RFC User Satisfaction Survey 2016

Transcription

1 RFC User Satisfaction Survey 2016 Summary of report for RFC 5 December 2016

2 Table of Content Study Design Satisfaction with the RFC Sample Description Non/potential users RFC User Satisfaction Survey 2016 RFC 5 2

3 1 Study Design 3

4 RFC User Satisfaction Survey 2016 General information about the survey design Implemented by an RFC project team under the RNE umbrella Coordinated by RNE Conducted by an independent market research company Computer Aided Web Interviews (CAWI) Invitees (with addresses) nominated by the RFCs based on pre-defined selection criteria Pre-announcement one week before the field phase Customized invitations - Forwarding topics to relevant experts is possible - Questions according to type of target group Involvement of RFCs in the reminder process 4 4

5 Survey Design respondents 13 RFC5 users / 1 non-users 13 full interviews / 1 partial interviews 12 nominated by RFC5 / 2 nominated by other RFCs 4 agreed to forward name 2 used topic-forward Computer Aided Web Interviews (CAWI) Contacts ( address) delivered by RFCs 41 invitations sent Field Phase: 13 September to 11 October 2016 Attention: very small sample sizes! RFC User Satisfaction Survey 2016 RFC 5 5

6 RFC User Satisfaction Survey 2016 Figures Overall Total number of interviews Full interviews Partial interviews Interviews (users) Interviews (potential users) Invitations sent Response rate (overall) Response rate (users) Response rate (potential users) 69 (47) 65 (40) 4 (7) 64 (40) 5 (7) 321 (172) 21% (37%) 18% (32%) 26% (20%) 18 (13) 17 (10) 10 (-) 21 (11) (-) 23 (23) 16 (15) (-) 4 (5) 15 (11) 13 (9) 9 (-) 20 (11) 13 (-) 20 (20) 15 () 12 (-) 4 (4) 3 (2) 4 (1) 1 (-) 1 (0) 1 (-) 3 (3) 1 (1) 2 (-) 0 (1) 18 (13) 17 (10) 10 (-) 19 (9) 13 (-) 22 (20) 15 (11) (-) 3 (5) - (-) 0 (0) 0 (-) 2 (2) 1 (-) 1 (3) 1 (4) 0 (-) 1 (0) 42 () 93 (18) 20 (-) 80 (62) 41 (-) 44 (30) 61 (64) 41 (-) 24 (17) 24% (41%) 15% (39%) 25% (-) 24% (16%) % (-) 34% (47%) 21% (22%) 22% (-) 13% (12%) 24% (45%) 20% (38%) 38% (-) 26% (25%) 60% (-) 54% (100%) % (20%) 67% (-) 13% (12%) - (-) 8% (40%) 0% (-) 21% (9%) 25% (-) 25% (27%) 15% (%) % (-) 0% (-) Response rate and number of interviews - Figures of 2015 are shown in brackets () 6

7 2 Satisfaction with the RFC 7

8 Overall Satisfaction percentage of respondents mean overall satisfaction RFC ,9 8% (1 of 13) 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% very unsatisfied unsatisfied slightly unsatisfied slightly satisfied satisfied very satisfied "Overall, how satisfied are you in general as a user of the RFC(s)?" n = 13 RFC User Satisfaction Survey 2016 RFC 5 8

9 General feedback open question more involvement (of different kind) in local/regional initiatives projects which increase cooperation, coordination and efficiency along corridor (infrastructure, IT, cooperation environment) much more pre-active behavior in case of TCRs other disturbances (including good alternative) active participation in corridor end-points projects (any kind) where rail meets sea transport - interoperability start with automatic performance reports for limited train samples and provide them regularly to users further harmonize conditions of use of RFCs (cancellation deadlines, charging principles, validity of train number etc.) more promotion in hinterland countries showing corridor solutions/products as real biz option to use make use of CIP for all RFC-related documents (CID etc.; align to standards of RFCs 1, 2, 3 and 8) further roll out best practice examples such as short term path allocation for trains via Breclav lasts too long (SZDC requirement) avoid train number changes at borders opportunity to be provided with automatic train performance reports for selected train samples stops which can be used for personnel changes, engine changes should be shown as well "If there are any other opinions/suggestions/expectations (either concerning the state of play or the future development of the RFC) that you would like to share with us, please describe them below." RFC User Satisfaction Survey 2016 RFC 5 9

10 Satisfaction with Infrastructure percentage of respondents; RU and Non-RU Applicants only mean adequacy of network of lines 4,3 22% (2 of 9) infrastructure standards 43 3,1 22% (2 of 9) measures to improve infrastructure standards 57 3,7 22% (2 of 9) 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% very unsatisfied unsatisfied slightly unsatisfied slightly satisfied satisfied very satisfied "To what extent are you satisfied with the adequacy of the selected lines? To what extent are you satisfied with the infrastructure standards of all designated lines, including diversionary routes dedicated to the RFC, concerning parameters such as train length, axle load, electrification, loading gauges, etc.? To what extent are you satisfied with the measures taken by the RFCs Infrastructure Managers to improve the infrastructure standards on the lines assigned to the corridor?" n = 9 RFC User Satisfaction Survey 2016 RFC 5 10

11 Satisfaction with Coordination of Works & Possessions percentage of respondents; RU and Non-RU Applicants only mean result/quality of coordination of works and possessions 43 3,6 22% (2 of 9) quality of information in list of works and possessions ,7 33% (3 of 9) level of detail of list of works and possessions ,8 33% (3 of 9) involvement of RU in relevant processes ,5 33% (3 of 9) 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% very unsatisfied unsatisfied slightly unsatisfied slightly satisfied satisfied very satisfied "To what extent are you satisfied with the result/quality of the coordination of planned temporary capacity restrictions (works and possessions) on the corridor? with the quality of the information given in the list of planned temporary capacity restrictions that will affect the availability of the lines assigned to the corridor? with the level of detail in the contents of the list? How do you feel about the way your opinion is taken into account in the relevant processes?" n = 9 RFC User Satisfaction Survey 2016 RFC 5 11

12 Satisfaction with Corridor Information Document (CID) percentage of respondents mean structure of CID ,3 31% (4 of 13) content of CID ,0 31% (4 of 13) comprehensibility of CID ,5 31% (4 of 13) 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% very unsatisfied unsatisfied slightly unsatisfied slightly satisfied satisfied very satisfied "To what extent are you satisfied with the structure of the CID for the 2017 timetable year? Can you easily find the information you want? Is the information organized in a logical way? with the contents of the CID? Do the contents match your business needs? Is the level of detail sufficient? with the comprehensibility of the CID? Is the wording clear and user-friendly? Are there enough graphical elements (where clear illustration is required)? Is the CID layout/design attractive?" n = 13 RFC User Satisfaction Survey 2016 RFC 5 12

13 Satisfaction with Path allocation percentage of respondents; RU and Non-RU Applicants only mean PAP parameters ,9 11% (1 of 9) origin/destinations and intermediate stops in PAP ,6 22% (2 of 9) PAP schedule (adequate travel/departure/arrival times) ,0 22% (2 of 9) amount of PAPs (number of paths) 43 4,1 22% (2 of 9) reserve capacity concept 3,3 22% (2 of 9) quality of PAP reserve capacity ,3 33% (3 of 9) PAP offer/capacity management on overlapping sections ,0 44% (4 of 9) 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% very unsatisfied unsatisfied slightly unsatisfied slightly satisfied satisfied very satisfied "To what extent are you satisfied with the Pre-arranged Path (PaP) parameters such as length, weight, etc.? with the origins/destinations and intermediate stops? with the PaP schedule? with the amount of the PaPs? Is there a sufficient number of PaPs? with the RC concept? with the quality of Reserve Capacity? PaP offer and the capacity management process on overlapping corridor sections?" n = 9 RFC User Satisfaction Survey 2016 RFC 5 13

14 Path Coordination System (PCS) - Usage percentage of respondents; RU only PaPs 43 13% (1 of 8) PaPs + feeder/outflow % (1 of 8) other path requests 43 13% (1 of 8) 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% always frequently seldom never "How often does your company use the PCS booking tool for international path requests?" n = 8 RFC User Satisfaction Survey 2016 RFC 5

15 Path Coordination System (PCS) - volume percentage of respondents; RU only - PCS is used (always/frequently/seldom) volume of path requests in PCS % (2 of 6) 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 1 to 10 requests 11 to 20 requests 21 to 30 requests more than 30 requests "What is the volume of path requests (dossiers) you placed in PCS for the 2017 timetable year?" n = 6 RFC User Satisfaction Survey 2016 RFC 5 15

16 Satisfaction with Path Coordination System (PCS) percentage of respondents; RU only - PCS is used (always/frequently/seldom) mean PCS overall ,0 17% (1 of 6) usability of PCS - display of PAPoffer ,3 0% (0 of 6) usability of PCS - selection of PAPs ,5 0% (0 of 6) usability of PCS - display of remaining/reserve capacity ,4 17% (1 of 6) usability of PCS - selection of remaining/reserve capacity ,5 33% (2 of 6) 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% very unsatisfied unsatisfied slightly unsatisfied slightly satisfied satisfied very satisfied "How satisfied are you all in all with PCS as a booking tool for international path requests? Does it match your needs? with the usability of PCS concerning the display of the PaP-offer? concerning the selection of required PaPs? concerning the display of remaining / reserve capacity (late and ad-hoc path requests)? with the usability of PCS concerning the handling of required remaining / reserve capacity (late and ad-hoc path requests)?" n = 6 RFC User Satisfaction Survey 2016 RFC 5 16

17 Satisfaction with Path Coordination System (PCS) - improvement percentage of respondents; RU only - PCS is used (always/frequently/seldom) improvements in use of PCS % (1 of 6) 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% yes partly no "On 25 January 2016 RNE released an overhauled version of PCS ("PCS Next Generation"). The new system is based on modern standards, its goal being to increase usability. Have you perceived any significant improvements in the use of PCS compared to the previous year?" n = 6 RFC User Satisfaction Survey 2016 RFC 5 17

18 Satisfaction with Terminal Services percentage of respondents; RU and Non-RU Applicants only mean list of terminals 57 4,4 22% (2 of 9) supply of information on terminals 57 4,3 22% (2 of 9) 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% very unsatisfied unsatisfied slightly unsatisfied slightly satisfied satisfied very satisfied "To what extent are you satisfied with the list of terminals along the RFC that are provided by the RFC? Are all relevant terminals included in the CID 2017? To what extent are you satisfied with the supply of information on terminals? Is the RFC supplying all relevant information on Terminals (either contained inside the CID 2017 or other sources)?" n = 9 RFC User Satisfaction Survey 2016 RFC 5 18

19 Satisfaction with Traffic Management percentage of respondents; RU only mean information from operation centres/traffic control centres ,0 25% (2 of 8) usability of information in case of disturbances 43 4,0 13% (1 of 8) helpfulness of traffic management ,2 25% (2 of 8) 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% very unsatisfied unsatisfied slightly unsatisfied slightly satisfied satisfied very satisfied "How satisfied are you with the information you get from the different operation centres / traffic control centres of the IMs on the corridor while operating trains? with the usability of the information you get from the operation centres / traffic control centres of the IMs on the corridor in case of disturbances? How helpful is the Infrastructure Managers (IMs ) traffic management as regards running your trains with a high service quality?" n = 8 RFC User Satisfaction Survey 2016 RFC 5 19

20 Satisfaction with Co-operation with the RFC Management Board percentage of respondents mean RU Advisory Group/Terminal Advisory Group ,0 15% (2 of 13) 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% very unsatisfied unsatisfied slightly unsatisfied slightly satisfied satisfied very satisfied "How satisfied are you with the RU Advisory Group/Terminal Advisory Group (RAG/TAG) meetings. Is your attendance beneficial and useful for your company?" n = 13 RFC User Satisfaction Survey 2016 RFC 5 20

21 Satisfaction with Overall RFC Communication percentage of respondents mean information on RFC website ,2 8% (1 of 13) information at RAG/TAG meetings ,7 23% (3 of 13) communication with management board (except RAG/TAG meetings) ,9 15% (2 of 13) brochures by RFC ,2 15% (2 of 13) annual report by RFC 57 4,1 39% (5 of 13) 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% very unsatisfied unsatisfied slightly unsatisfied slightly satisfied satisfied very satisfied "To which extent are you satisfied with the information provided by RFC's website? To which extent are you satisfied with the information provided by the RAG/TAG Meetings? To which extent are you satisfied with the communication with the Management Board of the RFC other than at the RAG/TAG meetings? To which extent are you satisfied with the brochures/annual report published by the RFC? " n = 13 RFC User Satisfaction Survey 2016 RFC 5 21

22 3 Sample Description 22

23 Target Group percentage of respondents target group 57 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Railway Undertaking (RU) Non-RU Applicant Terminal (other than Non-RU Applicant) "To which of the following target groups does your company belong?" n = (non/potential users included) RFC User Satisfaction Survey 2016 RFC 5 23

24 Usage of different corridor sections percentage of respondents Poland % (0 of 13) Czech Republic % (0 of 13) Slovakia % (0 of 13) Austria % (0 of 13) Slovenia % (0 of 13) Italy % (0 of 13) 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% daily several days per week weekly monthly yearly never 100% "How frequently does your company operate/run international services on the following sections of this corridor?" n = 13 RFC User Satisfaction Survey 2016 RFC 5 24

25 4 Non/potential users 25

26 Users vs. non users percentage of respondents User/Non-User 93 7 reasons for no usage planned: the Management Board of the Port is the owner of port infrastructure, including intermodal terminal, whose exploitation leads BCT (Baltic Container Terminal) according to the statute our company can not conduct operations 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% current user non/potential user n = RFC User Satisfaction Survey 2016 RFC 5 26