Research and analysis

Increasing bus patronage through an audience strategy

Published 7 June 2023

Introduction

Purpose and objectives of this report

The Department for Transport (DfT) commissioned Yonder Consulting Ltd to undertake an audience segmentation of England in relation to what would encourage greater usage of the bus.

The overall objective of the research was to increase bus usage by being able to develop strategies and policies that would drive behaviour change. The research objectives were:

1. Segment current and potential bus users based on attitudes and behaviours relating to bus travel
2. Understand segments’ propensity to use the bus
3. Bring segments to life via personas illustrating their differing attitudes towards the bus
4. Allow the DfT and stakeholders to understand what drives behaviour by segment to develop policy to influence behaviour

This document is a summary of the key findings from this research. It aims to provide an overview of the key areas that drive bus patronage for each segment for relevant stakeholders such as policy makers and bus operators, as well as for members of the interested public.

Methodology

The methodology to accomplish the research objectives included the following:

1. Rapid evidence review to identify factors which influence transport modal choice for inclusion in quantitative questionnaire
2. Telephone establishment survey to survey those without internet access and establish an accurate size of the current bus market
3. Quantitative survey of 8000 people in England, providing primary data from which to understand attitudes towards transport and what influences transport behaviour
4. Segmentation of England which clustered groups of people into segments, based upon key attitudes to bus and transport choice
5. Qualitative focus groups to bring segments to life and understand the ‘why’ behind behaviours and attitudes

This report details the findings from phases 3 to 5 as these answered the overall objective of the study. Phases 1 and 2 were designed to inform the inputs into phases 3 to 5, rather than being a key output in and of themselves.

A more detailed summary of each phase is below:

Rapid evidence review (RER)

This was a review of 55 literature sources including government whitepapers and primary research. Literature was reviewed to consolidate a list of factors which were shown to influence transport modal choice and could therefore be used to understand drivers and barriers to bus usage. These factors then informed the questionnaire and segmentation design.

Telephone establishment survey

This was a short telephone survey among a nationally representative sample to identify the size of the current and future car and bus market. This was later used to ensure that our online survey was truly representative of current bus and car users.

Quantitative survey

A 20 minute online survey was run with an 8000 strong, nationally representative sample of England. Quotas were placed in fieldwork to be nationally representative of the aged 16 plus England population in terms of age, gender, region, social grade and ethnicity. Further weights were applied to the sample to ensure it was also representative in terms of working status, housing tenure, car ownership and frequency of bus usage. It established current travel behaviours, importance of behavioural influences in transport modal choice, and attitudes towards the bus. This was used to segment the population into 6 segments. The survey questionnaire can be found in the appendix to this report.

Segmentation creation

This phase took the data from the quantitative survey and segmented the sample into 6 segments based on common attitudes towards bus and transport choice. A segmentation is a statistical technique that forms clusters of individuals within survey data based on common attitudes. To create these segments, we:

1. Selected relevant questions for building the segmentation based on the original objectives. The questions selected asked about how important different factors were in driving transport choice, attitudes towards bus, and attitudes towards the car

2. Conducted a data-led factor analysis. This was a technique to identify patterns and similarities between different factors and attitudes. The factor analysis identified 5 overarching factors at Q13 (importance of factors in choosing transport mode), and Q16 (attitudes towards bus). These factors grouped together attitudinal statements into key themes. These became the building blocks for the segmentation clusters

3. Conducted a cluster analysis based on factors. This was a data-led approach that identified natural clusters of individuals within the data based on their responses to these questions. Several options were explored including a 4, 5, 6, and 7 segment solution. The 6 segment solution was decided on because the 4 and 5 segment solutions were less differentiating on current bus usage, did not contain a distinct ‘commuter’ segment, and did not contain a distinct rejector segment. The 7 segment solution was rejected as it created a bland seventh segment which did not stand out on any key attributes, meaning it would be difficult to define and target messages and policies

This phase provided us with 6 distinct segments that varied on current and future usage of the bus, what is important at driving transport choice, and their attitudes towards bus and car.

Qualitative focus groups

This phase involved 6 1.5 hour focus groups (1 per segment) via Zoom. These groups aimed to bring each segment to life and explain the key attitudes and needs that should be leveraged to drive future bus patronage. The focus groups were moderated by a qualitative researcher who utilised a discussion guide to guide the conversation. The groups reflected the typical demographics of each segment and included infrequent and non-users of the bus, to gain insight which supports the quantitative data, particularly regarding what would encourage further bus usage within that segment. All quotations in this document come from these focus groups.

Limitations of methodology

All research aims to get as close to the truth as possible, but due to practical constraints, there will always be some limitations or caveats that we need to place on the data and what it represents.

For this research, the chief caveats or limitations were:

Use of an online quantitative survey

By definition, conducting research online means that those who do not have access to the internet are excluded. However, to mitigate the impact of this methodology, a telephone establishment survey was conducted to size the market. The findings from the telephone establishment survey were applied to the final quantitative data set to ensure it was representative of England, not just those who have access to the internet.

Fieldwork dates

2021 saw travel behaviours and attitudes in flux, with COVID-19 restrictions being lifted formally in July 2021. This would impact people’s travel behaviours and attitudes. The fieldwork period was therefore planned for October 2021, nearly 3 months after legal restrictions on social contact were removed. This aimed to provide some time for travel behaviour to return to a more stable place.

Margin of error

This survey used a sample size of 8000 people to represent the entire of England aged 16 plus. As such, there will always be an element of sampling error. However, this survey mitigated risks of not being representative by ensuring it surveyed representative proportions of different ages, genders, regions, social grades and ethnic groups. The margin of error is to be estimated at + or - 1% when looking at the national picture, and approximately 4-6% when looking at each segment

A note on reporting on percentages

Percentages are rounded up to 0 decimal places. This means in some cases data will not always add up to 100%.

Significance testing

Significance testing is applied throughout. A T-Test is used to compare segments to the total sample. A significance level of 0.05 has been used throughout. Where differences are reported to be significant, this indicates that there is a less than 5% change that the difference observed is due to chance.

Executive summary

At a national level, these were the key findings of the research:

Overcoming preference for car was the number one challenge in increasing bus patronage

• car was by far the most used mode of transport, given its ability to address universal needs of transport. 80% of English adults (aged 16 plus) were found to have used the car at least once a fortnight. Although the bus was the next most frequently used mode of transport, only 23% of adults were shown to have used the bus at least once per fortnight

The bus must meet fundamental and universal transport needs

• to compete against car in the long term, bus would need to deliver on the fundamental and universal transport needs of reliability, ease of completing journeys, safety, journey time and flexibility
• the bus was perceived in the research to underperform on reliability, overall journey time, and flexibility. These would be the key areas to focus on improving

Six segments were identified within the population that differed based on their attitudes towards bus and transport

• to encourage greater usage of the bus, stakeholders could tailor policies and marketing messages towards individual segments based on what is more likely to motivate them to use the bus
• the research identified 6 distinct segments in the population which vary on their likelihood to use the bus now and in the future, and their attitudes to transport and bus

Segments: An executive summary

For all segments, as with the general population, reliability, journey time and flexibility were key areas that were important but that the bus was seen to have underperformed in. However, among each segment there were other areas that were identified as important factors to improve bus’ performance in.

Sustainable urbanites

This segment was younger (typically under 55), more likely to live in cities or suburban areas (especially in London), and more likely to be in full-time work or studying. They were the segment most likely to use the bus, and most likely to want to use it again in the future. Compared to the rest of the population, the cost of transport, ticketing, payment, and environmental factors were important drivers of transport choice. Improving these could be effective at driving bus patronage for this audience.

Pragmatic professionals

This segment was younger (typically under 55), comprised of more men, and more likely to be in full-time work. They were the segment with the second highest likelihood to use the bus, and the second most likely to use the bus in future. As with the general population, reliability and journey time were key areas for improvement in bus services, especially given their need for reliable transport to work.

Anxious vulnerables

This segment was typically composed of older (typically over 55) white women of lower social grades. They tended to be of households with lower-than-average income levels, more likely to be unemployed or homemakers, and most likely to report a chronic health issue. Their current and future intended usage of the bus was in line with the national average. Compared to the rest of the population, the risk from infection and protection from anti-social behaviour on the bus were more important. Improving these factors could be effective in driving bus patronage for this audience.

Open-minded potentials

This segment was typically composed of older (typically over 55) white women of higher social grades. They were also more likely to live in rural areas. Their current levels of bus usage and future intent to use the bus was slightly lower than the national average. Perceptions of bus reliability and journey time were poorer among this audience compared to the general population. These could be priority areas of improvement to drive bus patronage for this audience.

Apprehensive avoiders

This segment was typically over 35 and from lower socio-economic backgrounds. They were also more likely to live in towns and villages than the national average. Their levels of bus usage and future intent to use the bus were far lower than the national average. For this audience, the bus performed far less strongly for interconnectivity and simplicity of journey planning. These factors were also important in transport choice for this audience and could be priority areas of improvement to drive bus patronage.

Car-loving critics

This segment was typically older men in villages or rural areas (typically aged over 55). Their levels of bus usage and future intent to use the bus were the lowest of all segments. As with the national average, reliability, flexibility, and ease of journey were important to them but the bus performed poorly. However, unlike the national picture, little else was important to this audience in driving transport choice. This suggests that it would be difficult to design policies or messages to specifically drive bus patronage among this audience.

The challenge in improving bus patronage

To increase bus patronage, efforts would need to be placed in improving bus’ performance against car

To increase bus patronage, one must understand which modes are used most frequently, and what barriers to bus usage exist. The research suggested that bus primarily needs to compete against car to drive greater bus patronage. This is because car is by far the most frequently used mode of transport and was used frequently by 8 in 10 people in England. Bus however was used frequently by only 1 in 4.

Table 1: Frequency of transport choice. Among all respondents^{[footnote 1]}

	NET: Frequent (at least once per fortnight)	NET: Infrequent (once a month or less frequently)	NET: Never
Car	80%	9%	11%
Bus	23%	35%	42%
Bicycle	16%	17%	67%
Train	14%	43%	43%
Taxi or minicab	12%	42%	46%
Tube/Metro/City underground service	10%	19%	70%
Van	6%	8%	86%
Tram	4%	11%	85%
Motorbike	4%	3%	93%
Scooter/E-Scooter	3%	4%	94%

Furthermore, car was the most frequently used mode of transport for each type of journey, suggesting that its perceived benefits over bus apply to all journey types. Therefore, bus needs to overcome preference for car.

Table 2: Main mode of transport for journey type. Among all who took each type of journey^{[footnote 2]}

	Car	Bus	Train	NET: Other
Shopping trips (grocery)	78%	10%	1%	10%
Travelling for leisure (visiting friends/ family, visiting restaurants/bars, visiting sport, music, or leisure venues etc.)	68%	11%	7%	14%
Shopping trips (other than grocery)	75%	11%	3%	12%
Travelling on personal business (for example, doctor, gym, job interview, bank etc.)	71%	10%	4%	16%
Commuting to or from work or education	61%	12%	9%	19%
Caretaking responsibilities (for example, school run, vulnerable and elderly relatives)	84%	4%	1%	9%
Travelling on company business (for example, to a meeting)	57%	7%	16%	20%

Bus usage would be unlikely to increase without intervention

The research showed that infrequent or non-users of the bus were unlikely to use bus in the future. Six in 10 infrequent users, and 9 in 10 non-users said that they would be unlikely to use the bus in the future. This suggested that if no intervention were to happen, it would be likely that future bus users would remain composed of those who currently use the bus, therefore interventions would be required to change opinions and behaviours of infrequent and non-users of the bus.

Table 3: Likelihood to use the bus in the future. Among those who use the bus frequently, infrequently and never^{[footnote 3]}

	NET: Unlikely	Neither Likely nor unlikely	NET: Likely	Don’t know
Total	56%	7%	33%	4%
Use bus frequently (At least fortnightly)	5%	5%	89%	2%
Use bus infrequently (Less often than fortnightly)	57%	12%	26%	5%
Never use bus	85%	4%	8%	4%

How to drive future bus patronage

To drive greater patronage of the bus, people would need to be encouraged to switch from car. Therefore, we need to identify which factors are important when choosing which form of transport to take. This will help stakeholders to prioritise the key factors that should be focused on to encourage people to choose the bus over another form of transport.

The research showed that the factors most frequently seen as important when choosing modes of transport were:

1. How reliable my mode of transport is (88% agreed)
2. How easy or difficult it is to complete my journey (82% agreed)
3. How safe or unsafe I feel on my journey (75% agreed)
4. Overall journey time (74% agreed)
5. Ability to travel flexibly, without any prior planning (72% agreed)

Figure 1: Importance of factors in transport choice (Regardless of mode - % Agree). Among all respondents^{[footnote 4]}

Factor	Importance in driving transport choice (% agree)
How reliable my mode of transport is	88%
How easy or difficult it is to complete my journey	82%
How safe or unsafe I feel on my journey	75%
Overall journey time	88%
Ability to travel flexibly, without any prior planning	72%
How much I need to carry	70%
How easy or difficult it is to plan my journey	69%
Cleanliness of the travel environment	69%
Level of comfort during my journey	68%
The distance between my house and the journey start point	67%
Having a personal space during my journey	67%
Overall cost of journey	66%
Avoiding antisocial behaviour on my journey	65%
Waiting times for local transport	64%
Risk from viruses/other infections	62%
Availability of public transport options to my destination	59%
Real-time information about my journey	59%
Risk of personal injury	57%
Ability to relax during my journey	53%
How I pay for my journey	48%
How easy or difficult it is to get into and out of the transport vehicle	46%
The environmental impact of my mode of transport	35%
Ability to interact with others during my journey	14%
Ability to work during my journey	13%
How others judge me by how I travel	10%

Table 4: Importance of factors in transport choice (Regardless of mode - % Agree). Among all respondents

Factor	Importance in driving transport choice (% agree)
How reliable my mode of transport is	88%
How easy or difficult it is to complete my journey	82%
How safe or unsafe I feel on my journey	75%
Overall journey time	74%
Ability to travel flexibly, without any prior planning	72%
How much I need to carry	70%
How easy or difficult it is to plan my journey	69%
Cleanliness of the travel environment	69%
Level of comfort during my journey	68%
The distance between my house and the journey start point	67%
Having a personal space during my journey	67%
Overall cost of journey	66%
Avoiding antisocial behaviour on my journey	65%
Waiting times for local public transport	64%
Risk from viruses/other infections	62%
Availability of public transport options to my destination	59%
Real-time information about my journey	59%
Risk of personal injury	57%
Ability to relax during my journey	53%
How I pay for my journey	48%
How easy or difficult it is to get into and out of the transport vehicle	46%
The environmental impact of my mode of transport	35%
Ability to interact with others during my journey	14%
Ability to work during my journey	13%
How others judge me for how I travel	10%

Now that the primary factors that drive transport choice have been established, it is also important to understand how bus performs against these. This will enable stakeholders to understand what are the:

Areas to improve

This would contain factors that have above average importance in driving transport choice, but where the bus was seen to perform poorly. These would be the primary areas to focus on to improve bus patronage.^{[footnote 5]}

Areas to maintain

This would contain factors that have above average importance in driving transport choice, and the bus was seen to perform well. These would be areas to maintain bus’ current performance level.

The following factors were identified in the research as key areas to improve. These should be the priority areas to focus on (in order of importance) to drive greater bus patronage at a national level.

1. Reliability of travel
2. Journey time
3. Flexibility of travel
4. Being able to carry items
5. Cleanliness
6. Comfort
7. Having personal space
8. Cost
9. Avoiding anti-social behaviour
10. Frequency
11. Reducing risk from infection

These factors were also identified in the qualitative research as key areas to improve. When speaking about reliability, journey time, and flexibility, people said:

I’ve had many an occasion when the bus hasn’t turned up or it’s turned up late. It’s the unreliability of them that worries me.

Everything’s so fast paced now that the idea of waiting 20 minutes for a bus… I just don’t have the patience for that, I’d rather jump in the car.

Furthermore, car was frequently referenced spontaneously in comparison to bus, confirming that bus would need to compete against the benefits that car offers.

Table 5: Importance of factors in driving transport choice, and performance of bus. Among all respondents^{[footnote 6]}

Factor[footnote 7]	Importance in driving transport choice (% agree)	Bus performance (% agree bus performs well)
Reliability of travel	88%	27%
Journey time	74%	28%
Flexibility of travel	72%	38%
Being able to carry items	70%	13%
Cleanliness	69%	37%
Comfort	68%	38%
Having personal space	67%	21%
Cost	66%	21%
Avoiding anti-social behaviour	65%	32%
Frequency	64%	22%
Reducing risk from infection	62%	13%

The following factors were identified in the research as key areas to maintain. These are important at driving transport choice, and while bus was shown to currently perform well here, it would be important to maintain bus’ performance on these measures to retain current levels of bus patronage nationally. If new interventions are created, they should not cause detrimental impact on the following factors:

1. Ease of journey (via inter-connectivity of public transport services)
2. Safety from others
3. Simplicity of journey planning
4. Availability of nearby bus stops
5. Accessibility (how easy or difficult it is to get into and out of the transport vehicle)
6. Availability of bus routes
7. Availability of real-time information

Table 6: Importance of factors in driving transport choice, and performance of bus. Among all respondents^{[footnote 8]}

Factor	Importance in driving transport choice (% agree)	Bus performance (% agree bus performs well)
Ease of journey (via inter-connectivity of public transport services)	82%	45%
Safety from others	75%	65%
Simplicity of journey planning	69%	44%
Availability of nearby bus stops	67%	74%
Accessibility (among those with any health condition)	59%	55%
Availability of bus routes	59%	46%
Availability of real-time information	59%	43%

The challenge in improving bus patronage: key takeaways

• while the bus was the second most frequently used mode of transport, car was used far more frequently. Bus would therefore need to offer a viable alternative to car to increase bus patronage
• bus usage would be unlikely to increase without intervention. This is because infrequent or non-users of the bus reported being unlikely to use buses in the future. This suggests that significant intervention would be required to change opinions and behaviours of infrequent and non-users of the bus
• overall, the research suggested that to drive bus patronage, policy makers and operators should focus on the key areas that drive transport choice, and that bus performs poorly on. The most important factors to focus on primarily would therefore be reliability, journey time and flexibility of travel

Introducing a segmented approach to improving bus patronage

The research identified key areas to focus on at a national level to drive bus patronage (reliability, journey time, and flexibility). However, not everyone has the same attitudes towards transport or the same motivations to choose different modes of transport. To understand what would drive different individuals to use the bus more often, the research went beyond the national picture to understand the nuanced needs of different audiences.

To reach a wider pool of potential bus users and understand their nuanced needs, Yonder created a segmentation that will enable stakeholders to tailor policies and messages for maximum impact. From the quantitative survey, Yonder identified 6 unique segments that differentiated on current and future usage of the bus, as well as what would drive them to take the bus more frequently.

For more detail on how these segments were created, see the [Methodology section](.

Introducing the segments

For all segments, as with the general population, reliability, journey time and flexibility were key areas that were important but needed improving. However, there were other specific areas that were important factors to improve on for individual segments.

Sustainable urbanites

This segment was younger (typically under 55), more likely to live in cities or suburban areas (especially in London), and more likely to be in full-time work or studying. They were the segment most likely to use the bus, and most likely to want to use it again in the future. Compared to the rest of the population, cost of transport, ticketing, payment, and environmental factors were important drivers of transport choice. Improving these could be effective at driving bus patronage for this audience.

Pragmatic professionals

This segment was younger (typically under 55), comprised of more men, and more likely to be in full-time work. They were the segment with the second highest likelihood to use the bus, and the second most likely to use the bus in future. As with the general population, reliability and journey time were key areas for improvement in bus services, especially given their need for reliable work transport.

Anxious vulnerables

This segment was typically composed of older (typically over 55) white women of lower social grades. They tended to be of households with lower-than-average income levels, more likely to be unemployed or homemakers, and most likely to report a chronic health issue. Their current and future intended usage of the bus was in line with the national average. Compared to the rest of the population, the risk from infection and protection from anti-social behaviour on the bus were more important. Improving these could be effective in driving bus patronage for this audience.

Open-minded potentials

This segment was typically composed of older (typically over 55) white women of higher social grades. They were also more likely to live in rural areas. Their current levels of bus usage and future intent to use the bus was slightly lower than the national average. Perceptions of bus reliability and journey time were poorer among this audience compared to the general population. These could be priority areas of improvement to drive bus patronage for this audience.

Apprehensive avoiders

This segment was typically over 35 and from lower socio-economic backgrounds. They were also more likely to live in towns and villages than the national average. Their levels of bus usage and future intent to use the bus were significantly lower than the national average. For this audience, bus performed far less strongly for interconnectivity and simplicity of journey planning. These factors were important in transport choice for this audience and could be priority areas of improvement to drive bus patronage.

Car-loving critics

This segment was typically older men in villages or rural areas (typically aged over 55). Their levels of bus usage and future intent to use the bus were the lowest of all segments. As with the national average, reliability, flexibility, and ease of journey were important to them but bus performed poorly. However, unlike the national picture, little else was important to this audience in driving transport choice. This suggests that it would be difficult to design policies or messages to drive bus patronage specifically among this audience.

Segments in depth

Segment socio-demographics

The segments were designed based on what motivates them to choose transport modes, as well as their attitudes towards bus and car. The research found that each segment had a slightly different socio-demographic profile. These profiles can help stakeholders tailor marketing and policy messages based on what most motivates certain audiences.

Segments can be targeted based on their differing age profiles, and to a lesser extent gender and ethnicity

There was some differentiation in gender by segments. Pragmatic professionals and car-loving critics skewed towards men, while anxious vulnerables and open-minded potentials were more likely to be women. This could help stakeholders tailor messages towards audiences in their local area which they know skew towards either gender. Combining this insight with age will help stakeholders tailor policies more accurately, as there was a strong skew in age by different audiences.

Sustainable urbanites, and pragmatic professionals were the youngest audiences. apprehensive avoiders were more likely to be aged over 35, and anxious vulnerables, open-minded potentials and car-loving critics were more likely than the national average to be aged over 55.

Segments differed in ethnic diversity. Sustainable urbanites had higher than average proportions of those from ethnic minorities. For pragmatic professionals and anxious vulnerables the ethnic profile was broadly in line with the national average. Open-minded potentials, apprehensive avoiders and car-loving critics were more likely than the national average to be white.

Table 7: Gender. Among all respondents and by segment^{[footnote 9]}

	Male	Female
All respondents	49%	51%
Sustainable urbanites	49%	50%
Pragmatic professionals	59% (significantly higher than total)[footnote 10]	41% (significantly lower than total)
Anxious vulnerables	34% (significantly lower than total)	65% (significantly higher than total)
Open-minded potentials	43% (significantly lower than total)	57% (significantly higher than total)
Apprehensive avoiders	51%	48%
Car-loving critics	62% (significantly higher than total)	38% (significantly lower than total)

Table 8: Age. Among all respondents and by segment^{[footnote 11]}

	NET: 16-34	NET: 35-54	NET: 55+	Average age
All respondents	30%	32%	38%	48%
Sustainable urbanites	39% (significantly higher than total)	37% (significantly higher than total)	24% (significantly lower than total)	42 (significantly lower than total)
Pragmatic professionals	39% (significantly higher than total)	35%	26% (significantly lower than total)	43 (significantly lower than total)
Anxious vulnerables	25% (significantly lower than total)	34%	41% (significantly higher than total)	50 (significantly higher than total)
Open-minded potentials	26% (significantly lower than total)	24% (significantly lower than total)	50% (significantly higher than total)	52 (significantly higher than total)
Apprehensive avoiders	20% (significantly lower than total)	36% (significantly higher than total)	44% (significantly higher than total)	51 (significantly higher than total)
Car-loving critics	22% (significantly lower than total)	26% (significantly lower than total)	52% (significantly higher than total)	53 (significantly higher than total)

Table 9: Ethnicity. Among all respondents and by segment

	NET: White	NET: Ethnic minority	NET: Mixed or multiple ethnic groups	NET: Other ethnic group
All respondents	85%	14%	2%	8%	1%
Sustainable urbanites	77% (significantly lower than total)	22% (significantly higher than total)	3%	12% (significantly higher than total)	1%
Pragmatic professionals	83%	16%	2%	9%	1%
Anxious vulnerables	87%	13%	3%	7%	1%
Open-minded potentials	90% (significantly higher than total)	9% (significantly lower than total)	1%	5% (significantly lower than total)	1%
Apprehensive avoiders	89% (significantly higher than total)	10% (significantly lower than total)	2%	5% (significantly lower than total)	1%
Car-loving critics	91% (significantly higher than total)	8% (significantly lower than total)	2%	5% (significantly lower than total)	1%

Anxious vulnerables and apprehensive avoiders may need additional support due to higher prevalence of health conditions

The segments differed on prevalence of health conditions. Health conditions can impact ability to travel and attitudes towards transport. The research showed that fewer sustainable urbanites and pragmatic professionals had health conditions compared to the national average. Anxious vulnerables in particular, but also apprehensive avoiders were more likely to have health conditions compared to the national average. This means that stakeholders may need to put additional accessibility and hygiene protocols in place if speaking to or providing for these segments.

Table 10: Prevalence of health conditions. Among all respondents and by segment ^{[footnote 12]}

	NET: Any health condition	Mental condition	Physical condition	Disability	Other health condition	No health condition
All respondents	22%	9%	14%	7%	1%	75%
Sustainable urbanites	18% (significantly lower than total)	9%	10%	6%	1%	80% (significantly higher than total)
Pragmatic professionals	13% (significantly lower than total)	5% (significantly lower than total)	7% (significantly lower than total)	3% (significantly lower than total)	1%	85% (significantly higher than total)
Anxious vulnerables	34% (significantly higher than total)	16% (significantly higher than total)	22% (significantly higher than total)	11% (significantly higher than total)	2% (significantly higher than total)	62%
Open-minded potentials	20%	7% (significantly lower than total)	13%	6%	1%	77%
Apprehensive avoiders	27% (significantly higher than total)	11% (significantly higher than total)	19% (significantly higher than total)	10% (significantly higher than total)	1%	70% (significantly lower than total)
Car-loving critics	21%	7% (significantly lower than total)	14%	6%	0%	78%

The segments differentiated on financial and working status meaning their requirements for transport and cost should be taken into account when aiming to increase bus usage

Sustainable urbanites and pragmatic professionals were more likely than the average to be working and had above average income. The more limited nature of their free time and work demands may mean that reliability, speed, and punctuality could be of greater importance.

Anxious vulnerables and apprehensive avoiders on the other hand were less likely to be in work and had below average incomes. Their financial status could impact how important cost is in driving transport choice and their ability to pay.

Table 11: Average combined household income (£). Among all respondents and by segment^{[footnote 13]}

	Average household income (£)
All respondents	£35,000
Sustainable urbanites	£37,000 (significantly higher than total)
Pragmatic professionals	£41,000 (significantly higher than total)
Anxious vulnerables	£27,000 (significantly lower than total)
Open-minded potentials	£37,000 (significantly higher than total)
Apprehensive avoiders	£30,000 (significantly lower than total)
Car-loving critics	£37,000 (significantly higher than total)

Table 12: Working status. Among all respondents and by segment^{[footnote 14]}

	NET: Working	NET: Not working	Retired on a state pension only	Retired with a private pension
All respondents	58%	42%	5%	16%
Sustainable urbanites	66% (significantly higher than total)	34% (significantly lower than total)	3% (significantly lower than total)	8% (significantly lower than total)
Pragmatic professionals	69% (significantly higher than total)	31% (significantly lower than total)	2% (significantly lower than total)	13% (significantly lower than total)
Anxious vulnerables	50% (significantly lower than total)	50% (significantly higher than total)	9% (significantly higher than total)	15%
Open-minded potentials	53% (significantly lower than total)	47% (significantly higher than total)	6%	26% (significantly higher than total)
Apprehensive avoiders	53% (significantly lower than total)	47% (significantly higher than total)	6%	17%
Car-loving critics	54%	46%	4%	27% (significantly higher than total)

Regional differences by segment can explain their differing opinions of the bus. It indicates that local infrastructural change would be required to meet the fundamental transport needs for each segment

As their name suggests, sustainable urbanites were the segment most likely to live in inner cities. They were also significantly more likely to live in London compared to the national average. Given that they live in urban areas, including London, this suggests that they have higher than average access to more frequent and affordable public transport which could contribute to their positive attitudes towards the bus. Pragmatic professionals and anxious vulnerables lived across the country, with the majority living in suburban areas or towns. Open-minded potentials, apprehensive avoiders and car-loving critics were less likely than the national average to live in inner city areas, and were more likely to live in towns, villages, or rural areas. This suggests that there may have been limited public transport available in their local areas compared to segments such as the sustainable urbanites. Regional information can be used by stakeholders to tailor messages and policies to segments which are most likely to live in certain regions.

Table 13: Region. Among all respondents and by segment^{[footnote 15]}

	North East	North West	Yorkshire and the Humber	West Midlands	East Midlands	East of England	London	South East	South West
All respondents	5%	13%	10%	10%	9%	11%	16%	16%	10%
Sustainable urbanites	4%	11%	9%	9% (significantly lower than total)	7%	10%	27% (significantly higher than total)	14%	9%
Pragmatic professionals	5%	11%	9%	11%	10%	9% (significantly lower than total)	17%	17%	10%
Anxious vulnerables	6%	12%	11%	8% (significantly lower than total)	7%	12%	15%	18%	10%
Open-minded potentials	4%	15%	10%	12%	7%	11%	12% (significantly lower than total)	17%	10%
Apprehensive avoiders	5%	15%	9%	12%	10%	12%	10% (significantly lower than total)	16%	11%
Car-loving critics	4%	15%	11%	9%	10%	14%	9%	15%	12%

Table 14: Location. Among all respondents and by segment^{[footnote 16]}

	NET: An inner city area/ a suburban area	NET: A town/ a village/ rural or countryside
All respondents	46%	54%
Sustainable urbanites	56% (significantly higher than total)	44% (significantly lower than total)
Pragmatic professionals	49% (significantly higher than total)	51% (significantly lower than total)
Anxious vulnerables	44%	56%
Open-minded potentials	43%	57%
Apprehensive avoiders	40% (significantly lower than total)	60% (significantly higher than total)
Car-loving critics	40% (significantly lower than total)	60% (significantly higher than total)

Segment socio-demographics: key takeaways

• sustainable urbanites were more likely to be younger and living in cities. They were relatively affluent and healthy people in full-time work. Their lack of vulnerabilities combined with their probable access to frequent city public transport is likely related to their high opinion and high usage of bus services

• pragmatic professionals were the most affluent segment, more likely than the average to be in full-time work, and male. They also had low incidence of health problems meaning they were unlikely to be in vulnerable circumstances that could impact their transport abilities. The majority of this segment lived in suburban areas or towns

• anxious vulnerables were more likely to be older and female. This segment was most likely to have health problems, least likely to be in work and had the lowest average annual income. Their financial and health vulnerabilities could impact their transport needs

• open-minded potentials were more likely to be older women living in villages or rural areas. This means that public transport in their local area may be less frequent than for other segments. While they were more likely than the national average to be retired, they were more likely to have comfortable circumstances with a lower-than-average prevalence of health conditions and a higher-than-average income

• apprehensive avoiders were older than the national average and more likely to be female. They were more likely than the national average to have a health condition and had a lower-than-average annual income. They were more likely to live in towns or villages compared to the national average and less likely to live in inner-city areas. This suggests that they may have less access to public transport services in their area

• car-loving critics were older than the national average and more likely to be male. They had average incomes, were more likely to live in villages, and less likely to live in inner city areas. This suggests that they may have less access to public transport services in their area

Current and future transport behaviour

To help stakeholders prioritise which segments to target to increase bus usage, the research looked at current and future intended bus usage. This would allow stakeholders to understand which segments would be easy to convert or increase bus usage (because they already had high appetite), and which segments would be more of a challenge.

Current and future intended bus usage varied by segment, allowing stakeholders to identify ‘easy-win’ versus more challenging segments to convert

The research showed that segments who had high current usage of the bus also had high future intended usage of the bus. Similarly, those with lower current usage had low likelihood to use the bus in the future. This suggests that without intervention, current usage patterns would remain the same.

Sustainable urbanites had the highest current and future intended usage of the bus. This was significantly higher than any other segment. There were however some within this segment that did not use the bus frequently. Therefore, there would still be opportunity to convert or increase frequency of use within this audience. Their high appetite for the bus means that non-users in this segment would likely be the easiest to convert.

Pragmatic professionals and anxious vulnerables had the next highest current and future intended usage of the bus, suggesting they would be the next easiest to convert. However, the differences identified in their socio-demographic profile suggests that differing policies and messaging would be required to convert these 2 audiences. Open-minded potentials, apprehensive avoiders and car-loving critics all had lower than average current and future intended usage. Apprehensive avoiders and car-loving critics had the lowest levels of current and future usage, suggesting they would be the most challenging to convert.

Table 15: Frequency of bus use. Among all respondents and by segment^{[footnote 17]}

	Frequently (at least once a fortnight)	Infrequently (less often than once a fortnight)	Never use
All respondents	23%	35%	42%
Sustainable urbanites	43% (significantly higher than total)	33%	23% (significantly lower than total)
Pragmatic professionals	26%	37%	37% (significantly lower than total)
Anxious vulnerables	23%	37%	40%
Open-minded potentials	18% (significantly lower than total)	40% (significantly higher than total)	42%
Apprehensive avoiders	12% (significantly lower than total)	34%	54% (significantly higher than total)
Car-loving critics	11% (significantly lower than total)	29% (significantly lower than total)	60% (significantly higher than total)

Table 16: Likelihood to use the bus in the future. Among all respondents and by segment^{[footnote 18]}

	Likelihood (Mean average on a scale of 0 = extremely unlikely, and 10 = extremely likely)
All respondents	3.8
Sustainable urbanites	6.00 (significantly higher than total)
Pragmatic professionals	4.20 (significantly higher than total)
Anxious vulnerables	4.00
Open-minded potentials	3.50 (significantly lower than total)
Apprehensive avoiders	2.30 (significantly lower than total)
Car-loving critics	2.10 (significantly lower than total)

Car ownership varied by segment, contributing to how easy or difficult segments would be to convert

The research found that preference for car was a key challenge to overcome given that the car is used more frequently than the bus. Sustainable urbanites, pragmatic professionals, and anxious vulnerables were all less likely than the national average to own a car in their household, which contributes to their status as easier-to-win segments. Sustainable urbanites and pragmatic professionals were also more likely than average to own other modes of transport, such as bicycles, mopeds or motorbikes, suggesting they have access to a range of alternative modes of transport. However, anxious vulnerables were less likely to own other forms of transport. This, combined with their higher levels of health and financial vulnerabilities, means that they could risk being isolated without affordable public transport options. Sustainable urbanites and pragmatic professionals on the other hand were relatively affluent. Their low car ownership may point to lifestyle choices or living in more inner city or suburban areas. Open-minded potentials, apprehensive avoiders and car-loving critics had higher than average car ownership, meaning it would be even more important for bus to overcome the perceived benefits of car versus bus.

Table 17: Transport ownership. Among total and by segment^{[footnote 19]}

	Bicycle	Motorbike	Scooter/E-scooter	Car
All respondents	21%	3%	1%	78%
Sustainable urbanites	25% (significantly higher than total)	4% (significantly higher than total)	3% (significantly higher than total)	67% (significantly lower than total)
Pragmatic professionals	23%	3%	1%	82% (significantly higher than total)
Anxious vulnerables	19% (significantly lower than total)	1% (significantly lower than total)	1%	69% (significantly lower than total)
Open-minded potentials	53% (significantly lower than total)	47% (significantly higher than total)	6%	26% (significantly higher than total)
Apprehensive avoiders	19% (significantly lower than total)	3%	1%	83% (significantly higher than total)
Car-loving critics	18% (significantly lower than total)	4%	1%	89% (significantly higher than total)

Attitudes towards bus and car

The research revealed that attitudes towards bus and car varied significantly across England. These attitudes partially explained variance in reported current and future bus usage between segments. Understanding how opinions differed between the segments will enable stakeholders to know the most motivating way to speak to these audiences, identify the barriers to bus usage, and develop policies that are most likely to drive future patronage. It will allow stakeholders to tailor communications to ensure they speak to what is important to each audience.

The survey measured a variety of different attitudes. This section outlines the key attitudes that most differentiated and defined each segment.

Overcoming negative perceptions of bus’ convenience, flexibility, and journey time could drive increased bus usage

The perceived convenience of a car was a key barrier to bus usage across all segments, with 9 in 10 stating that cars were more convenient than public transport. Open-minded potentials, apprehensive avoiders and car-loving critics were significantly less likely to agree that buses allowed flexible travelling and less than a quarter felt that they were a quick way to get to their destination. This suggests that a more targeted focus would be required to improve flexibility and journey time in areas with high proportions of these segments. Qualitative interviews reinforced this perception among audiences, with one open-minded potential saying she preferred:

The spontaneity of the car. You don’t have to look at your phone to see when the next bus is . . . You can just go out.

When comparing journey time between bus and car, an apprehensive avoider commented:

<If I drive to Sutton it’s 12 minutes. By the time I’ve caught the bus and changed it’s 45 minutes.

This implies that it is not just perceptions of journey time that need improving to drive bus patronage, but also infrastructural changes as some individuals had knowledge of how long a journey would take by bus.

For pragmatic professionals, even though they were more likely to agree that the bus allows them to travel flexibly, only 3 in 10 found bus a quick way to get to their destination. This audience, who were more affluent and more likely to be in work, could be targeted by improving overall journey time, with one pragmatic professional saying:

I tend not to use the bus because … they’re not that frequent and I worry about delays.

There was less of a need to reduce bus journey time for sustainable urbanites, who were more likely to live in urban areas with greater availability of public transport and more than half already felt that bus was a quick way to get to their destination.

Table 18: Agreement with attitudinal statements. Among total, and by segment

Proportion who somewhat or strongly agree with statement[footnote 20]	Cars are more convenient than public transport	Buses allow me to travel flexibly, without any prior planning	Taking the bus is a quick way to get to my destination
All respondents	88%	38%	28%
Sustainable urbanites	84% (significantly lower than total)	63% (significantly higher than total)	51% (significantly higher than total)
Pragmatic professionals	89%	43% (significantly higher than total)	30%
Anxious vulnerables	90% (significantly higher than total)	43% (significantly higher than total)	32% (significantly higher than total)
Open-minded potentials	89%	34% (significantly lower than total)	23% (significantly lower than total)
Apprehensive avoiders	96% (significantly higher than total)	23% (significantly lower than total)	14% (significantly lower than total)
Car-loving critics	91% (significantly higher than total)	19% (significantly lower than total)	13% (significantly lower than total)

For some segments, infrastructural changes to their local bus service would be required to drive greater patronage

Sustainable urbanites in particular, but also pragmatic professionals and anxious vulnerables, were more likely to be satisfied that their local bus service is well connected to other services or goes to the right destinations. However, apprehensive avoiders and car-loving critics were very unlikely to agree with this. The lack of real, or perceived, access to an alternative transport in these areas meant that the majority of these 2 segments felt that it is essential to own a car. One apprehensive avoider said:

There’s a lot of waiting around. Lots of changes. The buses tie up in one direction but not in the other. It’s not that straightforward or simple.

This suggests that significant improvements to how the bus connects with other public transport and the range of destinations would be required to change behaviour among these 2 segments.

Table 19: Agreement with attitudinal statements. Among total, and by segment

Proportion who somewhat or strongly agree with statement[footnote 21]	Bus services are well connected to other public transport	My local bus service goes to the destinations I want to visit	It’s no longer essential to own a car when so many alternatives are available
All respondents	45%	46%	28%
Sustainable urbanites	69% (significantly higher than total)	68% (significantly higher than total)	53% (significantly higher than total)
Pragmatic professionals	53% (significantly higher than total)	52% (significantly higher than total)	22% (significantly lower than total)
Anxious vulnerables	49% (significantly higher than total)	50% (significantly higher than total)	38% (significantly higher than total)
Open-minded potentials	43%	45%	27%
Apprehensive avoiders	30% (significantly lower than total)	32% (significantly lower than total)	10% (significantly lower than total)
Car-loving critics	25% (significantly lower than total)	25% (significantly lower than total)	6% (significantly lower than total)

Further work may be required to make bus an affordable option compared to car in areas with high proportions of car-loving critics and apprehensive avoiders

The price of bus in some areas was a barrier for certain audiences. Around half of apprehensive avoiders and car-loving critics considered buses to be expensive. Furthermore, cars were felt to be cheaper than public transport for 4 in 10 pragmatic professionals and apprehensive avoiders. Considering that car was seen to offer other key benefits (such as convenience and flexibility), driving greater bus patronage among these 2 segments could represent a significant challenge unless the relative cost in comparison to car is addressed.

Anxious vulnerables faced an additional challenge in overall affordability of using the bus (not just relative to car). They were identified as the least affluent segment, and although they were less likely to agree that the car was cheaper than using public transport, nearly half felt that the bus was expensive. This suggests that cost could be a barrier to any type of transport with one anxious vulnerable remarking that:

It’s expensive, not cheap [at] about £4 / £5 a journey.

This means that anxious vulnerables may require additional support to make bus transport more affordable. Making bus more affordable both overall and relative to car could therefore increase bus usage for this segment.

However, for some more affluent audiences (sustainable urbanites, pragmatic professionals and open-minded potentials), making the bus cheaper may have limited impact on their bus patronage as only a minority feel that they are expensive.

Table 20: Agreement with attitudinal statements. Among total, and by segment

Proportion who somewhat or strongly agree with statement[footnote 22]	Buses are expensive	Cars are cheaper than using public transport
All respondents	44%	35%
Sustainable urbanites	41% (significantly lower than total)	28% (significantly lower than total)
Pragmatic professionals	39% (significantly lower than total)	40% (significantly higher than total)
Anxious vulnerables	49% (significantly higher than total)	28% (significantly lower than total)
Open-minded potentials	41%	34%
Apprehensive avoiders	53% (significantly higher than total)	40% (significantly higher than total)
Car-loving critics	47%	50% (significantly higher than total)

Reassurance around public health and hygiene on the bus may be required to alleviate the concerns of anxious vulnerables and apprehensive avoiders

Anxious vulnerables and apprehensive avoiders both had higher than average prevalence of health conditions. More than half of both segments felt that it was easier to catch viruses and infections on the bus compared to other forms of transport. Furthermore, these 2 segments were more likely than the average to feel that buses are overcrowded. This suggests that safety from infection may be a barrier to bus usage for certain vulnerable audiences, even after COVID-19 restrictions had been lifted.

Safety from infection is unlikely to be an issue for pragmatic professionals who were least likely to feel that it easy to catch viruses on the bus or that they are overcrowded. Moreover, they were more likely than the average to feel that the bus is clean. This segment, alongside sustainable urbanites had the lowest prevalence of health conditions in England.

Table 21: Agreement with attitudinal statements. Among total, and by segment

Proportion who somewhat or strongly agree with statement[footnote 23]	It is easier to catch viruses and infections on the bus than on other forms of transport	Buses are clean	Buses are too overcrowded
All respondents	48%	37%	37%
Sustainable urbanites	48%	56% (significantly higher than total)	40%
Pragmatic professionals	43% (significantly lower than total)	44% (significantly higher than total)	32% (significantly lower than total)
Anxious vulnerables	56% (significantly higher than total)	36%	49% (significantly higher than total)
Open-minded potentials	47%	37%	33%
Apprehensive avoiders	55% (significantly higher than total)	23% (significantly lower than total)	41% (significantly higher than total)
Car-loving critics	45%	23% (significantly lower than total)	29% (significantly lower than total)

Speaking to the environmental benefits of bus could polarise audiences

There was significant diversity across segments in their attitudes towards bus travel and the environment. Sustainable urbanites, anxious vulnerables and open-minded potentials all agreed strongly that travelling by bus is a way to help the environment.

However, a minority of apprehensive avoiders and car-loving critics felt this way. This suggests that using environmental benefits as a tool for encouraging bus patronage would only have credibility or relevance for some of these segments (namely sustainable urbanites, anxious vulnerables and open-minded potentials). Talking to car-loving critics or apprehensive avoiders in these terms could lead to irritation. One car-loving critic said:

I’m a gas guzzling car man. I have my thoughts about climate change . . . It’s called precession of the earth. But no one wants to believe that.

Table 22: Agreement with attitudinal statements. Among total, and by segment

Proportion who somewhat or strongly agree with statement[footnote 24]	Travelling by bus is a way to help the environment
All respondents	60%
Sustainable urbanites	84% (significantly higher than total)
Pragmatic professionals	61%
Anxious vulnerables	78% (significantly higher than total)
Open-minded potentials	77% (significantly higher than total)
Apprehensive avoiders	27% (significantly lower than total)
Car-loving critics	23% (significantly lower than total)

Attitudes towards bus and car: key takeaways

• sustainable urbanites had the most positive attitudes towards the bus of all segments. They were most likely to be satisfied with bus’ flexibility, speed, interconnectivity with other public transport, and that the bus goes to the right destinations. Stakeholders therefore have limited negative perceptions to overcome. Furthermore, Sustainable Urbanites were most likely to feel that the bus was an environmentally friendly choice, giving stakeholders a benefit to promote in messaging

• pragmatic professionals also had a generally positive view of the buses, finding them to be flexible and to have good inter-connectivity. However, only 3 in 10 found the bus a quick way to get to their destination. Given this audience tends to be in work with limited free time, reducing journey time and increasing punctuality could be key priorities to change to drive bus patronage

• anxious vulnerables had a generally positive opinion of the bus, being satisfied with bus’ flexibility and speed. They were more likely than other segments to find both bus and car expensive, suggesting that cost is a barrier to overcome to increase patronage both at an overall level and in comparison to car. This audience were most likely to feel that it was easy to pick up infections on the bus and that buses were overcrowded. Their high incidence of health conditions suggests that they may need additional health policies or reassuring messages to drive patronage

• open-minded potentials had a lower-than-average opinion of the bus’ infrastructural benefits, as they were less likely to agree that bus was flexible or fast compared to the national average. This suggested that there may be infrastructural barriers in areas with high proportions of open-minded potentials

• apprehensive avoiders had a below average opinion of the bus, especially in comparison to car. They felt that the car was more convenient, that the bus did not allow flexible travel and that they were slow. Furthermore, few felt that the bus provided good interconnectivity or went to the right destinations. This suggests that significant infrastructural change would be required to improve bus patronage for this audience

• car-loving critics had the lowest opinions of bus of all segments. As with apprehensive avoiders, they felt that car was more convenient, that bus did not allow flexible travel and that they were slow. Similarly, few felt that the bus provided good interconnectivity or went to the right destinations. They were also unlikely to feel that travelling by bus would help the environment, suggesting that using environmental messaging to encourage bus usage could polarise different segments

Areas to focus on to drive patronage

The previous section established what attitudes the segments held towards bus and car. This will allow stakeholders to identify areas of negative perceptions that could be addressed, and areas of positive perceptions that could be leveraged. However, to drive patronage further, stakeholders can look to which factors are important in driving any transport choice (rather than just bus). This will help stakeholders to prioritise the key factors that should be focused on within each segment to encourage people to choose the bus over other modes of transport.

The research identified some factors that have universal importance and would drive bus patronage if addressed

The research showed that there were some factors that had universal importance in determining transport choice. Reliability, ease of completing journey, safety, journey time, and ability to travel flexibly were of high importance to all segments. The only exception was car-loving critics for whom only half found safety important, and 6 in 10 found journey time important.

Table 23: Agreement with attitudinal statements. Among total, and by segment

Proportion who feel factor is very important or important[footnote 25]	How reliable my mode of transport is	How easy or difficult it is to complete my journey	How safe or unsafe I feel on my journey	Overall journey time	Ability to travel flexibly, without any prior planning
All respondents	88%	82%	75%	74%	72%
Sustainable urbanites	95% (significantly higher than total)	92% (significantly higher than total)	87% (significantly higher than total)	85% (significantly higher than total)	81% (significantly higher than total)
Pragmatic professionals	85% (significantly lower than total)	80% (significantly lower than total)	66% (significantly lower than total)	73%	68% (significantly lower than total)
Anxious vulnerables	96% (significantly higher than total)	91% (significantly higher than total)	90% (significantly higher than total)	80% (significantly higher than total)	colour	78% (significantly higher than total)
Open-minded potentials	88%	82%	72% (significantly lower than total)	70% (significantly lower than total)	70%
Apprehensive avoiders	89%	83%	78% (significantly higher than total)	75%	73%
Car-loving critics	80% (significantly lower than total)	70% (significantly lower than total)	54% (significantly lower than total)	59% (significantly lower than total)	66% (significantly lower than total)

It is important to understand how bus performs against these factors for each segment. This will enable stakeholders to understand for each segment what are the:

• areas to improve. This would contain factors that have above average importance in driving transport choice, but the bus performed poorly. These would be the primary areas to focus on to improve bus patronage
• areas to maintain. This would contain factors that have above average importance in driving transport choice, and the bus performed well. These would be areas to maintain bus’ current performance level

The table below establishes whether each of these universally important factors should be areas to improve or to maintain for each segment.

The data suggests that interventions to make any of the segments feel safer on bus journeys would be lower priority, as the bus already performed well here. However, it would be important to maintain current safety levels. Similarly, for areas with high volumes of Sustainable Urbanites, the focus would be on maintaining current performance in these factors, rather than improving.

The research suggests that to grow bus patronage among pragmatic professionals, anxious vulnerables, and open-minded potentials, focus should be placed on improving reliability and journey time while maintaining ease, safety, and flexibility of bus journeys.

For car-loving critics, the data suggests that it would be important to improve reliability, ease of completing journey, and flexibility. Safety and overall journey time were of below average importance to car-loving critics. Stakeholders therefore have fewer tools to encourage greater bus patronage for this audience, meaning that converting this segment would be very challenging.

Table 24: Primary factors to improve upon to drive bus patronage. Among all respondents and by segment

	How reliable my mode of transport is	How easy or difficult it is to complete my journey	How safe or unsafe I feel on my journey	Overall journey time	Ability to travel flexibly, without any prior planning
All respondents	Improve	Maintain	Maintain	Improve	Improve
Sustainable urbanites	Maintain	Maintain	Maintain	Maintain	Maintain
Pragmatic professionals	Improve	Maintain	Maintain	Improve	Maintain
Anxious vulnerables	Improve	Maintain	Maintain	Improve	Maintain
Open-minded potentials	Improve	Maintain	Maintain	Improve	Improve
Apprehensive avoiders	Improve	Improve	Maintain	Improve	Improve
Car-loving critics	Improve	Improve	Below average importance	Below average importance	Improve

However, outside of these universally important factors, there were also other factors that were more likely to be important for each segment. Understanding these will help stakeholders to develop tailored policies and marketing messages that would likely drive bus patronage within each segment.

For dustainable urbanites, it would be important to improve cost, while ticketing, payment and environmental impact would be important areas to maintain

Cost, how they pay for transport, and the environmental impact of transport were significantly more important to sustainable urbanites compared to the national average.

By examining bus’ performance in these important areas for sustainable urbanites, stakeholders can assess whether to focus on improving or maintaining bus’ performance to drive usage. The research identified cost as a priority area to improve for this segment as it is more important than other factors on average, but bus performed below average.

Ticket and payment, and sustainability/environment were areas to maintain as they were of above average important, but bus already performed well.

Table 25: Agreement with attitudinal statements. Among total, and by segment

Proportion who feel factor is very important or important[footnote 26]	Overall cost of journey	How I pay for my journey	The environmental impact of my mode of transport
All respondents	66%	48%	35%
Sustainable urbanites	83% (significantly higher than total)	62% (significantly higher than total)	61% (significantly higher than total)
Pragmatic professionals	62% (significantly lower than total)	45% (significantly lower than total)	26% (significantly lower than total)
Anxious vulnerables	79% (significantly higher than total)	60% (significantly higher than total)	56% (significantly higher than total)
Open-minded potentials	57% (significantly lower than total)	37% (significantly lower than total)	38%
Apprehensive avoiders	65%	49%	10% (significantly lower than total)
Car-loving critics	41% (significantly lower than total)	29% (significantly lower than total)	7% (significantly lower than total)

Table 26: Importance of factors in driving transport choice, and performance of bus among sustainable urbanites.

Factor	Importance in driving transport choice (% agree)[footnote 27]	Bus performance (% agree bus performs well)
Cost	83%	31%
Ticketing and payment	62%	84%
Sustainability and / or environment	61%	84%

To improve bus patronage among pragmatic professionals, stakeholders should focus on the universal needs of reliability and journey time

Unlike sustainable urbanites, no new areas were identified that should be focused on to drive patronage among pragmatic professionals. Reliability and journey time remained highly important to this segment, especially considering their high likelihood to be working. These were both identified as areas to improve as bus performed below average here for this segment.

Table 27: Proportion who feel factor is important. Among total, and by segment

Proportion who feel factor is very important or important[footnote 28]	How reliable my mode of transport is	Overall journey time
All respondents	88%	74%
Sustainable urbanites	95% (significantly higher than total)	85% (significantly higher than total)
Pragmatic professionals	85% (significantly lower than total)	73%
Anxious vulnerables	96% (significantly higher than total)	80% (significantly higher than total)
Open-minded potentials	88%	70% (significantly lower than total)
Apprehensive avoiders	89%	75%
Car-loving critics	80% (significantly lower than total)	59% (significantly lower than total)

Table 28: Importance of factors in driving transport choice and performance of bus among pragmatic professionals.

Factor	Importance in driving transport choice (% agree)[footnote 29]	Bus performance (% agree bus performs well)
Reliability	85%	30%
Journey time	73%	30%

Improving perceptions that bus provides low risk of infection and protection from anti-social behaviour could help drive bus patronage for anxious vulnerables

Anxious vulnerables had the highest incidence of health conditions. Linked to this, risk from infection and safety from injury were more important to this audience than the national average. Avoiding anti-social behaviour was also more important to this audience.

The research suggested that risk from infection and anti-social behaviour were key areas to improve as bus performed poorly here, whereas safety from injury was an area to maintain bus’ current performance.

Table 29: Proportion who feel factor is important. Among total, and by segment.

Proportion who feel factor is very important or important[footnote 30]	Risk of infection/other viruses	Risk of personal injury	Avoiding anti-social behaviour on my journey
All respondents	62%	57%	65%
Sustainable urbanites	75% (significantly higher than total)	75% (significantly higher than total)	76% (significantly higher than total)
Pragmatic professionals	48% (significantly lower than total)	43% (significantly lower than total)	54% (significantly lower than total)
Anxious vulnerables	82% (significantly higher than total)	80% (significantly higher than total)	81% (significantly higher than total)
Open-minded potentials	59% (significantly lower than total)	41% (significantly lower than total)	62% (significantly lower than total)
Apprehensive avoiders	62%	64% (significantly higher than total)	69% (significantly higher than total)
Car-loving critics	39% (significantly lower than total)	27% (significantly lower than total)	48% (significantly lower than total)

Table 30: Importance of factors in driving transport choice, and performance of bus. Among anxious vulnerables.

Factor	Importance in driving transport choice (% agree)[footnote 31]	Bus performance (% agree bus performs well)
Risk from infection	82%	12%
Anti-social behaviour	81%	17%
Safety from injury	80%	77%

Bus patronage among open-minded potentials could be improved by addressing the 2 universal factors of reliability and journey time

While reliability and journey time were identified as universal areas to improve bus performance, open-minded potentials were less likely to feel that the bus performed well in these areas compared to the general population. This identifies these factors as even more important to address to drive patronage for this audience.

Table 31: Importance of factors in driving transport choice, and performance of bus among open-minded potentials.

Factor	Importance in driving transport choice (% agree)[footnote 32]	Bus performance (% agree bus performs well)
Reliability	88%	23%
Journey time	70%	23%

Improving ease of journey and inter-connectivity and simplicity of journey planning could drive greatest bus patronage among apprehensive avoiders

Unlike the national average, bus’ performance in inter-connectivity with other transport services and simplicity of journey planning was below average for apprehensive avoiders. It remained important to this audience, meaning that it became an important area to improve.

Table 32: Importance of factors in driving transport choice, and performance of bus among apprehensive avoiders.

Factor	Importance in driving transport choice (% agree)[footnote 33]	Bus performance (% agree bus performs well)
Ease of journey (via inter-connectivity)	83%	30%
Simplicity of journey planning	70%	28%

Driving greater bus patronage among car-loving critics would be a challenge as few factors were important except reliability, flexibility, and ease of journey, all of which bus performed below average in

Reliability, flexibility, and ease of journey were the only factors of above average importance to car-loving critics. This means that converting this audience could be very challenging as stakeholders have few motivations to leverage. Bus also performed below average on all factors meaning these were the areas to focus on improvement in.

Table 33: Importance of factors in driving transport choice, and performance of bus among car-loving critics.

Factor	Importance in driving transport choice (% agree)[footnote 34]	Bus performance (% agree bus performs well)
Reliability	80%	15%
Flexibility	70%	25%
Ease of journey (via inter-connectivity)	66%	19%

Areas to focus on to drive patronage: key takeaways

For each segment, there were different areas to focus on to drive patronage. Some factors would be areas to maintain bus’ current performance (because they were important and bus performed well). Other factors would be areas to improve (because they were important, but bus performed poorly).

For all segments, as with the general population, reliability, journey time, and flexibility were key areas that were important but also needed improving. The only exceptions to this were that sustainable urbanites were already satisfied with bus’ performance in journey time, and car-loving critics placed below average importance on journey time.

There were other areas that were important to improve on or maintain for each segment. For:

• sustainable urbanites, cost was more important than the national average to improve. Ticketing and payment mode, and the environmental impact of transport were significantly more important to sustainable urbanites compared to the national average and were areas to maintain

• pragmatic professionals, the most important factors to focus on remained reliability and journey time

• anxious vulnerables, risk from infection and anti-social behaviour were key areas to improve. Safety from injury was an area to maintain bus’ performance

• open-minded potentials, reliability and journey time were important to improve bus performance as this segment were less likely to feel that the bus performed well in these areas compared to the national picture

• apprehensive avoiders, bus’ performance in inter-connectivity with other transport services and simplicity of journey planning was below average. It remained important, meaning this would be a key area to improve for this segment

• car-loving critics, reliability, flexibility, and ease of journey were the only factors of above average importance. The bus performed poorly here meaning they would be areas to improve. However, converting this audience would be very challenging as they had the lowest levels of current or future intended usage of bus. Furthermore, they had the poorest opinions of the bus overall meaning a significant mindset change would be required

Conclusions

Overall, the key insights from the research were:

• bus was the second most frequently used mode of transport but was lower than car. It would therefore be important to encourage people to switch from car to bus

• to drive patronage, the bus needs to meet fundamental and universal transport needs. The research showed that the most important factors when choosing a transport mode were reliability, ease of completing journeys, safety, journey time, and flexibility

• the bus was perceived to underperform on reliability, overall journey time, and flexibility. These would therefore be the key areas to focus on improving

• however, not everyone has the same usage, attitudes, and transport needs across England. A segmentation was therefore conducted to split England into 6 unique segments that differentiated on their usage, attitudes towards bus and car, and transport needs. By understanding what was uniquely important to each segment, stakeholders can tailor messages and policies around transport to help grow bus patronage

• each of the 6 segments differentiated on their demographic profile, attitudes towards bus, and what could uniquely motivate them to use the bus more in the future. For all segments, as with the general population, reliability, journey time and flexibility were key areas that were important and needed improving. However, there were other areas that were important factors to improve on for each segment:

  • sustainable urbanites were younger (typically under 55), more likely to live in cities or suburban areas (especially in London), and more likely to be in full-time work or studying. They were the segment most likely to use the bus, and most likely to want to use it again in the future. Compared to the rest of the population, cost of transport, ticketing, payment, and environmental factors were important drivers of transport choice. Improving these could be effective at driving bus patronage for this audience

  • pragmatic professionals were younger (typically under 55), comprised of more men, and more likely to be in full-time work. They were the segment with the second highest likelihood to use the bus, and the second most likely to use the bus in future. As with the general population, reliability and journey time were key areas for improvement in bus services, especially given their need for reliable work transport

  • anxious vulnerables were typically older (typically over 55) white women of lower social grades. They tended to be of households with lower-than average income levels, more likely to be unemployed or homemakers, and most likely to report a chronic health issue. Their current and future intended usage of the bus were in line with the national average. Compared to the rest of the population, the risk from infection and protection from anti-social behaviour on the bus were more important. Improving these could be effective in driving bus patronage for this audience

  • open-minded potentials were typically older (typically over 55) white women of higher social grades. They were also more likely to live in rural areas. Their current levels of bus usage and future intent to use the bus were slightly lower than the national average. Perceptions of bus reliability and journey time were poorer among this audience compared to the general population. These could be priority areas of improvement to drive bus patronage for this audience

  • spprehensive avoiders were typically over 35 and from lower socio-economic backgrounds. They were also more likely to live in towns and villages than the national average. Their levels of bus usage and future intent to use the bus were far lower than the national average. For this audience, the bus performed far less strongly for interconnectivity and simplicity of journey planning. These factors were important in transport choice for this audience and could be priority areas of improvement to drive bus patronage

  • car-loving critics were typically older men in villages or rural areas (typically aged over 55). Their levels of bus usage and future intent to use the bus were the lowest of all segments. As with the national average, reliability, flexibility, and ease of journey were important to them but bus performed poorly. However, unlike the national picture, little else was important to this audience in driving transport choice. This suggests that it would be difficult to design policies or messages to drive bus patronage among this audience

Appendix

Abbreviations for factors that drive transport choice

For ease of being able to compare factors that drive transport choice with bus’ performance statements have been shortened. Furthermore, some statements were phrased negatively in the questionnaire. To make it easier to comprehend, we have phrased these positively in the report, and shown the scores for the proportion of people that disagree with these statements. The full mapping is below.

Factor	Q13 statements (Importance in travel)	Related Q16 statement (Performance of Bus)	Semantic reversal
Bus interconnectivity	How easy or difficult it is to complete my journey	Bus services are well connected to other public transport
Urban design	How easy or difficult it is to complete my journey	Bus services are well connected to other public transport
Availability of bus routes	Availability of public transport options to my destination	My local bus service goes to the destinations I want to visit
Ticketing and payment	How I pay for my journey	Paying for the bus is simple and easy
Risk from infection	Risk from viruses/other infections	It is easier to catch viruses and infections on the bus than on other forms of transport	Reported on bottom 2 box (NET Disagree) at Q16
Proximity to bus stops	The distance between my house and the journey start point	There is a bus stop close to my home
Journey time	Overall journey time	Taking the bus is a quick way to get to my destination
Bus frequency	Waiting times for local public transport	The waiting times for buses in my area are too long	Reported on bottom 2 box (NET Disagree) at Q16
Availability of real-time information	Real-time information about my journey (for example, delay information)	I can access real-time information about bus journeys (for example, delay information, next bus time)
Simplicity of journey planning	How easy or difficult it is to plan my journey	It is easy to plan bus trips
Flexibility of travel	Ability to travel flexibly, without any prior planning	Buses allow me to travel flexibly, without any prior planning
Reliability of travel	How reliable my mode of transport is	I can rely on buses to get me to my destination on time, every time
Cost	Overall cost of journey	Buses are expensive	Reported on bottom 2 box (NET Disagree) at Q16
Safety	Risk of personal injury	Buses are safe on the road	Colour
Accessibility	How easy or difficult it is to get into and out of the transport vehicle	Getting on and off a bus would be easy	N/A
Personal space	Having personal space during my journey	Buses are too overcrowded	Reported on bottom 2 box (NET Disagree) at Q16
Cleanliness	Cleanliness of the travel environment	Buses are clean	N/A
Comfort	Level of comfort during my journey	Buses are comfortable	N/A
Ability to work	Ability to work during my journey	I could get work done on a bus journey	N/A
Ability to relax	Ability to relax during my journey	I could relax on a bus journey	N/A
Sustainability/ Environment	The environmental impact of my mode of transport	Travelling by bus is a way to help the environment	N/A
Need to carry items	How much I need to carry	Carrying multiple or heavy items on a bus is easy	N/A
Interaction with others	Ability to interact with others during my journey	N/A I like the idea of being able to talk to others on a bus	N/A
Safety	How safe or unsafe I feel on my journey	I would feel safe if I had to get a bus on my own	N/A
Anti-social behaviour	Avoiding anti-social behaviour on my journey	There is too much anti-social behaviour on buses	Reported on bottom 2 box (NET Disagree) at Q16
Social stigma	How others judge me for how I travel I feel on my journey	I would be embarrassed to be seen taking a bus	Reported on bottom 2 box (NET Disagree) at Q16

Questionnaire

Questionnaire Flow

1. Demographic
2. Current behaviours regarding travel
3. Importance of behavioural influences in transport modal choice
4. Attitudes towards buses
5. Motivating policies / interventions
6. Further profiling
7. Micro-targeting
8. Closing demographics

Demographics

1. Are you…?

a) Male b) Female c) Other (specify) d) Prefer not to say

2. Please enter your age

3. Which of the following describes where you live?

4. The chief income earner is the person with the largest income, whether from employment, pensions, state benefits, investments, or any other source. If 2 or more related people in the household have equal income, please think of this question with the oldest in mind

Which of the following best describes the employment status of the chief income earner in your household?

5. Please indicate which of the following best describes your working status

6. If you’ve mentioned you’re currently a student, please indicate what level of education you are currently enrolled in:

7. Where do you currently work or study, and where will you be likely to be working or studying in 6 months’ time?

Current behaviours

We’d now like you to think about the typical journeys you have been making over the last couple of months in your local area.

8. How often, if at all, do you currently travel by the following forms of transport within your local area?

• bicycle
• scooter/e-Scooter
• bus
• train
• tram
• tube/metro/city underground service
• car
• van
• motorbike
• taxi or minicab

9. Which of the following journey types have you taken in the last couple of months in your local area?

Please only consider journeys where walking was not the only method of travel.

• commuting to or from work or education
• traveling on company business (for example, to a meeting)
• driving for work (for example, a bus driver, lorry driver, delivery driver)
• travelling for leisure (visiting friends/family, visiting restaurants/bars, visiting sport, music, or leisure venues etc.)
• shopping trips (grocery)
• shopping trips (other than grocery)
• travelling on personal business (for example, doctor, gym, job interview, bank etc.)
• caretaking responsibilities (for example, school run, vulnerable and elderly relatives)
• none of the above

10. And how often do you currently take each type of journey in your local area?

11. The last time you took a journey in your local area, what type of transport did you use?

12. And how did you pay the last time you took each of these journeys in your local area?

Importance of behaviour influences on travel type

We’d now like to ask you a set of questions about what is important to you when deciding which mode of transport you will use when making a typical journey in your local area.

13. When choosing what form of transport you will take for a typical journey in your local area, how important or unimportant are each of the following factors?

• how easy or difficult it is to complete my journey
• availability of public transport options to my destination
• how I pay for my journey
• risk from viruses/other infections
• the distance between my house and the journey start point
• overall journey time
• waiting times for local public transport
• real-time information about my journey (e.g. delay information)
• how easy or difficult it is to plan my journey
• ability to travel flexibly, without any prior planning
• how reliable my mode of transport is
• overall cost of journey
• risk of personal injury
• how easy or difficult it is to get into and out of the transport vehicle
• having personal space during my journey
• cleanliness of the travel environment
• level of comfort during my journey
• ability to work during my journey
• ability to relax during my journey
• the environmental impact of my mode of transport
• how much I need to carry
• ability to interact with others during my journey
• how safe or unsafe I feel on my journey
• avoiding anti-social behaviour on my journey
• how others judge me for how I travel

14. Is there anything else that has not already been mentioned that you feel is important when deciding what mode of transport to take on a typical journey in your local area?

Attitudes towards buses

We will now ask you some questions about your attitudes towards local bus services. By local bus services, we mean bus services serving local routes, rather than long-distance services such as coaches.

15. How likely or unlikely would you be to use your local bus service regularly in the next 6 months?

By regularly we mean once a month or more often

16. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements regarding buses in your local area?

• bus services are well connected to other public transport
• I could easily get on-board support from staff when travelling on a bus
• my local bus service goes to the destinations I want to visit
• paying for the bus is simple and easy
• it is easier to catch viruses and infections on the bus than on other forms of transport
• there is a bus stop close to my home
• taking the bus is a quick way to get to my destination
• the waiting times for buses in my area are too long
• I can access real-time information about bus journeys (for example, delay information, next bus time)
• it is easy to plan bus trips
• buses allow me to travel flexibly, without any prior planning
• I can rely on buses to get me to my destination on time, every time
• buses are expensive
• buses are safe on the road
• getting on and off a bus would be easy
• buses are too overcrowded
• buses are clean
• buses are comfortable
• I could get work done on a bus journey
• I could relax on a bus journey
• travelling by bus is a way to help the environment
• carrying multiple or heavy items on a bus is easy
• I like the idea of being able to talk to others on a bus
• I would feel safe if I had to get a bus on my own
• there is too much anti-social behaviour on buses
• I would be embarrassed to be seen taking a bus

17. Earlier, you mentioned you’d be unlikely to use your local bus service regularly in the next 6 months. Why is this?

Motivating policies and possible interventions

In this section, we would like to explore how potential reforms to bus services may or may not encourage you to use the bus more in the future.

18. Imagine each of the following were available on bus services in your local area. For each of the following, to what extent would they make you more or less likely to use buses in the future?

Further attitudes and profiling information

In this section, we’d like to ask a few more questions to understand your thoughts on transport generally, and your attitudes to technology.

19. How much, if anything, would you say you know about the following in your local area?

• bus timetables and schedules
• bus fares and ticketing

20. How confident or are you about travelling via…?

• bus
• car
• train
• tube/metro/city underground service

21. How many cars do you have in your household?

22. How likely or unlikely are you to buy any of the following in the next 5 years?

• bicycle
• motorbike
• scooter/E-scooter
• car
• van

23. We’d now like to ask you some questions about your attitudes towards cars. To what extent do you agree or disagree with each of the following?

• cars are expensive to run and manage
• it’s no longer essential to own a car when so many alternatives are available
• cars are more convenient than public transport
• cars are cheaper than using public transport

24. We’d now like to ask you some questions about your attitudes to technology. Which of the following best describes you?

• I must have the latest technology as soon as it is available
• I like to have the latest technology as soon as possible
• I like to wait and see what new technology other people like before I buy it
• I only buy new technology once it has been proven to be useful & affordable
• I only buy technology if I have an absolute need for it

25. Thinking more broadly about your attitudes to technology, to what extent do you agree or disagree with each of the following?

• I feel comfortable managing most of my day-to-day responsibilities via apps and mobile technology (that is, bill payment, online banking etc.)
• I get nervous sharing my personal details online to private companies

26. We’d now like to ask you some questions about your attitudes to COVID-19. To what extent do you agree with each of the following statements regarding the coronavirus pandemic and social distancing regulations?

• I am concerned about the possibility of catching COVID-19
• I will wear a face mask in crowded areas
• I will avoid crowded areas

Micro-targeting

Closing Demographics

27. Do you have a longstanding physical or mental condition or disability that has lasted or is likely to last 12 months and which has a substantial adverse effect on your ability to carry out day-to-day activities?

28. Do you have any disability or other long standing health problem that makes it difficult for you to do any of the following…?

• go out on foot
• use local buses
• get in or out of a car
• none of these
• prefer not to say

29. What is your ethnic group?

30. Is the property in which you live…?

• owned outright – without a mortgage
• owned with a mortgage
• rented from the council
• rented from a housing association
• rented from someone else
• rent free

31. Do you have any children aged 18 or under living in your household? If so, how old are they?

32. What is the combined annual income of your household, prior to tax being deducted?

33. Which of the following best describes where you live?

• an inner-city area
• a suburban area
• a town
• a village
• rural or countryside

34. Which of the following cities do you live in, or nearest to?

• Newcastle
• Leeds
• Hull
• Sheffield
• Manchester
• Liverpool
• Nottingham
• Birmingham
• Norwich
• Milton Keynes
• Brighton
• Oxford
• London
• Southampton
• Bristol
• Plymouth
• None of these

35. Please enter your full postcode in the text box below

1. Q8. How often, if at all, do you currently travel by the following forms of transport within your local area? Base: All respondents (8041). ↩

2. Q11b. The last time you took a journey in your local area for <…> what was the main type of transport did you use? Base: All respondents (8041) who took each type of journey (709-5996). ↩

3. Q15. How likely or unlikely would you be to use your local bus service regularly in the next 6 months? By regular we mean once a month or more often. Base: All respondents (8041) Use the bus Frequently (at least fortnightly) (2311), Infrequently (Less often than once a fortnight) (2736), Never (2,994). ↩

4. Q13. When choosing what form of transport you will take for a typical journey in your local area, how important or unimportant are each of the following factors? Base: All respondents (8041). ↩

5. Throughout this report above average importance means above average for all statements tested in this study. For importance of factors, the average was 60%. For performance of bus, the average was 39%. ↩

6. Q13. When choosing what form of transport you will take for a typical journey in your local area, how important or unimportant are each of the following factors? Q16. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements regarding buses in your local area? Base: All respondents (8041). ↩

7. Throughout this report a shorthand or abbreviated versions of the factors were used. For a full list of how these factor names correspond to the questions asked, please see appendix. ↩

8. Q13. When choosing what form of transport you will take for a typical journey in your local area, how important or unimportant are each of the following factors? Q16. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements regarding buses in your local area? Base: All respondents (8041) All with any health condition (1741). ↩

9. Q1 Are you…? Base: Total (8041), Segments (735-1482). ↩

10. Throughout this report we refer to segments being significantly higher or lower than the total. This refers to a statistical test which highlights differences in the data that are unlikely to be explained by chance. ↩

11. Q2 Age Base: Total (8041), Segments (735-1482). ↩

12. Q28. Do you have a longstanding physical or mental condition or disability that has lasted or is likely to last 12 months and which has a substantial adverse effect on your ability to carry out day-today activities? Base: Total (8041), Segments (735-1482). ↩

13. Q33. What is the combined annual income of your household, prior to tax being deducted? Base: Total (8041), Segments (735-1482). ↩

14. Q5. Which of the following best described your current working status? Base: Total (8041), Segments (735-1482). ↩

15. Q3. Which of the following best describes where you live? Base: Total (8041), Segments (735-1482). ↩

16. Q34. Which of the following best described where you live? Base: Total (8041), Segments (735-1482). ↩

17. Q8. How often, if at all, do you currently travel by the following forms of transport within your local area? Bus Base: Total (8041), Segments (735-1482). ↩

18. Q15. How likely or unlikely would you be to use your local bus service regularly in the next 6 months? By regularly we mean once a month or more often. Base: Total (8041), Segments (735-1482). ↩

19. Q12. How many cars do you have in your household? Q22. How likely or unlikely are you to buy any of the following in the next 5 years? Base: Total (8041), Segments (735-1482). ↩

20. Source: Quantitative Survey. Q16. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements regarding buses in your local area?/Q23. We’d now like to ask you some questions about your attitudes towards cars. To what extent do you agree or disagree with each of the following? Base: Total (8041), Segments (735-1482). ↩

21. Source: Quantitative Survey. Q16. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements regarding buses in your local area?/Q23. We’d now like to ask you some questions about your attitudes towards cars. To what extent do you agree or disagree with each of the following? Base: Total (8041), Segments (735-1482). ↩

22. Source: Quantitative Survey. Q16. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements regarding buses in your local area?/Q23. We’d now like to ask you some questions about your attitudes towards cars. To what extent do you agree or disagree with each of the following? Base: Total (8041), Segments (735-1482). ↩

23. Source: Quantitative Survey. Q16. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements regarding buses in your local area? Base: Total (8041), Segments (735-1482). ↩

24. Source: Quantitative Survey. Q16. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements regarding buses in your local area? Base: Total (8041), Segments (735-1482). ↩

25. Q13. When choosing what form of transport you will take for a typical journey in your local area, how important or unimportant are each of the following factors? Base: Total (8041), Segments (735-1482). ↩

26. Q13. When choosing what form of transport you will take for a typical journey in your local area, how important or unimportant are each of the following factors? Base: Total (8041), Segments (735-1482). ↩

27. Q13. When choosing what form of transport you will take for a typical journey in your local area, how important or unimportant are each of the following factors? Q16. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements regarding buses in your local area? Base: All respondents (8041), Segments (735-1482). ↩

28. Q13. When choosing what form of transport you will take for a typical journey in your local area, how important or unimportant are each of the following factors? Base: Total (8041), Segments (735-1482). ↩

29. Q13. When choosing what form of transport you will take for a typical journey in your local area, how important or unimportant are each of the following factors? Q16. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements regarding buses in your local area? Base: All respondents (8041), Segments (735-1482). ↩

30. Q13. When choosing what form of transport you will take for a typical journey in your local area, how important or unimportant are each of the following factors? Base: Total (8041), Segments (735-1482). ↩

31. Q13. When choosing what form of transport you will take for a typical journey in your local area, how important or unimportant are each of the following factors? Q16. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements regarding buses in your local area? Base: All respondents (8041), Segments (735-1482). ↩

32. Q13. When choosing what form of transport you will take for a typical journey in your local area, how important or unimportant are each of the following factors? Q16. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements regarding buses in your local area? Base: All respondents (8041), Segments (735-1482). ↩

33. Q13. When choosing what form of transport you will take for a typical journey in your local area, how important or unimportant are each of the following factors? Q16. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements regarding buses in your local area? Base: All respondents (8041), Segments (735-1482). ↩

34. Q13. When choosing what form of transport you will take for a typical journey in your local area, how important or unimportant are each of the following factors? Q16. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements regarding buses in your local area? Base: All respondents (8041), Segments (735-1482). ↩