Tribunal Federal Electoral del Poder Judicial de la Federación

One of the most detailed customer led studies in defining performance attributes for the measurement of public transport SQ is the work of Golob et al. (1972) which identified 91 attributes of public transport performance. However, Pullen (1991) criticises the research of Golob et al. (1972) on the basis that the 91 performance attributes were identified by means of professional expertise and a search of the literature, rather than obtained through primary research such as interviews or passenger diaries. Nonetheless, the list of performance attributes can be considered fairly comprehensive due to its size. The importance of the performance attributes identified by Golob et al. (1972) for passengers was subsequently tested by means of a paired comparisons questionnaire, revealing that attributes of greatest importance to the passenger were ‘arriving when planned’, ‘having a seat’ and ‘no transfer’. Attributes such as ‘coffee and newspapers on board’ and ‘stylish vehicle exterior’ were found to be of least importance to passengers (ibid). However, Pullen’s (1991) comments and the fact that the research of Golob et al. (1972) was undertaken over thirty years ago when car ownership levels were considerably lower and public transport was still state owned must be taken into consideration in assessing the value of the identified performance attributes.

Other studies of public transport quality attributes have taken a more bottom-up, customer oriented approach to investigating the performance attributes which customers use to evaluate public transport SQ. For example, Friman et al. (1998) argue that NCIs have a greater impact on customer perceptions of SQ than positive critical incidents, so that attempts to identify SQ attributes should focus on customer

complaints and reports of NCIs to identify clusters or dimensions of SQ. NCIs were found to fall into the seven categories displayed in Table 3.8.

With the exception of complaints about vehicle and equipment malfunction and bus stops, all complaints relate to functional attributes of the public transport service and Friman et al. (1998) note that the large majority of complaints pertained to customers’ treatment by staff and staff response to NCIs. The categories in Table 3.8 were found to be consistent across three different critical incident techniques13 (see Flanagan, 1954; Bitner et al., 1990) with the most important dimensions of public transport SQ being employee behaviour, reliability (e.g. punctuality) and simplicity (information). Friman et al. (1998) note that these three dimensions of SQ have been established in other service industries. In a later study, a fourth dimension relating to comfort, security and cleanliness (labelled ‘design’) was substantiated (Friman et al., 2001).

The work of Swanson et al. (1997) used protocol analysis to establish the factors of importance to travellers during bus journeys, whose improvement would make the service more attractive to both users and non-users. The performance attributes listed in Table 3.9 were derived from the protocol analysis and are organised into eight stages of the bus journey. These stages concur with two of the three phases of the transport experience cited by Hanna and Drea (1998), i.e. the antecedents of ridership and the in-transit experience.

13

The three critical incident techniques which Friman et al. (1998) employed were content analysis of complaints, on-board interviews and a mail survey. The latter is not a common critical incident technique.

Table 3.8 - Categorisation of Incidents Obtained from Complaints

Classification category Attribute subject of complaint

Treatment and action Uncomfortable driving Unsafe driving Driver failed to stop

Bad treatment by other employee

Punctuality Early departure

Late departure

Journey cancelled without notice Information Arrival and departure times

Notice of delays Destination information Ticket information Technical malfunction Vehicle

Other equipment Vehicle design and space Crowding

Discomfort

Embarking and disembarking Transport planning Fare structure

Scheduling

Other Retailer Injury

Bus stop

Source: Friman et al. (1998)

In addition to the detailed temporal breakdown of the public transport service illustrated in Table 3.9, Swanson et al. (1997) tested the performance attributes in the right hand column using stated preference techniques, in order to estimate monetary valuations for each attribute. The resulting valuations show that the attributes of public transport for which customers would be most willing to pay were information at the bus stop and clean stops and vehicles. By contrast, reducing journey time was not a high priority for bus-users.

The sample used for the research of Swanson et al. (1997) was taken at locations across London. An interesting comparison can be made with a study by FaberMaunsell (1999) which produced rating scores for the importance and performance of attributes of bus services in the North of England, measured on a

seven point Likert scale. The performance attributes are listed in Figure 3.9 in order of mean importance as identified by FaberMaunsell (1999).

Table 3.9 – Journey Stages and Attributes of Public Transport Service

Stage of journey Attributes important to bus travellers

Pre-trip information Maps

Timetables

Customised local information Telephone information services The bus stop infrastructure Type of shelter

Type of seat Lighting

Cleanliness and state of repair Waiting at bus stop Fixed information display

Real-time information Service reliability

The bus at the kerbside Compulsory or request stop Ease of identifying correct bus Stopping position of bus Design of vehicle entry steps Encountering the driver Driver appearance

Driver helpfulness Driver identification Availability of change Moving to seat Level of crowding

Design of luggage storage area. Seating configuration

Quality of vehicle motion Travelling in a seat Types of seat

Spaciousness of seat Type of ventilation Cleanliness Travel time

Leaving the bus Provision of information on the bus Number and location of door

Source: Swanson et al. (1997)

Whilst driving skill of the bus driver was identified as the most important performance attribute of bus travel (FaberMaunsell, 1999), smooth vehicle motion, the nearest comparable attribute measured in the study of London travellers, was awarded a comparably low value (Swanson et al., 1997). Conversely, performance attributes such as reliability and availability of information received high importance ratings across both studies.

Figure 3.9 - Importance and Performance Ratings of Bus Service Descriptors in Northern England

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

seats are comfortable bus shelters are secure seats/windows are clean

driver is friendly able to get a seat easy access to information

bus keeps to timetable driver has good driving skills

Source: FaberMaunsell (1999)

Prioni and Hensher (2000) summarise bus performance attributes established in previous customer led studies (Hensher, 1991; Brewer and Hensher, 1997; Swanson

et al., 1997) into six different quality dimensions. They further map demand side quality attributes (viewed from the customers’ perspective) into supply side equivalences which they claim are ‘to varying degrees, observable and under the direct control of the bus operator’ (Prioni and Hensher, 2000:54). The result of this mapping is illustrated in Figure 3.10.

bus is easy to get on/off

Performance Importance

feel safe on bus bus stop close to journey start/end

Figure 3.10 - Demand Side Bus Service Quality Attributes and their Supply Side Equivalents

Demand Side Quality Attributes Supply Side Equivalents

Getting to the bus stop quality

• Ease, safety, time, knowing where stop is

Getting to the bus stop quality

• Frequency, availability of bus shelter and seats

Wait quality time

• Wait time at stop, punctuality of bus • Wait comfort, wait safety

Wait quality • Frequency

• Availability of bus shelter and seats Trip quality

• Time to board bus • Time to get seat • Moving to your seat • Travel time

• Trip cost

Trip quality

• Frequency, percent of low-floor buses • Number of seats available

• Average speed, network shape • Travel time • Fare Vehicle quality • Cleanliness • Comfort of seats • Temperature control • Noise • Safety • Modernity

• Ease of use for disabled users

Vehicle quality

• Hours of vehicle cleaning • Percent of buses with cloth seats • Percent of buses with air-conditioning • Visual surveillance

• Average age of the fleet • Wheelchair access (yes/no) Driver quality

• Appearance • Helpfulness

Driver quality

• Years of driving experience, money spent on drivers’ training

Information quality • Pre-trip information

Information quality

• Availability of timetable

Source: Prioni and Hensher (2000)

Prioni and Hensher (2000) thus confirm that analyses of SQ in public transport should be primarily concerned with system factors (see Figure 3.2). Prioni and Hensher (2000) have attempted to quantify bus travellers’ preferences for different levels of bus SQ using revealed preference and stated preference techniques, in order to identify the contribution of each performance attribute to overall SQ. Their findings suggest that infrastructure at the bus stop does not have an important influence on SQ (ibid). This finding contrasts with results obtained by Swanson et al., (1997) which suggested that customers would be willing to pay more for cleaner

bus stops. However, other findings which suggest that onboard safety, vehicle cleanliness, driver attitude, availability of information at the bus stop and bus frequency make the most significant contribution to overall bus SQ (Prioni and Hensher, 2000) coincide with the findings of FaberMaunsell (1999).

A comparison of performance attributes across all of the customer led studies and CS surveys reviewed above shows that the majority of attributes that are commonly measured by CS surveys were also identified as important by public transport consumers. Significantly, only one of the studies discussed above (Friman et al., 1998) employed or uncovered the use of technical attributes of the true quality of public transport as defined by Ryan (1995) or Ennew et al. (1993). Functional attributes pertaining to customer care, reliability (especially punctuality) and insufficient information (with regard to timetables and ticketing) were shown to account for the majority of customer complaints and NCIs, with cleanliness, comfort and security also being confirmed as important (Friman et al., 1998). These performance attributes were also shown to have significance for the customer by the research of Swanson et al. (1997). However, the issue of environmental quality indicators deserves further mention. Quattro (1998) includes quality issues relating to the environment in their public transport quality matrix which forms a framework for measuring true quality, now adopted as standard within the UK (BSI, 2001). Equip (2000), by contrast categorises environmental performance attributes as internal quality indicators, measured by the operator. The fact that none of the customer led studies discussed above uncovered environmental quality as an attribute used by customers to measure public transport SQ or CS suggests that environmental indicators are of little importance to true quality and CS. Hence,

whilst environmental factors appear to play a role in modal choice, their function in assessing SQ and CS remains less clear.

To summarise, CS and SQ with respect to previous experience have been shown to play an important role in mode of transport choice. Moreover, it is accepted that performance on attributes of public transport quality contributes to customers’ perceptions of overall quality and satisfaction with public transport, which in turn affect modal choice. However, whilst studies of CS and SQ commonly differentiate between internal (business process) and true (customer-perceived) quality, there is no agreement over a conclusive series of performance attributes which contribute to true quality. Pullen (1991) claims that differences in the lists of performance attributes employed in studies of CS and the lack of consistency in the results obtained by customer led studies can be attributed to the fact that public transport research is area specific. This provides evidence for the contention that, in addition to influencing modal choice directly, external factors also have an indirect effect on modal choice since they may influence the importance and perceived performance of attributes which are used by passengers and operators to measure satisfaction with public transport at a given destination. The same can be said to apply to personal factors, such as purpose of trip. For example, the reliability of a service is likely to be of greater importance to a student travelling to an examination, than to a passenger travelling to visit a friend. Similarly, there is likely to be a negative correlation between the importance of the cost of public transport trip and level of disposable income. Figure 3.11 shows the direct and indirect influences of external, personal and system factors on mode of transport choice.

Figure 3.11 - Direct and Indirect Influences of Personal, System and External Factors on Choice of Mode of Transport

CHOICE OF TRANSPORT MODE PERSONAL FACTORS (Determinants) SYSTEM FACTORS (SQ attributes) EXTERNAL FACTORS Internal quality attributes True quality attributes

Notwithstanding the apparent lack of consistency as regards the performance attributes used to measure CS with public transport, several attributes of public transport performance have been found to be common to the studies of public transport CS and SQ studies reviewed above, in particular customer care, reliability and information. However, none of the studies of modal choice or public transport SQ reviewed above have differentiated between perceptions of frequent and occasional users of public transport or between work and non-work journeys. One of the main objectives of this study is to investigate factors affecting overseas visitors’ use of urban public transport. Thus, a discussion of the special characteristics of the relationship between overseas visitors and urban public transport is appropriate. The following section will therefore consider the personal and external factors which may affect overseas visitors’

satisfaction with urban public transport. The section will incorporate the results of studies which have focussed specifically on the importance of attributes of urban public