Annex C - Detailed survey results
Wave 1 and Wave 2 Comparisons: key points
Rail usage
The distribution of frequency of use from existing rail users largely remained unchanged. However, there was an increase in responses for those travelling at least weekly. With a 47% increase of existing rail users reporting travelling at least weekly compared to Wave 1. For existing rail users, overall, the purpose of trips was consistent across each wave with leisure trips more popular compared to commuting. There was a small change from existing rail users with commuting increasing by 8 percentage points and leisure decreasing by 6 percentage points.
There was a notable change in perception regarding cost savings from the trial. There was a 14-percentage point (p.p) increase in respondents who felt they had saved money in Wave 2 compared to Wave 1. On average, off-peak ticket users perceived a £2 increase in savings, while anytime ticket users reported an average saving of £7.
In terms of new trips, there was an 11 p.p. increase in respondents making new trips between Wave 1 and Wave 2, but the frequency of these trips decreased.
Satisfaction levels remained high, at 84% in Wave 1 and 85% in Wave 2. However, there was a 9 p.p increase in respondents who felt carriages were busier in Wave 2, with a corresponding 6 p.p decrease in those who felt carriages were not as busy.
Have they switched how and when they travel?
In terms of mode shift from car and bus, there was a small percentage change between Wave 1 and Wave 2, with a 2 p.p. decrease switching from bus and a 3 p.p. decrease switching from being a car passenger. However, of those switching, 8% of respondents who switched to rail travel in Wave 2 previously made more than five return trips a week by their previous mode.
There was small change from new rail users with 2 p.p. increase in those switching from bus, with corresponding 1 p.p. decrease in those switching from other modes including car, between Wave 1 and Wave 2.
In terms of when people travelled, there was a 5 p.p. increase in respondents switching to peak travel from off-peak in Wave 2. Between the Wave 1 and Wave 2. there was a 10 percentage point increase in respondents considering the trial very important for making travel behaviour changes.
However, there was a decrease (13%) of those in Wave 2 who said they would continue to use rail compared to Wave 1. At the same time there was an increase of 5% for those who were undecided.
Will new users continue to use rail after the trial?
In Wave 2, 19% of respondents indicated they had started using rail but no longer do, compared to 16% in Wave 1 who indicated they either hadn’t decided or were unlikely to continue using rail. There was a slight decrease in the overall importance placed on the Trial as a reason for switching travel behaviours in this group of new rail users.
For non-rail users who were surveyed the reasons for not using rail remained consistent across both survey waves, with no significant differences noted.
We also asked non rail users if there was a future propensity to use rail. Fewer respondents in Wave 2 indicated a desire to use rail more, with a 7 p.p. decrease from Wave 1. However, the perceived frequency of use and purpose type remained consistent between the two survey waves.
Income and Mode Shift: Wave 2 Survey results
From Wave 2 respondents, the benefits for making new trips by rail and switching from a different mode of travel were consistent across all household income bands. With people indicating a combination of the train being quicker, more convenient and relaxing, as well as saving money on fares, car parking and fuel. There was also some awareness of the environmental benefits of doing so.
Higher income bands were more likely to be switching from private car (as a driver) compared to lower income groups. While lower income groups were likely to switch from the bus. There is variation across all income groups on the frequency of trips across the week, with a fifth to a quarter of responses making at least one new trip per week as a result of the trial.
| Income band (n=total responses for these two questions) | Q. How many trips were you making per week by this mode? | Q. Mode shift - What transport did you use most often for these trips. | Q. How have you benefited from taking these trips by rail now? |
|---|---|---|---|
| Less than £10,000* (n=9) | Two responses indicated 2 or 3 trips per week and three responses indicated 1 trip per week | Bus 33%, Car Passenger 7%, Walk 13%, Taxi 7% | Comments in survey suggest train was faster, and even if equivalent cost to other mode, they were saving time which was an important factor for this group. |
| £10,000-£19999 (n=25) | 21% stated making 2 weekly trips and 14% making 1 trips per week. | Bus 26%, Car (driver) 21%, Car (passenger) 4% , Walk 2% | Comments include saving money - fare, fuel, parking, faster, convenient, less hassle i.e. as no need to park a car. Less stressful |
| £20,000-£34999 (n=96) | 18% stated making 2 weekly trips, 17% making 1 trips per week, 12% 3 trips per week | Bus 26% , Car (driver) 27%, Car (passenger) 4%, all others 1% | Same as above - more mention of relaxing |
| £35,000-£49,999 (n=82) | 18% stated making 1 weekly trips, 18% making 2 trips per week, 12% 3 trips per week | Car (driver) 31%, Bus 19% 5%, Car (passenger) 4%, Cycling 2%, all others 1% | Same as above as well as - can work on train, it is safer, more options - e.g. Edinburgh for fun as cheaper, good for environment |
| £50,000-£74,999 (n=72) | 23% stated making 1 weekly trips, 22% making 2 new trips per week, 10% 3 trips per week | Car (driver) 40%, Bus 17%, Car (passenger) 5% 2% Subway, all others 1% | Same as above - positive comments about quicker, convenient, saving money etc. |
| £75,000-£99,999 (n=34) | 24% stated making 1 weekly trips, 16% making 2 trips per week, 11% 3 trips per week | Car (driver) 40%, Bus 14% Car (passenger) 3%, Cycle 2% | Again quicker, can do work etc. on train, relaxing, environment, savings - fuel, fare 'with trains being cheaper in the morning now, I have got the train more regularly than drive'. |
| More than £100,000 (n=22) | 21% stated making 1 weekly trips, 21% making 2 trips per week, 21% 3 trips per week | Car (driver) 52%, Car (passenger), 9%, Bus 3%, Subway 3% | Again, saving money, speed, relaxing, convenience etc. |
| Prefer not to say (n=22) | 31% stated making 1 weekly trips, 23% making 2 trips per week, 15% 3 trips per week | Car (driver) 50%, Bus 12%, Car (passenger), 19% Other 4% | As above - as well as better mental health/health as walking more etc. |
*Income bands the response is less than 10
The Trial has resulted in immediate savings from existing rail travellers and has generated new trips, as well as attracting new rail travellers. For example, in Wave 2, 81% (n=330) of new rail users indicated that they started to use rail as part of the trial and continue to do so.
Since the introduction of the trial, 83% (n=695) of respondents in Wave 2 indicated making more trips, with 52% of these trips classed as trips that were previously made by another mode. The remaining 48% (n=333) were recorded as new trips that were not previously made. There was also an 11 p.p. increase in respondents making new trips between Wave 1 and Wave 2, but the frequency of these trips decreased.
There was a notable change in perception regarding cost savings from the Trial. There was a 14 percentage point (p.p) increase in respondents who felt they had saved money in Wave 2 compared to Wave 1. On average, off-peak ticket users perceived a £2 increase in savings, while anytime ticket users reported an average saving of £7.
Those who used to purchase an anytime ticket before the Trail saved on average £18.75. with lowest household incomes and highest household incomes reporting saving the most. Not surprisingly those who worked full-time (£14.14) were one of the highest savers, alongside those in education (£19.50).
We also asked non rail users if there was a future propensity to use rail. Fewer respondents in Wave 2 indicated a desire to use rail more, with a 7 p.p. decrease from Wave 1. However, the perceived frequency of use and purpose type remained consistent between the two survey waves
Socio-demographic analysis
This section examines the characteristics of the different groups of users to draw out the socio-demographic impact of the trial. It looks at 3 main factors: Income, Employment status and Age.
Income
Existing rail users who didn’t change their behaviour were more concentrated in the income group above average income (£35,000 to £49,999) than the population as a whole but the proportions within the middle income groups (£20,000 to £49,000) was broadly the same for all (45%,47%,47% and 47%). New rail users were more likely to be in lower (less than £35,000) income groups (48%) than existing users (37%,37%). Non-rail users were more likely to be in very low income groups (28%) compared with both groups of existing users (18%, 12%) and new rail users (20%). So there is some moderate evidence that the trial has encouraged rail use amongst low to middle income households whilst primarily benefiting existing users who tended to be above average income.
Employment status
New rail users were less likely to be working full time (49%) compared with both groups of existing rail users (56%,67%) and non-rail users (29%) though it is notable that the highest group in employment is existing users who changed their behaviour (83% of whom made additional trips). New users are more likely to be retired (18%) than existing (15%, 8%) users but the non-users are much more likely to be retired (33%). Part time work is constant across all groups, and the unemployed are more likely to be non-users. There is thus strong evidence that the trial has helped existing users who are in work and encouraged greater rail travel amongst this group but has had a lower impact in encouraging full-time workers who did not use rail to use it.
Age
The age profile of new rail users is very similar to that of existing users who did not change their behaviour but with a greater proportion of people over 65 compared with existing users. Existing users who did change their behaviour tend to be younger (with the majority in the 31-40 age group). 16-21 year olds (who are eligible for concessionary bus travel) make up a small proportion of all groups. As such there is weak evidence that the trial has encouraged older users to use rail and has encouraged 31 to 40 year old existing users to travel more by rail.