061. adelphi: lek consulting; modal bus shift

8/14/2019 061. Adelphi: Lek Consulting; Modal Bus Shift

1/136

UK Bus Pr io r i t ies

Modal Shi f t

Final Report

7 January 2002

Prepared by: Prepared for:

Accent Marketing & ResearchGable House14-16 Turnham Green TerraceChiswickLondonW4 1QP

L.E.K. ConsultingThe Adelphi Building1-11 John Adam StreetLondonWC2N 6BW

Contact: Mark Kidd Contact: Matt Briers/Friedrich DemmerTel: 020 8742 2211Fax: 020 8742 1991E-mail: [email protected]

File name: 1024rep06.doc


2/136

CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................i

1. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................11.1 Background.......................................................................................................................1

1.2 Objectives.........................................................................................................................1

1.3 Structure of this Report ....................................................................................................1

2. METHODOLOGY...........................................................................................................2

2.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................2

2.2 Recruitment ......................................................................................................................2

2.3 Achieved Interviews.........................................................................................................3

2.4 Interviews .........................................................................................................................4

2.5 Stated Preference..............................................................................................................5

3. WEIGHTING PROCEDURES ......................................................................................11

3.1 Weighting .......................................................................................................................11

3.2 Stage 1: Age and Gender................................................................................................11

3.3 Stage 2: Income and Journey Purpose............................................................................12

3.4 Rim Weighting ...............................................................................................................13

4. MAIN FINDINGS..........................................................................................................15

4.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................15

4.2 Journey purpose..............................................................................................................15

4.3 Time of Journey..............................................................................................................22

4.4 Nature of Commuting and Shopping Journeys ..............................................................304.5 Alternatives to Journeys .................................................................................................38

4.6 Return Journeys..............................................................................................................45

4.7 Accompanying People....................................................................................................48

4.8 Encumbrances.................................................................................................................51

4.9 Bus Access and Egress Modes ......................................................................................54

4.10 Journey Duration ............................................................................................................57

4.11 Frequency and Reliability...............................................................................................65

4.12 Journey Costs..................................................................................................................69

4.13 Importance Ratings.........................................................................................................79

4.14 Transfer Pricing ..............................................................................................................83

4.15 Household Size and Access to Cars ...............................................................................85

4.16 Age Distribution .............................................................................................................91

4.17 Respondent Gender ........................................................................................................93

4.18 Disabilities......................................................................................................................95

4.19 Economic Characteristics ...............................................................................................99

5. STATED PREFERENCE FINDINGS.........................................................................110

5.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................110

5.2 Car Users Modal Choice Exercise................................................................................110

5.3 Car User Package Exercise...........................................................................................114

5.4 Car Switcher Choice Exercise ......................................................................................117

5.5 Bus User Choice Exercise ............................................................................................121

5.6 Bus User Package Exercise ..........................................................................................124


3/136


4/136

Accent Marketing & Research AccentModalShift.docMK03.12.01 Page i of vi

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Background and Objectives

The Commission for Integrated Transport (CfIT) has set up a Bus Working Group

(BWG) to investigate how best to increase bus patronage in the UK outside London.Part of these investigations includes determining how best to allocate resources such as

funding and subsidies that will produce the most effective incentives to encourage bus

use.

As part of this, Accent Marketing & Research have been commissioned as part of a

team led by L.E.K. Consulting to determine how variations in the bus product are likely

to affect the pattern of modal choice between car and bus use.

The two main objectives of this study were to:

investigate how changes in the bus product are likely to affect modal choice patternsbetween car and bus use

determine priorities existing bus passengers have to improve bus services.

Methodology

This study was conducted through a programme of computer aided telephone interviews

(CATI) undertaken with 1,104 regular bus users and 1,269 car-users who did not use

buses in selected towns in the UK. The CATI study involved two stated preference

games which examined priorities for improvements amongst bus users and likely modal

shift patterns amongst car users.

Respondents who used buses at least as frequently as once a fortnight were defined as

bus users. Those who used buses once a month or less frequently and who drove a car at

least twice a week were considered as car users.

Interviewers were selected from a random set of households to cover 8 different route

types:

Large urban areas (populations 250,000 or more) radial routes

Medium urban areas (population 100,000 to 250,000) radial routes

Small urban areas (population 25,000 to 100,000) radial routes Market Towns (population 3k to 25k) radial routes

Short stopping inter urban routes

Long stopping inter urban routes

Large urban areas (population 250,000 or more) orbital routes.

Interviewing was conducted in two phases. The first phase was conducted between 3

September and 7 October 2001. The second phase was undertaken between 15 October

and 4 November.

Interviewers recorded details of a commuting, shopping or other journey which the

respondent had made by bus or car in the previous four weeks according to whether he

or she was a bus or car user. The details recorded included costs associated with the


5/136

Accent Marketing & Research AccentModalShift.docMK03.12.01 Page ii of vi

journey, time spent on the journey or waiting for buses, group size and whether or not

they were encumbered by shopping or luggage.

Car users were asked how much it would have cost and how long it would have taken to

undertake the particular journey if they had used the bus.

Respondents were then presented with two stated preference games. The exercises

presented to bus users were used to ascertain priorities for improvements to the bus

product. Car users were presented with exercises designed to determine likely modal

shift based upon changes to the bus product.

Respondents were then asked to rate how important it was to have buses with a

selection of different features. The order in which these features were presented was

randomised for each respondent.

Finally, demographic and household details were recorded for each respondent. These

included age, gender, number of members in the household, number of cars available inthe household, annual household income and Socio-Economic Group (SEG).

Weighting

Two stages of weighting were conducted with the sample data in order to match

proportions from the 1999 National Travel Survey (NTS). In the first stage, sample data

was weighted according to NTS age and gender distributions. Data was then weighted

in the second stage to match NTS distributions according to journey purpose and

income quintile.

Main Results

Respondents were asked to provide details of the most recent commuting, shopping or

other journey they had made up to the time of interview. The results presented in the

executive summary show the main findings for those making journeys on radial routes.

Analyses with respect to journeys made along orbital, inter urban and park & ride routes

are provided in the main body of the report.

Those making car commuting journeys were most likely to be travelling outbound

during peak hours compared with any other journey purpose. Bus users were less likely

to travel on peak hours in comparison with car users. Those in the lowest incomequintile were least likely to make commuting trips and most likely to make shopping

trips in comparison with other income groups.

Over one third of car users (34%) would have used the bus had their car not been

available at the time they made the journey. Forty three per cent would have conducted

the journey by some other mode (on foot, as a car passenger, by taxi, bicycle or train).

Sixteen per cent would have cancelled their journey with a further 6% postponing.

Those in the lowest income quintile were most likely to use the bus if the car had been

unavailable (51%) whereas those in the highest quintile were least likely (29%).

Car drivers in the lowest income quintile were most likely to know where to catch a busand which route to take if they were to use the bus for their journey, whereas those in

the highest income quintile were least likely. Those living in market towns (population


6/136

Accent Marketing & Research AccentModalShift.docMK03.12.01 Page iii of vi

3,000 to 25,000) were most likely to think that there was no bus service available for the

journey they made in comparison with any other settlement size or route type.

Fourteen per cent of bus users had a car available to use when they made their bus

journey. This proportion was greatest for those making park & ride journeys (84%). The

reasons most cited for choosing to use the bus instead of the car were the difficulty offinding a parking place (47%) followed by concerns with the cost of parking (23%),

indicating the effectiveness of parking controls in encouraging modal shift from car use.

Less than 0.5% of car users did not make their return journey by car. By comparison,

12% of bus users did not return by bus. Bus users who did not use the bus on the return

were most likely to return as car passengers.

Thirty six per cent of bus users and 46% of car users were accompanied on the outward

part of their journey. Car users were each accompanied by a mean 0.66 people on each

radial journey, compared with 0.45 accompanying each bus user. The means were least

for those making commuting journeys in comparison with any other journey type.

Bus users were more likely than car users to be encumbered by shopping or luggage on

their journeys. Respondents were more likely to be encumbered on the return part of

their journeys than outbound. Those in the lowest income quintile were most likely to

be encumbered during their journeys.

Car users on radial journeys spent a mean 21 minutes making their outward journeys, of

which 18 minutes was driving and the remainder travelling from where they parked to

their final destination. When asked how long they expected their journey times to take if

they had used the bus, the mean duration was 65 minutes this figure included expected

access, egress, in vehicle and wait times. By comparison, the actual journey time

recorded for bus users was 40 minutes.

Car drivers were likely to spend longer looking for a parking space and making their

way from where they parked if they were making shopping journeys in comparison with

any other journey purpose.

Car users were likely to think that bus services were less frequent for the journeys they

made than bus users (every 30 minutes for all radial routes cf 26 minutes). There was

little difference in perceived bus reliability between car users (with a mean 64% of all

radial routes perceived to arrive to schedule) and bus users (66%).

Car users were asked whether they considered the cost of fuel when they decided which

mode of transport to use for their journey. Those in the lowest income quintile were

most mindful about fuel costs when they decided to make their journey (46%) compared

with any other income quintile.

Car users parking charges were greatest for those making shopping journeys (86p) and

those in the lowest income quintile (105p). The comparatively high parking costs for

shoppers and those in low income also reflect the difficulties they have in finding

somewhere to park. The mean parking charges for all radial routes were 48p. The mean

parking costs for all the subgroups were less than the mean expected parking costs forthose bus users who had cars available but chose not to drive (168p).


7/136

Accent Marketing & Research AccentModalShift.docMK03.12.01 Page iv of vi

Car users were asked how much they would have expected to pay if they were to have

made their journey by bus. The mean perceived bus fare was greater than the mean

quoted costs for making the journey by car, considering fuel, parking and other costs

together. For example, those making radial journeys spent a mean 109p for their journey

the mean expected bus fare was 147p.

The bus fares that bus users paid for their journeys were lower than the perceived fares

that would be paid by car users. The mean fare paid by bus users for their journey was

80p.

Respondents were asked to rate how important they felt different features of a bus

service were to them on a scale from 1 to 10, where 1 represented not at all important

and 10 represented very important. Bus users rated the following three features as the

most important:

bus always arrives to schedule (with a mean 9.06 rating for all radial users) you do not have to wait long for a bus (8.86 for all radial users)

it is easy to understand or find out which bus to take and where it leaves (8.71 for allradial users).

Car users rated the following three features as most important:

it is easy to understand or find out which bus to take and where it leaves (9.01 for allradial users

bus always arrives to schedule (8.95 rating for all radial users)

bus journey is direct without requiring an interchange (8.92 for all radial users).

For bus users, the least important feature was that bus services operate from at least

before 05:30 to at least midnight (5.82). Car users two least important features were

that bus services operate from at least before 05:30 to at least midnight and that

journeys made after 09:30 in the morning are cheaper than those made after 09:30

(both with means of 5.58).

Ninety six per cent of car users had a car available for their own use all or most of the

time. Sixty one per cent of bus users on radial routes did not have a driving licence, with

a further 13% not ever having access to a car for their own use.

Eleven per cent of car users on radial routes had some form of disability or long term

illness which impaired either their sight or mobility. The proportion of bus users on

radial routes with mobility or sight impairment was 14%.

Car users were more likely to be employed than bus users, with 60% car users

employed (35% full time) compared with only 35% of bus users (21% full time). Bus

users were more likely to be students (24%) and retired (31%) than car users (6% and

24% respectively).

Stated Preference

Car users were given a stated preference exercise where they were asked to compare a

car journey, described in terms of journey time and cost, with a bus service described in


8/136

Accent Marketing & Research AccentModalShift.docMK03.12.01 Page v of vi

terms of bus fare, bus journey time, bus headway and whether or not there was a

package of bus improvement features. Each respondent was provided with a series of 8

pair wise choices, where the cost, journey time and headway values were randomised as

variations around values recorded in earlier sections of the interview.

The output of the stated preference exercise is a series of coefficients, standard errorsand t-ratios. The coefficients are a relative measure of importance the larger the

coefficient, the more important the feature. Coefficients can be compared to show

relative importance between attributes.

The coefficients recorded for car users on all radial routes were:

cost (pence) 0.002

journey time (minutes) 0.0337

headway (minutes) 0.008

package 0.5405

constant 1.3100

The negative values of cost, journey time and headway indicate a preference against

increasing these attributes. The positive value for the package shows a preference for

including the features in the bus product. The positive value for the constant shows a

preference for using the car over the bus, even if all other aspects (such as journey timeand cost) were equal.

Cost values can be calculated by dividing the coefficients for each attribute by the cost

coefficient. The following cost values were calculated for those making car journeys on

radial routes:

journey time (per minute) 16.5p

headway (per minute) 3.9p

package 264.0p

The figures show that car users equated the saving of one minute in the journey time as

equivalent to a cost reduction of 16.5p. It should be noted that the values recorded for

the package are likely to be over-valued and should be considered as indicative only.

Car users were also provided with package game which established the relative values

placed on the different features which made up the package. The relative values weregiven cost values based on apro rata value of the package cost value from the exercise

described above. From these calculations, the following values were recorded for those

making radial journeys in large urban areas:

timetables and route maps at bus stops 38.2p

real time information at bus stops 37.1p

CCTV on all the buses 70.9p

CCTV at all bus stops and on all the buses 75.5p

driver is quite polite and helpful 52.3p

driver is very polite, helpful and cheerful 74.2p buses always arrive to schedule 81.2p


9/136

Accent Marketing & Research AccentModalShift.docMK03.12.01 Page vi of vi

It should be noted that, given the likelihood that package values were overvalued, the

cost values above are likely to be inflated and should be considered only to assess the

relative values between different improvements. They should not be considered as

absolute cost equivalents to changes in the bus product.

Bus users were presented with a choice exercise which asked them to choose betweendifferent bus products described in terms of cost, journey time, headway and whether or

not there was a package of improvement features in the bus product. The coefficients

recorded for bus users on radial routes were:

cost (pence) 0.0361

journey time (minutes) 0.0861

headway (minutes) 0.0344

package 1.137

The negative coefficients for cost, journey time and headway show preferences against

increasing these attributes on the bus product. The positive coefficient for the package

shows a preference for including the package to the bus product. Cost values for

attributes were calculated by dividing each coefficient with the coefficient for cost. The

cost coefficients for bus users on radial routes were:

journey time (per minute) 2.4p

headway (per minute) 1.0p

package 31.5p.

The figures show that bus users on radial routes equated a saving of one minute in

journey time to a saving of 2.4p in the cost of making the journey.

A package exercise was provided for bus users which tested the relative values of

improvements which made up the package in the choice exercise described above. Pro

rata cost values were calculated from the relative preferences for each attribute which

were recorded from this exercise. The cost values for bus users on large urban radial

routes for the package attributes were:

timetables and route maps at bus stops 6.5p

real time information at bus stops 5.9p

CCTV on all the buses 4.6p

CCTV at all bus stops and on all the buses 5.8p driver is quite polite and helpful 6.0p

driver is very polite, helpful and cheerful 7.7p

buses always arrive to schedule 4.9p.

These figures show that improving the bus service from having drivers who are not very

helpful to drivers who are very polite, helpful and cheerful is equivalent to a fare

reduction of 7.7p.


10/136

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

The Commission for Integrated Transport (CfIT) has set up a Bus Working Group

(BWG) to investigate how best to increase bus patronage in the UK outside London.Part of these investigations includes determining how best to allocate resources such as

funding and subsidies that will produce the most effective incentives to encourage bus

use.

As part of this, Accent Marketing & Research have been commissioned as part of a

team led by L.E.K. Consulting to determine how variations in the bus product are likely

to affect the pattern of modal choice between car and bus use.

A study was also commissioned to determine how improvements to the bus network can

best tackle the issues of social exclusion and, in particular, lack of available transport.

This study is reported separately.

This report sets out the methodology and weighting procedures used for the modal shift

study, along with the main findings of the survey.

1.2 Objectives

The two main objectives of this study are to:

investigate how changes in the bus product are likely to affect modal choice patterns

between car and bus use determine priorities existing bus passengers have to improve bus services.

1.3 Structure of this Report

The next chapter sets out the methodology used in conducting this study. Chapter 3 sets

out the weighting procedures used in order to match the data received from this study

with the National Travel Survey. Section 4 presents the main findings of the survey,

with Section 5 showing results from the stated preference exercises.


11/136

2. METHODOLOGY

2.1 Introduction

This study was conducted through a programme of computer aided telephone interviews

(CATI) undertaken with 1,104 regular bus users and 1,269 car-users who did not usebuses in selected towns in the UK. The CATI study involved two stated preference

games which examined priorities for improvements amongst bus users and likely modal

shift patterns amongst car users.

The design of the study was informed by a series of qualitative focus groups conducted

with car and bus users. Findings from the qualitative study have been reported

separately.

2.2 Recruitment

A random set of households was called for interview by telephone in a selection of

towns in the UK. The individual resident within each household whose birthday was

due next was then asked to take part in the interview. If that person was not available at

the time of initial contact an appointment was made at a convenient time for the

interview. Where there was no response, households were called at different times of

the day and different days of the week in order to increase the chance that those who

were out most of the time would be reached.

Respondents who used buses at least as frequently as once a fortnight were defined as

bus users. Those who used buses once a month or less frequently and who drove a car at

least twice a week were considered as car users. Other respondents not meeting thesecriteria were out of scope and not included in this survey.

Respondents were interviewed about particular types of journeys they had made over

the previous four weeks in the areas they lived in.

There were five different journey types for which interviews were conducted; radial,

orbital, short-stopping inter urban, long-stopping inter urban and park & ride journeys.

Bus users and car users would have to have made at least one such bus or car journey

respectively in the previous four weeks to be in scope for the survey.

Journey Types

Radial journeys were defined as journeys made by bus or car either towards or away

from the centre of town. Interviews were conducted in six urban areas Birmingham,

Leeds, Bedford, Durham, Taunton and Exeter. Small market towns were also surveyed

these were Diss, Haslemere, Brandon, Swaffham, Harleston, Saxmundham and

Halesworth.

Orbital journeys were journeys within the town which were not towards or away from

the town centre. Interviews for these journeys were conducted in Birmingham and

Merseyside.

Inter-urban journeys were any journeys made between different towns. Respondents in

Leeds and Durham were surveyed about these types of journeys. Bus users were

disaggregated between those who had made short stopping and long stopping inter


12/136

urban journeys. Short-stopping journeys were defined as those for which buses called at

stops at least within five miles or ten minutes apart. Long-stopping journeys are those

for which buses called at stops longer than 5 miles or ten minutes apart. Inter urban car

journeys were not defined as long or short stopping.

Surveys were conducted regarding park & ride journeys in Bristol and Oxford. Bususers were in scope if they had used the park & ride facilities in Brislington or Long

Ashton in Bristol or in Redbridge, Pear Tree, Sea Court or Thornhill in Oxford in the

previous four weeks. Car users were in scope if they had driven into town along the bus

routes servicing these park & ride facilities.

Recruitment questionnaires used for each town surveyed are included in Appendix A of

this report.

2.3 Achieved Interviews

The sample survey areas are set out in Table 1. The table also shows the size definition

of each area, along with the journey type for which interviews were conducted. The

areas chosen for the survey were selected as representative of the UK as a whole.

Table 1: Sample areas

Journeytype

Area type Area Postcodes

Birmingham B1-B21, B25-B28, B31-B37B66-B68

Large Urban(population > 250k)

Leeds LS1-LS15Bedford MK40-MK43Medium Urban

(pop. 100k to 250k) Durham DH1-DH3, DH6, DH7Exeter EX1-EX4Small Urban

(pop. 25k to 100k) Taunton TA1-TA4

Radial

Market Towns(pop. 3k to 25k)

Diss, Haslemere,Brandon, Swaffham,Harleston,Saxmundham,Halesworth

GU26-GU27, GU8, GU30, IP171, IP17 2, IP17 3, IP19 8, IP199, IP19 0, IP20 9, IP20 0, IP21-IP23, IP27 9, IP27 0, PE37 3,PE37 7, PE37 8.

Birmingham B1-B21, B25-B28, B31-B37B66-B68

Orbital Large Urban(pop. > 250k)

Merseyside L1-L49, L61-L66Leeds LS1-LS15Short stopping inter-urban journeysDurham DH1-DH3, DH6, DH7Leeds LS1-LS15Long stopping inter-urban journeysDurham DH1-DH3, DH6, DH7Bristol BS3, BS4, BS8, BS13-BS15,

BS21, BS30, BS31, BS40,BS41, BS48, BS49

Park & Ride

Oxford OX1-OX5, OX13, OX14, OX33

Table 2 shows the number of interviews achieved in each sample area. Minimum quotas

of 75 interviews were initially set for each of thirty two separate cells (2,400 interviews

overall). Over the fieldwork period the requirement for three cells was suspended (for

short-stopping inter urban car users in Leeds and Durham and for one cell of bus users

in small market towns). Reduced numbers of interviews for long-stopping inter urbanbus users were achieved in Leeds and Durham due to difficulty in sourcing these

respondents. Reduced interview requirements in some cells were transferred into


13/136

increased sample sizes for other cells, with an eventual aim of achieving 2325

interviews overall.

Table 2: Achieved InterviewsJourney Type Area Number of

achieved car userinterviews

Number ofachieved bus user

interviews

Birmingham 90 75Leeds 94 82Bedford 90 75Durham 90 75Exeter 90 79Taunton 91 76

Radial

Small Market Towns 173 78Birmingham 97 75OrbitalMerseyside 89 79Leeds 95 77Short Inter UrbanDurham 99 75

Leeds N/A 51Long Inter UrbanDurham N/A 50Bristol 85 81Park & RideOxford 86 76

Total 1,269 1,104

The majority of all interviews were conducted by Accents Telephone Unit based in

Bristol. A number of interviews in the Leeds and Durham regions were sub-contracted

to Facts International. All interview staff, whether from Accent or Facts International,

were personally briefed by Accent staff prior to commencing fieldwork. The same

survey materials were used at both fieldwork departments.

2.4 Interviews

The survey was conducted using Computer Aided Telephone Interviewing (CATI).

Interviews were conducted in two phases. The first phase, conducted between 3

September and 7 October 2001, comprised 1600 interviews with a target of 50

interviews in each cell. Interim analysis was then undertaken so that a decision could be

made on the apportionment of the remaining interviews based on the significance of the

stated preference data. The second phase of interviewing was undertaken between 15

October and completed on 4 November.

Interviewers recorded details of a commuting, shopping or other journey which the

respondent had made by bus or car in the previous four weeks according to whether he

or she was a bus or car user. The details recorded included costs associated with the

journey, time spent on the journey or waiting for buses, group size and whether or not

they were encumbered by shopping or luggage.

Car users were asked about perceptions on how much it would have cost and how long

it would have taken to undertake the particular journey if they had used the bus.

Respondents were then presented with two stated preference games. The exercisespresented to bus users were used to ascertain priorities for improvements to the bus

product. Car users were presented with exercises designed to determine likely modal


14/136

shift based upon changes to the bus product. Details of the stated preference

methodology are given in Section 2.5.

Respondents were then asked to rate how important it was to have buses with a

selection of different features (for example, having buses well lit). The order in which

these features were presented was randomised for each respondent.

Finally, demographic and household details were recorded for each respondent. These

included age, gender, number of members in the household, number of cars available in

the household, annual household income and Socio-Economic Group (SEG).

Interviews took approximately 15 minutes each to complete. A print out of the

questionnaire programme is attached in Appendix B of this report.

2.5 Stated Preference

Respondents were presented with two stated preference games.

Package Game

Both bus users and car users were presented with a stated preference game where they

were asked to make a series of pair-wise choices between hypothetical buses that could

have been used for the journey for which details had been recorded.

The bus choices were presented with a selection of different attributes (such as security

of service) for which there were a number of different levels. Three different sets of

attributes were used, dependent on route and area types.

Game A was presented to respondents who were making orbital journeys in

Birmingham or Merseyside, as well as those making radial journeys in Birmingham,

Leeds or the small market towns. The attributes tested in this game were for personal

security, information at bus stops, driver manner and reliability of bus service.

Game B was similar to Game A except that levels on driver manner were not presented.

Instead, respondents were presented with different levels on whether or not buses were

new. This game was presented to those making radial journeys in Bedford, Durham,

Taunton or Exeter and to those making inter urban journeys in Leeds and Durham.

Game C was presented to those making journeys on Park & Ride buses or car journeys

along Park & Ride routes. This was similar to Game A except that, instead of testing for

personal security, respondents were presented different levels of security at the Park &

Ride facility car park.

The different levels presented in Games A, B and C are detailed in Table 3.

Table 3: First Stated Preference Game Attributes and Levels

Attribute Game A(Orbital & Radial)

Game B(Radial & Inter Urban)

Game C(Park & Ride)


15/136

Security no CCTV

CCTV on all buses

CCTV at all busstops and on allbuses

no CCTV

CCTV on all buses

CCTV at all busstops and on allbuses

No CCTV at carpark

CCTV at car park

CCTV and regularvisible patrols

Information

at bus stops

No information at

bus stops Timetables and

route maps at busstops

Up to the minuteelectronic displaysshowing how manyminutes wait therewill be before thebus arrives

No information at




No information at




Reliability ofthe busservice

Current reliability

Buses always arriveto schedule

Current reliability


Current reliability


Drivermanner

Driver is not veryhelpful

Driver is quite politeand helpful

Driver is very polite,helpful and cheerful

Driver is not veryhelpful

Driver is quite politeand helpful

Driver is very polite,helpful and cheerful

Whetherbuses arenew or not

Old buses

New buses

New low floor buseswith no steps

An example pair-wise choice for Game A is shown in Figure 1. The respondent would

have been asked which of the two bus services they would have preferred to use for the

recent journey they made by car or bus which had been discussed in the interview.

Figure 1 : Example stated preference pair-wise choice for first game

Bus Service A or Bus Service B

CCTV on all buses

Timetables and route maps at busstops

Driver is very polite, helpful andcheerful

Buses always arrive to schedule

CCTV at all bus stops and on allbuses

Timetables and route maps at busstops

Driver is not very helpful

Current reliability

Each respondent was presented with eight such pairs of choices. The levels set out for

each attribute were randomised for each respondent according to a fractional factorial

design.

Choice Game Bus Users

Bus users were given a second stated preference game which again asked them to select

their preferred choices between a series of two hypothetical bus services which could


16/136

have been used for the recent bus journey which had been discussed in the interview.

This choice game involved attributes on headway of service, journey duration, journey

fare and a package made up of the four attributes presented in the package game.

The levels on journey fare, duration and headway of service were based upon values

recorded during the interview for the particular journey.

There were two levels presented for the package attribute. The lower level comprised

the lowest levels from the four attributes in the first game and the upper level comprised

the highest levels.

The attributes and levels for bus users are shown in Table 4. This table shows the

package levels as if Game A had been presented to respondents if Game B and C had

been shown, the package level would have included newness of buses or security at the

park & ride facility, as applicable.

Table 4: Bus users second stated preference game attributes and levelsPackage No information at bus stops, no CCTV, driver is not very helpful

and current reliability

up to the minute electronic displays, CCTV at all bus stops and onall buses, driver is very polite, helpful and cheerful and busesalways arrive to schedule

Bus Headway everyz +50% minutes

everyz minutes

everyz 50% minutes

Bus Journey Time y 10% or 20%

y ory 5%

y +5% or +15%

Bus ticket cost x 10% or 15%

x 5%

x +5% or +10%

For the values in Table 4,x is the fare paid by the respondent for journey discussed in

the interview. The levels of fare difference (ie whether 10% or 15% cost differences

were presented) were selected at random for each respondent. Where the respondent did

not pay any bus fare, such as for a concessionary ticket, variables of 0p, 10p and 15p

were presented.

The value y was taken as the overall journey time comprising the access time spent

going to the bus stop, in vehicle travel time and egress time spent making the way from

the bus stop to the final destination. As with the different levels presented for fare, the

different levels presented for journey duration were selected at random for each

respondent.

The valuez was taken from respondents perceived headway of the bus at the time they

made their journey. Headway was described to respondents in the more familiar terms

of frequency.

Figure 2 shows an example option pair for the second game for bus users.

Figure 2: Example second game pair-wise choice for stated preference for bus users


17/136

Bus Service A or Bus Service B

No information at bus stops, noCCTV, driver is not very helpful andcurrent reliability

Bus frequency every 10 minutes

Bus journey time 16 minutes

Bus ticket cost 0.95

Up to the minute electronic displays,CCTV at all bus stops and on allbuses, driver is very polite, helpful andcheerful and buses always arrive to

schedule Bus frequency every 10 minutes

Bus journey time 23 minutes


As for the first game, each bus user was presented with eight pair wise choices. The

levels for each attribute for each choice were selected according to a fractional factorial

design.

Modal Choice Game Car Users

The modal choice game presented to car users asked them to state whether they would

have chosen to use bus instead of car given a variety of bus products. The bus products

presented to car users were described in similar terms as for the choice game used for

bus users (ie bus ticket cost, journey time, headway and package).

However, the levels were determined for car users based upon their perceptions of how

much it would have cost and how long it would have taken to make their particular

journey by bus and what they perceived to be the headway of service for the bus. In

other words, the values x, y and z above were taken for each individual respondent

according to their perceived values for the bus.

Where respondents were not able to give estimates for the cost, journey time or

headway of bus services or where they believed there were no alternative bus services

available, the CATI programme produced default values for x,y andz which were fed

into the stated preference options. The default values for headway (z) were dependent

on the location of interviews, and were:

Radial and orbital in Birmingham, Leeds and Merseyside every 8 minutes

Radial in Bedford, Durham, Taunton, Exeter every 12 minutes

Inter urban in Leeds and Durham every 30 minutes

Radial in Small Market Towns every 90 minutes.

The default value for journey time (y) was set as 1.25 times the actual in car journey

time for the journey made. The default values for cost (x) for the small market towns

were 1.10. For other locations, this default was set out according to the actual car

journey time, thus approximating according to bus journey distance, as follows:

less than or equal to 5 minutes 0.40

between 6 and 10 minutes 0.60

between 10 and 15 minutes 0.80

between 16 and 30 minutes 1.00 between 30 and 60 minutes 1.30

61 minutes or more 1.80 .


18/136

The different bus levels presented to cars all showed improvements to cost, journey

time and headway on the base level. Also, hypothetical disbenefits were added to the

current car journey in terms of cost (described as being through the addition of parking

charges) and duration (described as being due to increased congestion). This was done

to encourage switching between the car and the bus in order to increase the chance of

recording significant results from the data.

The different levels presented for the car journey are shown in Table 5. The values a

and b are taken from responses to earlier questions in the interview. The value a

comprises parking costs and, where applicable, fuel and other costs, and b represents the

car journey time.

Table 5: Second stated preference levels for car journey

Car journey cost a

a + 1.00 or + 2.00

a + 4.00 or + 5.00

Car journey time b b +10% or +15%

b + 25% or +35%

The levels presented for the bus product are shown in Table 6.

Table 6: Second stated preference levels for bus journey for car users

Package No information at bus stops, no CCTV, driver is not very helpfuland current reliability

Up to the minute electronic displays, CCTV at all bus stops and onall buses, driver is very polite, helpful and cheerful and busesalways arrive to schedule

Bus Headway everyz minutes

everyz 20% minutes

everyz 50% minutes

Bus Journey Time y

y 10% or 15%

y 30% or 40%

Bus ticket cost x

x 10% or 15%

x 25% or 30%

Following interim analysis of data, low levels of significance were achieved with

respect to headway. In order to counter this, in the second stage of fieldwork the

headway levels for car users were set atz,z 40% andz 75% to encourage switching

based upon journey headway. As for bus users, headway was described using the more

familiar terms of frequency.

An example pair choice for a car user is given in Figure 3.

Figure 3: Example second game pair-wise choice for stated preference for car users

Car or Bus Service


19/136

Car journey cost 2.30

Car journey time 10 minutes

Up to the minute electronic displays,CCTV at all bus stops and on allbuses, driver is very polite, helpful andcheerful and buses always arrive toschedule

Bus frequency every 4 minutes Bus journey time 10 minutes


Respondents were given eight sets of pairs such as the one above, with different levels

for attributes selected through a fractional factorial design.


20/136

3. WEIGHTING PROCEDURES

3.1 Weighting

Two stages of weighting were conducted with the data in order to match the survey

respondent characteristics with those from the National Travel Survey (NTS). The firststage of weighting was conducted to match findings according to age and gender of bus

and car users. The second stage was undertaken to match data following the first stage

with NTS data on journey purpose by income quintile.

The weightings detailed below were applied to the overall received sample and not

separately to each individual survey town or route type. The weighting factor for each

respondent (w) was calculated according to the equation:

w = t * (1 r)

s

Where tis the target proportion from the NTS data, s is the sample proportion from the

modal shift survey and ris the proportion for which values were refused, not stated or

for which dont know answers were given. Data for refusals, not stateds and dont

knows were not weighted unless otherwise stated.

3.2 Stage 1: Age and Gender

The objective of the first stage weighting was to match the proportions of achieved

interviews according the proportions of ages and genders of bus and car users recorded

from the National Travel Survey.

Table 7 shows the total number of car and bus journeys made in the UK according to

age and gender according to NTS data.

Table 7: Total number of journeys made as car drivers or by bus according to age andgender (000's)

16-24years

25-34years

35-44years

45-59years

60-64years

65 yearsor more

total

Male 316 652 780 802 659 463 3,673Female 294 544 701 495 256 113 2,403

car

Total 610 1,197 1,482 1,297 915 576 6,076

Male 110 32 28 31 47 63 312Female 124 58 52 56 75 85 450

bus

Total 235 90 80 86 122 148 761

The proportion of car and bus journeys made according to age and gender in the NTS is

shown in Table 8.


21/136

Table 8: Proportion of journeys made as car drivers or by bus according to age andgender from NTS (%) (t)

16-24years

25-34years

35-44years

45-59years

60-64years

65 yearsor more

total

Male 5.20 10.74 12.84 13.20 10.85 7.62 60.45Female 4.83 8.96 11.54 8.14 4.21 1.86 39.55

car

Total 10.04 19.70 24.39 21.34 15.06 9.48 100.00Male 14.49 4.27 3.70 4.04 6.22 8.22 40.94Female 16.34 7.59 6.83 7.32 9.82 11.21 59.11

bus

Total 30.83 11.86 10.52 11.36 16.04 19.43 100.00

Table 9 shows the proportion of interviews achieved with car and bus users over the

whole sample in the modal shift study according to age and gender.

Table 9: Proportion of journeys made as car drivers or by bus according to age andgender from Modal Shift Study (%) (s)

16-24years

25-34years

35-44years

45-59years

60-64years

65 yearsor more

Total

Male 2.52 7.09 8.35 14.89 4.96 9.77 47.60Female 2.99 8.20 13.71 16.39 4.96 5.99 52.25

car

Total 5.52 15.29 22.06 31.28 10.01 15.76 100.00

Male 3.99 2.99 3.80 5.53 1.99 11.50 29.89Female 6.25 4.98 10.42 15.22 9.42 23.64 70.11

bus

Total 10.24 7.97 14.22 20.74 11.41 35.14 100.00

The weighting factors applied to each respondent are shown in Table 10.

Table 10: First stage weighting factors according to age and gender (w)

16-24years

25-34years

35-44years

45-59years

60-64years

65 yearsor more

total

Male 2.06 1.51 1.54 0.88 2.18 0.78 1.27Female 1.61 1.09 0.84 0.50 0.85 0.31 0.76

car

Total 1.82 1.29 1.11 0.68 1.50 0.60 1.00

Male 3.63 1.42 0.97 0.73 3.11 0.71 1.37Female 2.61 1.52 0.65 0.48 1.04 0.47 0.84

bus

Total 3.01 1.49 0.74 0.55 1.41 0.55 1.00

3.3 Stage 2: Income and Journey Purpose

The second stage of weighting matched journey purpose and income distribution data of

the sample, following first stage weighting, with NTS data. Income was disaggregatedin quintiles each representing 20% of the UK population as a whole. In these tables,

commuting journeys are considered as journeys either to or from work or to or from a

place of education. Other journeys include both discretionary and non-discretionary

journeys.


22/136

Table 11: NTS proportions on journey purpose by income quintile (%) (t)

Lowest(0-

4.99k)

2(5k -

9.99k)

3(10k-

17.49k)

4(17.5k -29.99k)

Highest(30k +)

total

commuting 2.0 3.8 7.5 9.6 10.0 32.9shopping 2.7 4.1 5.5 6.2 5.6 24.1

other 4.7 6.6 9.8 11.4 10.6 43.1car

total 9.4 14.5 22.8 27.2 26.2 100.0

commuting 8 8 10 9 5 40shopping 11 9 5 4 2 31other 10 8 5 4 2 29b

us

total 29 25 20 17 9 100

The distribution of journey purpose according to income quintile from the modal shift

survey is shown in Table 12. As is usual with these surveys, there was a substantial

proportion of refusals and dont know answers to household income (16% for car users,

29% for bus users) as compared with other questions.

Table 12: Income and journey purpose distribution for modal shift survey after first stageweighting (%) (s)

Lowest(0-

4.99k)

2(5k -

9.99k)

3(10k-

17.49k)

4(17.5k -29.99k)

Highest(30k+)

Refusedor DK

(r)

total

commuting 0.44 0.74 5.58 11.18 14.37 4.61 36.92shopping 1.44 2.95 5.44 9.71 10.27 6.84 36.65other 0.57 2.99 3.10 7.93 7.41 4.43 26.43c

ar

total 2.45 6.68 14.12 28.82 32.05 15.88 100.00

commuting 1.47 2.34 3.35 7.82 4.67 7.97 27.62shopping 7.33 9.52 7.02 6.75 5.73 14.58 50.93other 3.88 2.77 3.05 3.59 2.16 6.00 21.45b

us

total 12.68 14.63 13.42 18.16 12.56 28.55 100.00

Weighting factors for those who were not able to give household income values were

calculated only against journey purpose and not against income. There were no

respondents for which journey purpose was not stated.

The weighting factors used at the second stage of weighting are shown in Table 13.

Table 13: Second stage weighting factors according to journey purpose and income (w)

Lowest(0-

4.99k)

2(5k -

9.99k)

3(10k-

17.49k)

4(17.5k -29.99k)

Highest(30k+)

Refusedor DK

total

commuting 3.82 4.32 1.13 0.72 0.59 1.13 0.89shopping 1.58 1.17 0.85 0.54 0.46 0.56 0.66other 6.90 1.86 2.66 1.21 1.20 1.55 1.63c

ar

total 3.23 1.83 1.36 0.79 0.69 N/A 1.00

commuting 3.90 2.44 2.13 0.82 0.76 1.43 1.45shopping 1.07 0.68 0.51 0.42 0.25 0.61 0.61other 1.84 2.07 1.17 0.80 0.66 1.38 1.35b

us

total 1.63 1.22 1.06 0.67 0.51 N/A 1.00

3.4 Rim Weighting

A consequence of conducting second stage weighting is that the resultant data does not

match the proportions set out in the first stage an effect called rim weighting. Table 14

shows the difference of proportions of the data set following the second stage of


23/136

weighting as compared with the NTS proportions of car drivers and bus users (as set out

in Table 8). Positive values show that the data set proportions following secondary

weighting is greater than the NTS proportions.

Table 14: Difference between percentages of modal shift data set following second stage

weighting and NTS data on age and gender16-24years

25-34years

35-44years

45-59years

60-64years

65 yearsor more

total

Male -0.85 -1.10 -2.12 -0.28 0.36 2.77 -1.22Female 1.85 -0.05 -1.03 -0.20 0.39 0.14 1.10

car

Total 0.99 -1.15 -3.16 -0.48 0.75 2.91 0.00

Male 1.34 0.51 0.07 -0.44 0.58 -0.85 1.21Female 2.89 -0.97 -0.73 -0.50 -1.10 -1.16 -1.57

bus

Total 4.23 -0.47 -0.64 -0.94 -0.52 -2.01 0.00


24/136

4. MAIN FINDINGS

4.1 Introduction

This section sets out the main results from the survey, with the results from the stated

preference presented in the following section.

Data has been disaggregated according to journey type (radial/orbital/inter-urban) and

town size (eg with population over 250,000). Details for peak and off peak and journey

purpose are shown for the combination of all radial routes.

Data for radial routes has also been disaggregated according to income quintile. The

quintile into which each respondent belongs is determined according to their annual

household income before tax and other deductions. Each quintile range encompasses

20% of the UK population as follows:

Quintile: Lowest Secondlowest Middle Secondhighest Highest

Annualhouseholdincome:

Under 5,000 5,000 to9,999

10,000 to17,499

17,500 to29,999

30,000 ormore

4.2 Journey purpose

Data for the whole sample was weighted to match National Travel Survey (NTS)

distributions according to journey purpose and income quintile (see Section 3.3).

Differences in the distribution of journey purposes according to sub-samples are

indicated below.

Figure 4 shows the proportions of car users who had made particular journey types over

the four weeks prior to the interview. It shows that those interviewed about the journeys

they made during peak hours were more likely to have made commuting journeys over

the previous four weeks than those making off peak journeys (68% cf 25%).

The higher the income quintile, the more likely respondents were to have made

commuting journeys over the previous four weeks. The proportion doing so for the

lowest income quintile was 15% compared with 45% of those in the highest income

quintile.


25/136

Figure 4: Proportion of car users who had made types of journeys in the previous fourweeks

39

42

38

39

35

25

68

15

29

43

46

45

34

35

46

60

48

62

70

63

67

45

77

64

59

58

53

41

34

55

60

57

58

62

64

63

54

72

62

51

59

60

74

67

65

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

all radial

large urban radial

medium urban radial

small urban radial

market town radial

offpeak radial

peak radial

lowest income

second lowest

middle

second highest

highest income

park & ride

inter urban

orbital

% respondents

other

shopping

commuting

Base: all car users (1,269)More than purpose may be given so sum may exceed 100%


26/136

Figure 5 shows the same distribution as for Figure 4 but for bus users. As with car users,

bus users were more likely to have made commuting journeys in the previous four

weeks the higher their income quintile 20% in the lowest income quintile compared

with 61% in the highest.

Conversely, the proportion of respondents having made shopping trips over the previousfour weeks decreases according to income 82% of those in the lowest income quintile

had made shopping trips compared with 33% of those in the highest.


27/136

Figure 5 : Proportion of bus users who had made types of journeys over previous fourweeks

43

46

39

42

47

30

78

20

25

59

60

61

33

36

54

58

64

54

57

50

68

30

82

66

47

34

33

60

47

46

45

46

53

45

26

46

42

53

44

40

46

40

42

58

55

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

all radial

large urban radial

medium urban radial

small urban radial

market town

offpeak radial

peak radial

lowest income

second lowest

middle

second highest

highest income

park & ride

inter urban

orbital

% respondents

other

shopping

commuting

Base: all bus users (1,104)More than purpose may be given so sum may exceed 100%


28/136

Each respondent was asked to recall his or her most recent journey made for a particular

purpose. The purpose of the journey which each respondent was asked to recall,

whether commuting, shopping or other, was selected through setting of quotas over the

entire sample with an aim of achieving one third of the sample for each purpose. The

journey purposes for the entire data set were then weighted according to NTS data.

Figure 6 shows the distribution of purposes for which respondents were asked to recall

their journey details. The distribution reflects the distribution of journeys made in the

previous four weeks, as shown in Figure 4, with those in the higher income quintiles

more likely to be interviewed with respect to commuting journeys than those in the

lower quintiles.


29/136

Figure 6: Journey purpose for which car users were interviewed

33

36

29

29

35

18

63

10

30

33

36

39

29

33

38

29

23

32

34

29

39

9

32

27

33

29

27

15

15

23

38

41

39

37

35

43

28

57

43

33

35

34

57

52

38

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

all radial

large urban radial

medium urban radial

small urban radial

market town radial

offpeak radial

peak radial

lowest income

second lowest

middle

second highest

highest income

park & ride

inter urban

orbital

% respondents

other

shopping

commuting

Base: all car users (1,269)


30/136

The journey purposes for which bus users were interviewed are shown in Figure 7. The

distribution reflects that shown in Figure 5.

Figure 7: Journey purpose for which bus users were interviewed

44

42

37

51

46

31

77

28

33

58

57

57

33

27

50

34

32

37

33

38

44

8

44

44

31

20

18

47

21

22

26

26

16

16

25

14

28

24

11

24

25

21

46

28

27

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

all radial

large urban radial

medium urban radial

small urban radial

market town

offpeak radial

peak radial

lowest income

second lowest

middle

second highest

highest income

park & ride

inter urban

orbital

% respondents

other

shopping

commuting

Base: all bus users (1,104)


31/136

4.3 Time of Journey

The distribution of car users outbound journeys which were made during the peak

hours and off peak hours is shown in Figure 8. Peak hours were defined as between

0600 and 0900 or between 1630 and 1900).

Those who were making commuting journeys were most likely to travel in peak hours

(62%).

Those in the lowest income quintile were least likely to be making their journeys during

the peak hours, reflecting that they were also least likely to be making commuting

journeys.


32/136

Figure 8: Proportion of car users outbound trips made during peak and off peak hours

32

33

30

30

36

23

9

62

7

34

32

35

44

40

33

38

68

67

70

70

64

77

91

38

93

66

68

65

56

60

67

62

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

all radial

large urban radial

medium urban radial

small urban radial

market town radial

other radial

shopping radial

commuting radial

lowest income

second lowest

middle

second highest

highest income

park & ride

inter urban

orbital

respondents

peak off peak



33/136

For all sub-groups, with the exception of shoppers, fewer respondents made their return

journey during the peak than made their outward journey during the peak.

Forty per cent of those who set off outbound during peak hours also returned during

peak hours.

The proportions of car users return journeys made during the peak and off-peak hours

are shown in Figure 9.


34/136

Figure 9: Time of car users' return journey

23

29

20

21

19

15

40

12

19

38

9

20

19

30

30

31

28

38

77

71

80

79

81

85

60

88

81

62

91

80

81

70

70

69

72

62

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

all radial

large urban radial

medium urban radial

small urban radial

market town radial

outbound offpeak radial

outbound peak radial

other radial

shopping radial

commuting radial

lowest income

second lowest

middle

second highest

highest income

park & ride

inter urban

orbital

respondents

peak off peak



35/136

Bus users were less likely to travel on their outward part of their journey during peak

hours than car drivers 23% of all radial route bus drivers did so compared with 32% of

all radial car users.

As with car drivers, bus users were most likely to be travelling during the peak hours if

they were commuters (47%) and least likely if they were shoppers (7%). Similarly,those in the lowest income quintile were least likely to travel outbound during the peak

(11%) compared with any other income group.

The proportions of bus users outward journeys conducted during peak and off peak

hours are shown in Figure 10.


36/136

Figure 10: Bus users' outbound trips made during peak and off peak hours

27

23

33

21

38

18

7

47

11

14

41

47

44

24

29

31

73

77

67

79

62

82

93

53

89

86

59

53

56

76

71

69

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

all radial

large urban radial

medium urban radial

small urban radial

market town

other radial

shopping radial

commuting radial

lowest income

second lowest

middle

second highest

highest income

park & ride

inter urban

orbital

respondents

peak off peak



37/136

Figure 11 shows the proportion of bus users who made their return journeys during the

peak and off peak hours.

As with car users, bus users were less likely to return during the peak than they were to

set off outbound during the peak 30% of bus users did so on the return journey

whereas 27% did so outbound.


38/136

Figure 11: Proportion of bus users making outbound and return journeys during peakhours

30

19

36

29

50

22

52

17

20

45

10

32

50

28

35

30

37

30

70

81

64

71

50

78

48

83

80

55

90

68

50

72

65

70

63

70

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

all radial

large urban radial

medium urban radial

small urban radial

market town

offpeak radial

peak radial

other radial

shopping radial

commuting radial

lowest income

second lowest

middle

second highest

highest income

park & ride

inter urban

orbital

respondents

peak off peak



39/136

4.4 Nature of Commuting and Shopping Journeys

Figure 12 shows the whether car users who were commuting were doing so to travel to

a place of work or a place of education. Eighty seven per cent of all radial commuting

journeys were for work.

Notably, none of the journeys made along park & ride routes was for education reasons.


40/136

Figure 12: Proportions of car commuting journeys were to place of work or place ofeducation

87

95

94

71

86

78

93

100

91

85

13

5

6

29

14

22

7

9

15

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

all radial

large urban radial

medium urban

radial

small urban radial

market town

radial

offpeak radial

peak radial

park & ride

inter urban

orbital

respondents

work education

Base: car user commuters (417)


41/136

The distribution of commuting bus journeys between work and education is shown in

Figure 13. In all the subgroups, bus users were more likely than car users to be

education commuters.

As for car users, those making commuting journeys along park & ride routes were least

likely to be doing so for education purposes, with only 6% of those using park & ridebuses doing so.


42/136

Figure 13: Whether bus users' commuting journeys were to a place of work or a place ofeducation

63

70

75

53

50

63

62

94

79

74

37

30

25

47

50

37

38

6

21

26

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

all radial

large urban radial

medium urban

radial

small urban radial

market town

offpeak radial

peak radial

park & ride

inter urban

orbital

respondents

work education

Base: bus user commuters (442)


43/136

Figure 14 shows the proportion of car users shopping journeys which were made

primarily for food or non food items. It shows that shopping trips undertaken in the

larger towns were more likely to be for non-food items in comparison with radial trips

made in smaller towns 66% of those in large urban areas did so compared with 40% in

market towns.

Those travelling on park & ride routes were most likely to be shopping for non-food

items (81%) in comparison with any other route type.


44/136

Figure 14: Car Users - whether shopping trips were primarily for food or non-food items

44

34

37

44

60

42

60

19

30

61

56

66

63

56

40

58

40

81

70

39

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

all radial

large urban radial

medium urban

radial

small urban radial

market town

radial

offpeak radial

peak radial

park & ride

inter urban

orbital

respondents

food non food

Base: car user shoppers (306)


45/136

Figure 15 shows the proportion of shopping trips that were food or non-food items for

bus journeys. The proportions shopping for non-food items were greater for bus users

than car users (63% of all radial bus journeys compared with 56% of all radial car

journeys).

As with car users, bus users on park & ride routes were most likely to be shopping fornon-food items compared with any other route type (89%).


46/136

Figure 15: Whether bus users' shopping journeys were primarily for food or non-fooditems

37

29

46

34

45

37

37

11

35

43

63

71

54

66

55

63

63

89

65

57

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

all radial

large urban radial

medium urban

radial

small urban radial

market town

offpeak radial

peak radial

park & ride

inter urban

orbital

respondents

food non food

Base: bus user shoppers (342)


47/136

4.5 Alternatives to Journeys

Car users were asked how they would have made their journey if they did not have a car

available at the time. Over one third (34%) would have used the bus. Forty three per

cent would have conducted the journey by some other mode (on foot, as a car

passenger, by taxi, bicycle or train).

One sixth (16%) would not have made the journey with a further 6% postponing the

journey. It is likely that these respondents would be least likely to consider using a bus

for their journey, even if the bus product were of very good quality.

The behaviour of the car user sample if their car was unavailable is shown in Figure 16.

Figure 16: How car users would have made journey if car was not available at the time

1

4

1

3

6

6

8

9

1116

34

0 10 20 30 40 50

don't know

other

gone elsewhere

used the train

bicycle

postponed

used a taxi

taken a lift

walkedcancelled

used the bus

% respondents


Table 15 shows that those in the lowest income quintile were most likely to use the bus

if their car had not been available (51%) whereas those in the highest and second

highest income quintiles were least likely (29%)

Table 15: Proportion of car users who would have used the bus if the car was unavailable

lowest second lowest middle second highest highest51% 32% 40% 29% 29%

Car drivers were asked whether they knew from where they could catch the bus in order

to make their journey. These proportions are shown in Figure 17. It shows that those in

the lowest income quintile were most likely to know from where to take the bus (84%)

whereas those in the highest quintile were least likely (72%).

Figure 17 also shows that respondents in market towns were most likely to say that

there was no bus service available for them to use in order to make the journey (17%) incomparison with any other route type.


48/136

Figure 17: Whether car users would know where to catch bus in order to make journey

77

76

84

87

61

77

77

74

82

75

84

80

76

75

72

80

66

75

16

18

14

9

22

17

13

18

15

15

6

12

18

20

19

16

26

19

7

6

2

4

17

6

10

8

4

10

9

9

5

5

8

4

8

6

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

all radial

large urban radial

medium urban radial

small urban radial

market town radial

offpeak radial

peak radial

other radial

shopping radial

commuting radial

lowest income

second lowest

middle

second highest

highest income

park & ride

inter urban

orbital

% respondents

yes no isn't any service



49/136

Figure 18 shows the proportions of car users who know which bus route to take in order

to make their journey. Awareness of which service to take was lower than the awareness

of from where to catch the bus (61% compared with 77% for all radial users).

As with Figure 17, those in the lowest income quintile were most likely to be aware of

which routes to take in order to make their journey (67%) and those in the highestincome were least likely (54%). It should be noted that all car user respondents,

irrespective of income, were in scope for interviewing only if they used buses less

frequently than once a month.


50/136

Figure 18: Whether car users know which route to take in order to make journey

61

69

63

70

43

61

62

62

64

59

67

64

59

65

54

74

51

62

31

25

36

25

40

33

27

31

33

30

24

27

36

30

38

22

41

32

7

6

2

4

17

6

10

8

4

10

9

9

5

5

8

4

8

6

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

all radial

large urban radial

medium urban radial

small urban radial

market town radial

offpeak radial

peak radial

other radial

shopping radial

commuting radial

lowest income

second lowest

middle

second highest

highest income

park & ride

inter urban

orbital

% respondents

yes no isn't any service



51/136

Figure 19 shows the proportion of bus users who had access to a car when they made

the journey. As expected, those using park & ride services were most likely to have a

car available to use (84%). Cars were least available to bus users in the lowest income

quintile (5%, compared with 31% in the highest income quintile).

Those in market towns were least likely to have a car available (3%) in comparison withany route type. This suggests that bus users in these areas are most likely to be a

captive market with little or no choice as to which transport modes they are able to

use.


52/136

Figure 19: Proportion of bus users who had car available to use when journey was made

14

16

18

13

3

15

12

14

19

11

5

16

10

34

31

84

13

13

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

all radial

large urban radial

medium urban radial

small urban radial

market town

offpeak radial

peak radial

other radial

shopping radial

commuting radial

lowest income

second lowest

middle

second highest

highest income

park & ride

inter urban

orbital

% respondents



53/136

Figure 20 shows the reasons why bus users with cars available chose not to drive when

making their journey. The reason most cited was the difficulty of finding a parking

place (47%) followed by concerns with the cost of parking (23%), indicating the

effectiveness of parking control in encouraging modal shift from car use. The mean

expected cost of parking charges for those who chose not to drive was 168p. Only 15%

of the sample thought that they would not have any parking charges if they had madethe trip by car.

The mean expected car journey duration for this sample was 14 minutes. Three per cent

of the sample made the journey by bus because they thought that it would be quicker

than by car.

Figure 20: Reasons why bus users with car available did not choose to drive

20

3

3

4

6

7

9

11

12

23

47

0 10 20 30 40 50

other

car broken down

bus quicker

concern about security of car

easier to use bus

concern about environment

dislike driving

bus cheaper

drinking

cost of parking

difficulty in parking

% respondents

Base: radial bus users who had car available at the time they made their journey (69)More than one reason may be given so sum may exceed 100%

Other reasons given for using the bus and not driving were:

experimenting with bus

traffic cannot use 2 or more people only traffic lane when driving

did not have anything heavy to carry

meeting sister at the bus stop

does not know city well

the bus is better for looking around

children enjoy the bus

mother complains if car is used.


54/136

4.6 Return Journeys

Respondents were asked whether they had used the same mode of transport on the

return part of their journey. Less than 0.5% of car users did not drive on their return

journey.

Bus users were more likely not to have used the bus on the return journey than car users

were not to have used the car. The proportion of all radial bus users who did not use the

bus on the return leg was 12%. Those who used the bus for commuting purposes were

least likely to use the bus on the return journey (79%) in comparison with any other

sub-group, as shown in Figure 21.


55/136

Figure 21: Whether car users used the car and bus users used the bus on the return partof the journey as well as on the outbound part

100

100

99

100

100

100

100

100

99

100

100

99

100

100

99

98

100

99

88

92

91

82

82

89

84

95

93

79

80

94

93

85

81

98

88

84

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

all radial

large urban radial

medium urban radial

small urban radial

market town radial

offpeak radial

peak radial

other radial

shopping radial

commuting radial

lowest income

second lowest

middle

second highest

highest income

park & ride

inter urban

orbital

% respondents

car bus

Base: all car users (1,269), all bus users (1,104)


56/136

Bus users who did not return by bus were asked what mode of transport they had used

on their return journey. The majority (52%) had come back as car passengers with a

further 24% coming back by taxi, as shown in Figure 22.

Figure 22: Main mode of transport used on return journey by those who did not use bus

2

52

24

22

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

car as driver

car passenger

taxi

walked

% respondents

Base: radial bus users who did not use bus on return journey (65)

Figure 23 shows the reasons why bus users chose a different mode to travel on the

return journey. The reasons most cited were that the alternative was quicker (25%),concern about personal safety (24%) and carrying luggage (24%). Six per cent had been

drinking and were not able to take a bus home due to lack of service late in the evening.

Figure 23: Reasons for not returning by bus

27

6

13

24

24

25

0 10 20 30 40 50

other

had been drinking

offered lift

carrying luggage

concern about personal

safety

quicker

% respondents

Base: bus users who did not return by bus (65)More than one reason may be given so sum may exceed 100%


57/136

4.7 Accompanying People

Thirty per cent of bus users and 46% of car users were accompanied on their outward

journey. Those who were accompanied were asked how many people had accompanied

them. The mean number of people accompanying respondents for each sub-group is

shown in Figure 24.

Except for large urban radial journeys, the mean number of people accompanying car

users was higher than the mean for bus users.

The mean number of accompanying people was lowest for car users when commuting,

with a mean of 0.35 people compared with 0.74 accompanying on shopping journeys

and 0.85 on other journeys. For bus users, the mean for commuters was also lowest

(0.32) in comparison with shoppers (0.42) or those on other journey purposes (0.79).


58/136

Figure 24: Mean number of people accompanying respondent on journey

0.45

0.64

0.40

0.37

0.25

0.44

0.48

0.79

0.42

0.32

0.65

0.38

0.26

0.30

0.48

0.43

0.71

0.61

0.66

0.61

0.73

0.56

0.72

0.70

0.64

0.85

0.74

0.35

0.47

0.62

0.64

0.64

0.71

0.44

0.75

0.62

0.0 0.5 1.0

all radial

large urban radial

medium urban radial

small urban radial

market town radial

off peak radial

peak radial

other radial

shopping radial

commuting radial

lowest income

second lowest

middle

second highest

highest income

park & ride

inter urban

orbital

number of accompanying people

car

bus

Base: all car users (1,269), all bus users (1,104)


59/136

Those who were accompanied by other people were asked how old these accompanying

people were and whether or not they were in full time education. Figure 25 shows the

proportions of accompanying people in education and in retirement age (defined as

above 60 years) for both car and bus users.

The proportion of respondents who were not in education or retired and therefore,presumably, not eligible for concessionary bus fare discounts was greater for car users

(43%) comp

061. adelphi: lek consulting; modal bus shift

Documents