RFC User Satisfaction Survey 2017

Transcription

1 RFC User Satisfaction Survey 2017 Report for RFC 5 November 2017

2 Survey Design 13 respondents 13 RFC5 users / 0 non-users 13 full interviews / 0 partial interviews 10 nominated by RFC5 / 3 nominated by other RFCs 5 used topic-forward Computer Aided Web Interviews (CAWI) Contacts ( address) delivered by RFCs 31 invitations sent Field Phase: 12 September to 18 October 2017 Attention: very small sample sizes! RFC User Satisfaction Survey 2017 RFC 5 2

3 2 Satisfaction with the RFC table of content

4 Overall Satisfaction percentage of respondents don't know 4,2 8% (1 of 13) overall satisfaction RFC % (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; 13 RFC User Satisfaction Survey 2017 RFC 5 4

5 General feedback open question -late information on maintenance time -no discriminations between national RU and others -still unsatisfied with railway infrastructure in Poland; makes us unable to compete for the transit cargo (e.g. Czech Rep. Slovakia or Hungary); very slow commercial transit time and quite high cost -to increase the number of slots -we think it is not sufficient to copy existing paths and use them as PaPs for the upcoming TT -better infrastructure on RFC -mismatch between neighbors, due to different interests -the attempt to offer an aligned cross-border offer for international paths through PCS for ad hoc trains is very good; however, the current threshold with at least x-8 days prior to operations is still too long and dows not fully meet our business require -to increase the stop into the border for technical operations -the use of PaP must bring real benefits such as higher priority in case of TCRs or lower access charges; otherwise the advantages of PaP-use will not prevail and PaPs will not be used frequently -too much traffic on the routes, it is impossible to direct to detour -no mere conversion of existing lines into PaP -priority treatment for construction-related diversions -with Flex Pap, RFC is on a very good way -improve international synchronization of construction work including customer involvement "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 2017 RFC 5 5

6 Satisfaction with Infrastructure percentage of respondents; RU and Non-RU Applicants only don't know adequacy of lines ,8 0% (0 of 10) 22% (2 of 9) 4.04 infrastructure standards ,1 0% (0 of 10) 22% (2 of 9) 3.22 measures to improve infrastructure standards ,8 3,7 0% (0 of 10) 22% (2 of 9) % 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% very unsatisfied unsatisfied slightly unsatisfied slightly satisfied satisfied very satisfied Overall RFCs 2017 "To what extent are you satisfied with the adequacy of the lines assigned to the RFC? 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.? with the measures taken by the RFCs Infrastructure Managers to improve the infrastructure standards on the lines assigned to the RFC?" n = 10; 9 RFC User Satisfaction Survey 2017 RFC 5 6

7 Reasons for dissatisfaction with Infrastructure open question -more promotion of RFC -no 22.5 t/axle via Spielfeld or Hodoš to Ljubljana till too many works on the lines -closure announcement terms really short -the RFCs must have more influence on the government "If you are 'unsatisfied' or 'very unsatisfied' with any of the topics in this chapter, 'Infrastructure', please specify the main reasons and your proposals and ideas for further improvement." RFC User Satisfaction Survey 2017 RFC 5 7

8 Satisfaction with Coordination of Works & Possessions * average of 2 separate questions in 2016 percentage of respondents; RU and Non-RU Applicants only don't know result/quality of coordination of works and possessions ,4 3,6 10% (1 of 10) 22% (2 of 9) 2.89 quality/level of detail of information in list of works and possessions ,5 * 3,8 * 0% (0 of 10) 33% (3 of 9) 3.27 involvement of RU in relevant processes ,6 3,5 10% (1 of 10) 33% (3 of 9) % 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% very unsatisfied unsatisfied slightly unsatisfied slightly satisfied satisfied very satisfied Overall RFCs 2017 "To what extent are you satisfied with the result/quality of the coordination of planned temporary capacity restrictions (works and possessions) on the RFC? with the quality and level of detail of the information given in the list of planned temporary capacity restrictions (works and possessions), affecting the availability of the lines assigned to the RFC? How do you feel about the way your opinion is taken into account in the relevant processes?" n = 10; 9 RFC User Satisfaction Survey 2017 RFC 5 8

9 Reasons for dissatisfaction with Coordination of Works & Possessions open question -planned restriction does not cover the real restriction -too short terms of announcement -no alternative route -our complaints not considered by RFI -daily announced new track closures with heavy negative impact on traffic "If you are 'unsatisfied' or 'very unsatisfied' with any of the topics in this chapter, 'Coordination and communication of planned temporary capacity restrictions', please specify the main reasons and your proposals and ideas for further improvement." RFC User Satisfaction Survey 2017 RFC 5 9

10 Satisfaction with Corridor Information Document (CID) * average of 2 separate questions in 2016 percentage of respondents don't know 4,8 15% (2 of 13) CID overall (structure/contents) ,2 * 31% (4 of 13) ,7 8% (1 of 11) information on terminals in CID * 22% (2 of 9) % 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% very unsatisfied unsatisfied slightly unsatisfied slightly satisfied satisfied very satisfied Overall RFCs 2017 "To what extent are you satisfied with the Corridor Information Document (CID) for the 2018 timetable year? (Can you easily find all the information you are looking for and is it structured in a logical way? Do the contents match your business needs? Is the level of detail sufficient?) To what extent are you satisfied with the supply of information on terminals? (Are all relevant pieces of information on terminals included in the CID 2018 or in other sources, e.g. CIP)?)" n = 13; 13 RFC User Satisfaction Survey 2017 RFC 5 10

11 Satisfaction with Path allocation (1) - PAP PaP parameters origin/destinations and intermediate stops in PaP PaP schedule (adequate travel/departure/arrival times) speed of PaPs amount of PaPs (number of paths) quality of PaP reserve capacity PaP offer/capacity management on overlapping sections structure of survey on capacity needs percentage of respondents; RU and Non-RU Applicants only % 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% very unsatisfied unsatisfied slightly unsatisfied slightly satisfied satisfied very satisfied ,1 4 3, not measured , ,8 3, , not measured don't know 0% (0 of 10) 11% (1 of 9) 0% (0 of 10) 22% (2 of 9) 0% (0 of 10) 22% (2 of 9) 0% (0 of 10) 0% (0 of 10) 22% (2 of 9) 30% (3 of 10) 33% (3 of 9) 20% (2 of 10) 44% (4 of 9) 0% (0 of 10) Overall RFCs 2017 "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 speed of PaPs? with the amount of the PaPs? Is there a sufficient number of PaPs? with the quality of Reserve Capacity (RC)? with the PaP offer and the capacity management process on overlapping corridor sections? with the survey on capacity needs?" n = 10; 9 RFC User Satisfaction Survey 2017 RFC 5 11

12 Satisfaction with Path allocation (2) - pilot project percentage of respondents; RU and Non-RU Applicants only don't know product offered in pilot project ,0 50% (5 of 10) 2016 not measured 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% very unsatisfied unsatisfied slightly unsatisfied slightly satisfied satisfied very satisfied "How satisfied are you with the product offered in the pilot project run by the RFC and the way it meets your needs for short-term capacity?" n = 10 RFC User Satisfaction Survey 2017 RFC 5 12

13 Satisfaction with Path allocation (3) - FlexPAP percentage of respondents; RU and Non-RU Applicants only don't know 5,0 20% (2 of 10) FlexPaP concept in general ,1 22% (2 of 9) % 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% very unsatisfied unsatisfied slightly unsatisfied slightly satisfied satisfied very satisfied Overall RFCs 2017 "How satisfied are you with the FlexPAP concept?" n = 10; 9 RFC User Satisfaction Survey 2017 RFC 5

14 Usage of C-OSS percentage of respondents ordered capacity via C-OSS % 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Reasons for non-usage: -difficulties harmonizing all involved RUs. yes no don't know "Did you order capacity via the C-OSS? What are the reasons you did not order capacity via the C-OSS?" n = 13 RFC User Satisfaction Survey 2017 RFC 5 14

15 Satisfaction with Path allocation (4) - C-OSS percentage of respondents; RU and Non-RU Applicants only, ordered via C-OSS don't know availability of C-OSS , % (1 of 7) 11% (1 of 9) business know-how of C-OSS ,5 3, % (1 of 7) 22% (2 of 9) allocation process by C-OSS % (1 of 7) 22% (2 of 9) conflict solving procedure by C- OSS % (0 of 7) 33% (3 of 9) % 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% very unsatisfied unsatisfied slightly unsatisfied slightly satisfied satisfied very satisfied Overall RFCs 2017 "How satisfied are you with the availability of the Corridor One-Stop Shop (C-OSS)? (Is the reaction time of the C-OSS adequate?) How satisfied are you with the business know-how of the C-OSS? How satisfied are you with the allocation process for the 2018 timetable year? (Please consider especially the preallocation by the C-OSS, and the delivery of the draft and final offers.) How satisfied are you with the conflict-solving procedure?" n = 7; 9 RFC User Satisfaction Survey 2017 RFC 5 15

16 Reasons for dissatisfaction with Path offer, PaP allocation and C-OSS open question -if all in the chain do not use the same tools it is a problem -number of Paths should be increased -too many interruptions affecting PaPs "If you are 'unsatisfied' or 'very unsatisfied' with any of the topics in this chapter, 'Path offer, PaP allocation process and C-OSS', please specify the main reasons and your proposals and ideas for further improvement." RFC User Satisfaction Survey 2017 RFC 5 16

17 Satisfaction with Path Coordination System (PCS) percentage of respondents; RU only don't know 10% (1 of 10) PCS overall ,0 17% (1 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?" n = 10; 6 RFC User Satisfaction Survey 2017 RFC 5 17

18 Satisfaction with Traffic Management * average of 3 separate questions in 2016 percentage of respondents; RU only don't know 20% (2 of 10) helpfulness of & information from traffic management ,1 * 13% (1 of 8) % 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% very unsatisfied unsatisfied slightly unsatisfied slightly satisfied satisfied very satisfied Overall RFCs 2017 "How satisfied are you with the helpfulness of the Infrastructure Managers traffic management on the RFC (as regards running your trains with a high service quality) and with the information you receive from them?" n = 10; 8 RFC User Satisfaction Survey 2017 RFC 5 18

19 Satisfaction with Co-operation with the RFC Management Board (1) percentage of respondents don't know 4,6 15% (2 of 13) RU Advisory Group/Terminal Advisory Group % (2 of 13) % 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% very unsatisfied unsatisfied slightly unsatisfied slightly satisfied satisfied very satisfied Overall RFCs 2017 ""How satisfied are you with the RU Advisory Group/Terminal Advisory Group (RAG/TAG) meetings. Is your attendance beneficial and useful for your company? (Is your attendance beneficial and useful for your company?)" n = 13; 13 RFC User Satisfaction Survey 2017 RFC 5 19

20 Reasons for dissatisfaction with RFC Governance open question -still no improvement for "new" RU "If you are 'unsatisfied' or 'very unsatisfied' with any of the topics in this chapter, 'RFC Governance', please specify the main reasons and your proposals and ideas for improving your involvement in the RFCs activities." RFC User Satisfaction Survey 2017 RFC 5 20

21 Satisfaction with Overall RFC Communication percentage of respondents don't know information on RFC website , % (1 of 13) 8% (1 of 13) information at RAG/TAG meetings ,6 3, % (3 of 13) 23% (3 of 13) communication with & information by management board (except RAG/TAG meetings) ,2 4 31% (4 of 13) 15% (2 of 13) annual report by RFC ,6 4, % (6 of 13) 39% (5 of 13) 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% very unsatisfied unsatisfied slightly unsatisfied slightly satisfied satisfied very satisfied Overall RFCs 2017 "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 and information provided by the Management Board of the RFC other than at the RAG/TAG meetings? To which extent are you satisfied with the annual report published by the RFC? " n = 13; 13 RFC User Satisfaction Survey 2017 RFC 5 21

22 3 Sample Description table of content

23 Target Group percentage of respondents % 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Railway Undertaking (RU) Non-RU Applicant Terminal (other r than Non-RU Applicant) "To which of the following types of target groups does your company belong?" n = 13; 14 non/potential users included RFC User Satisfaction Survey 2017 RFC 5 23

24 5 Summary table of content

25 Summary - Satisfaction Rating product offered in pilot project FlexPaP concept in general CID overall (structure/contents) quality of PaP reserve capacity information on terminals in CID PaP offer/capacity management on overlapping sections RU Advisory Group/Terminal Advisory Group information at RAG/TAG meetings annual report by RFC availability of C-OSS business know -how of C-OSS conflict solving procedure by C-OSS structure of survey on capacity needs PCS overall helpfulness of & information from traffic management allocation process by C-OSS information on RFC w ebsite communication w ith & information by management board (except RAG/TAG meetings) PaP parameters infrastructure standards speed of PaPs origin/destinations and intermediate stops in PaP PaP schedule (adequate travel/departure/arrival times) amount of PaPs (number of paths) adequacy of lines measures to improve infrastructure standards involvement of RU in relevant processes quality/level of detail of information in list of w orks and possessions result/quality of coordination of w orks and possessions 3,6 3,5 3,4 3,8 3, ,2 4,1 4,7 4,7 4,6 4,6 4,6 4,5 4,5 4,8 4,8 5,0 5,0 Top 10 aspects Bottom 10 aspects RFC User Satisfaction Survey 2017 RFC 5 25

26 Summary - Satisfaction Rating Comparison to 2016 (1) Infrastructure adequacy of lines 3,8 infrastructure standards 3,1 measures to improve infrastructure standards 3,8 3,7 Coordination of Works & Possessions result/quality of coordination of works and possessions 3,4 3,6 quality/level of detail of information in list of works and possessions 3,5 3,8 involvement of RU in relevant processes 3,6 3,5 Corridor Information Document CID overall (structure/contents) 4,2 4,8 information on terminals in CID 4, Attention: very small sample sizes! RFC User Satisfaction Survey 2017 RFC 5 26

27 Summary - Satisfaction Rating Comparison to 2016 (2) Path Allocation PaP parameters origin/destinations and intermediate stops in PaP PaP schedule (adequate travel/departure/arrival times) speed of PaPs 3,6 4,1 amount of PaPs (number of paths) quality of PaP reserve capacity PaP offer/capacity management on overlapping sections structure of survey on capacity needs 3,3 4,1 4,8 4,7 product offered in pilot project 5,0 FlexPaP concept in general availability of C-OSS business know-how of C-OSS allocation process by C-OSS conflict solving procedure by C-OSS 3,6 4,1 4,5 4,5 5, Attention: very small sample sizes! RFC User Satisfaction Survey 2017 RFC 5 27

28 Summary - Satisfaction Rating Comparison to 2016 (3) Path Coordination System PCS overall Traffic Management 3,0 helpfulness of & information from traffic management RFC Governance 4,1 RU Advisory Group/Terminal Advisory Group 4,6 Overall RFC Communication information on RFC website 4,2 information at RAG/TAG meetings 3,7 4,6 communication with & information by management board (except RAG/TAG meetings) 4,2 annual report by RFC 4,1 4, Attention: very small sample sizes! RFC User Satisfaction Survey 2017 RFC 5 28

29 Summary - Satisfaction Rating Comparison to overall results (1) Infrastructure adequacy of lines 3,8 infrastructure standards 3,2 measures to improve infrastructure standards 3,2 3,8 Coordination of Works & Possessions result/quality of coordination of works and possessions quality/level of detail of information in list of works and possessions involvement of RU in relevant processes 2,9 3,0 3,4 3,5 3,3 3,6 Corridor Information Document CID overall (structure/contents) information on terminals in CID 4,8 4,6 4,7 RFC5 Overall Attention: very small sample sizes! RFC User Satisfaction Survey 2017 RFC 5 29

30 Summary - Satisfaction Rating Comparison to overall results (2) Path Allocation PaP parameters origin/destinations and intermediate stops in PaP PaP schedule (adequate travel/departure/arrival times) speed of PaPs amount of PaPs (number of paths) quality of PaP reserve capacity PaP offer/capacity management on overlapping sections structure of survey on capacity needs product offered in pilot project FlexPaP concept in general availability of C-OSS business know-how of C-OSS allocation process by C-OSS conflict solving procedure by C-OSS 4,1 4,1 3,7 4,8 3,7 4,7 3,7 4,2 5,0 5,0 4,6 4,5 4,5 4,1 RFC5 Overall Attention: very small sample sizes! RFC User Satisfaction Survey 2017 RFC 5 30

31 Summary - Satisfaction Rating Comparison to overall results (3) Path Coordination System PCS overall Traffic Management helpfulness of & information from traffic management RFC Governance 3,6 RU Advisory Group/Terminal Advisory Group 4,2 4,6 Overall RFC Communication information on RFC website information at RAG/TAG meetings 4,6 communication with & information by management board (except RAG/TAG meetings) 4,2 annual report by RFC 4,6 RFC5 Overall Attention: very small sample sizes! RFC User Satisfaction Survey 2017 RFC 5 31