2019customer satisfaction survey · 2019-06-05 · consulting (bbc) to conduct the 2019 customer...

2019 Customer Satisfaction Survey

Regional Transportation District

FINAL REPORT

Final Report

May 2019

2019 Customer Satisfaction Survey

Prepared for Regional Transportation District 1660 Blake St, Denver, CO 80202

Prepared by BBC Research & Consulting 1999 Broadway, Suite 2200 Denver, Colorado 80202‐9750 303.321.2547 fax 303.399.0448 www.bbcresearch.com [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]:www.bbcresearch.com

Table of Contents

I. Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 1

II. Methodology ...................................................................................................................... 2 Survey Instrument ......................................................................................................................... 2 Survey Administration ................................................................................................................... 2

III. Results .................................................................................................................................. 4 Trip Characteristics ........................................................................................................................ 6 Fare Characteristics ....................................................................................................................... 8 Park‐n‐Ride .................................................................................................................................. 10 Bike Use ....................................................................................................................................... 10 RTD Use ....................................................................................................................................... 10 Quality of RTD Services................................................................................................................ 14

IV. Discussion ................................................................................................................................ 20

Appendices A. Survey Instrument

BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING i

SECTION I. Introduction TheRegionalTransportationDistrict(RTD)istheregionalpublic transitauthorityintheDenverand BoulderMetropolitan area andoperatespublictransitservicesacrosseight counties,includingapproximately120bus routes,11raillines,andvariousspecialtyservices,suchasAccess‐a‐Ride,FlexRide,andnumerousareashuttles.1 RTD’smissionis toprovidesafe,clean,reliable,courteous,accessible,andcost‐effectiveserviceacrossallofthosetrips. Toassessthedegreetowhich itis meetingitscustomers’needs,RTDregularlyconductsalarge‐scalesurveytoassesssatisfactionacrossvariousaspectsoftheservicesandamenitiesitprovides.RTDlastconducteda satisfactionsurveyin2017,but sincethattime,theorganization has gone through several changes, includingnewservicelines, anewfarestructure,andanew mobileticketingapplication.In lightof thosechanges,RTD commissionedBBCResearch&Consulting(BBC)toconductthe2019CustomerSatisfactionSurveyacrossallrevenue‐generatingservices—includingbus, SkyRide,lightrail,commuterrail,andFlexRideservices—to assesshowthosechangesmay haveaffectedcustomersatisfactionsince2017. Inconducting the2019 survey,BBC builtonitsexperienceconductingcustomersatisfactionsurveysforRTDin2011,2014,and2017.ThequestionsthatBBC andRTD includedinthe2019surveywere verysimilartoquestionsthatwereincludedaspart ofthoseprevioussurveys, butthesurveyalsoincludedsomenewquestionstoaddressparticularareasofinterest,includingthedegreetowhichRTDisattracting newcustomers andcustomers’useofRTD’smobileticketingapplication.BBCanalyzedresponsestoallquestions inthe2019survey,andwherepossible,comparedresponsesfromthe2019surveytoresponses fromthe2017surveytoassessanysubstantial changesacrosstime.

1 RTD’s service areaincludespartsorallof Adams County, Arapahoe County, Boulder County, BroomfieldCounty, Denver County, Douglas County, JeffersonCounty, and Weld County.

BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING PAGE 1

SECTION II. Methodology RTDcommissionedBBCtoconduct the2019RTD CustomerSatisfactionSurveyintheSpringof2019tocollectinformation from passengersaboutvarioustopicsrelatedtothe servicesand amenitiesitprovides.

Survey InstrumentBBCworkedcloselywithRTDto developthesurveyinstrumentforthestudy,basedprimarilyon instrumentsRTDusedforpastsatisfactionsurveysandrefinementsrelatedtothedistrict’scurrentneeds.Thesurveyinstrumentincludedquestionsrelated to: Trip characteristics, includingtrippurpose;timeof trip;andinformationabout transfers; Fare characteristics, includingmethod ofpayment,farelevel,theuseofspecialfare

discounts,and theuseof RTD’s mobileticketingapplication; RTD use, includingRTDservicesused,numberofRTDtrips,frequencyof RTDuse,and

changesinRTDuse; Satisfaction with RTD,includingsatisfactionwithRTDperformance,reliability,comfort,

value,customercare,and overallsatisfaction;and Demographic characteristics,includingoccupation,levelof education,householdincome,

maritalstatus,race/ethnicity,age,andgender. ThefullsurveyinstrumentBBCusedforthestudyispresented in AppendixA.

Survey AdministrationBBCconstructedsurveypacketsto distributetobus,lightrail,commuterrail,FlexRide(formerlyCall‐n‐Ride),andSkyRidecustomers.Eachsurveypacketcomprisedthefollowingmaterials: RTD‐brandedouterenvelopethat containedallothersurveypacket materials; Hardcopysurveyinstrument; Returnenvelopewithpre‐paidpostage; Golfpencil;and TwoRTDone‐wayFreeRidecoupons. Thehardcopysurveyinstrumentincludedinstructionsforcompleting thesurveyas wellas a surveyduedateandhowtoreturncompletedsurveystoRTD.The instructionsalsoincludeda linktoanonlineversionforparticipants whopreferredtocompletethesurveyinthatmanner. ThesurveywasofferedinEnglish andSpanish.Approximately94 percentofparticipants completedthesurveyinhardcopyformat. BBCworkedcloselywithRTDto distributesurveypacketstocustomersthroughoutMarch2019.RTDbus,SkyRide,andFlexRide operatorswereresponsiblefordistributingsurveypackets


duringtheirregularshiftsaccordingtosamplingplansthatRTD’sMarketResearchteamdevelopedbasedonridershipvolume.BBCwasresponsiblefor distributingsurveypacketstolightrailandcommuterrailcustomerswaitingattrainandtransit stationsaccordingtoasimilar sampling planthatRTD’s Market Researchteamdeveloped.Figure 1presents abreakdown of surveydistribution, completesandresponseratebyRTD service.Asshown in Figure1,atotalof 12,539surveysweredistributedwithan overallresponserateof30percent: 7,864distributedtobus/SkyRidepassengerswitha33percentresponse rate; 4,000distributedtolight/commuterrailpassengerswitha25percentresponserate;and 675weredistributedtoFlexRidepassengerswitha34percentresponse rate. Figure 1. Survey distribution and response rates by RTD service

Note:

Percentages may not sum 100% due to rounding.

Source:

2019 RTD Customer Satisfaction Survey.


SECTION III. Results BBC conductedallanalysesusing R statistical software.Asappropriate,thestudyteammade determinationsofstatisticalsignificance attheα=.05level using two‐tailedtests.BBC weighted thesurveydatasothatparticipants’responseswererepresentative ofthepopulationofpeople whorodedifferentRTDservices in2018,thelastcompletecalendaryearprecedingBBC’s executionof thesurvey.RTD providedBBCwithridershipdatabylineandservice,andweusedthatinformationtodevelopappropriatepopulationweightsand applythemtothesurveydatapriortoanalysis.Wherepossible, we comparedresultsofparticipantswhoonlyusedtrain services(train‐only participants)andparticipantswhousedboth busandtrainservices(bus and train participants)toparticipants whoonlyusedbusservices(bus‐only participants).Inaddition,wherepossible,wecomparedresultsfromthe2019surveytothe2017survey.

Demographic Characteristics Thesurveyincludedvariousquestionsabout participant characteristics,includinglevelofeducation,householdincome,race/ethnicity,age,andgender.AsshowninFigure2: Approximately50percentof participantsweremen; Morethan60percentof participantswerenon‐Hispanicwhites(62%); Morethanone‐halfof participantswere45 yearsoldorolder(53%); Morethanone‐thirdofparticipantsreportedresidinginDenver county(37%); Approximately30percentofparticipantswerelowincomeindividuals;2 Morethan one‐halfofparticipantsreportedhaving a college degree(54%); and Nearlyone‐thirdofpassengersreportednothavingacaravailable to them (30%).

2 BBC classifiedparticipants as lowincomeiftheyindicatedthattheirtotalhouseholdincomes were185percentorlessofthe national poverty thresholdfor their household size.


Figure 2. Demographic characteristics of passengers

Gender (n=3,720) Male 50% Female 49% Other 1%

Race (n=3,649) Caucasian/White 62% Hispanic/Latino 15% African American/Black 14% Asian/Pacific Islander 4% Native American/Indian 2% Other 4%

Age (n=3,728) Under 18 1% 18‐24 8% 25‐34 19% 35‐44 18% 45‐54 19% 55‐64 24% 65 or older 10%

County of Residence (n=3,711) Denver 37% Arapahoe 18% Jefferson 13% Boulder 12% Adams 9% Douglas 5% Broomfield 2% Weld 1% Other 3%

Education (n=3,692) Less than 12 years 5% High school graduate 16% Some college 25% College graduate 34% Post graduate degree 20% Less than 12 years 5%

Household Income (n=3,354) Low Income 30% Other Income 70%

Occupation (n=3,671) Professional/Managerial 47% Sales/Clerical/Service 17% Laborer/Craftsman/Foreman 10% Retired 6% Student (employed) 6% Student (only) 4% Homemaker 1% Disabled (unable to work) 4% Unemployed (looking for work) 3% Other 2%

Household Size (n=3,560) One person 25% Two people 37% Three people 16% Four people 13% Five people 6% Six people 2% More than six people 2%

Number of Cars Available by Household (n=3,673) No car 30% One car 28% Two cars 27% Three cars 11% Four or more 5%

Average Number of Cars Available by Household 1 car

Valid Driver’s License (n=3,718)

Yes 74% Disability or Medical Condition that Prevents Driving (n=3,731) Yes 8%

Note: Percentages may not sum 100% due to rounding.

Source: 2019 RTD Customer Satisfaction Survey.


Trip CharacteristicsThesurveyalsoincludedquestionsaboutcharacteristicsofparticipants’RTD trips,including trippurpose; timeofday;andmodeof traveltoandfromRTDstops.Figure3presentsbasic characteristicsofthe tripson whichparticipantsreceivedthe survey.Asshown inFigure3: Morethanone‐thirdofparticipantsbegantheirtripbetween6 AM and9 AM (38%); Nearlythree‐fourthsofparticipantsindicatedthattheprimary purposeoftheirtripwasto

commuteto orfromwork (71%); Nearlythree‐fourthsofparticipantstooktwo one‐way trips(71%);and Participantsreportedanaverage one‐waytriptimeof approximately 49minutes. Figure 3. Trip characteristics

Start Time (n=3,743) 3 AM – 5:59 AM 9% 6 AM – 8:59 AM 38% 9 AM – 2:59 PM 25% 3 PM – 5:59 PM 23% 6 PM – 2:59 AM 6%

Purpose (n=3,725) Commuting to or from work 71% Personal business 11% To/from school/college 7% To/from shopping/eating out 4% Social/entertainment purposes 4% To/from medical appointment 3%

Number of Total One‐Way Trips (n=3,697) One 13% Two 71% Three or more 16%

Average One‐Way Trip Travel Time (n=3,667)

49 minutes

Passengers Who Transferred to Another RTD Service on Trip (n=3,740)

Yes 49%

Note: Percentages may not sum 100% due to rounding.


Mode of travel to originating stop. Participantswereaskedabout all thedifferentmodesof transportation theyusedtoget totheoriginatingstopofthe triponwhichtheyreceivedthesurvey.BBCassessedwhetherthemode oftransportationtotheiroriginatingstopsdifferedamongbus‐only;train‐only;andbusandtrainparticipants.The majorityofpassengersindicated


thattheywalkedatleastpartofthewaytotheoriginatingstopsoftheirtrip.However,asshowninFigure4,thereweresomedifferencesbetweenbus‐only;train‐only;andbusandtrainpassengersin howtheygot totheiroriginatingstops: Train‐onlyparticipantswerelesslikelythanbus‐onlypassengers toindicatethatthey

walkedatleastpartoftheway totheiroriginatingstops(50% vs.82%); Train‐onlyparticipantsweremorelikelythanbus‐onlypassengers toindicatethatthey

drovealoneatleastpartof the waytotheiroriginatingstops (36%versus11%); Train‐onlyparticipants(10%)andbusandtrainparticipants(9%)weremorelikelythan

bus‐only participants(6%) toindicatethattheywerepickedup anddroppedoffattheir originatingstops;and

Train‐onlyparticipantsweremorelikelythanbus‐onlypassengers toindicatethattheycarpooledatleastpartofthewaytotheiroriginatingstops(4%versus1%).

Figure 4. Mode of travel to originating stop

Notes: **Denotes statistical significance at the 95% confidence level.

Participants could indicate multiple modes of travel, so percentages may not sum to 100%.


Mode of travel to final destination. Participantswerealsoasked aboutall thedifferent modesoftransportationtheyused togetfromthelaststopof thetriponwhich theyreceivedthesurveytotheirfinaldestinations.Similartotheiroriginatingstops,themajorityofpassengersindicatedthattheywalked atleastpart of thewayfromtheir finalRTDstopstotheirfinaldestinations.Again,BBCanalyzedthedifferencesbetweenthemodesoftravelforbus‐only;train‐only;andbusand trainparticipants.Asshown inFigure 5,severaldifferencesemergedamongpassengers’modeoftravel fromtheirfinal stopstotheirfinaldestinations: Train‐onlyparticipantswerelesslikelythanbus‐onlypassengers toindicatethatthey

walkedatleastpartoftheway fromtheirfinal RTD stopstotheirfinaldestinations (62%vs.89%);

Train‐onlyparticipantsweremorelikelythanbus‐onlypassengers toindicatethatthey drovealoneatleastpartof the wayfromtheirfinal RTDstops totheirfinaldestinations (26%versus6%);


Train‐onlyparticipantsweremorelikelythanbus‐onlypassengers toindicatethattheywerepickedupfromtheir final RTDstopsanddroppedoffattheirfinal destinations(9%versus4%);and

Train‐onlyparticipantsweremorelikelythanbus‐onlypassengers toindicatethatthey carpooledatleastpartofthewayfrom theirfinal RTD stopstotheirfinaldestinations (2%versus1%).

Figure 5. Mode of travel to final destination


Participants could indicate multiple modes of travel, so percentages may not sum to 100%.


Fare Characteristics Thesurveyincludedquestionsaboutthe farespassengerspaidforthetripon which theyreceivedthe survey,includingfarelevelstheyused;howthey paidtheirfares;andwhethertheyusedspecialfarediscounts.Figure6presentskeyresultsfrom the projectteam’sanalysesof thosecharacteristics.3 Asshown in Figure6: Two‐thirdsofparticipantsusedthe Localfarelevel(67%)and approximatelyone‐fifth used

theRegionalfarelevel(22%); Approximatelyone‐quarterofparticipantsboughtthree‐hourpasses(24%),approximately

one‐fifthused EcoPassestopaytheirfares(22%),andone‐fifth usedmonthlypassestopay theirfares(21%);

Approximatelyone‐tenthofparticipantsindicatedtheyboughttheirticketsusingRTD’smobileticketingapp(11%);

Approximatelyone‐thirdofpassengersindicatedthat theiremployerseitherpaidall(20%) orpart(10%)oftheirtickets;and

Themajorityofpassengersdidnotuseanydiscounts(81%)or the NonprofitReducedFare Program(91%)whenpayingtheirfares.

3 The following responseoptionswerecombinedinto thecategoryof“Collegestudent pass”:CU‐Boulder Student Pass, Auraria Student Pass,Universityof Denver Student Pass, and Other CollegeStudentPass.


Figure 6. Fare characteristics

Fare Level (n=3,719) Local 67% Regional 22% Airport 5% Not sure 5%

Method of Payment (n=3,656) Three‐hour pass 24% EcoPass 22% Monthly pass 21% Day pass 15% 10‐ride ticket 10% College student pass 6% Other 6%

Employer Payment (n=3,696) Employer does not pay 65%Employer pays in full 20% Employer pays in part 10% Not sure 5%

Fare Discounts (n=3,711) Senior (65+) 9% Individuals with disabilities 7% Youth (ages 6‐19, not CollegePass) 2% Access‐a‐Ride card 1% None 81%

Nonprofit Reduced Fare Program (n=3,744) None 91% Nonprofit provided the fare 6%

Customer paid the nonprofit for the fare 3%

Passengers Buying Ticket Via Mobile App 11%

Notes: Percentages may not add to 100% due to rounding.

Participants could indicate multiple methods of payments, so percentages may not sum to 100%.


BBCfurtherexaminedpaymentmethodsandhowtheydifferedamongbus‐only;train‐only; andbusandtrainparticipants. Asshown in Figure7: Train‐onlyparticipantswerelesslikelythanbus‐onlyparticipantstoindicatetheybought

three‐hourpasses(13%vs.29%); Busandtrainparticipants were morelikelythanbus‐onlyparticipantstoindicatetheyused

monthlypassestopaytheirfares(28%vs.19%);


Train‐onlyparticipantswerelesslikelythanbus‐onlyparticipantstoindicatetheyused10‐rideticketstopaytheir fares(5%vs.13%);and

Train‐onlyparticipantsweremorelikelythanbus‐onlyparticipantstoindicatetheyused collegestudentpassestopay theirfares (11%vs.5%).

Train‐onlyparticipantswerealsomorelikelythan bus‐onlyparticipantstoindicatetheyused RTD’s mobile application tobuytheirtickets. Figure 7. Method of payment by participant type


Participants could indicate multiple methods of payments, so percentages may not sum to 100%.


Park‐n‐Ride Thesurveyincludedquestionsaboutthe useofPark‐n‐Rideservices.Participantswereaskedtoindicatewhethertheyparkedacarata Park‐n‐Rideontheday onwhichtheyreceivedthesurvey,and24percentofparticipantsindicatedthat theyhad doneso.

Bike Use Participantswereaskedseveral questionsabout theirbikeuse asitrelatedtoRTDservices,including whethertheyparkeda bikeataPark‐n‐Ride;tookabikewith themon thebusortrain; ordidnot useabikeontheday onwhich theyreceivedasurvey.Figure8presentsthoseresults.Thevastmajorityofpassengers (92%)reportedthat theydidnotuseabikeonthedayonwhichtheyreceived thesurvey.Ofthe participantswhodid, nearly90percentofthemreportedtaking theirbikes withthem onthe busortrain.

RTD Use Thesurveyincludedquestionsaboutparticipants’useofRTD services,includingtheRTDservicesthey used;howmanytotalone‐waytripstheymadeonthedayon whichtheyreceivedthesurvey;andhow frequentlytheyuseRTDservices.


Figure 8. Bike Use on RTD Services

Source:


RTD services. Participantswereaskedtoindicateall ofthe RTD servicesthey usedonthetrip onwhich theyreceivedthesurvey.Asshown in Figure9,approximatelytwo‐thirdsparticipantsindicatedthattheytookatleastonebus tripduringthetrip onwhichtheyreceivedthesurvey(66%).Thirty‐fivepercentofpassengersindicatedthattheyrodeona lightrail trainatsomepointduring theirtrip.Lessthan10percentofpassengersindicatedusingany otherRTDserviceduringthetripon which theyreceivedthesurvey. Figure 9. RTD Services used on the survey trip

Note:

Participants could indicate multiple methods of payments, so percentages may not sum to 100%

Source:


Vehicles by trip. RTD participantswereaskedto indicatehow manytotalRTDvehiclesthey usedorwouldusetocompletetheirtripbyservicetype:buses,trains,andMallRide/MetroRide.Figure10presentsthoseresults.AsshowninFigure10: Morethanthree‐fourthsofparticipants indicatedthat theyusedatleastonebus to

completetheirtrip(78%) andmorethanone‐thirdindicatedthattheyusedat twoormorebusses(37%);

Morethanone‐halfofparticipantsindicatedthattheyusedat leastonetraintocompletetheirtrip(54%)and12% indicatedthattheyusedtwoormoretrains;and

Only10percentofparticipants indicatedthattheyusedaMallRideorMetroRidevehicletocompletetheirtrip.


Figure 10. Number of trips by service


Percentages may not sum to 100% due to rounding.


Frequency of RTD use. Participantswereaskedseveral questionsabout how frequently they useRTD servicesandhow thatfrequencyhaschangedoverthepastyear.BBCexaminedwhethertherewereanydifferencesbetweenlow incomeparticipantsandotherincome participantsinregardtotheiruseofRTD services. First time use. Toassesswhetherrecentchanges in lines,farestructures,andtechnologyhasattractednewRTD users,thesurveyaskedparticipantstoindicatewhenthey usedRTDservicesforthefirsttime.Figure11 shows thoseresultsforallparticipants consideredtogetherandseparatelyforlowincome andotherincomeparticipants.AsshowninFigure11: Overall,15percentofparticipantsindicatedthattheirfirst timeusingRTDwas within the

lastyear; Lowincomeparticipantsweremorelikelythanotherincomeparticipantstoindicatethat

theirfirsttimeusingRTDwaswithin the lastsix months(12% vs.7%);and Lowincomeparticipantswerelesslikelythanotherincomeparticipantstoindicatethat

theirfirsttimeusingRTDwasmorethanayearago(77%versus 85%). Figure 11. First time use of RTD services





Frequency of use. Participantswerealsoaskedhow oftentheyusedRTDservices inthepastyear.Figure 12shows thoseresultsforall participantsconsidered togetherand separatelyfor lowincomeandotherincomeparticipants.AsshowninFigure12: Overall,more thantwo‐thirdsof participantsindicatedthattheyusedRTDeverydayor

almosteverydayinthepastyear(69%); Lowincomeparticipantsweremorelikelythanotherincomeparticipantstoindicatethat

theyusedRTD everydayinthepastyear(34%versus17%); and Lowincomeparticipantswerelesslikelythanotherincomeparticipantstoindicatethat

theyusedRTDalmosteverydayin the pastyear(41%vs.49%). Figure 12. Frequency of RTD use in past year




Changes in frequency of use. Participantswerealsoaskedto indicateifthefrequencyoftheir useofRTD serviceshaschangedoverthepastyear.Figure13showsthoseresultsforall participantsconsideredtogether andseparatelyforlowincome andotherincomeparticipants. Asshown in Figure13: Overall,approximatelyone‐third ofparticipantsindicatedthat theyuseRTD servicesmore

frequentlythanin thepast(34%); Lowincomeparticipantsweremorelikelythanotherincomeparticipantstoindicatethat

theyuseRTDservicesmorefrequentlythanin thepast(43%vs. 31%); and Lowincomeparticipantswerelesslikelythanotherincomeparticipantstoindicatethat

theiruseofRTDserviceshasnotchangedinthe pastyear(45% versus61%).


Figure 13. Changes in frequency of RTD use in past year




Quality of RTD ServicesThesurveyincludedseveralquestions aboutthequalityofvariousaspectsofRTDservices,including: On‐timeperformance; Amountoftraveltime; Reliabilityof transfers; Safetyandcomfort; Routeandscheduleinformation; Value;and Overallquality. Passengers wereaskedtoratethequalityforeachaspectona scalefrom1to 5, where1 indicated poor and5indicated excellent.BBCcalculatedaveragequalityratingsforallRTDpassengersandcomparedqualityratingsbetween2019and2017. Quality of service aspects. Participantswereaskedseveralquestionsaboutthequalityof variousaspectsofRTDservices includingon‐timeperformance; amountof traveltime;reliabilityoftransfers;safety;comfort;androuteandschedule information.Thesurveyaskedpassengers torateeachaspectwithwhich theyhad experience.Resultsfor 2019and2017arepresentedinFigure14.Overall,participants in2019indicatedthatthequalityofallaspectsofRTD servicesisquitehigh.TheaveragequalityratingsacrossallaspectsofRTDservicesrangedfrom3.95and4.31.However,ingeneral,qualityratingsappearedtobesomewhatlowerin2019thanin2017.Specifically,qualityratings werelowerin2019 thanin2017 for: On‐timeperformanceoftrains(4.31 vs.4.49); On‐timeperformanceofbuses(4.01vs. 4.23); Amountoftotaltraveltime (4.05 vs. 4.15); and Valuereceivedforthefarethatpassengerspaid(4.04vs.4.23).


Figure 14. Average quality ratings of various service aspects



Quality of RTD customer service. The surveyincludedseveralquestionsaboutRTDcustomerservice,includingwhetherparticipantscontactedcustomerserviceinthepastmonth,howtheydid so,whethertheir issuesweresuccessfullyresolved, andtheirsatisfactionwith RTDcustomerservice.Overall,23percentofparticipants indicated thattheycontactedRTDcustomer serviceinthepastmonth.Asshown in Figure15,morethanthree‐quartersofthoseparticipantsspoketoaliveoperator(77%),and morethanone‐halfof them hadtheirissues successfully resolved(56%).Participantswere alsoaskedtorate theirsatisfactionwithRTDcustomer serviceonascalefrom1 to 5,where1indicated very dissatisfied and5 indicated very satisfied. Theaveragesatisfactionrating forRTDcustomerservicewas3.84,indicatingthatparticipants weremoderatelysatisfied. Figure 15. Characteristics of customer service experiences

Note:

Percentages may not sum 100% due to rounding.

Source:


Mode of Customer Care Contact (n=655) Live operator/agent 77% Online form 12% Email 6% Not sure 3% Social media (Facebook/Twitter) 2%

Issue Successfully Resolved (n=654) Yes 56% No 29% Not sure 16%


Overall quality. Participantswerealsoaskedseveralquestions relatedtothe overallqualityof RTDservices,includingtheirlikelihoodtochoosetouseRTDagain andtorecommendRTD to others.Resultsfor2019and2017 arepresentedinFigure16.In general,participantsin2019 ratedtheoverallqualityofRTD services quitehigh,astheydidin2017.TheaveragequalityratingsforoverallRTDservices(averagequality=4.17),overalltrainservice(averagequality=4.30),andoverallbusservice(average quality= 4.15) exceeded4.0.Inaddition,participantsindicatedthattheywereverylikelytochoosetouseRTDagain (averagelikelihood=4.80)and torecommendRTD toothers(averagelikelihood= 4.44).In fact,participantsin2019weremore likely thanparticipantsin2017toindicatethattheywerelikelyto chooseto useRTDagain (averagelikelihoodof4.80 vs.4.66).4

Thesurveyalsoincludeda questionaboutparticipants’overall satisfactionwithRTDservices, whichconceptually, wasvery similartothequestion askingparticipantstorate theoverall qualityof RTD services.Theaverageratingforoverall satisfactionwith RTDserviceswas4.26, similartotheaverageoverall ratingofRTDservices(4.17). Figure 16. Overall quality of RTD services



Relationship between aspect quality and overall quality. BBCconductedregressionanalysestoexaminewhetherparticipants’perceptionsofthequalityofparticularaspects ofRTDservicespredicttheirperceptionsofthe overallqualityofRTDservices,theirlikelihood tochooseto use RTD inthefuture,andtheir likelihood torecommendRTDtoothers.BBCregressedeachofthoseoutcomesonparticipants’ratingsofthequalityofdifferentaspectsofRTDservices,including on‐timeperformance;amountof traveltime;reliabilityoftransfers;feelingsofsafetyandcomfort;routeandscheduleinformation; andthevalue received forthefareamount. Overall rating of RTD services. BBCfirstexaminedthe relationshipsbetweenparticipants’ratings oftheoverall qualityof RTD servicesandtheirratingsofthe quality ofindividual aspectsofRTD services.Thecorrespondingregressioncoefficientsarepresented inFigure17. Asshownin Figure17,the qualityof severalindividualaspectsthatBBCincludedintheregressionmodel

4 RTDuseddifferentscale labels for questions having to do with the likelihood to choose RTD again and the likelihood to recommend RTDto others in 2019than in 2017. In 2019, the scalewentfrom 1 (“very unlikely”)to 5 (“verylikely”),whereas in 2017, the scale wentfrom 1 (“poor”) to 5 (“excellent”).


wereindependently,positively,andsignificantlyrelatedtotheoverallqualityofRTDservices.That is, higherratingsofthequalityofthoseaspects predicted higherratingsoftheoverallqualityofRTDservices.Thethreeaspectswhose qualityhadthestrongestrelationshipswithoverallqualitywere: On‐timebusperformance(regressioncoefficient=0.18). Valuereceivedforthefareamount(regressioncoefficient=0.17); and Trainseatcomfort(regressioncoefficient=0.08). Figure 17. Relationships between overall quality of RTD and quality of individual aspects of service

Aspect of RTD Service Mean n Regression Coefficient Significance

Overall rating of RTD services 4.17 3,633 On‐time performance of bus 4.01 3,324 0.18 ** On‐time performance of train 4.31 2,138 0.06 ** Amount of total travel time 4.05 3,616 0.11 Reliability of bus transfer connections 3.95 2,208 0.04 ** Reliability of train transfer connections 4.27 1,661 0.09 Feeling of safety on RTD services 4.19 3,683 0.06 ** Comfort of bus seat 3.99 3,309 0.06 ** Comfort of train seat 4.04 2,196 0.08 ** Route information overall 4.24 3,615 0.05 Schedule information overall 4.19 3,638 0.11 Value received for fare paid 4.04 3,528 0.17 **



Likelihood of choosing to use RTD again. BBC alsoexaminedthe relationshipbetween participants’likelihood of choosing to useRTDagain andthequalityofdifferentaspectsofRTD services.AsshowninFigure18, thequalityof twoaspectswas independently,positively,and significantlyrelatedtothe reportedlikelihoodof choosing to use RTDagain: Reliabilityof traintransfers (regressioncoefficient=0.09); and FeelingofsafetyonRTDservices(regressioncoefficient=0.04).


Figure 18. Relationships between likelihood of choosing to use RTD again and quality of individual aspects of service


Likelihood to choose RTD again 4.80 3,753 On‐time performance of bus 4.01 3,324 0.01 On‐time performance of train 4.31 2,138 0.06 Amount of total travel time 4.05 3,616 0.03 Reliability of bus transfer connections 3.95 2,208 ‐0.01 Reliability of train transfer connections 4.27 1,661 0.09 ** Feeling of safety on RTD services 4.19 3,683 0.04 ** Comfort of bus seat 3.99 3,309 0.03 Comfort of train seat 4.04 2,196 0.02 Route information overall 4.24 3,615 0.03 Schedule information overall 4.19 3,638 ‐0.01 Value received for fare paid 4.04 3,528 0.04



Likelihood to recommend RTD to others. Inaddition,BBCexamined therelationshipsbetween passengers’likelihood torecommendRTDtoothersandthequalityofvariousaspectsof services.AsshowninFigure19, thequalityof several aspects was independently,positively, andsignificantlyrelatedtothe reportedlikelihoodtorecommendRTDtoothers.Thethreeaspectswhosequalityhadthestrongestrelationshipswithoverallqualitywere: Amountoftotaltraveltime(regressioncoefficient=0.19). Valuereceivedforthefareamount(regressioncoefficient=0.15); and On‐timebusperformance(regressioncoefficient=0.10). Inaddition,thequalityratingsoftherouteinformationthat RTD provideswas significantly butnegativelyrelatedtothereportedlikelihoodtorecommendRTD toothers:routeinformationoverall(regressioncoefficient= ‐0.08).Itisnotclearwhyhigherperceivedqualityoftherouteinformation thatRTD provideswouldberelatedtolowerlikelihoodtorecommendRTD to others,butitmaywarrantfurtherexaminationinfutureresearch.


Figure 19. Relationships between likelihood to recommend RTD to others and quality of individual aspects of service


Likelihood to recommend RTD to others 4.44 3,731 On‐time performance of bus 4.01 3,324 0.10 ** On‐time performance of train 4.31 2,138 0.09 ** Amount of total travel time 4.05 3,616 0.19 ** Reliability of bus transfer connections 3.95 2,208 ‐0.02 Reliability of train transfer connections 4.27 1,661 0.08 Feeling of safety on RTD services 4.19 3,683 0.09 ** Comfort of bus seat 3.99 3,309 0.06 Comfort of train seat 4.04 2,196 ‐0.02 Route information overall 4.24 3,615 ‐0.08 ** Schedule information overall 4.19 3,638 0.05 ** Value received for fare paid 4.04 3,528 0.15 **




SECTION IV. Discussion The2019 RTDCustomerSatisfaction Surveyrevealedimportantinformationaboutcustomers’experiencesandsatisfactionwithRTDservices.RTDcanusethatinformationtorefineitsservicesand continuemeetingitscustomers’needsinthefuture.Passengerssharedtheirexperiences withandperceptions ofvariousaspectsofRTDservicessuchas RTDuse;payment anduseofdiscounts;travel toandfrom RTDstopsand stations;andthequalityofRTDservices. Keyresultsfromthe2019RTDCustomer SatisfactionSurveyincludethefollowing: RTDpassengersperceivetheoverallqualityofRTDservicesas veryhigh. Theaverage

ratingoftheoverallqualityof RTDserviceswas4.17 ona5‐pointscale. RTDpassengersratethequality ofallaspectsofRTDserviceasveryhigh.Average quality

ratingsofvariousaspectsof RTD servicesvariedbetween3.95 and4.31outof 5. RTDcontinuestodeliverhighvalueforthefaresthattheycharge. Theaverage ratingofthe

valuethatpassengersreceivedfromthe farethat theypaidwas 4.04outof5. Ingeneral,passengersatisfactionforcertainserviceaspects havedecreasedsince2017—

includingon‐timeperformanceandperceivedvalueofRTDfares—butitnonethelessremainsrelativelyhigh.

Passengers areverylikelytochooseto useRTD againandrecommendRTD to others.Averagelikelihoodratingswere4.80and4.44out of5,respectively.Moreover,thelikelihood forpassengerstochoosetouseRTDagainincreased substantiallysince2017.

On‐timeperformanceandfarevalueare importantpredictorsof passengers’perceptionsoftheoverallqualityofRTDservicesand theirlikelihoodtorecommendRTDtoothers. Reliabilityoftransfersand feelingsofsafetyareimportantpredictorsofpassengers’ likelihood tochoosetouse RTD again.

Relativelyfewpassengers useRTD’s mobileticketing applicationtopurchasetheirfares. Changes that RTDhas implemented overthepastfewyearsmaybe resultinginincreased

usage—a substantial portion of passengersindicatethattheyuseRTDmorefrequentlythaninthe past,andRTDhas attractedmanyfirst‐timepassengersinthepastyear.

RTDshould considerthe information above and additional informationfromthe2019RTD CustomerSatisfactionSurvey.Severalpotentialrecommendations emergedfromtheanalyses: Overall,RTDpassengershadvery positiveperceptionsofthe quality and valueof RTD

services.However,passengersatisfactionfor certainserviceaspectshavedecreasedsince2017,includingon‐timeperformanceandfarevalue.RTD should continueto monitorsatisfactionwiththoseservice aspects asitconsidersoperationalrefinements.

Theon‐timeperformanceofbuses,comfortofbusseats,andthe reliabilityof bustransfers continueto be among the service aspectsthatreceive thelowestqualityratings.RTD should continuetoexplore waysinwhichtheycould improvethoseserviceaspects,


becausetheyhaveimportantrelationshipswithpassengers’perceptionsoftheoverallqualityofRTDservices.

Although the uptake and usage of RTD’s mobileticketingapplicationisquitelow—only11percentofpassengersreportedusingitaspartofthesurvey—anecdotalinformationindicatesthatthepassengerswhodo use itappreciateitsconvenience.RTDshouldconsiderexploringwaystoincreasecommunication aboutthe mobileticketingapplication and encouraging passengerstouseit.

ThefrequencyofRTDusage appearsto haveincreasedoverthepast year, and RTD alsoappearstobeattractingnewpassengers.Thedistrictmightconsideradditional researchtobetterunderstandwhatfactorsareleadingDenverresidentsto useRTDmore,andhowitcancontinueencouragingthatincrease.


2019 Customer Satisfaction SurveyTable of ContentsSECTION I. IntroductionSECTION II. MethodologySECTION III. ResultsSECTION IV. Discussion

2019customer satisfaction survey · 2019-06-05 · consulting (bbc) to conduct the 2019 customer...

Documents