061. adelphi: lek consulting; modal bus shift
TRANSCRIPT
-
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
-
8/14/2019 061. Adelphi: Lek Consulting; Modal Bus Shift
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
-
8/14/2019 061. Adelphi: Lek Consulting; Modal Bus Shift
3/136
-
8/14/2019 061. Adelphi: Lek Consulting; Modal Bus Shift
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
-
8/14/2019 061. Adelphi: Lek Consulting; Modal Bus Shift
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
-
8/14/2019 061. Adelphi: Lek Consulting; Modal Bus Shift
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).
-
8/14/2019 061. Adelphi: Lek Consulting; Modal Bus Shift
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
-
8/14/2019 061. Adelphi: Lek Consulting; Modal Bus Shift
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
-
8/14/2019 061. Adelphi: Lek Consulting; Modal Bus Shift
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.
-
8/14/2019 061. Adelphi: Lek Consulting; Modal Bus Shift
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.
-
8/14/2019 061. Adelphi: Lek Consulting; Modal Bus Shift
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
-
8/14/2019 061. Adelphi: Lek Consulting; Modal Bus Shift
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
-
8/14/2019 061. Adelphi: Lek Consulting; Modal Bus Shift
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
-
8/14/2019 061. Adelphi: Lek Consulting; Modal Bus Shift
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)
-
8/14/2019 061. Adelphi: Lek Consulting; Modal Bus Shift
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
bus stops Timetables and
route maps at busstops
Up to the minuteelectronic displaysshowing how manyminutes wait therewill be before thebus arrives
No information at
bus stops Timetables and
route maps at busstops
Up to the minuteelectronic displaysshowing how manyminutes wait therewill be before thebus arrives
Reliability ofthe busservice
Current reliability
Buses always arriveto schedule
Current reliability
Buses always arriveto schedule
Current reliability
Buses always arriveto schedule
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
-
8/14/2019 061. Adelphi: Lek Consulting; Modal Bus Shift
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
-
8/14/2019 061. Adelphi: Lek Consulting; Modal Bus Shift
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
Bus ticket cost 1.15
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 .
-
8/14/2019 061. Adelphi: Lek Consulting; Modal Bus Shift
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
-
8/14/2019 061. Adelphi: Lek Consulting; Modal Bus Shift
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
Bus ticket cost 0.45
Respondents were given eight sets of pairs such as the one above, with different levels
for attributes selected through a fractional factorial design.
-
8/14/2019 061. Adelphi: Lek Consulting; Modal Bus Shift
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.
-
8/14/2019 061. Adelphi: Lek Consulting; Modal Bus Shift
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.
-
8/14/2019 061. Adelphi: Lek Consulting; Modal Bus Shift
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
-
8/14/2019 061. Adelphi: Lek Consulting; Modal Bus Shift
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
-
8/14/2019 061. Adelphi: Lek Consulting; Modal Bus Shift
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.
-
8/14/2019 061. Adelphi: Lek Consulting; Modal Bus Shift
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%
-
8/14/2019 061. Adelphi: Lek Consulting; Modal Bus Shift
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.
-
8/14/2019 061. Adelphi: Lek Consulting; Modal Bus Shift
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%
-
8/14/2019 061. Adelphi: Lek Consulting; Modal Bus Shift
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.
-
8/14/2019 061. Adelphi: Lek Consulting; Modal Bus Shift
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)
-
8/14/2019 061. Adelphi: Lek Consulting; Modal Bus Shift
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)
-
8/14/2019 061. Adelphi: Lek Consulting; Modal Bus Shift
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.
-
8/14/2019 061. Adelphi: Lek Consulting; Modal Bus Shift
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
Base: all car users (1,269)
-
8/14/2019 061. Adelphi: Lek Consulting; Modal Bus Shift
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.
-
8/14/2019 061. Adelphi: Lek Consulting; Modal Bus Shift
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
Base: all car users (1,269)
-
8/14/2019 061. Adelphi: Lek Consulting; Modal Bus Shift
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.
-
8/14/2019 061. Adelphi: Lek Consulting; Modal Bus Shift
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
Base: all bus users (1,104)
-
8/14/2019 061. Adelphi: Lek Consulting; Modal Bus Shift
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.
-
8/14/2019 061. Adelphi: Lek Consulting; Modal Bus Shift
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
Base: all bus users (1,104)
-
8/14/2019 061. Adelphi: Lek Consulting; Modal Bus Shift
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.
-
8/14/2019 061. Adelphi: Lek Consulting; Modal Bus Shift
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)
-
8/14/2019 061. Adelphi: Lek Consulting; Modal Bus Shift
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.
-
8/14/2019 061. Adelphi: Lek Consulting; Modal Bus Shift
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)
-
8/14/2019 061. Adelphi: Lek Consulting; Modal Bus Shift
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.
-
8/14/2019 061. Adelphi: Lek Consulting; Modal Bus Shift
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)
-
8/14/2019 061. Adelphi: Lek Consulting; Modal Bus Shift
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%).
-
8/14/2019 061. Adelphi: Lek Consulting; Modal Bus Shift
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)
-
8/14/2019 061. Adelphi: Lek Consulting; Modal Bus Shift
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
Base: all car users (1,269)
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.
-
8/14/2019 061. Adelphi: Lek Consulting; Modal Bus Shift
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
Base: all car users (1,269)
-
8/14/2019 061. Adelphi: Lek Consulting; Modal Bus Shift
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.
-
8/14/2019 061. Adelphi: Lek Consulting; Modal Bus Shift
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
Base: all car users (1,269)
-
8/14/2019 061. Adelphi: Lek Consulting; Modal Bus Shift
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.
-
8/14/2019 061. Adelphi: Lek Consulting; Modal Bus Shift
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
Base: all bus users (1,104)
-
8/14/2019 061. Adelphi: Lek Consulting; Modal Bus Shift
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.
-
8/14/2019 061. Adelphi: Lek Consulting; Modal Bus Shift
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.
-
8/14/2019 061. Adelphi: Lek Consulting; Modal Bus Shift
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)
-
8/14/2019 061. Adelphi: Lek Consulting; Modal Bus Shift
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%
-
8/14/2019 061. Adelphi: Lek Consulting; Modal Bus Shift
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).
-
8/14/2019 061. Adelphi: Lek Consulting; Modal Bus Shift
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)
-
8/14/2019 061. Adelphi: Lek Consulting; Modal Bus Shift
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