You are on page 1of 16

EXPLORING CUSTOMER LOYALTY AS A TRANSIT PERFORMANCE MEASURE

by

Peter J. Foote, Senior Transit Research Analyst, Corresponding Author Market Research Department, Chicago Transit Authority 120 N. Racine Avenue, Chicago, IL 60607 (312) 733-7000 x 6840 PFoote@TransitChicago.com

Darwin G. Stuart, Manager Market Research Department, Chicago Transit Authority 120 N. Racine Avenue, Chicago, IL 60607 (312) 733-7000 x 6848 Dstuart@TransitChicago.Com

Rebecca Elmore-Yalch, President Northwest Research Group, Seattle/Boise 225 N 9th Street, Suite 200 Boise, ID 83702 (208) 364-0171 Byalch@NWRG.com

Abstract

CTA conducted its third biennual random-digit-dial telephone survey of Customer Satisfaction in December, 1999. Between 1997 and 1999, there was a significant increase in the number of riders with positive attitudes towards the CTA, measured in a number of different ways. Moreover, this continued the upward trend noted between 1995 and 1997. Specific areas of improved customer satisfaction are reviewed, with an emphasis on a three-part index of customer loyalty. This loyalty index could be a useful summary measure of public transits ability to attract additional choice riders. CTA was, in fact, able to do the latter, as a part of 1997-9 ridership growth that paralleled customer satisfaction and loyalty increases. Investigation of the three basic dimensions of improved customer loyalty to CTA (overall satisfaction, likelihood of continued riding, likelihood of recommending to others) is described. Customer assessment of bus service performance, according to 44 specific aspects of service quality, and rail service performance, according to 52 specific aspects of service quality, is also summarized.

Keywords: Customer Satisfaction, Service Quality, Performance Measures, Loyalty, Transit, Bus, Rail, Chicago.

INTRODUCTION Attempts to make urban transit service more customer-driven have grown in recent years, in part because it is increasingly realized that customer satisfaction is a very real challenge. This challenge is most evident, of course, in drawing choice riders away from the private automobile. While progress has been made in researching, via customer satisfaction surveys, very specific customer-defined measures of service quality---such as on-time performance, waiting time, operator courtesy, or smoothness of ride---there may also be a useful role for the concept of customer loyalty, as a transit performance measure. In general, as is well known in the consumer marketing literature, in relation to highly competitive brand name competition, for typical consumer goods---electronics, clothing, frozen foods---customer loyalty is a very fragile concept. It has been found that only the most satisfied customers remain truly loyal, and that those who are not highly pleased are very susceptible to switching among different brands. Because growth in transit ridership in the United States is very much tied to increasing the number of so-called choice riders---who otherwise can and do use the private automobile---loyalty to transit could perhaps be seen as a similarly fragile concept. To put it simply: what does it take for choice transit riders to become very satisfied with public transit? Customer satisfaction and loyalty are the sine-que-non, the essential ingredients, for achieving growth in urban transit use. Without them, growth is difficult, if not impossible, to achieve. In keeping with this, CTA Customer Satisfaction Surveys were conducted in the Fall of 1995, 1997 and 1999 (1, 2). All respondents were at least 16 years old, and rode CTA at least once in the week before the survey. After verifying the respondents home zip code and CTA use, respondents were asked to evaluate either CTA bus or rail service, but not both. The survey measures overall perceptions of CTA management style, performance in customer-defined aspects of CTA service quality (44 bus, 52 rail attributes), and overall satisfaction and loyalty. The 1999 survey was conducted in October and November, with 2,464 CTA riders interviewed, split equally between bus and rail. Survey sampling was also allocated, on a target quota basis, among seven different geographic areas, so that results for these sub-areas could also be compared. In general, these geographic stratifications are an improvement over earlier versions of the survey, and a number of other methodological improvements were also made. The overall content of the three surveys is, however, consistent, so that continuity in trending customer satisfaction over time is maintained. Purposes of this survey program include: Identify market segments that are most likely to be affected by service quality improvements. Determine critical performance attributes that result in customer satisfaction and loyalty. Assess the performance of the agency. Identify actions that will lead to increased satisfaction and loyalty.

CTA MARKET SHIFTS As a result of CTA initiatives and policy actions, especially regarding fares policy, significant changes were found between 1997 and 1999 in CTAs household travel market share, customer travel frequencies, and the share of customers choosing to ride CTA (1). Rider Household Share Growth In 1999, a significant increase in the number of households with at least one person who rode CTA in the prior week was observed, compared to 1997. 2

The percent of households with at least one such CTA rider increased from 25% to 31%, which translates from about 327,000 households in 1997 to 406,000 households in 1999. Although many of the households comprising this net increase include new riders with relatively infrequent CTA riding frequencies, this broadening of CTAs household market base has contributed to the turnaround 5.5% increase in ridership (as measured by daily boardings) experienced since 1997 (+9.0% rail, +3.8% bus).

More Riders, Riding CTA Slightly Less While the great proportion of rides carried daily by CTA represent trips made by frequent riders (those who ride 5 or more days per week), this type of rider now represents a lower proportion of all riders. That is, because the number of persons riding infrequently (1-4 days per week) has increased dramatically, from 37% in 1995 to 49% in 1999, CTA now has a much broader market base, among a larger number of households. In general, frequent riders make about 70-75% of all rides carried on an average weekday, while infrequent riders make the remaining 25-30%.

Choice Markets Expansion There has been a significant increase in the proportion of riders choosing to ride the CTA, over some other mode, for at least some trips (see Figure 1). Notably, there has been a significant increase in the proportion of riders who own a car but prefer using transit. In 1997 nearly two out of five CTA riders owned a car but chose to use the CTA for at least some trips. This figure increased to 47% in 1999. Moreover, 13% of CTA riders have made a choice not to own a car, because they prefer using public transportation. Therefore, the majority (60%) of CTA riders should be considered choice riders---that is, they have the option to use or not to use the CTA. This increase in the number of choice riders is consistent with the increase in the proportion of households with riders, as well as the change in the mix of riders, with a higher proportion of less frequent riders.

SATISFACTION AND LOYALTY MEASURES A primary purpose of this research was to develop an index of customer loyalty that could be measured over time (3). While complex measures of customer loyalty can be developed (4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9) using methods such as conjoint analysis, these approaches are impractical and costly for purposes of an ongoing study of customer satisfaction. Recent research has shown that simple composite indices can still provide a useful measure for decision-making (10, 11, 12, 13). Moreover, keeping the analysis simple allows for replication of the measure over time, as well as its use in other studies. After evaluating CTAs performance on individual bus and rail service attributes, three questions were asked of all survey respondents, to measure overall satisfaction and loyalty: 1) How satisfied are you overall with CTA (bus/rail) service?, 2) How likely are you to continue riding CTA (bus/rail) service?, and 3) How willing are you to recommend CTA (bus/rail) service to a friend, family or co-worker? These three questions, worth 5 points each, form the basis for CTAs customer loyalty index (10). The possible range of scores, therefore, is from 3 to 15 a perfect score. In 1995, a target zone for this customer loyalty index was set at between fourteen and fifteen. While this may seem to be an unrealistically high 3

figure, a lower score than fourteen means that the rider gave the CTA a rating of four or less on at least two items, or that the rider gave the CTA a score of three or less on at least one item. As other consumer marketing references (14, 15, 16) suggest, only a truly satisfied customer can be considered a truly loyal customer, and one that offers transit agencies the greatest promise of enhanced ridership and farebox revenues. Significant improvements were found on all 3 overall satisfaction and loyalty measures.

Overall Satisfaction With CTA As summarized in Figure 2, the share of CTA customers either satisfied or very satisfied has grown from 73% to 80%. More than 1/3 of CTA riders indicate that they are very satisfied with CTA bus/rail service, while another 46% indicated that they are somewhat satisfied. The proportion very satisfied has increased significantly since 1995, from about 1/5 of all CTA riders to more than 1/3.

Likelihood of Continued Ridership Consistent with these increasing satisfaction levels, a growing proportion of survey respondents also indicate high likelihood of continued ridership of CTA (see Figure 3). The share who definitely will or probably will continue riding CTA has increased significantly since 1997, from 76% to 86%. The proportion of respondents indicating that they definitely will continue riding CTA has grown from 44% in 1995 to 59% in 1999.

Likelihood of Recommending CTA Since 1995 the share who definitely or probably would recommend CTA to a friend, family member or coworker has grown from 73% to 83% (see Figure 4). In 1995, less than one out of three (32%) riders said they would be very likely to recommend riding the CTA. This figure increased to 1 out of 2 (50%) riders in 1999. Gains in recommendation rates were achieved among both bus riders---from 30% to 47% definitely would recommend--- and train riders---from 34% to 54% definitely would recommend.

Satisfaction and Customer Loyalty Figures 2, 3, and 4 provide the basis for deriving a customer loyalty index, as summarized in Figure 5.

In general, this index is based upon achieving the very highest rating score---very satisfied, definitely will continue riding, or definitely will recommend---for 2 out of these 3 measures. With a score of 5 associated with this highest rating, for any one of these measures, the target zone in Figure 5 represents either three fives or two fives and a four. Consistent with the increases in overall satisfaction, continued ridership, and recommendation rates, the average customer loyalty index (average combined score) increased significantly; from 11.7 in 1997 to 12.6 (out of fifteen) in 1999. 4

In 1995, only 27% of all riders had a loyalty index within the target zone---that is, between 14 and 15. This figure increased to 38% in 1997, and to 46% in 1999 (see Figure 5). Consistent with the higher scores overall, train riders are more loyal than bus riders. In 1999, over half (52%) of all train riders had a customer loyalty index in the target zone---up from 43 percent in 1997. The bus has also achieved significant gains in customer loyalty. In 1999, two out of five (40%) of all bus riders had a customer loyalty index in the target zone up from 34 percent in 1999.

CUSTOMER LOYALTY SEGMENTS Another way to segment responses to the ratings given to the three loyalty index components is summarized in Figure 6. Here, all respondents who fell in the target zone of Figure 5 are now classified as secure riders---three perfect scores of five, or favorable--- two 5s and a 4. All remaining respondents are then regarded as either vulnerable or highly vulnerable to being lost as CTA riders. This is consistent with interpretations in general market research literature (7, 9, 16), where those who are not completely satisfied with a product or service should be considered vulnerable to market competition. Figure 6 also indicates the significant improvement since 1995 in the number of riders who can be classified as either secure or loyal. These secure/loyal riders have increased from 30% to 49%. The proportion of Secure riders, in particular, has nearly doubled since 1995 increasing from 13 percent to 25 percent. Similarly, the proportion of those who are generally favorable towards riding has increased relatively by 41 percent 17 percent in 1995 to 24 percent in 1999. As with other measures, CTA rail has achieved the greatest increases in the number of Secure Riders. However, bus has also achieved a significant increase in the number of Secure Riders. Note that while train achieved positive increases between 1995 and 1997, bus did not. The changes for bus between 1997 and 1999 are however, significant. Therefore, bus has also achieved significant increases over the benchmark figures established in 1995.

Variation by Area and Mode While the proportion of bus riders with a loyalty index in the target zone has increased significantly since 1997 (see Table 1), the increase in the average index for bus riders is not statistically significant at the 95 percent confidence level. It is significant at the 90 percent level. The average index has increased significantly (p<.10) among bus riders living in north Chicago and in the suburbs.--The average loyalty index has increased significantly for train riders. This increase is notably among train riders living in north Chicago, and west Chicago.

TABLE 1: CUSTOMER LOYALTY INDEX BY AREA AND MODE

ALL AREAS

DOWN TOWN

NORTH

NORTH WEST

SOUTH

SOUTH WEST

WEST

SUBURBS

All Riders 1997 1999 Bus 1997 1999 Train 1997 1999

12.2 12.6 12.0 12.2 12.5 13.0

12.8 13.1 12.8 12.6 12.9 13.5

12.6 12.9 12.3 12.6 12.8 13.2

12.4 12.6 12.1 12.1 12.7 13.1

11.7 11.9 11.6 11.5 11.8 12.3

12.3 13.0 11.7 12.6 12.8 13.5

12.0 12.7 12.2 12.4 11.8 13.1

12.4 12.9 12.2 12.8 12.6 13.0

Bold face type in table indicates differences that are statistically significant from those that are not. Note that the two areas with the highest average loyalty index, 13.5 for rail, in 1999---Downtown and Southwest---maintained their top-ranked positions, though their relative gain from 1997 was not quite statistically significant at the 95 percent confidence level. Downtown residents have maximum flexibility to easily use all CTA rail lines, while Southwest corridor residents are served by the newest, most modern of CTAs rail lines.

Customer Loyalty vs. Transit Dependence

Customer loyalty ratings were also examined according to whether survey respondents were transit dependent did not have a car available/unable to drive---or choice riders---car available, or voluntarily gave up car to ride transit. As indicated in Figure 7, choice riders are significantly more loyal than dependent riders, particularly for bus. For example, 25.9% of bus riders are very loyal/secure, if they ride bus by choice, compared to 15.4% secure, among dependent bus riders. While rail riders are, generally, much more loyal than bus riders to start out with---reflecting the higher overall service qualities offered by rail---choice rail riders still show significantly higher loyalty levels than dependent rail riders. The relative increases in loyalty are less dramatic than for bus, however. It is important to remember that choice riders are a discriminating group. They have, in general, chose both bus and rail services that offer relatively high service quality, which thereby puts transit on a more competitive footing with auto. But by selecting high-quality transit, they are also self-selecting themselves to be relatively satisfied and, therefore, tend to be more loyal as well. In effect, theyve picked only the best of the services CTA offers, which puts them in the upper levels of both more satisfied and more loyal CTA customers.

Customer Loyalty vs. Riding Frequency Figure 8 summarizes a similar comparison of customer loyalty ratings according to whether service respondents were frequent (at least five days in the last week) or infrequent CTA riders. Separate bus and rail distinctions continue to be made. Again, rail riders tend to be more loyal overall than bus riders, but show smaller relative gains in loyalty. 6

Infrequent bus riders show a modest 4.9% gain in secure riders, compared to frequent riders, while for secure rail riders this increase is only 3.5%. These relative gains are less for loyal bus riders, and, in fact, no gain is shown at this level for rail. Infrequent riders, as a general rule, tend to have other mode options available to them, and therefore also are more discriminating in the levels of transit service selected. There are consequently parallels with the results shown in Figure 7, in that infrequent riders are more loyal because they are more loyal to the better levels of CTA service that they have chosen. This again is particularly true for rail, as compared to bus, with higher overall loyalty levels. Similar investigations were also made of customer loyalty stratified by length of time riding CTA. No statistically significant differences were found, however.

SERVICE PERFORMANCE MEASURES FOR CTA BUS AND RAIL


Between 1997 and 1999, significant improvements were found in many more specific transit service attributes than were seen between 1995 and 1999. These were directly related to CTA management initiatives of 1998 and 1999. These improvements in customer satisfaction, for both bus and rail, are also major factors in the parallel increases in customer loyalty.

Improvements in Customer Satisfaction: Bus Satisfaction ratings improved for 24 of the 44 elements of bus service, as rated in both 1997 and 1999 (see Table 2). The largest significant improvement occurred in cost of bus pass use---from a mean in 1997 of 2.97 to 3.95 in 1999. This satisfaction increase reflects the success of the different fare media introduced late in 1998. This includes the new 7-Day pass, as well as a price reduction for the 30-Day pass, and other improvements related to CTA farecard discount pricing. Improvements were also noted for cleanliness of bus exterior, as well as, to a lesser extent, cleanliness of bus interior. All garages are now performing a general cleaning of buses at 2,000-mile intervals, compared to the previous 4,000-mile interval.

Improvements in Customer Satisfaction: Rail Satisfaction ratings improved for 31 of the 43 elements of rail service, rated in both 1997 and 1999 (see Table 3). The most significant change occurred for the cost of the pass used. This increase again reflects the success of the different fare media improvements introduced at the end of 1998. As with bus, those using the new 7Day pass are the most satisfied, rating the cost of the pass at 4.23, compared with 3.77 for those using the 30-Day pass. While gains were made in many other areas of CTA Rail service, the attributes with the 5 next largest gains relate to other dimensions of the fare simplification package inaugurated in 1998.

CONCLUSIONS 1. Through the measurement of customer-derived satisfaction and loyalty measures, and through management initiatives based on satisfaction-based priorities, CTA has succeeded in substantially improving customer satisfaction and loyalty. 2. By improving service quality features that matter to customers, CTA has succeeded in attracting new choice riders, and greatly improving the satisfaction and loyalty of current riders. 7

3. CTA must continue to put its customers needs first, through ongoing focus on the service attributes that drive customer satisfaction and loyalty. 4. When service quality is improved, the potential to attract new choice riders, who will be at least as satisfied as current choice riders, is increased. In general, all choice riders will fall above some minimum threshold of acceptable service quality. 5. However, when perceived service quality stabilizes, and no significant increases are observed in customer satisfaction with regard to specific quality-of-service measures, additional choice riders will be very difficult to attract. This may be possible, to some degree, however, through expanded marketing and promotion, which stress the positive transit performance measures most attractive to choice riders, in an effort to better inform them of their options. 6. The three-part loyalty index explored here appears to be a useful summary measure of the extent to which satisfaction with individual service quality measures can be translated into a broader index of customer commitment to public transit, as a consumer service. 7. Further research into the usefulness of customer loyalty as a measure that helps better define ways in which notoriously hard-to-please choice rider can be attracted to public transit should be further pursued.

REFERENCES 1. Northwest Research Group. Customer Satisfaction Survey of CTA Riders. Technical Report MR00-01. Chicago Transit Authority. December 1999. 2. M. K. Christopher, D. G. Stuart, and P. J. Foote. Structuring and Assessing Transit Management Response to Customer Satisfaction Surveys. Transportation Research Record 1669. Transportation Research Board. 1999. 3. A. S. Weinstein. Customer Satisfaction Among Transit Riders: How Do Customers Rank the Relative Importance of Various Service Attributes? Paper No. 00-0700, Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting, January 2000. Preprint CD-ROM. 4. F. C. Van Bennekom. How to Create a Customer Loyalty Survey. Customer Support Management. September 1999. pp. 46-52. 5. R. C. Lewis and B. H. Booms. The Marketing Aspects of Service Quality, in Emerging Perspectives on Services Marketing. Chicago: American Marketing Association. 1983. pp. 99-107. 6. A. Parasuraman, V. A. Zeithaml, and L. L. Berry. Conceptual Model of Service Quality. Journal of Marketing, Fall 1985. pp. 41-50. 7. C. Fornell, M. D. Johnson, E. W. Anderson, J. Cha, and B. E. Bryant, The American Customer Satisfaction Index: Nature, Purpose, and Findings. Journal of Marketing, Vol. 60. 1996. pp. 7-18. 8. R. F. Hurley, and H. Estelami. Alternative Indexes for Monitoring Customer Perceptions of Service Quality: A Comparative Evaluation in a Retail Context, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 26, No. 3. 1998. pp 209-221. 9. M. P. Pritchard, M. E. Havitz, and D. R. Howard. Analyzing the Commitment-Loyalty Link in Service Contexts. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 27, No. 3. 1999. pp 333-348. 10. MORPACE International, Inc. and Cambridge Systematics, Inc. A Handbook for Measuring Customer Satisfaction and Service Quality. TCRP Report 47. Transportation Research Board. 1999.

11. D. R. Brandt. Customer Satisfaction Indexing. Paper presented at Annual Conference, American Marketing Association. 1996. 12. S. Silkunas, Customer Satisfaction: The Next Frontier. Transportation Research Record 1395. Transportation Research Board. 1993. 13. Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon. Customer Satisfaction Index for the Mass Transit Industry. IDEA Program Final Report. Transportation Research Board. August 1995. 14. M. Ryan, R. Rayner, and A. Morrison. Diagnosing Customer Loyalty Drivers, Marketing Research. Summer 1999. Pp 19-26. 15. T. B. Taylor, B. Timothy. Better Loyalty Measurement Leads to Business Solutions, Marketing News, Vol. 32, No. 22. 1998. pp. 41-42. 16. M. Srinivasan. New Insights into Switching Behavior, Marketing Research, Vol. 8, No. 3. 1996. pp. 27-33.

Figure 1

Dependence on CTA
CTAs Choice market has grown from 51% to 60%.
Hav e Car / Prefer Transit Som etim es 47% 39%

Dont Hav e Car / Prefer Transit

13% 12%

Choice Customers
31% 37% 1999

Dont Hav e Car Av ailable

Cant / Dont Know How to Driv e

9% 12%

1997

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Figure 2

Overall Satisfaction With CTA


Those Satisfied and Very Satisfied have grown from 73% to 80%.
100%

22%
80%

31%

34%
V e ry S a tis fie d S a tis fie d

60%

51%
40%

50%

46%
N e u tr a l

20%

10% 6% 17% 13% 1997 7% 12% 1999


D is s a tis fie d / V e ry D is s a tis fie d

0%

1995

10

Figure 3

Likelihood of Continued Ridership


Those Likely to Continue Riding have grown from 76% to 80%.
100% 80% 44%

50% 59%

D efin itely Will Pro ba bly Will Neu tral

60%

40%

32% 31% 27%


Will Not

20%

12% 12%

10% 9% 1997

7% 8% 1999

0% 1995

Figure 4

Likelihood of Recommending CTA


Those Likely to Recommend have grown from 73% to 83%.
100% 32% 80% 42% 50%
D e fin ite ly W o u ld P r o b a b ly W o u ld

60% 41% 40% 38% 33%

N e u tr a l

W o u ld N o t

20%

14% 9%

14% 7% 1997

10% 7% 1999

0% 1995

11

F igu re 5

C ustom er Loyalty Index


T he Share in the T arget Z one has grow n from 27% to 46% .
30% 1995 25% 1997 1999 20%
T A R G E T Z O N E

15%

10%

5%

0%
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

% Within Target Zone Mean Median

1995 27% 11.7 12.0

All Riders 1997 1999 38% 46% 12.3 13.0 12.6 13.0

Bus 1997 34% 12.0 13.0

Train 1999 40% 12.2 13.0 1997 43% 12.5 13.0 1999 52% 13.0 14.0

Bold face type in table indicates differences that are statistically significant from those that are not.

12

Figure 6

Customer Loyalty Segments


Those Loyal have grown from 30% to 49%.
Ve ry L o ya l/S e c u re R id e rs
25% 19% 13%

L o ya l
17%

24% 21%

Secure or Loyal

21%

1999 1997 1995


30%

Vu ln e ra b le

24% 25%

Hig h ly Vu ln e ra b le

36% 45%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Bus 1997 Secure Favorable Vulnerable Highly Vulnerable 16% 21 24 39 1999 20% 22 22 36 1997

Train 1999 22% 21 23 34 30% 26 20 24

Bold face type in table indicates differences that are statistically significant from those that are not.

13

Figure 7

Customer Loyalty vs. Transit Dependence


V e ry L o ya l/S e c u r e B u s

1 5 .4 % 2 5 .9 % 2 7 .0 % 3 2 .5 % 2 1 .2 % 2 9 .2 % 1 8 .5 % 2 5 .2 % 2 2 .3 % 2 8 .0 % 2 0 .4 % 2 6 .6 %
0% 10%
P e rc e n t

V e ry L o ya l/S e c u r e R a il

V e ry L o ya l/S e c u r e S y s te m

D e p e nd e nt C ho ic e

L oyal Bu s

L o y a l R a il

L o y a l S y s te m

20%

30%

40%

Figure 8

Customer Loyalty vs. Riding Frequency


V e ry L o ya l/S e c ure B us V e ry L o ya l/S e c ure R a il V e ry L o ya l/S e c ure S ys te m L o ya l B us

18.1% 23.0% 28.1% 31.6% 23.1% 27.3% 20.7% 23.9% 27.6% 24.3% 24.2% 24.1%

F re que nt R ide rs

L o ya l R a il

Infre que nt R ide rs

L o ya l S ys te m

0%

10%

20% P e rc e n t

30%

40%

14

Table 2: Positive Changes in Bus Performance: 1997 to 1999 Cost of pass used Cleanliness / appearance of bus exterior Cost of a transfer Availability of bus stop where work Cost of a one-way ride Availability of printed schedules for all routes Effectiveness of CTAs customer service hotline Courtesy of bus driver Smoothness of ride Ease of making transfers Safety from crime while riding the bus Safety from crime when get on / off bus Value of service received for fare paid Availability of accurate route/schedule info at stops Availability of bus stop where live Professional appearance of driver Cleanliness and appearance of bus interior Comfort of bus seats Ease of paying fare on bus Ease of getting passes / fare cards Bus drivers knowledge of system/routes/schedules Ease of getting information by phone Personal safety at stops related to behavior of others Driver operates bus in safe / competent manner 1997 2.97 3.44 3.44 3.99 3.32 2.94 3.57 3.56 3.30 3.75 3.73 3.67 3.52 3.26 4.13 4.09 3.36 3.52 4.08 3.93 3.80 3.71 3.53 3.93 1999 3.95 3.93 3.84 4.44 3.67 3.23 3.90 3.87 3.59 4.06 4.02 3.96 3.79 3.52 4.43 4.37 3.61 3.72 4.27 4.11 3.98 3.89 3.72 4.06 p<.05 Change 33% 14% 12% 11% 11% 10% 9% 9% 9% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 7% 7% 7% 6% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 3%

Bold face type in table indicates differences that are statistically significant from those that are not.

15

Table 3: Positive Changes in CTA Rail Performance 1997 to 1999 1997 Cost of pass used Cost of transfer Ease of paying fare at train stations Ease of getting passes / fare cards Cost of one-way ride Value of service for fare paid Effectiveness of CTAs customer service hotline Cleanliness / appearance of train exterior Ease of making transfers to another bus / train Ease of getting information by phone Availability of printed schedules for all trains Courtesy / helpfulness of customer assistants Time between trains Availability of train station where live Names of stations clearly visible from inside trains Ease of getting on / off train Availability of accurate route / schedule information Comfort of seats Knowing what time the next train arrives Availability of seats / benches at stations Availability of temporary service change information Availability of train station where work Visibility of route names / numbers on train Operators knowledge of system, routes, schedules Travel time by train compared with car Smoothness of ride On-time performance Professional appearance of operator Courtesy of train conductors / operators Trains / stations are clean of graffiti Wait time when transferring
Improvements in customer satisfaction 1999 survey Surveys folder\windows

1999 4.01 3.92 4.15 4.25 3.72 3.92 3.79 3.95 4.05 3.83 3.76 3.83 3.62 4.39 4.31 4.24 3.95 3.57 3.52 3.32 3.69 4.32 4.17 4.11 4.02 3.68 3.67 4.12 3.94 3.51 3.30 p<.05

Change 36% 15% 11% 11% 11% 10% 10% 9% 9% 9% 8% 7% 7% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 4% 4% 4% 4%

2.94 3.42 3.73 3.82 3.35 3.57 3.43 3.63 3.70 3.52 3.47 3.57 3.39 4.15 4.05 4.01 3.72 3.37 3.32 3.12 3.47 4.12 3.99 3.90 3.84 3.49 3.51 3.97 3.80 3.37 3.16

Bold face type in table indicates differences that are statistically significant from those that are not.

16

You might also like