Quality standards in Prague Integrated Transport (PID)

PID quality standards are based on recommendations of the
European norm EN 13816 and on results of quality surveys and
analyses, organized by Prague Transport Autority ROPID for
last 15 years. Duality perception by passengers has been
surveyed every 2 years – last survey took place in 2013 and
provided important feedback The views of operators and
passengers differ. Quality of transport should be defined from
the passenger‘s point of view, but on the other hand it is
necessary to respect current financial possibilities of the
transport operators.

Passenger satisfaction survey
Concernig Importace and Satisfaction Analysis, results of the latest
survey, carried out in 2013, are following:

Quality criteria with highest satisfaction (keep it up):
tickets availability
connections and interchanges
technical state of vehicles
Quality criteria with lowest satisfaction (what to focus on):
tickets price level
crime and vandalism protection

Overall satisfaction rate was 87 %, in comparison with 2011 the
satisfaction with public transport prioritization rose the most, the
biggest drop concerns ticket price level and service punctuality.

Quality standards
Quality standards are defined for all transport modes, included in
PID system (metro, tram, railway, buses, ferries) and for all 17 PID
operators. Unitary quality level for all operators is determined, and
unified methods for measurement and comparison among operators
are prescribed. Standards also form the basis for future tenders
(fundamental criteria are the price and quality of service). Standards
are included in service contracts between operators and Prague
(deputized by ROPID), Central Bohemian region and local
municipalities.

Evaluation
There are 2 basic measurement methods – data collection from
operators, e.g. timetable performance and ”mystery shopping“
e.g. information or tidiness. Buses and railway are measured since
2010, ferries since 2011 and metro and trams since 2013. Evaluation
is carried out quarterly with the participation of all operators and
results are published. Complete versions of oficial documents are
made public on ROPID website, so everyone can compare the
quality level of operators. The public visibility of the results is a
very effective tool for self-control and self-improvement of each
operator even without direct tools like penalization.

Required quality
The most important standards are following:

Vehicles

Standing and seated passenger ratio (1:1 buses, 2,5:1
trams, metro, 0:1 trains) ;
GPS vehicle tracking (buses) ;
Information and ticketing system, PID logo, adverts
placing rules ;
Lighting, heating, ventilation, seat type accorging to the
type of line ;
Minimum percentage of low floor vehicles (80 % trains,
40 % public buses, 20 % trams and suburban buses) ;
Facilities for visually impaired passengers ;
Cleanliness, tidiness (including toilets on trains) ;
Vehicle age (tram max. 30, average 20, bus max. 20,
average 9, train max. 50, average 25).

Service, staff

Timetable performance (99,8 % routes must be performed) ;
Capacity compliance (99 % routes must be performed
with prescribed capacity) ;
On-time performance (75% of departures less delayed
than 3 minutes, max. 1 % departures ahead) ;
Staff behaviour, dressing compliance (no smoking, ticket
sale and control).
Stations, stops
Information system, timetables and guidance elements
Barier free accesibility (60 % metro, 50 % trams, 40 %
trans) ;
Facilities for visually impaired passengers ;
Functionality of ticket machines and validators ;
Real time info on arrival of the next train (metro).
(in case of railway transport the resposibility is divided between
operator and infrastructure manager).

For most of standards the demanded levels are fixed. Fines are
applied just for certain unacceptable situations, not for overall
non-achievement of demanded level. Standards are not primarily
the matter of penalizations but the discussion and effort to be
better than others.

Impacts of Quality standards
There is a very positive effect in communication with public and
subsidy payers, it‘s perceived that someone is concerned with
quality. Regular dialogue over current quality problems and
published results put pressure on operators, because good/poor
quality is becoming more visible and motivates them to improve
unsatisfactory conditions. This leads to overall quality equalization
and improvement of all operators. And if some standards are not
effective enough, it is possibile to revise the requirements.