Nexus - Market Research Services - Bus Priorities Research 5.2
Table 5.1 Focus Group Recruitment Quotas
Group Venue Bus Use Residents
of:
Age Group Gender
and SEG 5 Newcastle 50% regular, 50% Infrequent/potential users 70% Newcastle, 30% North Tyneside
Overr 35 Min 3 Male and min 3 female Min. 3 ABC1 and min 3 C2DE 6 Newcastle 50% regular, 50% Infrequent/potential users 60% Gateshead, 40% North Tyneside
Under 35 Min 3 Male and min 3 female Min. 3 ABC1 and min 3 C2DE 7 Sunderland 50% regular, 50% Infrequent/potential users
Sunderland Over 35 Min 3 Male and min 3 female Min. 3 ABC1 and min 3 C2DE 8 Sunderland 50% regular, 50% Infrequent/potential users South Tyneside
Under 35 Min 3 Male and min 3 female Min. 3 ABC1 and min 3 C2DE
5.1.4 Ten people were recruited to take part in each group with the expectation that, after some drop-out, around eight people would attend. Focus Groups were all well attended with every group registering at least 80%. Attendance at each group was as follows:
Group 5 – 10 participants, 100%
Group 6 – 10 participants, 100%;
Group 7 – 8 participants, 80%; and
Group 8 – 8 participants, 80%.
5 Phase 3 – Qualitative Research
Nexus - Market Research Services - Bus Priorities Research 5.3
Initial Thoughts on Bus Use
5.1.6 Each focus group was initiated with a general discussion of bus use, and reasons why participants chose not to use the bus. This initial discussion was unprompted and designed to elicit baseline opinions on bus services. Responses across all groups consistently noted the following key reasons for not using the bus:
Reliability issues with the bus;
Enjoy the freedom of the car, this was also cited as a positive over the reliability issues with the bus; and
Bus journey times taking too long.
5.1.7 Reliability issues were a key theme across each of these four groups which appeared to count in favour of other modes. In particular respondents noted the advantages of the car over the bus being they had the convenience to travel whenever suited without the worry of the bus not appearing, whilst Metro users noted the ‘turn up and go’ service pattern of the Metro system which was viewed as reliable in comparison to bus timetables.
Since reliability issues were particularly apparent across each of the four focus groups, consideration should be given to evidencing examples of poor reliability and where necessary, taking appropriate mitigation measures.
Bus Information
5.1.8 Consistent with the initial round of focus groups, most participants were aware that bus network information was available at bus stops, interchanges and on line. When probed deeper those with any experience of searching or using the information believed it was difficult to understand. This lack of information was flagged up as a significant barrier to bus use, with more than one participant noting that until attendance at the focus group, they had no understanding of the role of Nexus, or any idea that the Nexus website would provide bus timetable information. A lack of understanding of where to find the appropriate information was also observed from a number of participants in multiple groups.
“I wouldn’t know which travel company to look for.”
5.1.9 Even amongst those who classed themselves as internet literate, there was a lack of understanding of the system with one participant electing to use the telephone inquiry service for confirmation despite successfully sourcing the information over the internet.
“I didn’t find it easy to use, and I’m a regular internet user. I certainly didn’t trust it, or at least I didn’t trust my understanding of what it was telling me. In the end I had to ring up the travel centre”
5.1.10 Within the same group, regular users of the online bus information services confirmed that to the first time user, the sites and information may be confusing however once accustomed to the process, these are relatively easy to understand. The same participants also noted that internet services appear to be regularly updated with accurate service information. Non regular bus users were surprised by this noting they would not trust bus information due to their experiences with bus reliability and unannounced service changes.
5 Phase 3 – Qualitative Research
Nexus - Market Research Services - Bus Priorities Research 5.4
“Looking at the information online, I’m not sure if I trust that the bus will turn up, I’d rather go to the bus stop and look and make sure it’s up to date.”
5.1.11 Considering the above, it is apparent that not only is a lack of bus information a barrier to bus use, but there appears to be issue with confidence in the reliability of service information both online and at stops. Work should be done to better inform the public both of where to access bus information and assurances made as to the reliability of the information in question.
“As an infrequent user, I don’t know how up to date these things are, and frankly I wouldn’t trust it.”
5.1.12 There was however universal appreciation of facilities at bus stop interchanges which display bus information on large electronic boards. These were noted as being familiar to what Tyne and Wear residents regularly encounter on the Metro system, are viewed as easy to understand and reliable. This is consistent with findings from the initial round of focus groups and would suggest there is some merit in considering increased roll out of RTI facilities and infrastructure.
Consistent with findings from the initial series of focus groups, lack of bus information - or perhaps a lack of understanding and awareness of bus information - was cited as a barrier to bus use.
Consultation on Service Changes
5.1.13 Linked to the reliability issue and the apparent mistrust of bus service information was the fact that participants generally did not feel consulted about service changes. Groups noted that service routes and times seemed to change with no prior warning, each group had numerous examples of situations where they did not know about service changes until they were waiting at the bus stop.
5.1.14 Three of the groups reported that they did not generally wish to be actively involved in route or service change discussions, but rather informed as to service changes prior to changes being enacted.
“Why are these things not advertised at the bus stops before the changes happen? People are standing around waiting for their bus anyway; reading about changes at that stop seems a good thing.”
5.1.15 Posters and leaflets were also suggested as a good way of making the public aware of forthcoming changes to the network.
5.1.16 Only one group felt strongly that operators should work with the public and design services around the opinions of bus users, rather than consultation merely being a tool of information dissemination.
Bus users’ dissatisfaction with the lack of notification, consultation and hence awareness of service changes was noted across each phase of the research.
5 Phase 3 – Qualitative Research
Nexus - Market Research Services - Bus Priorities Research 5.5
Specific Buses for Shopping Purposes
5.1.17 A key theme arising from the quantitative phase, was the assertion that respondents would consider using buses for shopping purposes should improvements be made. Considering the above, this notion was discussed with each of the four focus groups to illicit opinions on buses for shoppers and the specific requirements such buses should have.
5.1.18 In general, the majority of participants recognised there could be a role for buses deigned around the requirements of shoppers, noting that journey times will not be as important to shoppers as it is to commuters. Groups highlighted the following key points with regards services to facilitate or capture shoppers:
Destination choice – aside from Newcastle City Centre, participants believed that out of town shopping facilities were difficult to get to by bus. Groups noted the Metro Centre is currently served by buses however the majority of the population of Tyne and Wear will have to change buses in order to access the Metro Centre. Silver Link Royal Keys and Team Valley were not believed to be well served by bus;
Service Frequency – groups noted that significant levels of shopping is often undertaken during evenings and weekends, yet note that bus service frequencies drop after 6pm and on Sundays. Participants believe shopping destination services should maintain frequencies during shopping hours if they wish to attract new patronage;
Groups also suggested some form of discount tie in between shopping centres and bus operators to encourage more use.
Noting the above, we recommend investigation of the potential for responding to the potential demand for services which access shopping locations
Bus Frequency
5.1.19 Participants generally believed that increased bus frequency would encourage better use of buses, with commuters amongst those who would benefit most. Indeed during discussions of bus frequency, a number of non users noted they would give serious consideration to using the bus if an appropriate service frequency was reached.
“I have started using the bus more because where I live I can get a bus every 10 minutes and that’s absolutely brilliant. If the buses were every hour or so then I would think differently. The more frequent they are, the more you think, I can just catch a bus.”
5.1.20 Groups likened the idea of increased frequency to their experience of the Metro System where they know if they miss the Metro train, another service will shortly arrive. In one group, non users agreed they would give serious consideration to using the bus if there was a 10 minute frequency and they knew the details of the bus service and route.
5.1.21 Whilst reliability was a popular theme across each group, users noted that an increase in bus frequency should go some way to solve reliability issues, as bus users will not be stuck waiting for services which do not appear.
5 Phase 3 – Qualitative Research
Nexus - Market Research Services - Bus Priorities Research 5.6
Bus Reliability
5.1.22 A key theme across each of the groups was the issue of bus reliability, with numerous participants citing examples of late running or non running services. Experience of unreliability is a particular barrier to bus use, this can be particularly troubling for the bus user if unreliability occurs at night.
5.1.23 Reliability seemed to make its way into the thinking of participants when answering unrelated questions, such as participants would not wait an additional few minutes for a better quality bus rather than using the first bus which appears, mainly because they felt there was no guarantee the better quality bus would arrive.
5.1.24 Similarly, when questioned on frequency, participants noted that if buses were currently unreliable, then asked why would this improve with improved frequency.
“Personally, I don’t believe that if you put on four buses an hour, you could guarantee that four buses would turn up. There is just so many times that the buses are called off, don’t turn up, not just like in the winter time there, they can break down as well.”
Important Factors when choosing to use the bus
5.1.25 Participants in each of the four groups were asked to name the key factors which encourage bus use. This was an unprompted exercise, the results are shown in the table below. As expected, lower fares and improved reliability were the most cited factor which would encourage bus use, closely followed by frequency, reliability of services and bus cleanliness.
Table 5.2 Factors which encourage bus use (Phase 3 groups)
Factor noted Groups raised
Cost 4 Reliability 4 Frequency 3 Direct routes 2 Information 2 Journey time 2 Cleanliness 3 Safety 1 Driver Attitude 2 Ticketing Options 2
5.1.26 The same exercise was undertaken in the initial set of focus groups, table 5.3 below documents results combined from both phases, as expected, lower fares and reliability were the most cited factor across both phases of qualitative research.
5 Phase 3 – Qualitative Research
Nexus - Market Research Services - Bus Priorities Research 5.7
Table 5.3 Factors which encourage bus use (All groups, phases 1 and 3)
Factor noted Groups raised
Cost 8 Reliability 7 Frequency 6 Direct routes 3 Information 4 Journey time 3 Cleanliness 6 Safety 2 Driver Attitude 3 Ticketing Options 3
5.1.27 Groups were asked to name the single most important priority for encouraging bus use, table 5.4 below documents the results of phase 3 groups only, whilst table 5.5 combines this work with research undertaken in phase 1.
Table 5.4 Improvement priorities – single most important priority for encouraging bus use (Phase 3 groups only)
Factor Regular users Non regular users
Reliability 3 3
Frequency 1
Journey Times 1
Table 5.5 Improvement priorities – single most important priority for encouraging bus use (All groups, phases 1 and 3)
Factor Regular users Non regular users
Reliability 4 4
Frequency 2 1
Journey Times 1 1
Information 1
Safety and security 1
Driving standards 1
It is apparent that overcoming reliability issues is a significant priority for both regular and non regular bus users.
5 Phase 3 – Qualitative Research
Nexus - Market Research Services - Bus Priorities Research 5.8
Ticketing
5.1.28 Consistent with the initial round of focus groups, ticket prices were viewed as overly expensive across the groups, however the most commonly raised concern was the lack of understanding of the ticketing system. In particular, participants pointed out confusion with the following:
Different ticketing options;
Where to buy some of the more advanced ticket types;
The zone or distance based system; and
Why there doesn’t appear to be a low cost network ticket.
5.1.29 Participants unfamiliar with the requirements and implications of bus deregulation, were unhappy that single operator ticketing exists, believing that a return bus ticket or weekly bus ticket should be enough to cover all buses in the region.
“The whole point of buying a ticket is that you don’t have to mess about with change, if you get on a different operator and have to pay again, it defeats the purpose.”
“It would be far simpler to have one bus ticket for the entire area”
5.1.30 In general the groups all pointed to a degree of confusion with the wide array of ticket types available across Tyne and Wear, expressing a desire for greater simplicity and allowing multi operator tickets. When asked to compare the cost impacts of multi operator ticketing, versus low cost single operator fairs, groups tended to agree that tickets should be valued across all operators. Participants also suggested that whilst they would not like to see an increase in the cost of the ticket, they would hope any increase would be less than what they currently have to pay for two different operators to complete multi-leg journeys.
5.1.31 Each group was given a short introduction to Nexus’ POP card initiative, including the aspiration to provide a multi-modal smart ticket which will eventually operate in a similar vein to the London Oyster card.
5.1.32 There was universal support of such an initiative, with all participants believing this would be a positive development which would both simplify ticketing and make bus travel easier and more convenient.
5.1.33 Any negatives raised with regards to the POP card, were consistent with other smart ticketing investigations, and limited to issues with card loss, and measures to ensure the card does not overcharge.
The evidence indicates merit in further exploring scope for further simplifying current ticketing options across the Tyne and Wear bus network. Public support for simplification efforts is apparent from the positive reactions shown towards Nexus aspirations for developing smart ticketing through the Pop card.
5 Phase 3 – Qualitative Research
Nexus - Market Research Services - Bus Priorities Research 5.9
Value for Money
5.1.34 Value for Money was consistently sighted during the first two phases of the research. As such, Nexus were keen to investigate further just what respondents meant by Value for Money, be it cheaper prices or perhaps an improvement in the quality of services to ensure the public felt they were receiving appropriate value for money.
5.1.35 Responses varied across groups however in general participants felt weekly and monthly travel tickets offered better value for money than single or return tickets. In addition to this, a number of participants believed they would pay more for an improved service, but an improved service would have to guarantee reliability and quality improvements.
“I would pay a higher cost if I knew the bus would turn up on time and would get me to work for the time specified. I would pay more if I had that guarantee.”
5.1.36 Others tended to think that pries had increased dramatically in recent years but services have shown no improvement, this lead those to believe they are in fact not receiving value for money.
“The prices have gone up anyway, but the quality hasn’t improved”
“I think we are already paying for a premium service, but not getting a premium service”
5.1.37 It would appear that respondents see merit in paying more for improved services but there is work to be done to identify if current service standards justify current levels of pricing. 5.1.38 As an exercise, a simplified ‘stated preference’ exercise was undertaken to ascertain general
feelings on Value for Money. The exercise involved five scenarios, each with distinct options which would allow any preference for value for money to be tracked.
5.1.39 The exercise involved the following scenario’s.
Scenario A
Option 1: Journey from A to B takes 50 minutes, monthly pass costs £40, bus is of an older generation.
Option 2: Journey from A to B takes 20 minutes, monthly pass costs £60, bus is of modern generation.
Across all groups, 10 participants noted option 1 with 26 choosing the more expensive but significantly faster option 2.
Scenario B
Option 1: Journey from A to B via C takes 30 minutes including interchange at Metro station, and costs £3.50 return. Includes 20 minute bus journey, 5 minute wait for Metro, then 5 minute Metro journey.
5 Phase 3 – Qualitative Research
Nexus - Market Research Services - Bus Priorities Research 5.10 Across all groups, 21 participants noted the more expensive but quicker option 1, despite the requirement for interchange, with 15 choosing the more cheaper and significantly slower option 2.
Scenario C
Option 1: Journey from A to B via C and D takes 50 minutes, single journey costs £4 and includes 2 interchanges – 10 minute bus journey, 5 minute wait for Metro, 5 minute Metro journey, 10 minute wait for bus, 20 minute bus journey.
Option 2: Journey from A to B direct takes 1 hour 20 minutes. Single Journey costs £3.70. Across all groups, 10 participants chose the shorter but more complicated option 1 whilst 25 chose the cheaper but longer option 2. One participant mentioned they would chose either.
Scenario D
Option 1: Journey from A to B takes 30 minutes, bus is of an older generation Option 2: Journey from A to B takes 40 minutes, but is modern.
Across all groups, 23 participants chose the quicker option 1 route on the older bus while 11 chose the slower option 2, 2 participants said they would be happy with either service.