final report for glk lpt csi final report 2014.pdf · klang/shah alam 2.58 300 775 damansara 1.09...

1

Final Report for GLK LPT CSI

© 2014 Ipsos. All rights reserved. Contains Ipsos' Confidential and Proprietary information and may not be disclosed or reproduced without the prior written consent of Ipsos.

Ipsos Loyalty

Prepared for:

14-071934-01 P. Speedy 2_Full Report_Final_v3

January 2015

2

Table of contents

Research Overview

Public Transport Users

Non-Public Transport Users

Perception of Public Transport

1

2

3

4

5 Awareness of SPAD

6 Executive Summary

4

Research Background and Objectives

One of our country’s aspirations is to transform Kuala Lumpur to one of the 20 most liveable

cities in the world. And to achieve this aspiration, one very important step would be to ensure

that an efficient and effective public transport system is in place.

With this objective in mind, SPAD would like to understand the general perception on what

most people currently think about the public transport system in Kuala Lumpur and how to

further improve on the public transport system to help achieve the target.

5

Research Design

Coverage: Selected Corridor line in Kuala Lumpur (Ampang,

Cheras, Kajang, Seri Kembangan, Klang, Shah Alam,

Damansara, Sungai Buloh, Kepong, Selayang, Rawang

and Ulu Kelang)

Sample Definition: (1). Public Transport Users

(those who have used any mode of public

transportation in the past 3 months)

(2). Non-Public Transport Users

(those who have not used any mode of public transport

in the last 3 months)

Methodology: Face to face interview using computer tablet

Sample Size: Total sample size: N=2,462

Public Transport Users (n=1,645)

Non-Public Transport Users (n=817)

Length of Interview: Approximately 15 minutes

Fieldwork Period: 24-Nov-2014 till 2-Jan-2015

6

Target Achievement vs. Actual Achievement

Corridor Line PT Users TargetPT Users Achieved

Non-PT Users Target

Non-PT Users Achieved

Ampang/Ulu Kelang 200 200 100 100

Cheras/Kajang 200 207 100 100

Seri Kembangan 200 200 100 107

Klang/Shah Alam 200 200 100 100

Damansara 200 215 100 100

Sungai Buloh/ Kepong 200 211 100 100

Selayang/Rawang 200 205 100 108

Ulu Klang 200 207 100 102

TOTAL 1,600 1645 800 817

Peak vs. Non

PeakSurvey Hour

PT User

Target

PT Users

Achieved

Non-PT

Users

Non-PT Users

Achieved

AM Peak 6:00am – 10:00am 400 414 200 211

AM Off-Peak 10:01am-12:00pm 400 411 200 202

PM Off-Peak 2:00pm-4:00pm 400 418 200 202

PM Peak 5:00pm-8:00pm 400 402 200 202

7

Weighting

• Given that population in each corridor line differs we will need to weight the data accordingly

to reflect the universe.

• Please see below the weighting factor applied and actual vs. weighted sample size for each

corridor line

Corridor LineWeighting Factor Unweight Sample

Size

Weighted Sample

Size

Ampang 0.43 300 130

Cheras/ Kajang 0.81 307 248

Seri Kembangan 0.86 307 265

Klang/Shah Alam 2.58 300 775

Damansara 1.09 315 344

Sungai Buloh/ Kepong 0.59 311 184

Selayang /Rawang 1.13 313 354

Ulu Klang 0.52 309 162

Total Sample Size: - 2462 2462

10

Improvement is observed in many areas amongst both PT and

non PT users.

Satisfactions by PT , non PT

users and their reasons

PT and non PT users are significantly

happier with the public transports in

Greater Klang Valley as compared to

2013.

The main reasons for people to use

public transports are because

stations are near the user’s house

and they don’t need to worry about

parking issue.

That said, convenience is the most

important reason for PT users to be

satisfied with public transports. And, on

the other hand, punctuality is the

driver of dissatisfaction.

Likewise, these are also the key

reasons why non PT users are not

using PT – don’t like waiting and no

stations near the house / office.

Despite, their perception about PT is

getting better.

Perception about PT

Satisfaction with overall public transport’s information has also

improved significantly, especially KJ Line and KTM. They are

also being perceived as the best across most factors measured

such as value for money, secure and safe, reliable and many

more… Their achievement should be recognized and

appreciated to encourage others to outperform them.

RapidKL Bus and Metrobus, on the other hand, do not posses

positive images. Clean interior, sufficient transport and good

level of security and safety are not being associated highly.

Compared to last year, both PT and non PT users have

significantly better perception on public transports in most

aspects.

Corresponds to the higher satisfaction and better perception, PT

and non PT are more willing to recommend the services to

their associates. This will certainly encourage more people take

up the services and reduce the amount of private transport on

the road.

SPAD awareness

Despite better achievement this year, awareness of SPAD has,

unfortunately, declined. SPAD should undertake more

promotional activities to inform the public about your presence

and initiatives to develop the public transport in Malaysia. This

will also help to improve your image as the Land Public Transport

Commission

11

Frequency of service, interchange & interconnectivity, easy of

journey planning and ease of interchange are the key areas of

focus in order to drive satisfaction. Besides, SPAD can also…

Improve punctuality and

frequency of service to

impress not only PT users

but also to encourage non

PT users to start using it.

Access the feasibility

of having more

stations in housing

and commercial area

so that it’s convenient

for more people.

Advertise SPAD’s

initiative to improve

public awareness,

perception and usage

of public transport

Monitor bus service

(RapidKL Bus and

Metrobus) as they are rated

low in various aspects

(especially staff, cleanliness

and security)

Recognize KJ Line and

KTM’s achievement to

encourage better

performance by everyone

next year. Also to set a

higher benchmark for all.

Avoid crowded condition

(especially during peak

hours) to increase riding

comfort and security by

having more regular service

and sufficient public

transport

Spot check taxi

drivers to ensure

that they are

charging fairly using

meter so that it’s

value for money

Learn from other

developed cities as not

many feel that the PT

network in Kuala Lumpur is

better than in most other

South East Asian capital

cities

14

80

6864

69

5449 51

14

7

59

4137

34

25 25

18

41

34

2216

118

52 1 0

RapidKL Bus KTM Komuter KJ Line Taxi Metrobus Ampang Line KL Monorail KLIA Express Airport Coach

Ever Used Past 3 months Most often

There’s significant increment in the usage of most public transport. RapidKL Bus has taken the lead from KTM

to be the most frequent used public transport this year. KJ Line’s most often used have also increased

significantly. This could be due to the extension of sampling point in Kelana Jaya, Petaling Jaya, Setiawangsa

and Wangsa Maju.

Sample Size: Weighted base n=1645Q1a. Have you ever used the following mode of public transport for any kind of purposes? (MA)Q1b. Please let me know which of the following modes of public transport have you used in the past 3 months? (MA)Q1c. Can you please let me know the mode of public transport you use most often? (SA)

Use most often

52 36 20 62 46 31 37 21 8 53 31 14 30 15 7 35 20 10 19 5 1 7 3 1 4 1 02013:

2014:

Public Transport Used

= significantly higher than 2013 at 95% Confidence interval (CI)

= significantly lower than 2013 at 95% Confidence interval (CI)

15Sample Size: Weighted base: N=1645*Public Transport User onlyQ6. Some of reason for using XXX as your most often mode of Public Transport(MA)

Reason for using Public Transport

46% 45% 42% 33% 26% 12%

Cheaper than

driving

Avoid rush

hours traffic

No parking

issueStation near

house / office

No driving

licenseNo private

vehicle

No private vehicle (54%)

Station near house / office

(47%)

Station near house / office

(56%)

No parking issue (59%)

No private vehicle (53%)

No parking issue (59%)

Top reason

for using

most often

used public

transport

Main reason for using public transport is because of convenience – there are stations near users house / office

and no need to worry about parking issue. Bus (RapidKL and Metrobus) users however have different reasons.

17

Customer Satisfaction Index

Sample Size: Weighted base =n=1645*Public Transport user onlyQ12. Using 5 points rating scale, where 1 is not at all satisfied and 5 is very satisfied, hw would you rate the overall satisfaction with public transport available in Kuala Lumpur (SA)

1

1

7

8

44

23

40

54

9

14

2013(n=1637)

2014(n=1645)

Not satisfied at all (1) 2 3 4 Very satisfied (5)

5% are

dissatisfied

18% are

satisfied

86

2014

71

2013

Mean

3.7

3.5

CSI for public transport has improved significantly from 71 last year to 86 this year. Top 2 box has increased by

almost 20%.

CSI = rated 5 + 4 + satisfied 3

18

Overall Satisfaction with each Public Transport

Sample Size: Weighted base: n=1645 (Public Transport Users only)*Small base sizeQ12. Using 5 points rating scale, where 1 is not at all satisfied and 5 is very satisfied, hwwould you rate the overall satisfaction with public transport available in Kuala Lumpur (SA)

65(3.7)

RapidKL Bus

n=57450

(3.5)

CSI 2014: 85

CSI 2013: 72

61(3.6)

KTM

n=26548

(3.5)

CSI 2014: 90

CSI 2013: 72

70(3.7)

Ampang Line

n=124

62(3.7)

CSI 2014: 89

CSI 2013: 79

62(3.6)

KL Monorial

n=23*37

(3.4)

CSI 2014: 73

CSI 2013: 64

83(4.1)

KJ Line

n=320

61(3.7)

CSI 2014: 92

CSI 2013: 79

74(3.7)

Taxi

n=20342

(3.4)

CSI 2014: 87

CSI 2013: 66

76(3.8)

KLIA Express

n=14*58(3.9)

CSI 2014: 90

CSI 2013: 77

60(3.6)

Metrobus

n=11141

(3.3)

CSI 2014: 74

CSI 2013: 63

= 2014 T2B

= 2013 T2B

(x.x) = mean

This impressive result is observed in most public transport. Train services (KTM, LRTs and KLIA Express) are

leading with high CSI score. On average, only 1 out of 10 users (except for KL Monorial, 20%) are dissatisfied.

The rest are neutral.

= significantly higher than 2013 at 95% CI

= significantly lower than 2013 at 95% CI

19

Overall Satisfaction by Corridor Lines

Sample Size: Weighted base: n=1645 (Public Transport Users only)*Small base sizeQ12. Using 5 points rating scale, where 1 is not at all satisfied and 5 is very satisfied, hwwould you rate the overall satisfaction with public transport available in Kuala Lumpur (SA)

85(3.9)

Cheras

n=207

48(3.5)

CSI 2014: 94

CSI 2013: 72

83(3.9)

Ulu Kelang

n=207

48(3.5)

CSI 2014: 91

CSI 2013: 72

63(3.6)

Ampang

n=20066

(3.7)

CSI 2014: 86

CSI 2013: 81

59(3.6)

Seri Kembangan

n=200

54(3.6)

CSI 2014: 80

CSI 2013: 75

74(3.9) Damansara

n=215

33(3.1)

CSI 2014: 89

CSI 2013: 55

73(3.7)

Sungai Buloh

n=211

33(3.3)

CSI 2014: 85

CSI 2013: 60

58(3.8)

Klang

n=200

49(3.5)

CSI 2014: 87

CSI 2013: 71

73(3.9)

Selayang

n=205

35(3.3)

CSI 2014: 78

CSI 2013: 63

= 2014 T2B

= 2013 T2B

(x.x) = mean

Majority of the locations have shown significant improvement. Ampang’s top 2 box satisfaction has fallen

slightly but CSI has increased by 5 points. This means even though most have given a neutral score, they are

generally satisfied.



20

Reason for Satisfaction

Total

(n=1426)RapidKL Bus

(n=490)

KTM

(n=230)

KJ Line

(n=293)

Taxi

(n=172)

Metrobus

(n=90)

Ampang

Line

(n=116)

Convenient 42% 33% 61% 35% 41% 37% 56%

Efficiency & Reliability 14% 14% 12% 23% 8% 5% 27%

Punctuality 13% 15% 3% 24% 4% 17% 18%

Price 12% 12% 8% 11% 17% 13% 16%

No of stations /

frequency 10% 13% 9% 5% 14% 13% 7%

Interior Comfort 9% 9% 8% 12% 7% 8% 6%

Safety 4% 3% 3% 6% 4% 6% 1%

Sample Size: Weighted base: n=1645 (Public Transport Users only)Q13. Why did you give a rating of XXX on the overall satisfaction with public transport available in Kuala Lumpur?

Almost half of the satisfied users are delighted with the convenience of the services, especially the Single group

(48%). This is probably because they do not have their own vehicle.

21

Reason for Dissatisfaction

Total

(n=219) RapidKL

Bus

(n=84)

KTM

(n=35)

KJ Line

(n=27*)

Taxi

(n=31)

Metrobus

(n=21*)

Ampang

Line

(n=8*)

KL

Monorial

(n=7*)

KLIA

Express

(n=1*)

Punctuality 48% 51% 57% 38% 42% 48% 57% 15% -

Interior Comfort 18% 8% 22% 36% 9% 22% 23% 44% 100%

Convenient 10% 11% 10% 11% 5% 8% 28% 15% -

Driver's attitude 8% 8% 10% - 14% 11% - - -

Fairness of price 8% 5% - 7% 29% 11% - - -

Efficiency &

Reliability 4% 1% 2% 4% 5% 15% - - -

Safety 3% - 7% 2% 4% 10% - - -

No of stations /

frequency 3% 4% 2% 6% 2% - - - -

Sample Size: Weighted base: n=219 (Public Transport Users only)Q13. Why did you give a rating of XXX on the overall satisfaction with public transport available in Kuala Lumpur?

Lack of punctuality is still the main reason of dissatisfaction and this is consistent for all type of public

transports. Interior comfort is also an issue for KTM, KJ Line and Metrobus.

22

Overall Information Satisfaction – Clarity of Route Map

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

0

0

2

0

9

1

1

1

0

3

5

0

19

7

2

11

13

14

26

24

32

100

54

65

51

64

45

60

57

53

47

0

25

28

38

24

41

24

17

19

16

0

Not at all satisfied (1) 2 3 4 Very satisfied (5)

79 4.0 66

93 4.2 100

89 4.2 81

88 4.1 72

86 4.3 72

84 4.1 80

74 3.9 NA

72 3.9 65

63 3.7 52

0 3.0 68

Total (N=1645)

KLIA Express (n=14*)

KL Monorail (n=23*)

KJ Line (n=320)

KTM Komuter (n=265)

Ampang Line (n=124)

Taxi (n=203)

RapidKL Bus (n=574)

Metrobus (n=111)

Airport Coach (n=1*)

MeanTop2Box

(T2B) 2013Top2Box

(T2B) 2014

Sample Size: Weighted base: n=1645*Public Transport Users only*Caution Small base size (less than n=30)Q15. Overall satisfaction with information available in public transport system in KL (Clarity of route map)

Overall satisfaction with clarity of route map has improved significantly, especially in KJ Line and KTM. Almost

all (91%) of the people age 40 to 44 are impressed with this aspect this year.



23

Overall Information Satisfaction – Ease of reading

timetables

1

0

0

0

0

0

1

1

0

0

3

0

1

1

4

0

1

5

11

0

24

9

13

16

13

22

26

33

39

100

45

32

58

39

57

50

53

40

40

0

27

59

28

44

26

28

19

21

10

0


72 4.0 60

91 4.5 81

86 4.1 68

83 4.2 67

83 4.0 73

78 4.1 90

72 3.9 NA

61 3.8 54

50 3.5 43

0 3.0 68

Total (N=1645)

KL Monorail (n=23*)

KJ Line (n=320)

KTM Komuter (n=265)

Ampang Line (n=124)


Taxi (n=203)

RapidKL Bus (n=574)

Metrobus (n=111)


Mean T2B 2013T2B 2014


Ease of reading timetables has also improved - significantly more users are delighted with KJ Line, KTM,

Ampang Line and RapidKL Bus. Although Metrobus shows improvement, the ease of reading its timetable is still

the lowest. They could learn from RapidKL Bus.



24

Overall Information Satisfaction – Clarity of the fare

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

1

1

0

1

2

4

0

23

2

10

15

15

22

25

31

33

100

39

21

61

30

40

33

50

39

40

0

37

77

28

54

44

45

24

28

23

0


76 4.1 67

98 4.8 63

89 4.2 82

84 4.4 80

84 4.3 73

78 4.2 90

74 4.0 45

67 3.9 68

63 3.8 53

0 3.0 68

Total (N=1645)

KL Monorail (n=23*)

Ampang Line (n=124)

KJ Line (n=320)

KTM Komuter (n=265)


Taxi (n=203)

RapidKL Bus (n=574)

Metrobus (n=111)


Mean T2B 2013T2B 2014


On clarity of fare, Ampang Line is still the best, followed by KJ Line and KTM. However, other public transports

also show marginal improvement, except for RapidKL Bus which remain constant.



25

Perception about Public Transport

Sample Size: Weighted base: n=1645*Public Transport Users onlyQ7. How do you feel about each of the following statement

88

73

70

69

69

67

66

65

65

64

64

63

61

Value for money

Ease of use

Good level of security and safety level

Reliability of services

The ease of interchangeability

Clean interior

Ease of journey planning

Sufficient transport for people

Sufficient ticket machine

Sufficient frequency of service

Excellent Interchange & interconnectivity

Availability of park and ride facility

Helpful staff

T2B 2014 Mean 2014

4.2

3.9

3.9

3.9

3.8

3.9

3.8

3.8

3.8

3.7

3.8

3.7

3.7

69

58

58

51

52

56

54

49

51

47

50

48

51

T2B 2013 RapidKL

Bus

Metrobu

s

Ampang

LineKJ Line

KTM

KomuterTaxi

87% 86% 83% 93% 92% 72%

68% 65% 76% 79% 80% 67%

62% 53% 56% 82% 79% 69%

63% 67% 65% 68% 79% 68%

62% 62% 70% 80% 72% 65%

55% 49% 64% 84% 79% 67%

58% 58% 67% 80% 74% 61%

57% 54% 66% 76% 75% 61%

64% 68% 66% 65% 71% 53%

52% 56% 63% 74% 77% 64%

60% 46% 68% 76% 70% 61%

57% 39% 67% 75% 68% 63%

52% 45% 62% 62% 74% 63%

Perception about public transport improved significantly across all areas and all public transports. RapidKL Bus

and Metrobus are least associated with most statements. They could learn from KJ Line and KTM which posses

positive images.

= significantly higher than total at 95% CI

= significantly lower than total at 95% CI



26

Drive Analysis – Importance of Factors

Frequency of service

Interchange and interconnecting

Clarity of the fare

Ease of journey planning

The ease of interchange

Security and safety

Sufficient transport

Park and ride facility

Easiness of reading the time table

Interior cleanliness

Clarity of the route map

Ease of use

Value for money

Sufficient of ticket machine

Helpful staff

Reliability of services

Overall

satisfaction

with PT in

GKL/KV

Most important factor

Least important factor

Key drivers but low satisfaction

Key drivers but low satisfaction

We ran a driver analysis to understand the importance

of each factor in driving overall satisfaction. Frequency

of service, interchange & interconnectivity, clarity of

fare, easy of journey planning and ease of interchange

are the key drivers to a high overall satisfaction.

Among these, satisfaction with the ones highlighted in

red are among the lowest. Increase in satisfaction on

these parameters can lead to improvement in overall

satisfaction with PT in GKL/KV.

The most important factors in 2013 were:

1. sufficiency of transport and ease of reading time

table

2. frequency of service

3. ease of reading time table, and

4. interchange & interconnecting

However, frequency of service and interchange &

interconnecting have became more important this year.

27

Likelihood to Continue

1

0

0

0

0

1

0

8

0

0

2

0

0

0

2

2

0

6

3

0

19

6

8

9

13

21

24

16

29

100

53

74

53

57

66

48

50

44

52

0

25

20

39

34

19

28

26

26

16

0

Highly unlikely (1) 2 3 4 Highly likely (5)

78 4.0 64

94 4.1 72

92 4.3 82

90 4.2 71

86 4.0 53

76 4.0 67

76 4.0 67

70 3.7 59

68 3.8 65

0 3.0 66

Total (N=1645)

KL Monorail (n=23*)

Ampang Line (n=124)

KJ Line (n=320)

Taxi (n=203)

RapidKL Bus (n=574)


Metrobus (n=111)

KTM Komuter (n=265)


Mean T2B 2013T2B 2014

Sample Size: Weighted base: n=1645*Public Transport Users only*Caution Small base size (less than n=30)Q14. How likely are you to continue using public transport in KL in future?(SA)

Corresponds to the higher satisfaction, PT users are also more likely to continue using the services, especially

LRTs, Taxi, RapidKL Bus and Metrobus.



29

Likelihood to Recommend

Sample Size: Weighted base: n=1645 (Public Transport Users only)*Small base sizeQ22. How likely are you to recommend public transport in Kuala Lumpur to your friends/ relatives?(SA)

35(6.9)

Total

N=164530

(6.5)

NPS 2014: -24

NPS 2013: - 38

33(6.7)

KTM

n=26538

(6.8)

NPS 2014: -25

NPS 2013: -31

53(7.5)

Ampang Line

n=12438(6.8)

NPS 2014: 3

NPS 2013: -25

25(6.6)

KL Monorial

n=23*32

(6.9)

NPS 2014: -33

NPS 2013: -34

23(6.4) KJ Line

n=320

20(6.4)

NPS 2014: -49

NPS 2013: -44

52(7.4)

Taxi

n=20339

(6.8)

NPS 2014: 5

NPS 2013: -27

65(7.5)

KLIA Express

n=14*48

(7.6)

NPS 2014: 8

NPS 2013: 11

34(6.8)

Metrobus

n=11140

(6.7)

NPS 2014: -26

NPS 2013: -27

= 2014 T3B

= 2013 T3B

(x.x) = mean

35(6.9)

19(6.2)

NPS 2014: -27

NPS 2013: -47

0(4.0)

Airport coach

n=1*

0(6.2)

NPS 2014: -100

NPS 2013: -66

RapidKL Bus

n=574

Likelihood to recommend also increased in most PT, some are significant like KJ Line, taxi and Ampang Line.



35

Non Public Transport Users Profiles

Gender

Male

64%

Female

36%

Race

Chinese

58%

Malay

32%

Indian

8%

Age

18-29 30-44 45≥

48% 34% 18%

Monthly Household Income

14%

30%

43%

7%

<RM2.5K RM2.5K -

RM5KRM5K-

RM10K

>RM10K

Average: RM5,855

Gender

Male

80%

Female

20%

Race

Chinese

12%

Malay

72%

Indian

14%

Age

18-29 30-44 45≥

58% 30% 12%

Monthly Household Income

37%41%

16%

3%

<RM2.5K RM2.5K -

RM5KRM5K-

RM10K

>RM10K

Average: RM 4,051

Car users Motorcycle users

Majority of motorcycle users are young Malay males. Whereas the car users are Chinese male and they are also

more affluent.

36

Public Transport Usage

8%

29%27%

18%

13%

24%

31%

25%

10%

5%

0-5% 6-10% 11-15% 16-20% 21% and above

Monthly average spending

Car

Motorbike

Sample Size: Weighted base: n=817*Non-Public Transport User onlyQ16. Can you please let me know the mode of private transport you use most often (SA)Q17. Monthly average spending on car/ motorbike as a percentage of monthly personal income (SA)

74%

2014

(72%)

2013

26%

2014

(28%)

2013

uses cars uses motorcycles

8% 33% 29% 29% 21% 21% 19% 6% 9% 2%2013:

2014:

Car and motorcycle usage remain consistent as 2013. There’s also no significant changes in their monthly

spending; car users still spend significantly more than motorcycle.

Average: 12.5%

Average: 9.4%

37

Reason for Not Using Public Transport

Total

(n=817) Car

(n=596)

Motor

(n=221)

2014 2013 2014 2013 2014 2013

Do not like waiting 67% 51% 70% 54% 58% 45%

No station near my house/ office/ place

I want to go47% 55% 50% 56% 40% 51%

Need to follow the PT time schedule 46% 33% 48% 33% 41% 31%

The arrival time of desired PT is never

on time41% 30% 43% 29% 36% 34%

Very crowded especially during peak

hours31% 14% 33% 15% 26% 11%

Taking PT is dangerous (e.g.

pickpocket etc.)18% 10% 21% 12% 11% 7%

Others 7% 9% 5% 11% 11% 5%

Sample Size: Weighted base: n=817*Non-Public Transport User onlyQ18. Reason for not using public transport in Kuala Lumpur (MA)

Non public transport users generally don’t like waiting and they also claim that there’s no stations near their

residences. This could be improved by providing more frequent service and extend the accessibility.

A quarter of the female raise the issue of safety while taking public transport.

38

Likelihood to consider & Overall Satisfaction

Sample Size: Weighted base=n=817*Non-Public Transport user onlyQ19. Likelihood to consider if there was a train/LRT/Monorail/Bus Station within 1km from home/ workplace, how likely would you to use public transport Q20. General perception of public transport in Kuala Lumpur (SA)

3

7

6

20

36

32

38

27

30

29

25

26

10

5

6

Motorcycle owerns

Car owners

Total


Overall Satisfaction

9%Dissatisfied

21%Satisfied

32 2.9 17

30 2.9 15

39 3.2 22

T2B

2014Mean

T2B

2013

31 41 2.9 20 47

30 46 2.8 18 50

34 27 3.1 27 39

2014 2013

T2B B2B Mean T2B B2B

Likelihood to consider if PT

was available within 1KM

7%Dissatisfied

20%Satisfied

13%Dissatisfied

25%Satisfied

It’s good to see improvement in overall perceived satisfaction by non PT users. Likelihood to consider also rise

significantly if PT is easily accessible. This is mainly driven by the married Malays.



40

Perception on Public Transport

69

67

59

58

56

56

55

55

53

48

44

36

Using PT in GKL/KV offers good value for money

Comprehensive PT network in GKL/KV

The PT network is very safe to use and offers good security

Easy to transfer from one train system to another

The PT network has improved in the past few years

Most people in GKL/KV will use PT at least once every 3

months

The government is committed to improving PT in GKL/KV

PT is for people like me

It is easy for me to take PT to get to and from where I live

The PT in GKL/KV is modern and up to date

Using PT is often quicker than making the same journey by car

The PT network in Kuala Lumpur is better than in most other

South East Asian capital cities

T2B 2014

48 79 57 49 31

51 77 59 48 34

50 70 59 37 32

43 67 52 40 25

49 64 55 39 35

42 63 48 40 31

45 61 51 42 32

40 70 55 24 12

40 64 49 30 23

39 56 45 32 26

42 53 51 26 24

35 41 41 26 25

PT user PT non-user

2014 2013 2014 2013

Sample Size: Weighted base: n=2462 *All RespondentsQ21. Now, I would like to understand your perception of public transport in KL, using a scale of 1 to 5

T2B 2013

Although the perception on public transport is still significantly lower amongst non PT users, its’ scores have

improved significantly as compared to last year. This implies SPAD’s initiatives are working and should be

continued to reduce the gap with PT users.



41

Likelihood to Recommend

35(6.9)

PT user

n=1645

30(6.5)

NPS 2014: -24

NPS 2013: - 38

= 2014 T3B

= 2013 T3B

(x.x) = mean

Sample Size: Weighted base: n= 2645*Public Transport User OnlyQ22. How likely are you to recommend public transport in Kuala Lumpur to your friends/ relatives?(SA)

28(6.2)

Total

N=2645 22(6.0)

NPS 2014: -37

NPS 2013: - 53

15(5.0)

PT non user

n=817

7(4.9)

NPS 2014: -64

NPS 2013: - 82

12(4.8)

Car owner

n=596

5(4.6)

NPS 2014: -66

NPS 2013: - 83

22(5.4)

Motorcycle

owner

n=221

13(5.4)

NPS 2014: -59

NPS 2013: - 72

With the higher satisfaction and more positive perceptions, likelihood to recommend rises across all segments.



45

3

11

47

33

6

5 Excellent

4

3

2

1 Poor

Awareness and Association with SPAD

Sample Size: Weighted base: N=2462Q26. Aware of SPAD (SA)Q27. Now, I’m going to read out some statement about SPAD, please let me know if the statement is true or false. There is no right or wrong answer just answer based on what you feel Q27a. How would you rate SPAD in terms of fulfilling its responsibility?

26%

43%

34%

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2012 2013 2014

Aware of SPAD

Overall (T2B) PT user PT non-user

2014 2013 2014 2013 2014 2013

Responsible for development of PT

in Malaysia89% 86% 91% 88% 84% 82%

Land PT commission in Malaysia 81% 92% 82% 90% 79% 94%

Responsible for drawing up policies,

planning and regulating all aspects

of PT services in Malaysia

68% 76% 68% 77% 68% 75%

An organization you can directly

address your thoughts on PT to in

Malaysia

66% 69% 65% 69% 68% 70%

Rating of SPAD in terms of

fulfilling its’ responsibility

PT user

(T2B): 44%

Mean: 3.4

PT non-user

(T2B): 31%

Mean: 3.1

Aware of SPAD

PT user PT non-user

2014 2013 2014 2013

33% 42% 34% 46%T2B: 39%

Mean: 3.3

Awareness of SPAD deteriorates significantly amongst both PT and non PT users. Though people are aware of

SPAD’s key responsibility (to develop PT in Malaysia), lesser are able to relate SPAD with the rest of the

statements.

Majority are neutral in terms of rating SPAD to be fulfilling its’ responsibility.



47

Thank You!

© 2013 Ipsos. All rights reserved.

This document constitutes the sole and exclusive

property of Ipsos. Ipsos retains all copyrights and

other rights over, without limitation, Ipsos'

trademarks, technologies, methodologies,

analyses and know how included or arising out of

this document. The addressee of this document

undertakes to maintain it confidential and not to

disclose all or part of its content to any third party

without the prior written consent of Ipsos. The

addressee undertakes to use this document solely

for its own needs (and the needs of its affiliated

companies as the case may be), only for the

purpose of evaluating the document for services of

Ipsos. No other use is permitted.

final report for glk lpt csi final report 2014.pdf · klang/shah alam 2.58 300 775 damansara 1.09...

Documents