Bus Passenger Survey

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "Bus Passenger Survey"

Transcription

1 Bus Passenger Survey March 2013

2

3 Contents 1 Foreword 3 2 Area key findings Area results Introduction Former metropolitan county authorities Transport authority area groups Local transport authority areas Bus Rapid Transit systems Bus operator key findings Bus operator results Introduction National bus operators (survey wide) Bus operators in each area How the research was carried out and making use of results

4 2

5 1 Bus Passenger Survey Foreword Colin Foxall CBE Passenger Focus carries out a yearly Bus Passenger Survey (BPS) to compare and benchmark what passengers think about their bus service in England, outside of London. This is one of several pieces of bus passenger satisfaction and other research work that we carry out throughout the year. We ask passengers to rate all aspects of their bus journey covering key factors such as planning the journey, the facilities and information provided at the bus stop, fares, the helpfulness of the driver and their driving standards, aspects of the actual journey itself and the cleanliness and condition of the bus. This year we show the drivers of satisfaction and dissatisfaction (fare-payers only) in each area surveyed. The factors driving satisfaction are broad, but often relate to the bus driver, in particular smoothness /freedom from jolting. The most prevalent drivers of dissatisfaction are on-bus journey time, safety of the driving, smoothness/ freedom from jolting, and length of time waited. We hope this information will help the industry direct where it places its efforts. Using the survey data, allied to our range of other bus passenger research, we continue to: influence bus companies and transport authorities to work better together to provide a service that best meets passenger needs encourage bus operators and transport authorities to plan future activities that reflect passengers priorities convince bus operators to commit to constantly reviewing and improving the service they provide to their passengers provide evidence showing how local and national investment in better bus infrastructure and services is appreciated and recognised by passengers. In a time of continued pressure on individual and public budgets, our work provides benchmarked comparable evidence to ensure that valuable resources are targeted where they are most valued by passengers. In this year s work, more than 22,000 passengers from 20 areas across England, outside of London, told us what they think about their bus service. They continue to rate overall satisfaction with their journey fairly highly though there is still much room for improvement. The proportion of passengers satisfied overall with their bus journey varied across areas from 73 to 92 per cent (averaging 84 per cent). In 2011 the average satisfaction was 85 per cent. For the first time we have also surveyed passengers using bus rapid transit systems in two areas. Passenger satisfaction with value for money ranged widely this year from 30 per cent to 70 per cent across the areas surveyed (averaging 54 per cent). In 2011 the average satisfaction was 56 per cent. Are fare levels combined with the current economic climate now really starting to hit passengers pockets and their views of value for money? We have done some additional specific research in this key area which will be published later in The strength of the Bus Passenger Survey is in its benchmarked comparability, independence and our research methodology. We are pleased to see that is it increasingly used by operators and transport authorities as a measure of their bus passengers experience and we will continue to further its usefulness across the industry and government. Additional surveys were carried out in the autumn 2012 wave which almost doubled its size thanks to extra funding from the following transport authorities and bus operators: West Midlands (Centro), Merseytravel, Devon County Council, Essex County Council, Kent County Council, Milton Keynes Council, Northumberland County Council, Suffolk County Council, Tees Valley Group and Thurrock Council First UK Bus North Division, Go North East, Reading Buses and Stagecoach North East. Colin Foxall CBE Chairman Passenger Focus 3

6 2 Bus Passenger Survey Area key findings The proportion of passengers satisfied overall with their bus journey varied across areas from 73 per cent to 92 per cent (averaging 84 per cent). In 2011 the average satisfaction was 85 per cent. In PTEs the 2012 overall satisfaction ranged from 79 per cent to 87 per cent; in 2011 the range was 81 per cent to 91 per cent. The difference in overall satisfaction between free pass holders and fare payers shows free pass holders were unsurprisingly more satisfied, though not universally, with area figures ranging from 85 per cent to 98 per cent (averaging 91 per cent); and fare payers less satisfied, with area figures ranging from 69 per cent to 90 per cent (averaging 81 per cent). Passenger satisfaction with value for money ranged from 30 per cent to 70 per cent across the areas surveyed (averaging 54 per cent); in 2011 the average satisfaction was 56 per cent. The 2012 satisfaction with value for money within PTE areas ranged from 50 per cent to 59 per cent; Passenger satisfaction with value for money ranged from 30 % to 70 % (averaging 54%) in 2011 the range was 51 per cent to 65 per cent. Passenger satisfaction with punctuality ranged from 57 per cent to 83 per cent (averaging 70 per cent); in 2011 the average satisfaction was 72 per cent. The 2012 figures amongst PTEs ranged from 64 per cent to 73 per cent; in 2011 the range was 64 per cent to 77 per cent. Passenger satisfaction with on-bus journey time ranged from 78 per cent to 94 per cent (averaging 85 per cent). The figures amongst PTEs ranged from 81 per cent to 90 per cent. Passengers report a number of factors affecting the length of their journeys*. Three of these concerned road conditions: congestion affected 24 per cent of journeys; road works 11 per cent; and weather six per cent. There were also three factors that were bus-related chief amongst these was the time it took passengers to board/pay for tickets, affecting 20 per cent of journeys on average, followed by the bus waiting too long at stops, averaging six per cent; and finally the bus driver driving too slowly, averaging six per cent. The proportion of passengers who said they experienced behaviour that caused them to worry or make them feel uncomfortable during their journey ranged from four per cent to 17 per cent (averaging 10 per cent). In 2011 this range was six per cent to 18 per cent (averaging 11 per cent). The proportion who say they have a disability ranged from 11 per cent to 31 per cent (averaging 22 per cent); the average in 2011 was 21 per cent. The proportion who have none or limited access to private transport** ranged from 21 per cent to 45 per cent (averaging 39 per cent). In 2011 the average was 35 per cent. * Passengers could provide more than one reason for their journey length being affected. ** The 2012 figures are reported excluding not stated, the 2011 number is the re-calculated figure produced on the same basis. 4

7 1 Overall satisfaction with the bus journey (%) % - very/fairly satisfied* Q Overall, taking everything into account from start to end of this bus journey, how satisfied were you with your bus journey today? *Due to rounding the percentage very / fairly satisfied may not always be equal to the sum of the very and fairly satisfied values in the chart 5

8 2 Bus Passenger Survey 2 Range of scores for area overall satisfaction for key passenger groups Q Overall, taking everything into account from start to end of this bus journey, how satisfied were you with your bus journey today? 6

9 3 Satisfaction with value for money fare-paying passengers (%) % - very/fairly satisfied* Q How satisfied were you with the value for money of your journey? * Due to rounding the percentage very / fairly satisfied may not always be equal to the sum of the very and fairly satisfied values in the chart ** Note small sample size 7

10 2 Bus Passenger Survey 4 Range of scores for area value for money for key passenger groups Q Overall, taking everything into account from start to end of this bus journey, how satisfied were you with your bus journey today? 8

11 5 Satisfaction with punctuality of the bus (%) % - very/fairly satisfied* Q How satisfied were you with each of the following: The punctuality of the bus? * Due to rounding the percentage very / fairly satisfied may not always be equal to the sum of the very and fairly satisfied values in the chart 9

12 2 Bus Passenger Survey 6 Satisfaction with bus journey time (%) % - very/fairly satisfied* Q How satisfied were you with the length of time your journey on the bus took? * Due to rounding the percentage very / fairly satisfied may not always be equal to the sum of the very and fairly satisfied values in the chart 10

13 7 Range of scores for factors affecting journey length Q Was the length of your journey affected by any of the following: (note: more than one response was permissible) 11

14 2 Bus Passenger Survey 8 Range of scores for incidence of passengers having a disability, lack of access to private transport, and experience of anti-social behaviour * Q Do you have a disability or long term illness related to the following...? (Net yes) ** Access to private transport: a combination of responses to: Q In terms of having a car to drive which of the following applies; and Q In terms of being able to ask someone else to drive which of the following applies? *** Q Did other passengers behaviour give you cause to worry or make you feel uncomfortable during your journey? 12

15 3 Bus Passenger Survey Introduction to area results The Bus Passenger Survey was carried out in 22 areas. Of these, 18 are individual transport authority areas, two are transport authority area groups, and two are results from passengers on Bus Rapid Transit networks. The results are set out by area in the order shown below. We recommend reading How the research was carried out and making use of results on page 104. The six former metropolitan county authority areas West Midlands Passenger Transport Executive (Centro) Greater Manchester (Transport for Greater Manchester/TfGM) Tyne and Wear Passenger Transport Executive (Nexus) South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive (SYPTE) Merseyside Passenger Transport Executive (Merseytravel) West Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive (Metro) Local transport authority areas Devon County Council Essex County Council Kent County Council Milton Keynes Council Northumberland County Council Nottingham City Council Nottinghamshire County Council Oxfordshire County Council Suffolk County Council Thurrock Council Warrington Borough Council Worcestershire County Council Bus Rapid Transit systems Cambridgeshire Bus Rapid Transit (The Busway) Hampshire Bus Rapid Transit (Fareham to Gosport link) Transport authority area groups Tees Valley Group (made up of the five unitary authorities of Darlington, Hartlepool, Middlesbrough, Redcar & Cleveland, and Stockton on Tees) West England Partnership (made up of the four unitary authorities of Bath & North East Somerset, Bristol City, North Somerset, and South Gloucestershire) 13

16 3 Area results Metropolitan counties West Midlands PTE (Centro) Headline results Overall Value for Punctuality Journey satisfaction 79 % money 50 % 64 % time 81 % Drivers of satisfaction (fare-payers only) Value for money Driver helpfulness Length of time waited Time to get to a seat Importance Smoothness of the driving On bus journey time Safety of the driving Drives satisfaction Drives dissatisfaction Below average Satisfaction rating Above average Key results 2011 % satisfied OVERALL SATISFACTION WITH THE JOURNEY All passengers (3538) E Fare-paying passengers (1989) E Free pass holders (1536) W Age 16 to 34 (790) W Age 35 to 59 (1195) E Passengers commuting (1356) E Passengers not commuting (1998) W Passengers saying they have a disability (870) W SATISFACTION WITH VALUE FOR MONEY All fare-paying passengers (1941) W Passengers commuting (1210) W Passengers not commuting (653) W Age 16 to 34 (739) W Age 35 to 59 (1070) E SATISFACTION WITH PUNCTUALITY All passengers (3237) W SATISFACTION WITH ON-BOARD JOURNEY LENGTH All passengers (3545)

17 Detailed results 2011 % satisfied SATISFACTION WITH THE BUS STOP Overall satisfaction with the bus stop (3483) Q Its distance from the journey start (3336) The convenience/accessibility of its location (3164) Its general condition/standard of maintenance (3107) W Its freedom from graffiti/vandalism (3044) Q Its freedom from litter (3176) Q The information provided at the stop (3118) Your personal safety whilst at the stop (3164) Q SATISFACTION ON THE BUS Route/destination information on the outside of the bus (3313) Q The cleanliness and condition of the outside of the bus (3323) Q The ease of getting onto and off of the bus (3458) Q The length of time it took to board the bus (3333) Q The cleanliness and condition of the inside of the bus (3497) Q The information provided inside the bus (3144) Q The availability of seating or space to stand (3407) Q The comfort of the seats (3446) Q The amount of personal space you had around you (3385) Provision of grab rails to stand/move within the bus (3388) W The temperature inside the bus (3441) W Your personal security whilst on the bus (3419) W SATISFACTION WITH THE BUS DRIVER How near to the kerb/stop the bus stopped (3456) W The driver s appearance (3270) E The greeting/welcome you got from the driver (3246) W The helpfulness and attitude of the driver (3166) W The time the driver gave you to get to seat (3391) W Smoothness/freedom from jolting during the journey (3314) W Safety of the driving (i.e. speed, driver concentrating) (3340) W Anti-social behaviour 17 % Journey profile Behaviour of other passengers giving respondents cause to worry or feel uncomfortable age % access to % has a disability % private transport Factors affecting journey length % 2011 % occurrence occurrence Congestion/traffic jam E Roadworks Q Bus driver driving too slowly 8 10 Q Poor weather conditions 7 4 E Waiting too long at stops E Time it took passengers to board Q Passengers could provide more than one answer Age Age Age Easy access 21 Moderate 36 Limited/none 43 Yes 20 No 80 15

18 3 Area results Metropolitan counties Transport for Greater Manchester Headline results Overall Value for Punctuality Journey satisfaction 84 % money 53 % 70 % time 82 % Drivers of satisfaction (fare-payers only) On bus journey time Drives satisfaction Drives dissatisfaction Driver helpfulness Punctuality Smoothness of driving Importance Safety of driving Below average Satisfaction rating Above average Key results 2011 % satisfied OVERALL SATISFACTION WITH THE JOURNEY All passengers (664) W Fare-paying passengers (331) W Free pass holders (332) E Age 16 to 34 (182) W Age 35 to 59 (159) W Passengers commuting (240) W Passengers not commuting (387) W Passengers saying they have a disability (159) E SATISFACTION WITH VALUE FOR MONEY All fare-paying passengers (328) E Passengers commuting (209) E Passengers not commuting (112) E Age 16 to 34 (170) E Age 35 to 59 (134) W SATISFACTION WITH PUNCTUALITY All passengers (600) W SATISFACTION WITH ON-BOARD JOURNEY LENGTH All passengers (673)

19 Detailed results 2011 % satisfied SATISFACTION WITH THE BUS STOP Overall satisfaction with the bus stop (640) Q Its distance from the journey start (626) The convenience/accessibility of its location (586) Its general condition/standard of maintenance (596) E Its freedom from graffiti/vandalism (581) W Its freedom from litter (588) W The information provided at the stop (576) Your personal safety whilst at the stop (586) W SATISFACTION ON THE BUS Route/destination information on the outside of the bus (631) Q The cleanliness and condition of the outside of the bus (622) W The ease of getting onto and off of the bus (651) W The length of time it took to board the bus (635) W The cleanliness and condition of the inside of the bus (660) Q The information provided inside the bus (582) W The availability of seating or space to stand (643) W The comfort of the seats (655) W The amount of personal space you had around you (644) Provision of grab rails to stand/move within the bus (639) E The temperature inside the bus (648) W Your personal security whilst on the bus (645) W SATISFACTION WITH THE BUS DRIVER How near to the kerb/stop the bus stopped (637) E The driver s appearance (632) E The greeting/welcome you got from the driver (624) E The helpfulness and attitude of the driver (615) E The time the driver gave you to get to seat (640) W Smoothness/freedom from jolting during the journey (640) E Safety of the driving (i.e. speed, driver concentrating) (634) E Anti-social behaviour 13 % Journey profile Behaviour of other passengers giving respondents cause to worry or feel uncomfortable age % access to % has a disability % private transport Factors affecting journey length % 2011 % occurrence occurrence Congestion/traffic jam W Roadworks Q Bus driver driving too slowly 7 6 E Poor weather conditions 6 3 E Waiting too long at stops 8 9 Q Time it took passengers to board W Passengers could provide more than one answer Age Age Age Easy access 21 Moderate 38 Limited/none 42 Yes 19 No 81 17

20 3 Area results Metropolitan counties Tyne and Wear PTE (Nexus) Headline results Overall Value for Punctuality Journey satisfaction 87 % money 59 % 76 % time 87 % Drivers of satisfaction (fare-payers only) Drives satisfaction Drives dissatisfaction Smoothness of driving Smoothness of driving Interior cleanliness Importance On bus journey time Personal security on bus Safety of driving Safety of driving Below average Satisfaction rating Above average Key results 2011 % satisfied OVERALL SATISFACTION WITH THE JOURNEY All passengers (1550) E Fare-paying passengers (772) E Free pass holders (776) E Age 16 to 34 (298) E Age 35 to 59 (491) W Passengers commuting (470) E Passengers not commuting (1019) E Passengers saying they have a disability (409) E SATISFACTION WITH VALUE FOR MONEY All fare-paying passengers (757) E Passengers commuting (420) E Passengers not commuting (315) Q Age 16 to 34 (282) E Age 35 to 59 (415) W SATISFACTION WITH PUNCTUALITY All passengers (1442) E SATISFACTION WITH ON-BOARD JOURNEY LENGTH All passengers (1567)

21 Detailed results 2011 % satisfied SATISFACTION WITH THE BUS STOP Overall satisfaction with the bus stop (1535) Q Its distance from the journey start (1500) The convenience/accessibility of its location (1436) Its general condition/standard of maintenance (1416) E Its freedom from graffiti/vandalism (1381) W Its freedom from litter (1432) E The information provided at the stop (1421) Your personal safety whilst at the stop (1425) Q SATISFACTION ON THE BUS Route/destination information on the outside of the bus (1488) W The cleanliness and condition of the outside of the bus (1471) E The ease of getting onto and off of the bus (1524) W The length of time it took to board the bus (1487) E The cleanliness and condition of the inside of the bus (1553) E The information provided inside the bus (1408) W The availability of seating or space to stand (1496) E The comfort of the seats (1523) E The amount of personal space you had around you (1518) Provision of grab rails to stand/move within the bus (1510) E The temperature inside the bus (1527) W Your personal security whilst on the bus (1517) E SATISFACTION WITH THE BUS DRIVER How near to the kerb/stop the bus stopped (1512) W The driver s appearance (1455) W The greeting/welcome you got from the driver (1455) W The helpfulness and attitude of the driver (1441) W The time the driver gave you to get to seat (1482) W Smoothness/freedom from jolting during the journey (1474) E Safety of the driving (i.e. speed, driver concentrating) (1488) W Anti-social behaviour 7 % Journey profile Behaviour of other passengers giving respondents cause to worry or feel uncomfortable age % access to % has a disability % private transport Factors affecting journey length % 2011 % occurrence occurrence Congestion/traffic jam E Roadworks 9 7 E Bus driver driving too slowly 4 2 E Poor weather conditions 9 2 E Waiting too long at stops 5 5 W Time it took passengers to board W Passengers could provide more than one answer Age Age Age Easy access 27 Moderate 37 Limited/none 36 Yes 21 No 79 19

22 3 Area results Metropolitan counties South Yorkshire PTE (SYPTE) Headline results Overall Value for Punctuality Journey satisfaction 83 % money 59 % 65 % time 85 % Drivers of satisfaction (fare-payers only) Safety of driving Drives satisfaction Drives dissatisfaction Driver greeting Punctuality Amount of personal space Importance Exterior cleanliness Driver helpfulness Temperature Below average Satisfaction rating Above average Key results 2011 % satisfied OVERALL SATISFACTION WITH THE JOURNEY All passengers (1632) E Fare-paying passengers (788) W Free pass holders (839) E Age 16 to 34 (291) W Age 35 to 59 (541) W Passengers commuting (548) W Passengers not commuting (1007) W Passengers saying they have a disability (431) W SATISFACTION WITH VALUE FOR MONEY All fare-paying passengers (775) E Passengers commuting (491) E Passengers not commuting (262) E Age 16 to 34 (259) E Age 35 to 59 (474) W SATISFACTION WITH PUNCTUALITY All passengers (1465) E SATISFACTION WITH ON-BOARD JOURNEY LENGTH All passengers (1642)

23 Detailed results 2011 % satisfied SATISFACTION WITH THE BUS STOP Overall satisfaction with the bus stop (1627) Q Its distance from the journey start (1553) The convenience/accessibility of its location (1439) Its general condition/standard of maintenance (1441) E Its freedom from graffiti/vandalism (1414) W Its freedom from litter (1449) W The information provided at the stop (1440) Your personal safety whilst at the stop (1472) Q SATISFACTION ON THE BUS Route/destination information on the outside of the bus (1537) W The cleanliness and condition of the outside of the bus (1523) W The ease of getting onto and off of the bus (1593) W The length of time it took to board the bus (1553) W The cleanliness and condition of the inside of the bus (1613) W The information provided inside the bus (1424) W The availability of seating or space to stand (1572) W The comfort of the seats (1580) E The amount of personal space you had around you (1579) Provision of grab rails to stand/move within the bus (1580) W The temperature inside the bus (1587) W Your personal security whilst on the bus (1582) W SATISFACTION WITH THE BUS DRIVER How near to the kerb/stop the bus stopped (1590) E The driver s appearance (1527) E The greeting/welcome you got from the driver (1541) E The helpfulness and attitude of the driver (1518) E The time the driver gave you to get to seat (1579) E Smoothness/freedom from jolting during the journey (1562) W Safety of the driving (i.e. speed, driver concentrating) (1557) W Anti-social behaviour 7 % Journey profile Behaviour of other passengers giving respondents cause to worry or feel uncomfortable age % access to % has a disability % private transport Factors affecting journey length % 2011 % occurrence occurrence Congestion/traffic jam E Roadworks 9 6 E Bus driver driving too slowly 6 4 E Poor weather conditions 4 3 E Waiting too long at stops 8 6 E Time it took passengers to board E Passengers could provide more than one answer Age Age Age Easy access 24 Moderate 38 Limited/none 38 Yes 22 No 78 21

24 3 Area results Metropolitan counties Merseyside PTE (Merseytravel) Headline results Overall Value for Punctuality Journey satisfaction 87 % money 55 % 73 % time 90 % Drivers of satisfaction (fare-payers only) Drives satisfaction Drives dissatisfaction Driver helpfulness Smoothness of driving Importance Safety of driving Amount of personal space Below average Satisfaction rating Above average Key results 2011 % satisfied OVERALL SATISFACTION WITH THE JOURNEY All passengers (1225) W Fare-paying passengers (492) W Free pass holders (730) Q Age 16 to 34 (174) W Age 35 to 59 (361) Q Passengers commuting (299) W Passengers not commuting (870) W Passengers saying they have a disability (373) Q SATISFACTION WITH VALUE FOR MONEY All fare-paying passengers (483) W Passengers commuting (255) E Passengers not commuting (215) W Age 16 to 34 (160) W Age 35 to 59 (303) W SATISFACTION WITH PUNCTUALITY All passengers (1085) W SATISFACTION WITH ON-BOARD JOURNEY LENGTH All passengers (1236)

25 Detailed results 2011 % satisfied SATISFACTION WITH THE BUS STOP Overall satisfaction with the bus stop (1203) Q Its distance from the journey start (1157) The convenience/accessibility of its location (1096) Its general condition/standard of maintenance (1080) W Its freedom from graffiti/vandalism (1073) W Its freedom from litter (1094) W The information provided at the stop (1081) Your personal safety whilst at the stop (1101) Q SATISFACTION ON THE BUS Route/destination information on the outside of the bus (1145) Q The cleanliness and condition of the outside of the bus (1145) W The ease of getting onto and off of the bus (1197) Q The length of time it took to board the bus (1167) Q The cleanliness and condition of the inside of the bus (1206) W The information provided inside the bus (1057) W The availability of seating or space to stand (1192) Q The comfort of the seats (1191) Q The amount of personal space you had around you (1171) Provision of grab rails to stand/move within the bus (1165) W The temperature inside the bus (1173) Q Your personal security whilst on the bus (1182) Q SATISFACTION WITH THE BUS DRIVER How near to the kerb/stop the bus stopped (1190) W The driver s appearance (1138) W The greeting/welcome you got from the driver (1126) W The helpfulness and attitude of the driver (1123) W The time the driver gave you to get to seat (1155) W Smoothness/freedom from jolting during the journey (1157) Q Safety of the driving (i.e. speed, driver concentrating) (1160) W Anti-social behaviour 8 % Journey profile Behaviour of other passengers giving respondents cause to worry or feel uncomfortable age % access to % has a disability % private transport Factors affecting journey length % 2011 % occurrence occurrence Congestion/traffic jam W Roadworks W Bus driver driving too slowly 4 5 Q Poor weather conditions 7 4 E Waiting too long at stops 6 7 Q Time it took passengers to board Q Passengers could provide more than one answer Age Age Age Easy access 20 Moderate 35 Limited/none 45 Yes 27 No 73 23

26 3 Area results Metropolitan counties West Yorkshire PTE (Metro) Headline results Overall Value for Punctuality Journey satisfaction 85 % money 55 % 70 % time 86 % Drivers of satisfaction (fare-payers only) Driver greeting Punctuality Smoothness of driving Importance Safety of driving Drives satisfaction Drives dissatisfaction Below average Satisfaction rating Above average Key results 2011 % satisfied OVERALL SATISFACTION WITH THE JOURNEY All passengers (1604) W Fare-paying passengers (714) W Free pass holders (880) W Age 16 to 34 (310) W Age 35 to 59 (457) W Passengers commuting (449) W Passengers not commuting (1070) W Passengers saying they have a disability (414) W SATISFACTION WITH VALUE FOR MONEY All fare-paying passengers (706) W Passengers commuting (394) W Passengers not commuting (279) E Age 16 to 34 (275) W Age 35 to 59 (387) W SATISFACTION WITH PUNCTUALITY All passengers (1479) E SATISFACTION WITH ON-BOARD JOURNEY LENGTH All passengers (1603)

27 Detailed results 2011 % satisfied SATISFACTION WITH THE BUS STOP Overall satisfaction with the bus stop (1568) Q Its distance from the journey start (1518) The convenience/accessibility of its location (1432) Its general condition/standard of maintenance (1401) W Its freedom from graffiti/vandalism (1394) Q Its freedom from litter (1413) W The information provided at the stop (1428) Your personal safety whilst at the stop (1419) Q SATISFACTION ON THE BUS Route/destination information on the outside of the bus (1510) W The cleanliness and condition of the outside of the bus (1508) W The ease of getting onto and off of the bus (1579) W The length of time it took to board the bus (1543) W The cleanliness and condition of the inside of the bus (1596) Q The information provided inside the bus (1411) W The availability of seating or space to stand (1554) Q The comfort of the seats (1572) W The amount of personal space you had around you (1562) Provision of grab rails to stand/move within the bus (1550) W The temperature inside the bus (1571) W Your personal security whilst on the bus (1561) W SATISFACTION WITH THE BUS DRIVER How near to the kerb/stop the bus stopped (1553) W The driver s appearance (1498) W The greeting/welcome you got from the driver (1505) W The helpfulness and attitude of the driver (1475) W The time the driver gave you to get to seat (1524) Q Smoothness/freedom from jolting during the journey (1512) W Safety of the driving (i.e. speed, driver concentrating) (1538) W Anti-social behaviour 9 % Journey profile Behaviour of other passengers giving respondents cause to worry or feel uncomfortable age % access to % has a disability % private transport Factors affecting journey length % 2011 % occurrence occurrence Congestion/traffic jam E Roadworks 8 7 W Bus driver driving too slowly 6 5 W Poor weather conditions 6 4 E Waiting too long at stops 8 7 W Time it took passengers to board Passengers could provide more than one answer Age Age Age Easy access 22 Moderate 40 Limited/none 38 Yes 22 No 78 25

28 3 Area results Tees Valley Group Headline results Transport authority groups (made up of the five unitary authorities of Darlington, Hartlepool, Middlesbrough, Redcar & Cleveland, and Stockton on Tees) Overall Value for Punctuality Journey satisfaction 87 % money 61 % 75 % time 89 % Drivers of satisfaction (fare-payers only) Smoothness of driving Smoothness of driving More important On bus personal security Safety of driving Drives satisfaction Drives dissatisfaction Below average Satisfaction rating Above average Key results OVERALL SATISFACTION WITH THE JOURNEY All passengers (1697) Fare-paying passengers (611) Free pass holders (1083) Age 16 to 34 (248) Age 35 to 59 (420) Passengers commuting (369) Passengers not commuting (1224) Passengers saying they have a disability (518) SATISFACTION WITH VALUE FOR MONEY All fare-paying passengers (598) Passengers commuting (298) Passengers not commuting (272) Age 16 to 34 (220) Age 35 to 59 (336) SATISFACTION WITH PUNCTUALITY All passengers (1536) SATISFACTION WITH ON-BOARD JOURNEY LENGTH All passengers (1693)

29 Detailed results SATISFACTION WITH THE BUS STOP Overall satisfaction with the bus stop (1659) Its distance from the journey start (1581) The convenience/accessibility of its location (1464) Its general condition/standard of maintenance (1432) Its freedom from graffiti/vandalism (1419) Its freedom from litter (1453) The information provided at the stop (1429) Your personal safety whilst at the stop (1458) SATISFACTION ON THE BUS Route/destination information on the outside of the bus (1582) The cleanliness and condition of the outside of the bus (1573) The ease of getting onto and off of the bus (1659) The length of time it took to board the bus (1599) The cleanliness and condition of the inside of the bus (1666) The information provided inside the bus (1497) The availability of seating or space to stand (1623) The comfort of the seats (1643) The amount of personal space you had around you (1634) Provision of grab rails to stand/move within the bus (1613) The temperature inside the bus (1631) Your personal security whilst on the bus (1620) SATISFACTION WITH THE BUS DRIVER How near to the kerb/stop the bus stopped (1645) The driver s appearance (1607) The greeting/welcome you got from the driver (1619) The helpfulness and attitude of the driver (1582) The time the driver gave you to get to seat (1631) Smoothness/freedom from jolting during the journey (1599) Safety of the driving (i.e. speed, driver concentrating) (1622) Anti-social behaviour 9 % Journey profile age % access to % has a disability % private transport Age Age Age Behaviour of other passengers giving respondents cause to worry or feel uncomfortable Easy access 23 Moderate 40 Limited/none 36 Yes 27 No 73 Factors affecting journey length % occurrence Congestion/traffic jam 15 Roadworks 15 Bus driver driving too slowly 3 Poor weather conditions 5 Waiting too long at stops 6 Time it took passengers to board 17 Passengers could provide more than one answer 27

30 3 Area results Transport authority groups West of England Partnership Headline results (made up of the four unitary authorities of Bath & North East Somerset, Bristol City, North Somerset, and South Gloucestershire) Overall Value for Punctuality Journey satisfaction 82 % money 35 % 69 % time 83 % Drivers of satisfaction (fare-payers only) Drives satisfaction Drives dissatisfaction Driver helpfulness Length of time waited Importance Provision of grab rails to stand/move in bus On bus journey time Below average Satisfaction rating Above average Key results OVERALL SATISFACTION WITH THE JOURNEY All passengers (532) Fare-paying passengers (269) Free pass holders (261) Age 16 to 34 (119) Age 35 to 59 (151) Passengers commuting (183) Passengers not commuting (323) Passengers saying they have a disability (98) SATISFACTION WITH VALUE FOR MONEY All fare-paying passengers (266) Passengers commuting (165) Passengers not commuting (92) Age 16 to 34 (108) Age 35 to 59 (136) SATISFACTION WITH PUNCTUALITY All passengers (485) SATISFACTION WITH ON-BOARD JOURNEY LENGTH All passengers (534)

31 Detailed results SATISFACTION WITH THE BUS STOP Overall satisfaction with the bus stop (521) Its distance from the journey start (506) The convenience/accessibility of its location (484) Its general condition/standard of maintenance (483) Its freedom from graffiti/vandalism (465) Its freedom from litter (487) The information provided at the stop (476) Your personal safety whilst at the stop (486) SATISFACTION ON THE BUS Route/destination information on the outside of the bus (500) The cleanliness and condition of the outside of the bus (489) The ease of getting onto and off of the bus (515) The length of time it took to board the bus (507) The cleanliness and condition of the inside of the bus (524) The information provided inside the bus (462) The availability of seating or space to stand (511) The comfort of the seats (514) The amount of personal space you had around you (514) Provision of grab rails to stand/move within the bus (506) The temperature inside the bus (512) Your personal security whilst on the bus (508) SATISFACTION WITH THE BUS DRIVER How near to the kerb/stop the bus stopped (516) The driver s appearance (505) The greeting/welcome you got from the driver (502) The helpfulness and attitude of the driver (501) The time the driver gave you to get to seat (520) Smoothness/freedom from jolting during the journey (506) Safety of the driving (i.e. speed, driver concentrating) (505) Anti-social behaviour 7 % Journey profile age % access to % has a disability % private transport Age Age Age Behaviour of other passengers giving respondents cause to worry or feel uncomfortable Easy access 34 Moderate 33 Limited/none 33 Yes 17 No 83 Factors affecting journey length % occurrence Congestion/traffic jam 27 Roadworks 12 Bus driver driving too slowly 4 Poor weather conditions 8 Waiting too long at stops 13 Time it took passengers to board 22 Passengers could provide more than one answer 29

32 3 Area results Local transport authorities Devon County Council Headline results Overall Value for Punctuality Journey satisfaction 90 % money 53 % 78 % time 89 % Drivers of satisfaction (fare-payers only) Personal security Drives satisfaction Drives dissatisfaction Punctuality Comfort of seats Length of time waited Importance Time to get to seat On bus journey time Safety of driving Below average Satisfaction rating Above average Key results OVERALL SATISFACTION WITH THE JOURNEY All passengers (1016) Fare-paying passengers (370) Free pass holders (641) Age 16 to 34 (139) Age 35 to 59 (244) Passengers commuting (247) Passengers not commuting (728) Passengers saying they have a disability (266) SATISFACTION WITH VALUE FOR MONEY All fare-paying passengers (365) Passengers commuting (206) Passengers not commuting (151) Age 16 to 34 (113) Age 35 to 59 (208) SATISFACTION WITH PUNCTUALITY All passengers (954) SATISFACTION WITH ON-BOARD JOURNEY LENGTH All passengers (1029)

33 Detailed results SATISFACTION WITH THE BUS STOP Overall satisfaction with the bus stop (995) Its distance from the journey start (956) The convenience/accessibility of its location (919) Its general condition/standard of maintenance (880) Its freedom from graffiti/vandalism (872) Its freedom from litter (895) The information provided at the stop (851) Your personal safety whilst at the stop (921) SATISFACTION ON THE BUS Route/destination information on the outside of the bus (968) The cleanliness and condition of the outside of the bus (960) The ease of getting onto and off of the bus (1007) The length of time it took to board the bus (986) The cleanliness and condition of the inside of the bus (1007) The information provided inside the bus (883) The availability of seating or space to stand (997) The comfort of the seats (1002) The amount of personal space you had around you (991) Provision of grab rails to stand/move within the bus (980) The temperature inside the bus (995) Your personal security whilst on the bus (983) SATISFACTION WITH THE BUS DRIVER How near to the kerb/stop the bus stopped (1001) The driver s appearance (987) The greeting/welcome you got from the driver (987) The helpfulness and attitude of the driver (966) The time the driver gave you to get to seat (996) Smoothness/freedom from jolting during the journey (986) Safety of the driving (i.e. speed, driver concentrating) (985) Anti-social behaviour 9 % Journey profile age % access to % has a disability % private transport Age Age Age Behaviour of other passengers giving respondents cause to worry or feel uncomfortable Easy access 33 Moderate 41 Limited/none 25 Yes 24 No 76 Factors affecting journey length % occurrence Congestion/traffic jam 22 Roadworks 12 Bus driver driving too slowly 4 Poor weather conditions 9 Waiting too long at stops 7 Time it took passengers to board 19 Passengers could provide more than one answer 31

34 3 Area results Local transport authorities Essex County Council Headline results Overall Value for Punctuality Journey satisfaction 79 % money 45 % 59 % time 80 % Drivers of satisfaction (fare-payers only) Smoothness of driving Wait time at stop Importance On bus journey time On bus journey time Drives satisfaction Drives dissatisfaction Below average Satisfaction rating Above average Key results OVERALL SATISFACTION WITH THE JOURNEY All passengers (645) Fare-paying passengers (204) Free pass holders (440) Age 16 to 34 (88) Age 35 to 59 (134) Passengers commuting (128) Passengers not commuting (480) Passengers saying they have a disability (185) SATISFACTION WITH VALUE FOR MONEY All fare-paying passengers (196) Passengers commuting (101) Passengers not commuting (85) Age 16 to 34 (<75) Age 35 to 59 (108) SATISFACTION WITH PUNCTUALITY All passengers (593) SATISFACTION WITH ON-BOARD JOURNEY LENGTH All passengers (654)

35 Detailed results SATISFACTION WITH THE BUS STOP Overall satisfaction with the bus stop (629) Its distance from the journey start (616) The convenience/accessibility of its location (568) Its general condition/standard of maintenance (553) Its freedom from graffiti/vandalism (537) Its freedom from litter (560) The information provided at the stop (534) Your personal safety whilst at the stop (558) SATISFACTION ON THE BUS Route/destination information on the outside of the bus (618) The cleanliness and condition of the outside of the bus (599) The ease of getting onto and off of the bus (633) The length of time it took to board the bus (608) The cleanliness and condition of the inside of the bus (641) The information provided inside the bus (558) The availability of seating or space to stand (622) The comfort of the seats (630) The amount of personal space you had around you (623) Provision of grab rails to stand/move within the bus (616) The temperature inside the bus (626) Your personal security whilst on the bus (620) SATISFACTION WITH THE BUS DRIVER How near to the kerb/stop the bus stopped (639) The driver s appearance (610) The greeting/welcome you got from the driver (603) The helpfulness and attitude of the driver (600) The time the driver gave you to get to seat (621) Smoothness/freedom from jolting during the journey (622) Safety of the driving (i.e. speed, driver concentrating) (628) Anti-social behaviour 7 % Journey profile age % access to % has a disability % private transport Age Age Age Behaviour of other passengers giving respondents cause to worry or feel uncomfortable Easy access 24 Moderate 38 Limited/none 38 Yes 23 No 77 Factors affecting journey length % occurrence Congestion/traffic jam 28 Roadworks 10 Bus driver driving too slowly 7 Poor weather conditions 9 Waiting too long at stops 8 Time it took passengers to board 19 Passengers could provide more than one answer 33

36 3 Area results Local transport authorities Kent County Council Headline results Overall Value for Punctuality Journey satisfaction 84 % money 48 % 72 % time 89 % Drivers of satisfaction (fare-payers only) Drives satisfaction Drives dissatisfaction Smoothness of driving Smoothness of driving Personal security Importance Safety of driving Time taken to board Below average Satisfaction rating Above average Key results OVERALL SATISFACTION WITH THE JOURNEY All passengers (1410) Fare-paying passengers (486) Free pass holders (920) Age 16 to 34 (241) Age 35 to 59 (303) Passengers commuting (329) Passengers not commuting (1013) Passengers saying they have a disability (428) SATISFACTION WITH VALUE FOR MONEY All fare-paying passengers (473) Passengers commuting (264) Passengers not commuting (196) Age 16 to 34 (203) Age 35 to 59 (229) SATISFACTION WITH PUNCTUALITY All passengers (1265) SATISFACTION WITH ON-BOARD JOURNEY LENGTH All passengers (1423)

37 Detailed results SATISFACTION WITH THE BUS STOP Overall satisfaction with the bus stop (1394) Its distance from the journey start (1341) The convenience/accessibility of its location (1250) Its general condition/standard of maintenance (1221) Its freedom from graffiti/vandalism (1213) Its freedom from litter (1230) The information provided at the stop (1187) Your personal safety whilst at the stop (1245) SATISFACTION ON THE BUS Route/destination information on the outside of the bus (1349) The cleanliness and condition of the outside of the bus (1334) The ease of getting onto and off of the bus (1398) The length of time it took to board the bus (1350) The cleanliness and condition of the inside of the bus (1398) The information provided inside the bus (1231) The availability of seating or space to stand (1381) The comfort of the seats (1380) The amount of personal space you had around you (1369) Provision of grab rails to stand/move within the bus (1350) The temperature inside the bus (1378) Your personal security whilst on the bus (1358) SATISFACTION WITH THE BUS DRIVER How near to the kerb/stop the bus stopped (1389) The driver s appearance (1355) The greeting/welcome you got from the driver (1361) The helpfulness and attitude of the driver (1333) The time the driver gave you to get to seat (1361) Smoothness/freedom from jolting during the journey (1345) Safety of the driving (i.e. speed, driver concentrating) (1360) Anti-social behaviour 8 % Journey profile age % access to % has a disability % private transport Age Age Age Behaviour of other passengers giving respondents cause to worry or feel uncomfortable Easy access 23 Moderate 39 Limited/none 37 Yes 28 No 72 Factors affecting journey length % occurrence Congestion/traffic jam 20 Roadworks 13 Bus driver driving too slowly 4 Poor weather conditions 6 Waiting too long at stops 8 Time it took passengers to board 22 Passengers could provide more than one answer 35

38 3 Area results Local transport authorities Milton Keynes Council Headline results Overall Value for Punctuality Journey satisfaction 73 % money 48 % 57 % time 79 % Drivers of satisfaction (fare-payers only) Punctuality Smoothness of driving Importance Safety of driving Safety of driving On bus journey time Drives satisfaction Drives dissatisfaction Below average Satisfaction rating Above average Key results OVERALL SATISFACTION WITH THE JOURNEY All passengers (618) Fare-paying passengers (306) Free pass holders (311) Age 16 to 34 (143) Age 35 to 59 (180) Passengers commuting (216) Passengers not commuting (370) Passengers saying they have a disability (141) SATISFACTION WITH VALUE FOR MONEY All fare-paying passengers (303) Passengers commuting (189) Passengers not commuting (103) Age 16 to 34 (133) Age 35 to 59 (150) SATISFACTION WITH PUNCTUALITY All passengers (572) SATISFACTION WITH ON-BOARD JOURNEY LENGTH All passengers (623)

39 Detailed results SATISFACTION WITH THE BUS STOP Overall satisfaction with the bus stop (610) Its distance from the journey start (589) The convenience/accessibility of its location (568) Its general condition/standard of maintenance (559) Its freedom from graffiti/vandalism (540) Its freedom from litter (565) The information provided at the stop (544) Your personal safety whilst at the stop (572) SATISFACTION ON THE BUS Route/destination information on the outside of the bus (586) The cleanliness and condition of the outside of the bus (582) The ease of getting onto and off of the bus (601) The length of time it took to board the bus (595) The cleanliness and condition of the inside of the bus (611) The information provided inside the bus (554) The availability of seating or space to stand (602) The comfort of the seats (601) The amount of personal space you had around you (593) Provision of grab rails to stand/move within the bus (585) The temperature inside the bus (603) Your personal security whilst on the bus (595) SATISFACTION WITH THE BUS DRIVER How near to the kerb/stop the bus stopped (599) The driver s appearance (584) The greeting/welcome you got from the driver (599) The helpfulness and attitude of the driver (578) The time the driver gave you to get to seat (605) Smoothness/freedom from jolting during the journey (597) Safety of the driving (i.e. speed, driver concentrating) (601) Anti-social behaviour 10 % Journey profile age % access to % has a disability % private transport Age Age Age Behaviour of other passengers giving respondents cause to worry or feel uncomfortable Easy access 18 Moderate 39 Limited/none 43 Yes 17 No 83 Factors affecting journey length % occurrence Congestion/traffic jam 12 Roadworks 3 Bus driver driving too slowly 11 Poor weather conditions 11 Waiting too long at stops 12 Time it took passengers to board 31 Passengers could provide more than one answer 37

40 3 Area results Local transport authorities Northumberland County Council Headline results Overall Value for Punctuality Journey satisfaction 79 % money 38 % 65 % time 79 % Drivers of satisfaction (fare-payers only) Punctuality On bus journey time Drives satisfaction Drives dissatisfaction Helpfulness Importance Smoothness of driving Interior cleanliness Below average Satisfaction rating Above average Key results OVERALL SATISFACTION WITH THE JOURNEY All passengers (668) Fare-paying passengers (236) Free pass holders (432) Age 16 to 34 (102) Age 35 to 59 (154) Passengers commuting (151) Passengers not commuting (487) Passengers saying they have a disability (183) SATISFACTION WITH VALUE FOR MONEY All fare-paying passengers (232) Passengers commuting (125) Passengers not commuting (101) Age 16 to 34 (86) Age 35 to 59 (125) SATISFACTION WITH PUNCTUALITY All passengers (627) SATISFACTION WITH ON-BOARD JOURNEY LENGTH All passengers (668)

41 Detailed results SATISFACTION WITH THE BUS STOP Overall satisfaction with the bus stop (656) Its distance from the journey start (630) The convenience/accessibility of its location (578) Its general condition/standard of maintenance (574) Its freedom from graffiti/vandalism (562) Its freedom from litter (580) The information provided at the stop (559) Your personal safety whilst at the stop (585) SATISFACTION ON THE BUS Route/destination information on the outside of the bus (628) The cleanliness and condition of the outside of the bus (626) The ease of getting onto and off of the bus (639) The length of time it took to board the bus (616) The cleanliness and condition of the inside of the bus (658) The information provided inside the bus (593) The availability of seating or space to stand (641) The comfort of the seats (643) The amount of personal space you had around you (645) Provision of grab rails to stand/move within the bus (636) The temperature inside the bus (643) Your personal security whilst on the bus (647) SATISFACTION WITH THE BUS DRIVER How near to the kerb/stop the bus stopped (653) The driver s appearance (639) The greeting/welcome you got from the driver (635) The helpfulness and attitude of the driver (626) The time the driver gave you to get to seat (641) Smoothness/freedom from jolting during the journey (632) Safety of the driving (i.e. speed, driver concentrating) (640) Anti-social behaviour 10 % Journey profile age % access to % has a disability % private transport Age Age Age Behaviour of other passengers giving respondents cause to worry or feel uncomfortable Easy access 29 Moderate 40 Limited/none 32 Yes 23 No 77 Factors affecting journey length % occurrence Congestion/traffic jam 18 Roadworks 10 Bus driver driving too slowly 5 Poor weather conditions 3 Waiting too long at stops 8 Time it took passengers to board 20 Passengers could provide more than one answer 39

42 3 Area results Local transport authorities Nottingham City Council Headline results Overall Value for Punctuality Journey satisfaction 92 % money 70 % 83 % time 91 % Drivers of satisfaction (fare-payers only) Smoothness of driving Drives satisfaction Drives dissatisfaction Smoothness of driving Comfort of seats Importance On bus journey time Below average Satisfaction rating Above average Key results OVERALL SATISFACTION WITH THE JOURNEY All passengers (557) Fare-paying passengers (285) Free pass holders (270) Age 16 to 34 (130) Age 35 to 59 (185) Passengers commuting (181) Passengers not commuting (349) Passengers saying they have a disability (151) SATISFACTION WITH VALUE FOR MONEY All fare-paying passengers (277) Passengers commuting (149) Passengers not commuting (116) Age 16 to 34 (108) Age 35 to 59 (147) SATISFACTION WITH PUNCTUALITY All passengers (529) SATISFACTION WITH ON-BOARD JOURNEY LENGTH All passengers (558)

43 Detailed results SATISFACTION WITH THE BUS STOP Overall satisfaction with the bus stop (558) Its distance from the journey start (546) The convenience/accessibility of its location (526) Its general condition/standard of maintenance (525) Its freedom from graffiti/vandalism (523) Its freedom from litter (531) The information provided at the stop (525) Your personal safety whilst at the stop (526) SATISFACTION ON THE BUS Route/destination information on the outside of the bus (544) The cleanliness and condition of the outside of the bus (533) The ease of getting onto and off of the bus (559) The length of time it took to board the bus (538) The cleanliness and condition of the inside of the bus (557) The information provided inside the bus (525) The availability of seating or space to stand (545) The comfort of the seats (553) The amount of personal space you had around you (549) Provision of grab rails to stand/move within the bus (548) The temperature inside the bus (551) Your personal security whilst on the bus (546) SATISFACTION WITH THE BUS DRIVER How near to the kerb/stop the bus stopped (545) The driver s appearance (526) The greeting/welcome you got from the driver (536) The helpfulness and attitude of the driver (525) The time the driver gave you to get to seat (540) Smoothness/freedom from jolting during the journey (547) Safety of the driving (i.e. speed, driver concentrating) (542) Anti-social behaviour 9 % Journey profile age % access to % has a disability % private transport Age Age Age Behaviour of other passengers giving respondents cause to worry or feel uncomfortable Easy access 30 Moderate 34 Limited/none 36 Yes 21 No 79 Factors affecting journey length % occurrence Congestion/traffic jam 17 Roadworks 18 Bus driver driving too slowly 4 Poor weather conditions 2 Waiting too long at stops 7 Time it took passengers to board 16 Passengers could provide more than one answer 41

44 3 Area results Local transport authorities Nottinghamshire County Council Headline results Overall Value for Punctuality Journey satisfaction 87 % money 65 % 69 % time 84 % Drivers of satisfaction (fare-payers only) Value for money Driver greeting and driver helpfulness Importance Safety of driving On bus journey time Safety of driving Availability of seating/space to stand Drives satisfaction Drives dissatisfaction Below average Satisfaction rating Above average Key results OVERALL SATISFACTION WITH THE JOURNEY All passengers (461) Fare-paying passengers (207) Free pass holders (254) Age 16 to 34 (<75) Age 35 to 59 (128) Passengers commuting (130) Passengers not commuting (312) Passengers saying they have a disability (115) SATISFACTION WITH VALUE FOR MONEY All fare-paying passengers (205) Passengers commuting (121) Passengers not commuting (80) Age 16 to 34 (<75) Age 35 to 59 (111) SATISFACTION WITH PUNCTUALITY All passengers (413) SATISFACTION WITH ON-BOARD JOURNEY LENGTH All passengers (462)

45 Detailed results SATISFACTION WITH THE BUS STOP Overall satisfaction with the bus stop (447) Its distance from the journey start (428) The convenience/accessibility of its location (417) Its general condition/standard of maintenance (392) Its freedom from graffiti/vandalism (388) Its freedom from litter (395) The information provided at the stop (394) Your personal safety whilst at the stop (403) SATISFACTION ON THE BUS Route/destination information on the outside of the bus (428) The cleanliness and condition of the outside of the bus (425) The ease of getting onto and off of the bus (447) The length of time it took to board the bus (420) The cleanliness and condition of the inside of the bus (449) The information provided inside the bus (409) The availability of seating or space to stand (431) The comfort of the seats (438) The amount of personal space you had around you (428) Provision of grab rails to stand/move within the bus (430) The temperature inside the bus (428) Your personal security whilst on the bus (431) SATISFACTION WITH THE BUS DRIVER How near to the kerb/stop the bus stopped (445) The driver s appearance (433) The greeting/welcome you got from the driver (436) The helpfulness and attitude of the driver (428) The time the driver gave you to get to seat (439) Smoothness/freedom from jolting during the journey (433) Safety of the driving (i.e. speed, driver concentrating) (437) Anti-social behaviour 8 % Journey profile age % access to % has a disability % private transport Age Age Age Behaviour of other passengers giving respondents cause to worry or feel uncomfortable Easy access 28 Moderate 37 Limited/none 35 Yes 19 No 81 Factors affecting journey length % occurrence Congestion/traffic jam 22 Roadworks 16 Bus driver driving too slowly 5 Poor weather conditions 1 Waiting too long at stops 8 Time it took passengers to board 16 Passengers could provide more than one answer 43

46 3 Area results Local transport authorities Oxfordshire County Council Headline results Overall Value for Punctuality Journey satisfaction 91 % money 58 % 73 % time 83 % Drivers of satisfaction (fare-payers only) Drives satisfaction Drives dissatisfaction Length of time waited Smoothness of driving Importance On bus journey time Driver appearance Below average Satisfaction rating Above average Key results OVERALL SATISFACTION WITH THE JOURNEY All passengers (620) Fare-paying passengers (391) Free pass holders (229) Age 16 to 34 (139) Age 35 to 59 (223) Passengers commuting (295) Passengers not commuting (301) Passengers saying they have a disability (90) SATISFACTION WITH VALUE FOR MONEY All fare-paying passengers (385) Passengers commuting (258) Passengers not commuting (115) Age 16 to 34 (131) Age 35 to 59 (209) SATISFACTION WITH PUNCTUALITY All passengers (559) SATISFACTION WITH ON-BOARD JOURNEY LENGTH All passengers (625)

47 Detailed results SATISFACTION WITH THE BUS STOP Overall satisfaction with the bus stop (608) Its distance from the journey start (595) The convenience/accessibility of its location (586) Its general condition/standard of maintenance (593) Its freedom from graffiti/vandalism (569) Its freedom from litter (582) The information provided at the stop (582) Your personal safety whilst at the stop (581) SATISFACTION ON THE BUS Route/destination information on the outside of the bus (600) The cleanliness and condition of the outside of the bus (586) The ease of getting onto and off of the bus (619) The length of time it took to board the bus (612) The cleanliness and condition of the inside of the bus (622) The information provided inside the bus (558) The availability of seating or space to stand (618) The comfort of the seats (614) The amount of personal space you had around you (615) Provision of grab rails to stand/move within the bus (595) The temperature inside the bus (615) Your personal security whilst on the bus (606) SATISFACTION WITH THE BUS DRIVER How near to the kerb/stop the bus stopped (604) The driver s appearance (591) The greeting/welcome you got from the driver (596) The helpfulness and attitude of the driver (585) The time the driver gave you to get to seat (599) Smoothness/freedom from jolting during the journey (594) Safety of the driving (i.e. speed, driver concentrating) (602) Anti-social behaviour 4 % Journey profile age % access to % has a disability % private transport Age Age Age Behaviour of other passengers giving respondents cause to worry or feel uncomfortable Easy access 40 Moderate 33 Limited/none 27 Yes 11 No 89 Factors affecting journey length % occurrence Congestion/traffic jam 34 Roadworks 4 Bus driver driving too slowly 3 Poor weather conditions 6 Waiting too long at stops 7 Time it took passengers to board 22 Passengers could provide more than one answer 45

48 3 Area results Local transport authorities Suffolk County Council Headline results Overall Value for Punctuality Journey satisfaction 86 % money 58 % 77 % time 86 % Drivers of satisfaction (fare-payers only) On bus journey time Drives satisfaction Drives dissatisfaction Bus stop freedom from litter Punctuality Importance Smoothness of driving Safety of driving Below average Satisfaction rating Above average Key results OVERALL SATISFACTION WITH THE JOURNEY All passengers (645) Fare-paying passengers (244) Free pass holders (401) Age 16 to 34 (96) Age 35 to 59 (159) Passengers commuting (145) Passengers not commuting (465) Passengers saying they have a disability (180) SATISFACTION WITH VALUE FOR MONEY All fare-paying passengers (241) Passengers commuting (119) Passengers not commuting (114) Age 16 to 34 (87) Age 35 to 59 (131) SATISFACTION WITH PUNCTUALITY All passengers (615) SATISFACTION WITH ON-BOARD JOURNEY LENGTH All passengers (651)

49 Detailed results SATISFACTION WITH THE BUS STOP Overall satisfaction with the bus stop (632) Its distance from the journey start (612) The convenience/accessibility of its location (574) Its general condition/standard of maintenance (566) Its freedom from graffiti/vandalism (559) Its freedom from litter (571) The information provided at the stop (525) Your personal safety whilst at the stop (575) SATISFACTION ON THE BUS Route/destination information on the outside of the bus (624) The cleanliness and condition of the outside of the bus (621) The ease of getting onto and off of the bus (641) The length of time it took to board the bus (619) The cleanliness and condition of the inside of the bus (645) The information provided inside the bus (567) The availability of seating or space to stand (635) The comfort of the seats (630) The amount of personal space you had around you (628) Provision of grab rails to stand/move within the bus (617) The temperature inside the bus (632) Your personal security whilst on the bus (626) SATISFACTION WITH THE BUS DRIVER How near to the kerb/stop the bus stopped (638) The driver s appearance (629) The greeting/welcome you got from the driver (626) The helpfulness and attitude of the driver (607) The time the driver gave you to get to seat (635) Smoothness/freedom from jolting during the journey (626) Safety of the driving (i.e. speed, driver concentrating) (628) Anti-social behaviour 8 % Journey profile age % access to % has a disability % private transport Age Age Age Behaviour of other passengers giving respondents cause to worry or feel uncomfortable Easy access 30 Moderate 35 Limited/none 36 Yes 25 No 75 Factors affecting journey length % occurrence Congestion/traffic jam 23 Roadworks 26 Bus driver driving too slowly 2 Poor weather conditions 2 Waiting too long at stops 7 Time it took passengers to board 14 Passengers could provide more than one answer 47

50 3 Area results Thurrock Council Headline results Local transport authorities Overall Value for Punctuality Journey satisfaction 87 % money 53 % 71 % time 82 % Drivers of satisfaction (fare-payers only) Smoothness of driving Value for money Importance Interior cleanliness Safety of driving On bus journey time Nearness to kerb Drives satisfaction Drives dissatisfaction Below average Satisfaction rating Above average Key results OVERALL SATISFACTION WITH THE JOURNEY All passengers (383) Fare-paying passengers (164) Free pass holders (217) Age 16 to 34 (80) Age 35 to 59 (102) Passengers commuting (117) Passengers not commuting (245) Passengers saying they have a disability (102) SATISFACTION WITH VALUE FOR MONEY All fare-paying passengers (160) Passengers commuting (98) Passengers not commuting (<75) Age 16 to 34 (<75) Age 35 to 59 (84) SATISFACTION WITH PUNCTUALITY All passengers (352) SATISFACTION WITH ON-BOARD JOURNEY LENGTH All passengers (389)

51 Detailed results SATISFACTION WITH THE BUS STOP Overall satisfaction with the bus stop (379) Its distance from the journey start (366) The convenience/accessibility of its location (341) Its general condition/standard of maintenance (335) Its freedom from graffiti/vandalism (328) Its freedom from litter (343) The information provided at the stop (338) Your personal safety whilst at the stop (347) SATISFACTION ON THE BUS Route/destination information on the outside of the bus (370) The cleanliness and condition of the outside of the bus (357) The ease of getting onto and off of the bus (378) The length of time it took to board the bus (371) The cleanliness and condition of the inside of the bus (380) The information provided inside the bus (346) The availability of seating or space to stand (375) The comfort of the seats (373) The amount of personal space you had around you (370) Provision of grab rails to stand/move within the bus (362) The temperature inside the bus (370) Your personal security whilst on the bus (369) SATISFACTION WITH THE BUS DRIVER How near to the kerb/stop the bus stopped (373) The driver s appearance (357) The greeting/welcome you got from the driver (361) The helpfulness and attitude of the driver (349) The time the driver gave you to get to seat (367) Smoothness/freedom from jolting during the journey (366) Safety of the driving (i.e. speed, driver concentrating) (362) Anti-social behaviour 10 % Journey profile age % access to % has a disability % private transport Age Age Age Behaviour of other passengers giving respondents cause to worry or feel uncomfortable Easy access 22 Moderate 41 Limited/none 37 Yes 23 No 77 Factors affecting journey length % occurrence Congestion/traffic jam 16 Roadworks 8 Bus driver driving too slowly 9 Poor weather conditions 5 Waiting too long at stops 10 Time it took passengers to board 24 Passengers could provide more than one answer 49

52 3 Area results Local transport authorities Warrington Borough Council Headline results Overall Value for Punctuality Journey satisfaction 87 % money 58 % 75 % time 87 % Drivers of satisfaction (fare-payers only) Please note: Sample size too low to generate chart Importance Drives satisfaction Drives dissatisfaction Below average Satisfaction rating Above average Key results OVERALL SATISFACTION WITH THE JOURNEY All passengers (279) Fare-paying passengers (125) Free pass holders (154) Age 16 to 34 (55) Age 35 to 59 (<75) Passengers commuting (82) Passengers not commuting (185) Passengers saying they have a disability (<75) SATISFACTION WITH VALUE FOR MONEY All fare-paying passengers (124) Passengers commuting (<75) Passengers not commuting (<75) Age 16 to 34 (<75) Age 35 to 59 (<75) SATISFACTION WITH PUNCTUALITY All passengers (254) SATISFACTION WITH ON-BOARD JOURNEY LENGTH All passengers (281)

53 Detailed results SATISFACTION WITH THE BUS STOP Overall satisfaction with the bus stop (272) Its distance from the journey start (273) The convenience/accessibility of its location (251) Its general condition/standard of maintenance (241) Its freedom from graffiti/vandalism (246) Its freedom from litter (240) The information provided at the stop (243) Your personal safety whilst at the stop (246) SATISFACTION ON THE BUS Route/destination information on the outside of the bus (268) The cleanliness and condition of the outside of the bus (271) The ease of getting onto and off of the bus (276) The length of time it took to board the bus (275) The cleanliness and condition of the inside of the bus (280) The information provided inside the bus (255) The availability of seating or space to stand (277) The comfort of the seats (275) The amount of personal space you had around you (273) Provision of grab rails to stand/move within the bus (266) The temperature inside the bus (274) Your personal security whilst on the bus (270) SATISFACTION WITH THE BUS DRIVER How near to the kerb/stop the bus stopped (273) The driver s appearance (261) The greeting/welcome you got from the driver (267) The helpfulness and attitude of the driver (269) The time the driver gave you to get to seat (264) Smoothness/freedom from jolting during the journey (261) Safety of the driving (i.e. speed, driver concentrating) (270) Anti-social behaviour 8 % Journey profile age % access to % has a disability % private transport Age Age Age Behaviour of other passengers giving respondents cause to worry or feel uncomfortable Easy access 25 Moderate 42 Limited/none 33 Yes 21 No 79 Factors affecting journey length % occurrence Congestion/traffic jam 25 Roadworks 14 Bus driver driving too slowly 6 Poor weather conditions 3 Waiting too long at stops 3 Time it took passengers to board 16 Passengers could provide more than one answer 51

54 3 Area results Local transport authorities Worcestershire County Council Headline results Overall Value for Punctuality Journey satisfaction 83 % money 60 % 65 % time 85 % Drivers of satisfaction (fare-payers only) Punctuality Bus stop freedom from litter Length of time waited Driver greeting Importance Safety of driving On bus journey time Drives satisfaction Drives dissatisfaction Below average Satisfaction rating Above average Key results OVERALL SATISFACTION WITH THE JOURNEY All passengers (390) Fare-paying passengers (108) Free pass holders (282) Age 16 to 34 (<75) Age 35 to 59 (<75) Passengers commuting (<75) Passengers not commuting (320) Passengers saying they have a disability (128) SATISFACTION WITH VALUE FOR MONEY All fare-paying passengers (104) Passengers commuting (<75) Passengers not commuting (<75) Age 16 to 34 (<75) Age 35 to 59 (<75) SATISFACTION WITH PUNCTUALITY All passengers (352) SATISFACTION WITH ON-BOARD JOURNEY LENGTH All passengers (387)

55 Detailed results SATISFACTION WITH THE BUS STOP Overall satisfaction with the bus stop (384) Its distance from the journey start (364) The convenience/accessibility of its location (343) Its general condition/standard of maintenance (335) Its freedom from graffiti/vandalism (328) Its freedom from litter (341) The information provided at the stop (333) Your personal safety whilst at the stop (352) SATISFACTION ON THE BUS Route/destination information on the outside of the bus (359) The cleanliness and condition of the outside of the bus (358) The ease of getting onto and off of the bus (379) The length of time it took to board the bus (367) The cleanliness and condition of the inside of the bus (380) The information provided inside the bus (332) The availability of seating or space to stand (377) The comfort of the seats (379) The amount of personal space you had around you (377) Provision of grab rails to stand/move within the bus (370) The temperature inside the bus (376) Your personal security whilst on the bus (373) SATISFACTION WITH THE BUS DRIVER How near to the kerb/stop the bus stopped (381) The driver s appearance (372) The greeting/welcome you got from the driver (368) The helpfulness and attitude of the driver (366) The time the driver gave you to get to seat (377) Smoothness/freedom from jolting during the journey (366) Safety of the driving (i.e. speed, driver concentrating) (375) Anti-social behaviour 7 % Journey profile age % access to % has a disability % private transport Age Age Age Behaviour of other passengers giving respondents cause to worry or feel uncomfortable Easy access 26 Moderate 35 Limited/none 39 Yes 31 No 69 Factors affecting journey length % occurrence Congestion/traffic jam 29 Roadworks 15 Bus driver driving too slowly 4 Poor weather conditions 9 Waiting too long at stops 3 Time it took passengers to board 22 Passengers could provide more than one answer 53

56 3 Area results Bus Rapid Transit Cambridgeshire Busway Headline results Overall Value for Punctuality Journey satisfaction 87 % money 55 % 79 % time 78 % Drivers of satisfaction (fare-payers only) Please note: Sample size too low to generate chart Importance Drives satisfaction Drives dissatisfaction Below average Satisfaction rating Above average Key results OVERALL SATISFACTION WITH THE JOURNEY All passengers (295) Fare-paying passengers (183) Free pass holders (112) Age 16 to 34 (80) Age 35 to 59 (96) Passengers commuting (158) Passengers not commuting (131) Passengers saying they have a disability (<75) SATISFACTION WITH VALUE FOR MONEY All fare-paying passengers (180) Passengers commuting (144) Passengers not commuting (<75) Age 16 to 34 (<75) Age 35 to 59 (90) SATISFACTION WITH PUNCTUALITY All passengers (272) SATISFACTION WITH ON-BOARD JOURNEY LENGTH All passengers (296)

57 Detailed results SATISFACTION WITH THE BUS STOP Overall satisfaction with the bus stop (287) Its distance from the journey start (282) The convenience/accessibility of its location (279) Its general condition/standard of maintenance (274) Its freedom from graffiti/vandalism (274) Its freedom from litter (276) The information provided at the stop (271) Your personal safety whilst at the stop (277) SATISFACTION ON THE BUS Route/destination information on the outside of the bus (285) The cleanliness and condition of the outside of the bus (285) The ease of getting onto and off of the bus (290) The length of time it took to board the bus (286) The cleanliness and condition of the inside of the bus (293) The information provided inside the bus (262) The availability of seating or space to stand (293) The comfort of the seats (285) The amount of personal space you had around you (290) Provision of grab rails to stand/move within the bus (286) The temperature inside the bus (292) Your personal security whilst on the bus (289) SATISFACTION WITH THE BUS DRIVER How near to the kerb/stop the bus stopped (287) The driver s appearance (288) The greeting/welcome you got from the driver (282) The helpfulness and attitude of the driver (279) The time the driver gave you to get to seat (281) Smoothness/freedom from jolting during the journey (287) Safety of the driving (i.e. speed, driver concentrating) (286) Anti-social behaviour 7 % Journey profile age % access to % has a disability % private transport Age Age Age Behaviour of other passengers giving respondents cause to worry or feel uncomfortable Easy access 44 Moderate 35 Limited/none 21 Yes 16 No 84 Factors affecting journey length % occurrence Congestion/traffic jam 29 Roadworks 8 Bus driver driving too slowly 3 Poor weather conditions 14 Waiting too long at stops 7 Time it took passengers to board 26 Passengers could provide more than one answer 55

58 3 Area results Bus Rapid Transit Hampshire Bus Rapid Transit Phase 1 Headline results Overall Value for Punctuality Journey satisfaction 89 % money 30 % 81 % time 94 % Drivers of satisfaction (fare-payers only) Please note: Sample size too low to generate chart Importance Drives satisfaction Drives dissatisfaction Below average Satisfaction rating Above average Key results OVERALL SATISFACTION WITH THE JOURNEY All passengers (307) Fare-paying passengers (95) Free pass holders (209) Age 16 to 34 (<75) Age 35 to 59 (<75) Passengers commuting (<75) Passengers not commuting (233) Passengers saying they have a disability (<75) SATISFACTION WITH VALUE FOR MONEY All fare-paying passengers (89) Passengers commuting (<75) Passengers not commuting (<75) Age 16 to 34 (<75) Age 35 to 59 (<75) SATISFACTION WITH PUNCTUALITY All passengers (281) SATISFACTION WITH ON-BOARD JOURNEY LENGTH All passengers (301)

59 Detailed results SATISFACTION WITH THE BUS STOP Overall satisfaction with the bus stop (298) Its distance from the journey start (281) The convenience/accessibility of its location (275) Its general condition/standard of maintenance (269) Its freedom from graffiti/vandalism (265) Its freedom from litter (272) The information provided at the stop (271) Your personal safety whilst at the stop (271) SATISFACTION ON THE BUS Route/destination information on the outside of the bus (295) The cleanliness and condition of the outside of the bus (293) The ease of getting onto and off of the bus (292) The length of time it took to board the bus (284) The cleanliness and condition of the inside of the bus (302) The information provided inside the bus (284) The availability of seating or space to stand (293) The comfort of the seats (301) The amount of personal space you had around you (296) Provision of grab rails to stand/move within the bus (296) The temperature inside the bus (294) Your personal security whilst on the bus (295) SATISFACTION WITH THE BUS DRIVER How near to the kerb/stop the bus stopped (299) The driver s appearance (293) The greeting/welcome you got from the driver (288) The helpfulness and attitude of the driver (286) The time the driver gave you to get to seat (297) Smoothness/freedom from jolting during the journey (291) Safety of the driving (i.e. speed, driver concentrating) (296) Anti-social behaviour 6 % Journey profile age % access to % has a disability % private transport Age Age Age Behaviour of other passengers giving respondents cause to worry or feel uncomfortable Easy access 28 Moderate 40 Limited/none 33 Yes 21 No 79 Factors affecting journey length % occurrence Congestion/traffic jam 18 Roadworks 6 Bus driver driving too slowly 2 Poor weather conditions 4 Waiting too long at stops 9 Time it took passengers to board 22 Passengers could provide more than one answer 57

60 4 Bus Passenger Survey Bus operator key findings The overall satisfaction achieved by operators on their routes within the areas surveyed ranged from 72 per cent to 95 per cent*. The aggregate scores for the four national operators on their services within the areas surveyed were: Arriva 85 per cent First 81 per cent National Express 78 per cent Stagecoach 86 per cent. Passenger satisfaction with value for money achieved by operators ranged from 33 per cent to 74 per cent. The aggregate scores for the four national operators on their services within the areas surveyed were: Arriva 48 per cent First 48 per cent National Express 50 per cent Stagecoach 59 per cent. Passenger satisfaction with punctuality achieved by operators ranged from 54 per cent to 83 per cent. The aggregate scores for the four national operators on their services within the areas surveyed were: Arriva 71 per cent First 63 per cent National Express 62 per cent Stagecoach 74 per cent. Passenger satisfaction with value for money ranged from 33 % to 74 % Passenger satisfaction with on-bus journey time achieved by operators ranged from 75 per cent to 91 per cent. The aggregate scores for the four national operators on their services within the areas surveyed were: Arriva 86 per cent First 83 per cent National Express 80 per cent Stagecoach 86 per cent. * As a result of the areas selected the proportion of each national operator s services surveyed will vary. Due to coverage of areas served by Go-Ahead services being less widespread they have been omitted from the national operator results provided. 58

61 1 Overall satisfaction with the bus journey (%) % - very/fairly satisfied* Q33 Overall, taking everything into account from start to end of this bus journey, how satisfied were you with your bus journey today? *Due to rounding the percentage very / fairly satisfied may not always be equal to the sum of the very and fairly satisfied values in the chart 59

62 4 Bus Passenger Survey 2 Satisfaction with value for money fare-paying passengers (%) % - very/fairly satisfied* Q How satisfied were you with the value for money of your journey? * Due to rounding the percentage very / fairly satisfied may not always be equal to the sum of the very and fairly satisfied values in the chart ** Note small sample size 60

63 3 Satisfaction with punctuality of the bus (%) % - very/fairly satisfied* Q How satisfied were you with each of the following: The punctuality of the bus * Due to rounding the percentage very / fairly satisfied may not always be equal to the sum of the very and fairly satisfied values in the chart 61

64 4 Bus Passenger Survey 4 Satisfaction with bus journey time (%) % - very/fairly satisfied* Q How satisfied were you with the length of time your journey on the bus took? * Due to rounding the percentage very / fairly satisfied may not always be equal to the sum of the very and fairly satisfied values in the chart 62

65 5 Scores for key measures for national operators (achieved from their operations across the areas surveyed*) % - very/fairly satisfied** * Due to coverage of areas served by Go-Ahead services being less widespread they have been omitted from the national operator results provided. ** Due to rounding the percentage very / fairly satisfied may not always be equal to the sum of the very and fairly satisfied values in the chart 63

66 64

67 5 Bus Passenger Survey Introduction to bus operator results The Bus Passenger Survey was carried out in 20 local transport authority (LTA) areas. Within each area, results have been provided for operators where enough responses were received. The results achieved by national bus operators* across the whole survey are shown first. Following this are the results for operators in areas provided alphabetically. We recommend reading How the research was carried out and making use of results on page 104. Opposite is the list of the results provided. Arriva Bus across the survey areas First UK Bus across the survey areas National Express across the survey areas Stagecoach Bus across the survey areas Arriva in Kent County Council Arriva in Merseyside PTE Arriva in Milton Keynes Council Arriva in Northumberland County Council Arriva in Tees Valley Group Arriva in West Yorkshire PTE Ensign in Thurrock Council First in Essex County Council First in South Yorkshire PTE First in Transport for Greater Manchester First in West of England Partnership First in West Yorkshire PTE First in Worcestershire County Council Go North East in Tyne and Wear PTE Ipswich Buses in Suffolk County Council National Express in West Midlands PTE Network Warrington in Warrington Borough Council Nottingham City Transport in Nottingham City Council Nottingham City Transport in Nottinghamshire County Council Oxford Bus in Oxfordshire County Council Reading Buses Stagecoach in Devon County Council Stagecoach in Kent County Council Stagecoach in Merseyside PTE Stagecoach in Oxfordshire County Council Stagecoach in South Yorkshire PTE Stagecoach in Tees Valley Stagecoach in Transport for Greater Manchester Stagecoach in Tyne and Wear PTE * As a result of the areas selected the proportion of each national operator s services surveyed will vary. Due to coverage of areas served by Go-Ahead services being less widespread they have been omitted from the national operator results provided. 65

68 5 Operator results All Arriva Bus in survey areas Headline results Overall Value for Punctuality Journey satisfaction 85 % money 48 % 71 % time 86 % Drivers of satisfaction (fare-payers only) Time to get to a seat Safety of the driving Drives satisfaction Drives dissatisfaction Comfort of seats Amount of personal space Interior cleanliness Importance Personal security on bus Below average Satisfaction rating Above average Key results OVERALL SATISFACTION WITH THE JOURNEY All passengers (4310) Fare-paying passengers (1665) Free pass holders (2632) Age 16 to 34 (753) Age 35 to 59 (1055) Passengers commuting (1052) Passengers not commuting (2917) Passengers saying they have a disability (1219) SATISFACTION WITH VALUE FOR MONEY All fare-paying passengers (1627) Passengers commuting (879) Passengers not commuting (675) Age 16 to 34 (659) Age 35 to 59 (860) SATISFACTION WITH PUNCTUALITY All passengers (3895) SATISFACTION WITH ON-BOARD JOURNEY LENGTH All passengers (4326)

69 Detailed results SATISFACTION ON THE BUS Route/destination information on the outside of the bus (4064) The cleanliness and condition of the outside of the bus (4015) The ease of getting onto and off of the bus (4213) The length of time it took to board the bus (4091) The cleanliness and condition of the inside of the bus (4250) The information provided inside the bus (3774) The availability of seating or space to stand (4175) The comfort of the seats (4189) The amount of personal space you had around you (4166) Provision of grab rails to stand/move within the bus (4112) The temperature inside the bus (4169) Your personal security whilst on the bus (4145) SATISFACTION WITH THE BUS DRIVER How near to the kerb/stop the bus stopped (4197) The driver s appearance (4067) The greeting/welcome you got from the driver (4072) The helpfulness and attitude of the driver (4003) The time the driver gave you to get to seat (4138) Smoothness/freedom from jolting during the journey (4090) Safety of the driving (i.e. speed, driver concentrating) (4124)

70 5 Operator results All First UK Bus in survey areas Headline results Overall Value for Punctuality Journey satisfaction 81 % money 48 % 63 % time 83 % Drivers of satisfaction (fare-payers only) Amount of personal space Smoothness of drive Importance Safety of driving Safety of driving On bus journey time Driver appearance Drives satisfaction Drives dissatisfaction Below average Satisfaction rating Above average Key results OVERALL SATISFACTION WITH THE JOURNEY All passengers (4195) Fare-paying passengers (1852) Free pass holders (2328) Age 16 to 34 (804) Age 35 to 59 (1155) Passengers commuting (1263) Passengers not commuting (2725) Passengers saying they have a disability (1041) SATISFACTION WITH VALUE FOR MONEY All fare-paying passengers (1818) Passengers commuting (1105) Passengers not commuting (658) Age 16 to 34 (703) Age 35 to 59 (970) SATISFACTION WITH PUNCTUALITY All passengers (3807) SATISFACTION WITH ON-BOARD JOURNEY LENGTH All passengers (4201)

71 Detailed results SATISFACTION ON THE BUS Route/destination information on the outside of the bus (3966) The cleanliness and condition of the outside of the bus (3912) The ease of getting onto and off of the bus (4086) The length of time it took to board the bus (3991) The cleanliness and condition of the inside of the bus (4138) The information provided inside the bus (3662) The availability of seating or space to stand (4053) The comfort of the seats (4094) The amount of personal space you had around you (4069) Provision of grab rails to stand/move within the bus (4048) The temperature inside the bus (4083) Your personal security whilst on the bus (4056) SATISFACTION WITH THE BUS DRIVER How near to the kerb/stop the bus stopped (4084) The driver s appearance (3939) The greeting/welcome you got from the driver (3938) The helpfulness and attitude of the driver (3882) The time the driver gave you to get to seat (4041) Smoothness/freedom from jolting during the journey (3993) Safety of the driving (i.e. speed, driver concentrating) (4016)

72 5 Operator results All National Express in survey areas Headline results Overall Value for Punctuality Journey satisfaction 78 % money 50 % 62 % time 80 % Drivers of satisfaction (fare-payers only) Value for money Length of time waited Smoothness of driving Time to get to seat Importance On bus journey time Safety of driving Drives satisfaction Drives dissatisfaction Below average Satisfaction rating Above average Key results OVERALL SATISFACTION WITH THE JOURNEY All passengers (3089) Fare-paying passengers (1849) Free pass holders (1228) Age 16 to 34 (736) Age 35 to 59 (1108) Passengers commuting (1272) Passengers not commuting (1659) Passengers saying they have a disability (721) SATISFACTION WITH VALUE FOR MONEY All fare-paying passengers (1807) Passengers commuting (1141) Passengers not commuting (593) Age 16 to 34 (691) Age 35 to 59 (1002) SATISFACTION WITH PUNCTUALITY All passengers (2830) SATISFACTION WITH ON-BOARD JOURNEY LENGTH All passengers (3096)

73 Detailed results SATISFACTION ON THE BUS Route/destination information on the outside of the bus (2900) The cleanliness and condition of the outside of the bus (2900) The ease of getting onto and off of the bus (3015) The length of time it took to board the bus (2920) The cleanliness and condition of the inside of the bus (3056) The information provided inside the bus (2768) The availability of seating or space to stand (2981) The comfort of the seats (3009) The amount of personal space you had around you (2973) Provision of grab rails to stand/move within the bus (2962) The temperature inside the bus (3007) Your personal security whilst on the bus (2987) SATISFACTION WITH THE BUS DRIVER How near to the kerb/stop the bus stopped (3016) The driver s appearance (2846) The greeting/welcome you got from the driver (2825) The helpfulness and attitude of the driver (2755) The time the driver gave you to get to seat (2959) Smoothness/freedom from jolting during the journey (2896) Safety of the driving (i.e. speed, driver concentrating) (2919)

74 5 Operator results All Stagecoach Bus in survey areas Headline results Overall Value for Punctuality Journey satisfaction 86 % money 59 % 74 % time 86 % Drivers of satisfaction (fare-payers only) Drives satisfaction Drives dissatisfaction Info provided inside bus Smoothness of driving Smoothness of driving Importance Safety of driving On bus journey time Below average Satisfaction rating Above average Key results OVERALL SATISFACTION WITH THE JOURNEY All passengers (4356) Fare-paying passengers (2030) Free pass holders (2317) Age 16 to 34 (800) Age 35 to 59 (1286) Passengers commuting (1333) Passengers not commuting (2828) Passengers saying they have a disability (1187) SATISFACTION WITH VALUE FOR MONEY All fare-paying passengers (1992) Passengers commuting (1171) Passengers not commuting (761) Age 16 to 34 (726) Age 35 to 59 (1092) SATISFACTION WITH PUNCTUALITY All passengers (4007) SATISFACTION WITH ON-BOARD JOURNEY LENGTH All passengers (4402)

75 Detailed results SATISFACTION ON THE BUS Route/destination information on the outside of the bus (4144) The cleanliness and condition of the outside of the bus (4116) The ease of getting onto and off of the bus (4299) The length of time it took to board the bus (4166) The cleanliness and condition of the inside of the bus (4328) The information provided inside the bus (3891) The availability of seating or space to stand (4230) The comfort of the seats (4253) The amount of personal space you had around you (4232) Provision of grab rails to stand/move within the bus (4187) The temperature inside the bus (4252) Your personal security whilst on the bus (4226) SATISFACTION WITH THE BUS DRIVER How near to the kerb/stop the bus stopped (4256) The driver s appearance (4155) The greeting/welcome you got from the driver (4156) The helpfulness and attitude of the driver (4083) The time the driver gave you to get to seat (4199) Smoothness/freedom from jolting during the journey (4171) Safety of the driving (i.e. speed, driver concentrating) (4203)

76 5 Operator results Arriva in Kent County Council area Results OVERALL SATISFACTION WITH THE JOURNEY All passengers (769) Fare-paying passengers (240) Free pass holders (527) Age 16 to 34 (124) Age 35 to 59 (148) Passengers commuting (173) Passengers not commuting (556) Passengers saying they have a disability (232) SATISFACTION WITH VALUE FOR MONEY All fare-paying passengers (235) Passengers commuting (135) Passengers not commuting (93) Age 16 to 34 (99) Age 35 to 59 (115) SATISFACTION WITH PUNCTUALITY All passengers (677) SATISFACTION WITH ON-BOARD JOURNEY LENGTH All passengers (777) SATISFACTION ON THE BUS Route/destination information on the outside of the bus (729) The cleanliness and condition of the outside of the bus (715) The ease of getting onto and off of the bus (762) The length of time it took to board the bus (736) The cleanliness and condition of the inside of the bus (758) The information provided inside the bus (653) The availability of seating or space to stand (755) The comfort of the seats (754) The amount of personal space you had around you (744) Provision of grab rails to stand/move within the bus (729) The temperature inside the bus (748) Your personal security whilst on the bus (733) SATISFACTION WITH THE BUS DRIVER How near to the kerb/stop the bus stopped (753) The driver s appearance (734) The greeting/welcome you got from the driver (738) The helpfulness and attitude of the driver (716) The time the driver gave you to get to seat (743) Smoothness/freedom from jolting during the journey (727) Safety of the driving (i.e. speed, driver concentrating) (736)

77 5 Operator results Arriva in Merseyside PTE area Results 2011 % satisfied OVERALL SATISFACTION WITH THE JOURNEY All passengers (702) W Fare-paying passengers (292) E Free pass holders (407) Q Age 16 to 34 (115) W Age 35 to 59 (203) W Passengers commuting (182) W Passengers not commuting (491) W Passengers saying they have a disability (208) Q SATISFACTION WITH VALUE FOR MONEY All fare-paying passengers (284) E Passengers commuting (157) E Passengers not commuting (119) E Age 16 to 34 (105) E Age 35 to 59 (169) E SATISFACTION WITH PUNCTUALITY All passengers (626) Q SATISFACTION WITH ON-BOARD JOURNEY LENGTH All passengers (709) SATISFACTION ON THE BUS Route/destination information on the outside of the bus (664) Q The cleanliness and condition of the outside of the bus (658) W The ease of getting onto and off of the bus (686) W The length of time it took to board the bus (669) Q The cleanliness and condition of the inside of the bus (696) W The information provided inside the bus (617) Q The availability of seating or space to stand (685) Q The comfort of the seats (688) W The amount of personal space you had around you (679) Provision of grab rails to stand/move within the bus (670) W The temperature inside the bus (676) W Your personal security whilst on the bus (683) Q SATISFACTION WITH THE BUS DRIVER How near to the kerb/stop the bus stopped (687) W The driver s appearance (654) Q The greeting/welcome you got from the driver (647) W The helpfulness and attitude of the driver (643) W The time the driver gave you to get to seat (666) W Smoothness/freedom from jolting during the journey (669) W Safety of the driving (i.e. speed, driver concentrating) (666) Q 75

78 5 Operator results Arriva in Milton Keynes Council area Results OVERALL SATISFACTION WITH THE JOURNEY All passengers (533) Fare-paying passengers (267) Free pass holders (265) Age 16 to 34 (127) Age 35 to 59 (156) Passengers commuting (180) Passengers not commuting (326) Passengers saying they have a disability (123) SATISFACTION WITH VALUE FOR MONEY All fare-paying passengers (264) Passengers commuting (159) Passengers not commuting (97) Age 16 to 34 (118) Age 35 to 59 (130) SATISFACTION WITH PUNCTUALITY All passengers (490) SATISFACTION WITH ON-BOARD JOURNEY LENGTH All passengers (538) SATISFACTION ON THE BUS Route/destination information on the outside of the bus (508) The cleanliness and condition of the outside of the bus (502) The ease of getting onto and off of the bus (518) The length of time it took to board the bus (511) The cleanliness and condition of the inside of the bus (527) The information provided inside the bus (481) The availability of seating or space to stand (518) The comfort of the seats (518) The amount of personal space you had around you (514) Provision of grab rails to stand/move within the bus (504) The temperature inside the bus (519) Your personal security whilst on the bus (515) SATISFACTION WITH THE BUS DRIVER How near to the kerb/stop the bus stopped (517) The driver s appearance (505) The greeting/welcome you got from the driver (514) The helpfulness and attitude of the driver (497) The time the driver gave you to get to seat (521) Smoothness/freedom from jolting during the journey (514) Safety of the driving (i.e. speed, driver concentrating) (520)

79 5 Operator results Arriva in Northumberland County Council area Results OVERALL SATISFACTION WITH THE JOURNEY All passengers (496) Fare-paying passengers (190) Free pass holders (306) Age 16 to 34 (84) Age 35 to 59 (123) Passengers commuting (115) Passengers not commuting (356) Passengers saying they have a disability (137) SATISFACTION WITH VALUE FOR MONEY All fare-paying passengers (186) Passengers commuting (100) Passengers not commuting (81) Age 16 to 34 (<75) Age 35 to 59 (100) SATISFACTION WITH PUNCTUALITY All passengers (461) SATISFACTION WITH ON-BOARD JOURNEY LENGTH All passengers (495) SATISFACTION ON THE BUS Route/destination information on the outside of the bus (467) The cleanliness and condition of the outside of the bus (461) The ease of getting onto and off of the bus (472) The length of time it took to board the bus (454) The cleanliness and condition of the inside of the bus (487) The information provided inside the bus (439) The availability of seating or space to stand (472) The comfort of the seats (476) The amount of personal space you had around you (479) Provision of grab rails to stand/move within the bus (473) The temperature inside the bus (475) Your personal security whilst on the bus (479) SATISFACTION WITH THE BUS DRIVER How near to the kerb/stop the bus stopped (481) The driver s appearance (470) The greeting/welcome you got from the driver (469) The helpfulness and attitude of the driver (466) The time the driver gave you to get to seat (473) Smoothness/freedom from jolting during the journey (468) Safety of the driving (i.e. speed, driver concentrating) (472)

80 5 Operator results Arriva in Tees Valley Group area Results OVERALL SATISFACTION WITH THE JOURNEY All passengers (1000) Fare-paying passengers (380) Free pass holders (618) Age 16 to 34 (168) Age 35 to 59 (241) Passengers commuting (228) Passengers not commuting (709) Passengers saying they have a disability (305) SATISFACTION WITH VALUE FOR MONEY All fare-paying passengers (370) Passengers commuting (180) Passengers not commuting (172) Age 16 to 34 (148) Age 35 to 59 (195) SATISFACTION WITH PUNCTUALITY All passengers (902) SATISFACTION WITH ON-BOARD JOURNEY LENGTH All passengers (998) SATISFACTION ON THE BUS Route/destination information on the outside of the bus (935) The cleanliness and condition of the outside of the bus (931) The ease of getting onto and off of the bus (976) The length of time it took to board the bus (952) The cleanliness and condition of the inside of the bus (978) The information provided inside the bus (876) The availability of seating or space to stand (961) The comfort of the seats (968) The amount of personal space you had around you (964) Provision of grab rails to stand/move within the bus (958) The temperature inside the bus (959) Your personal security whilst on the bus (954) SATISFACTION WITH THE BUS DRIVER How near to the kerb/stop the bus stopped (964) The driver s appearance (943) The greeting/welcome you got from the driver (949) The helpfulness and attitude of the driver (931) The time the driver gave you to get to seat (956) Smoothness/freedom from jolting during the journey (942) Safety of the driving (i.e. speed, driver concentrating) (952)

81 5 Operator results Arriva in West Yorkshire PTE area Results 2011 % satisfied OVERALL SATISFACTION WITH THE JOURNEY All passengers (360) W Fare-paying passengers (135) Q Free pass holders (221) W Age 16 to 34 (<75) Age 35 to 59 (86) W Passengers commuting (<75) Passengers not commuting (266) W Passengers saying they have a disability (97) SATISFACTION WITH VALUE FOR MONEY All fare-paying passengers (134) E Passengers commuting (<75) Passengers not commuting (<75) Age 16 to 34 (<75) Age 35 to 59 (76) SATISFACTION WITH PUNCTUALITY All passengers (329) E SATISFACTION WITH ON-BOARD JOURNEY LENGTH All passengers (358) SATISFACTION ON THE BUS Route/destination information on the outside of the bus (331) Q The cleanliness and condition of the outside of the bus (327) W The ease of getting onto and off of the bus (357) W The length of time it took to board the bus (342) E The cleanliness and condition of the inside of the bus (357) W The information provided inside the bus (317) W The availability of seating or space to stand (346) W The comfort of the seats (347) W The amount of personal space you had around you (349) Provision of grab rails to stand/move within the bus (344) E The temperature inside the bus (351) W Your personal security whilst on the bus (347) E SATISFACTION WITH THE BUS DRIVER How near to the kerb/stop the bus stopped (346) E The driver s appearance (340) W The greeting/welcome you got from the driver (339) E The helpfulness and attitude of the driver (332) E The time the driver gave you to get to seat (346) W Smoothness/freedom from jolting during the journey (341) W Safety of the driving (i.e. speed, driver concentrating) (343) W 79

82 5 Operator results Ensign Bus in Thurrock Council area Results OVERALL SATISFACTION WITH THE JOURNEY All passengers (230) Fare-paying passengers (120) Free pass holders (108) Age 16 to 34 (<75) Age 35 to 59 (76) Passengers commuting (85) Passengers not commuting (133) Passengers saying they have a disability (<75) SATISFACTION WITH VALUE FOR MONEY All fare-paying passengers (118) Passengers commuting (<75) Passengers not commuting (<75) Age 16 to 34 (<75) Age 35 to 59 (<75) SATISFACTION WITH PUNCTUALITY All passengers (211) SATISFACTION WITH ON-BOARD JOURNEY LENGTH All passengers (235) SATISFACTION ON THE BUS Route/destination information on the outside of the bus (222) The cleanliness and condition of the outside of the bus (219) The ease of getting onto and off of the bus (227) The length of time it took to board the bus (221) The cleanliness and condition of the inside of the bus (228) The information provided inside the bus (205) The availability of seating or space to stand (225) The comfort of the seats (225) The amount of personal space you had around you (224) Provision of grab rails to stand/move within the bus (209) The temperature inside the bus (217) Your personal security whilst on the bus (222) SATISFACTION WITH THE BUS DRIVER How near to the kerb/stop the bus stopped (226) The driver s appearance (218) The greeting/welcome you got from the driver (219) The helpfulness and attitude of the driver (211) The time the driver gave you to get to seat (219) Smoothness/freedom from jolting during the journey (217) Safety of the driving (i.e. speed, driver concentrating) (216)

83 5 Operator results First in Essex County Council area Results OVERALL SATISFACTION WITH THE JOURNEY All passengers (335) Fare-paying passengers (137) Free pass holders (198) Age 16 to 34 (<75) Age 35 to 59 (87) Passengers commuting (93) Passengers not commuting (217) Passengers saying they have a disability (77) SATISFACTION WITH VALUE FOR MONEY All fare-paying passengers (132) Passengers commuting (75) Passengers not commuting (<75) Age 16 to 34 (<75) Age 35 to 59 (75) SATISFACTION WITH PUNCTUALITY All passengers (306) SATISFACTION WITH ON-BOARD JOURNEY LENGTH All passengers (341) SATISFACTION ON THE BUS Route/destination information on the outside of the bus (323) The cleanliness and condition of the outside of the bus (310) The ease of getting onto and off of the bus (327) The length of time it took to board the bus (319) The cleanliness and condition of the inside of the bus (332) The information provided inside the bus (295) The availability of seating or space to stand (324) The comfort of the seats (330) The amount of personal space you had around you (330) Provision of grab rails to stand/move within the bus (327) The temperature inside the bus (328) Your personal security whilst on the bus (326) SATISFACTION WITH THE BUS DRIVER How near to the kerb/stop the bus stopped (335) The driver s appearance (324) The greeting/welcome you got from the driver (319) The helpfulness and attitude of the driver (318) The time the driver gave you to get to seat (326) Smoothness/freedom from jolting during the journey (328) Safety of the driving (i.e. speed, driver concentrating) (331)

84 5 Operator results First in South Yorkshire PTE area Results 2011 % satisfied OVERALL SATISFACTION WITH THE JOURNEY All passengers (1051) W Fare-paying passengers (548) W Free pass holders (499) W Age 16 to 34 (197) W Age 35 to 59 (380) W Passengers commuting (396) W Passengers not commuting (604) W Passengers saying they have a disability (257) W SATISFACTION WITH VALUE FOR MONEY All fare-paying passengers (540) W Passengers commuting (359) Q Passengers not commuting (170) W Age 16 to 34 (175) W Age 35 to 59 (336) W SATISFACTION WITH PUNCTUALITY All passengers (932) E SATISFACTION WITH ON-BOARD JOURNEY LENGTH All passengers (1058) SATISFACTION ON THE BUS Route/destination information on the outside of the bus (999) W The cleanliness and condition of the outside of the bus (978) Q The ease of getting onto and off of the bus (1028) W The length of time it took to board the bus (1009) W The cleanliness and condition of the inside of the bus (1041) Q The information provided inside the bus (919) W The availability of seating or space to stand (1014) W The comfort of the seats (1028) W The amount of personal space you had around you (1024) Provision of grab rails to stand/move within the bus (1023) W The temperature inside the bus (1028) W Your personal security whilst on the bus (1030) W SATISFACTION WITH THE BUS DRIVER How near to the kerb/stop the bus stopped (1027) E The driver s appearance (983) E The greeting/welcome you got from the driver (996) E The helpfulness and attitude of the driver (979) E The time the driver gave you to get to seat (1016) E Smoothness/freedom from jolting during the journey (1011) Q Safety of the driving (i.e. speed, driver concentrating) (1000) W 82

85 5 Operator results First in Transport for Greater Manchester area Results 2011 % satisfied OVERALL SATISFACTION WITH THE JOURNEY All passengers (248) W Fare-paying passengers (113) W Free pass holders (135) E Age 16 to 34 (<75) Age 35 to 59 (<75) Passengers commuting (88) Q Passengers not commuting (145) W Passengers saying they have a disability (<75) SATISFACTION WITH VALUE FOR MONEY All fare-paying passengers (111) E Passengers commuting (77) E Passengers not commuting (<75) Age 16 to 34 (<75) Age 35 to 59 (<75) SATISFACTION WITH PUNCTUALITY All passengers (219) E SATISFACTION WITH ON-BOARD JOURNEY LENGTH All passengers (248) SATISFACTION ON THE BUS Route/destination information on the outside of the bus (224) W The cleanliness and condition of the outside of the bus (224) Q The ease of getting onto and off of the bus (235) E The length of time it took to board the bus (227) W The cleanliness and condition of the inside of the bus (242) Q The information provided inside the bus (208) W The availability of seating or space to stand (233) W The comfort of the seats (239) Q The amount of personal space you had around you (238) Provision of grab rails to stand/move within the bus (236) Q The temperature inside the bus (239) Q Your personal security whilst on the bus (236) Q SATISFACTION WITH THE BUS DRIVER How near to the kerb/stop the bus stopped (235) E The driver s appearance (232) E The greeting/welcome you got from the driver (225) E The helpfulness and attitude of the driver (224) W The time the driver gave you to get to seat (236) W Smoothness/freedom from jolting during the journey (233) W Safety of the driving (i.e. speed, driver concentrating) (231) W 83

86 5 Operator results First in West of England Partnership area Results OVERALL SATISFACTION WITH THE JOURNEY All passengers (486) Fare-paying passengers (248) Free pass holders (236) Age 16 to 34 (112) Age 35 to 59 (136) Passengers commuting (176) Passengers not commuting (289) Passengers saying they have a disability (89) SATISFACTION WITH VALUE FOR MONEY All fare-paying passengers (245) Passengers commuting (161) Passengers not commuting (76) Age 16 to 34 (101) Age 35 to 59 (123) SATISFACTION WITH PUNCTUALITY All passengers (444) SATISFACTION WITH ON-BOARD JOURNEY LENGTH All passengers (488) SATISFACTION ON THE BUS Route/destination information on the outside of the bus (460) The cleanliness and condition of the outside of the bus (447) The ease of getting onto and off of the bus (472) The length of time it took to board the bus (462) The cleanliness and condition of the inside of the bus (479) The information provided inside the bus (426) The availability of seating or space to stand (465) The comfort of the seats (470) The amount of personal space you had around you (469) Provision of grab rails to stand/move within the bus (464) The temperature inside the bus (468) Your personal security whilst on the bus (465) SATISFACTION WITH THE BUS DRIVER How near to the kerb/stop the bus stopped (471) The driver s appearance (462) The greeting/welcome you got from the driver (460) The helpfulness and attitude of the driver (458) The time the driver gave you to get to seat (476) Smoothness/freedom from jolting during the journey (462) Safety of the driving (i.e. speed, driver concentrating) (461)

87 5 Operator results First in West Yorkshire PTE area Results 2011 % satisfied OVERALL SATISFACTION WITH THE JOURNEY All passengers (940) W Fare-paying passengers (471) W Free pass holders (463) W Age 16 to 34 (207) W Age 35 to 59 (293) Q Passengers commuting (305) W Passengers not commuting (585) W Passengers saying they have a disability (236) W SATISFACTION WITH VALUE FOR MONEY All fare-paying passengers (466) W Passengers commuting (271) W Passengers not commuting (177) E Age 16 to 34 (188) W Age 35 to 59 (245) W SATISFACTION WITH PUNCTUALITY All passengers (871) E SATISFACTION WITH ON-BOARD JOURNEY LENGTH All passengers (937) SATISFACTION ON THE BUS Route/destination information on the outside of the bus (884) W The cleanliness and condition of the outside of the bus (889) W The ease of getting onto and off of the bus (923) W The length of time it took to board the bus (903) W The cleanliness and condition of the inside of the bus (930) Q The information provided inside the bus (827) Q The availability of seating or space to stand (915) Q The comfort of the seats (924) W The amount of personal space you had around you (919) Provision of grab rails to stand/move within the bus (915) W The temperature inside the bus (923) Q Your personal security whilst on the bus (912) W SATISFACTION WITH THE BUS DRIVER How near to the kerb/stop the bus stopped (914) W The driver s appearance (866) W The greeting/welcome you got from the driver (876) Q The helpfulness and attitude of the driver (857) Q The time the driver gave you to get to seat (892) Q Smoothness/freedom from jolting during the journey (886) W Safety of the driving (i.e. speed, driver concentrating) (903) W 85

88 5 Operator results First in Worcestershire County Council area Results OVERALL SATISFACTION WITH THE JOURNEY All passengers (318) Fare-paying passengers (95) Free pass holders (223) Age 16 to 34 (<75) Age 35 to 59 (<75) Passengers commuting (<75) Passengers not commuting (261) Passengers saying they have a disability (104) SATISFACTION WITH VALUE FOR MONEY All fare-paying passengers (91) Passengers commuting (46) Passengers not commuting (<75) Age 16 to 34 (<75) Age 35 to 59 (<75) SATISFACTION WITH PUNCTUALITY All passengers (286) SATISFACTION WITH ON-BOARD JOURNEY LENGTH All passengers (315) SATISFACTION ON THE BUS Route/destination information on the outside of the bus (295) The cleanliness and condition of the outside of the bus (292) The ease of getting onto and off of the bus (308) The length of time it took to board the bus (298) The cleanliness and condition of the inside of the bus (309) The information provided inside the bus (270) The availability of seating or space to stand (308) The comfort of the seats (308) The amount of personal space you had around you (306) Provision of grab rails to stand/move within the bus (301) The temperature inside the bus (308) Your personal security whilst on the bus (305) SATISFACTION WITH THE BUS DRIVER How near to the kerb/stop the bus stopped (309) The driver s appearance (301) The greeting/welcome you got from the driver (298) The helpfulness and attitude of the driver (296) The time the driver gave you to get to seat (307) Smoothness/freedom from jolting during the journey (295) Safety of the driving (i.e. speed, driver concentrating) (306)

89 5 Operator results Go North East in Tyne and Wear PTE area Results 2011 % satisfied OVERALL SATISFACTION WITH THE JOURNEY All passengers (672) E Fare-paying passengers (307) E Free pass holders (364) W Age 16 to 34 (134) E Age 35 to 59 (191) W Passengers commuting (190) E Passengers not commuting (459) E Passengers saying they have a disability (164) E SATISFACTION WITH VALUE FOR MONEY All fare-paying passengers (306) E Passengers commuting (171) E Passengers not commuting (128) W Age 16 to 34 (128) E Age 35 to 59 (157) W SATISFACTION WITH PUNCTUALITY All passengers (621) E SATISFACTION WITH ON-BOARD JOURNEY LENGTH All passengers (679) SATISFACTION ON THE BUS Route/destination information on the outside of the bus (650) W The cleanliness and condition of the outside of the bus (635) E The ease of getting onto and off of the bus (656) E The length of time it took to board the bus (645) E The cleanliness and condition of the inside of the bus (675) E The information provided inside the bus (609) W The availability of seating or space to stand (649) E The comfort of the seats (657) E The amount of personal space you had around you (655) Provision of grab rails to stand/move within the bus (654) E The temperature inside the bus (660) W Your personal security whilst on the bus (656) E SATISFACTION WITH THE BUS DRIVER How near to the kerb/stop the bus stopped (656) W The driver s appearance (628) W The greeting/welcome you got from the driver (629) W The helpfulness and attitude of the driver (628) Q The time the driver gave you to get to seat (642) Q Smoothness/freedom from jolting during the journey (630) E Safety of the driving (i.e. speed, driver concentrating) (641) W 87

90 5 Operator results Ipswich Buses in Suffolk County Council area Results OVERALL SATISFACTION WITH THE JOURNEY All passengers (289) Fare-paying passengers (150) Free pass holders (139) Age 16 to 34 (<75) Age 35 to 59 (102) Passengers commuting (79) Passengers not commuting (194) Passengers saying they have a disability (79) SATISFACTION WITH VALUE FOR MONEY All fare-paying passengers (148) Passengers commuting (<75) Passengers not commuting (<75) Age 16 to 34 (<75) Age 35 to 59 (87) SATISFACTION WITH PUNCTUALITY All passengers (270) SATISFACTION WITH ON-BOARD JOURNEY LENGTH All passengers (289) SATISFACTION ON THE BUS Route/destination information on the outside of the bus (278) The cleanliness and condition of the outside of the bus (272) The ease of getting onto and off of the bus (283) The length of time it took to board the bus (279) The cleanliness and condition of the inside of the bus (289) The information provided inside the bus (262) The availability of seating or space to stand (282) The comfort of the seats (280) The amount of personal space you had around you (283) Provision of grab rails to stand/move within the bus (284) The temperature inside the bus (282) Your personal security whilst on the bus (278) SATISFACTION WITH THE BUS DRIVER How near to the kerb/stop the bus stopped (287) The driver s appearance (284) The greeting/welcome you got from the driver (280) The helpfulness and attitude of the driver (274) The time the driver gave you to get to seat (281) Smoothness/freedom from jolting during the journey (279) Safety of the driving (i.e. speed, driver concentrating) (279)

91 5 Operator results National Express in West Midlands PTE area Results 2011 % satisfied OVERALL SATISFACTION WITH THE JOURNEY All passengers (3089) E Fare-paying passengers (1849) E Free pass holders (1228) W Age 16 to 34 (736) W Age 35 to 59 (1108) E Passengers commuting (1272) E Passengers not commuting (1659) E Passengers saying they have a disability (721) W SATISFACTION WITH VALUE FOR MONEY All fare-paying passengers (1807) W Passengers commuting (1141) W Passengers not commuting (593) Q Age 16 to 34 (691) Q Age 35 to 59 (1002) W SATISFACTION WITH PUNCTUALITY All passengers (2830) W SATISFACTION WITH ON-BOARD JOURNEY LENGTH All passengers (3096) SATISFACTION ON THE BUS Route/destination information on the outside of the bus (2900) Q The cleanliness and condition of the outside of the bus (2900) Q The ease of getting onto and off of the bus (3015) Q The length of time it took to board the bus (2920) Q The cleanliness and condition of the inside of the bus (3056) Q The information provided inside the bus (2768) Q The availability of seating or space to stand (2981) Q The comfort of the seats (3009) W The amount of personal space you had around you (2973) Provision of grab rails to stand/move within the bus (2962) W The temperature inside the bus (3007) W Your personal security whilst on the bus (2987) W SATISFACTION WITH THE BUS DRIVER How near to the kerb/stop the bus stopped (3016) W The driver s appearance (2846) E The greeting/welcome you got from the driver (2825) W The helpfulness and attitude of the driver (2755) W The time the driver gave you to get to seat (2959) W Smoothness/freedom from jolting during the journey (2896) W Safety of the driving (i.e. speed, driver concentrating) (2919) W 89

92 5 Operator results Network Warrington in Warrington BC area Results OVERALL SATISFACTION WITH THE JOURNEY All passengers (250) Fare-paying passengers (110) Free pass holders (140) Age 16 to 34 (<75) Age 35 to 59 (<75) Passengers commuting (<75) Passengers not commuting (170) Passengers saying they have a disability (<75) SATISFACTION WITH VALUE FOR MONEY All fare-paying passengers (109) Passengers commuting (<75) Passengers not commuting (<75) Age 16 to 34 (<75) Age 35 to 59 (<75) SATISFACTION WITH PUNCTUALITY All passengers (228) SATISFACTION WITH ON-BOARD JOURNEY LENGTH All passengers (253) SATISFACTION ON THE BUS Route/destination information on the outside of the bus (240) The cleanliness and condition of the outside of the bus (242) The ease of getting onto and off of the bus (246) The length of time it took to board the bus (245) The cleanliness and condition of the inside of the bus (250) The information provided inside the bus (226) The availability of seating or space to stand (248) The comfort of the seats (245) The amount of personal space you had around you (243) Provision of grab rails to stand/move within the bus (237) The temperature inside the bus (245) Your personal security whilst on the bus (241) SATISFACTION WITH THE BUS DRIVER How near to the kerb/stop the bus stopped (244) The driver s appearance (235) The greeting/welcome you got from the driver (239) The helpfulness and attitude of the driver (240) The time the driver gave you to get to seat (237) Smoothness/freedom from jolting during the journey (234) Safety of the driving (i.e. speed, driver concentrating) (241)

93 5 Operator results Nottingham City Transport in Notts. CC area Results OVERALL SATISFACTION WITH THE JOURNEY All passengers (477) Fare-paying passengers (262) Free pass holders (214) Age 16 to 34 (106) Age 35 to 59 (164) Passengers commuting (160) Passengers not commuting (291) Passengers saying they have a disability (133) SATISFACTION WITH VALUE FOR MONEY All fare-paying passengers (255) Passengers commuting (144) Passengers not commuting (99) Age 16 to 34 (101) Age 35 to 59 (135) SATISFACTION WITH PUNCTUALITY All passengers (451) SATISFACTION WITH ON-BOARD JOURNEY LENGTH All passengers (479) SATISFACTION ON THE BUS Route/destination information on the outside of the bus (469) The cleanliness and condition of the outside of the bus (454) The ease of getting onto and off of the bus (479) The length of time it took to board the bus (462) The cleanliness and condition of the inside of the bus (478) The information provided inside the bus (450) The availability of seating or space to stand (467) The comfort of the seats (473) The amount of personal space you had around you (470) Provision of grab rails to stand/move within the bus (469) The temperature inside the bus (471) Your personal security whilst on the bus (466) SATISFACTION WITH THE BUS DRIVER How near to the kerb/stop the bus stopped (465) The driver s appearance (446) The greeting/welcome you got from the driver (456) The helpfulness and attitude of the driver (445) The time the driver gave you to get to seat (461) Smoothness/freedom from jolting during the journey (467) Safety of the driving (i.e. speed, driver concentrating) (464)

94 5 Operator results Nottingham City Transport in N shire Council area Results OVERALL SATISFACTION WITH THE JOURNEY All passengers (223) Fare-paying passengers (94) Free pass holders (129) Age 16 to 34 (<75) Age 35 to 59 (<75) Passengers commuting (<75) Passengers not commuting (153) Passengers saying they have a disability (<75) SATISFACTION WITH VALUE FOR MONEY All fare-paying passengers (91) Passengers commuting (<75) Passengers not commuting (<75) Age 16 to 34 (<75) Age 35 to 59 (<75) SATISFACTION WITH PUNCTUALITY All passengers (200) SATISFACTION WITH ON-BOARD JOURNEY LENGTH All passengers (222) SATISFACTION ON THE BUS Route/destination information on the outside of the bus (207) The cleanliness and condition of the outside of the bus (207) The ease of getting onto and off of the bus (214) The length of time it took to board the bus (200) The cleanliness and condition of the inside of the bus (216) The information provided inside the bus (200) The availability of seating or space to stand (206) The comfort of the seats (209) The amount of personal space you had around you (204) Provision of grab rails to stand/move within the bus (205) The temperature inside the bus (201) Your personal security whilst on the bus (207) SATISFACTION WITH THE BUS DRIVER How near to the kerb/stop the bus stopped (214) The driver s appearance (207) The greeting/welcome you got from the driver (212) The helpfulness and attitude of the driver (205) The time the driver gave you to get to seat (213) Smoothness/freedom from jolting during the journey (210) Safety of the driving (i.e. speed, driver concentrating) (211)

95 5 Operator results Oxford Bus in Oxfordshire County Council area Results OVERALL SATISFACTION WITH THE JOURNEY All passengers (345) Fare-paying passengers (216) Free pass holders (129) Age 16 to 34 (<75) Age 35 to 59 (128) Passengers commuting (163) Passengers not commuting (167) Passengers saying they have a disability (<75) SATISFACTION WITH VALUE FOR MONEY All fare-paying passengers (212) Passengers commuting (135) Passengers not commuting (<75) Age 16 to 34 (<75) Age 35 to 59 (121) SATISFACTION WITH PUNCTUALITY All passengers (302) SATISFACTION WITH ON-BOARD JOURNEY LENGTH All passengers (344) SATISFACTION ON THE BUS Route/destination information on the outside of the bus (331) The cleanliness and condition of the outside of the bus (323) The ease of getting onto and off of the bus (344) The length of time it took to board the bus (344) The cleanliness and condition of the inside of the bus (343) The information provided inside the bus (310) The availability of seating or space to stand (344) The comfort of the seats (340) The amount of personal space you had around you (343) Provision of grab rails to stand/move within the bus (330) The temperature inside the bus (343) Your personal security whilst on the bus (336) SATISFACTION WITH THE BUS DRIVER How near to the kerb/stop the bus stopped (336) The driver s appearance (330) The greeting/welcome you got from the driver (335) The helpfulness and attitude of the driver (326) The time the driver gave you to get to seat (336) Smoothness/freedom from jolting during the journey (331) Safety of the driving (i.e. speed, driver concentrating) (336)

96 5 Operator results Reading Buses Results OVERALL SATISFACTION WITH THE JOURNEY All passengers (1044) Fare-paying passengers (537) Free pass holders (502) Age 16 to 34 (213) Age 35 to 59 (342) Passengers commuting (381) Passengers not commuting (619) Passengers saying they have a disability (189) SATISFACTION WITH VALUE FOR MONEY All fare-paying passengers (537) Passengers commuting (328) Passengers not commuting (185) Age 16 to 34 (191) Age 35 to 59 (302) SATISFACTION WITH PUNCTUALITY All passengers (962) SATISFACTION WITH ON-BOARD JOURNEY LENGTH All passengers (1047) SATISFACTION ON THE BUS Route/destination information on the outside of the bus (1006) The cleanliness and condition of the outside of the bus (999) The ease of getting onto and off of the bus (1028) The length of time it took to board the bus (1008) The cleanliness and condition of the inside of the bus (1033) The information provided inside the bus (978) The availability of seating or space to stand (1021) The comfort of the seats (1023) The amount of personal space you had around you (1018) Provision of grab rails to stand/move within the bus (999) The temperature inside the bus (1021) Your personal security whilst on the bus (1004) SATISFACTION WITH THE BUS DRIVER How near to the kerb/stop the bus stopped (1014) The driver s appearance (990) The greeting/welcome you got from the driver (996) The helpfulness and attitude of the driver (969) The time the driver gave you to get to seat (1007) Smoothness/freedom from jolting during the journey (1008) Safety of the driving (i.e. speed, driver concentrating) (1008)

97 5 Operator results Stagecoach in Devon County Council area Results OVERALL SATISFACTION WITH THE JOURNEY All passengers (787) Fare-paying passengers (297) Free pass holders (485) Age 16 to 34 (107) Age 35 to 59 (197) Passengers commuting (202) Passengers not commuting (557) Passengers saying they have a disability (212) SATISFACTION WITH VALUE FOR MONEY All fare-paying passengers (293) Passengers commuting (170) Passengers not commuting (116) Age 16 to 34 (89) Age 35 to 59 (170) SATISFACTION WITH PUNCTUALITY All passengers (730) SATISFACTION WITH ON-BOARD JOURNEY LENGTH All passengers (800) SATISFACTION ON THE BUS Route/destination information on the outside of the bus (747) The cleanliness and condition of the outside of the bus (740) The ease of getting onto and off of the bus (778) The length of time it took to board the bus (761) The cleanliness and condition of the inside of the bus (783) The information provided inside the bus (679) The availability of seating or space to stand (767) The comfort of the seats (775) The amount of personal space you had around you (765) Provision of grab rails to stand/move within the bus (754) The temperature inside the bus (770) Your personal security whilst on the bus (765) SATISFACTION WITH THE BUS DRIVER How near to the kerb/stop the bus stopped (776) The driver s appearance (762) The greeting/welcome you got from the driver (765) The helpfulness and attitude of the driver (744) The time the driver gave you to get to seat (773) Smoothness/freedom from jolting during the journey (761) Safety of the driving (i.e. speed, driver concentrating) (762)

98 5 Operator results Stagecoach in Kent County Council area Results OVERALL SATISFACTION WITH THE JOURNEY All passengers (555) Fare-paying passengers (202) Free pass holders (352) Age 16 to 34 (105) Age 35 to 59 (122) Passengers commuting (121) Passengers not commuting (409) Passengers saying they have a disability (177) SATISFACTION WITH VALUE FOR MONEY All fare-paying passengers (195) Passengers commuting (97) Passengers not commuting (93) Age 16 to 34 (92) Age 35 to 59 (85) SATISFACTION WITH PUNCTUALITY All passengers (508) SATISFACTION WITH ON-BOARD JOURNEY LENGTH All passengers (561) SATISFACTION ON THE BUS Route/destination information on the outside of the bus (541) The cleanliness and condition of the outside of the bus (536) The ease of getting onto and off of the bus (550) The length of time it took to board the bus (532) The cleanliness and condition of the inside of the bus (555) The information provided inside the bus (505) The availability of seating or space to stand (544) The comfort of the seats (546) The amount of personal space you had around you (543) Provision of grab rails to stand/move within the bus (540) The temperature inside the bus (545) Your personal security whilst on the bus (542) SATISFACTION WITH THE BUS DRIVER How near to the kerb/stop the bus stopped (551) The driver s appearance (538) The greeting/welcome you got from the driver (539) The helpfulness and attitude of the driver (534) The time the driver gave you to get to seat (538) Smoothness/freedom from jolting during the journey (534) Safety of the driving (i.e. speed, driver concentrating) (541)

99 5 Operator results Stagecoach in Merseyside PTE area Results 2011 % satisfied OVERALL SATISFACTION WITH THE JOURNEY All passengers (274) Q Fare-paying passengers (139) Q Free pass holders (135) W Age 16 to 34 (<75) Age 35 to 59 (109) Q Passengers commuting (88) W Passengers not commuting (173) Q Passengers saying they have a disability (79) W SATISFACTION WITH VALUE FOR MONEY All fare-paying passengers (137) W Passengers commuting (<75) Passengers not commuting (<75) Age 16 to 34 (<75) Age 35 to 59 (92) W SATISFACTION WITH PUNCTUALITY All passengers (240) E SATISFACTION WITH ON-BOARD JOURNEY LENGTH All passengers (275) SATISFACTION ON THE BUS Route/destination information on the outside of the bus (250) Q The cleanliness and condition of the outside of the bus (256) Q The ease of getting onto and off of the bus (270) Q The length of time it took to board the bus (265) Q The cleanliness and condition of the inside of the bus (264) Q The information provided inside the bus (239) W The availability of seating or space to stand (267) W The comfort of the seats (262) Q The amount of personal space you had around you (263) Provision of grab rails to stand/move within the bus (262) W The temperature inside the bus (263) W Your personal security whilst on the bus (263) Q SATISFACTION WITH THE BUS DRIVER How near to the kerb/stop the bus stopped (266) W The driver s appearance (252) W The greeting/welcome you got from the driver (254) W The helpfulness and attitude of the driver (253) W The time the driver gave you to get to seat (256) W Smoothness/freedom from jolting during the journey (259) Q Safety of the driving (i.e. speed, driver concentrating) (261) E 97

100 5 Operator results Stagecoach in Oxfordshire County Council area Results OVERALL SATISFACTION WITH THE JOURNEY All passengers (200) Fare-paying passengers (144) Free pass holders (<75) Age 16 to 34 (<75) Age 35 to 59 (78) Passengers commuting (115) Passengers not commuting (77) Passengers saying they have a disability (<75) SATISFACTION WITH VALUE FOR MONEY All fare-paying passengers (142) Passengers commuting (108) Passengers not commuting (<75) Age 16 to 34 (<75) Age 35 to 59 (<75) SATISFACTION WITH PUNCTUALITY All passengers (189) SATISFACTION WITH ON-BOARD JOURNEY LENGTH All passengers (204) SATISFACTION ON THE BUS Route/destination information on the outside of the bus (197) The cleanliness and condition of the outside of the bus (194) The ease of getting onto and off of the bus (201) The length of time it took to board the bus (198) The cleanliness and condition of the inside of the bus (205) The information provided inside the bus (184) The availability of seating or space to stand (203) The comfort of the seats (201) The amount of personal space you had around you (199) Provision of grab rails to stand/move within the bus (196) The temperature inside the bus (199) Your personal security whilst on the bus (199) SATISFACTION WITH THE BUS DRIVER How near to the kerb/stop the bus stopped (197) The driver s appearance (193) The greeting/welcome you got from the driver (193) The helpfulness and attitude of the driver (192) The time the driver gave you to get to seat (191) Smoothness/freedom from jolting during the journey (192) Safety of the driving (i.e. speed, driver concentrating) (193)

101 5 Operator results Stagecoach in South Yorkshire PTE area Results 2011 % satisfied OVERALL SATISFACTION WITH THE JOURNEY All passengers (534) W Fare-paying passengers (229) W Free pass holders (304) W Age 16 to 34 (89) W Age 35 to 59 (153) W Passengers commuting (142) W Passengers not commuting (369) W Passengers saying they have a disability (158) W SATISFACTION WITH VALUE FOR MONEY All fare-paying passengers (224) E Passengers commuting (125) E Passengers not commuting (88) E Age 16 to 34 (79) E Age 35 to 59 (132) W SATISFACTION WITH PUNCTUALITY All passengers (491) E SATISFACTION WITH ON-BOARD JOURNEY LENGTH All passengers (537) SATISFACTION ON THE BUS Route/destination information on the outside of the bus (498) W The cleanliness and condition of the outside of the bus (503) W The ease of getting onto and off of the bus (519) Q The length of time it took to board the bus (501) W The cleanliness and condition of the inside of the bus (526) W The information provided inside the bus (467) W The availability of seating or space to stand (513) W The comfort of the seats (507) W The amount of personal space you had around you (511) Provision of grab rails to stand/move within the bus (512) Q The temperature inside the bus (515) W Your personal security whilst on the bus (512) W SATISFACTION WITH THE BUS DRIVER How near to the kerb/stop the bus stopped (517) E The driver s appearance (499) W The greeting/welcome you got from the driver (502) W The helpfulness and attitude of the driver (496) W The time the driver gave you to get to seat (516) W Smoothness/freedom from jolting during the journey (507) W Safety of the driving (i.e. speed, driver concentrating) (513) W 99

102 5 Operator results Stagecoach in Tees Valley Group area Results OVERALL SATISFACTION WITH THE JOURNEY All passengers (590) Fare-paying passengers (212) Free pass holders (377) Age 16 to 34 (<75) Age 35 to 59 (170) Passengers commuting (128) Passengers not commuting (425) Passengers saying they have a disability (183) SATISFACTION WITH VALUE FOR MONEY All fare-paying passengers (209) Passengers commuting (107) Passengers not commuting (92) Age 16 to 34 (<75) Age 35 to 59 (134) SATISFACTION WITH PUNCTUALITY All passengers (538) SATISFACTION WITH ON-BOARD JOURNEY LENGTH All passengers (589) SATISFACTION ON THE BUS Route/destination information on the outside of the bus (551) The cleanliness and condition of the outside of the bus (543) The ease of getting onto and off of the bus (579) The length of time it took to board the bus (550) The cleanliness and condition of the inside of the bus (582) The information provided inside the bus (535) The availability of seating or space to stand (556) The comfort of the seats (570) The amount of personal space you had around you (567) Provision of grab rails to stand/move within the bus (550) The temperature inside the bus (567) Your personal security whilst on the bus (561) SATISFACTION WITH THE BUS DRIVER How near to the kerb/stop the bus stopped (576) The driver s appearance (561) The greeting/welcome you got from the driver (567) The helpfulness and attitude of the driver (548) The time the driver gave you to get to seat (571) Smoothness/freedom from jolting during the journey (554) Safety of the driving (i.e. speed, driver concentrating) (570)

103 5 Operator results Stagecoach in TfGM area Results 2011 % satisfied OVERALL SATISFACTION WITH THE JOURNEY All passengers (246) W Fare-paying passengers (150) W Free pass holders (96) E Age 16 to 34 (83) W Age 35 to 59 (<75) Passengers commuting (98) E Passengers not commuting (134) W Passengers saying they have a disability (<75) SATISFACTION WITH VALUE FOR MONEY All fare-paying passengers (149) E Passengers commuting (92) E Passengers not commuting (<75) Age 16 to 34 (77) E Age 35 to 59 (<75) SATISFACTION WITH PUNCTUALITY All passengers (228) Q SATISFACTION WITH ON-BOARD JOURNEY LENGTH All passengers (254) SATISFACTION ON THE BUS Route/destination information on the outside of the bus (246) Q The cleanliness and condition of the outside of the bus (237) W The ease of getting onto and off of the bus (249) Q The length of time it took to board the bus (241) W The cleanliness and condition of the inside of the bus (248) W The information provided inside the bus (223) W The availability of seating or space to stand (246) W The comfort of the seats (248) E The amount of personal space you had around you (241) Provision of grab rails to stand/move within the bus (236) E The temperature inside the bus (243) W Your personal security whilst on the bus (241) W SATISFACTION WITH THE BUS DRIVER How near to the kerb/stop the bus stopped (237) Q The driver s appearance (239) W The greeting/welcome you got from the driver (234) E The helpfulness and attitude of the driver (231) E The time the driver gave you to get to seat (240) Q Smoothness/freedom from jolting during the journey (243) E Safety of the driving (i.e. speed, driver concentrating) (240) E 101

104 5 Operator results Stagecoach in Tyne and Wear PTE area Results 2011 % satisfied OVERALL SATISFACTION WITH THE JOURNEY All passengers (717) W Fare-paying passengers (400) W Free pass holders (316) E Age 16 to 34 (145) E Age 35 to 59 (251) Q Passengers commuting (243) W Passengers not commuting (442) W Passengers saying they have a disability (206) W SATISFACTION WITH VALUE FOR MONEY All fare-paying passengers (388) W Passengers commuting (217) E Passengers not commuting (157) W Age 16 to 34 (138) E Age 35 to 59 (217) Q SATISFACTION WITH PUNCTUALITY All passengers (671) W SATISFACTION WITH ON-BOARD JOURNEY LENGTH All passengers (726) SATISFACTION ON THE BUS Route/destination information on the outside of the bus (687) E The cleanliness and condition of the outside of the bus (681) W The ease of getting onto and off of the bus (708) Q The length of time it took to board the bus (688) W The cleanliness and condition of the inside of the bus (718) W The information provided inside the bus (661) W The availability of seating or space to stand (693) W The comfort of the seats (708) W The amount of personal space you had around you (707) Provision of grab rails to stand/move within the bus (703) W The temperature inside the bus (710) W Your personal security whilst on the bus (707) W SATISFACTION WITH THE BUS DRIVER How near to the kerb/stop the bus stopped (698) W The driver s appearance (675) E The greeting/welcome you got from the driver (675) E The helpfulness and attitude of the driver (663) W The time the driver gave you to get to seat (687) W Smoothness/freedom from jolting during the journey (691) E Safety of the driving (i.e. speed, driver concentrating) (691) W 102

105 103

106 6 Bus Passenger Survey How the research was carried out and making use of results Overview of methodology The survey has been designed to provide results that are representative of bus passenger journeys made within each area i.e. at the level of a transport authority, or a bus rapid transit system s services. The sampling method is systematic-derived from a list of the area s bus services and the times that they run (sourced from ITO World Ltd, which makes available the data used by Traveline). The bus service/start times selected from the sampling process formed the start point for a three-hour shift during which field workers made as many return trips as possible on that selected service. They discussed the survey with the boarders of that bus service giving them the chance to participate; those wishing to do so were given a selfcompletion questionnaire to complete after their journey, together with a reply-paid envelope. The questionnaire asks passengers to rate that journey s experience, covering the bus stop environment, punctuality, on-bus comfort, the standards of the bus driver, together with overall journey satisfaction and value for money ratings. Fieldwork was conducted between 23 September and 12 December 2012 (excluding the half-term holiday period). Services available for selection were those running between 6am to 10pm, seven days of the week; only school bus services were systematically excluded. The survey was conducted among passengers aged 16 or over. The response data were weighted in two stages. The first stage was to weight to the age and gender profile of bus passengers within each area; as there is no available data at area level on the age/gender profile of passengers this was estimated by recording the profile of passengers during each fieldwork shift. The second stage of weighting was at area level to ensure that in the final data each participating area (within the survey) is represented proportionately to its total annual passenger journey numbers. Passenger Focus was supported by GfK NOP Ltd in conducting the autumn 2012 survey. There is an accompanying methodology document that provides more detail on the survey process, available at This year a total of 22,257 valid responses were received. 104

107 Presentation of results Throughout the report, behavioural results are based on all survey respondents and passengers opinion ratings are based on those respondents that gave an opinion. All results are based on weighted values. In the report the numbers in brackets shown after the question/category text are the actual numbers of passenger responses generating the answer value shown. For ease of use BPS data are reported rounded to whole numbers i.e. without decimal places. However, please note that summing two rounded data values (e.g. very and fairly satisfied) can produce a total up to one percent in difference to the true value of that sum. As an example: a very satisfied score of 45.4 per cent and fairly satisfied score of 35.3 per cent would be stated individually as 45 per cent and 35 per cent respectively, but the sum of the rounded individual numbers is 80 per cent; the true rounded sum is 81 per cent which is the net score shown in the tables. Key drivers of satisfaction charts Each set of area results shows a chart titled Key drivers of satisfaction. The chart plot values are generated from a regression technique which identifies key drivers of dissatisfaction and key enhancers of satisfaction on the vertical axis, and for each attribute their corresponding satisfaction rating on the horizontal axis. Chart results are based on fare-payers only so passengers value for money rating could be included in the range of attributes considered. The charts can only be read at an individual area level. Comparison of positions of the plot points between any area and another should not be made, as both the vertical and horizontal axis scales are bespoke to each area. Further detail on the statistical procedure used is available on request. Interpreting results The autumn 2012 wave of BPS was carried out across 22 areas which account for two thirds of journeys made within our remit area (England outside of London). The areas selected were all six former metropolitan counties, plus a broad mix of unitary, two-tier authorities and two bus rapid transit networks. The autumn 2011 wave of BPS was conducted in 23 areas which similarly accounted for around two thirds of journeys made within our remit area. It should be noted that apart from also covering all six former metropolitan counties, of the remaining 17 areas (also a broad mix of unitary and two-tier authorities), 13 were different to those selected in autumn Percentages quoted as averages are the aggregate scores achieved across all the areas surveyed; please note that each area counts towards generating that aggregate score in proportion to the number of passenger journeys made annually in that area. Waiver Passenger Focus has taken care to ensure that the information contained in the BPS is correct. However, no warranty, express or implied, is given as to its accuracy and Passenger Focus does not accept any liability for error or omission. Passenger Focus is not responsible for how the information is used, how it is interpreted or what reliance is placed on it. Passenger Focus does not guarantee that the information contained in BPS is fit for any particular purpose. 105

Bus Passenger Survey. Autumn 2015 Report

Bus Passenger Survey. Autumn 2015 Report Bus Passenger Survey Autumn 2015 Report . Contents 1 Foreword 2 Area results Introduction Key findings Results for former metropolitan county authorities Results for transport authority groups Results

More information

Bus Passenger Survey autumn 2013 results Merseytravel (Merseyside PTE area)

Bus Passenger Survey autumn 2013 results Merseytravel (Merseyside PTE area) Bus Passenger Survey autumn Merseytravel (Merseyside PTE area) Contact: Murray Leader, Research Team, Passenger Focus Fleetbank House, 2-6 Salisbury Square, London, EC4Y 8JX Tel: 0300 123 0843 Email: murray.leader@passengerfocus.org.uk

More information

Bus Passenger Survey spring Centro authority area, and National Express (NX) routes within Centro

Bus Passenger Survey spring Centro authority area, and National Express (NX) routes within Centro spring 01 results for: Centro authority area, and National Express (NX) routes within Centro July 01 Contact: Murray Leader, Research Team, Passenger Focus nd Floor, 1 Drummond Gate, Pimlico, London, SW1V

More information

Tram Passenger Survey. Autumn 2013 Report

Tram Passenger Survey. Autumn 2013 Report Tram Passenger Survey Autumn 2013 Report Contents 1 Foreword 3 2 Key findings 4 3 Research objective and methodology 8 4 Journey satisfaction 10 5 Tram usage 36 6 Passenger and journey details 42 7 Appendices

More information

Bus Passenger Survey spring 2013 results

Bus Passenger Survey spring 2013 results Go-Ahead bus companies in England outside of London Bus Passenger Survey spring 2013 results Contact: Murray Leader, Research Team, Passenger Focus Fleetbank House, 2-6 Salisbury Square, London, EC4Y 8JX

More information

Tram Passenger Survey

Tram Passenger Survey Tram Passenger Survey Autumn 2014 Contents 1 Foreword 3 2 Key findings 4 3 Research objective and methodology 8 4 Journey satisfaction 10 5 Tram usage 36 6 Passenger and journey details 42 7 Appendices

More information

Tram Passenger Survey (TPS) Sheffield

Tram Passenger Survey (TPS) Sheffield Tram Passenger Survey (TPS) Rosie Giles Tel: 8 Email: Rosie.Giles@transportfocus.org.uk 7 results March 8 Insight Team, Transport Focus, Fleetbank House, - Salisbury Square, London, ECY 8JX Contents Overview

More information

Tram Passenger Survey (TPS) Midland Metro

Tram Passenger Survey (TPS) Midland Metro Tram Passenger Survey (TPS) Midland Metro Rosie Giles Tel: 8 Email: Rosie.Giles@transportfocus.org.uk results March 8 Insight Team, Transport Focus, Fleetbank House, - Salisbury Square, London, ECY 8JX

More information

Tram Passenger Survey (TPS) Manchester Metrolink

Tram Passenger Survey (TPS) Manchester Metrolink Tram Passenger Survey (TPS) Manchester Metrolink Rosie Giles Tel: 000 0 Email: Rosie.Giles@transportfocus.org.uk Insight Team, Transport Focus, Fleetbank House, - Salisbury Square, London, ECY JX 0 results

More information

Glasgow Subway Passenger Survey

Glasgow Subway Passenger Survey Glasgow Subway Passenger Survey Autumn 2017 results April 2018 Contents Overview Context to the survey 3 Summary of 2017 findings 6 The findings Experience and opinions of the journey 14 Waiting at the

More information

GfK. Growth from Knowledge

GfK. Growth from Knowledge GfK. Growth from Knowledge Passenger Focus Bus Passenger Customer Satisfaction Survey Fieldwork Quality Report Quarter 3 2010 437957 / August 2010 v1 Prepared for: Prepared by: Contacts: Passenger Focus

More information

FINAL REPORT TO SHEFFIELD BUS PARTNERSHIP OPERATIONS GROUP FROM: WORK PACKAGE 5 PERFORMANCE FRAMEWORK & UPDATE DATE OF MEETING: 19 OCTOBER 2012

FINAL REPORT TO SHEFFIELD BUS PARTNERSHIP OPERATIONS GROUP FROM: WORK PACKAGE 5 PERFORMANCE FRAMEWORK & UPDATE DATE OF MEETING: 19 OCTOBER 2012 Sheffield Bus Partnership FINAL REPORT TO SHEFFIELD BUS PARTNERSHIP OPERATIONS GROUP FROM: WORK PACKAGE 5 SUBJECT: PERFORMANCE FRAMEWORK & UPDATE DATE OF MEETING: 19 OCTOBER 2012 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Overall

More information

Table 2.1 Staffing grades Head of Service

Table 2.1 Staffing grades Head of Service Table 2.1 Staffing grades Head of Service North East Salary band of head of service Children Joint For joint post, % of time spent on Children Other Notes & other activities Gateshead d r 40 60 Newcastle

More information

Tram Passenger Survey (TPS) West Midlands (Centro) pilot

Tram Passenger Survey (TPS) West Midlands (Centro) pilot Passenger Survey (TPS) West Midlands (Centro) pilot June 201 Contact: Keith Bailey, Research Team, Passenger Focus Fleetbank House, 2- Salisbury Square, London, EC4Y JX Tel: 000 12 022 Email: keith.bailey@passengerfocus.org.uk

More information

Table 2.1 Staffing grades Head of Service

Table 2.1 Staffing grades Head of Service Table 2.1 Staffing grades Head of Service North East Salary band of head of Children Joint For joint post, % of time spent on Children Other Notes & other activities Gateshead c r 40 60 Newcastle upon

More information

Table 2.1 Staffing grades Head of Service

Table 2.1 Staffing grades Head of Service Table 2.1 Staffing grades Head of Service North East Salary band of head of service Children Joint For joint post, % of time spent on Children Other Notes & other activities Gateshead d 40 60 Newcastle

More information

Travel to Work Survey 2018

Travel to Work Survey 2018 Travel to Work Survey 2018 The four local councils, Bath & North East Somerset Council, Bristol City Council, North Somerset Council, and South Gloucestershire Council carry out this survey annually. The

More information

Consumer Attitude Survey

Consumer Attitude Survey Consumer Attitude Survey Spring 2018 Consumer Attitude Survey Spring 2018 2 Consumer Attitude Survey Spring 2018 Contents Introduction.. 4 Regional breakdown...... 5 Consumer views General perceptions..

More information

Integrating transport (buses)

Integrating transport (buses) Integrating transport (buses) TransWilts CIC / Summer 2015 Linking buses to trains and to other buses Right bus provision at right place & time Integrated fares and information Reducing subsidy yet retaining

More information

Survey on passengers satisfaction with rail services. Analytical report. Flash Eurobarometer 326 The Gallup Organization

Survey on passengers satisfaction with rail services. Analytical report. Flash Eurobarometer 326 The Gallup Organization Flash Eurobarometer 326 The Gallup Organization Flash Eurobarometer European Commission Survey on passengers satisfaction with rail services Analytical report Fieldwork: March 2011 Publication: June 2011

More information

Bus The Case for the Bus

Bus The Case for the Bus Bus 2020 The Case for the Bus Bus 2020 The Case for the Bus Introduction by Claire Haigh I am sure we are all pleased that the economy is on the mend. The challenge now is to make sure people, young and

More information

Bus Rapid Transit. Briefing. Common to all BRT schemes is the aim to improve passengers experience and percep on of public transport

Bus Rapid Transit. Briefing. Common to all BRT schemes is the aim to improve passengers experience and percep on of public transport Briefing This briefing answers some frequently asked ques ons about Bus Rapid Transit. Q. What is Bus Rapid Transit? Common to all BRT schemes is the aim to improve passengers experience and percep on

More information

Rural bus services. September 2011

Rural bus services. September 2011 Rural bus services September 2011 Foreword One in five people in England live in rural areas 1. Recent surveys suggest that those living in the countryside regard better public transport as a top priority

More information

Bus Strategy 2015 Information Pack. 23/07/15 Version

Bus Strategy 2015 Information Pack. 23/07/15 Version Bus Strategy 2015 Information Pack 23/07/15 Version 1 Introduction to the Information Pack This Information Pack has been compiled to provide a statistical summary of the Liverpool City Region bus market

More information

Metro trains for the future: what our passengers have said

Metro trains for the future: what our passengers have said Metro trains for the future: what our passengers have said A: Executive summary 1 Nexus is developing plans to buy a new fleet of Metrocars to replace the current fleet, which are nearing the end of their

More information

Local Highway Panels Members Guide. 8 Passenger Transport Improvements

Local Highway Panels Members Guide. 8 Passenger Transport Improvements Local Highway Panels Members Guide 8 Passenger Transport Improvements 2 Local Highway Panels (LHP) Members Guide 2016/17 1. Introduction Bus Services The bus services outside London were deregulated in

More information

Customer Charter Audit Quarter

Customer Charter Audit Quarter Customer Charter Audit Quarter 3 2017 Introduction The Bus Éireann Customer Charter Audit is conducted quarterly to establish if the company s performance levels reach the requirements outlined in its

More information

Tyne and Wear Metro: What passengers want from new trains. Full report Chime Insight and Engagement February 2017

Tyne and Wear Metro: What passengers want from new trains. Full report Chime Insight and Engagement February 2017 Tyne and Wear Metro: What passengers want from new trains Full report Chime Insight and Engagement February 2017 Methodology Quantitative research 971 face-to-face interviews were conducted with passengers

More information

Public Opinion of Waterloo Region Rapid Transit Proposal May 2011

Public Opinion of Waterloo Region Rapid Transit Proposal May 2011 Public Opinion of Region Rapid Transit Proposal May 2011 Methodology From May 23 to May 25, 2011, Angus Reid Public Opinion conducted an online survey among a residents of Region on behalf of Machteld

More information

Research. Driving Safety Culture Survey 2017

Research. Driving Safety Culture Survey 2017 Research Driving Safety Culture Survey 2017 Contents Introduction... 3 Objectives... 4 Executive Summary... 5 Methodology... 6 Main findings...7 Q1. Please tell us how much of a problem each of the issues

More information

ULTRA LOW EMISSIONS ZONE CONSULTATION LONDON COUNCILS RESPONSE

ULTRA LOW EMISSIONS ZONE CONSULTATION LONDON COUNCILS RESPONSE Ultra Low Emissions Zone Consultation Contact: Jennifer Sibley Direct line: 020 7934 9829 Email: jennifer.sibley@londoncouncils.gov.uk Date: 16 January 2014 Dear Sir/Madam, ULTRA LOW EMISSIONS ZONE CONSULTATION

More information

Service Standard Report

Service Standard Report Public Transport Services Service Standard Report October - December 2014 Contents Sample and Methodology 3 Main Findings Bus 4-5 Main Findings Train 6 Main Findings Tram 4 On-Time Running Bus 8-9 Top

More information

2017 Training Data Analysis. Topic: LTFT training

2017 Training Data Analysis. Topic: LTFT training 2017 Training Data Analysis Topic: LTFT training Background Obstetrics and Gynaecology is a speciality with a relatively high proportion of less than full time (LTFT) trainees and therefore it was decided

More information

When Do We Talk About the Future?

When Do We Talk About the Future? When Do We Talk About the Future? How to Lead an Agency Through the Transportation Revolution Month Day, 2014 UC Davis March, 4, 2016 WHO WE ARE The Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) is a public

More information

Guidelines for Motorcycling

Guidelines for Motorcycling Guidelines for Motorcycling 4 4.1 Summary A well designed, targeted and researched road safety campaign comprising the appropriate elements of education awareness, training and publicity and that deals

More information

TORONTO TRANSIT COMMISSION REPORT NO.

TORONTO TRANSIT COMMISSION REPORT NO. Revised: March/13 TORONTO TRANSIT COMMISSION REPORT NO. MEETING DATE: March 26, 2014 SUBJECT: COMMUNITY BUS SERVICES ACTION ITEM RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Board not approve any routing

More information

TRANSFORMING RAIL TRAVEL - TRANSFORMING RAIL TRAVEL - TRANSFORMING RAIL TRAVEL - TRANSFORMING

TRANSFORMING RAIL TRAVEL - TRANSFORMING RAIL TRAVEL - TRANSFORMING RAIL TRAVEL - TRANSFORMING TRANSFORMING RAIL TRAVEL - TRANSFORMING RAIL TRAVEL - TRANSFORMING RAIL TRAVEL - TRANSFORMING RAIL TRAVEL - TRANSFORMING RAIL TRAVEL - TRANSFORMING RAIL TRAVEL - TRANSFORMING RAIL TRAVEL TRANSFORMING RAIL

More information

Reducing CO 2 emissions from vehicles by encouraging lower carbon car choices and fuel efficient driving techniques (eco-driving)

Reducing CO 2 emissions from vehicles by encouraging lower carbon car choices and fuel efficient driving techniques (eco-driving) Reducing CO 2 emissions from vehicles by encouraging lower carbon car choices and fuel efficient driving techniques (eco-driving) David Pryke, Head of Efficient Driving, Department for Transport, London

More information

WEST YORKSHIRE BUS STRATEGY 2040

WEST YORKSHIRE BUS STRATEGY 2040 WEST YORKSHIRE BUS STRATEGY 2040 This document has been developed by West Yorkshire Combined Authority with support from the West Yorkshire District Councils, plus bus operators Arriva, First West Yorkshire

More information

ChargePlace Scotland. E-Cosse Forum 8 th November, 2016

ChargePlace Scotland. E-Cosse Forum 8 th November, 2016 ChargePlace Scotland E-Cosse Forum 8 th November, 2016 Network to Date Annual Usage 2010/11 to 2016/17 1,400,000 1,200,000 1,000,000 800,000 600,000 400,000 200,000 Sessions kwh 0 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13

More information

GUIDE FOR VAN DRIVERS

GUIDE FOR VAN DRIVERS OPERATING LCVS IN LONDON GUIDE FOR VAN DRIVERS VAN LEASE CENTRE OF EXCELLENCE: OPERATING LCVS IN LONDON With increasing legislation, traffic management schemes and health and safety priorities, operating

More information

Service Standard Report

Service Standard Report Public Transport Services Service Standard Report October - December 2012 Contents Sample and Methodology 3 Main Findings Bus 4-5 Main Findings Train 6 Main Findings Tram 4 On-Time Running Bus 8-9 Top

More information

Geneva, 67th SC.2 Session October 2013 High Speed Trains Master Plan

Geneva, 67th SC.2 Session October 2013 High Speed Trains Master Plan Geneva, 67th SC.2 Session 23 25 October 2013 High Speed Trains Master Plan Work Package I Work Package II Work Package III Project Management Review of related Work Socio economic framework of the ECE

More information

How BRT can develop the bus mode in Dublin Paddy Doherty, Chief Executive, Dublin Bus

How BRT can develop the bus mode in Dublin Paddy Doherty, Chief Executive, Dublin Bus How BRT can develop the bus mode in Dublin Paddy Doherty, Chief Executive, Dublin Bus Background Dublin Bus operates the public service obligation network in the Greater Dublin Area Also operates some

More information

The Health Benefits of Public Transport. Vince Hills Business Development Officer - Nexus

The Health Benefits of Public Transport. Vince Hills Business Development Officer - Nexus The Health Benefits of Public Transport Vince Hills Business Development Officer - Nexus Introduction History Changes within the Passenger Transport system since 1985 What it meant for local authorities

More information

Innovation in Transport. Mike Waters

Innovation in Transport. Mike Waters Innovation in Transport Mike Waters West Midlands as the home of mobility Accomodating growth Our population is forecast to grow by 444,000 people by 2035 Housing Deal: 215,000 homes by 2030/31 100m Land

More information

Passenger Promise and Rights: National Express Bus

Passenger Promise and Rights: National Express Bus 51 Bordesley Green Birmingham B9 4BZ Passenger Promise and Rights: National Express Bus 1. Introduction This document incorporates both our promise to you and a statement of your rights under the EU Passenger

More information

Tackling Transport Emissions National information hub to support local action

Tackling Transport Emissions National information hub to support local action Tackling Transport Emissions National information hub to support local action Snapshot 2 Dec 2014 THIS REPORT provides an overview of the use and currently available content on the Low Emission Hub as

More information

Usage of solar electricity in the national energy market

Usage of solar electricity in the national energy market Usage of solar electricity in the national energy market A quantitative study November 2016 Introduction 3 Summary of key findings 5 The decision to install solar electricity 7 Sources of information on

More information

2018 AER Social Research Report

2018 AER Social Research Report 2018 AER Social Research Report Executive Summary June 2018 2018 AER Social Research Report Executive Summary June 2018 Published by Alberta Energy Regulator Suite 1000, 250 5 Street SW Calgary, Alberta

More information

Credit: Image Source / Rex / Shutterstock. Sustainability Research November 2017

Credit: Image Source / Rex / Shutterstock. Sustainability Research November 2017 Credit: Image Source / Rex / Shutterstock Sustainability Research November 2017 Sustainability Research November 2017 AGENDA Methodology Respondent Profile Main Findings Summary Presented by: Heather Macleod,

More information

COSTS IN PREVENTION OF CRIME ON PUBLIC TRANSPORT

COSTS IN PREVENTION OF CRIME ON PUBLIC TRANSPORT 1. Introduction COSTS IN PREVENTION OF CRIME ON PUBLIC TRANSPORT APPENDIX 4 The Home Office costs of crime study include estimates for the costs incurred in anticipation (or prevention) of crime. These

More information

Nebraska Teen Driving Experiences Survey Four-Year Trend Report

Nebraska Teen Driving Experiences Survey Four-Year Trend Report Nebraska Teen Driving Experiences Survey Four-Year Trend Report 2014-2015, 2015-2016, and 2017-2018 School Years April 2018 Division of Public Health Injury Prevention Program Table of Contents Executive

More information

Progress in Improving Stroke Care: Patient Survey. February 2010

Progress in Improving Stroke Care: Patient Survey. February 2010 Progress in Improving Stroke Care: Patient Survey February 2010 1 Contents Contents... 2 Summary of findings... 4 Methodology... 4 y Table: All respondents... 6 Profiling questions... 6 Question 1. For

More information

CEDAR AVENUE TRANSITWAY Implementation Plan Update

CEDAR AVENUE TRANSITWAY Implementation Plan Update CEDAR AVENUE TRANSITWAY Implementation Plan Update EECUTIVE SUMMARY DECEMBER 2015 Executive Summary In 2013, the Twin Cities metropolitan area s first bus rapid transit (BRT) line, the METRO Red Line,

More information

Three ULTra Case Studies examples of the performance of the system in three different environments

Three ULTra Case Studies examples of the performance of the system in three different environments Three ULTra Case Studies examples of the performance of the system in three different environments airport application: London Heathrow : linking business and staff car parks through the access tunnel

More information

Introduction 3. Profit return 4. Return on investment Targets Self-registrations Incentives... 12

Introduction 3. Profit return 4. Return on investment Targets Self-registrations Incentives... 12 Dealer Attitude Survey Winter 28/29 Contents Dealer Attitude Introduction 3 Profit return 4 Return on investment... 7 Targets... 9 Self-registrations... Incentives... 2 Day-to-day working relationship.

More information

Metro-North Report on Metrics and Fare Evasion

Metro-North Report on Metrics and Fare Evasion Metro-North Report on Metrics and Fare Evasion Performance Metrics Service Performance Improvement Metrics Service Metric OTP SHORT TRAINS SWITCH/SIGNAL DELAYS Change from 2018 2019 Goal YTD Target YTD

More information

2011 Saskatoon Transit Services Annual Report

2011 Saskatoon Transit Services Annual Report 2011 Annual Report Saskatoon Transit provides a high quality of service for all citizens in our community, and is undertaking initiatives focused on building its ridership. Saskatoon, like most North American

More information

Bus Mystery Traveller Survey

Bus Mystery Traveller Survey Bus Mystery Traveller Survey Technical Annex April July 2010/11 (Half yearly results) Bus Mystery Traveller Survey Detailed technical survey overview Table of contents 1. Background 1 2. Sample 2 2.1 Geographical

More information

Presentation A Blue Slides 1-5.

Presentation A Blue Slides 1-5. Presentation A Blue Slides 1-5. 1 Presentation A Blue Slides 1-5. 2 Presentation A Blue Slides 1-5. 3 Presentation A Blue Slides 1-5. 4 Presentation A Blue Slides 1-5. 5 Transit Service right. service

More information

How will high speed rail transform the sheffield city region

How will high speed rail transform the sheffield city region How will high speed rail transform the sheffield city region HSR and the wider rail network 1 How HSR will transform the Sheffield City Region SUMMARY By 2033 the Sheffield City Region (SCR) will be served

More information

Low Emissions Towns and Cities Programme

Low Emissions Towns and Cities Programme Low Emissions Towns and Cities Programme Developing a Low Emissions Strategy for the West Midlands IAPSC 1 st December 2015 Andrew Whittles, Low Emission Strategies Ltd Content Recap of the LETCP Overview

More information

Submission to Greater Cambridge City Deal

Submission to Greater Cambridge City Deal What Transport for Cambridge? 2 1 Submission to Greater Cambridge City Deal By Professor Marcial Echenique OBE ScD RIBA RTPI and Jonathan Barker Introduction Cambridge Futures was founded in 1997 as a

More information

Electric Circuit Customer Satisfaction Survey Conducted on from november 17 to 28, respondents / 3637 members

Electric Circuit Customer Satisfaction Survey Conducted on from november 17 to 28, respondents / 3637 members Electric Circuit Customer Satisfaction Survey Conducted on from november 17 to 28, 2014 1004 respondents / 3637 members HIGHLIGHTS The vast majority of respondents appreciate the charging experience and

More information

WATFORD LOCAL PLAN PART 2. Review of Car Parking Policy and Standards. Evidence Base. February 2012

WATFORD LOCAL PLAN PART 2. Review of Car Parking Policy and Standards. Evidence Base. February 2012 WATFORD LOCAL PLAN PART 2 Review of Car Parking Policy and Standards Evidence Base February 2012 1.0 Background 1.1 The Watford District Plan 2000 contains various policies relating to the provision of

More information

Transport Group Perspective Chris Blow Chair of The Guildford Society Transport Group 21st Jan 2015

Transport Group Perspective Chris Blow Chair of The Guildford Society Transport Group 21st Jan 2015 Transport Group Perspective Chris Blow Chair of The Guildford Society Transport Group 21st Jan 2015 LET'S REMEMBER THAT THIS IS NOT A STATION REDEVELOPMENT BUT A STATION SITE REDEVELOPMENT. The big question:

More information

APP/P2.3 Neil Chadwick Economic Case/Value for Money Proof of Evidence Appendices

APP/P2.3 Neil Chadwick Economic Case/Value for Money Proof of Evidence Appendices APP/P2.3 APP/P2.3 Neil Chadwick Economic Case/Value for Money Proof of Evidence Appendices 1 APP/P2.3 PROOF OF EVIDENCE - APPENDICES FOR WEST MIDLANDS COMBINED AUTHORITY NEIL CHADWICK, DIRECTOR STEER DAVIES

More information

Onward travel. Insights from HS2 online panel

Onward travel. Insights from HS2 online panel Insights from HS2 online panel 1 Task: What connections with other transport facilities do you need to be available at train stations? (for example, buses, taxis, bicycles or bicycle parking). Please describe

More information

Response of the Road Haulage Association to Transport for London s Consultation. Changes to the Ultra Low Emission Zone and Low Emission Zone.

Response of the Road Haulage Association to Transport for London s Consultation. Changes to the Ultra Low Emission Zone and Low Emission Zone. Response of the Road Haulage Association to Transport for London s Consultation Changes to the Ultra Low Emission Zone and Low Emission Zone. Summary 27 Feb 2018 1. The London Mayor is consulting on changing

More information

Improving public transport in England through light rail

Improving public transport in England through light rail Improving public transport in England through light rail REPORT BY THE COMPTROLLER AND AUDITOR GENERAL HC 518 Session 2003-2004: 23 April 2004 LONDON: The Stationery Office 9.25 Ordered by the House of

More information

Reducing the barriers to bus use

Reducing the barriers to bus use Reducing the barriers to bus use AGCC, First Group and NESTRANS MAY 2015 Produced by Aberdeen & Grampian Chamber of Commerce Research Unit 1 Table of Contents Executive Summary... 1 Introduction... 3 Background

More information

Sustainable Urban Transport Index (SUTI)

Sustainable Urban Transport Index (SUTI) Sustainable Urban Transport Index (SUTI) City Comparisons & Way Forward PROF. H.M SHIVANAND SWAMY, CEPT UNIVERSITY DHAKA SEPTEMBER 12, 2018 Purpose Discussion of Results from 5 Cities Reflections on the

More information

We note the range of possible interventions identified in the consultation paper.

We note the range of possible interventions identified in the consultation paper. DEFRA/DfT Consultation on additional measures to support individuals and businesses affected by local NO2 plans ~ Consultation Response from Campaign for Better Transport January 2018 Campaign for Better

More information

Light Rail Review 2011

Light Rail Review 2011 Ref: LR Applrg Winter 09 v1 Light Rail Review 2011, 12 th July 2011 This meeting by invitation only, where MPs, Stakeholders etc, wwwapplrgukcouk Email lightrailuk@aolcom wwwlightrailukcom 1 Ref: LR Applrg

More information

BENCHMARKING URBAN TRANSPORT-A STRATEGY TO FULFIL COMMUTER ASPIRATION

BENCHMARKING URBAN TRANSPORT-A STRATEGY TO FULFIL COMMUTER ASPIRATION BENCHMARKING URBAN TRANSPORT-A STRATEGY TO FULFIL COMMUTER ASPIRATION Rahul Tiwari Senior City Transport Officer Directorate, Urban Administration and Development Bhopal & PhD Scholar (+91) 98930 44012

More information

THE UK RAIL REPORT 2018

THE UK RAIL REPORT 2018 THE UK RAIL REPORT 2018 B R O O K S M A R K E T I N T E L L I G E N C E R E P O R T S THE UK RAIL REPORT 2018 Brooks Events Ltd 2018. All rights reserved. A Brooks Reports Publication No guarantee can

More information

Metropolitan Council Budget Overview SFY

Metropolitan Council Budget Overview SFY Metropolitan Council Budget Overview SFY 2016-2017 H T t ti C itt House Transportation Committee February 4, 2015 Transit connects us to the places that matter Transportation Needs Grow as the Region Grows

More information

Future Of Transportation National Survey #10131

Future Of Transportation National Survey #10131 Future Of Transportation National Survey #10131 1 On behalf of Smart Growth America and Transportation For America, Public Opinion Strategies and Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz and Associates conducted

More information

BIRMINGHAM CONNECTED Anne Shaw Tuesday 20 January 2015

BIRMINGHAM CONNECTED Anne Shaw Tuesday 20 January 2015 BIRMINGHAM CONNECTED Anne Shaw Tuesday 20 January 2015 www.birmingham.gov.uk/connected Birmingham Connected Setting the context challenges in Birmingham The need for action The EU the SUMP process Strategy

More information

THE LONG ISLAND RAIL ROAD REPORT CARD

THE LONG ISLAND RAIL ROAD REPORT CARD THE LONG ISLAND RAIL ROAD REPORT CARD 23 Results of the Annual, Independent Rider Survey Conducted by the Long Island Rail Road Commuter s Council Katherine rower ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR Ellyn Shannon TRANSPORTATION

More information

Passenger Promise and Rights: National Express Bus

Passenger Promise and Rights: National Express Bus 51 Bordesley Green Birmingham B9 4BZ Passenger Promise and Rights: National Express Bus 1. Introduction This document incorporates both our promise and duties to you and a statement of your rights under

More information

London s residential EV Charging Future

London s residential EV Charging Future Surface Transport London s residential EV Charging Future Naveed Ahmed, Principal Strategy Planner Environment & Walking Team CIVITAS Electromobility Workshop Thursday, 16 June 2016 1 1. The London Context

More information

Building smart transport in Moscow

Building smart transport in Moscow Building smart transport in Moscow Moscow addressed its road and public transit congestion problems and developed one of the world s smartest and most-used public transportation systems. Here s how. Maksim

More information

Passengers satisfaction with public transport services in Helsinki in 2008

Passengers satisfaction with public transport services in Helsinki in 2008 Passengers satisfaction with public transport services in Helsinki in 2008 SUY Marko Vihervuori B: 6/2009 Publisher HELSINKI CITY TRANSPORT Planning Unit DESCRIPTION Date of publication 14.8.2009 (original

More information

We deliver world-class advice for owners and occupiers of office, industrial, hospitality, retail and residential real estate

We deliver world-class advice for owners and occupiers of office, industrial, hospitality, retail and residential real estate CONTENTS We deliver world-class advice for owners and occupiers of office, industrial, hospitality, retail and residential real estate 02 ECONOMIC OUTLOOK 04 ASEAN INTEGRATION AND FTAS 06 BUSINESS EXPANSION

More information

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS 2018 What is the More MARTA Atlanta program? The More MARTA Atlanta program is a collaborative partnership between MARTA and the City of Atlanta to develop and implement a program

More information

RACQ Mobility Survey - Taxis and Rideshare

RACQ Mobility Survey - Taxis and Rideshare RACQ Mobility Survey - Taxis and Rideshare For Information RACQ Public Policy Department Date 2 December 1 R A C Q M o b i l i t y S u r v e y P a g e 1 Contents 1 Introduction... 3 2 Methods... 3 3 Demographic

More information

2017 European Car Wash Consumer Study

2017 European Car Wash Consumer Study 2017 European Car Wash Consumer Study 2017 International Carwash ssociation, Inc. 2017 EUROPEN CR WSH CONSUMER STUDY 1 TLE OF CONTENTS MESSGE FROM INTERNTIONL CRWSH SSOCITION pg. 3 METHODOLOGY pg. 4 STTE

More information

PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS: DRIVERLESS CARS.

PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS: DRIVERLESS CARS. PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS: DRIVERLESS CARS. Improving the world through engineering Public Perception: Driverless Cars Introduction For over 50 years, the car of the future which is able to transport its passengers

More information

Sprint. Tell us your views. Metro s little sister. We want your views on a modern, high-quality mode of public transport called Sprint.

Sprint. Tell us your views. Metro s little sister. We want your views on a modern, high-quality mode of public transport called Sprint. Sprint Metro s little sister Tell us your views We want your views on a modern, high-quality mode of public transport called Sprint. Examples of bus rapid transit in other cities Sprint Network Vision

More information

SPARTA Ridership Satisfaction Study

SPARTA Ridership Satisfaction Study SPARTA Ridership Satisfaction Study Presented by the Students of CRP 814 Gowtham Cherukumalli, Sam Keith, Kelsey Lantz, Nabarjun Vashisth, & Nelson Yaksic Vera With Guidance from Dr. Eric A. Morris INTRODUCTION

More information

TransPennine Express and Angel Trains orders 95 Inter-City rail carriages from UK manufacturer Hitachi

TransPennine Express and Angel Trains orders 95 Inter-City rail carriages from UK manufacturer Hitachi FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE TransPennine Express and Angel Trains orders 95 Inter-City rail carriages from UK manufacturer Hitachi London, March 31, 2016 --- The new TransPennine Express (TPE) franchise, operated

More information

MetroBus (Rapid Transit): Preferred Option for Vehicle Specification

MetroBus (Rapid Transit): Preferred Option for Vehicle Specification West of England Joint Transport Executive Committee 31 July 2013 Agenda item 6 MetroBus (Rapid Transit): Preferred Option for Vehicle Specification Purpose 1. To endorse the preferred specification for

More information

The Central London Congestion Charge

The Central London Congestion Charge The Central London Congestion Charge Mike Keegan, Transport Planning & Policy Transport for London The charge for having a vehicle* in the zone is 8 per day, weekdays, 7a.m. to 6.30 p.m. * Some vehicles

More information

OXFORD STREET, PADDINGTON SYDNEY, AUSTRALIA

OXFORD STREET, PADDINGTON SYDNEY, AUSTRALIA ABOUT PLACE SCORE? Street PX Place Score TM is a groundbreaking Place Experience (PX) diagnostic, engagement, benchmarking and tracking solution. The PX tool captures your community s assessment of places

More information

MAR1011. West Birmingham Bus Network Review March 2010

MAR1011. West Birmingham Bus Network Review March 2010 MAR1011 West Birmingham Bus Network Review March 2010 West Birmingham Bus Network Review In December 2008, Centro published a strategy document entitled Transforming Bus Travel (TBT) which sets out a vision

More information

Motorcoach Census. A Study of the Size and Activity of the Motorcoach Industry in the United States and Canada in 2015

Motorcoach Census. A Study of the Size and Activity of the Motorcoach Industry in the United States and Canada in 2015 Motorcoach Census A Study of the Size and Activity of the Motorcoach Industry in the United States and Canada in 2015 Prepared for the American Bus Association Foundation by John Dunham & Associates October

More information

Forest Hill Street Clutter study

Forest Hill Street Clutter study 1 Local Fund and Street Clutter London Borough of Lewisham Forest Hill Street Clutter study Colin Davis Associates Traffic and Urban Design consultants January 2010 020 8398 7837 colinjdavis@aol.com www.publicrealm.info

More information

Best Route. Best Care. The Milwaukee Regional Medical Center s Alternative Transportation Program

Best Route. Best Care. The Milwaukee Regional Medical Center s Alternative Transportation Program Best Route to the Best Care Programs include: CARPOOL Make a friend; save the earth! PARK & RIDE SHUTTLE SERVICE Avoid the construction and the long walk from the parking lot. WASHINGTON COUNTY COMMUTER

More information