Veolia,
Italy 1 Piedmont survey
Switzerland 2 MONET indicators, Microcensus
Romania 6 Standard SR EN 13816:2003, Standard SR EN 15140:2006, Standard SR ISO/CEI 27001:2006, Standard ISO/IEC 27001:2006,
ISEMOA Project , ENERQI project
Other indicators are emerging based on quality of life and relate to more economic, social and environmental indicators including transport performance and the transport system. However, many of these were excluded from the final METPEX tools because it was not clear whether passengers would be knowledgeable about such factors or whether these would contribute to perceived quality.
69 papers were considered and reviewed as appropriate in terms of the development of KPIs. From these 10 were selected and critically evaluated in terms of the pertinence, measurability, realism, defensibility and universality of the objective indicators they espoused. The review highlighted the lack of specific analysis for vulnerable passengers. Previous research which addressed the whole journey may not have considered a specific journey, or each part of the journey. No articles were found relating to active means of transport or indicators. Research concentrated more on town infrastructure design to ameliorate the expectations and the displacements of bikers through the creation of bicycle paths.
The table below shows the EU projects reviewed indicating the split between projects which look at perceived or delivered quality, few projects consider the whole journey, and none include active forms of transport. In terms of methodology, no project provided detailed information on the measurement index systems used or how the bottom level indicators could be grouped to reflect a single quality component.
TABLE 3: COMPARISON BETWEEN PREVIOUS PROJECTS AND METPEX
Name Delivered quality/ objective measures Perceived quality/ subjective measures Whole journey Special needs users Active transport modes Evaluation index systems Measurement index system Benchmarking
QUATTRO X X X X
ENERQI X X
BEST X X X X
MEDIATE X X X
URBAN TRANSPORT BENCHMARKING INITIATIVE X X X X
EQUIP X X X
ISEMOA X X
CONDUITS X X
METPEX X X X X X X X
National approaches were evaluated from USA, Portugal, Italy, UK, Germany and Australia. 2 approaches were identified – provision of guidelines for performance evaluation (i.e. a proxy for an objective measure of quality) or subjective quality evaluations which failed to backtrack to actual system characteristics. There was a lack of knowledge of interaction between objective and subjective measures and over reliance on simple measuring techniques such as averaging individual scores.
2.1.1 SUMMARY
In summary, from the reviews:
• the most commonly used indicators for the quality of passenger experience are accessibility, safety, security, environmental impact, reliability, flexibility, speed, frequency, price, information, integration, attractiveness, passenger rights protection, comfort and feedback
• data is usually gathered from three information sources; supply data (GIS databases and infrastructure inventories), demand data (travel survey and passenger counts) and more qualitative customer satisfaction surveys
• Prioritisation is given to performance objectives
• Data analysis included benchmarking, comparative analysis, comparison with standards and minimal requirements, determination of causality, SERVQUAL, AHS (Analytic Hierarchy Process), gap analysis and determination of zone of tolerance. However, most analysis was low level, with little reporting of how higher level indicators had been developed.
The following quality aspects need to be further addressed:
1. Perceived quality of public transport to increase patronage considering people from different socio economic groups
2. Accessibility of transport to persons with disability (PWD) or hard to reach groups
3. Level of service measures for pedestrians and cyclists
4. Multi leg journeys and trip chaining
5. Information (its design and role)
Significant gaps in knowledge relate to:
• Quality indicators for active forms of transport
• Consideration of the whole journey
• Systematic consideration of the needs of ‘traditionally hard to reach groups’.
• Short journeys
• Use of qualitative information
2.2 THE PASSENGER JOURNEY AND ACCESSIBILITY
Factors which might affect the quality of the whole passenger journey and which need to be taken into account in the surveys include;
1. Human factors -socioeconomic and demographic factors of the travellers (e.g. gender, age, educational level, social milieu, income, attitudes, preferences and intentions, perceptions and opinions, emotional states and motivations, subjective norms and personality traits, perceived responsibility and control, habits, lifestyles, situational variables such as health conditions, previous experience
2. Transport engineering factors ‘trip attributes’ (e.g. travel time, wait time, speed, out-of-pocket and total cost)
3. Land use factors /built environment
For simplicity, the whole journey may be characterised into three stages:
1. Short distance (first and last mile)
2. Interchange or transfer journey stages
3. The main trip journey stage
2.2.1 DERIVING PASSENGER GROUPS
One of the emergent issues was in terms of the word ‘passenger’. Whilst this remains in the acronym the emphasis was on the traveller, rather than passenger, to encompass pedestrians, cyclists and drivers. As a starting point in discussing the user groups, the profile of each participating city was considered. This showed variation within expected norms. User profiles which were considered in detail included:
• full time employed travellers (with commuter journeys accounting for 15-20% of all travel);
• female travellers (who make more complex trips, are more dependent on public transport and who value safe, reliable and frequent services);
• parents with small children (who have additional needs from public transport e.g. in terms of spaces for buggies);
• low income travellers who were more reliant on public transport;
• young travellers (accounting for 20-30% of the population and who view travel as a ‘gateway to freedom’);
• elderly travellers (aged 65+ with different levels of vulnerability leading to social exclusion who encounter physical, informational and emotional barriers);
• disabled travellers with a physical or mental impairment (estimated at 10-15% of the population), who may be characterised as ‘travel shy’, and face physical, health and attitudinal barriers which prevent them being fully engaged in society; tourist and those unfamiliar with the transport system.
Research has already shown that the requirements of groups may overlap, but some have different priorities for and appreciation of different aspects of services. This priority changes according to the travel mode. For example, whilst reliability, regularity and time are the most important variables for public transport users, feasibility and accessibility are the main quality variables for pedestrians, whilst reducing delay is the main concern for car drivers
Whilst guidelines and standards aimed to accommodate the different needs of different travellers have been established, there is, nevertheless, a lack of knowledge on what is really valued by different groups of travellers who used different travel modes.
2.2.3 LAND USE ISSUES AND TRENDS
The ergonomics community adopt a very restrained definition of accessibility, primarily in relation to usability. In Figure 1, the outer layer of the H-S model alluded to external factors and accessibility to transport in terms of land use planning falls under this part of the model. It is an essential component of the quality of the whole journey, user experience. For transport planners, accessibility is defined as the ability to connect activities. It refers to the physical extent and quality of transport infrastructure, means of transport, transport services and provided information, to support an easy access for all people (“direct access” - unassisted and "indirect access" - assisted persons) in order to plan and perform journeys at the needed time between desired locations. For the METPEX project it was conceived as having the following components (see Table 4).
TABLE 4: COMPONENTS OF ACCESSIBILITY DEFINED BY METPEX
Component Definition/includes….
Physical and cognitive accessibility ease of use, vehicle boarding possibilities, availability of sufficient space at the desired time -, solutions for passengers with low mobility and special needs; standardized accessibility solutions, intermodality
Geographical accessibility possibility to access public transport for the people living in the area; access to economic and social points, shorter distance until the stations and safe walking places
Trip coverage accessibility passengers consider (public) transport accessible when it is available from their trip origin to their destinations
Connectivity passengers consider (public) transport accessible when there is the right density of connections over the distance between their trip origin and their destination and there is directness of links
Spatial coverage accessibility passengers consider (public) transport accessible when it is within a reasonable physical proximity from their origin / destination points;
On-time service accessibility / Temporal coverage accessibility a transport service is accessible when this is available for the passenger at times when citizen wants to travel; e.g. schedules for early and late hours; adherence to schedule, accessible and easy information and communication (audio and video)
Universally social /equal accessibility non-discriminating service in terms of gender, young children, elderly people, poor people, retired, families with young children, people with reduced mobility, disabled people, ethnicity, social status, religion, price policy
Additionally an extensive review was made of ‘external factors’ and their links to accessibility (see Table 5 below). The analytical framework used to undertake the analysis was comprised of four key components: land-use (spatial distribution component or geographical accessibility), transportation (physical accessibility), individual (social accessibility and equality) and temporal component (real-time, on-time and time-based issues). These highlight the complexity of transport research in the face of:
• technological innovations (travel information, demand responsive transport, vehicle design, integrated ticketing, adaptation to public/private transport, propulsion systems, road vehicle telematics, e-commerce),
• government policy (climate change and pollution, congestion, inclusivity and equality),
• socio economic issues (trends in residence and patterns of travel, ageing, migration, city and neighbourhood developments)
Emergent themes considered include implications of an increasing and diversifying EU population, meeting the needs of those with low/limited mobility, technological and social change, compression of time and space, polarisation and disparity,
TABLE 5; OVERVIEW OF SOCIO ECONOMIC TRENDS, IMPLICATIONS FOR ACCESSIBILITY AND POINTERS FOR METPEX TOOLS
These informed the development of the survey tools and KPIs to ensure that all elements were being addressed (see Section 6 for a further discussion of the contributions of the project to accessibility).
2.3 PILOT STUDY
Owing to the wide number of users, potential variables and trip stages a pilot questionnaire consisting of closed questions, was administered in 7 trial sites (Bucharest, Coventry, Dublin, Rome, Stockholm, Valencia and Vilnius) with the aim of testing empirically;
1. The impact of different variables to different traveller groups.
2. The impact of different trip stage satisfaction to general journey satisfaction.
3. The impact of individual past and current experiences and the reported travel components/characteristics to the level of satisfaction that is reported by the individuals.
TABLE 6: CATEGORIES USED IN THE PILOT STUDY
Category Factors
Individual attributes Socio-demographic variables, mobility behaviour and mode usage, Special groups
Contextual variables Temporal and weather, subjective well being, trip purpose, impeded mobility (e.g. carrying bulky objects)
Attitudes Preferences, opinions
Travel experience Familiarity, past satisfaction, adaptation, extreme events
Satisfaction aspects Availability, speed/travel time, information provision, wayfinding, comfort, appeal, safety and security, reliability, care, price, connectivity, ride quality, environment, travel time productivity
The effects of spatial issues and socio-economic factors in measuring the level of passenger travel experience are shown in Table 5. The elements included in the pilot questionnaire are shown in Table 6 and the overall approach in Figure 3.
The questionnaire was designed to be completed either en route or retrospectively and consisted of 6 sections; (1) background information, (2) traveller information, (3) trip description and travel experience, (4) travel satisfaction, (5) subjective well-being and (6) attitudes. Variables measured were categorised as falling under political, organisational, functional, environmental, technological, social or wellbeing aspects.
2.3.1 PILOT STUDY RESULTS
Over 550 questionnaires were completed (307 en route and 247 retrospectively), with an average dropout rate of 25% - attributed to the length and complexity of the survey, recruitment methods and poor translations. Just over 56% of the respondents were women, fewer than 7% had a disability and 4-8% were pensioners or unemployed –showing that the recruitment strategy was not successful for attracting hard to reach groups.
Respondents reported their satisfaction levels concerning each individual trip stage along a particular trip. The reported trips exercised different levels of complexity, combination of travel modes and traveller‘s familiarity with them. Average satisfaction levels corresponded to ‘satisfied‘ for car, bike and walking trip stages and ‘weakly satisfied‘ for public transport trip stages. The satisfaction levels for different modes of transport (as measured on Likert type questions having scales of 1-5) varied.
FIGURE 3; FIELDS OF RESEARCH RELATED TO MOBILITY BEHAVIOUR, MODE USAGE AND PASSENGER EXPERIENCE
• For public transport average satisfaction ranged from 2.46 to 3.79 with highest satisfaction levels relating to ride quality, ease of finding out where to get off the vehicle, behaviour of fellow travellers and on-board safety. Dissatisfaction was highest for toilet availability, cost fairness and consistency and value for money, crowding at the station and on-board and freshness of the air on vehicles.
• For private transport, the average satisfaction levels were between 3.43 and 4.08. Satisfaction was particularly high in relation to road safety and travel time compared with the distance travelled. Car users were most dissatisfied with the price of parking.
• Satisfaction with bicycle trip stages was concentrated in the mid-range of the satisfaction scale - from 3.23 to 3.97 (in a scale of 1 to 5). Dissatisfaction was highest for disturbance from other modes, ride quality, barriers, ease of reaching the destination with the existing path network and parking availability.
• For pedestrians, average levels of satisfaction varied from 3.34 – 3.97 with highest satisfaction in terms of safety and lowest for travel information and the quality of design.
The key determinants of satisfaction on individual trip stages as well as the whole journey experience were identified by constructing cross-correlation matrices and estimating multiple regression models. The relations between overall satisfaction and travel experience variables, subjective well-being indices, travel-related attitudes as well as individual- and trip-specific attributes were investigated. The following conclusions concerning overall travel satisfaction could be drawn:
• Past experience and travellers‘ expectations are key determinants of passenger experience
• Individual traveller and trip characteristics do not seem to contribute significantly to explaining travel experience– with age and income being noticeable exceptions.
• Certain travellers groups such as women, young and low income or unemployed travellers have distinctive determinants of satisfaction with trip stages for various travel modes.
• The complexity of trip stages exercises large variations. However, access and egress trip stages have only a marginal influence on overall travel satisfaction.
• Satisfaction could be explained sufficiently well by few variables. Satisfaction with public transport is however significantly more complicated. The variables included in this pilot study were not able to explain variations in satisfaction with walking trip stages.
• Travellers‘ emotional state is an important determinant of travel experience and satisfaction
• Travellers‘ attitudes and opinions concerning travel safety and particular travel modes were explanatory variables of travel satisfaction.
The analysis of public transport trip stages suggests that the ease of transfer, station environment, service frequency and travel time reliability are the key determinants of travel satisfaction. In addition, waiting safety is an important determinant for women travellers. Travel safety and the relative time perception were singled out as the key determinants of satisfaction with car trip stages. In the case of women travellers, parking price is also a significant factor. Satisfaction with bike trip stages was significantly influenced by the absence of disturbances from other modes, ride quality and the availability and quality of travel information. The absence of disturbances was the only significant determinant of satisfaction with walking trip stages for all travellers. The results indicated that the satisfaction with the primary trip stage is strongly linked to the overall trip satisfaction while the access and egress trip stages have a very marginal contribution to the overall satisfaction, but these are strongly related to the satisfaction with the primary trip stage.
The combination of stakeholders input (see Section 5) and the empirical evidence from the pilot study provides solid ground for identifying users‘ requirements concerning the variables to be measured by the METPEX tool. Table 7 lists the primary and secondary travel experience variables that were identified along with comments on their potential measurement. These tables formed the basis for the second survey instruments.
TABLE 7: PRIMARY AND SECONDARY TRAVEL EXPERIENCE VARIABLES
Variable type Definition
Primary variables
Travel time
Actual time components including access, waiting, in-vehicle/moving and egress times (as applicable).
Subjective travel time Perceived time components
Station environment The appeal and safety of the physical waiting environment
Personnel Availability and responsiveness of personnel at stops and on-board
Ease of transferring
Quality of interchange (coordination, transfer design, accessibility, connectivity)
Physical design The presence of physical hindrances, appropriate and thoughtful design and the surface quality.
Secondary variables
Information The availability and quality of pre-trip and en-route information
Availability Service frequency and span, service coverage
Reliability Service punctuality/regularity and travel time predictability
Comfort and appeal
Seat availability and comfort, availability of facilities, vehicle appeal, cleanliness at stops and on-board and travel sickness
Safety and security
The perceived risk of being exposed to traffic-related or an intentional act of hostility
Parking availability Ease of finding an available parking place
Way-finding and vehicle accessibility Physical and mental barriers associated with travelling – in particular, vehicle design (low floor, priority seat) and way-finding (orientation)
Variables associated with determining passenger experience (all sources) are shown in Table 8
TABLE 8: VARIABLES ASSOCIATED WITH PASSENGER EXPERIENCE (ALL SOURCES)
Variable Description
Accessibility Physical accessibility (possibility to board vehicle); boarding solutions for passengers with different disabilities; standardised accessibility solutions; availability of lifts in vehicles and stations; availability of assistance;
Geographical accessibility (possibility to access public transport in persons living area), territorial cohesion; access to points of attraction;
On-time service accessibility (e.g. schedules for early and late hours);
Social accessibility (non-discriminating service in sense of gender, ethnicity, social status, religion);
Attractiveness Design of vehicles (exterior); design of stations; qualification of staff; appearance of staff; number of staff; availability of additional service (internet, power sockets);
Comfort Availability of shelter in stops and stations; possibility to comfortably place own baggage; sufficient capacity of vehicles at all times; average age of vehicles; in-vehicle privacy; clean vehicles; smell-free vehicles; sufficient leg room; in-vehicle entertainment possibilities; productivity means (internet, power outlets, rentable media devices); vibration of vehicle;
Environmental impact Energy efficiency of particular mode of transport or particular vehicle; awareness of benefits of using collective transport; noise level of vehicles; information on carbon footprint;
Feedback Possibility to leave feedback; feedback of operators to solve issues.
Flexibility Adaption to needs of specific user; adaption to sudden changes or unexpected events; adaption to changing needs of society;
Frequency Number of vehicles per period of time;
Information Information on public transport options and routes (promotion of public transport in mass media); real-time information availability; information of traffic; real-time information on traffic; availability of information systems on service; availability of trip planning tools; availability of information on alternative routes; real-time information availability on disruption or delay or service; availability of printed maps; availability of interactive maps; availability of visual and acoustic in-vehicle information systems; language-barrier free information systems; availability of up-to-date information;
Integration Interconnection with other modes of transport; design of stations to efficiently combine different modes of transport;
Integrated ticketing solutions between different modes of transport, different operators; smart “all-inclusive” ticketing cards;
Possibility to carry own bike in public transport vehicle;
Passenger right protection Existence of information of passenger rights; compensations for cancelled services, transparency of fares and services; privacy and data protection; non-discriminating provision of services;
Price Fare levels affordable to different social groups; availability of social fares (subsidized tickets for vulnerable social groups);
Reliability Arrival on time, meeting expected duration of journey; no cancelled or delayed services; baggage damage levels, baggage loss levels; effect of congestion on public transport service;
Safety Ensuring minimum safety standards of passenger transport vehicles; lighting inside the vehicle; lighting in stations, stops and surrounding areas; number of staff in duty;; absence of health threatening factors (e.g. poisonous exhaust fumes); availability of safety-belts;
Security Security from actions of ill-willing individuals;
Security from natural disasters (e.g. floods, fires, storms);
Smart tickets Possibility to purchase tickets remotely; electronic tickets on various devices; ticket availability at stations; ticket availability in vehicle; various payment solutions; ease of validating tickets;
Speed Duration of trip using public transport as close as possible (or shorter) than using private vehicle;
2.4 MAIN SURVEY
Following the pilot study and reviews, the METPEX team had amassed over 1000 potential variables. These could be segmented in terms of whether they related to a specific transport mode, traveller type, or journey stage or type. These were critically reviewed and reformulated into 500 satisfaction questions for the measurement tool which could be answered by a service user. A selection of approximately 60 of these were presented to each respondent, according to their characteristics, journey type, stage and mode of travel.
The structure of the survey tool is shown in Figure 4. The same structure and questions were presented as far as possible in on line tools (gaming app and real time data collection survey instruments), paper based surveys and focus groups. All material was translated in to appropriate languages and the tools piloted prior to the conduct of the main survey.
FIGURE 4: STRUCTURE OF SURVEY
The survey had four main aims:
1. To investigate the use of technology for data collection (see section 3 below)
2. To gather pan European data from which KPIs could be derived
3. To provide data on use of transport services in the 8 trial cities
4. To address gaps in data collection for active forms of transport and hard to reach groups
In order to perform a comparative analysis within user groups and travel modes regarding the complexity of trip, and summarize and synthesise the focus group results detailed descriptive statistics analyses were carried out, followed by a series of multivariate (ordered logit) models to explore the key determinants for different traveller groups and travel mode users. Systematic analysis of focus group results was also carried out.
2.4.1 SPECIMEN RESULTS
Running for 6 weeks simultaneously in 8 cities (Bucharest, Vilnius, Rome, Grevena, Stockholm, Valencia, Dublin and Coventry) and across the FIA network, 5,275 valid samples were collected. The sample was smaller than expected for a number of reasons including owing to technical difficulties, stakeholder buy in and organisational changes, and the length of the survey. However, the size of the sample was sufficient to develop KPIs, if not large enough to provide a useful set of information on the passenger experience in some cities.
The results again highlighted that the travel satisfaction reported by different travel mode users correlate with different key determinants. Different user groups have different needs and the determinants of satisfaction vary depending on the main travel modes and the complexity of the journey (in terms of trip composition). For public transport modes; punctuality, reliability and some information, accessibility and on-board conditions factors highly correlate with overall travel satisfaction. Cross-correlations amongst private/personal based travel modes (soft modes, private vehicle and mobility vehicle) had a significantly less number of factors that influenced overall satisfaction. This highlights the fact that for non-PT modes, the travel experience attributes that have an effect on overall satisfaction are much more complex. For the vast majority of user groups and travel modes being satisfied with the main trip leg leads to higher satisfaction with the whole journey. However, access legs also influence on the overall satisfaction for bicycle trips and egress legs also for pedestrian and PT rail. In addition, OLM (ordered logit models) demonstrated how different user groups have different needs and how the determinants of satisfaction also vary depending on the main travel modes and the complexity of the journey (in terms of trip composition). The results relating to hard to reach groups are considered in section 4.
2.5 THE KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
Due to their immediacy in conveying key messages to stakeholders, the use of indicators is the most common approach in evaluation and policy making ambits in the transport sector. Several transport-related indicators have been developed in order to assess a variety of aspects related to transport systems. Indeed, they represent the most popular method used in professional practice for example to monitor and evaluate public transport operations, service quality, the achievement of socially desirable goals or the extent of environmental impacts.
The METPEX tool is available for the wider scientific and stakeholders’ communities. It essentially consists of a suite of surveying tools to measure the degree of satisfaction of travellers on aspects related to their experience. However, there is a need to provide more immediate and ready-to-implement evaluation methods related to quality and accessibility issues in the transport system through the use of such tools, in order to show their added value. For this reason, a set of KPIs has been developed (along with an evaluation manual) to achieve the following goals:
• Help policy makers to tailor the tool to their needs by appropriately defining the extent of the quality evaluation exercise.
• Summarise the information from the tool in a more meaningful way to improve communication among stakeholders, by giving a synthetic and quantitative evaluation on quality and accessibility-related issues from the traveller’s perspective.
• Benchmark the performances of the service, transport mode or journey phase under consideration from the viewpoint of specific users groups with the performances that were measured in the eight test sites.
Indicators were built by compounding variables from the METPEX survey tool. Indicators represent latent variables that can summarise the information provided by such satisfaction ratings. These variables consist of five-point satisfaction ratings, ranging from “Not at all satisfied” to “Completely satisfied”, on a variety of very detailed quality issues based on the ratings of a specific journey.
Principal Component Analyses (PCA) was conducted on selected subsets of variables and the resulting components with eigenvalues greater than 1 have been cognitively interpreted to check if they could represent reasonably well a consistent latent factor, or concept. Where this is the case, then the corresponding indicator I can be defined as follows:
I = Σi Ci * Vi / Σi Ci (1)
where Ci are the component (or factor) score coefficients pertaining to the i variables that have a significant loading on the factor under consideration and Vi are the scores of those i satisfaction ratings. The denominator in the previous formula is added to scale the results from 1 to 5 for uniformity with the values of the scores given by the users. The derived indicators measure different components of the perceived quality of the journey and may be summarised as indicators that :
• can be used in a more general ambit, irrespective of the transport system and traveller group
• focus on specific aspects related to the use of different modes of transport, irrespective of traveller group
• focus on aspects related to specific traveller groups, irrespective of transport mode
• focus on aspects related to specific traveller groups using public transport
• Indicators for different phases of the journey experience (e.g. pre-trip, walking to/from travel means, waiting).
Several alternative sets of quality and accessibility indicators were defined and tested within each of the above groups, covering the most important relevant quality dimensions and the points of view of the different user groups considered with special emphasis to mobility impairments. Differences among travel means, particularly considering different forms of public and active transport, are highlighted as well. The following indicators were developed:
• 25 in-depth indicators dealing with specific aspects of the perceived quality of service
• 23 mode-specific quality indicators for the following 7 different travel means: train, underground, tramway, buses, pedestrian, bikes and private cars.
• 30 user group-specific indicators for the following 10 different traveller profiles: women, commuters, elders, young, low income dwellers, visitors, rural dwellers, travelling with children, mobility restricted and communication impaired.
• 7 indicators specifically dealing with communication restricted and mobility impaired passengers using public transport.
• 15 indicators focusing on specific phases of the journey experience, such as travelling on a vehicle, waiting at the bus stop or collecting information before starting the journey.
Eight indicators from the latter group are shared among the previous four groups, giving a set of 92 unique indicators in total which can be used to measure the quality of the whole journey passenger experience.
• 14 Super Quality Indicators which include all the aspects covered by the initial list of indicators, namely Accessibility to transport services and infrastructure; Availability, adequacy and quality of pre-trip and traveling information; Safety and Security on board, interchanges and waiting spaces; Adequacy and quality of infrastructures; Travel experience on board; Reliability of services; Value for money; Availability of ticketing options and fares; Comfort of facilities and/or vehicles; Satisfaction for users of motorised private transport means; Satisfaction of specific needs for different users groups; Possibility and easiness of intermodal journeys; Availability of services; Staff helpfulness and behaviour
The final indicators were assessed in terms of their measurability, specificity, timeliness, novelty, independence and usefulness. The data sets from each survey site were reanalysed in terms of the Super Quality Indicators and results from the survey presented to stakeholders in each city as a context in which to discuss the METPEX approach.
3. TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATION
The trials were used as an opportunity to investigate the technological readiness of different approaches to data collection. In terms of data collection the project used gamification and a smart phone METPEX app (available both on androids and i-phones) associated with a satellite navigationsystem (sbNavi, developed by SBoing). In both cases tailored questions were presented to the users based on their personal and journey details. The satnav system had further benefits in so far as it could monitor movement through the route and push questions to the user at appropriate and relevant times during the journey.
Additionally a suite of back end administrative services were provided which would:
1. Enable the design of customised surveys (drawing on the 500 questions within the METPEX database) and the addition of other questions based on the requirements of the operator,
2. Encrypt all data,
3. Monitor response rates from all measurement tools, and alert researchers to the need to target users from different groups,
4. Provide incentives to users completing the survey.
5. Manage data entry from all measurement instruments.
Most of the sites failed to achieve their targets for this part of the project owing to late approval for the android version on the app store, publicity, requirements of users to buy into and use the systems (e.g. download systems, enter their profiles, and remember to use the systems), reliance on internet connectivity throughout journey). However it is anticipated that customised questions, based on user and journey profile, and current activity will be the way forward. A further project is being planned to develop these systems (see Section 7 for more details).
4. BARRIERS TO ACCESSIBILITY IN TRADITIONALLY HARD TO REACH GROUPS AND USERS WITH SPECIAL NEEDS
It was anticipated that within the trial period it might not be possible to attract traditionally hard to reach groups (communication impaired, low income groups, mobility restricted, elderly, rural dwellers, travellers with children, travellers with dependents, under 24s, visitors and women) to participate in the survey even though we had created questions sets for each of these groups, for each travel mode. Over 3800 from these groups took part in the survey per se, with the quantitative analysis not showing that their travel experience was significantly worse than that of other groups (with some regional variations)
The questions were used as focus groups prompts and representative participants recruited from gatekeeper organisations/snowballing at each site. Notably, the 22 focus groups (258 respondents) may also have included those that are not able to use transport services. As such the answers produced richer data, and lower levels of satisfaction. Cross cutting themes emerged (all groups/all sites) in relation to poor passenger and operator attitudes, the difficulty of making complaints/quality of response; inaccessibility of smaller stations and vehicles; lack of reliable transport information; staff availability and knowledge in stations and vehicles; overcomplicated ticketing /zoning; poor quality information (visual and audio) across the whole system; potential discrimination against certain groups; people cannot easily access facilities they need, when they want.
The effects of insecurity, physiological and psychological tension among special needs travellers damages their confidence to travel independently, which in turn made them feel a need of an accompanying person or to use the demand responsive service, especially during peak-hours periods.
From the meta-analysis the main factors needed to enable people to travel independently were certainty, acceptance, tolerance and understanding, from both drivers and other passengers. These travellers really value various practical infrastructure supports, from staff personal support through to accessible information provision and stations and vehicles. Some of this needs to be personalised for particular groups which may create some practical problems for public transport providers, especially in providing universal public transport facilities that work for all. However the presence of certainty, acceptance, tolerance and understanding, from both drivers and other passengers would make the journey of this group of travellers more bearable and durable and is not hard to achieve. Additionally improvements to in the clarity (e.g. timetables, notices, navigational signs, way finding, coloured markings) and reliability of information provision, especially in case of disruptions and alternatives due to non-functional infrastructure, is the one that all groups highlighted.
METPEX has therefore provided clear outcomes for transport and local authorities and operators by providing KPIs and protocols to ascertain the needs and levels of satisfaction of traditionally hard to reach groups. Additionally the project has provided guidance on priority areas which would lead to improved inclusivity and accessibility for these groups.
5. STAKEHOLDER VIEWS AND ENGAGEMENT
Stakeholder engagement occurred throughout the project occurred at four stages:
1. Pre-trial stage – positioning METPEX in terms of competitor analysis and the type of information that would be most use
2. Post pilot phases – discussion of usefulness of results for each stakeholder group
3. Main pilot stage – support from all stakeholders was essential in enabling the trial to be conducted on and about local services
4. Post main study – presentation of the results, discussion of the usefulness of the METPEX tool.
In the first two stages, 44 stakeholders from ten different cities and one European disability body were interviewed on the overall philosophy, approach and operationalisation of the METPEX measurement instruments. Results from the pilot study were also presented where appropriate.
In general, stakeholders appreciated the benefits of the METPEX tool as they believed that the identification of passengers‘ travel needs would become more important for transport service modernisation and the quantification of quality factors would guide investment enabling a better and more (economically) efficient service during the period of economic crisis. However, there was clear differentiation between stakeholder groups:
• Operators were more interested in the impacts of detailed level-of-service related variables to the passenger experience (e.g. the use of travel information, time utilisation whilst on-board, more detailed impacts of disruptions, detailed trip pattern, etc.) and less interested with the overall satisfaction of whole journey (especially those aspects over which they have no control), the usefulness of measuring the quantity of poor experience and general variables that could not be to understand their customer behaviour. Many conduct their own surveys, but admit that they do not reach all groups.
• Planning and transport authorities were more interested with wider general urban and public transport planning issues and the multi-modal travel patterns (e.g. different impacts of level-of-service for different travel modes and trip purposes), the impact of congestions and pollution in general and adequacy of service coverage. Many collect or rely on third parties to collect information, which is problematic in terms of resource expenditure, reliability, coverage, depth, and currency.
• Special interest groups were more interested with the minutiae of their constituent‘s interests and would have liked a more detailed measurement instrument, were sensitive about inclusion of private information and feelings about accessibility.
• Research institutes were interested with the detailed trip patterns and behavioural variables that underlie the travellers‘ decision making processes in order to inform policy making. They are also interested in multidisciplinary issues such as the role of subjective well-being conditions, stress and the impacts of travellers‘ time constraints.
All stakeholders highlighted the importance of reaching traditionally hard to reach groups and making the questionnaire accessible and comprehensible to people of different social categories, age, ethnicity and with different levels of literacy. Specific requirements for information were fed into both survey designs (e.g. regarding travel habits, station design, transference, information acquisition, comfort) (see Section 2). Most stakeholders expressed concern about lengthy questionnaires.
Follow up interviews after the second studies were difficult to arrange owing to organisational changes and staff churn and took place before the KPIs had been developed. Instead the 18 stakeholders could only comment on the survey and the results. The stakeholders were concerned about the length and usability of the survey, and the fact that the results did not accord with those achieved by their current surveys. Neither result is surprising. The measurement instruments used in the survey were designed to gather data which would lead to the final tool – which would be substantially shorter than the survey. The sample size was small within each city, and may therefore not have been representative, and may not have been measuring the same variables.
The stakeholders original levels if interest in the tool were confirmed – meaning that a configurable system (i.e. one with back end administrative systems would be needed). An additional requirement emerged for data analysis and the capacity to drill down into the data. This had been outside of the scope of the original project, but a quality dashboard was an emergent requirement.
One of the original aims of the project was to produce a tool that could be used for benchmarking service quality. For some stakeholders, for some aspects of service provision this already occurs. It is viewed as problematic, owing to contextual variations. Having witnessed the variations within cities, operational factors (e.g. funding, competition), different users groups and journey types, the legitimacy of benchmarking might be questioned.
6. CONTRIBUTIONS TO UNDERSTANDING OF LAND USE AND ACCESSIBILITY
This section looks at the ways in which METPEX has contributed to a greater understanding of the relationship between land use and accessibility and has developed additional strategies and tools for aid transport planning and decision making in local and transport authorities.
6.1 UNDERSTANDING OF ACCESSIBILITY AND RELATION TO LAND USE
Figure 5 provides an overview of the interrelations between land use, accessibility and mobility derived from an extensive literature review and the direction of their association
FIGURE 5: SUMMARY OF INTERRELATIONS BETWEEN LAND USE, ACCESSIBILITY AND MOBILITY VARIABLES (-) indicates negative association, (+)positive association, (0) no association and (?) unclear association
A survey of over 40 transport experts was undertaken to explore the relationship between land use, accessibility and transport.
Figure 6 shows that public transport satisfaction may be partly predicted by accessibility levels and land use features (the scale is from -3 to +3, where a positive value indicates that an increase in that factor will lead to an increase in the second one. Negative values mean than an increase of a factor leads to a decrease in the second one. The size of the arrows is proportional to impact size).
FIGURE 6: SUMMARY OF ASSESSED IMPACTS IN A SCALE FROM -3 TO 3 FROM EXPERT PANEL
Since travel time and travel cost are the most determinant accessibility variables changing satisfaction of public transport users, areas that need short time and cheap trips may have a higher public transport acceptance. Changes in land use diversity may contribute positively to increase accessibility in terms of distance, time and cost but might be less effective than land use density and street network connectivity. Thus, although limited effectivity may be expected, a high mix of residential and employment sites could be associated with high accessibility and public transport satisfaction
FIGURE 7: AVERAGE OF ELASTICITY OVERALL SATISFACTION OF PUBLIC TRANSPORT USERS BASED ON AN EXPERT SURVEY (range of elasticity from -3 to +3).
Figure 7 shows all factors are negatively associated with overall travel satisfaction, i.e. high distance, time and cost lead to less satisfaction. On average, travel cost seems to have the largest impact on overall public transport satisfaction, followed by travel time and travel distance. Accessibility to public transport stations and accessibility travelling by this mode show similar results. Only mean elasticity of travel distance reveals differences among both aspects, being distance more determinant when reaching stations than when travelling by public transport.
6.2 STRATEGIES FOR INTEGRATING AND OPTIMISING TRANSPORT SYSTEMS
Recent changes in European transport policy reflect a number of socio-economic trends in relation to the accessibility of passenger transport. Transport policy has developed from a technocratic “predict and provide” nature, towards emphasis on reducing traffic growth, pollution and congestion and promoting low carbon transport. Reducing congestion by increasing mobility has emphasised non-motor vehicle travel (walking / cycling). A number of local and regional schemes have been implemented aiming to make travel systems more intelligent, improve the transport system by providing real time information and also encourage multi-modal and ‘sharing’ travel patterns. A key response in policy to climate change and pollution is the management of transport systems’ environmental impacts, including more stringent vehicle emission targets to reduce greenhouse gases. Whilst equality policies and legislation for transport have been developed by both the EU and member states, illustrating the importance of mobility in people’s lives. In practice, however, the implementation of such policies and legislation varies greatly across member states, due to factors such as levels of political commitment and costs (for example, disability adaptations).
METPEX has looked at the implications of these trends for the design of integrating and optimising transport systems with a view to aiding transport decision making in local and transport authorities. Strategies were drawn up in terms of responding to:
• Trends in government policy and legislation relating to climate change and pollution, congestion, inclusivity and diversity.
• Demographic trends including population growth, age and ageing, gender, disability, income (socio-economic status), geographical impacts of demographic change
• Employment trends including the changing nature, location and number of employment sites, the demand for greater job flexibility, demand for 24 hour services, increased prevalence of part time/non contract jobs
• Trends in transport technology including IT technologies for travel information, demand responsive transport, vehicle design, integrated ticketing, maintenance of public/private transport, propulsion systems and road vehicle telematics
Measurement of the effects of change was broken down into a series of public transport performance indicators relating to economic, quality, environmental and organisational indicators. Despite differences in governance, administrative culture and professional capacities between countries as well as transport systems, good transport policy has to adhere to certain standards, i.e. have certain qualities. The four policy quality criteria were elucidated as referring to transferability, cost appropriateness, sustainability and improving accessibility (at geographical, social, temporal, travel mode and trip purpose levels).
6.3 EVALUATION MATRIX FOR INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES SUPPORTING INTEGRATIVE ACCESSIBILITY
The reviews of socio economic trends that may influence accessibility and mobility patterns showed that demographic, employment, residence, technology, government policy and legislation were key influencers. Innovative technologies may be rated in terms of their impact on economic, service, societal and environmental issues. These may be subdivided as shown in Table 9, and a simple 3 point rating scale used to assess the impact of a new innovative technology. This was tested in an evaluation of an electronic ticketing system in Toulouse, showing that the solution was highly recommended for the city’s public transport.
TABLE 9: CRITERIA FOR THE EVALUATION MATRIX
Criteria for matrix Details
Economic issues
• New business – providing innovative types of public transport services
• Economic growth / Transport activity – providing public transport usage, offering better accessibility and quality
• Modal shift – improving innovative types of modal changing between public transport (BUS to METRO and etc.)
• Reduction of administrative burden – creating new IT analytics and management systems
Service issues
• Competitiveness (Incl. costs) – ability to acquire good business positions in comparison to other companies
• Quality (Incl. strikes, weather) - The standard of something as measured against other things of a similar kind; the degree of excellence of something
• Image – people’s subjective thoughts and beliefs on various general aspects of quality in public transport
• Safety - The condition or state of being safe; freedom from danger or hazard; exemption from hurt, injury, or loss; in context of METPEX danger or hazards are considered as transport accidents
• Security - The ability that ensures the secure utilization of services. Freedom from danger, risk; in context of METPEX danger or hazards are considered as incidents inflicted by ill-willed individuals.
• Access to services – improvement of service quality and accessibility
Society issues
• Acceptance and influence – position of public transport in community’s life, possibility to make impact on decisions
• Accessibility - The quality of being at hand when needed; able to be reached or approached easily
• Increased amenity values – brand new public transport tools.
• Highest safety and security- ensure CCTV, more responsible persons and etc.
• Employment level and conditions – creating new work places and propose social warranties
Environmental issues
• Green technology – solutions allowing to save energy, reduce emissions and improve environmental indicators of vehicle fleet
• Emissions (Incl. noise) – discharge of undesired transport side products like greenhouse gas
• Use of resource – fuel consumption levels
7. SUMMARY OF SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL RESULTS AND FOREGROUND
METPEX has achieved all of its stated objectives and contributed to the harmonisation of transport research within the EU by producing reviews of current research and policies which showed gaps in knowledge relating to the link between land use and accessibility, poorly defined quality indicators which did not cover the multi- modal end-end journeys, lack of consultation of traditionally hard to reach groups, and ways to measure the quality of active forms of transport.
The project has addressed these gaps by developing:
• A suite of KPIs which cover whole, multi modal journeys from origin to destination, taking into account different traveller types and transport modes, including active forms of transport. These can be used by other projects, operators and transport stakeholders
• A new definition of accessibility linking it to land use
• Understanding the requirements of transport stakeholders in terms of their gaps in knowledge, funding and priority areas for surveys
• Producing feedback for transport operators and authorities and a set of guidelines on how to improve public transport quality for hard to reach groups based on data collected from 2 pan European studies
• Strategies to help transport and local authorities address the new transport challenges
• A simple to use evaluation matrix to support planning for innovative technologies for integrative accessibility.
• Introduced the innovative concept of crowdsourced “dynamic surveys” for transport i.e. surveys, customized to responder profiles and delivered via smartphone and web applications,
• A real time transport data collection app, at TRL7 which may be submitted to the SME instrument and/or Fast Track to Innovation funding schemes in 2016 which supports:
o Multiple organizations and campaigns per organization (with dynamic, distributed multi-server architecture).
o Multiple target questionnaires per campaign (multiple sets of questions, multiple target-groups).
o Dynamic selection and generation of the questionnaire presented to the responder, (i.e. the app will be able to query our servers, identify the currently active campaigns, randomly choose one, then choose a questionnaire (randomly, in order to ensure normal distribution over a large sample, or based on the user’s profile, demographics, etc., if the campaign is targeted). The user’s profile may contain optional settings such as: preferred language, age/gender, etc. and will be communicated to the server,
o strongly encrypted end-to-end, thus ensuring the privacy of the user.
o Definition of a questionnaire via XML (its questions, controls, behaviour, conditional flow, etc.) and dynamic generation of it on the smartphone (form, style, etc. via its XML description).
o Generation of the user’s response (in XML) and uploading it also using end-to-end, strong encryption.
o It will also be possible to dynamically and parametrically generate a questionnaire via PHP scripts and database queries over the extensive set of ~1000 transport variables and questions produced by the METPEX project.
Potential Impact:
Potential Impact
The document addresses the potential socio-economic impact and wider societal implications of the project to date, the main dissemination activities and exploitation of the results, with each section highlighting contributions and recommendations. The document firstly addresses gender and ethical issues both within the project, wider academia and the transport domain.
1. GENDER AND ETHICS
1.1 GENDER EQUALITY
1.1.1 WITHIN THE PROJECT
METPEX has taken its responsibilities of women’s participation in research seriously. The project was led by a senior female academic, and half of the work packages were led by women. 93 staff were associated with the project at partner institutions (47% were women), with 23 additional staff recruited specifically for the project (16 of whom were men). Staff from both genders, and at all levels of seniority have been named as co-authors on project related publications. Female staff recruited on the project have variously gained doctorates, achieved fulltime and/or higher positions and become grant holders following project completion. Senior female academics actively mentored more junior colleagues in work package meetings, and all contributions to discussions were handled equally.
METPEX has supported and taken steps towards redressing gender imbalances in academia.
1.1.2 GENDER AND MOBILITY
The project found that women travellers have different concerns to their male counterparts, especially in terms of safety and security and comfort, although many of the issues raised were of a similar nature. Issues such as staffing, maintenance and cleanliness, staff attitudes, safety in stations would appear to be easy to fix, if there was an incentive for operators and authorities to address this. Although social media and the trust economy may provide some motivation to address these, tighter regulations /guidelines are needed to ensure minimum standards are maintained across networks.
Women in particular make complex journeys; use both PT and active forms of transport. However, they have not featured strongly as a vulnerable user group in projects. Although cycling and walking are prioritized and promoted, little guidance is available on KPIs.
METPEX has addressed the gender bias in transport research by:
• including women as a user group,
• providing Key Performance Indicators which deal specifically with the concerns of female travellers and active forms of travel,
• producing recommendations on how to address the concerns of female traveller.
Passenger experience tends to have a lower priority and few guidelines in transport policy and strategy documents, as such the very issues that concern women as users of public transport may not be dealt with. Given that women are more likely to use public transport and support sustainable transport, giving such concerns greater priority will encourage their safe and effective use of public transport services.
The need to address whole journey experiences has been promoted with stakeholders and in METPEX related dissemination activities, and methods produced to assist in data collection.
The recommendation of the project would be that women’s mobility patterns are addressed in future projects building on the KPIs which emerged from METPEX and the survey tools produced.
1.2 ETHICAL ISSUES
One of the key findings has been the paucity of information gathering relating to traditionally hard to reach groups by stakeholder groups. Given the necessity of designing inclusive mobility, it is not sufficient for authorities and operators to use tokenistic representation. Not only were vulnerable groups (and those who do not use PT) underrepresented in local data gathering initiatives, where transport policy is based on historic date (e.g. UK) the journeys made by such groups may not even be represented (as information is only sought on commuting journeys). This means that the rationale on which current transport systems are designed may be flawed.
In understanding the potential difficulty of gaining insight into the experience of vulnerable transport users, METPEX has:
• Designed, replicable, specific surveys and KPIs for a wide range of traveller types (females, commuters, rural dwellers, travellers with children and dependents, elderly, mobility and communication impaired, those from lower socio economic groups).
• Undertaken focus groups with vulnerable users to determine in more detail the quality of whole journey experiences.
• Presented results specifically related to the needs of vulnerable transport users at international conferences to highlight this issue
The second approach was deemed necessary because 1) those answering surveys were able to disclose which profile represented them most accurately in the survey (so may not disclose or feel a disability is relevant), 2) surveys only capture those who can use the transport system. However, the analysis has shown that the quantitative survey results do not correspond well to qualitative results, but that many vulnerable users have the same experiences, which can be addressed relatively easily.
The recommendations for local stakeholders would be to:
• Use METPEX KPIs and survey proforma to understand mobility and requirements of vulnerable groups, rather than developing bespoke and invalidated measurement instruments
• Remove institutional barriers that prevent whole journey problems from being dealt with (e.g. operators may gather information on stations and bus stops, but if they do not own the facilities they may not pass on the information on or take action)
• Model whole journey trips to understand mobility patterns of different user groups
• Have adequate representation of all users on decision making boards.
The recommendations for EU community would be to:
• build on the METPEX tools and KPIs to harmonise transport research
• prioritise mobility requirements of hard to reach groups
2.SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT
High levels of impact were proposed within the DoW. Some of these proved unrealistic in the timeframe of the project. For example, the project was not able to have an impact on uptake of transport or reduction of carbon emissions, by its very nature. It was a project to develop a measurement tool to enable transport stakeholders to measure the quality of the passenger experience in a reliable way. Once they have done this, they in turn have to implement the changes the results warrant, to make improvements to their services, which in turn will encourage greater usage thereby influencing carbon reductions. Additionally, much of the project took place in a time of austerity. The immediate effects of this were a reduction in budgets, service and personnel cuts for operators and authorities with transport budgets being significantly reduced. Vulnerable and hard to reach transport groups are especially effected by austerity measures as their routes and concessionary travel may be cut. For some travellers (e.g. in Lithuania and Greece) the quality of transport services was not a high priority.
The tools were translated into 11 languages, with 9 nationalities being represented. 6300 people were surveyed. It is estimated that outreach activities (workshops and seminars) have addressed 50 SMEs. 26 transport operators have supported the project. Unfortunately owing to organisational churn in the transport sector it was rarely possible to interview the same people at all phases of the project.
Through stakeholder engagement, METPEX has:
• Raised awareness with transport stakeholders of the importance of quality issues and consideration of whole journey experiences in 8 countries,
• Demonstrated the use of technological innovation (real time data collection, gamification and social media to transport stakeholders
• Developed and tested tools in a Pan European context
METPEX recommends:
• Careful consideration of the appropriateness of impact assessment criteria to reflect the nature of the project
• Mobility and accessibility to be guaranteed rights of all citizens
2.2 POTENTIAL ECONOMIC IMPACT
METPEX business concept addresses the vertical European and global market of surveys for the Transport sector. Worldwide, there are many large stakeholders in this sector, sufficient to ensure a large market size with dynamic growth. Their enthusiastic interest has been verified through the METPEX project, in which there are currently involved 50 major stakeholders (20 operators, 12 authorities, 10 NGOs, 8 academic & research institutions) from 10 EU countries. Also, the ever growing global and European interest in Transport projects in the next decade (see: H2020 priorities in Transport) will further increase the need for evaluation surveys in this sector, to validate various project results and applied policies and their impact to the citizens and the society overall. METPEX tools address the specific niche market of passenger experience measurement tools formed by:
• National and supranational transport authorities/associations; at national level we can count approximately 30 organisation while the members of (International Association of Public Transport (UITP) has affiliated 71 national and supranational bodies worldwide
• There is not an official statistic about the number of local operators but if we consider only the regional dimension (EUROSTAT NUTS 2 definition) we can estimate that about 300 are the Local authorities in Europe and 185 worldwide are members of UITP
• In the UITP members there are 353 transport operators in Europe and 574 in the World.
METPEX tools are potentially able to satisfy a segmented demand:
• Being able to satisfy different needs and provide a personalised offer
• Approaching the customers with different type of relationships
• Gaining advantage for the different level of profitability
• Capturing the different willingness to pay for different aspects of the offer
2.2.1POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON SERVICE PROVIDERS AND TRANSPORT OPERATORS
In 2012, 56.8 billion journeys were made by public transport in the EU. This figure will be affected by changes land use, socio demographics issues, policy and technological innovations. It may result in new entrants into service provision. To maintain market share operators need to provide high quality services for all users.
Gathering feedback on transport quality is of paramount importance for the success of all transport-related projects, as well as for public transport stakeholders wishing to improve their competitiveness and service efficiency against the competition. Targeted surveys are not straightforward to design or conduct, as they require very specialized knowledge about how to select and approach appropriate target groups, sizing the minimum statistical sample, forming valid, unbiased, unambiguous and reliable questionnaires, maximizing the survey throughput and quality, post-processing and evaluating the quality of the results, etc. Most stakeholders do not have this capability and outsource their survey campaigns to specialized consultants, who design and launch them using manual methods, i.e. by personal interviews and pen-and-paper questionnaires. The average cost of such outsourcing to a stakeholder is in the order of 10.000 EUR per campaign, plus significant time and resources allocated to its setup and analysis
METPEX has provided:
• Validated KPIs and administrative system to improve the validity and inclusivity of transport surveys and reduce costs
• The derived information will enable better allocation of resources to improve quality of passenger experience
• The matrix to evaluate integrative accessibility technologies provides a simple means to assess implications of new investments
2.2.1 TRAVELLERS: IMPROVING ACCESSIBILITY
Equality of opportunity for people with disabilities is at the centre of European Disability Strategy 2010-2020 which seeks to provide continuous and sustainable improvement in the situation of persons with disabilities in economic, social and participatory terms.
Persons with disabilities represent approximately 10% of the working age population in Europe with figures increasing as people grow older. Given the correlation between disability and ageing and the demographic change in Europe it is expected that over 20% of the EU population would benefit from improvements in accessibility of goods and services. There are a lack of accessible goods and services on the EU market, and this includes transport provision. As a consequence there are barriers for disabled people's economic, social and political participation in society. The potential of persons with disabilities as a relevant segment of consumers is mostly overlooked. As a consequence they do not benefit from single market opportunities as much as other citizens. Inaccessible transport may provide one of the first barriers which have to be overcome by disabled people wishing to take part in civic, social and commercial activities of a city. Understanding and overcoming these barriers will not only enhance the passenger experience and encourage greater use of public and active forms of transport; it will also enable disabled travellers to fully partake in civic life, thereby increasing their quality of life.
METPEX supports accessibility, inclusivity and e-accessibility legislation by developing tools to understand the transport requirements of travellers with different forms of disability.
From the data gathered from the initial surveys as set of requirements has been developed which will enable transport operators to take immediate action to increase accessibility of their services
METPEX has emphasized the importance of quality issues to vulnerable transport users such as the need for certainty, acceptance, tolerance and understanding
2.2.4 LOCAL AND TRANSPORT AUTHORITIES
Authorities and operators have a dedicated budget for passenger satisfaction that can vary from €10-100,000s. A metropolitan agency may allocate, on average, 70 keuro/Year to passenger satisfaction surveys, which gives an estimate of an European market of approximately 45MEuro (including authorities and the transport operators).
Broadly speaking it is very useful to analyse the global market of transportation, with a specific focus on the European market, in order to understand the target and size of the market to which sell the Online Survey Tool of the METPEX project. With around €548 billion in Gross Value Added (GVA) at basic prices, the transport and storage services sector (including postal and courier activities) accounted for about 4.8 % of total GVA in the EU-28 in 2011. In 2012, total passenger transport activities in the EU-28 by any motorised means of transport are estimated to have amounted to 6391 billion pkm or on average around 12652 km per person. This figure includes intra-EU air and sea transport but not transport activities between the EU and the rest of the world. Passenger cars accounted for 72.2 % of this total, powered two-wheelers for 2 %, buses & coaches for 8.2 %, railways for 6.5 % and tram and metro for 1.5 %. Intra-EU air and intra-EU maritime transport contributed 9 % and 0.6 % respectively.
In terms of supporting the efficiency of local authorities, METPEX has provided a means of enabling authorities to measure the quality of the whole journey, including active and sustainable modes. The KPIs and tools provide a robust set of indicators and statements which are specifically targeted towards the groups that authorities know least about (‘hard to reach groups’), but which they should care most about. Additional insights have been provided into the relationship between land use and accessibility, and emerging trends which will influence this relationship. A series of strategies has also been proposed which will enable measures to be taken to address future challenges.
METPEX has provided a more inclusive definition of accessibility, linking accessibility to land use issues, and detailed the components that can decrease satisfaction with public transport based on land use issues which will aid transport and city planners in their commissioning of services.
METPEX has therefore provided methods for local and transport authorities which will
• Reducing the cost of commissioning travel surveys
• Aid economic development of the city through increasing the accessibility of transport services
• Aid to transport decision making and deployment of technology to support integrative accessibility
2.3 SOCIAL IMPACT
Mobility is correlated with quality of life. Therefore any steps to improve mobility will affect quality of life. A study by the European Commission, DG Region and Urban Policy released in 2013, analysed the satisfaction in terms of quality of life on a total of 79 European cities and 4 surrounding areas. In terms of satisfaction of quality of life related to transport, the study revealed results, ranging from 95% in Zurich to 14% in Palermo with Bucharest, Vilnius and Rome achieving poor results.
METPEX has highlighted the requirements of traditionally hard to reach user groups, and has shown that their actual lived experience of transport, may be a poorer than that related in transport surveys. The focus group data from all hard to reach groups triangulated well, showing where ‘soft’ improvements could be made to service offerings e.g. in terms of staff training which would reduce stress and increase independence.
METEX has:
• contributed a small effort in encouraging transport operators and authorities to increase consultation with traditionally hard to reach groups, provided them with the tools to do so, and specimen results to improve services.
• Considered wider aspects of mobility, especially in terms of accessibility and active forms of transport, highlighting that the quality of the journey to the transport provider may be a great barrier for those unable to work
• KPIs have also been provided and research undertaken with those from rural and low socio economic groups and with low levels of literacy, thereby widening the categories of those who are consulted
2.4 POLITICAL IMPACT
No general EU legislation exists requiring Member States to prohibit discrimination against disabled people in relation to transport. However, there are a number of EU provisions designed to improve access to specific modes of transport. For example, the Bus and Coach Directive 2001, for instance, requires Member States to ensure that urban buses comply with various accessibility standards. They must, for example, be fitted with a ramp or a lift as well as a kneeling system and must have wheelchair designated spaces, colour contrasting, and designated seats for persons with reduced mobility. Evidence from focus groups suggests that this legislation is insufficient, and a lot of disabled travellers faced with inaccessible transport systems could challenge their consequent exclusion or discomfort as an infringement of their rights under the ECHR.
The Revised European Social Charter (ESC) Article 15 confers on disabled people a right to ‘independence, social integration and participation in the life of the community’. By Article 15(3) the signatories undertake to: promote their full social integration and participation in the life of the community, in particular through measures, including technical aids, aiming to overcome barriers to communication and mobility and enabling access to transport, housing, cultural activities and leisure.
The philosophy behind METPEX has been to consider the whole journey experience, as such KPIs can be used as a means of benchmarking a number of aspects of service provision for disabled travellers. These in turn could be used to develop regulations and standards for new and existing service providers.
2.5 TECHNOLOGICAL IMPACT
METPEX conducted online surveys using a gaming app and the SBOING GPS navigator, called “sbNavi™”, launched in November 2013 in Apple’s app store (iTunes) and adapted for Android smartphones in April 2014. The SBOING GPS navigator is a satellite navigation application, developed for smartphones, which implements SBOING’s crowdsourcing methodology for improved routing and faster map updates. Its community version is offered for free, together with free maps for the entire world. One of the main benefits of using the sbNavi application was that information in terms of travel, such as position, route taken, point of interests, passenger stop points, speed information could be collected in real time. Journey and traveller information were stored and the app could push appropriate questions to the user based on their movement patterns. Additionally a backend administrative system was provided to enable customised surveys to be designed, monitored, stored and encrypted.
All METPEX partners, field experts and most stakeholders have recognized that there is a gap in the transport market for such a measurement tool and that there is potential to provide a viable, hi-tech business solution to bridge this gap in a profitable manner. Such a solution would provide public transport stakeholders and transport consultants, with a “smart tool” for acquiring traveller feedback on various transport issues, as well as the citizens and the society overall, by providing them with an efficient tool to deliver their feedback directly to the decision makers and public transport service providers.
METPEX has therefore introduced the innovative concept of crowdsourced “dynamic surveys”, i.e. surveys, customized to responder profiles and delivered via smartphone and web applications, by dynamically retrieving questionnaires from servers and delivering them to the intended target groups and even adapting them on-the-fly while they are being answered.
2.6 TRANSPORT IMPACT
2.6.1 RESEARCH COMMUNITY
One of the aims of METPEX was to harmonise transport research across the EU. Significant gaps in knowledge have been found in terms of groups consulted, definitions of indicators and accessibility, modal coverage, and whole journey data.
METPEX has delivered a suite of KPIs and administrative services which can be used by future EU projects.
In order for future projects to benefit from this work METPEX KPIs are open source, have featured in dissemination activities, but alerts will also need to be positioned in funding calls to make future projects aware of the resources.
2.6.2 LEVELS OF POTENTIAL IMPACT
The potential impact on transport may be considered at different levels based on expressions of interest received during the project. The METPEX conference showed an appetite at EU level for work which addresses wider accessibility, sustainability and inclusivity issues. Stakeholder engagement has revealed a split between the interest of transport and local authorities in whole journey issues, and transport operators who are interested more in service provision and competitor analysis. The reviews have shown on the one hand, gaps in knowledge regarding the use, formulation and inclusivity of quality indicators, and on the other the lack of integration of accessibility with land use planning and emergent themes which will transform transport services. Mindful of these changes, the KPIs, survey instruments and tools developed in the project will form a basis for future work (e.g. though the inclusion of whole journey, different traveller groups and active and new forms of transport). Table 1 considers different impact areas of the project at EU, national and local levels.
TABLE 1; LEVELS OF POTNEITAL IMPACT FOR METPEX OUTPUTS
Level METPEX output Potential impact
EU level Whole journey philosophy, KPIs, new definition of accessibility, linking accessibility to land use, identification of gaps in knowledge • Shaping of EU transport and research agenda
• Foundation for future projects
• Increased recognition of quality issues
• Harmonisation of transport research
National level Recommendations, KPIs • Ensuring increased inclusivity of transport provision
• KPIs to form basis for national quality indicators, to sit alongside performance indicators.
Local level KPIs, evaluation matrix for assessment of technology to support integrative accessibility, strategies to deal with transport changes
• Increased validity, reduced cost of surveys
• Enhanced decision making so that the right technology is purchased
• Based line strategies for addressing systems level changes which need to made to address emergent issues.
Recommendations:
1. The whole journey experience needs to be linked to mobility and wider definitions of accessibility. These concepts need to be nurtured and protected through greater collaboration between all stakeholders, without this, service provision will remain disjointed.
2. Enforceable standards need to be established regarding quality of service to safeguard the requirements of vulnerable transport users. Audit tools can be developed based on KPIs to assess quality provision.
3. The quality of service provision for all travellers should be given the same priority as operational indicators.
4. Research instruments developed in EU projects must be usable (and proven to be used) by people with additional needs.
5. Make it a statutory duty to include vulnerable transport users on decision making bodies.
6. Improved technological infrastructure will enable real time data collection, but inclusion of groups without access to technology or having high levels of literacy need to be afforded the same priority.
7. Accessibility, rather than transport provision per se needs to be addressed to ensure that citizens have equal access to services and opportunities, regardless of their socio economic status, place of residence, demographics or climatic change.
8. Certainty, acceptance, tolerance and understanding in transport service provision should be used as design concepts
9. Trip chaining and measuring of quality of shorter journeys should be investigated
3. ACHIEVING AND SUSTAINING IMPACT
A number of activities need to be undertaken to ensure that METPEX delivers the potential impact outlined above. Firstly, the outputs of the project need to be disseminated more widely. To this end a METPEX book will be published in 2016, and partners have plans for more publications. Secondly, the project outputs need to be adopted by transport stakeholders and new projects; this requires an aggressive marketing/awareness raising campaign and building up customer relationships. Thirdly more refined measurement instruments and survey tools need to be developed, highlighting the projects USP and the benefits which can be derived from using the project outputs.
The METPEX backend services (game, SbNavi App, online and paper based surveys, focus groups, methodology, variables and indicators) were assessed by the team as being at TRL 7 or above, whereas the advisory services were rated as TRL 4. Additionally, stakeholder would value the produce a quality scoreboard as an output, or the ability to drill down into the results as part of the advisory service..
A business plan has been developed which has considered different options. Apart from the option of private investment (i.e. venture capital), the H2020 SME Instrument and Fast track to Innovation seem to be the most suitable funding schemes. Consortium members have expressed willingness to collaborate on future proposals.
4. EXPLOITABLE FOREGROUND KNOWLEDGE
The exploitable foreground consists of
1. The KPIs which can form the backbone of a decision support system for transport policy makers that are interested in implementing a human-centred transport system. Namely
• 14 Super Quality Indicators which include all the aspects covered by the initial list of indicators, namely Accessibility to transport services and infrastructure; Availability, adequacy and quality of pre-trip and traveling information; Safety and Security on board, interchanges and waiting spaces; Adequacy and quality of infrastructures; Travel experience on board; Reliability of services; Value for money; Availability of ticketing options and fares; Comfort of facilities and/or vehicles; Satisfaction for users of motorised private transport means; Satisfaction of specific needs for different users groups; Possibility and easiness of intermodal journeys; Availability of services; Staff helpfulness and behaviour
• 25 in-depth indicators dealing with specific aspects of the perceived quality of service
• 23 mode-specific quality indicators for the following 7 different travel means: train, underground, tramway, buses, pedestrian, bikes and private cars.
• 30 user group-specific indicators for the following 10 different traveller profiles: women, commuters, elders, young, low income dwellers, visitors, rural dwellers, travelling with children, mobility restricted and communication impaired.
• 7 indicators specifically dealing with communication restricted and mobility impaired passengers using public transport.
• 15 indicators (8 of which are shared with the previous 4 subsets) focusing on specific phases of the journey experience, such as travelling on a vehicle, waiting at the bus stop or collecting information before starting the journey.
2. The matrix for the evaluation of technology to support integrative accessibility
3. Strategies for responding to transport changes.
4. Concept of ‘crowd sourced dynamic surveys’.
These have been developed jointly by the consortium and are provided as open source documents.
The SbNavi app was developed by Sboing, in consultation with members of the consortium, and is fed by questions developed by the consortium.
5. DISSEMINATION
METPEX has developed resources which can be used beyond the life time of the project. These have been promoted at academic conferences, events and through the project website which will be maintained beyond the lifetime of the project (currently over 23,800 hits, with more than 9000 sessions and 18000 unique page views).
The project team has participated in over 150 individual events. Dissemination activities commenced at the start of the project, and will be maintained into 2016. These have featured dissemination to local stakeholders (to inform strategic developments, at national conferences and workshops (both industrial and academic), EU (e.g. TRA conferences, POLIS, TRANSED, Humane Cities, AHFE, HCI) and international conferences (China, Australia, US).
With the final results only emerging in the latter stages of the project, most academic partners intend to convert conference papers/submit additional journal articles, and are contributing to the METPEX book due for publication in 2016. The team is committed to open access publications where possible. Where possible, documents are deposited in institutional/national and international repositories where possible, thereby enabling the research community, and transport stakeholders to adopt the methodology and tools developed in the project.
List of Websites:
www.metpex.eu
Contact details; A.Woodcock@coventry.ac.uk;
METPEX arose out of the need to increase sustainable transport and reduce carbon emissions in urban areas. One way of achieving this would be by increasing the number of users of public (and active) transport. A necessary first step in shifting perceptions of PT is the need to create a set of inclusive, reliable and validated measurement instruments to measure the quality of whole, multi modal journeys. Two central arguments of METPEX were that 1) travellers would only be attracted to public/active forms of transport if they are perceived to be of high quality; 2) that the whole journey experience needs to be the focus of attention as this corresponds to mobility patterns.
Existing measurement instruments were reviewed to have several shortcomings. For example, they may have been developed to measure just one stage of the journey (e.g. the journey on a tram, train, or bus), rarely included transitional points or reported results (e.g. issues with stations and stops) which were not the direct responsibility of the commissioning operator, may not have been validated, were not inclusive and failed to consider the whole journey.
Therefore METPEX aimed to develop a set of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) which could be used by transport operators and authorities, local authorities and other interest groups to measure the quality of the whole journey experience. The project sought to capture multimodal experiences by measuring travel experiences from journey planning to arrival at destination, allowing for measurement of multimodal experiences derived from the use of buses, trains, trams, urban waterways, walking, cycling and driving. Mindful of the need to be inclusive the project specifically addressed the needs of ‘traditionally hard to reach groups’. These were defined as commuters, women, travellers with children or other dependents, the elderly, young people, rural dwellers, commuters, those on low incomes, with communication difficulties and mobility impairments.
In order to develop the KPIs the relative importance of over 1000 potential factors was evaluated. The most important of these for each transport mode, traveller type and quality factor were used to create the METPEX measurement instruments delivered to travellers in retrospective (paper based and web online), real time (game and navigation apps) and focus groups formats. Trials of these tools were conducted in Bucharest, Grevena, Coventry, Rome, Vilnius, Dublin, FIA network, Stockholm and Valencia in order to collect Pan European data from which the final KPIs could be developed. The results showed that overall travel satisfaction reported by different travel mode users correlate with different key determinants, different user groups have different needs, the determinants of satisfaction may vary depending on the main travel modes and the complexity of the journey (in terms of trip composition). The effects of insecurity and tension among special needs travellers in particular may damage their confidence to travel independently as and when they want. Using the results, a series of robust KPIs were developed which may be used to measure overall satisfaction, or different aspects of the journey, for different user groups and modes of transport. The results were fedback to stakeholders in order to inform current transport systems, assess the usefulness of the METPEX toolset and inform the business plan.
In summary, METPEX has:
• Conducted two Pan European surveys in order to develop KPIs
• Gathered feedback from stakeholders to inform future development of the METPEX toolset and assess the impact of user experience on transport policy;
• Delivered a conference, policy recommendations, communication and business plan
• Created a matrix for the evaluation of innovative technologies to support integrative accessibility
• Developed a method for the classification of land use types in connection with accessibility, and a new definition of accessibility
• Developed strategies for creating accessible and optimized transport systems
Project Context and Objectives:
SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND MAIN OBJECTIVES
1. CONTEXT OF PROJECT
European cities increasingly face problems caused by transport and traffic. The question of how to enhance mobility while at the same time reducing congestion, accidents and pollution is a common challenge to all major cities in Europe.
Efficient and effective urban transport can significantly contribute to achieving objectives in a wide range of policy domains, for example the efficiency of the EU transport system, socio-economic objectives, energy dependency, or climate change. These depend on actions taken by national, regional and local authorities and transport operators which may in turn be restricted by (for example) lack of resources and knowledge of traveler needs.
At its highest level, the aim of METPEX has been to improve the quality of whole journey experiences by providing transport authorities, operators, service providers and other stakeholders with tools to enable them to improve mobility and the experience of all travellers. Such tools will increase organisational efficiency by reducing the need to produce and validate bespoke tools, enable benchmarking and the targetting of future investment into areas which are perceived by travellers as most unsatisfactory. Investing in these areas will lead to increased use of public and active forms of transport, and more integrated services. Improving mobility in turn will lead to higher quality of life.
Therefore the project has focussed attention on three areas:
1. more inclusive and robust tools to measure passenger experience
2. ways in which innovative technologies supporting integrative accessibility may be evaluated
3. strategies for creating accessible and optimised transport systems taking into account the connection between land uses types and accessibility
Overcoming the poor perception of public transport through increasing its quality is a key issue for transport operators and authorities. However, the achievement of operational, quantitative performance targets has been priotised over quality issues and itegrative issues – which may be harder to measure and address. Removal of barriers and improving access for all citizens to public transport may help create a modal shift in transport behaviour away from private fuelled vehicles. Enabling wider access to safe, secure, convenient, comfortable and economical public transport will in turn support the EU’s carbon reduction targets by leading to an increase in the number of people who use public or active forms of transport.
Central to METPEX has been the development of Key Performanc Indicators (KPIs) to measure the quality of the whole (door-to-door) journey passenger experience (including private or individual forms of transport such as walking, bicycling and car sharing), as a starting point to understanding where improvements need to be made from the travellers perspective. Reliable measurement instruments form the basis for robust data collection. However simply providing the data will not lead to improvements unless there is an appetite, commitment and resources for doing so. Unfortunately operators many not have sufficient incentives to improve quality. Standards, policies, operational procedures and regulations may need to be developed to ensure inclusive mobility.
Although many studies have been conducted at both National and EU levels on mobility behaviour, there is no single measurement instrument which can be used to gather information about the whole journey passenger transport experience from journey planning to arrival at destination. The lack of such a validated instrument, taking as its unit of analysis the whole journey experience, makes it difficult to understand the barriers faced by active (walking and cycling), public (e.g. bus, metro, tram, light rail, train) or intermodal transport users (e.g. bus-train, cycle-train, bus-walk-train). It is then difficult to collect initial data reliably, make comparisons, ensure validity and reliability of data, develop international, multi modal transport benchmarks and standards and to provide a coherent picture of the passenger experience across Europe.
The complexity of urban environments, reduced employment opportunities and the pressure on operators to increase profitability and service efficiency, and the availability of travel information all effect individual decisions on whether, when and how to travel and the quality of the travel experience. This complexity and the changing context of whole journey experiences requires the development of a measurement instrument which acknowledges and measures new mobility patterns, changing transport policy priorities and passenger perceptions and expectations.
The development of an inclusive, validated instrument is seen as the first step in creating high quality, user centred, integrated, accessible public transport services which are capable of attracting and retaining public transport users whilst meeting sustainability targets. Such a tool needs to provide reliable data which can be used by transport providers, policy makers, vehicle designers and municipalities to measure in order to assess where changes need to be made to increase efficiency, effectiveness and attractiveness of service delivery.
Therefore the primary aim of METPEX was to develop an intelligent measurement instrument which could be used to measure the quality of the whole journey, multimodal passenger experience across Europe. The outputs of such a tool could provide important information for transport providers, operators, municipalities and policy makers that are tasked with the development of sustainable, more efficient and passenger friendly services.
2. SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL OBJECTIVES
1. To develop an integrated approach to the measurement of the whole journey passenger experience that takes into account human (physiological, perceptual, cognitive, sensory and affective) socio-economic, cultural, geographic and environmental factors.
2. To assess the costs of ‘inaccessible transport’ for different sectors of society (such as those from low income groups, rural communities, the elderly, disabled and those with lower levels of literacy).
3. To assess the extent to which the measurement of the passenger experience can be used to drive innovation and attention to transport quality from the customer’s perspective in the transport industry.
4. To evaluate the passengers experience from different regions of Europe and to support the integration of regional transport networks into an European transport network
5. To facilitate the harmonization of travel behaviour research and analysis across European Union Member States.
These were mapped on to a number of SMART objectives and fulfilled as follows:
S01: To ‘map’ the passenger journey experience, identifying critical stages of journeys where quality of service matters in relation to a seamless travel experience.
• This desktop research was completed in WP2 in the first 6 months of the project
SO2: To develop and define by the end of year one a set of passenger experience variables informed by a review of current methodologies and best practice, as well as a clearly developed understanding of user requirements derived from primary research.
• WP2 completed this in the first year of the project. Critical reviews were undertaken of international, national, regional and project based initiatives to assess consistency and best practice in the use of quality indicators. A pilot study was also conducted to develop initial variables.
S03: To produce, an innovative on-line, multi-platform Passenger Experience (METPEX) Measurement tool based on previously defined set of passenger experience variables and designed to be used to capture users’ whole journey experience, especially barriers to accessibility and service quality.
• WP3 produced, online multiplatform methods to gather the quality of the passenger experience, for all stages of the journey in real time and retrospectively. This was supported by back end administrative services to adapt, verify, and monitor response rates.
SO4: To complement the on-line METPEX tool with a suite of low-tech tools, designed simultaneously to enable data to be captured from users without access to electronic media.
• During the research it was confirmed that the requirements of traditionally hard to reach groups were still not being gathered systematically. Questionnaires, structured interviews, and focus group protocols were developed for each site to reach these groups.
S05: To implement and validate the METPEX on and off-line tools through testing in 8 sites chosen to reflect geographical, political and cultural differences as well as transport system types.
• WP4 designed and analysed the results of the month long survey of the tools conducted in October 2014 at 8 sites.
S06: To produce, during the first 10 months of year 3, a suite of reports that analyse the findings, outcomes and learning from the validation exercise. A comparative report will also be generated to synthesise findings, outcomes and learning across the different sites.
• WP5 undertook extensive analysis of the data from the trials reported in a number of deliverables. Comparative reports were also made for each city.
S07: To frame the METPEX project findings in the context of the scientific and practical state of the art as it relates to the development and implementation of transport indicators and subsequently develop a set of indicators that can quantitatively evaluate quality and accessibility related issues.
• Multivariate analysis and other techniques were used to develop KPIs to form the basis of reliable and validate tools for transport operators, authorities and other stakeholders
S08: To develop a Transport Services Quality and Accessibility Evaluation Manual in order to support practitioners in applying service quality and accessibility indicators to evaluate transport systems and to compare findings with those from the METPEX project.
• WP5 produced material and instructions for third parties to use METPEX outputs independently.
S09: To assess wider socio-economic and land-use issues and their relationship with accessibility and mobility in partner regions.
• WP6 produced a new definition of accessibility taking into account contemporary understanding of land used patterns and developed a set of principles and strategies for optimising transport systems towards integrative accessibility, and an analysis of innovative technologies and their applicability in different socio-economic contexts.
S10: To work alongside key project stakeholders to disseminate results against benchmark criteria, evaluate the extent to which passenger related information can effect change and discuss the implications of results for the creation of a more effective, seamless, accessible travel system in each of the trial sites.
• Stakeholder meetings were held in all WPs with local and national stakeholders throughout the project. A project conference and a policy report detailing how passenger information can inform local and national policies was produced by WP7 at the end of the project.
3.FULFILMENT OF OBJECTIVES
The objectives and actions proposed in METPEX met the topics addressed in the call through:
1. Provision of a METPEX tool that can be used to improve the quality of mobility solutions which recognise the user’s need for accessible seamless travel.
• The final measurement instrument consists of a series of KPIs, which can be used in isolation to measure the quality of the experience, for a specific user or transport mode, or in tandem to evaluate a whole transport system.
2. Development of a tool that is ‘innovative’ in two complimentary ways.
• Social media was explored as a means of collecting real-time information using a game and bespoke questions linked to journey profile, the traveler and their progress on the journey.
• Especial consideration was given to the traditionally hard to reach groups, through the development of compatible, but non technologically dependent measure instruments (questionnaires, focus groups and structured interviews) in order to capture the experience of travellers who do not have high levels of computer or other forms of literacy, or access to high end technology. In this way METPEX fulfilled its commitment to gather the experiences of those from the most travel disadvantaged groups in the EU.
3.Validation of METPEX approach through its use in eight sites across Europe (Coventry, Stockholm, Dublin, Valencia, Rome, Grevena, Vilnius and Bucharest and FIA network).
• Data was gathered and analysed from each site in order to validate the METPEX approach and to gather data which could be used for the derivation of quality indicators.
4. Development of quality indicators which recognise passenger (age, demographics, disability), cultural diversity and multimodal, informed travel patterns.
• The meta-analysis of METPEX trial data combined with analysis of previous research was used to develop Key Performance Indicators which could be used by organisations and authorities to measure the quality of the whole journey or different parts thereof for a wide range of traveller groups, including those from traditionally hard to reach groups.
5.Analysis and measurement of the derived quality indicators checking the suitability for determining the benchmarks.
• The quality of the derived information and the KPIs was evaluated in terms of its scope, usefulness and actionability and presented to local stakeholders.
6. Examining and measuring innovative and integrated transport solutions in the trial sites to assess accessibility issues.
• Reports were compiled for each site based on the results of the survey and fedback to local stakeholders. This also provided an opportunity for stakeholders to provide additional requirements for the final system
7. Understanding the mobility requirements of a heterogeneous but growing group of travellers to establish inclusive, cost-effective solutions.
• The METPEX tools supported gathering the mobility requirements of a diverse range of users, including women, travellers with children and dependents, rural dwellers, those with disabilities (physical and cognitive), from low socio economic groups and with low levels of literacy.
8. Development of advanced methodologies for Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) from a system perspective
• Derived KPIs were measured in terms of their measurability, specificity, timeliness, originality, independence and usefulness. An evaluation matrix was also developed for stakeholders to use to evaluate innovative integrative technologies and strategies proposed to develop accessible and optimised transport systems taking into account land use patterns.
Project Results:
MAIN SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL RESULTS AND FOREGROUNDS
1. BACKGROUND METHODOLOGY
Creating accessible transport systems requires the consideration of many factors from interface and interaction design (such as the design of vehicles and ticketing machines) to external factors, such as resources (which may affect, for example, concessionary travel) and technological innovation (e.g. intermodal travel codes, route planning apps). Taking a user centred approach, espoused by the ergonomics discipline; these factors may be plotted using the hexagon spindle (H-S) model (Woodcock, 2012). Placing the user at the centre of the hexagon, this model enables the systematic representation and enquiry of the wide range of factors, which may affect perceived satisfaction of the whole journey. A truly inclusive transport system should optimise each factor for each user. In order to prioritise areas to address, operators and authorities need to know where different user groups are dissatisfied with the quality of service.
FIGURE 1: WOODCOCK’S APPLICATION OF BENEDYK AND WOODCOCK’S HEXAGON SPINDLE MODEL TO TRANSPORT DESIGN
The H-S model also recognises that when performing any task or goal, a user interacts with different features of the system at different times, and each of these interactions needs to be optimised. For example in cycling home from work, it is not sufficient to optimise the design of the bike, without looking at the quality of the cycleway. The whole journey needs to be considered. A series of unsatisfactory interactions may lead to a journey being abandoned or re-planned using different transport modes, as depicted in Figure 2. For sustainability, this is key, as dissatisfaction with public transport services may mean that personal transport modes are adopted. For example, if trains are always delayed and connections missed by a commuter, s/he may simply drive to work. Also different parts of the goal (getting from A to B) might be accomplished using different transport mode, each element of which needs to be optimised.
FIGURE 2: SPINDLES SHOWING POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF POOR TRAVELLER EXPEREIENCE
The research conducted in METPEX considered several issues related to the model:
• the development of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) addressed travellers’ touch points with different transport services and infrastructure at all layers of the model,
• consultation with stakeholders considered managerial factors relating to data collection and usage,
• of the external factors, land use and its relation to accessibility was the main factor which was considered.
The H-S model can be used to enumerate and systematise factors from which surveys can be developed, which in turn can provide data for the creation of valid and reliable KPIs. These are quantifiable measures that can be used to gauge or compare performance in meeting strategic and operational goals. Knowing the quality indicators for a particular mode of transport, traveller group, or the whole journey would enable companies to target investment effectively. Having developed these in the context of a Pan European project means that they can be used throughout the EU and that they have been developed and assessed by international experts. This increases the validity and robustness of the tools, whilst at the same time providing an open source set of KPIs related specifically to quality (as opposed to operational issues).
With this overall approach in mind, the scientific and technical results are presented in terms of the gaps in knowledge, and the contributions of METPEX in following areas:
• Key Performance Indicators – their development and evaluation (WPs 2 and 5)
• Technological Innovation – the use of real time data collection (WP3)
• Barriers to accessibility in traditionally hard to reach groups (WP4)
• Stakeholder engagement and requirements (WP2 and 8)
• Land use and transport - strategies, definitions of accessibility and evaluation matrix for integrative technology (WP6)
The final section of the report addresses the ways in which METPEX outputs may be used by transport stakeholders to improve the quality of transport provision.
2. DEVELOPMENT OF KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
The METPEX measurement instruments were informed by existing research relating to measuring the quality of passenger experience, transport journeys, infrastructure and different traveller groups, consultation with stakeholders and a pilot study. The scope of the review and key findings our outlined below.
2.1 REVIEW OF EXISTING INDICATORS
European transport policy aims to ensure safety and security in all modes of transport and provide a high quality, reliable service to achieve competitive advantage and grant sustainable mobility to EU citizens, with higher standards set in each document. Increasing efficiency of current transport systems is one of the main goals in creating competitive advantage. EU Documents consulted included White Paper 1992 – The future development of the common transport policy, European Commission Communication 1998; Developing the citizens network, White paper 2001 – European transport policy for 2010: time to decide, European Commission Communication 2006, Green paper 2007 – Towards a new culture for urban mobility, Action Plan on Urban Mobility 2009, White paper 2011 (Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area, Communication from the commission to the European Parliament and the council: A European vision for Passengers.
Indicators have increased in clarity and sophistication over time, and have variously included flexibility, speed, reliability, frequency, price, passenger rights, safety, integration, accessibility, flexibility, information availability, compensation, user rights, transparency, rapid/high speed transportation, territorial cohesion, air transport services indicators, basic and advanced quality criteria, security, environmental impact, energy efficiency, journey duration, qualified staff, noise level, pollution, congestion, personal security, privacy and data protection, sustainability, safety in extreme weather, accessibility, reimbursement, transparency of information and costs, information and help availability. Likewise, there has been a growing distinction between different categories of users, with specific mention of passengers in general or EU citizens, people with reduced mobility (including elderly), urban passengers, people with accessibility issues, tourists, migrants and migrating labour force , elderly
In terms of passenger mobility, safety is a top priority, with reliability and quality of service less emphasized. Although indicators were used in each document, no common definition of passenger transport quality or quality indicators emerged.
In terms of gaps in knowledge, although policy documents have regarded people with reduced mobility and the elderly as special groups with limited accessibility, women and commuters from economically challenged rural areas have not been addressed. Likewise, although active modes of transport have been highlighted as important in strategic and policy papers few guidelines have been provided on how these modes should be developed or the variables that might lead to conditions likely to increase walking or cycling.
UNE-EN 13816 distinguished expected quality as the level of quality users anticipate. Objective as the level of quality operators want to offer; produced quality as the quality acquired in the daily operations, defined by its impact on clients; perceived quality as the level of quality perceived by passengers during the journey. This may depend on context and personal experience. The criteria used relate to service offered, accessibility, information, time, customer service, comfort, safety and environmental impact – some of which are used in the studies reviewed. The USP of METPEX is that it focuses on measuring the perceived quality of the whole journey.
Many existing survey tools measure aspects of the quality of the passenger experience. These have arisen out of national initiatives (such as Transport Focus surveys in UK), bespoke in house surveys (created for specific operators and authorities) or from EU projects such as CIVITAS Plus MODERN, ELAN, and ARCHIMEDES and those already completed in CIVITAS II such as: SMILE, MOBILIS and SUCCESS. With EU policy increasingly featuring mobility over transport a need has been created to look at whole journey experiences in order to promote mobility that is efficient, safe, secure and environmentally friendly. Open source KPIs dealing with quality aspects for all user groups and modes of transport provides a foundation for future EU transport research and other stakeholders who may not have the resources to develop and validate their own measurement instruments.
The projects have similar goals i.e. to provide sustainable and reliable transport service for all citizens (with special mention of making transport services more comfortable for vulnerable users – disabled, users with reduced mobility and/or elderly). However, no concrete guidelines were provided on the quality of service to be expected or how it could be measured. At its core, passenger transport service quality comprised of comfort, safety, price, speed, frequency, reliability, accessibility and sustainability with some modifications to take in to account local issues (e.g. rural services in Ireland and gendered related issues in Sweden). Although cycling infrastructure was mentioned, walking was not. Open source KPIs dealing with quality aspects for all user groups and modes of transport provides a foundation for future EU transport research and other stakeholders who may not have the resources to develop and validate their own measurement instruments.
TABLE 1: EUROPEAN AND NATIONAL PROJECTS AND STANDARDS REVIEWED
Project/mode of transport User groups Focus of results
PUBTRANS4LL/ Public transport (PT) People in wheelchairs, persons with walking impairments, elderly, blind and visually impaired, deaf and hearing impaired, small people, pregnant women and persons with children, persons with luggage Vertical differences between steps, vehicle and platform
WISETRIP/ International Elderly and disabled, eco-sensitive, price sensitive, other special groups Journey planning needs
NICHES+/PT Older people, school children, reduced mobility users Human motivation for mobility, lack of systematic knowledge
ACCESS2ALL/PT Mobility impaired, elderly, sensorially and visually impaired, environmentally sensitive, all people Physical infrastructure
CITYMOBIL/ Innovative transport systems Acceptance, quality of service
CLOSER/ Transport chain Seniors and people with special needs, children, foreigners and inexperienced passengers Knowledge sharing
INTERCONNECT/ Local and regional interconnections Wasted time , high costs, poor information, poor quality
CONNECT/ Flexible transport services Design of vehicle, passenger safety and security, travel comfort, special requirements for certain groups, capacity, seat comfort and leg room, comfort while boarding, temperature, on trip passenger information, payment system, luggage space.
EBSF/Bus Doors, real time information, shelter, adaptation to demand
MEDIATE/PT Elderly and disabled Accessible vehicles, built environment, ticketing, seamless travel, fare policies, tailored services.
MODSAFE/ Urban guided transport systems Safety, security, comfort and sustainability
The reviews showed a lack of consistency in what is measured, how it is measured, and which groups were consulted and a lack of representation of measures for active forms of transport. This means that the intended outcomes of METPEX, to harmonise transport research are valid.
Public transport initiatives over the last decade aimed at increasing environmental awareness and promotion of sustainable public transport were reviewed to establish the commonalities and differences in the measures used. These included Eltis (European local transport information service, Europe's main portal on urban mobility); Citizen's Network Benchmarking Initiative; Urban transport benchmarking initiative; and CIVITAS initiatives (ELAN, Plus MODERN, ARCHIMEDES). Table 1 outlines the European and national projects and standards reviewed.
Train, bus, air and maritime operators tended to try to differentiate their offerings in terms of customer service, extra customer service, or ticketing quality indicators, different KPIs were used to measure the quality of these differentiators. A sample of 21 of national studies were also reviewed and reported as shown in Table 2.
TABLE 2: NATIONAL STUDIES REVIEWED
Country Number of projects Identifier or focus of review
Spain 7 INTERBUS PROJECT, REACTIVA PROJECT, Attitudes to private and public transport: psycho-social and structural factors, MOBITRANS PROJECT, Quality improvement in public transport systems as the crux of sustainable mobility, Trends in Passenger Transport and Freight Energy use in Spain, UNIACCESS PROJECT
UK 2 National Rail Transport Survey, National Passenger Survey,
Sweden 3 Kollektivtrafikbarometern, Surveys by SL and Veolia,
Italy 1 Piedmont survey
Switzerland 2 MONET indicators, Microcensus
Romania 6 Standard SR EN 13816:2003, Standard SR EN 15140:2006, Standard SR ISO/CEI 27001:2006, Standard ISO/IEC 27001:2006,
ISEMOA Project , ENERQI project
Other indicators are emerging based on quality of life and relate to more economic, social and environmental indicators including transport performance and the transport system. However, many of these were excluded from the final METPEX tools because it was not clear whether passengers would be knowledgeable about such factors or whether these would contribute to perceived quality.
69 papers were considered and reviewed as appropriate in terms of the development of KPIs. From these 10 were selected and critically evaluated in terms of the pertinence, measurability, realism, defensibility and universality of the objective indicators they espoused. The review highlighted the lack of specific analysis for vulnerable passengers. Previous research which addressed the whole journey may not have considered a specific journey, or each part of the journey. No articles were found relating to active means of transport or indicators. Research concentrated more on town infrastructure design to ameliorate the expectations and the displacements of bikers through the creation of bicycle paths.
The table below shows the EU projects reviewed indicating the split between projects which look at perceived or delivered quality, few projects consider the whole journey, and none include active forms of transport. In terms of methodology, no project provided detailed information on the measurement index systems used or how the bottom level indicators could be grouped to reflect a single quality component.
TABLE 3: COMPARISON BETWEEN PREVIOUS PROJECTS AND METPEX
Name Delivered quality/ objective measures Perceived quality/ subjective measures Whole journey Special needs users Active transport modes Evaluation index systems Measurement index system Benchmarking
QUATTRO X X X X
ENERQI X X
BEST X X X X
MEDIATE X X X
URBAN TRANSPORT BENCHMARKING INITIATIVE X X X X
EQUIP X X X
ISEMOA X X
CONDUITS X X
METPEX X X X X X X X
National approaches were evaluated from USA, Portugal, Italy, UK, Germany and Australia. 2 approaches were identified – provision of guidelines for performance evaluation (i.e. a proxy for an objective measure of quality) or subjective quality evaluations which failed to backtrack to actual system characteristics. There was a lack of knowledge of interaction between objective and subjective measures and over reliance on simple measuring techniques such as averaging individual scores.
2.1.1 SUMMARY
In summary, from the reviews:
• the most commonly used indicators for the quality of passenger experience are accessibility, safety, security, environmental impact, reliability, flexibility, speed, frequency, price, information, integration, attractiveness, passenger rights protection, comfort and feedback
• data is usually gathered from three information sources; supply data (GIS databases and infrastructure inventories), demand data (travel survey and passenger counts) and more qualitative customer satisfaction surveys
• Prioritisation is given to performance objectives
• Data analysis included benchmarking, comparative analysis, comparison with standards and minimal requirements, determination of causality, SERVQUAL, AHS (Analytic Hierarchy Process), gap analysis and determination of zone of tolerance. However, most analysis was low level, with little reporting of how higher level indicators had been developed.
The following quality aspects need to be further addressed:
1. Perceived quality of public transport to increase patronage considering people from different socio economic groups
2. Accessibility of transport to persons with disability (PWD) or hard to reach groups
3. Level of service measures for pedestrians and cyclists
4. Multi leg journeys and trip chaining
5. Information (its design and role)
Significant gaps in knowledge relate to:
• Quality indicators for active forms of transport
• Consideration of the whole journey
• Systematic consideration of the needs of ‘traditionally hard to reach groups’.
• Short journeys
• Use of qualitative information
2.2 THE PASSENGER JOURNEY AND ACCESSIBILITY
Factors which might affect the quality of the whole passenger journey and which need to be taken into account in the surveys include;
1. Human factors -socioeconomic and demographic factors of the travellers (e.g. gender, age, educational level, social milieu, income, attitudes, preferences and intentions, perceptions and opinions, emotional states and motivations, subjective norms and personality traits, perceived responsibility and control, habits, lifestyles, situational variables such as health conditions, previous experience
2. Transport engineering factors ‘trip attributes’ (e.g. travel time, wait time, speed, out-of-pocket and total cost)
3. Land use factors /built environment
For simplicity, the whole journey may be characterised into three stages:
1. Short distance (first and last mile)
2. Interchange or transfer journey stages
3. The main trip journey stage
2.2.1 DERIVING PASSENGER GROUPS
One of the emergent issues was in terms of the word ‘passenger’. Whilst this remains in the acronym the emphasis was on the traveller, rather than passenger, to encompass pedestrians, cyclists and drivers. As a starting point in discussing the user groups, the profile of each participating city was considered. This showed variation within expected norms. User profiles which were considered in detail included:
• full time employed travellers (with commuter journeys accounting for 15-20% of all travel);
• female travellers (who make more complex trips, are more dependent on public transport and who value safe, reliable and frequent services);
• parents with small children (who have additional needs from public transport e.g. in terms of spaces for buggies);
• low income travellers who were more reliant on public transport;
• young travellers (accounting for 20-30% of the population and who view travel as a ‘gateway to freedom’);
• elderly travellers (aged 65+ with different levels of vulnerability leading to social exclusion who encounter physical, informational and emotional barriers);
• disabled travellers with a physical or mental impairment (estimated at 10-15% of the population), who may be characterised as ‘travel shy’, and face physical, health and attitudinal barriers which prevent them being fully engaged in society; tourist and those unfamiliar with the transport system.
Research has already shown that the requirements of groups may overlap, but some have different priorities for and appreciation of different aspects of services. This priority changes according to the travel mode. For example, whilst reliability, regularity and time are the most important variables for public transport users, feasibility and accessibility are the main quality variables for pedestrians, whilst reducing delay is the main concern for car drivers
Whilst guidelines and standards aimed to accommodate the different needs of different travellers have been established, there is, nevertheless, a lack of knowledge on what is really valued by different groups of travellers who used different travel modes.
2.2.3 LAND USE ISSUES AND TRENDS
The ergonomics community adopt a very restrained definition of accessibility, primarily in relation to usability. In Figure 1, the outer layer of the H-S model alluded to external factors and accessibility to transport in terms of land use planning falls under this part of the model. It is an essential component of the quality of the whole journey, user experience. For transport planners, accessibility is defined as the ability to connect activities. It refers to the physical extent and quality of transport infrastructure, means of transport, transport services and provided information, to support an easy access for all people (“direct access” - unassisted and "indirect access" - assisted persons) in order to plan and perform journeys at the needed time between desired locations. For the METPEX project it was conceived as having the following components (see Table 4).
TABLE 4: COMPONENTS OF ACCESSIBILITY DEFINED BY METPEX
Component Definition/includes….
Physical and cognitive accessibility ease of use, vehicle boarding possibilities, availability of sufficient space at the desired time -, solutions for passengers with low mobility and special needs; standardized accessibility solutions, intermodality
Geographical accessibility possibility to access public transport for the people living in the area; access to economic and social points, shorter distance until the stations and safe walking places
Trip coverage accessibility passengers consider (public) transport accessible when it is available from their trip origin to their destinations
Connectivity passengers consider (public) transport accessible when there is the right density of connections over the distance between their trip origin and their destination and there is directness of links
Spatial coverage accessibility passengers consider (public) transport accessible when it is within a reasonable physical proximity from their origin / destination points;
On-time service accessibility / Temporal coverage accessibility a transport service is accessible when this is available for the passenger at times when citizen wants to travel; e.g. schedules for early and late hours; adherence to schedule, accessible and easy information and communication (audio and video)
Universally social /equal accessibility non-discriminating service in terms of gender, young children, elderly people, poor people, retired, families with young children, people with reduced mobility, disabled people, ethnicity, social status, religion, price policy
Additionally an extensive review was made of ‘external factors’ and their links to accessibility (see Table 5 below). The analytical framework used to undertake the analysis was comprised of four key components: land-use (spatial distribution component or geographical accessibility), transportation (physical accessibility), individual (social accessibility and equality) and temporal component (real-time, on-time and time-based issues). These highlight the complexity of transport research in the face of:
• technological innovations (travel information, demand responsive transport, vehicle design, integrated ticketing, adaptation to public/private transport, propulsion systems, road vehicle telematics, e-commerce),
• government policy (climate change and pollution, congestion, inclusivity and equality),
• socio economic issues (trends in residence and patterns of travel, ageing, migration, city and neighbourhood developments)
Emergent themes considered include implications of an increasing and diversifying EU population, meeting the needs of those with low/limited mobility, technological and social change, compression of time and space, polarisation and disparity,
TABLE 5; OVERVIEW OF SOCIO ECONOMIC TRENDS, IMPLICATIONS FOR ACCESSIBILITY AND POINTERS FOR METPEX TOOLS
These informed the development of the survey tools and KPIs to ensure that all elements were being addressed (see Section 6 for a further discussion of the contributions of the project to accessibility).
2.3 PILOT STUDY
Owing to the wide number of users, potential variables and trip stages a pilot questionnaire consisting of closed questions, was administered in 7 trial sites (Bucharest, Coventry, Dublin, Rome, Stockholm, Valencia and Vilnius) with the aim of testing empirically;
1. The impact of different variables to different traveller groups.
2. The impact of different trip stage satisfaction to general journey satisfaction.
3. The impact of individual past and current experiences and the reported travel components/characteristics to the level of satisfaction that is reported by the individuals.
TABLE 6: CATEGORIES USED IN THE PILOT STUDY
Category Factors
Individual attributes Socio-demographic variables, mobility behaviour and mode usage, Special groups
Contextual variables Temporal and weather, subjective well being, trip purpose, impeded mobility (e.g. carrying bulky objects)
Attitudes Preferences, opinions
Travel experience Familiarity, past satisfaction, adaptation, extreme events
Satisfaction aspects Availability, speed/travel time, information provision, wayfinding, comfort, appeal, safety and security, reliability, care, price, connectivity, ride quality, environment, travel time productivity
The effects of spatial issues and socio-economic factors in measuring the level of passenger travel experience are shown in Table 5. The elements included in the pilot questionnaire are shown in Table 6 and the overall approach in Figure 3.
The questionnaire was designed to be completed either en route or retrospectively and consisted of 6 sections; (1) background information, (2) traveller information, (3) trip description and travel experience, (4) travel satisfaction, (5) subjective well-being and (6) attitudes. Variables measured were categorised as falling under political, organisational, functional, environmental, technological, social or wellbeing aspects.
2.3.1 PILOT STUDY RESULTS
Over 550 questionnaires were completed (307 en route and 247 retrospectively), with an average dropout rate of 25% - attributed to the length and complexity of the survey, recruitment methods and poor translations. Just over 56% of the respondents were women, fewer than 7% had a disability and 4-8% were pensioners or unemployed –showing that the recruitment strategy was not successful for attracting hard to reach groups.
Respondents reported their satisfaction levels concerning each individual trip stage along a particular trip. The reported trips exercised different levels of complexity, combination of travel modes and traveller‘s familiarity with them. Average satisfaction levels corresponded to ‘satisfied‘ for car, bike and walking trip stages and ‘weakly satisfied‘ for public transport trip stages. The satisfaction levels for different modes of transport (as measured on Likert type questions having scales of 1-5) varied.
FIGURE 3; FIELDS OF RESEARCH RELATED TO MOBILITY BEHAVIOUR, MODE USAGE AND PASSENGER EXPERIENCE
• For public transport average satisfaction ranged from 2.46 to 3.79 with highest satisfaction levels relating to ride quality, ease of finding out where to get off the vehicle, behaviour of fellow travellers and on-board safety. Dissatisfaction was highest for toilet availability, cost fairness and consistency and value for money, crowding at the station and on-board and freshness of the air on vehicles.
• For private transport, the average satisfaction levels were between 3.43 and 4.08. Satisfaction was particularly high in relation to road safety and travel time compared with the distance travelled. Car users were most dissatisfied with the price of parking.
• Satisfaction with bicycle trip stages was concentrated in the mid-range of the satisfaction scale - from 3.23 to 3.97 (in a scale of 1 to 5). Dissatisfaction was highest for disturbance from other modes, ride quality, barriers, ease of reaching the destination with the existing path network and parking availability.
• For pedestrians, average levels of satisfaction varied from 3.34 – 3.97 with highest satisfaction in terms of safety and lowest for travel information and the quality of design.
The key determinants of satisfaction on individual trip stages as well as the whole journey experience were identified by constructing cross-correlation matrices and estimating multiple regression models. The relations between overall satisfaction and travel experience variables, subjective well-being indices, travel-related attitudes as well as individual- and trip-specific attributes were investigated. The following conclusions concerning overall travel satisfaction could be drawn:
• Past experience and travellers‘ expectations are key determinants of passenger experience
• Individual traveller and trip characteristics do not seem to contribute significantly to explaining travel experience– with age and income being noticeable exceptions.
• Certain travellers groups such as women, young and low income or unemployed travellers have distinctive determinants of satisfaction with trip stages for various travel modes.
• The complexity of trip stages exercises large variations. However, access and egress trip stages have only a marginal influence on overall travel satisfaction.
• Satisfaction could be explained sufficiently well by few variables. Satisfaction with public transport is however significantly more complicated. The variables included in this pilot study were not able to explain variations in satisfaction with walking trip stages.
• Travellers‘ emotional state is an important determinant of travel experience and satisfaction
• Travellers‘ attitudes and opinions concerning travel safety and particular travel modes were explanatory variables of travel satisfaction.
The analysis of public transport trip stages suggests that the ease of transfer, station environment, service frequency and travel time reliability are the key determinants of travel satisfaction. In addition, waiting safety is an important determinant for women travellers. Travel safety and the relative time perception were singled out as the key determinants of satisfaction with car trip stages. In the case of women travellers, parking price is also a significant factor. Satisfaction with bike trip stages was significantly influenced by the absence of disturbances from other modes, ride quality and the availability and quality of travel information. The absence of disturbances was the only significant determinant of satisfaction with walking trip stages for all travellers. The results indicated that the satisfaction with the primary trip stage is strongly linked to the overall trip satisfaction while the access and egress trip stages have a very marginal contribution to the overall satisfaction, but these are strongly related to the satisfaction with the primary trip stage.
The combination of stakeholders input (see Section 5) and the empirical evidence from the pilot study provides solid ground for identifying users‘ requirements concerning the variables to be measured by the METPEX tool. Table 7 lists the primary and secondary travel experience variables that were identified along with comments on their potential measurement. These tables formed the basis for the second survey instruments.
TABLE 7: PRIMARY AND SECONDARY TRAVEL EXPERIENCE VARIABLES
Variable type Definition
Primary variables
Travel time
Actual time components including access, waiting, in-vehicle/moving and egress times (as applicable).
Subjective travel time Perceived time components
Station environment The appeal and safety of the physical waiting environment
Personnel Availability and responsiveness of personnel at stops and on-board
Ease of transferring
Quality of interchange (coordination, transfer design, accessibility, connectivity)
Physical design The presence of physical hindrances, appropriate and thoughtful design and the surface quality.
Secondary variables
Information The availability and quality of pre-trip and en-route information
Availability Service frequency and span, service coverage
Reliability Service punctuality/regularity and travel time predictability
Comfort and appeal
Seat availability and comfort, availability of facilities, vehicle appeal, cleanliness at stops and on-board and travel sickness
Safety and security
The perceived risk of being exposed to traffic-related or an intentional act of hostility
Parking availability Ease of finding an available parking place
Way-finding and vehicle accessibility Physical and mental barriers associated with travelling – in particular, vehicle design (low floor, priority seat) and way-finding (orientation)
Variables associated with determining passenger experience (all sources) are shown in Table 8
TABLE 8: VARIABLES ASSOCIATED WITH PASSENGER EXPERIENCE (ALL SOURCES)
Variable Description
Accessibility Physical accessibility (possibility to board vehicle); boarding solutions for passengers with different disabilities; standardised accessibility solutions; availability of lifts in vehicles and stations; availability of assistance;
Geographical accessibility (possibility to access public transport in persons living area), territorial cohesion; access to points of attraction;
On-time service accessibility (e.g. schedules for early and late hours);
Social accessibility (non-discriminating service in sense of gender, ethnicity, social status, religion);
Attractiveness Design of vehicles (exterior); design of stations; qualification of staff; appearance of staff; number of staff; availability of additional service (internet, power sockets);
Comfort Availability of shelter in stops and stations; possibility to comfortably place own baggage; sufficient capacity of vehicles at all times; average age of vehicles; in-vehicle privacy; clean vehicles; smell-free vehicles; sufficient leg room; in-vehicle entertainment possibilities; productivity means (internet, power outlets, rentable media devices); vibration of vehicle;
Environmental impact Energy efficiency of particular mode of transport or particular vehicle; awareness of benefits of using collective transport; noise level of vehicles; information on carbon footprint;
Feedback Possibility to leave feedback; feedback of operators to solve issues.
Flexibility Adaption to needs of specific user; adaption to sudden changes or unexpected events; adaption to changing needs of society;
Frequency Number of vehicles per period of time;
Information Information on public transport options and routes (promotion of public transport in mass media); real-time information availability; information of traffic; real-time information on traffic; availability of information systems on service; availability of trip planning tools; availability of information on alternative routes; real-time information availability on disruption or delay or service; availability of printed maps; availability of interactive maps; availability of visual and acoustic in-vehicle information systems; language-barrier free information systems; availability of up-to-date information;
Integration Interconnection with other modes of transport; design of stations to efficiently combine different modes of transport;
Integrated ticketing solutions between different modes of transport, different operators; smart “all-inclusive” ticketing cards;
Possibility to carry own bike in public transport vehicle;
Passenger right protection Existence of information of passenger rights; compensations for cancelled services, transparency of fares and services; privacy and data protection; non-discriminating provision of services;
Price Fare levels affordable to different social groups; availability of social fares (subsidized tickets for vulnerable social groups);
Reliability Arrival on time, meeting expected duration of journey; no cancelled or delayed services; baggage damage levels, baggage loss levels; effect of congestion on public transport service;
Safety Ensuring minimum safety standards of passenger transport vehicles; lighting inside the vehicle; lighting in stations, stops and surrounding areas; number of staff in duty;; absence of health threatening factors (e.g. poisonous exhaust fumes); availability of safety-belts;
Security Security from actions of ill-willing individuals;
Security from natural disasters (e.g. floods, fires, storms);
Smart tickets Possibility to purchase tickets remotely; electronic tickets on various devices; ticket availability at stations; ticket availability in vehicle; various payment solutions; ease of validating tickets;
Speed Duration of trip using public transport as close as possible (or shorter) than using private vehicle;
2.4 MAIN SURVEY
Following the pilot study and reviews, the METPEX team had amassed over 1000 potential variables. These could be segmented in terms of whether they related to a specific transport mode, traveller type, or journey stage or type. These were critically reviewed and reformulated into 500 satisfaction questions for the measurement tool which could be answered by a service user. A selection of approximately 60 of these were presented to each respondent, according to their characteristics, journey type, stage and mode of travel.
The structure of the survey tool is shown in Figure 4. The same structure and questions were presented as far as possible in on line tools (gaming app and real time data collection survey instruments), paper based surveys and focus groups. All material was translated in to appropriate languages and the tools piloted prior to the conduct of the main survey.
FIGURE 4: STRUCTURE OF SURVEY
The survey had four main aims:
1. To investigate the use of technology for data collection (see section 3 below)
2. To gather pan European data from which KPIs could be derived
3. To provide data on use of transport services in the 8 trial cities
4. To address gaps in data collection for active forms of transport and hard to reach groups
In order to perform a comparative analysis within user groups and travel modes regarding the complexity of trip, and summarize and synthesise the focus group results detailed descriptive statistics analyses were carried out, followed by a series of multivariate (ordered logit) models to explore the key determinants for different traveller groups and travel mode users. Systematic analysis of focus group results was also carried out.
2.4.1 SPECIMEN RESULTS
Running for 6 weeks simultaneously in 8 cities (Bucharest, Vilnius, Rome, Grevena, Stockholm, Valencia, Dublin and Coventry) and across the FIA network, 5,275 valid samples were collected. The sample was smaller than expected for a number of reasons including owing to technical difficulties, stakeholder buy in and organisational changes, and the length of the survey. However, the size of the sample was sufficient to develop KPIs, if not large enough to provide a useful set of information on the passenger experience in some cities.
The results again highlighted that the travel satisfaction reported by different travel mode users correlate with different key determinants. Different user groups have different needs and the determinants of satisfaction vary depending on the main travel modes and the complexity of the journey (in terms of trip composition). For public transport modes; punctuality, reliability and some information, accessibility and on-board conditions factors highly correlate with overall travel satisfaction. Cross-correlations amongst private/personal based travel modes (soft modes, private vehicle and mobility vehicle) had a significantly less number of factors that influenced overall satisfaction. This highlights the fact that for non-PT modes, the travel experience attributes that have an effect on overall satisfaction are much more complex. For the vast majority of user groups and travel modes being satisfied with the main trip leg leads to higher satisfaction with the whole journey. However, access legs also influence on the overall satisfaction for bicycle trips and egress legs also for pedestrian and PT rail. In addition, OLM (ordered logit models) demonstrated how different user groups have different needs and how the determinants of satisfaction also vary depending on the main travel modes and the complexity of the journey (in terms of trip composition). The results relating to hard to reach groups are considered in section 4.
2.5 THE KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
Due to their immediacy in conveying key messages to stakeholders, the use of indicators is the most common approach in evaluation and policy making ambits in the transport sector. Several transport-related indicators have been developed in order to assess a variety of aspects related to transport systems. Indeed, they represent the most popular method used in professional practice for example to monitor and evaluate public transport operations, service quality, the achievement of socially desirable goals or the extent of environmental impacts.
The METPEX tool is available for the wider scientific and stakeholders’ communities. It essentially consists of a suite of surveying tools to measure the degree of satisfaction of travellers on aspects related to their experience. However, there is a need to provide more immediate and ready-to-implement evaluation methods related to quality and accessibility issues in the transport system through the use of such tools, in order to show their added value. For this reason, a set of KPIs has been developed (along with an evaluation manual) to achieve the following goals:
• Help policy makers to tailor the tool to their needs by appropriately defining the extent of the quality evaluation exercise.
• Summarise the information from the tool in a more meaningful way to improve communication among stakeholders, by giving a synthetic and quantitative evaluation on quality and accessibility-related issues from the traveller’s perspective.
• Benchmark the performances of the service, transport mode or journey phase under consideration from the viewpoint of specific users groups with the performances that were measured in the eight test sites.
Indicators were built by compounding variables from the METPEX survey tool. Indicators represent latent variables that can summarise the information provided by such satisfaction ratings. These variables consist of five-point satisfaction ratings, ranging from “Not at all satisfied” to “Completely satisfied”, on a variety of very detailed quality issues based on the ratings of a specific journey.
Principal Component Analyses (PCA) was conducted on selected subsets of variables and the resulting components with eigenvalues greater than 1 have been cognitively interpreted to check if they could represent reasonably well a consistent latent factor, or concept. Where this is the case, then the corresponding indicator I can be defined as follows:
I = Σi Ci * Vi / Σi Ci (1)
where Ci are the component (or factor) score coefficients pertaining to the i variables that have a significant loading on the factor under consideration and Vi are the scores of those i satisfaction ratings. The denominator in the previous formula is added to scale the results from 1 to 5 for uniformity with the values of the scores given by the users. The derived indicators measure different components of the perceived quality of the journey and may be summarised as indicators that :
• can be used in a more general ambit, irrespective of the transport system and traveller group
• focus on specific aspects related to the use of different modes of transport, irrespective of traveller group
• focus on aspects related to specific traveller groups, irrespective of transport mode
• focus on aspects related to specific traveller groups using public transport
• Indicators for different phases of the journey experience (e.g. pre-trip, walking to/from travel means, waiting).
Several alternative sets of quality and accessibility indicators were defined and tested within each of the above groups, covering the most important relevant quality dimensions and the points of view of the different user groups considered with special emphasis to mobility impairments. Differences among travel means, particularly considering different forms of public and active transport, are highlighted as well. The following indicators were developed:
• 25 in-depth indicators dealing with specific aspects of the perceived quality of service
• 23 mode-specific quality indicators for the following 7 different travel means: train, underground, tramway, buses, pedestrian, bikes and private cars.
• 30 user group-specific indicators for the following 10 different traveller profiles: women, commuters, elders, young, low income dwellers, visitors, rural dwellers, travelling with children, mobility restricted and communication impaired.
• 7 indicators specifically dealing with communication restricted and mobility impaired passengers using public transport.
• 15 indicators focusing on specific phases of the journey experience, such as travelling on a vehicle, waiting at the bus stop or collecting information before starting the journey.
Eight indicators from the latter group are shared among the previous four groups, giving a set of 92 unique indicators in total which can be used to measure the quality of the whole journey passenger experience.
• 14 Super Quality Indicators which include all the aspects covered by the initial list of indicators, namely Accessibility to transport services and infrastructure; Availability, adequacy and quality of pre-trip and traveling information; Safety and Security on board, interchanges and waiting spaces; Adequacy and quality of infrastructures; Travel experience on board; Reliability of services; Value for money; Availability of ticketing options and fares; Comfort of facilities and/or vehicles; Satisfaction for users of motorised private transport means; Satisfaction of specific needs for different users groups; Possibility and easiness of intermodal journeys; Availability of services; Staff helpfulness and behaviour
The final indicators were assessed in terms of their measurability, specificity, timeliness, novelty, independence and usefulness. The data sets from each survey site were reanalysed in terms of the Super Quality Indicators and results from the survey presented to stakeholders in each city as a context in which to discuss the METPEX approach.
3. TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATION
The trials were used as an opportunity to investigate the technological readiness of different approaches to data collection. In terms of data collection the project used gamification and a smart phone METPEX app (available both on androids and i-phones) associated with a satellite navigationsystem (sbNavi, developed by SBoing). In both cases tailored questions were presented to the users based on their personal and journey details. The satnav system had further benefits in so far as it could monitor movement through the route and push questions to the user at appropriate and relevant times during the journey.
Additionally a suite of back end administrative services were provided which would:
1. Enable the design of customised surveys (drawing on the 500 questions within the METPEX database) and the addition of other questions based on the requirements of the operator,
2. Encrypt all data,
3. Monitor response rates from all measurement tools, and alert researchers to the need to target users from different groups,
4. Provide incentives to users completing the survey.
5. Manage data entry from all measurement instruments.
Most of the sites failed to achieve their targets for this part of the project owing to late approval for the android version on the app store, publicity, requirements of users to buy into and use the systems (e.g. download systems, enter their profiles, and remember to use the systems), reliance on internet connectivity throughout journey). However it is anticipated that customised questions, based on user and journey profile, and current activity will be the way forward. A further project is being planned to develop these systems (see Section 7 for more details).
4. BARRIERS TO ACCESSIBILITY IN TRADITIONALLY HARD TO REACH GROUPS AND USERS WITH SPECIAL NEEDS
It was anticipated that within the trial period it might not be possible to attract traditionally hard to reach groups (communication impaired, low income groups, mobility restricted, elderly, rural dwellers, travellers with children, travellers with dependents, under 24s, visitors and women) to participate in the survey even though we had created questions sets for each of these groups, for each travel mode. Over 3800 from these groups took part in the survey per se, with the quantitative analysis not showing that their travel experience was significantly worse than that of other groups (with some regional variations)
The questions were used as focus groups prompts and representative participants recruited from gatekeeper organisations/snowballing at each site. Notably, the 22 focus groups (258 respondents) may also have included those that are not able to use transport services. As such the answers produced richer data, and lower levels of satisfaction. Cross cutting themes emerged (all groups/all sites) in relation to poor passenger and operator attitudes, the difficulty of making complaints/quality of response; inaccessibility of smaller stations and vehicles; lack of reliable transport information; staff availability and knowledge in stations and vehicles; overcomplicated ticketing /zoning; poor quality information (visual and audio) across the whole system; potential discrimination against certain groups; people cannot easily access facilities they need, when they want.
The effects of insecurity, physiological and psychological tension among special needs travellers damages their confidence to travel independently, which in turn made them feel a need of an accompanying person or to use the demand responsive service, especially during peak-hours periods.
From the meta-analysis the main factors needed to enable people to travel independently were certainty, acceptance, tolerance and understanding, from both drivers and other passengers. These travellers really value various practical infrastructure supports, from staff personal support through to accessible information provision and stations and vehicles. Some of this needs to be personalised for particular groups which may create some practical problems for public transport providers, especially in providing universal public transport facilities that work for all. However the presence of certainty, acceptance, tolerance and understanding, from both drivers and other passengers would make the journey of this group of travellers more bearable and durable and is not hard to achieve. Additionally improvements to in the clarity (e.g. timetables, notices, navigational signs, way finding, coloured markings) and reliability of information provision, especially in case of disruptions and alternatives due to non-functional infrastructure, is the one that all groups highlighted.
METPEX has therefore provided clear outcomes for transport and local authorities and operators by providing KPIs and protocols to ascertain the needs and levels of satisfaction of traditionally hard to reach groups. Additionally the project has provided guidance on priority areas which would lead to improved inclusivity and accessibility for these groups.
5. STAKEHOLDER VIEWS AND ENGAGEMENT
Stakeholder engagement occurred throughout the project occurred at four stages:
1. Pre-trial stage – positioning METPEX in terms of competitor analysis and the type of information that would be most use
2. Post pilot phases – discussion of usefulness of results for each stakeholder group
3. Main pilot stage – support from all stakeholders was essential in enabling the trial to be conducted on and about local services
4. Post main study – presentation of the results, discussion of the usefulness of the METPEX tool.
In the first two stages, 44 stakeholders from ten different cities and one European disability body were interviewed on the overall philosophy, approach and operationalisation of the METPEX measurement instruments. Results from the pilot study were also presented where appropriate.
In general, stakeholders appreciated the benefits of the METPEX tool as they believed that the identification of passengers‘ travel needs would become more important for transport service modernisation and the quantification of quality factors would guide investment enabling a better and more (economically) efficient service during the period of economic crisis. However, there was clear differentiation between stakeholder groups:
• Operators were more interested in the impacts of detailed level-of-service related variables to the passenger experience (e.g. the use of travel information, time utilisation whilst on-board, more detailed impacts of disruptions, detailed trip pattern, etc.) and less interested with the overall satisfaction of whole journey (especially those aspects over which they have no control), the usefulness of measuring the quantity of poor experience and general variables that could not be to understand their customer behaviour. Many conduct their own surveys, but admit that they do not reach all groups.
• Planning and transport authorities were more interested with wider general urban and public transport planning issues and the multi-modal travel patterns (e.g. different impacts of level-of-service for different travel modes and trip purposes), the impact of congestions and pollution in general and adequacy of service coverage. Many collect or rely on third parties to collect information, which is problematic in terms of resource expenditure, reliability, coverage, depth, and currency.
• Special interest groups were more interested with the minutiae of their constituent‘s interests and would have liked a more detailed measurement instrument, were sensitive about inclusion of private information and feelings about accessibility.
• Research institutes were interested with the detailed trip patterns and behavioural variables that underlie the travellers‘ decision making processes in order to inform policy making. They are also interested in multidisciplinary issues such as the role of subjective well-being conditions, stress and the impacts of travellers‘ time constraints.
All stakeholders highlighted the importance of reaching traditionally hard to reach groups and making the questionnaire accessible and comprehensible to people of different social categories, age, ethnicity and with different levels of literacy. Specific requirements for information were fed into both survey designs (e.g. regarding travel habits, station design, transference, information acquisition, comfort) (see Section 2). Most stakeholders expressed concern about lengthy questionnaires.
Follow up interviews after the second studies were difficult to arrange owing to organisational changes and staff churn and took place before the KPIs had been developed. Instead the 18 stakeholders could only comment on the survey and the results. The stakeholders were concerned about the length and usability of the survey, and the fact that the results did not accord with those achieved by their current surveys. Neither result is surprising. The measurement instruments used in the survey were designed to gather data which would lead to the final tool – which would be substantially shorter than the survey. The sample size was small within each city, and may therefore not have been representative, and may not have been measuring the same variables.
The stakeholders original levels if interest in the tool were confirmed – meaning that a configurable system (i.e. one with back end administrative systems would be needed). An additional requirement emerged for data analysis and the capacity to drill down into the data. This had been outside of the scope of the original project, but a quality dashboard was an emergent requirement.
One of the original aims of the project was to produce a tool that could be used for benchmarking service quality. For some stakeholders, for some aspects of service provision this already occurs. It is viewed as problematic, owing to contextual variations. Having witnessed the variations within cities, operational factors (e.g. funding, competition), different users groups and journey types, the legitimacy of benchmarking might be questioned.
6. CONTRIBUTIONS TO UNDERSTANDING OF LAND USE AND ACCESSIBILITY
This section looks at the ways in which METPEX has contributed to a greater understanding of the relationship between land use and accessibility and has developed additional strategies and tools for aid transport planning and decision making in local and transport authorities.
6.1 UNDERSTANDING OF ACCESSIBILITY AND RELATION TO LAND USE
Figure 5 provides an overview of the interrelations between land use, accessibility and mobility derived from an extensive literature review and the direction of their association
FIGURE 5: SUMMARY OF INTERRELATIONS BETWEEN LAND USE, ACCESSIBILITY AND MOBILITY VARIABLES (-) indicates negative association, (+)positive association, (0) no association and (?) unclear association
A survey of over 40 transport experts was undertaken to explore the relationship between land use, accessibility and transport.
Figure 6 shows that public transport satisfaction may be partly predicted by accessibility levels and land use features (the scale is from -3 to +3, where a positive value indicates that an increase in that factor will lead to an increase in the second one. Negative values mean than an increase of a factor leads to a decrease in the second one. The size of the arrows is proportional to impact size).
FIGURE 6: SUMMARY OF ASSESSED IMPACTS IN A SCALE FROM -3 TO 3 FROM EXPERT PANEL
Since travel time and travel cost are the most determinant accessibility variables changing satisfaction of public transport users, areas that need short time and cheap trips may have a higher public transport acceptance. Changes in land use diversity may contribute positively to increase accessibility in terms of distance, time and cost but might be less effective than land use density and street network connectivity. Thus, although limited effectivity may be expected, a high mix of residential and employment sites could be associated with high accessibility and public transport satisfaction
FIGURE 7: AVERAGE OF ELASTICITY OVERALL SATISFACTION OF PUBLIC TRANSPORT USERS BASED ON AN EXPERT SURVEY (range of elasticity from -3 to +3).
Figure 7 shows all factors are negatively associated with overall travel satisfaction, i.e. high distance, time and cost lead to less satisfaction. On average, travel cost seems to have the largest impact on overall public transport satisfaction, followed by travel time and travel distance. Accessibility to public transport stations and accessibility travelling by this mode show similar results. Only mean elasticity of travel distance reveals differences among both aspects, being distance more determinant when reaching stations than when travelling by public transport.
6.2 STRATEGIES FOR INTEGRATING AND OPTIMISING TRANSPORT SYSTEMS
Recent changes in European transport policy reflect a number of socio-economic trends in relation to the accessibility of passenger transport. Transport policy has developed from a technocratic “predict and provide” nature, towards emphasis on reducing traffic growth, pollution and congestion and promoting low carbon transport. Reducing congestion by increasing mobility has emphasised non-motor vehicle travel (walking / cycling). A number of local and regional schemes have been implemented aiming to make travel systems more intelligent, improve the transport system by providing real time information and also encourage multi-modal and ‘sharing’ travel patterns. A key response in policy to climate change and pollution is the management of transport systems’ environmental impacts, including more stringent vehicle emission targets to reduce greenhouse gases. Whilst equality policies and legislation for transport have been developed by both the EU and member states, illustrating the importance of mobility in people’s lives. In practice, however, the implementation of such policies and legislation varies greatly across member states, due to factors such as levels of political commitment and costs (for example, disability adaptations).
METPEX has looked at the implications of these trends for the design of integrating and optimising transport systems with a view to aiding transport decision making in local and transport authorities. Strategies were drawn up in terms of responding to:
• Trends in government policy and legislation relating to climate change and pollution, congestion, inclusivity and diversity.
• Demographic trends including population growth, age and ageing, gender, disability, income (socio-economic status), geographical impacts of demographic change
• Employment trends including the changing nature, location and number of employment sites, the demand for greater job flexibility, demand for 24 hour services, increased prevalence of part time/non contract jobs
• Trends in transport technology including IT technologies for travel information, demand responsive transport, vehicle design, integrated ticketing, maintenance of public/private transport, propulsion systems and road vehicle telematics
Measurement of the effects of change was broken down into a series of public transport performance indicators relating to economic, quality, environmental and organisational indicators. Despite differences in governance, administrative culture and professional capacities between countries as well as transport systems, good transport policy has to adhere to certain standards, i.e. have certain qualities. The four policy quality criteria were elucidated as referring to transferability, cost appropriateness, sustainability and improving accessibility (at geographical, social, temporal, travel mode and trip purpose levels).
6.3 EVALUATION MATRIX FOR INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES SUPPORTING INTEGRATIVE ACCESSIBILITY
The reviews of socio economic trends that may influence accessibility and mobility patterns showed that demographic, employment, residence, technology, government policy and legislation were key influencers. Innovative technologies may be rated in terms of their impact on economic, service, societal and environmental issues. These may be subdivided as shown in Table 9, and a simple 3 point rating scale used to assess the impact of a new innovative technology. This was tested in an evaluation of an electronic ticketing system in Toulouse, showing that the solution was highly recommended for the city’s public transport.
TABLE 9: CRITERIA FOR THE EVALUATION MATRIX
Criteria for matrix Details
Economic issues
• New business – providing innovative types of public transport services
• Economic growth / Transport activity – providing public transport usage, offering better accessibility and quality
• Modal shift – improving innovative types of modal changing between public transport (BUS to METRO and etc.)
• Reduction of administrative burden – creating new IT analytics and management systems
Service issues
• Competitiveness (Incl. costs) – ability to acquire good business positions in comparison to other companies
• Quality (Incl. strikes, weather) - The standard of something as measured against other things of a similar kind; the degree of excellence of something
• Image – people’s subjective thoughts and beliefs on various general aspects of quality in public transport
• Safety - The condition or state of being safe; freedom from danger or hazard; exemption from hurt, injury, or loss; in context of METPEX danger or hazards are considered as transport accidents
• Security - The ability that ensures the secure utilization of services. Freedom from danger, risk; in context of METPEX danger or hazards are considered as incidents inflicted by ill-willed individuals.
• Access to services – improvement of service quality and accessibility
Society issues
• Acceptance and influence – position of public transport in community’s life, possibility to make impact on decisions
• Accessibility - The quality of being at hand when needed; able to be reached or approached easily
• Increased amenity values – brand new public transport tools.
• Highest safety and security- ensure CCTV, more responsible persons and etc.
• Employment level and conditions – creating new work places and propose social warranties
Environmental issues
• Green technology – solutions allowing to save energy, reduce emissions and improve environmental indicators of vehicle fleet
• Emissions (Incl. noise) – discharge of undesired transport side products like greenhouse gas
• Use of resource – fuel consumption levels
7. SUMMARY OF SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL RESULTS AND FOREGROUND
METPEX has achieved all of its stated objectives and contributed to the harmonisation of transport research within the EU by producing reviews of current research and policies which showed gaps in knowledge relating to the link between land use and accessibility, poorly defined quality indicators which did not cover the multi- modal end-end journeys, lack of consultation of traditionally hard to reach groups, and ways to measure the quality of active forms of transport.
The project has addressed these gaps by developing:
• A suite of KPIs which cover whole, multi modal journeys from origin to destination, taking into account different traveller types and transport modes, including active forms of transport. These can be used by other projects, operators and transport stakeholders
• A new definition of accessibility linking it to land use
• Understanding the requirements of transport stakeholders in terms of their gaps in knowledge, funding and priority areas for surveys
• Producing feedback for transport operators and authorities and a set of guidelines on how to improve public transport quality for hard to reach groups based on data collected from 2 pan European studies
• Strategies to help transport and local authorities address the new transport challenges
• A simple to use evaluation matrix to support planning for innovative technologies for integrative accessibility.
• Introduced the innovative concept of crowdsourced “dynamic surveys” for transport i.e. surveys, customized to responder profiles and delivered via smartphone and web applications,
• A real time transport data collection app, at TRL7 which may be submitted to the SME instrument and/or Fast Track to Innovation funding schemes in 2016 which supports:
o Multiple organizations and campaigns per organization (with dynamic, distributed multi-server architecture).
o Multiple target questionnaires per campaign (multiple sets of questions, multiple target-groups).
o Dynamic selection and generation of the questionnaire presented to the responder, (i.e. the app will be able to query our servers, identify the currently active campaigns, randomly choose one, then choose a questionnaire (randomly, in order to ensure normal distribution over a large sample, or based on the user’s profile, demographics, etc., if the campaign is targeted). The user’s profile may contain optional settings such as: preferred language, age/gender, etc. and will be communicated to the server,
o strongly encrypted end-to-end, thus ensuring the privacy of the user.
o Definition of a questionnaire via XML (its questions, controls, behaviour, conditional flow, etc.) and dynamic generation of it on the smartphone (form, style, etc. via its XML description).
o Generation of the user’s response (in XML) and uploading it also using end-to-end, strong encryption.
o It will also be possible to dynamically and parametrically generate a questionnaire via PHP scripts and database queries over the extensive set of ~1000 transport variables and questions produced by the METPEX project.
Potential Impact:
Potential Impact
The document addresses the potential socio-economic impact and wider societal implications of the project to date, the main dissemination activities and exploitation of the results, with each section highlighting contributions and recommendations. The document firstly addresses gender and ethical issues both within the project, wider academia and the transport domain.
1. GENDER AND ETHICS
1.1 GENDER EQUALITY
1.1.1 WITHIN THE PROJECT
METPEX has taken its responsibilities of women’s participation in research seriously. The project was led by a senior female academic, and half of the work packages were led by women. 93 staff were associated with the project at partner institutions (47% were women), with 23 additional staff recruited specifically for the project (16 of whom were men). Staff from both genders, and at all levels of seniority have been named as co-authors on project related publications. Female staff recruited on the project have variously gained doctorates, achieved fulltime and/or higher positions and become grant holders following project completion. Senior female academics actively mentored more junior colleagues in work package meetings, and all contributions to discussions were handled equally.
METPEX has supported and taken steps towards redressing gender imbalances in academia.
1.1.2 GENDER AND MOBILITY
The project found that women travellers have different concerns to their male counterparts, especially in terms of safety and security and comfort, although many of the issues raised were of a similar nature. Issues such as staffing, maintenance and cleanliness, staff attitudes, safety in stations would appear to be easy to fix, if there was an incentive for operators and authorities to address this. Although social media and the trust economy may provide some motivation to address these, tighter regulations /guidelines are needed to ensure minimum standards are maintained across networks.
Women in particular make complex journeys; use both PT and active forms of transport. However, they have not featured strongly as a vulnerable user group in projects. Although cycling and walking are prioritized and promoted, little guidance is available on KPIs.
METPEX has addressed the gender bias in transport research by:
• including women as a user group,
• providing Key Performance Indicators which deal specifically with the concerns of female travellers and active forms of travel,
• producing recommendations on how to address the concerns of female traveller.
Passenger experience tends to have a lower priority and few guidelines in transport policy and strategy documents, as such the very issues that concern women as users of public transport may not be dealt with. Given that women are more likely to use public transport and support sustainable transport, giving such concerns greater priority will encourage their safe and effective use of public transport services.
The need to address whole journey experiences has been promoted with stakeholders and in METPEX related dissemination activities, and methods produced to assist in data collection.
The recommendation of the project would be that women’s mobility patterns are addressed in future projects building on the KPIs which emerged from METPEX and the survey tools produced.
1.2 ETHICAL ISSUES
One of the key findings has been the paucity of information gathering relating to traditionally hard to reach groups by stakeholder groups. Given the necessity of designing inclusive mobility, it is not sufficient for authorities and operators to use tokenistic representation. Not only were vulnerable groups (and those who do not use PT) underrepresented in local data gathering initiatives, where transport policy is based on historic date (e.g. UK) the journeys made by such groups may not even be represented (as information is only sought on commuting journeys). This means that the rationale on which current transport systems are designed may be flawed.
In understanding the potential difficulty of gaining insight into the experience of vulnerable transport users, METPEX has:
• Designed, replicable, specific surveys and KPIs for a wide range of traveller types (females, commuters, rural dwellers, travellers with children and dependents, elderly, mobility and communication impaired, those from lower socio economic groups).
• Undertaken focus groups with vulnerable users to determine in more detail the quality of whole journey experiences.
• Presented results specifically related to the needs of vulnerable transport users at international conferences to highlight this issue
The second approach was deemed necessary because 1) those answering surveys were able to disclose which profile represented them most accurately in the survey (so may not disclose or feel a disability is relevant), 2) surveys only capture those who can use the transport system. However, the analysis has shown that the quantitative survey results do not correspond well to qualitative results, but that many vulnerable users have the same experiences, which can be addressed relatively easily.
The recommendations for local stakeholders would be to:
• Use METPEX KPIs and survey proforma to understand mobility and requirements of vulnerable groups, rather than developing bespoke and invalidated measurement instruments
• Remove institutional barriers that prevent whole journey problems from being dealt with (e.g. operators may gather information on stations and bus stops, but if they do not own the facilities they may not pass on the information on or take action)
• Model whole journey trips to understand mobility patterns of different user groups
• Have adequate representation of all users on decision making boards.
The recommendations for EU community would be to:
• build on the METPEX tools and KPIs to harmonise transport research
• prioritise mobility requirements of hard to reach groups
2.SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT
High levels of impact were proposed within the DoW. Some of these proved unrealistic in the timeframe of the project. For example, the project was not able to have an impact on uptake of transport or reduction of carbon emissions, by its very nature. It was a project to develop a measurement tool to enable transport stakeholders to measure the quality of the passenger experience in a reliable way. Once they have done this, they in turn have to implement the changes the results warrant, to make improvements to their services, which in turn will encourage greater usage thereby influencing carbon reductions. Additionally, much of the project took place in a time of austerity. The immediate effects of this were a reduction in budgets, service and personnel cuts for operators and authorities with transport budgets being significantly reduced. Vulnerable and hard to reach transport groups are especially effected by austerity measures as their routes and concessionary travel may be cut. For some travellers (e.g. in Lithuania and Greece) the quality of transport services was not a high priority.
The tools were translated into 11 languages, with 9 nationalities being represented. 6300 people were surveyed. It is estimated that outreach activities (workshops and seminars) have addressed 50 SMEs. 26 transport operators have supported the project. Unfortunately owing to organisational churn in the transport sector it was rarely possible to interview the same people at all phases of the project.
Through stakeholder engagement, METPEX has:
• Raised awareness with transport stakeholders of the importance of quality issues and consideration of whole journey experiences in 8 countries,
• Demonstrated the use of technological innovation (real time data collection, gamification and social media to transport stakeholders
• Developed and tested tools in a Pan European context
METPEX recommends:
• Careful consideration of the appropriateness of impact assessment criteria to reflect the nature of the project
• Mobility and accessibility to be guaranteed rights of all citizens
2.2 POTENTIAL ECONOMIC IMPACT
METPEX business concept addresses the vertical European and global market of surveys for the Transport sector. Worldwide, there are many large stakeholders in this sector, sufficient to ensure a large market size with dynamic growth. Their enthusiastic interest has been verified through the METPEX project, in which there are currently involved 50 major stakeholders (20 operators, 12 authorities, 10 NGOs, 8 academic & research institutions) from 10 EU countries. Also, the ever growing global and European interest in Transport projects in the next decade (see: H2020 priorities in Transport) will further increase the need for evaluation surveys in this sector, to validate various project results and applied policies and their impact to the citizens and the society overall. METPEX tools address the specific niche market of passenger experience measurement tools formed by:
• National and supranational transport authorities/associations; at national level we can count approximately 30 organisation while the members of (International Association of Public Transport (UITP) has affiliated 71 national and supranational bodies worldwide
• There is not an official statistic about the number of local operators but if we consider only the regional dimension (EUROSTAT NUTS 2 definition) we can estimate that about 300 are the Local authorities in Europe and 185 worldwide are members of UITP
• In the UITP members there are 353 transport operators in Europe and 574 in the World.
METPEX tools are potentially able to satisfy a segmented demand:
• Being able to satisfy different needs and provide a personalised offer
• Approaching the customers with different type of relationships
• Gaining advantage for the different level of profitability
• Capturing the different willingness to pay for different aspects of the offer
2.2.1POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON SERVICE PROVIDERS AND TRANSPORT OPERATORS
In 2012, 56.8 billion journeys were made by public transport in the EU. This figure will be affected by changes land use, socio demographics issues, policy and technological innovations. It may result in new entrants into service provision. To maintain market share operators need to provide high quality services for all users.
Gathering feedback on transport quality is of paramount importance for the success of all transport-related projects, as well as for public transport stakeholders wishing to improve their competitiveness and service efficiency against the competition. Targeted surveys are not straightforward to design or conduct, as they require very specialized knowledge about how to select and approach appropriate target groups, sizing the minimum statistical sample, forming valid, unbiased, unambiguous and reliable questionnaires, maximizing the survey throughput and quality, post-processing and evaluating the quality of the results, etc. Most stakeholders do not have this capability and outsource their survey campaigns to specialized consultants, who design and launch them using manual methods, i.e. by personal interviews and pen-and-paper questionnaires. The average cost of such outsourcing to a stakeholder is in the order of 10.000 EUR per campaign, plus significant time and resources allocated to its setup and analysis
METPEX has provided:
• Validated KPIs and administrative system to improve the validity and inclusivity of transport surveys and reduce costs
• The derived information will enable better allocation of resources to improve quality of passenger experience
• The matrix to evaluate integrative accessibility technologies provides a simple means to assess implications of new investments
2.2.1 TRAVELLERS: IMPROVING ACCESSIBILITY
Equality of opportunity for people with disabilities is at the centre of European Disability Strategy 2010-2020 which seeks to provide continuous and sustainable improvement in the situation of persons with disabilities in economic, social and participatory terms.
Persons with disabilities represent approximately 10% of the working age population in Europe with figures increasing as people grow older. Given the correlation between disability and ageing and the demographic change in Europe it is expected that over 20% of the EU population would benefit from improvements in accessibility of goods and services. There are a lack of accessible goods and services on the EU market, and this includes transport provision. As a consequence there are barriers for disabled people's economic, social and political participation in society. The potential of persons with disabilities as a relevant segment of consumers is mostly overlooked. As a consequence they do not benefit from single market opportunities as much as other citizens. Inaccessible transport may provide one of the first barriers which have to be overcome by disabled people wishing to take part in civic, social and commercial activities of a city. Understanding and overcoming these barriers will not only enhance the passenger experience and encourage greater use of public and active forms of transport; it will also enable disabled travellers to fully partake in civic life, thereby increasing their quality of life.
METPEX supports accessibility, inclusivity and e-accessibility legislation by developing tools to understand the transport requirements of travellers with different forms of disability.
From the data gathered from the initial surveys as set of requirements has been developed which will enable transport operators to take immediate action to increase accessibility of their services
METPEX has emphasized the importance of quality issues to vulnerable transport users such as the need for certainty, acceptance, tolerance and understanding
2.2.4 LOCAL AND TRANSPORT AUTHORITIES
Authorities and operators have a dedicated budget for passenger satisfaction that can vary from €10-100,000s. A metropolitan agency may allocate, on average, 70 keuro/Year to passenger satisfaction surveys, which gives an estimate of an European market of approximately 45MEuro (including authorities and the transport operators).
Broadly speaking it is very useful to analyse the global market of transportation, with a specific focus on the European market, in order to understand the target and size of the market to which sell the Online Survey Tool of the METPEX project. With around €548 billion in Gross Value Added (GVA) at basic prices, the transport and storage services sector (including postal and courier activities) accounted for about 4.8 % of total GVA in the EU-28 in 2011. In 2012, total passenger transport activities in the EU-28 by any motorised means of transport are estimated to have amounted to 6391 billion pkm or on average around 12652 km per person. This figure includes intra-EU air and sea transport but not transport activities between the EU and the rest of the world. Passenger cars accounted for 72.2 % of this total, powered two-wheelers for 2 %, buses & coaches for 8.2 %, railways for 6.5 % and tram and metro for 1.5 %. Intra-EU air and intra-EU maritime transport contributed 9 % and 0.6 % respectively.
In terms of supporting the efficiency of local authorities, METPEX has provided a means of enabling authorities to measure the quality of the whole journey, including active and sustainable modes. The KPIs and tools provide a robust set of indicators and statements which are specifically targeted towards the groups that authorities know least about (‘hard to reach groups’), but which they should care most about. Additional insights have been provided into the relationship between land use and accessibility, and emerging trends which will influence this relationship. A series of strategies has also been proposed which will enable measures to be taken to address future challenges.
METPEX has provided a more inclusive definition of accessibility, linking accessibility to land use issues, and detailed the components that can decrease satisfaction with public transport based on land use issues which will aid transport and city planners in their commissioning of services.
METPEX has therefore provided methods for local and transport authorities which will
• Reducing the cost of commissioning travel surveys
• Aid economic development of the city through increasing the accessibility of transport services
• Aid to transport decision making and deployment of technology to support integrative accessibility
2.3 SOCIAL IMPACT
Mobility is correlated with quality of life. Therefore any steps to improve mobility will affect quality of life. A study by the European Commission, DG Region and Urban Policy released in 2013, analysed the satisfaction in terms of quality of life on a total of 79 European cities and 4 surrounding areas. In terms of satisfaction of quality of life related to transport, the study revealed results, ranging from 95% in Zurich to 14% in Palermo with Bucharest, Vilnius and Rome achieving poor results.
METPEX has highlighted the requirements of traditionally hard to reach user groups, and has shown that their actual lived experience of transport, may be a poorer than that related in transport surveys. The focus group data from all hard to reach groups triangulated well, showing where ‘soft’ improvements could be made to service offerings e.g. in terms of staff training which would reduce stress and increase independence.
METEX has:
• contributed a small effort in encouraging transport operators and authorities to increase consultation with traditionally hard to reach groups, provided them with the tools to do so, and specimen results to improve services.
• Considered wider aspects of mobility, especially in terms of accessibility and active forms of transport, highlighting that the quality of the journey to the transport provider may be a great barrier for those unable to work
• KPIs have also been provided and research undertaken with those from rural and low socio economic groups and with low levels of literacy, thereby widening the categories of those who are consulted
2.4 POLITICAL IMPACT
No general EU legislation exists requiring Member States to prohibit discrimination against disabled people in relation to transport. However, there are a number of EU provisions designed to improve access to specific modes of transport. For example, the Bus and Coach Directive 2001, for instance, requires Member States to ensure that urban buses comply with various accessibility standards. They must, for example, be fitted with a ramp or a lift as well as a kneeling system and must have wheelchair designated spaces, colour contrasting, and designated seats for persons with reduced mobility. Evidence from focus groups suggests that this legislation is insufficient, and a lot of disabled travellers faced with inaccessible transport systems could challenge their consequent exclusion or discomfort as an infringement of their rights under the ECHR.
The Revised European Social Charter (ESC) Article 15 confers on disabled people a right to ‘independence, social integration and participation in the life of the community’. By Article 15(3) the signatories undertake to: promote their full social integration and participation in the life of the community, in particular through measures, including technical aids, aiming to overcome barriers to communication and mobility and enabling access to transport, housing, cultural activities and leisure.
The philosophy behind METPEX has been to consider the whole journey experience, as such KPIs can be used as a means of benchmarking a number of aspects of service provision for disabled travellers. These in turn could be used to develop regulations and standards for new and existing service providers.
2.5 TECHNOLOGICAL IMPACT
METPEX conducted online surveys using a gaming app and the SBOING GPS navigator, called “sbNavi™”, launched in November 2013 in Apple’s app store (iTunes) and adapted for Android smartphones in April 2014. The SBOING GPS navigator is a satellite navigation application, developed for smartphones, which implements SBOING’s crowdsourcing methodology for improved routing and faster map updates. Its community version is offered for free, together with free maps for the entire world. One of the main benefits of using the sbNavi application was that information in terms of travel, such as position, route taken, point of interests, passenger stop points, speed information could be collected in real time. Journey and traveller information were stored and the app could push appropriate questions to the user based on their movement patterns. Additionally a backend administrative system was provided to enable customised surveys to be designed, monitored, stored and encrypted.
All METPEX partners, field experts and most stakeholders have recognized that there is a gap in the transport market for such a measurement tool and that there is potential to provide a viable, hi-tech business solution to bridge this gap in a profitable manner. Such a solution would provide public transport stakeholders and transport consultants, with a “smart tool” for acquiring traveller feedback on various transport issues, as well as the citizens and the society overall, by providing them with an efficient tool to deliver their feedback directly to the decision makers and public transport service providers.
METPEX has therefore introduced the innovative concept of crowdsourced “dynamic surveys”, i.e. surveys, customized to responder profiles and delivered via smartphone and web applications, by dynamically retrieving questionnaires from servers and delivering them to the intended target groups and even adapting them on-the-fly while they are being answered.
2.6 TRANSPORT IMPACT
2.6.1 RESEARCH COMMUNITY
One of the aims of METPEX was to harmonise transport research across the EU. Significant gaps in knowledge have been found in terms of groups consulted, definitions of indicators and accessibility, modal coverage, and whole journey data.
METPEX has delivered a suite of KPIs and administrative services which can be used by future EU projects.
In order for future projects to benefit from this work METPEX KPIs are open source, have featured in dissemination activities, but alerts will also need to be positioned in funding calls to make future projects aware of the resources.
2.6.2 LEVELS OF POTENTIAL IMPACT
The potential impact on transport may be considered at different levels based on expressions of interest received during the project. The METPEX conference showed an appetite at EU level for work which addresses wider accessibility, sustainability and inclusivity issues. Stakeholder engagement has revealed a split between the interest of transport and local authorities in whole journey issues, and transport operators who are interested more in service provision and competitor analysis. The reviews have shown on the one hand, gaps in knowledge regarding the use, formulation and inclusivity of quality indicators, and on the other the lack of integration of accessibility with land use planning and emergent themes which will transform transport services. Mindful of these changes, the KPIs, survey instruments and tools developed in the project will form a basis for future work (e.g. though the inclusion of whole journey, different traveller groups and active and new forms of transport). Table 1 considers different impact areas of the project at EU, national and local levels.
TABLE 1; LEVELS OF POTNEITAL IMPACT FOR METPEX OUTPUTS
Level METPEX output Potential impact
EU level Whole journey philosophy, KPIs, new definition of accessibility, linking accessibility to land use, identification of gaps in knowledge • Shaping of EU transport and research agenda
• Foundation for future projects
• Increased recognition of quality issues
• Harmonisation of transport research
National level Recommendations, KPIs • Ensuring increased inclusivity of transport provision
• KPIs to form basis for national quality indicators, to sit alongside performance indicators.
Local level KPIs, evaluation matrix for assessment of technology to support integrative accessibility, strategies to deal with transport changes
• Increased validity, reduced cost of surveys
• Enhanced decision making so that the right technology is purchased
• Based line strategies for addressing systems level changes which need to made to address emergent issues.
Recommendations:
1. The whole journey experience needs to be linked to mobility and wider definitions of accessibility. These concepts need to be nurtured and protected through greater collaboration between all stakeholders, without this, service provision will remain disjointed.
2. Enforceable standards need to be established regarding quality of service to safeguard the requirements of vulnerable transport users. Audit tools can be developed based on KPIs to assess quality provision.
3. The quality of service provision for all travellers should be given the same priority as operational indicators.
4. Research instruments developed in EU projects must be usable (and proven to be used) by people with additional needs.
5. Make it a statutory duty to include vulnerable transport users on decision making bodies.
6. Improved technological infrastructure will enable real time data collection, but inclusion of groups without access to technology or having high levels of literacy need to be afforded the same priority.
7. Accessibility, rather than transport provision per se needs to be addressed to ensure that citizens have equal access to services and opportunities, regardless of their socio economic status, place of residence, demographics or climatic change.
8. Certainty, acceptance, tolerance and understanding in transport service provision should be used as design concepts
9. Trip chaining and measuring of quality of shorter journeys should be investigated
3. ACHIEVING AND SUSTAINING IMPACT
A number of activities need to be undertaken to ensure that METPEX delivers the potential impact outlined above. Firstly, the outputs of the project need to be disseminated more widely. To this end a METPEX book will be published in 2016, and partners have plans for more publications. Secondly, the project outputs need to be adopted by transport stakeholders and new projects; this requires an aggressive marketing/awareness raising campaign and building up customer relationships. Thirdly more refined measurement instruments and survey tools need to be developed, highlighting the projects USP and the benefits which can be derived from using the project outputs.
The METPEX backend services (game, SbNavi App, online and paper based surveys, focus groups, methodology, variables and indicators) were assessed by the team as being at TRL 7 or above, whereas the advisory services were rated as TRL 4. Additionally, stakeholder would value the produce a quality scoreboard as an output, or the ability to drill down into the results as part of the advisory service..
A business plan has been developed which has considered different options. Apart from the option of private investment (i.e. venture capital), the H2020 SME Instrument and Fast track to Innovation seem to be the most suitable funding schemes. Consortium members have expressed willingness to collaborate on future proposals.
4. EXPLOITABLE FOREGROUND KNOWLEDGE
The exploitable foreground consists of
1. The KPIs which can form the backbone of a decision support system for transport policy makers that are interested in implementing a human-centred transport system. Namely
• 14 Super Quality Indicators which include all the aspects covered by the initial list of indicators, namely Accessibility to transport services and infrastructure; Availability, adequacy and quality of pre-trip and traveling information; Safety and Security on board, interchanges and waiting spaces; Adequacy and quality of infrastructures; Travel experience on board; Reliability of services; Value for money; Availability of ticketing options and fares; Comfort of facilities and/or vehicles; Satisfaction for users of motorised private transport means; Satisfaction of specific needs for different users groups; Possibility and easiness of intermodal journeys; Availability of services; Staff helpfulness and behaviour
• 25 in-depth indicators dealing with specific aspects of the perceived quality of service
• 23 mode-specific quality indicators for the following 7 different travel means: train, underground, tramway, buses, pedestrian, bikes and private cars.
• 30 user group-specific indicators for the following 10 different traveller profiles: women, commuters, elders, young, low income dwellers, visitors, rural dwellers, travelling with children, mobility restricted and communication impaired.
• 7 indicators specifically dealing with communication restricted and mobility impaired passengers using public transport.
• 15 indicators (8 of which are shared with the previous 4 subsets) focusing on specific phases of the journey experience, such as travelling on a vehicle, waiting at the bus stop or collecting information before starting the journey.
2. The matrix for the evaluation of technology to support integrative accessibility
3. Strategies for responding to transport changes.
4. Concept of ‘crowd sourced dynamic surveys’.
These have been developed jointly by the consortium and are provided as open source documents.
The SbNavi app was developed by Sboing, in consultation with members of the consortium, and is fed by questions developed by the consortium.
5. DISSEMINATION
METPEX has developed resources which can be used beyond the life time of the project. These have been promoted at academic conferences, events and through the project website which will be maintained beyond the lifetime of the project (currently over 23,800 hits, with more than 9000 sessions and 18000 unique page views).
The project team has participated in over 150 individual events. Dissemination activities commenced at the start of the project, and will be maintained into 2016. These have featured dissemination to local stakeholders (to inform strategic developments, at national conferences and workshops (both industrial and academic), EU (e.g. TRA conferences, POLIS, TRANSED, Humane Cities, AHFE, HCI) and international conferences (China, Australia, US).
With the final results only emerging in the latter stages of the project, most academic partners intend to convert conference papers/submit additional journal articles, and are contributing to the METPEX book due for publication in 2016. The team is committed to open access publications where possible. Where possible, documents are deposited in institutional/national and international repositories where possible, thereby enabling the research community, and transport stakeholders to adopt the methodology and tools developed in the project.
List of Websites:
www.metpex.eu
Contact details; A.Woodcock@coventry.ac.uk;