Waterborne Transport Study - Stage 2 User Survey Methodology and Findings Report

Home , Fire Radio, Rodwell Trail, Weymouth Beach

2012

Transport Planning Environment Directorate

Waterborne Transport Study – Stage 2: User Survey Methodology and Findings Report.

This Page is Intentionally Blank.

Waterborne Transport Study – Stage 2: User Survey Methodology and Findings Report.

Waterborne Transport Feasibility Study Stage 2: Pilot Projects.

User Survey Methodology and Findings Report.

Prepared by Joseph Rose of Dorset County Council with the introduction from The Dorset and East Devon Waterborne Passenger Transport Feasibility Study by Chris Fisher of Fisher Associates.

Document History

Version Date Approved By Notes

Draft for Coastal Communities Incomplete Draft 19/09/2012 Unchecked Funding Bid. First Draft Initial Draft For Checking

Draft Draft for final Checking

Final Final Report

Dorset County Council - Transport Planning. Planning Division, Environment Directorate, Dorset County Council, County Hall, Dorchester, Dorset. DT1 1XJ

Fisher Associates. Seaways, Rowes Lane, East End, Lymington, Hampshire. SO41 5SU.

III

Waterborne Transport Study – Stage 2: User Survey Methodology and Findings Report.

This Page is Intentionally Blank.

Waterborne Transport Study – Stage 2: User Survey Methodology and Findings Report.

Executive Summary Abstract To be completed

Introduction Dorset and East Devon are extremely beautiful rural areas of the country. Both counties have large sections dedicated as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the majority of the coastline has world heritage status as the Jurassic Coast World Heritage Site. In addition to the natural beauty of the area, both Dorset and East Devon have numerous towns and villages renowned for their historic built environment and there are also a large number of visitor events and attractions in the area.

All of these elements make Dorset and East Devon popular for thousands of visitors each year which contributes considerably to the local economy. However, the large number of car-borne visitors results in significant pressure on the landscape, environment, transport network and also restricts further growth of the local economy.

The Jurassic Coast Transport Strategy was prepared in 2005 to address the issues associated with the large number of car-borne visitors. This document provided an overall strategy to guide a more sustainable approach to transport along the coast. A key element of the strategy and a subsequent Action Plan produced in 2009 was to investigate and develop the potential for waterborne transport along the Jurassic Coast, which could abstract some of the car-borne trips in the area and reduce the considerable pressures these impose.

In 2009 the first study into waterborne transport was produced by Fisher Associates. This study provided the initial investigation into the potential for waterborne transport along the Jurassic Coast, finding that there may be a significant market for this form of transport and that the implementation of such services may be feasible.

The first study provided the basis for the Waterborne Transport Stage 2 Feasibility Study which was instructed in 2010 and carried out by Fisher Associates in association with BMT Nigel Gee. This study focused on the investigation of three pilot routes across the Jurassic Coast. Providing a more detailed articulation of the vision for waterborne transport and assessing the feasibility of each of the pilot routes below:

East Devon Pilot: Sidmouth, Beer/Seaton and Lyme Regis (with the addition of West Bay); Weymouth & Portland Pilot; and Poole Bay Pilot: Swanage, Studland, Poole and Bournemouth.

To underpin the Stage 2 Feasibility Study, during the summer of 2010 Dorset County Council’s Transport Planning Team carried out a detailed survey of user factors that could affect the feasibility of the three pilot routes.

The aim of the survey exercise was to provide robust, valid data in support of the Stage 2 Feasibility Study by investigating the user factors that could affect the feasibility of the pilot routes.

In terms of user factors, the Stage 2 Study required data relating to potential demand and fare prices for the preparation of outline financial assessments for each of the pilot routes. This information, coupled with an insight into the factors that could affect demand was deemed appropriate to assist potential operators in assessing the investment potential of the pilot routes.

Waterborne Transport Study – Stage 2: User Survey Methodology and Findings Report. was an important step forward in delivering the services, however, required robust data in terms of potential impact on the existing transport network.

Reflecting the needs of the Stage 2 Feasibility Study and LTP3, the term ‘user factors’ was broken down into the following four research areas:

The potential demand for waterborne transport; The factors that could affect potential demand; The willingness to pay for the services; and The potential impact on the existing transport network.

In addition to these research areas a further secondary research area was added that centred on contextual information (age, sex etc.). Allowing for the validity of the results to be assessed and ensured in terms of demographic distribution.

This document provides a summary of the methodology employed and the key findings relating to the identified research areas for the Waterborne Transport Study - Stage 2 Survey.

Please Note: This current summary is based upon the incomplete draft of the Stage 2 Survey Report. All of the data gathered from the survey has been analysed, however, the writing up of the findings has not yet been completed. Therefore, this summary focuses on the findings for the first three research areas which are largely completed and written up. The final report will be completed and available before January 2013. Please check on the Dorset Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty’s website for the final report.

www.dorsetaonb.org.uk

Methodology It was clear from the outset that there would be two distinct groups that may use the waterborne transport pilot routes, namely: Residents; and Visitors. These groups were likely to have differing responses to each of the research areas. Therefore, the survey methodology needed allow for the segmentation of these groups in the data, providing more clarity in analysis and useful information for potential operators.

Having identified the research areas for the survey and the need to segment the groups, the questions to be posed to participants were devised (Shown in Table ES1). This was undertaken through a process of brain storming and discussion with the waterborne transport working group, to identify what questions were required to fully inform each research area.

Research Question (Question Code) Whole Pilot Landing Rationale Demand for Waterborne Transport. (D1) - Assuming an appropriate vessel This question is of interest at all for the sea conditions, would people be levels of analysis as the potential    interested in travelling by boat between demand between each landing point the identified landing points? can be assessed. This question is not applicable at the landing point level as respondents (D2) - How often would people use the   were not asked to differentiate services if they were available? usage levels between the landing points within the questionnaire.

Waterborne Transport Study – Stage 2: User Survey Methodology and Findings Report.

Only applicable for the Poole Bay Pilot. Data displayed at the pilot (D3) - Where would people rather the  level as the difference in response

(F2) - Would potential users like an on- F2 data only shown at the pilot level board commentary describing the allowing potential operators to make  a decision to include or omit features of the Jurassic Coast as they commentary for each route. pass them?

Willingness to Pay. Willingness to pay results are not (W1) - How much would people be applicable across the pilots due to willing to pay to for a waterborne   the differences in leg length and return trip between the landing points? location of the routes. Impact on the Existing Transport Network. (I1) - Do people currently travel  between the identified landing points?

(I2) - What mode of transport do people currently use to travel between 

the identified landing points? With the exception of I4, Impact on (I3) - For what purposes do people the transport network can only be travel between the identified landing  analysed at the landing point level due to the nature of the results points? gained. I4 is analysed at the pilot (I4) - For what purposes would people level to provide information relating use waterborne transport between the   to the likely journey purposes of

landing points? users of each pilot route, which will assist in the timetabling of future (I5) - What would be the potential shift services. from other modes to waterborne 

transport? (I6) - What would be the potential increase in trips to each landing point 

due to waterborne transport? Contextual Questions. In an effort to reduce the length of (C1) - What is the gender of the   the report, contextual question respondents? results are not displayed at the individual landing point level. However, the data has been (C2) - What age bracket do the   analysed at this level with any respondents fall within? skewing of results at the landing point level discussed. This question is analysed at all levels (C3) - Have the respondents visited the    as the information is required by the Jurassic Coast before? Jurassic Coast team. Table ES1: Research Questions and Analysis levels.

VII

Waterborne Transport Study – Stage 2: User Survey Methodology and Findings Report.

There were a number of methodologies that could have been used to deliver the survey, each of which with positives and negatives in terms of validity, cost and surveyor time requirements. An investigation of the potential survey methodologies was undertaken to identify which ones would offer the most valid and efficient way of delivering the research questions to both residents and visitors. This investigation highlighted that the key to valid results would be a significant response rate, allowing for aggregation of the results over the wider population.

To achieve a good response rate and to access the two segmented groups, it was decided that a three strand methodology would be employed. Each strand was distributed in distinctly different ways to reduce the threat of a low response rate to one or other distribution strategy. The methodologies employed are outlined in the following bullet points:

Visitors (Strategy 1a & 1b) – Paper based self completion survey distributed and collected through partner holiday parks and hotels. These were further split into two groups for each pilot: Those that were within 5km of a landing point (Strategy 1a); and those that were within the wider area of each pilot route (Strategy 1b). Residents (Strategy 2) – Paper based self completion survey distributed and collected via the postal system, sent to residences within 2km of the identified landing points. Residents and Visitors (Strategy 3) – Research assistant completed paper based street survey. These surveys were undertaken over half a day at each of the landing points.

During the process of methodology identification a Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT) analysis was undertaken relating to the potential validity of the results gained. This analysis highlighted a number of threats, but also a number of measures that could be employed within the methodology to reduce these threats and improve the overall validity of the findings. These measures included but were not limited to:

Minimising the length of the questionnaires and the inclusion of a high quality covering letter to maximise response rate; Incorporating a free prize draw for all respondents to encourage response and maximise response rate; A freepost return envelope for residential postal questionnaires to remove any financial burden of responding to the survey; Ensuring all questions asked were easily understandable through a process of piloting draft questionnaires with members of the public; Working with hotel and holiday park distributors to highlight the need for valid results and maximise the number of questionnaires distributed; and Triangulation/cross examination of the results with other supporting surveys to identify and remove any bias in the results.

The need to minimise the length of the questionnaires and the need to ensure that all questions were easily understandable were considered to be very important aspects of the survey. However, with three distribution strategies, three pilot routes and 10 landing points, a one size fits all questionnaire was not be feasible due to the complication of selecting the pilot route and landing point etc. Therefore, 34 individual surveys were constructed, one for each distribution strategy / survey area (shown in Table ES2).

The creation of 34 questionnaires brought about another threat to validity related to the combination of responses to questions in different questionnaires. To overcome this threat, the

VIII

Waterborne Transport Study – Stage 2: User Survey Methodology and Findings Report. questions asked across the questionnaires were kept the same with only slight changes applied relating to the pilot route, landing point and distribution strategy.

Once the draft questionnaires had been written, an iterative process of piloting and redrafting was undertaken at each of the landing points, inline with the recommendations from the SWOT analysis. The primary aim of this being to ensure that members of the public properly understood what was being asked and would be required as a response.

The final aspect of the pre-planned methodology was the identification of resident participants and the holiday park and hotel distributors. For residents this was undertaken through GIS analysis of address point data. All residential addresses within 2km of the landing points were selected and spreadsheet computation employed to randomly select 375 addresses at each (500 for Bournemouth and Poole). Where Studland is a very small settlement there were only 201 residential addresses, all of which were sent a questionnaire.

Holiday park and hotel distributors were selected through an internet based study of those within 5km of each landing point (Strategy 1a) and those within the pre-identified wider areas (Strategy 1b). The purpose of this study was to identify a number of distributors in each survey area that appealed to a wide range of visitors i.e. families, couples and older people. Following the identification of potential distributors contact was made with each to secure their agreement to distribute the survey.

Response Rates Having produced the finalised questionnaires and identified the potential participants, a total of 12,276 questionnaires were distributed through the three strategies. Table ES2 on the following page shows the number of returned questionnaires for each strategy / survey area against the number distributed and the respective response rates.

Across the whole of Strategy 2 the response rate achieved exceeded expectations. However, there were four survey areas within Strategy 1 where the rate was less than expected and which could affect the validity of the findings. The bullet points below highlight these survey areas with the reasoning behind the low response rates.

Poole – 22 responses (5.5%). Lack of distributors within the survey area with only one returning questionnaires. Portland – 13 responses (6.5%). Only one distributor gained for Portland and only 200 questionnaires distributed. Pilot B (JC) – 22 responses (2.8%). Size of holiday parks used for distribution and lack of enthusiasm to distribute. Minor effect on validity as NJC response rate was good and there is no separation of these responses within the analysis. Pilot C – 46 responses (4.2%). Only 5 distributors gained in survey area and lack of senior management buy-in for larger holiday parks in Weymouth. Minor effect on validity as Strategy 1b responses combined with 1a for analysis.

Strategy 3 secured a reasonable response rate. However, when responses are separated for residents and visitors the number of available for each segmented group is low. Therefore, the data gathered through this strategy was only used to ‘reality check’ the responses gained through Strategies 1 & 2. An example of where this can be applied is in checking existing transportation mode split of travel to the survey areas. The data gathered from Strategies 1 & 2 was combined and checked against the modal split found on street through Strategy 3.

Waterborne Transport Study – Stage 2: User Survey Methodology and Findings Report.

Questionnaire Total Questionnaires Total Returned Survey Area Response Rate Code Distributed Questionnaires Strategy 1a& b – Visitors local to each landing point and within each pilot’s wider area. Sidmouth 1A - A - SM 400 31 7.8% Seaton 1A - A - ST 400 54 13.5% Lyme Regis 1A - A - LR 400 76 19.0% West Bay 1A - A - WB 400 46 11.5% Pilot A Wider Area 1B - A 1150 127 11.0% Swanage 1A - B - SW 400 55 13.8% Studland 1A - B - SL 400 47 11.8% Poole 1A - B - PL 400 22 5.5% Bournemouth 1A - B - BM 400 41 10.3% Pilot B Wider Area 1B - B - JC 800 22 2.8% Pilot B Wider Area 1B - B - NJC 600 74 12.3% Weymouth 1A - C - WM 400 56 14.0% Portland 1A - C - PT 200 13 6.5% Pilot C Wider Area 1B - C 1100 46 4.2% Total Strategy 1 - 7450 710 9.5% Strategy 2 - Residents local to each landing point. Sidmouth 2A - A - SM 375 125 33.3% Seaton 2A - A - ST 375 146 38.9% Lyme Regis 2A - A - LR 375 147 39.2% West Bay 2A - A - WB 375 156 41.6% Swanage 2A - B - SW 375 132 35.2% Studland 2A - B - SL 201 97 48.3% Poole 2A - B - PL 500 150 30.0% Bournemouth 2A - B - BM 500 94 18.8% Weymouth 2A - C - WM 375 96 25.6% Portland 2A - C - PT 375 100 26.7% Total Strategy 2 - 3826 1243 32.5% Strategy 1 & 2 Combi - 11276 1953 17.3% Strategy 3 – Resident & visitor street surveys at each landing point. Sidmouth 3A - A - SM 100 31 31.0% Seaton 3A - A - ST 100 28 28.0% Lyme Regis 3A - A - LR 100 30 30.0% West Bay 3A - A - WB 100 29 29.0% Swanage 3A - B - SW 100 31 31.0% Studland 3A - B - SL 100 29 29.0% Poole 3A - B - PL 100 33 33.0% Bournemouth 3A - B - BM 100 34 34.0% Weymouth 3A - C - WM 100 41 41.0% Portland 3A - C - PT 100 0 0.0% Total Strategy 3 - 1000 286 28.6% Research Total - 12276 2239 18.2% Table ES2: Questionnaires Distributed, Returned and Respective Response Rates.

Waterborne Transport Study – Stage 2: User Survey Methodology and Findings Report.

Data Entry / Analysis Method Before the responses could be entered and analysed, those questionnaires that were spoiled or showed signs of falsified data were identified and removed. Through this process a total of 132 questionnaires were removed, predominately due to evidence of falsified data or dishonest responses. This left a total of 2107 unspoiled questionnaires that were inputted for analysis.

The 2107 completed and unspoiled paper based surveys were digitised using a computer based survey program called SNAP. This program provided the raw result data to each research question which was then imported into Microsoft Excel for further analysis. The Excel based analysis addressed the research objectives at three levels:

Waterborne transport as a whole – All data gathered used to generate results; Pilot Route Level – Included only that data gathered from the pilot route in question; and Landing Point Level – Only data relating to specifically the landing point in question used for analysis.

Not all research questions were suitable for analysis at all levels however. Table ES1 used to display the research questions also gives the level of analysis undertaken for each research question, along with a short rational behind why the questions are analysed at these levels.

Data Analysis / Results The structure of the analysis was based upon the research areas with the data gathered analysed at three identified levels. Before the results could be fully analysed, the amount of bias in the responses needed to be ascertained and accounted for.

The two possible sources of bias in the results were self selection bias and response recording bias, both of which relate to the responses to Question D1 - Assuming an appropriate vessel for the sea conditions, would people be interested in travelling by boat between the identified landing points? Questions I5 and I6 were also subject to this bias as they use the results from Question D1 in the calculation of their respective results.

Self selection bias comes about from the fact that people are more likely to respond to a single topic survey where they have a strong view on the subject, be that positive or negative. In this case those people that would use waterborne transport or are strongly apposed to it.

Response recording bias is specific to this survey and relates to the method of response recording in Strategy 1a & 2 (excluding the Weymouth & Portland Pilot). For these questionnaires, if no landing points were marked as a destination that people would be interested in travelling to by waterborne transport, this represented a ‘Not Interested’ response. An “I am not interested in using waterborne transport” response was not available for these participants, which may have encouraged a higher level of positive results.

The sources of bias were tested via cross examination with supporting surveys, namely: the Devon Voice and Dorset Citizens’ Panel resident surveys. Both of these surveys covered multiple topic areas and required a Yes/No response to a similar question as that to Question D1. Thus, any bias in the results was evident in a more positive result to this survey than the supporting surveys.

Both of the supporting surveys were resident based so the test was only applied to resident results. However, the bias found was applied to both residents and visitors. This was deemed acceptable as the level of bias was not thought to vary significantly between residents and visitors.

Waterborne Transport Study – Stage 2: User Survey Methodology and Findings Report.

To carry out the test, the resident responses to Question D1 and those specific to Devon and Dorset were separated. These were then compared to that found for the supporting surveys to identify the level of difference between the results. Through this process it was found that both supporting surveys were about 7.7% less positive to the use of waterborne transport than the data found in Question D1 for this survey. Therefore, 7.7% bias reduction was applied to all Question D1 results and the D1 element of the Question I5 & I6 result calculations.

Demand for Waterborne Transport The demand for waterborne transport was investigated through questions D1, D2, and D3 below. Questions D1 and D2 were analysed at all levels with D3 only at the pilot level for the Poole Bay Pilot.

(D1) Assuming an appropriate vessel for the sea conditions, would people be interested in travelling by boat between the identified landing points? (D2) How often would they use the services if they were available? (D3) Where would people rather the Poole landing point? (Poole Bay Pilot)

Whole of Waterborne Transport The following Figures ES1, ES2 & ES3 show the whole of survey results to questions D1 and D2, derived by combining all of the data gathered for Strategies 1 & 2.

Figure ES1: Question D1 Results (Waterborne Transport as a Whole).

Please Note: Figure ES1 is shown without bias removed. With the bias removed the level of positive response changes to 83.7% Visitors; 78.3% Residents; and 80.2% combined.

These results show very clearly that there is a highly positive public attitude to the use of waterborne transport along the Jurassic Coast for the routes tested. This does not suggested that some 80.2% of the population will definitely use any service put in place or at what frequency of use. However, they do highlight that with the correct facilities, marketing and pricing structures, the potential market for waterborne transport along the Jurassic Coast is large and could potentially support a profit making enterprise.

XII

Waterborne Transport Study – Stage 2: User Survey Methodology and Findings Report.

Figure ES2: Question D2 Results – Spring/Summer (Waterborne Transport as a Whole).

Figure ES3: Question D2 Results – Autumn/Winter (Waterborne Transport as a Whole).

Figures ES2 & ES3 give the potential frequency of use for the services across all the pilots tested. These show that during the summer months the majority of residents and visitors would be occasional users. Residents are more likely than visitors to be frequent users, which was to be expected as some resident respondents would use the services for commuting purposes that require frequent trips between home and work. The number of one off users is greater for visitors than residents, which was believed to be due to the constrained time period that visitors have to use the services.

Only residents were asked what their frequency of use would be during the autumn/winter months as visitors are generally not present during this period. The results show that during the autumn/winter period the level of occasional users stays largely the same. However, the proportion of frequent users is reduced and a corresponding increase of one off and never responses is present. These results are believed to fit quite closely with what could be expected in reality where demand could reduce in the autumn/winter months due to perceptions of bad weather and poor sea conditions.

XIII

Waterborne Transport Study – Stage 2: User Survey Methodology and Findings Report.

It can be seen from Figures ES2 & ES3 that the response options were kept vague with the options being: Frequently; Occasionally; One-Off and Never. It would have been possible to utilise a time specific response to ascertain how often people would use the services i.e. twice a month etc. However, the validity of responses such as this can be questionable. It is often found that stated preference responses vary from what is found in practice. Therefore, it was decided that the response option should be kept vague.

To assist in the interpretation of the frequency of use results, Table ES3 was produced. This gave the estimated level of use that could be expected based upon each response option. The generation of this table was not based upon data gathered through the survey but an educated assumption of what the responses options could represent. Due to this, the results were not used to generate actual demand levels for each pilot. The validity of these calculations could not be guaranteed as a number of assumptions would need to be made. Instead it is expected that potential operators will use this base data and apply their own assumptions to generate likely demand figures when producing future business cases.

Response Resident’s Likely Level of Use Visitor’s Likely Level of Use

Likely to be around 2 – 4 trips over a Anything from daily to weekly or even one week stay; and 3 – 6 trips for a Frequently monthly over the spring/summer or two week stay. With similar repeat autumn/winter periods. trips on future holidays likely.

Most likely around 1 – 4 trips over the Most likely 1 trip per week of stay Occasionally spring/summer or autumn/winter with similar repeat trips on future periods. holidays.

The respondent will only use the The respondent will only use the service service once for the experience, with One Off once for the experience, with very few very few further trips undertaken on further trips undertaken. future holidays.

The respondent will not use the service The respondent will not use the Never during the relevant seasonal period. service during any stay.

Table ES3: Question D2 Response Options Estimated Usage Characteristics.

East Devon Pilot The following Figures ES4, ES5 & ES6 show the East Devon Pilot survey results to Questions D1 and D2, derived by combining all of the data gathered for the East Devon Pilot via Strategies 1 & 2.

Table ES4 shows the landing point level results to Question D1 for the East Devon Pilot. This data was derived through the use of the landing point specific results. Strategy 1b responses were not used to ascertain the proportion of visitors who would be interested in using the services at each landing point, as there was no way of assigning those who were not interested to a specific landing point. Strategy 1b responses were used for the potential demand to the other landing points as this is shown as a proportion of those who would use the services.

XIV

Waterborne Transport Study – Stage 2: User Survey Methodology and Findings Report.

Figure ES4: Question D1 Results (East Devon Pilot).

Please Note: Figure ES4 is shown without bias removed. With the bias removed the level of positive response changes to 87% Visitors; 79.9% Residents; and 83.3% combined.

Interested in Using Destination Landing Points Home Landing Point the Services (% of those that would use the services) Yes No West Bay Lyme Regis Seaton Sidmouth Visitor 90.1% 9.9% 97.1% 75.7% 80.0% West Bay Resident 76.4% 23.6% 98.4% 72.4% 76.4% Combined 79.6% 20.4% 98.0% 73.6% 77.7% Visitor 93.3% 6.7% 76.5% 72.8% 80.2% Lyme Regis Resident 74.0% 26.0% 82.6% 86.4% 91.7% Combined 85.6% 14.4% 80.3% 81.2% 87.3% Visitor 76.6% 23.4% 88.0% 98.0% 100.0% Seaton Resident 80.2% 19.8% 73.4% 96.0% 89.5% Combined 79.3% 20.7% 77.6% 96.6% 92.5% Visitor 89.1% 10.9% 67.7% 92.3% 73.8% Sidmouth Resident 79.0% 21.0% 64.4% 95.2% 67.3% Combined 81.0% 19% 65.7% 94.1% 69.8% Table ES4: Question D1 Results – landing Point Level (East Devon Pilot).

Please Note: The Table ES4 columns giving the proportion of respondents who would and would not be interested in using the services are shown with the 7.7% bias removed from the yes and applied to the no response.

The results in Figure ES4 show that there is a strong positive public attitude to the use of waterborne transport for the East Devon Pilot, indicating that the potential market for this pilot route would be large and could support a profit making enterprise.

The results in Table ES4 give the more detailed potential demand at each landing point and also the potential demand for waterborne transport between the landing points.

In terms of respondents who would be interested in using the services, all landing points score highly from both residents and visitors. Visitors are more interested in using the service than residents which is due to the leisure nature of the services, that of visitor travel and the fact that the service would offer a nice day out, being an attraction in its own right. The attractions at all of the landing

Waterborne Transport Study – Stage 2: User Survey Methodology and Findings Report. points are also generally visitor orientated which serves to encourage travel by this group. In addition to this, none of the landing points tested are large employment centres which could elicit a greater resident demand.

The results indicate that Seaton visitors were least likely to use the service. However, upon further investigation it is believed that there is evidence of falsified data and it is likely that visitor willingness to use the service from Seaton may be higher than that found through this survey.

When looking at the demand for travel between the landing points, it can be seen that demand would be greatest from all other landing points to Lyme Regis followed by Sidmouth. This is believed to be representative of what would be found if the service was put in place. Lyme Regis is a popular destination for both residents and visitors with acute summertime transport issues including congestion delay and a lack of town centre parking. These transport issues and the existing demand for travel to the town, serve to encourage people to explore other modes of transport to avoid these issues. Thus, demand for waterborne transport to Lyme Regis is likely to be high. Sidmouth is the largest of all the landing points tested with plenty of shops and other attractions to encourage travel. However, the existing transport issues in the town are less acute than those experienced in Lyme Regis which has led to the high but slightly reduced results when compared to Lyme Regis.

West Bay and Seaton receive a lower demand for travel via waterborne transport. This was expected for West Bay as the settlement is small with a limited number of attractions to encourage travel. The low demand to Seaton was an unexpected finding. There are a number of attractions within and close to Seaton (I.e. Seaton tramway; the Nature reserve; Pecorama; and The Donkey Sanctuary) which it was thought would attract travel to the town. The validity of the findings was checked and as demand from all landing points was depressed (Lyme Regis the exception) this is believed to be representative of potential demand to the town.

Seaton unlike West Bay has the opportunity to increase waterborne transport demand into the town. It is believed that respondents to the survey did not associate the attractions above with the town and/or the possibility of gaining access to them via waterborne transport. Therefore, whilst the results indicate that demand for travel to Seaton would be lower than for Lyme Regis or Sidmouth, targeted marketing and integrated ticketing/transport connections to these attractions would likely increase waterborne transport demand to the town.

The final point of interest within the Question D1 results is the spike in demand from Lyme Regis residents for travel to Seaton and to a lesser extent Sidmouth. This is believed to be down to the fact that there is no large supermarket in Lyme Regis with the closest alternative being in Bridport or Seaton. Where the A35 between Lyme Regis and Bridport is subject to summertime congestion and delay, Lyme Regis residents currently travel to Seaton and also Sidmouth for grocery shopping purposes. The results suggest Lyme Regis residents would also travel via waterborne transport for this purpose. This finding indicates that a shopper service between Lyme Regis, Seaton and Sidmouth which is well integrated with local buses and stores that offer home delivery for in-store purchases (to avoid carrying bags on return trip) may experience a strong demand, especially from those without access to a car.

XVI

Waterborne Transport Study – Stage 2: User Survey Methodology and Findings Report.

Figure ES5: Question D2 Results – Spring/Summer (East Devon Pilot).

Figure ES6: Question D2 Results – Autumn/Winter (East Devon Pilot).

Figures ES5 & ES6 give the frequency of use results for the East Devon Pilot route. Similarly to the whole of waterborne transport results, these show that during the summer months the majority of residents and visitors would be occasional users. The next most popular response was frequently with the level of one-off responses being lowest. This indicates that the majority of users during the spring/summer period have the potential to be repeat users with only a small percentage only using the service once.

The results show that during the autumn/winter period the level of occasional and frequent users drops significantly with the level of one off and never responses increased. This suggests that with fewer visitors in the area during this period and as residents are less inclined to use the services more than occasionally, demand during the autumn/winter period may be low for the East Devon Pilot.

The major difference in the results for the East Devon Pilot against the whole of waterborne transport results is the level of frequent resident users. The results for this pilot show a reduced level of frequent resident users during both the spring/summer and autumn/winter period. This is due to the aforementioned fact that none of the landing points tested for this route are major

XVII

Waterborne Transport Study – Stage 2: User Survey Methodology and Findings Report. employment centres, especially when compared to Poole, Bournemouth and Weymouth. Therefore, commuting between these points is likely to be minimal and as commuting requires frequent journeys between home and work this is reflected in the lower level of resident respondents who would use the service frequently.

Weymouth & Portland Pilot Figures ES7, ES8 & ES9 show the Weymouth & Portland Pilot survey results to Questions D1 and D2, derived by combining all of the data gathered for the East Devon Pilot via Strategies 1 & 2.

Table ES5 shows the landing point level results to Question D1 for the Weymouth & Portland Pilot. This data was derived through the use of the landing point specific results. Strategy 1b responses were not used in the creation of this table as those that were not interested in waterborne transport could not be assigned to a landing point.

Figure ES7: Question D1 Results (Weymouth & Portland Pilot).

Please Note: Figure ES7 is shown without bias removed. With the bias removed the level of positive response changes to 82.1% visitors; 68% residents; and 72.9% combined.

Interested in Using Landing Point the Services Yes No Visitor 85.0% 15.0% Weymouth Resident 63.7% 36.3% Combined 71.8% 28.2% Visitor 61.5% 38.5% Portland Resident 72.1% 27.9% Combined 70.8% 29.2% Table ES5: Question D1 Results – landing Point Level (Weymouth & Portland Pilot).

Please Note: Table ES4 is shown with the 7.7% bias removed from the yes and applied to the no response. Also, where there are only two landing points for this pilot route, the level of respondents who would be interested in using waterborne transport at one landing point represents the potential demand for travel to the other.

The results indicate that there is a reasonable demand for waterborne transport between Weymouth and Portland. However, the demand for this pilot route is lower than that found for the

XVIII

Waterborne Transport Study – Stage 2: User Survey Methodology and Findings Report.

East Devon and Poole Bay Pilots. The reasoning for the reduction in demand against the other pilot routes is believed to be down to a number of reasons which are outlined in the bullet points below:

There are only two landing points proposed for the pilot route. Where the other pilot routes have four landing points this increases the utility of these routes. The topography of Portland is not well suited to waterborne transport with the majority of dwellings and visitor accommodation located away from the landing point and at a higher elevation. The general trend for commuting trips is toward Weymouth from Portland. As the majority of dwellings are located away from and at a higher elevation than the potential landing point, the utility/attraction of waterborne transport is diminished for commuters to Weymouth. The A354 is well served by competing bus services that link the residential areas to the centre and south of the island with Weymouth and on to Dorchester.

The reduction in respondent’s willingness to use the service against the other pilots suggests that the Weymouth and Portland pilot route may not be a readily feasible in terms of demand and profit making enterprise. However, anecdotal evidence and verbal qualitative information gathered during the delivery of the surveys highlighted that an expanded route including Bowleaze Cove and Lulworth Cove may increase demand and make the service more viable. Unfortunately, testing of a pilot service that runs from Portland to Lulworth Cove including stops at Weymouth and Boleaze Cove was outside of the scope of the study and was not undertaken.

There were threats to the validity of the Question D1 data gathered for the Weymouth & Portland pilot. The very low number of Portland visitor responses has affected the reliability of these results. A larger response rate from Portland visitors could reduce the pilot level potential demand further, inline with the proportion of visitors that would use the service from Portland. Also, the use of residents within 2km of the landing points for the survey may have artificially increased potential resident demand. The majority of Weymouth and Portland residencies are further from the landing points than 2km mean that the utility of the service would be less for these residents.

Figure ES8: Question D2 Results – Spring/Summer (Weymouth & Portland Pilot).

XIX

Waterborne Transport Study – Stage 2: User Survey Methodology and Findings Report.

Figure ES9: Question D2 Results – Autumn/Winter (Weymouth & Portland Pilot).

The results shown in tables ES8 & ES9 above show that the usage characteristics for the Weymouth and Portland Pilot.

The level of frequent and occasional responses from visitors is lower for this pilot than the others tested with the level of one-off responses increased. Thus, the level of repeat visitor users is likely to be less for this route than the others. Again, indicating that the pilot in it’s current form may not be readily feasible for implementation. It is likely that the reduction of repeat visitor trips is due to one of three reasons:

This pilot offers travel to only one destination reducing the likelihood of repeat trips. The number of visitor orientated attractions within Weymouth (Weymouth Beach, Sealife Park and Deep Sea Adventure etc.) serves to contain visitors in the town. Where the results are weighted to the Weymouth to Portland movement due to the low Portland visitor response rate, the repeat trips these attractions may secure from Portland visitors has not been accounted for in the results. There are a limited number of leisure opportunities for visitor families on Portland that would encourage repeat visitor trips from Weymouth.

The combined level of frequent and occasional resident response is higher than all other pilots tested. This is due in part to the level of employment in Weymouth and Portland. In Weymouth (and in some areas of Portland) the number of jobs available is greater than for each of the landing points within the East Devon Pilot and also Swanage and Studland within the Poole Bay Pilot. As commuting requires regular trips between home and work this has the effect of increasing the demand for regular trips between the two landing points. Coupled with this, the A354 which links Weymouth and Portland is often congested during the summer period and as waterborne transport avoids this delay it is likely that this has had a strong influence on the results found.

The other influence leading to the increased level of repeat users are the limited goods and services available on Portland, which has the effect of encouraging regular trips to Weymouth. When coupled with regular summertime congestion on the A354 between Weymouth and Portland this also serves to increase the number of repeat resident users for this pilot route.

Waterborne Transport Study – Stage 2: User Survey Methodology and Findings Report.

The very low level of Portland visitor responses is though to have affected the validity of the findings for this pilot. This had the effect of weighting the visitor results toward the Weymouth to Portland movement, which has artificially reduced the level of repeat visitor users due to the limited opportunities available on Portland to attract repeat trips. With a greater level of Portland visitor responses it is possible that the level of repeat visitor users would be increased. Portland Based visitors currently make this movement regularly to access goods and services unavailable on the island and those that would use the service may use it regularly to avoid parking issues in Weymouth.

The use of residential addresses within 2km of the landing points may also have affected the results. The connecting journey to the start point is reduced for the residents surveyed against the wider Weymouth and Portland resident population which increases the utility/attraction of the pilot route. This increase in utility may have made waterborne transport more feasible for regular trips than it would be for the wider population, thus artificially increasing the level of repeat resident users.

Poole Bay Pilot The executive summary of this pilot route is not yet completed

Figures ES10, ES11 & ES12 show the Poole Bay Pilot survey results to Questions D1 and D2, derived by combining all of the data gathered for the Poole Bay Pilot via Strategies 1 & 2.

Table ES6 shows the landing point level results to Question D1 for the Poole Bay Pilot. This data was derived through the use of the landing point specific results. Strategy 1b responses were not used to ascertain the proportion of visitors who would be interested in using the services at each landing point, as there was no way of assigning those who were not interested to a specific landing point. Strategy 1b responses were used for the potential demand to the other landing points as this is shown as a proportion of those who would use the services.

Figure ES10: Question D1 Results (Poole Bay Pilot).

XXI

Waterborne Transport Study – Stage 2: User Survey Methodology and Findings Report.

Interested in Using Destination Landing Points Home Landing Point the Services (% of those that would use the services) Yes No Swanage Studland Poole Bmouth Visitor 85.0% 15.0% 61.7% 95.0% 83.3% Swanage Resident 84.4% 15.6% 64.1% 94.0% 94.0% Combined 84.6% 15.4% 63.3% 94.4% 90.4% Visitor 66.2% 33.8% 69.2% 71.8% 61.5% Studland Resident 76.7% 23.3% 76.5% 88.9% 86.4% Combined 73.3% 26.7% 74.2% 83.3% 78.3% Visitor 87.0% 13.0% 88.3% 76.7% 80.0% Poole Resident 80.1% 19.9% 87.6% 72.1% 72.1% Combined 80.9% 19.1% 87.8% 73.5% 74.6% Visitor 79.0% 21.0% 82.0% 56.0% 82.0% Bmouth Resident 80.2% 19.8% 91.3% 73.8% 73.8% Combined 79.9% 20.1% 87.7% 66.9% 76.9% Table ES6: Question D1 Results – landing Point Level (Poole Bay Pilot).

Please Note: The Table ES6 columns giving the proportion of respondents who would and would not be interested in using the services are shown with the 7.7% bias removed from the yes and applied to the no response.

Figure ES11: Question D2 Results – Spring/Summer (Poole Bay Pilot).

XXII

Waterborne Transport Study – Stage 2: User Survey Methodology and Findings Report.

Figure ES12: Question D2 Results – Autumn/Winter (Poole Bay Pilot).

Figure ES13: Question D3 Results (Poole Bay Pilot Only).

Factors that could affect demand Willingness to Pay East Devon Pilot Weymouth & Portland Pilot Poole Bay Pilot

XXIII

Waterborne Transport Study – Stage 2: User Survey Methodology and Findings Report.

This Page is Intentionally Blank.

XXIV

Waterborne Transport Study – Stage 2: User Survey Methodology and Findings Report.

Contents

Executive Summary ...... V Introduction ...... 1 Research Questions ...... 3 Demand for Waterborne Transport ...... 3 Factors that Could Affect Demand ...... 4 Willingness to Pay ...... 5 Impact on the Existing Transport Network ...... 5 Contextual Questions ...... 6 Methodology ...... 9 Methodology Identification...... 9 Outline Methodology ...... 11 Survey Methodology Employed ...... 14 Survey Design...... 14 Participant identification...... 16 Survey Delivery/Collection...... 20 Data Entry...... 27 Data Analysis ...... 29 Supporting Surveys ...... 30 Data Analysis ...... 33 Demand for Waterborne Transport ...... 35 Triangulation (Cross Examination) with Supporting Surveys ...... 36 Factors that Could Affect Demand ...... 107 Willingness to Pay ...... 7 Impact on the Existing Transport Network ...... 20 Contextual Questions ...... 21 Conclusions ...... 22

XXV

Waterborne Transport Study – Stage 2: User Survey Methodology and Findings Report.

This Page is Intentionally Blank.

XXVI

Waterborne Transport Study – Stage 2: User Survey Methodology and Findings Report.

Introduction

Dorset and East Devon have an exceptional coastline, renowned for spectacular scenery, geological and ecological interest and stunning coastal features. It is designated a World Heritage Site for its globally important geology and geomorphology. Popular beaches, family resorts, the South West Coast Path National Trail, and opportunities for sea and land based recreation make it popular for thousands of visitors each year, contributing considerably to the local economy.

However, the large number of car-borne visitors result in considerable pressures - on the landscape and environment, the network of rural coastal roads, and the transport network in the area. Development of marine-based transport along the coast, integrated with other transport modes, may offer a sustainable future transport option and an alternative to the car.

The Jurassic Coast (JC) Transport Strategy was prepared in 2005 as an overarching strategy to guide a more sustainable approach to transport along the coast, and is now supported by a comprehensive JC Sustainable Transport Improvements and Actions (2009 - 2014) Plan. The complementary Dorset and East Devon Coastal Corridor Action Plan has been prepared as an integrated delivery plan for the coastal corridor encompassing sustainable access, transport, information and interpretation, visitor management and facilities, community celebration and action, and environmental enhancements.

Development of waterborne transport is a key aim being taken forward by the Jurassic Coast Transport Working Group. A Project Steering Group has been established with the key partners comprising the Jurassic Coast team, Dorset AONB, Dorset County Council, Devon County Council, Jurassic Coast Trust and the Maritime and Coastguard Agency.

In May 2009, Fisher Associates was appointed to investigate the long term potential for waterborne transport along the Dorset and East Devon Coast, which would offer an enhanced, reliable and realistic alternative transport opportunity for both functional and leisure journeys, and would enable integration between waterborne and surface transport.

A Scoping Study published in September 2009 presented an assessment of:

• The potential market; • Issues related to vessels and landing facilities, and constraints on these; • Barriers to development of services; and • Recommendations for future actions.

This provides the basis for the Stage 2 Feasibility Study, commissioned of Fisher Associates in association with BMT Nigel Gee, but undertaken as a collaboration between Client and Consultant.

Stage 2 centres on investigation of three pilot projects linking:

• East Devon: Sidmouth, Beer / Seaton and Lyme Regis with the addition of West Bay for the survey; • Weymouth and Portland; and • Poole Bay: Swanage and Studland with Poole and Bournemouth

It provides more detailed articulation of the vision for waterborne transport on the Jurassic Coast, and specific consideration of options for developing services for the pilot projects.

Waterborne Transport Study – Stage 2: User Survey Methodology and Findings Report.

The full Stage 2 Feasibility Study incorporating the findings of this work is available at: www.dorsetaonb.org.uk/our-work/coastal-corridor/waterbornepassengertransportstudy.

To underpin the stage 2 study, Dorset County Council’s Transport Planning team undertook a detailed survey of ‘user factors’ that could affect the feasibility of waterborne transport along the Jurassic Coast, carried out during August 2010. This report details the methodology and findings of the survey work undertaken, providing valuable information to potential operators when assessing the investment potential of waterborne passenger transport in Dorset and East Devon.

For the purposes of the survey the term ‘user factors’ was broken down into four research areas, each of which likely to have a direct bearing on the overall feasibility of waterborne passenger transport. These are:

The potential demand for waterborne transport; The factors that could affect potential demand; The willingness to pay for the services; and The potential impact on the existing transport network.

These areas of research set the framework for the survey and this report maintains these research areas in the conception of the research questions and methodology, the data analysis undertaken and the conclusions drawn.

The following report is structured as follows:

Research Questions – Defines the process of refining the areas of research into specific questions to be answered within the research. Research Methodology – Details the methodology undertaken to deliver the survey and analyse the data. Data Analysis – Provides the analysed data in the form of tables and graphs along with comments on the interpretation of the results. This section is quite complex with numerous graphs and tables, please be sure to read the section introduction as this will assist when interpreting the results. Conclusions – Summarises the findings within the data analysis in relation to each of the research areas defined above.

Waterborne Transport Study – Stage 2: User Survey Methodology and Findings Report.

Research Questions

The aim of the survey exercise was to provide robust, valid data in support of the Stage 2 Feasibility Study. Investigating the user factors that could affect the feasibility of waterborne transport across the three Jurassic Coast pilot projects (see Figure 1 in Appendix A for a map of the landing points):

East Devon: Sidmouth, Beer / Seaton and Lyme Regis (with the addition of West Bay); Weymouth and Portland; and Poole Bay: Swanage and Studland with Poole and Bournemouth.

In terms of user factors, the Stage 2 Study required data relating to potential demand and fare prices for the preparation of outline financial assessments for each of the pilot routes. This information, coupled with an insight into the factors that could affect demand will assist potential operators in assessing the investment potential of waterborne transport along the Jurassic Coast.

Another primary objective of the Stage 2 Study was to achieve incorporation into Devon and Dorset’s third Local Transport Plan (LTP3). LTP3 sets out each county’s strategic transport policies for the period between 2011 and 2026. The incorporation of waterborne transport in these plans is an important step forward in delivering the services, however, required robust data in terms of potential impact on the existing transport network.

Reflecting the needs of the Stage 2 Feasibility Study and LTP3, the term ‘user factors’ has been broken down into the following four research areas:

The potential demand for waterborne transport; The factors that could affect potential demand; The willingness to pay for the services; and The potential impact on the existing transport network.

These research areas represent the overarching questions that this work seeks to investigate. However, there are a number of elements that go to inform each of these and thus needed further refinement for delivery within a survey.

To refine the research areas into questions to be directly answered, a process of brain storming, question drafting and discussion with the project steering group was utilised. This ascertained each member’s requirements of the research questions along with thoughts towards how best to deliver them. From this process the following research questions were decided upon in relation to each research area.

Demand for Waterborne Transport On discussion with the project group, it was decided that the following two questions would serve to indicate the potential demand for waterborne transport across each of the pilots:

Assuming an appropriate vessel for the sea conditions, would people be interested in travelling by boat between the identified landing points? and How often would they use the services if they were available? The potential responses to the research questions were also developed at this stage, allowing for inclusion in the design of the survey once the methodology was agreed. It was decided that the first

Waterborne Transport Study – Stage 2: User Survey Methodology and Findings Report. demand question should be a simple yes / no answer as this would provide a clear indication towards potential demand. On the other hand, the second demand question required more thinking.

It would have been possible to utilise a time specific response to ascertain how often people would use the services i.e. 2 times a year etc. However, the validity of responses such as this could be questionable. It is often found that stated preference responses vary from what is found in practice. Therefore, it was decided that the question should be broken down seasonally (How often would people use the services in Spring/Summer and Autumn/Winter), and that the responses should less specific allowing for the end users interpretation of results. The responses chosen were:

Frequently; Occasionally; One off; and Never.

During the course of the feasibility study work, Fisher Associates identified that a landing at Sandbanks may be more viable than Poole Quay due to capacity issues. Therefore, it was deemed necessary to investigate the preference of potential users between these potential landing points, leading to the additional question for the Poole Bay Pilot:

Where would people rather the Poole landing point? The responses for this question were simply ‘Poole Quay’ or ‘Sandbanks’.

Factors that Could Affect Demand What factors that could affect demand is itself a reasonably direct question and was easily transferred into a research question by the project group:

What factors would influence peoples decision to travel by boat? The more complex aspect of this research question was the identification of potential factors for inclusion as responses in the survey. Failure to include key responses at this stage could lead to issues of validity of the research at a later date. Therefore, a process of consultation with the project group, County Council employees and lay people was undertaken to develop potential responses. Through this process it was decided that the following responses would cover most factors that could affect demand:

Cost; Journey time compared to land travel; Frequency and departure/arrival timing of service; Reliability of service; Connections with public transport; Availability of taxis at landings; Links to walking & cycling routes; Parking availability at start point; Comprehensive, clear and readily available information on the service; Sea conditions; Weather; and Other.

So that all potential responses could be collected an ‘other’ free response was also included, providing flexibility in the survey to ensure the validity of the data gathered.

Waterborne Transport Study – Stage 2: User Survey Methodology and Findings Report.

In discussion with the project group and reflecting the potential attraction of travelling by sea along the Jurassic Coast, it was decided that within this research area the potential for an on-board commentary of the Jurassic Coast should be tested and the question below was devised:

Would potential users like an on-board commentary describing the features of the Jurassic Coast as they pass them? So that the potential influence on demand could be informed, the responses decided upon were more than a simple yes / no and included an indifferent response. This was utilised to differentiate between those users where a commentary would be a selling point or an off-put by providing a middle ground.

Willingness to Pay The willingness to pay for the services is an important part of the outline financial assessments for each route contained within the Stage 2 Study. The question is relatively simple in relation to the research area in:

How much would people be willing to pay to for a waterborne return trip between the landing points? The response to this question requires a stated preference of cost of travel between each identified landing point. It was agreed that this should be found for adult, child and concessionary travel providing useful information for any potential operator. As with the response to how often people would use the service, responses of this nature may vary to what is found in practice. Often manifest in people indicating a lower level than what they would be willing to pay in reality. The averaging of the responses in the analysis serves to smooth the effect of this. However, low response rates can bring about questions of validity of averaging data during analysis.

Impact on the Existing Transport Network For inclusion within Devon and Dorset’s third Local Transport Plans (LTP3) robust, valid data was required in relation to the potential effect of waterborne transport on the existing transport network. Discussion with the project group and internally within Dorset County Council’s Transport Planning Team identified the following questions to be answered within the survey and would inform this research area:

Do people currently travel between the identified landing points? What mode of transport do people currently use to travel between the identified landing points? For what purposes do people travel between the identified landing points? and For what purposes would people use waterborne transport between the landing points? Utilising these questions along with the two demand questions (would people travel by waterborne transport and how often) it is possible to calculate an estimate response to two further questions:

What would be the potential shift from other modes to waterborne transport? and What would be the potential increase in trips to each landing point due to waterborne transport? The first question, relating to transportation mode shifting, can be calculated by identifying those respondents that currently travel to each landing point and would use waterborne transport, then

Waterborne Transport Study – Stage 2: User Survey Methodology and Findings Report. applying a factor as to how often waterborne transport would likely be used instead of the existing mode. The second question is more simply calculated by identifying those respondents that would travel to each landing point by waterborne transport, yet do not currently travel to them without the services in place. The calculation of these questions is detailed more thoroughly within the data analysis section of the report.

In terms of the potential responses to each of the questions, discussions within the transport planning team and the project group, coupled with a study of available transport modes identified the following potential responses to each question:

Do people currently travel between the identified landing points? o Simple yes / no response required. What mode of transport do people currently use to travel between the identified landing points? (the responses equate to the modes of transport available) o Car; o M/Cycle ; o Bus; o Train (only available for Poole Bay Pilot and Weymouth); o Coach; o Boat (reflecting the presence of existing leisure trip services); o Taxi; o Cycle; and o Walk. For what purposes do people travel between the identified landing points? o Commuting to Work/Education; o Business Trips; o Leisure; o Shopping; and o Educational Field Trips. For what purposes would people use waterborne transport between the landing points? o Commuting to Work/Education; o Business Trips; o Leisure; o Shopping; and o Educational Field Trips. The calculated questions do not have potential responses as they are not directly delivered to the participants. However, the estimated potential modal shift required calculating across all modes available at each landing point. The potential increase in trips is displayed as percentage increase at each landing point.

Contextual Questions In addition to the questions relating to the identified research areas, it was also necessary to pose contextual questions within the survey. The contextual questions that were utilised are shown below with the response categories chosen: What is the gender of the respondents? o Male / Female.

Waterborne Transport Study – Stage 2: User Survey Methodology and Findings Report.

What age bracket do the respondents fall within? o 18 – 24; o 25 – 44; o 45 – 64; o 65 – 74; and o 75+. These contextual questions serve to assist in maintaining the validity of the research by identifying any the skewing of results towards a particular age or sex demographic (demographic bias). Validity of response was also the reasoning for choosing 18 as the lower age cut-off. It was felt that the responses of people below this age may differ more considerably from reality than those above.

Alongside these contextual questions relating to validity, discussions with the project group identified a further contextual question that would provide valuable information to the Jurassic Coast World Heritage Site team. This question and the potential responses were:

Have the respondents visited the Jurassic Coast before? o Simple yes / no response.

Having identified the research questions in relation to each of the areas to be researched, the development of the methodology to deliver these questions to potential respondents was devised.

Waterborne Transport Study – Stage 2: User Survey Methodology and Findings Report.

This Page is Intentionally Blank.

Waterborne Transport Study – Stage 2: User Survey Methodology and Findings Report.

Methodology

As has been mentioned, the aim of the survey exercise was to provide robust, valid data in terms of user factors that could affect the feasibility of waterborne transport. Supporting the Stage 2 Feasibility Study which focuses on three Jurassic Coast pilot routes:

East Devon: Sidmouth, Beer / Seaton and Lyme Regis (with the addition of West Bay); Weymouth and Portland; and Poole Bay: Swanage and Studland with Poole and Bournemouth.

Reflecting the aims and objectives of the Stage 2 Study, four areas of research were identified and the previous section details the questions that this research seeks to answer in response to these. With the research questions identified, this provided a clear direction as to what the survey methodology had to achieve and the process of methodology identification could begin.

Methodology Identification From the outset it was clear that there would be two distinct groups that may use each of the waterborne transport pilot routes, namely: Residents; and Visitors. These groups are likely to have very differing demand, impact on the transport network and willingness to pay profiles. Therefore, the survey methodology must allow for the segmenting of these groups in the data, providing more clarity in analysis and useful data for potential operators.

Having identified the need to segment these groups, initial thoughts on potential methodologies was undertaken. There are a number of methodologies that could have been used to deliver the survey, each of which with positives and negatives in terms of validity, cost and time requirements. The following paragraphs detail some of the potential survey methods investigated along with key points for each.

Focus Groups This methodology would involve the gathering together of up to 10 people from each of the resident and visitor groups and having a discussion based around the research questions. This methodology is particularly good for investigating the factors that could influence demand as these can be fully investigated. However, the low sample size would make the aggregation of potential demand and impact on the transport network unreliable and bring questions of poor validity. In terms of willingness to pay, this methodology would provide useful data that informs the reasoning behind stated fares, although, there is a potential for dominant participants to skew results.

Whilst this methodology could provide useful qualitative data in terms of factors that could affect demand and also willingness to pay, it was decided that it should not be used. This decision was based not only on the validity issues surrounding demand and potential transport impacts, the identification of visitor participants for this exercise would have been very difficult.

Interviews This methodology would take the form of 15 minute interviews with individuals or families covering each research question. The number of participants that could be expected using this method would be approximately 100, 50 each of residents and visitors.

Similar to the focus groups, interviews can provide useful qualitative data in relation to factors that could influence demand and willingness to pay. Interviews would also better focus groups by: reducing the potential for any skewing of data by dominant participants; and the increased number

Waterborne Transport Study – Stage 2: User Survey Methodology and Findings Report. of responses improves the validity of aggregating data. However, interviews are time consuming with a great deal of detailed analysis required; Travel between the interview locations would be expensive; the identification of visitor participants may be difficult; and even with the larger sample size, aggregation in terms of demand and impact on the transport network would be unreliable. It was therefore decided that interviews would not be a suitable methodology for this research.

Self Completion Questionnaires This methodology would require the distribution of a large number of questionnaires to residents and visitors across the study area, delivered through paper or web based form. It offers the opportunity to survey a large number of respondents with the potential for quick data entry and analysis if quantitative questions are asked. This is particularly useful for the demand and impact on the transport network related questions, allowing for the interrogation of travel patterns and aggregation of data if a large enough sample size is obtained. Unlike focus groups and interviews, self completion questionnaires do not allow for investigation of detailed thinking behind responses. However, with the identification of the potential responses in the previous section and the inclusion of the ‘other’ free response in the factors that could affect demand, delivering the survey though self completion questionnaires represents a valid method of surveying for this research.

There are threat’s to the validity of this method. Sample size and survey distribution are important factors. If the data is to be aggregated with a degree of reliability, a large sample size needs to be obtained with distribution across the study area reducing the potential for geographically biased results. Self completion questionnaires often only receive a low response rate, generally around 10% and there is no guarantee of response. Therefore, any self completion survey must be well designed with measures to encourage response included.

Poor understanding and conceptualisation of the questions asked within a self completion questionnaire can also lead to issues of poor validity. Questionnaires seek to discover what people would do in a future hypothetical situation. If respondents do not properly understand what is being asked or cannot conceptualise the future situation, the response to questions may be flawed and unreliable when asked in a different way. Therefore, to ensure validity steps must be taken to ensure that participants fully understand the questions and future situation presented.

Self selection bias and honesty of response are the two final major threats to the validity of this method.

Self selection bias relates to the fact that people are more likely to respond to a survey where they have a strong view on the subject, be that positive or negative. In this case those people that would use waterborne transport or are strongly apposed to it. It is not possible to remove self selection bias from single topic self completion questionnaires. However, triangulation of responses with data from methods with less potential for this type of bias can help identify any bias in the results.

Honesty of response is difficult to ascertain in self completion questionnaires as they are not completed in the presence of a researcher or their assistant. However, most respondents who take the time to complete and return questionnaires provide honest responses. It is often found that the minority who provide dishonest responses do so in a very rushed way with conflicting answers to question progressions that can be obvious when inspected during data entry.

Whilst there are definite, tangible threats to the validity of utilising self completion questionnaires, the benefits of a large potential sample size on aggregation and the ability to mitigate the risks through design make this a potentially suitable methodology.

Waterborne Transport Study – Stage 2: User Survey Methodology and Findings Report.

Research Assistant Completed Questionnaires Research assistant completed questionnaires would be delivered at each of the potential landing points with a student research assistant verbally posing questions and response options. This method reduces the potential for some of the threats to validity associated with self completion questionnaires. The potential for poor understanding and conceptualisation of what is being asked can be reduced by the intervention of the survey assistant. The survey assistants can also reduce the potential for self selection bias in their participant approach technique. If potential respondents indicate that waterborne transport is not something they would be interested in, the survey assistant can explain that responses from these people are just as important as those that would use the services. Finally, dishonest responses can be identified and challenged by the research assistant increasing the potential validity of this methodology.

As with self completion, research assistant completed questionnaires offer the potential to gather readily analysable quantitative data making this method useful in terms of the research questions. Where this methodology differs is in the potential sample size. Whilst there is no guarantee of response, self completion questionnaires can be well designed and distributed to a large number of people to mitigate this risk. On the other hand, research assistant completed surveys are more likely to receive a response, generally with greater response rates per approach. However, due to the time required for each survey the potential sample size is much smaller, possibly in the order of around 50 per landing point.

Due to the lower potential sample size it would not be possible to obtain data that would allow for valid aggregation of results if this was the only method employed. However, research assistant completed questionnaires would support a wider self completion survey, reducing the potential for a zero response and provide useful supporting evidence in checking validity.

Outline Methodology The investigation of the potential methodologies served to identify that self completion questionnaires supported by research assistant completed questionnaires would offer the most valid method of answering the research questions. Based upon this the following bullet points set out the anticipated survey methodology:

Strategy 1a (Visitors) – Paper based self completion questionnaires distributed through Holiday Parks and Hotels local to each of the identified landing points. Strategy 1b (Visitors) – Paper based self completion questionnaires distributed through Holiday Parks and Hotels within each pilot route’s wider area. Strategy 2 (Residents) – Paper based self completion questionnaires distributed by post to residential addresses local to each landing point. Strategy 3 (Residents & Visitors) – Paper based research assistant completed questionnaires carried out on street at each of the identified landing points. Strategy 4 (Residents and Visitors ) – Web based self completion questionnaires written at the pilot route level (as opposed to individual landing points) and advertised to residents and visitors through local media. The use of the four distinct strategies was to provide some protection in terms of a zero response. It was felt that the spreading of the survey over a number of different strategies, including the research assistant completed questionnaires, would likely gain a significant enough response to deliver valid results towards each of the research areas.

Waterborne Transport Study – Stage 2: User Survey Methodology and Findings Report.

Based upon the outline methodology a SWOT analysis was undertaken to identify the Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats associated with undertaking the research through these methods. The SWOT analysis carried out is given in Table 1 below.

Strengths Weaknesses - Large sample size with self completion questionnaire. - Time consuming to enter paper based data. - Readily analysable quantitative data. - Dishonest response validation difficult and potentially - Cheap to implement. time consuming. - Questionnaires at each landing point will provide useful - Potential for poor understanding and conceptualisation of data in terms of impact on the transport network and questions with self completion questionnaires. demand between landing points. - No opportunity to explore individual views of factors that - Potential indicator of wider population allowing for valid would affect demand. aggregation of results. - Careful design required and likely to be time consuming. - Splitting over four individual methodologies reduces - Small sample size with research assistant completed likelihood of low/zero response. questionnaire. - Identification of resident participants easily undertaken - Reliance on 3rd party to distribute questionnaires to using GIS. visitors. - Identification of Holiday Parks and Hotels for distribution - Multiple questionnaires could be difficult to manage. easily done. - High quality questionnaire design required to ensure maximum response. - Potential to increase expectations that a waterborne transport service is imminent. - Lengthy (4+ pages) questionnaires likely to receive lower response rate.

Opportunities Threats - High quality covering letter included with questionnaire to - Low response rate. maximise understanding and conceptualisation of - Validity of responses: questions, manage expectations and encourage response. - Self selection bias. - Honesty of response. - Free prize draw for all respondents to increase potential - Poor understanding and conceptualisation of questions. response rate. - Poor media uptake leading to a lack of promotion of web - Freepost return envelope for residents to increase questionnaire. response rate. - Time available to carefully design the questionnaires. - Piloting on street to ensure good understanding and conceptualisation of the questions is possible. - Can cross reference demand responses with Dorset Citizen Panel and Devon Voice surveys to highlight any self selection bias. - Time available to check returned questionnaires for evidence of dishonest response. - Can give training to 3rd party distributors on delivery of questionnaires to attempt to ensure onward distribution to visitors, reduce self selection bias and manage expectations. - Can give training to research assistants to reduce self selection bias and manage expectations.

Table 1: SWOT Analysis of Outline Methodology.

This SWOT analysis built on the initial thinking behind the strengths, weaknesses and threats to validity associated with the outline methodology, serving to identify a number of measures to promote the strengths and reduce weakness and threats in the design and delivery of the questionnaires. These are:

Waterborne Transport Study – Stage 2: User Survey Methodology and Findings Report.

High quality covering letter included with questionnaire, providing information on the research, the potential pilot route and the need for a good response rate. This serves to maximise understanding and conceptualisation of questions, manage expectations and encourage response. Questionnaires kept as short as possible while still providing valid data in an effort to maximise response rates. The incorporation of a free prize draw for all respondents in the survey, included in the covering letter text in an effort to encourage responses. Free post return envelopes for all resident participants, reducing the cost burden of responding and increasing potential responses. Careful design of the questionnaires, including the covering letter and wording of questions is required to ensure good understanding and conceptualisation of what is being asked. A process of piloting draft questionnaires, implemented to reduce the potential for poor understanding of what is being asked. On-site training of holiday park and hotel staff (3rd party distributors) required when giving over questionnaires. This will help to ensure onward distribution, reduce self selection bias, reduce potential dishonest responses and also manage public expectations on delivery of waterborne transport services. Training of the research assistants will be necessary for delivering the questionnaires. Helping to reduce self selection bias, potential dishonest responses and also manage public expectations of delivery of waterborne transport services. Checking of individual questionnaires to identify dishonest responses necessary in the data entry phase. The use of multiple, landing point specific questionnaires distributed through a number of methods requires careful management, data entry and analysis. The Dorset Citizens’ Panel and Devon Voice surveys to include a waterborne transport demand related question, allowing for cross examination with the results and identification of self selection bias. The SWOT analysis also identified that the web based self completion survey, supported through media promotion may not receive the media coverage needed for a statistically valid response rate. Due to the work involved in producing the web based survey and the risk of a low response rate, at this stage Strategy 4 – Web based self completion questionnaires were dropped.

Based upon the findings of the SWOT analysis and the measures to reduce weakness and threats, the method of surveying was refined and the methodology to be employed was developed.

Waterborne Transport Study – Stage 2: User Survey Methodology and Findings Report.

Survey Methodology Employed With the removal of Strategy 4 from the outline methodology, the remaining three survey strategies, given below, were taken forward for this research (see Figure 2 in Appendix A for a geographical representation of the identified strategies).

Strategy 1a (Visitors) – Paper based self completion questionnaires distributed through Holiday Parks and Hotels within 5km of each identified landing point. Strategy 1b (Visitors) – Paper based self completion questionnaires distributed through Holiday Parks and Hotels within each pilot route’s wider area. Strategy 2 (Residents) – Paper based self completion questionnaires distributed by post to residential addresses within 2km of each landing point. Strategy 3 (Residents & Visitors) – Paper based research assistant completed questionnaires carried out on street at each of the identified landing points. The following sub-sections of the report detail the methodology employed for the identified survey strategies, relating to: survey design; the participant identification process; survey delivery / collection; data entry; and data analysis.

Survey Design. The design of any survey is vital in ensuring robust and valid results are gained from the data obtained. The SWOT analysis identified a number of threats to the validity of the research relating to survey design. However, also gave opportunities to overcome these. The following bullet points detail the key elements employed within the design of the survey along with a short rationale for each. Example questionnaires for each of the identified methodologies are given in Appendix B.

One month survey period during the peak visitor season - 1st August 2010 to 1st September 2010.

One month survey period chosen to provide adequate time for response while not overly extending the time required to complete the research. The peak visitor period was chosen to maximise the potential number of visitor respondents and thus response rate.

Free prize draw included for all respondents to the survey.

The free prize draw was included to encourage response by providing a potential benefit to participants with the intention of maximising response rate.

Questionnaires tailored to each strategy and landing point / pilot route within the strategies.

The tailoring of the questionnaires to each strategy and landing point / pilot route allowed for the assessment of impact on the transport network by providing detailed data relating to existing and future trips between the landing points. This also served to reduce the potential for poor understanding of the questionnaires, which would become confusing for participants if there are too many question options relating to pilot routes and landing points. A downside of this was the increased time required to design the questionnaires, develop the data entry methodology and analyse the data. Table 2 on the following page gives the list of individual questionnaires created.

Waterborne Transport Study – Stage 2: User Survey Methodology and Findings Report.

East Devon Pilot Weymouth to Portland Pilot Poole Bay Pilot Survey Area Questionnaire Survey Area Questionnaire Survey Area Questionnaire Code Code Code Strategy 1a – Visitors local to each landing point. Sidmouth 1A – A – SM Weymouth 1A – C – WM Swanage 1A – B – SW Seaton 1A – A – ST Portland 1A – C – PT Studland 1A – B – SL Lyme Regis 1A – A – LR Poole 1A – B – PL West Bay 1A – A – WB Bournemouth 1A – B – BM Strategy 1b – Visitors within each pilot’s wider area. Wider Area 1B - A Wider Area 1B - C Jurassic Coast 1B - B - JC Non-Jurassic Coast 1B - B - NJC Strategy 2 – Residents local to each landing point. Sidmouth 2A - A - SM Weymouth 2A - C - WM Swanage 2A - B - SW Seaton 2A - A - ST Portland 2A - C - PT Studland 2A - B - SL Lyme Regis 2A - A - LR Poole 2A - B - PL West Bay 2A - A - WB Bournemouth 2A - B - BM Strategy 3 – Street surveys at each landing point. Sidmouth 3A - A - SM Weymouth 3A - C - WM Swanage 3A - B - SW Seaton 3A - A - ST Portland 3A - C - PT Studland 3A - B - SL Lyme Regis 3A - A - LR Poole 3A - B - PL West Bay 3A - A - WB Bournemouth 3A - B - BM Table 2: List of Individual Questionnaires Created.

It can be seen from this table that the Poole Bay Pilot Strategy 1b was broken down over the area within the Jurassic Coast (JC) and outside the Jurassic Coast (NJC). This was required due to the inclusion of the “have you ever been to the Jurassic Coast before?” research question which would not be applicable within the Non-Jurassic Coast survey area.

Individual questionnaire questions developed in such ways that allow for valid comparison and grouping of data. I.e. the same questions will be asked within each questionnaire, however, tailored to suit each strategy and landing point.

It was important to be able to provide valid comparisons and grouping of the data gathered between strategies, allowing for the analysis of results at differing levels I.e. across all pilots, at the pilot level and at the landing point level. Changes to the way questions were asked across the questionnaires could affect responses and the validity of analysis. Thus, it is important that the questions asked were structured in the same way across all questionnaires.

It should be noted that the questions relating to journey purpose between the landing points, and how often respondents would use the service during the autumn/winter months were omitted for the visitor orientated strategies. These were not included as visitor travel can be assumed as for leisure or shopping purposes only, rather than business, commuting or education; and the visitor season predominantly covers the spring/summer seasons. As visitors are unlikely to be in the area during the autumn/winter months, including this question would bring about questions of validity of response.

Waterborne Transport Study – Stage 2: User Survey Methodology and Findings Report.

Covering letter incorporated within each questionnaire giving information relating to: o the purpose of the survey; o details of the free prize draw; o the pilot route being investigated; o an outline of the potential vessels; o the need for honest responses from both those who would and would not use the services; and o data protection.

The covering letter represented the initial contact with potential participants and is vitally important in encouraging a good response rate; ensuring good understanding and conceptualisation of what is being asked; securing honest responses; reducing self selection bias and managing expectations. The identified information to be included served to positively affect each of these areas by ensuring potential participants are fully informed as to the purpose and requirements of the survey along with the benefits of taking part. The covering letter can be seen in the example questionnaires within Appendix B.

Draft questionnaires (including covering letter) piloted via street surveys at each landing point and changes made based upon participants views.

Good understanding and conceptualisation of what is being asked within a questionnaire is key in ensuring reliable responses. Poorly written questionnaires can reduce response rates and be interpreted in different ways bringing about questions of validity. The piloting of the questionnaires at the landing points was undertaken by the survey designer/research leader and allowed for the testing and amendment of the questions and covering letter ensuring that participants fully understood the survey purpose and questions being asked.

Maximum of five sides of A4 paper for each questionnaire, laid out in such a way that the questions are easily readable.

As with a poorly written questionnaire, a long winded or badly designed self completion questionnaire will not receive a good response rate. Therefore, the restriction of this questionnaire to five sides of A4 paper along with high quality layout design (which was tested during piloting) assisted in maximising the response rate.

Participant identification. Participant identification is an important aspect of delivering a valid self completion survey. In terms of validity, the primary concerns of the participant identification process was to: ensure an adequate level of participants are identified allowing for a statistically valid number of returned responses; reducing the potential for demographic bias in the selection of participants; and reducing the potential for geographically biased results in the selection of participants.

This section of the report details the process of participant identification undertaken for the self completion questionnaire strategies (Strategy 1a, 1b & 2). Strategy 3, research assistant completed street surveys, did not undergo a process of participant identification as participants were approached on street and did not require prior identification. The methodology used for the identification of potential participants differs across the strategies, the following points outline the method for each along with a short rationale.

Waterborne Transport Study – Stage 2: User Survey Methodology and Findings Report.

Strategy 1a – Visitors local to each landing point. The process of participant identification surrounding this strategy relates to the identification of partner holiday parks and hotels local to each landing point for onward distribution to potential participants. The key elements of the onward distribution and the details of the holiday parks and hotels used are given with in the following Survey Delivery/Collection section.

Holiday parks and hotels within 5 km of each landing point.

As has been mentioned in the survey design points, the questionnaires were tailored to each landing point with an assumption that the local landing will be the start point for a waterborne trip. 5km was chosen as the cut-off boundary for this strategy as beyond this distance the validity of this assumption diminishes. With reference to Figure 2 in Appendix A, it can be seen that a number of the landing points are less than 10 km apart. In these cases the most locally appropriate boundary line was chosen based on likely start point.

Target of 400 questionnaires delivered to each of the 10 landing points (4000 total).

The number of questionnaires distributed across all strategies was dictated by the funding available and the need for a statistically valid number of responses. As this strategy requires the use of a 3rd party distributor a minimum response rate of 7.5% was assumed, meaning that around 30 returned questionnaires could be expected from each landing. This number of responses was deemed adequate to allow for valid analysis. However, the greater the response rate the more valid the aggregation of results. The actual number of questionnaires distributed to the holiday parks and hotels at each landing point is given within the Survey Delivery/Collection section.

Internet research coupled with Geographical Information System (GIS) analysis of location was undertaken to identify medium to large holiday parks and hotels local to each landing point and within the 5km boundary.

Medium to large holiday parks and hotels were chosen as they would more likely have a large enough customer base to distribute all the questionnaires and maximise potential response rates. Initially the intention was to use four holiday parks and hotels for each landing point, thus reducing the risk of a low response rate due to poor onward distribution. In practice it was difficult to achieve four holiday parks and hotels at each landing due to a lack of holiday parks and hotels in some areas and willingness to distribute the questionnaires in others.

Internet research undertaken to identify holiday parks and hotels that would appeal to different kinds of visitors (i.e. families, couples and older people) at each landing point.

During the process of identifying potential holiday park and hotel distributors it was important to ensure that those identified did not bias the results to a certain demographic. Therefore, whilst undertaking the internet research attention was paid to the type of visitor that may stay at each in an effort to minimise bias.

Strategy 1b – Visitors within each pilot’s wider area. As with Strategy 1a, the process of participant identification surrounding this strategy relates to the identification of partner holiday parks and hotels for onward distribution to potential participants. Details of the holiday parks and hotels used for the distribution of the survey are given in the following Survey Delivery/Collection section.

Waterborne Transport Study – Stage 2: User Survey Methodology and Findings Report.

Holiday parks and hotels within each pilot’s catchment area.

The questionnaires for this strategy were tailored to each pilot route with no assumption of starting landing point. A catchment area was devised for each pilot route and those holiday parks and hotels within each were given the questionnaires relating to the respective pilot route. The development of the catchment boundaries was carried out by assessing the likelihood of which pilot would be used from key towns and villages up to approximately 15km from the nearest landing point. The catchment areas chosen via this method are available on Figure 2 in Appendix A.

Target of 1350 questionnaires delivered to each of the 3 pilot routes (4000 total).

As with the other strategies, the number of questionnaires produced and distributed was dictated by the funding available and the need for a statistically valid number of responses. Due to the 3rd party distribution of the questionnaires a minimum response rate of 7.5% was assumed for this strategy, meaning that around 100 returned questionnaires could be expected for each pilot route. This was deemed to be a valid number of responses for each. However, as the questionnaires were written in such a way that allowed comparison between strategies, the responses returned for 1a & b can be combined to provide a response from visitors at the pilot level. This reduced the possibility of validity issues due to poor response rates related to the visitor based strategies. The actual number of questionnaires distributed to the holiday parks and hotels at each landing point is given within the Survey Delivery/Collection section.

Internet research coupled with Geographical Information System (GIS) analysis of location was undertaken to identify medium to large holiday parks and hotels within the catchment area for each pilot route.

Again, medium to large holiday parks and hotels were chosen as they would more likely have a large enough customer base to distribute all the questionnaires and maximise potential response rate. Initially the intention was to use eight holiday parks and hotels for each route, splitting the risk of a low response rate due to poor onward distribution. In practice it was difficult to achieve eight holiday parks and hotels at each landing due to a lack of holiday parks and hotels in some areas and willingness to distribute the questionnaires in others.

Internet research also undertaken to identify holiday parks that would appeal to different kinds of visitors (i.e. families, couples and older people) at each landing point.

As with strategy 1a, during the process of identifying potential holiday park and hotel distributors it was important to ensure that those identified did not bias the results to a certain demographic. Therefore, whilst undertaking the internet research attention was paid to the type of visitor that may stay at each in an effort to minimise bias.

Strategy 2 - Residents local to each landing point. Where the visitor based strategies required the distribution of questionnaires through 3rd party holiday parks and hotels, this strategy involves postal questionnaires sent to residential addresses local to each landing point. The following points detail the process undertaken to identify the residential addresses (participants) for this section of the survey.

Residential addresses within 2km of the landing points.

As with strategy 1a there is an assumption built within these questionnaires that the closest landing point would be the start point of a waterborne transport trip. At 2km most able-bodied people

Waterborne Transport Study – Stage 2: User Survey Methodology and Findings Report. would feel comfortable walking or cycling to the landing point. Thus, it can be generally expected that travel via waterborne transport would be undertaken without a connecting car journey and the closest landing point would be utilised as the journey start.

375 questionnaires to each landing point except Bournemouth and Poole who received 500 questionnaires (4000 total).

As has been mentioned, the funding available set the number of questionnaires distributed. This strategy had the highest cost associated with it including: printing, postal costs and return envelopes. Initially 400 questionnaires were to be sent to each landing point, reflecting the number distributed to holiday parks and hotels within strategy 1a. However, due to the larger population size within Bournemouth and Poole and the increased potential for commuting trips, it was felt necessary to increase the number of participants at these points. Leading to the 500/375 split between the landing points.

The minimum expected response rate for this strategy was assumed at 10% meaning that 50 returned questionnaires could be expected for Bournemouth and Poole with 38 for the remaining landing points. This minimum response rate is greater than for the 3rd party distributed questionnaires (7.5%) reflecting the threat of poor onward distribution with that method. It should be noted that for the purpose of estimating the cost of the research, a maximum response rate of 30% was assumed for the return envelopes.

Geographic information system (GIS) analysis carried out to identify addresses within each landing point boundary.

With the 2km resident participant boundary and number of participants decided, GIS analysis was undertaken to identify the addresses for inclusion in the survey. This was a simple process of selecting those residential addresses within the boundary area and exporting the dataset into a spreadsheet for further manipulation to randomly select the participants for each landing point.

Spreadsheet data manipulation undertaken to randomly select resident participant addresses from the GIS dataset.

With the exception of Studland the number of residential addresses within each landing point boundary exceeded the number of participants required. It was not possible to gather detailed demographic information for each address, which would allow for the identification of participants that accurately reflect the wider demographic at each landing point. Therefore, a random selection method was employed. This meant that there was no control of demographic bias within the participants. However, the contextual questions posed will serve to identify any bias to a certain age or sex demographic. During this process it was discovered that Studland only had 201 residential addresses within the 2km boundary. Therefore, all residential addresses were surveyed, removing any potential bias in sampling for Studland.

Figure 3 in Appendix A shows the location of resident participants used for the survey after the process of identification (large scale to protect personal information). It can be seen from this figure that the participants are evenly spread within each landing boundary and there are no clusters that could lead to a bias in sampling.

Strategy 3 – Street surveys at each landing point delivered to residents and visitors. Strategy 3, research assistant completed street surveys, did not undergo a process of participant identification as participants were approached on street and did not require prior identification.

Waterborne Transport Study – Stage 2: User Survey Methodology and Findings Report.

Survey Delivery/Collection. Having identified the resident participants and the potential holiday parks and hotels for onward distribution, the process of delivering the survey was carried out. This section details the key points relating to both the delivery and collection of the survey. Strategies 1a &b are dealt with under the same heading as the process of delivery and collection was very similar for both.

Strategy 1a & b – Visitors local to each landing point & within each pilot’s wider area. The survey delivery and collection process for the visitor based strategies was an important aspect in ensuring validity of the survey. The SWOT analysis identified the need for training of 3rd party distributors so they can be fully informed, driven to distribute the questionnaires and can encourage participants to respond thus reducing a number of threats to validity. The following points detail the process of securing distributor organisations, the training carried out and collecting the questionnaires.

Initial contact with the identified holiday parks and hotels to gain agreement to take part in the survey.

The identified holiday park and hotels were contacted in advance of the survey period to secure agreement to distribute the survey. This initial contact took the form of a telephone conversation with senior staff explaining the details of the survey, the purpose of the research and the need to brief reception staff in the distribution of the survey. Through this method of contact, a number of holiday parks and hotels were secured for the distribution of the questionnaires. Table 3 below gives the holiday parks and hotels used to distribute the survey.

Survey Area Questionnaire Holiday Parks and Hotels Used to Distribute Code Questionnaires Strategy 1a – Visitors local to each landing point.

Elizabeth Hotel Westcliff Hotel Sidmouth. 1A – A – SM Dukes Hotel The Kingswood Hotel Hotel Riviera Manor Farm Caravan Park Beer Head Caravan Park Seaton. 1A – A – ST Axe Vale Caravan Park Dolphin Hotel Beer

Hook Farm Caravan & Camping Park Royal Lion Hotel Lyme Regis. 1A – A – LR The Bay Hotel Alexandra Hotel and Restaurant

West Bay Holiday Park (Parkdean) Haddon House Hotel West Bay. 1A – A – WB Freshwater Holiday Park Highlands End Holiday Park

Swanage Bay View Holiday Park Cauldron Barn Farm Holiday Park Swanage. 1A – B – SW Grand Hotel Swanage Swanage Coastal Park

Waterborne Transport Study – Stage 2: User Survey Methodology and Findings Report.

Manor House Hotel Studland. 1A – B – SL Knoll House Hotel Bankes Arms hotel

The Haven Hotel Poole. 1A – B – PL Salterns Harbourside Hotel

The Savoy Hotel The Majestic Hotel Bournemouth. 1A – B – BM Brittannia Hotel Bournemouth Brittannia Roundhouse Hotel Brittannia Heathlands Hotel

Hotel Rex Hotel Prince Regent Weymouth. 1A – C – WM Russell Hotel Weymouth Royal Hotel Weymouth

Portland. 1A – C – PT Cove Holiday Park

Strategy 1b – Visitors within each pilot’s wider area.

Binghams Grange Touring and Camping Park Monkton Wylde Caravan and Camping Pooh Cottage Holiday Park Wider Area – East Oakdown Touring and Holiday Caravan Park 1B - A Devon Pilot. Salcombe Regis Caravan and Camping Kingsdown Tail Caravan and Camping Hawkchurch Country Park Shrubbery Caravan and Camping Park

Ulwell Cottage Holiday Park Peartree Touring Park 1B - B - JC Ridge Farm Camping and Caravan Park Wider Area – Poole Manor Farm Caravan Park Bay Pilot. Rockley Park Meadowbank Holiday Park 1B - B - NJC Longfield Caravan Park Charris Caravan and Camping

Waterside Holiday Park Wider Area – Chesil Holiday Park Weymouth/ Portland 1B - C Littlesea Holiday Park Pilot. Pebble Bank Holiday Park East Fleet Farm Touring Park Table 3: Holiday Parks and Hotels Used to Distribute Survey.

During the process of securing distributors, attention was paid to the type of accommodation and the demographic likely to stay there. It was important to incorporate variation in accommodation type reflecting the rough make up of visitor accommodation in the survey areas to reduce bias in the results. Generally the target was to achieve four distributors at each landing point (Strategy 1a), with eight for each pilot’s wider area catchment (Strategy 1b). However, Table 3 shows Studland had three distributors, Poole two, and Portland only one distributor. This increased the risk of a low response rate and potential for sampling bias in these locations which will be discussed further later in the report.

Waterborne Transport Study – Stage 2: User Survey Methodology and Findings Report.

Attention was also paid to the geographical location of the holiday parks and hotels approached during the process of securing distributors within the wider area catchments (Strategy 1b).Figure 4 in Appendix A maps the location of the final distributors. From this it can be seen that the spread of distributors was not perfect. There are some clusters near to landing points, which could bias results in terms of a start landing point and will need accounting for in the analysis. Clustering does not affect Strategy 1a as there is an assumption that the closest landing would be the start point of a waterborne transport trip.

Briefing to managers and reception staff likely to distribute the questionnaires to visitors. Key points covered: o the purpose of the survey; o details of the free prize draw; o the pilot route being investigated; o an outline of the potential vessels; o the need for honest responses from both those who would and would not use the services; and o data protection.

During the initial contact with the holiday parks and hotels, the need to brief the staff that will distribute questionnaires was made clear. Discussions with senior staff indicated that reception staff were the best people to distribute the questionnaires, as they invariably provided the point of contact for visitors. The purpose of briefing both managers and reception staff was similar to that of having a strong covering letter. Reception staff represented the initial contact with potential participants and needed to:

Be aware of the importance of distributing the questionnaires (response rate); Encourage responses from visitors (response rate); Assist participants where necessary to ensure good understanding and conceptualisation of what is being asked; Highlight the need for honest responses; Encourage everyone to take part, even if not interested in using the services to reduce self selection bias; and Be aware that this research is at an early stage and to manage expectations of potential participants.

The need to brief senior staff was slightly different to that of reception staff. Senior management buy-in was important to ensure that reception staff felt comfortable and were encouraged to distribute the questionnaire.

Distribution of the questionnaires at the start of the survey period.

Following the briefing, the questionnaires were given over to the holiday parks and hotels for onward distribution to visitors. Instruction was given to distribute the questionnaires between the 1st of August and 1st September 2010. The number of questionnaires given over to each holiday park and hotel varied as some felt that they may struggle to distribute all required. Due to this the number of questionnaires given over varied slightly between landing points (Strategy 1a) and over the pilot route catchments (Strategy 1b). Table 4 towards the end of the Survey Delivery/Collection section details the number of questionnaires given over to distributors.

Waterborne Transport Study – Stage 2: User Survey Methodology and Findings Report.

Contact made at the mid point of the survey period to encourage distribution of questionnaires.

Contact was made with the holiday parks and hotels at the mid point of the survey period. This was done to ascertain how the distribution was going, the number of returned questionnaires so far and to encourage further distribution and thus response rate.

Collection of the questionnaires at the end of the survey period.

The research leader collected the questionnaires at the end of the survey period. Senior staff were informed of this process during the briefing, with the purpose being to reduce the work required by the holiday parks and hotels and encourage onward distribution. The total number of questionnaires collected is given in Table 4 along with the number distributed and the respective response rate.

Strategy 2 - Residents local to each landing point. The process of delivering and collecting the questionnaires for the resident based strategy was a simple one. The identified participants address data, was used to post the questionnaires to the selected addresses and the return envelopes were directed to the research office for the collection of completed questionnaires.

A common method of encouraging response, and similar to that employed for the visitor based strategies, would be to send a follow up letter to the identified participants. However, due to the funding constraints on the research, an early decision was made to omit this process preferring instead to use this money to maximise the number of questionnaires distributed.

The total number of questionnaires sent, the number returned and the calculated response rate are given with those for the other strategies in Table 4 at the end of this Survey Delivery/Collection section.

Strategy 3 – Street surveys at each landing point delivered to residents and visitors. The process of delivering the street survey was relatively simple, student research assistants were employed to deliver and collect the survey at each of the landing points. The following paragraphs detail the key delivery and collection elements of the street survey.

Two student research assistants used for the delivery of the street surveys over a single working week (23rd to 28th August 2010).

The cost of employing the research assistants was a key factor in devising the methodology. The funding available only allowed for four weeks of assistant time, including delivering the survey and entering the collected data. It was felt important to use two assistants at each landing to ensure safety of the assistants when on street. Therefore, a decision was made that two should be utilised over one week to deliver the survey on street, which equated to ½ day at each of the 10 landing points. The remaining research assistant time was used for the data entry phase. In terms of survey period, as with the self completion surveys, it was felt important to deliver the survey during the peak visitor season to maximise potential respondents.

Waterborne Transport Study – Stage 2: User Survey Methodology and Findings Report.

Training for research assistants prior to the delivery of survey on street. This included: o the purpose of the survey; o details of the free prize draw; o the pilot routes being investigated; o an outline of the potential vessels; o the need for honest responses from both those who would and would not use the services; and o data protection. Prior to administering the survey it was necessary to ensure that the research assistants were fully trained in the detail of the research. Similar to the briefing for hotels and holiday park staff and the purpose of the covering letter, the assistants were key in ensuring the validity of the survey as the point of contact with participants and required training to achieve this. The key outcomes of the training along with the effect on validity of the data gathered is detailed below:

The research assistants had to be fully conversant with purpose and detail of the research to ensure participants had a good understanding of what was being asked and could assist when needed to secure valid and reliable responses. The assistants had to understand the questionnaires to ensure each was completed correctly. They had to be aware of the need to gain at least 30 completed questionnaires at each landing point that had been responded to honestly. 30 responses per landing was chosen as this reflected the estimated number for other strategies and was considered to be statistically valid. The assistants had to encourage responses from a wide range of people including those who did not feel like they would use waterborne transport services. This was included in the training to reduce any potential self selection bias in the sampling of participants. Be aware that this research is at an early stage and to manage expectations of participants when delivering the survey. The research assistants were also trained in the safety measures to be taken when on street which were highlighted through a risk assessment i.e. charged mobile phone at all times and to keep in sight of each other etc.

100 questionnaires produced for each landing point (50 per assistant).

In total 100 questionnaires were printed for each landing with 50 given to each assistant. However, a total response of approximately 30 per landing was expected (30%). Whilst this is a high estimated response rate compared to that of the other strategies, the benefit of using research assistants was the higher number of responses per approach and the reduced likelihood of a zero response.

Regular team meetings to check up on and encourage research assistants.

The final aspect of the delivery and collection of the research assistant completed street surveys were the daily team meetings held at the beginning and end of each day. During these meetings the questionnaires were distributed and collected and the research assistants encouraged to discuss any issues or problems they encountered. These meetings were valuable as the assistants found that they helped to grow confidence in approaching participants and secured more responses as a result.

Through the survey delivery and collection process outlined for each strategy above, some 12,276 questionnaires were distributed and 2,239 were collected back in, an overall response rate of 18.2%. The breakdown of the number of returned questionnaires for each strategy is given in Table 4 on the following page.

Waterborne Transport Study – Stage 2: User Survey Methodology and Findings Report.

Questionnaire Total Questionnaires Total Returned Survey Area Response Rate Code Distributed Questionnaires Strategy 1a& b – Visitors local to each landing point and within each pilot’s wider area. Sidmouth 1A - A - SM 400 31 7.8% Seaton 1A - A - ST 400 54 13.5% Lyme Regis 1A - A - LR 400 76 19.0% West Bay 1A - A - WB 400 46 11.5% Pilot A Wider Area 1B - A 1150 127 11.0% Swanage 1A - B - SW 400 55 13.8% Studland 1A - B - SL 400 47 11.8% Poole 1A - B - PL 400 22 5.5% Bournemouth 1A - B - BM 400 41 10.3% Pilot B Wider Area 1B - B - JC 800 22 2.8% Pilot B Wider Area 1B - B - NJC 600 74 12.3% Weymouth 1A - C - WM 400 56 14.0% Portland 1A - C - PT 200 13 6.5% Pilot C Wider Area 1B - C 1100 46 4.2% Total Strategy 1 - 7450 710 9.5% Strategy 2 - Residents local to each landing point. Sidmouth 2A - A - SM 375 125 33.3% Seaton 2A - A - ST 375 146 38.9% Lyme Regis 2A - A - LR 375 147 39.2% West Bay 2A - A - WB 375 156 41.6% Swanage 2A - B - SW 375 132 35.2% Studland 2A - B - SL 201 97 48.3% Poole 2A - B - PL 500 150 30.0% Bournemouth 2A - B - BM 500 94 18.8% Weymouth 2A - C - WM 375 96 25.6% Portland 2A - C - PT 375 100 26.7% Total Strategy 2 - 3826 1243 32.5% Strategy 1 & 2 Combi - 11276 1953 17.3% Strategy 3 – Resident & visitor street surveys at each landing point. Sidmouth 3A - A - SM 100 31 31.0% Seaton 3A - A - ST 100 28 28.0% Lyme Regis 3A - A - LR 100 30 30.0% West Bay 3A - A - WB 100 29 29.0% Swanage 3A - B - SW 100 31 31.0% Studland 3A - B - SL 100 29 29.0% Poole 3A - B - PL 100 33 33.0% Bournemouth 3A - B - BM 100 34 34.0% Weymouth 3A - C - WM 100 41 41.0% Portland 3A - C - PT 100 0 0.0% Total Strategy 3 - 1000 286 28.6% Research Total - 12276 2239 18.2% Table 4: Questionnaires Distributed, Returned and Response Rates.

Waterborne Transport Study – Stage 2: User Survey Methodology and Findings Report.

Table 4 above shows the response rates for each of the strategies within each survey area. From this information it can be seen that overall the survey was a success in terms of response. Whilst there were seven questionnaires where the response rate was less than expected, the remaining 26 exceeded the expected response rate. The following paragraphs provide a brief explanation as to the possible reasoning behind the rates achieved.

Strategy 1a & b – Visitors local to each landing point & within each pilot’s wider area. The minimum expected response rate for this strategy was 7.5% which reflected the risk of using 3rd party distributors to give out questionnaires. In order to reduce the risk of poor onwards distribution, the questionnaires were distributed to a number of holiday parks and hotels in each survey area. Although, in some areas it was difficult to achieve the level of distributors required which increased the risk of a poor response rate. Across the whole of Strategy 1 the rate achieved exceeded the minimum expected with 9.5% returned. However, there were four survey areas where the response was less than expected. The bullet points below highlight these survey areas with the likely reasoning behind the low response rates.

Poole – 22 responses (5.5%). Lack of distributors within the survey area. Portland – 13 responses (6.5%). Only one distributor gained for Portland and only 200 questionnaires distributed. Pilot B (JC) – 22 responses (2.8%). Size of holiday parks used for distribution and lack of enthusiasm to distribute. Pilot C – 46 responses (4.2%). Only 5 distributors gained in survey area. Struggled to get full senior management buy-in for larger holiday parks in Weymouth.

Strategy 2 - Residents local to each landing point The minimum response rate for this strategy was 10% which is what can generally be expected for a self completion questionnaire. Within the survey design and delivery/collection a number of measures were included to maximise the response rate. From the rate gained (32.5%) across the whole strategy, it can be concluded that these measures were eminently successful. This response rate is over three times the expected minimum and exceeded the 30% rate that was used for budgeting the survey return envelopes. Luckily the reduced number of Studland participants offset this and prevented an overspend. In terms of Studland, this is an interesting case as some 48.3% of the entire resident population responded to the survey highlighting the success of this strategy.

Strategy 3 – Street surveys at each landing point delivered to residents and visitors. The response rates for this strategy are in-line with what was expected when devising the strategy (30% expected, 28.6% received). Whilst lower than expected, this is directly related to the zero response for Portland. The reason for which being very poor weather on the survey day which meant that there were very few people on street to be surveyed. To offset this, the research assistants spent extra time in Weymouth where the weather was similar but there were more people available to survey. The weather was generally windy, overcast or raining during the survey week with very few sunny spells. This is likely to have played a part in constraining responses across each survey area.

In terms of validity, with the exception of the four identified survey areas in strategy 1, Strategies 1 & 2 secured a significant response rate and the information gleaned can be safely aggregated to the wider resident and visitor population. For those survey areas within Strategy 1 where the response was less than expected, care must be applied when analysing the data and drawing conclusions specific to visitors at these points.

Waterborne Transport Study – Stage 2: User Survey Methodology and Findings Report.

Strategy 3 secured a reasonable response rate with three survey areas under that expected. However, when responses are broken down over residents and visitors the number available diminishes the validly of aggregation. Therefore, the data gathered through this strategy will be used to ‘reality check’ the responses gained through strategies 1 & 2. A good example of where this can be applied is in checking existing modal split of transport to survey areas. The data gathered from strategies 1 & 2 can be combined and checked against the modal split found on street.

Data Entry. Following the survey delivery and collection phase, the data gathered within the questionnaires required entering into survey analysis software. In reality, the process of data entry was devised alongside the design of the questionnaires, as it was important to ensure the software would be compatible with the format of the data gathered. However, for ease of reading and following the chronological order of the wider tasks carried out, the process of devising the data entry method is outlined below.

Study of available survey software to identify the most suitable for the methodology.

The funding for the research did not stretch to purchasing new survey software. Therefore, either existing or free to use survey software had to be used. The two choices open for this research were SNAP (which Dorset County Council already had a licence for) and Survey Monkey (a free to use online survey tool). Upon investigation of the Survey Monkey software, it was found that the free to use package only allowed for 10 questions per survey, 100 responses per survey and did not provide a data export function. Having already devised the research questions which totalled more than 10 per survey area, Survey Monkey was not a feasible choice and SNAP had to be used.

Design of response recording within the questionnaires tailored to the capabilities of SNAP survey software.

As has been mentioned, the design of the questionnaires had to be compatible with the survey software. If this was not the case, the data could be found to be useless or require further manipulation prior to entry that increases the chance for error in data recording. The most important part of this process was to ensure that the method of recording responses within the paper questionnaires allowed for valid and quick analysis of results within SNAP.

All returned questionnaires checked by research leader for evidence of dishonest, falsified or incorrect responses.

The validity of the responses gained through this survey was of the utmost importance. However, as paper based self completion surveys are not completed in the presence of a research assistant and 3rd parties were used to distribute the questionnaires, there was a distinct potential for dishonest or incorrect responses that could affect the validity of the survey exercise. The covering letter and design of the questionnaire sought to reduce potential for incorrect or dishonest responses. However, it was necessary to rigorously check all returned questionnaires to ensure the validity of the data gathered.

To check for dishonest responses the questionnaires were interrogated for consistency e.g. if a participant responded yes to travelling to a destination they would be expected to enter a likely mode of travel to that destination. Also, those questionnaires without a valid address were treated with more suspicion and all questionnaires from each 3rd party distributor were checked for replicated addresses and responses. Those found to indicate dishonest or falsified responses were removed and the data not entered for analysis.

Waterborne Transport Study – Stage 2: User Survey Methodology and Findings Report.

In terms of incorrect responses, a slightly more flexible approach was taken. Within the example questionnaires in Appendix B it can be seen that a number of the questions posed, restrict the number of responses given i.e. tick one, tick all that apply, tick four factors etc. Where respondents had not followed these instructions or not completed a question this was deemed as an incorrect response. Generally one or two questions incorrectly filled did not invalidate the entire questionnaire. However, where questionnaires were largely incorrect these were removed from the survey and the data not entered for analysis. The results of the checking processes are given in Table 5 below.

Questionnaire Total Returned No. Spoiled No. Useable Survey Area % Spoiled Code Questionnaires Questionnaires Questionnaires Sidmouth 1A - A - SM 31 0 31 0.0% Seaton 1A - A - ST 54 3 51 5.6% Lyme Regis 1A - A - LR 76 42 34 55.3% West Bay 1A - A - WB 46 0 46 0.0% Pilot A Wider Area 1B - A 127 6 121 4.7% Swanage 1A - B - SW 55 0 55 0.0% Studland 1A - B - SL 47 1 46 2.1% Poole 1A - B - PL 22 3 19 13.6% Bournemouth 1A - B - BM 41 11 30 26.8% Pilot B Wider Area 1B - B - JC 22 0 22 0.0% Pilot B Wider Area 1B - B - NJC 74 8 66 10.8% Weymouth 1A - C - WM 56 0 56 0.0% Portland 1A - C - PT 13 0 13 0.0% Pilot C Wider Area 1B - C 46 15 31 32.6% Total Strategy 1 - 710 89 621 12.5% Sidmouth 2A - A - SM 125 5 120 4.0% Seaton 2A - A - ST 146 5 141 3.4% Lyme Regis 2A - A - LR 147 3 144 2.0% West Bay 2A - A - WB 156 5 151 3.2% Swanage 2A - B - SW 132 5 127 3.8% Studland 2A - B - SL 97 1 96 1.0% Poole 2A - B - PL 150 3 147 2.0% Bournemouth 2A - B - BM 94 3 91 3.2% Weymouth 2A - C - WM 96 4 92 4.2% Portland 2A - C - PT 100 6 94 6.0% Total Strategy 2 - 1243 40 1203 3.2% Sidmouth 3A - A - SM 31 0 31 0.0% Seaton 3A - A - ST 28 1 27 3.6% Lyme Regis 3A - A - LR 30 1 29 3.3% West Bay 3A - A - WB 29 0 29 0.0% Swanage 3A - B - SW 31 0 31 0.0% Studland 3A - B - SL 29 0 29 0.0% Poole 3A - B - PL 33 0 33 0.0% Bournemouth 3A - B - BM 34 1 33 2.9% Weymouth 3A - C - WM 41 0 41 0.0% Portland 3A - C - PT 0 0 0 - Total Strategy 3 - 286 3 283 1.0% Research Total - 2239 132 2107 5.9% Table 5: Record of Spoiled Questionnaires.

Waterborne Transport Study – Stage 2: User Survey Methodology and Findings Report.

Table 5 on the preceding page gives the record of spoiled questionnaires that were removed from the survey and the data not entered for analysis. From this table it can be seen that across all survey strategies some 5.9% of returned questionnaires were deemed spoiled. Considering the measures included within the design and delivery of the survey, this is a relatively high percentage. However, when the percentage of spoiled questionnaires is broken down over each survey strategy, Strategy 1 far surpasses the other strategies highlighting the drawbacks of using 3rd party distributors.

Some 12.5% of all returned Strategy 1 questionnaires were deemed spoiled, predominantly due to evidence of dishonest or falsified responses. However, the level of spoiled questionnaires varies significantly between the survey areas. The following bullet points provide a brief analysis of those survey areas with particularly high spoiled rates.

Lyme Regis – A significant proportion of returned questionnaires from one distributor showed evidence of dishonest or falsified response. Therefore, all returned questionnaires from this distributor were deemed spoiled and not included for analysis. Bournemouth – Again, a significant proportion of returned questionnaires from one distributor showed evidence of dishonest or falsified response. Therefore all returned questionnaires from this distributor were deemed spoiled and not included for analysis. Pilot C Wider Area – One distributor had given questionnaires to staff to complete as well as visitors. Due to the changes to the questionnaires between residents and visitors these had to be removed to maintain validity of results.

Whilst the distributor training included within the survey distribution specifically highlighted that the questionnaires were only for visitors, the distributor that gave questionnaires to staff as well as visitors was considered to be a simple mistake. However, the falsified questionnaires from Lyme Regis and Bournemouth were likely to be due to one of two reasons:

1. The distributors had not secured an adequate response rate by the collection date, possibly due to a lack of distribution, and felt embarrassed so therefore falsified data; or 2. As waterborne transport could be considered a visitor attraction and thus possibly bring a financial benefit to local hotels and holiday parks. These distributors sought to increase the likelihood of a waterborne transport service in their area through falsified data.

Strategies 2 & 3 had a low level of spoiled questionnaires (3.2% & 1% respectively) which is in-line with what was expected. The spoiled questionnaires within Strategy 3 were due to weather damage on the paper questionnaires which made identifying participant responses impossible.

Data Analysis With the data collected and entered into the survey analysis software, the process of analysing the results began. This section of the methodology details the key processes undertaken to analyse the data and ensure the validity of the survey. The method of deriving the responses to each research question is dealt with in detail within the following Data Analysis chapter.

Data part analysed in SNAP then exported for further analysis in Microsoft Excel.

To fully analyse the results a combination of SNAP and Microsoft Excel was used. Initial analysis was undertaken using SNAP which provided the raw data output for further analysis in Excel and the production of visual representations of the results. The use of SNAP for the initial analysis was important as the program allowed the filtering of responses to one question based upon those to another. This allowed for the calculation of potential mode shift and increase in trips due to

Waterborne Transport Study – Stage 2: User Survey Methodology and Findings Report. waterborne transport, both of which relate to the impact on the existing transport network research question.

Analysis error checked by senior staff within Dorset CC Transport Planning Team.

To reduce the potential for error in the results and maintain the validity of the findings, a rigorous process of analysis checking was undertaken. A senior member of Dorset County Council’s Transport Planning Team who had not been involved in the project and who had a good understanding of spreadsheet analysis was tasked with the role of error checking. Through this process a couple of simple errors were spotted and rectified. However, the logic behind the calculation of results was found to be consistently sound.

PLEASE NOTE: The spreadsheets created for the analysis of the survey data are publicly available. If you would like an electronic copy of these for your own checking please write to the Transport Planning team at the address on the inside front cover.

Survey data triangulation (cross examination) with Devon Voice and Dorset Citizens’ Panel supporting surveys.

The need for cross examination of the survey results with results from other surveys to identify self selection bias was identified as part of the investigation of potential methodologies. Self selection bias relates to the fact that people are more likely to respond to a survey where they have a strong view on the subject, be that positive or negative. In this case those people that would use waterborne transport or are strongly apposed to it. The content of the covering letter and the training given to 3rd party distributors and research assistants sought to minimise the potential for self selection bias. However, it is not possible to remove all self selection bias from single topic self completion questionnaires. Therefore, cross examination with surveys that are not subject to self selection bias is required to identify any bias in the results.

The Devon Voice and Dorset Citizens’ Panel surveys provided the perfect opportunity to cross examine the results. Waterborne transport was not the sole survey topic (removing self selection bias) and the participants to these surveys are representative of the wider Devon and Dorset population demography. The following section gives the details of the Devon Voice and Dorset Citizens’ Panel surveys. The triangulation of results is carried out within the analysis of potential demand for waterborne transport in the following chapter.

Supporting Surveys The Devon Voice and Dorset Citizens’ Panel are very similar surveys. They are both administered by the respective County Councils, providing a regular opportunity for residents to comment on existing services and influence future decisions. Both surveys operate on a tri-annual basis with a panel of participants who sit on the panel for up to three years. The participants are chosen at random but provide a representative sample of the resident population in terms demography and geographical location, meaning that the results can be deemed representative of both counties populations. The main difference between the two surveys is the number of participants on each panel. Dorset Citizens’ Panel uses some 3000 participants, whilst the Devon Voice survey utilises around 1300.

Waterborne Transport was included in the 21st Citizens’ Panel which received 1729 responses with the survey period 11th June to 30th July 2010. The 11th Devon Voice Survey (18th March to 21st April 2010) contained questions pertaining to Waterborne transport and gained 785 valid responses. The full results of these surveys are available within Appendix C along with the results of 22nd Dorset Citizens’ Panel. The 22nd Citizens’ Panel results provide a useful break down of the demographic

Waterborne Transport Study – Stage 2: User Survey Methodology and Findings Report. make up of the Panel against the actual demographic make up of Dorset as a whole. From this information it can be seen that the panel represents quite closely the demographic make up of the wider population, highlighting the validity of responses from this survey in terms of a representative response.

Table 6 below provides the areas of questioning contained within both surveys. From this table it can be seen that waterborne transport was only a contributing element to each survey and not the primary topic. Thus, it can be safely assumed that self selection bias will not be present in the waterborne transport related results and these surveys can be used for cross examination.

Dorset Citizens’ Panel 21 Question Devon Voice Survey 11 Question Areas Areas Draft Dorset Community Strategy Highway Maintenance. for 2010-2020. Dorset History Centre. Public Rights of Way.

Waterborne Transport. Waterborne Transport.

Roads and Transport. Emergency Planning.

Household recycling centres. Domestic Violence & Abuse. Being a member of the Citizens' Panel. Table 6: Content of Supporting Surveys.

There were a number of questions asked relating to waterborne transport in both surveys. However, for the purpose of identifying any self selection bias within the results of this wider waterborne transport survey, only one question is of interest:

Would you be interested in travelling by boat (suitable for the sea conditions) along the Jurassic Coast?

This question is only slightly different from the question that posed within the questionnaires (given below) and directly relates to whether people would use the services or not, which is the key driver of self selection bias within this research. Therefore, cross examination between the results from the Devon voice and Dorset Citizens’ Panel can be made with the results from this survey.

Assuming an appropriate vessel for the sea conditions, would you be interested in travelling by boat between the identified landing points?

The cross examination and discussion of findings, including an investigation into the validity of comparison, is carried out in the following Data Analysis chapter within the analysis of the potential demand for waterborne transport.

Waterborne Transport Study – Stage 2: User Survey Methodology and Findings Report.

This Page is Intentionally Blank.

Waterborne Transport Study – Stage 2: User Survey Methodology and Findings Report.

Data Analysis

The overarching aim of this survey is to support the Waterborne Transport Stage 2 - Feasibility Study by providing robust and valid data in relation to the user factors that could affect the feasibility of waterborne transport services along the Jurassic Coast. The Stage 2 Feasibility Study focuses on three pilot routes which are given below and shown geographically on Figure 1 in Appendix A:

East Devon: Sidmouth, Beer / Seaton and Lyme Regis (with the addition of West Bay); Weymouth and Portland; and Poole Bay: Swanage and Studland with Poole and Bournemouth.

For the purpose of this survey and reflecting the needs of the Stage 2 Feasibility Study, the term ‘user factors’ has been broken down into the following four research areas:

The potential demand for waterborne transport; The factors that could affect potential demand; The willingness to pay for the services; and The potential impact on the existing transport network. With the addition of contextual questions for assessing validity.

The previous chapters of this report deal with the development of research questions in relation to each research area; and the methodology to deliver these questions in such a way that the validity of the data gained is maximised. It is advisable to read these chapters before attempting to interpret the following results. There are some key concepts and issues that are referred to within this chapter that are fully discussed earlier in the report and the reading of which will assist in the interpretation of these results.

This chapter of the report provides the full analysis of the data gathered via the methodology discussed previously. The structure of the analysis is based upon the research areas, with the data gathered analysed at three levels: waterborne transport as a whole (data from all pilot routes used); the pilot route level; and at the individual landing point level. Not all of the research questions are analysed at each of these levels as some questions are not applicable at one or another level. Table 7 below details the level at which each research question is analysed along with a short rationale for each.

Waterborne Transport Study – Stage 2: User Survey Methodology and Findings Report.

Only applicable for the Poole Bay Pilot. Data displayed at the pilot (D3) - Where would people rather the  level as the difference in response

Poole landing point? between the landing points will not assist in the feasibility assessment. Factors that Could Affect Demand. F1 data not shown at the landing (F1) - What factors would influence point or pilot level as the results  peoples decision to travel by boat? were largely the same across the pilot routes. (F2) - Would potential users like an on- F2 data only shown at the pilot level board commentary describing the allowing potential operators to make  features of the Jurassic Coast as they a decision to include or omit pass them? commentary for each route. Willingness to Pay. Willingness to pay results are not (W1) - How much would people be applicable across the pilots due to willing to pay to for a waterborne   the differences in leg length and return trip between the landing points? location of the routes. Impact on the Existing Transport Network. (I1) - Do people currently travel  between the identified landing points?

(I2) - What mode of transport do people currently use to travel between 

landing points? users of each pilot route, which will assist in the timetabling of future (I5) - What would be the potential shift services. from other modes to waterborne 

transport? (I6) - What would be the potential increase in trips to each landing point 

Waterborne Transport Study – Stage 2: User Survey Methodology and Findings Report.

The following sections of the report cover each of the research areas with the responses to the questions analysed at the respective levels. The analysis of each question/level is supported with the method of calculation and a discussion surrounding what the data indicates in terms of feasibility, along with any potential threats to the validity of the data. A short summary of the results to each research area is given at the end of each section.

Demand for Waterborne Transport This section covers the analysis of the potential demand for waterborne transport related questions detailed below.

Waterborne Transport as a Whole. The analysis of demand across all of the pilot routes provides a good indication of the general user attitudes toward using waterborne transport along the Jurassic Coast. This gives potential operators an outline idea of potential demand for waterborne transport services along the Dorset and East Devon coast. Obviously, the data gathered relates to the specific pilot routes used for the survey. Therefore, when applying these results to other services which have not been directly analysed, the demand profiles may be different. However, the data gathered provides a good indication of public attitude towards the use of waterborne transport.

Figure A1: Question D1 Results (Waterborne Transport as a Whole).

Figure A1 shows the whole of survey responses to question D1 - Assuming an appropriate vessel for the sea conditions, would people be interested in travelling by boat between the identified landing points?

The response recording for this question was slightly different across the survey strategies, with the Weymouth & Portland Pilot and Strategy 1b questionnaires requiring a simple yes/no response; and the remaining questionnaires requiring a response to what landing points people would be interested in travelling by boat to (see example questionnaires in Appendix B). If none were ticked

Waterborne Transport Study – Stage 2: User Survey Methodology and Findings Report. this equated to a not interested response. To derive the data used for Figure A1, the questionnaires where people indicated they would use waterborne transport to travel to at least one destination was considered a ‘Yes’ response, those who would not travel to any destinations by waterborne transport equated to a ‘No’. The responses to all surveys, with the exception of Strategy 3 (see survey delivery/collection for reasoning) were then combined to calculate the proportion of respondents that would or would not use the services.

Figure A1 shows very clearly a strong positive attitude to using waterborne transport along the Dorset and East Devon Coast from both visitors and residents, highlighting the potential market for waterborne passenger transport. Visitors were slightly more inclined to use the services than residents, which is to be expected due to the leisure oriented nature of the services and this group of users. Obviously, this data does not mean that some 90% of the population will use waterborne transport. However, what it does show is that with the correct marketing, pricing structure and service facilities, the potential market is large and could potentially support a profit making enterprise.

There are threats to the validity of this data, the primary of which being self selection bias. Whereby, people are more likely to respond to a single topic survey where they have a strong view on the subject, be that positive or negative. In this case those people that would use waterborne transport or are strongly apposed to it. It is possible to identify self selection bias in these results through the triangulation/cross examination of results with those from the Devon Voice and Dorset Citizens’ Panel which are not solely focused on waterborne transport.

Alongside self selection bias, the method of response recording in Strategy 1a & 2 (excluding the Weymouth & Portland Pilot) where no landing points ticked represented a ‘No’ response could have affected the results. An “I am not interested in using waterborne transport” response was not available for these participants, which may have encouraged a higher level of positive response.

As with self selection bias this can be tested via cross examination with the Devon Voice and Dorset Citizens’ Panel resident surveys. Both of these surveys required a Yes/No response to a similar question, where all resident questionnaires (except Weymouth & Portland) did not allow an explicit ‘No’ response. Therefore, any bias from this and self selection combined will be evident in a more positive result to this survey than the supporting surveys.

Triangulation (Cross Examination) with Supporting Surveys Self selection bias and the method of response recording for question D1 both have the potential to affect the results gained by increasing the level of positive response. However, it is possible to identify any bias by cross examining the results of this survey with those from the Devon Voice and Dorset Citizens’ Panel. The detail of these supporting surveys is given in the Methodology chapter with the full results available in Appendix C.

To test for self selection bias and the effect of response recording within the results, the data gained through this survey in response to question D1 can be compared to that gained from the Devon Voice and Dorset Citizens’ Panel. These surveys are not subject to self selection bias as waterborne transport was not the sole survey topic; and the method of response recording within these surveys provides a distinct ‘No’ response, rather than a null response equating to a ‘No’. The question asked within the Devon Voice and Dorset Citizens’ Panel surveys is given below.

Would you be interested in travelling by boat (suitable for the sea conditions) along the Jurassic Coast?

Waterborne Transport Study – Stage 2: User Survey Methodology and Findings Report.

The results in Figure A1 could be used for these tests. However, this data covers responses from residents and visitors within both Devon and Dorset. Therefore, to carry out a valid bias test, more computation of the data is required.

Firstly, the supporting surveys are resident only. Therefore, the comparison of results can only be applied to residents. Thus, for this test the visitor results were removed. This is also useful for testing the effect of response recording as all resident questionnaires (except Weymouth & Portland) utilised a null response as a ‘No’. Secondly, the Devon Voice and Dorset Citizens’ Panel relate specifically to the individual counties, whereas the results in A1 cover landing points in both Devon and Dorset. Therefore, the resident data from Sidmouth and Seaton required separating from those within Dorset to allow for valid comparison between the surveys.

With the separation of the resident results and those that relate to Devon and Dorset, the cross examination with the supporting surveys can be carried out. Figures T1 & T2 provide a visual representation of this comparison and are followed by a discussion of the findings.

Figure T1: Cross Examination with Dorset Citizens’ Panel Results.

It can be seen on Figure T1 that a Don’t Know/Unsure response was utilised within the Dorset Citizens’ panel survey which is unfortunate as it makes the comparison of results more difficult. To overcome this difference in response options the Don’t Know/Unsure responses need assigning to either ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ providing a direct comparison of results. It is not possible to assign these results scientifically so a ranging method has been applied. All Don’t Know/Unsure results are assigned to both ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ to create a range of potential bias shown in table 8.

Dorset Citizens’ Response Survey Results Potential Bias Panel Results Yes 84% - 72% 85.7% (+) 1.7 % - 13.7%

No 16% - 28% 14.3% (-) 1.7% - 13.7% Table 8: Cross Examination of Dorset Results - Bias Range.

Through the ranging method it can be seen that the bias evident within the survey is between 1.7% and 13.7%. As there is no way of pin-pointing the actual level of bias within this range, the midpoint of 7.7% self selection / response recording bias is deemed to give a good estimation of the likely bias

Waterborne Transport Study – Stage 2: User Survey Methodology and Findings Report. in the results. This assumed level of bias can be checked against that found within the Devon results which will serve to strengthen or diminish this assumption.

Figure T2 below provides a graphical representation of the comparison between the survey results for Devon residents and the Devon Voice survey results.

Figure T2: Cross Examination with Devon Voice Results.

Again, it can be seen that the method of response recording within the Devon Voice survey is slightly different to that within the questionnaires. However, fortunately this is an ‘Only in Calm Seas’ response, which for the purpose of comparison with the survey results equates to a ‘Yes’. Table 9 below gives the bias evident with the assignment of the ‘Only in Calm Seas’ response to ‘Yes’.

Response Devon Voice Results Survey Results Potential Bias

Yes 80% 87.4% (+) 7.4%

No 20% 12.6% (-) 7.4% Table 9: Cross Examination of Devon Results.

Interestingly, the identification of bias within the Devon results (7.4%) is very similar to that calculated for Dorset (7.7%), which serves to strengthen the assumptions applied to the Citizens’ Panel results. However, due to the geographical coverage of the Devon Voice survey, one would expect to see a lower ‘Yes’ response to this survey. The reasoning behind this is known as gravitational attraction.

Gravitational attraction relates to the fact that the closer people are to destinations or services the more likely they are to use them. An example of this is to consider two identical shopping centres one five miles from a potential user’s origin and the other ten miles. All things being equal (i.e. transport conditions, shops available etc.) the user will be more likely to use the closest shopping centre with the demand for use diminishing proportionally to generalised cost (distance, time, fuel cost etc.). So provided the travel context is constant (i.e. fuel cost per mile, congestion etc.) it can be assumed that demand for services diminishes proportionally with distance.

Waterborne Transport Study – Stage 2: User Survey Methodology and Findings Report.

Some 49.7% of residential addresses covered by the Dorset Citizens’ Panel are within 15km of the Jurassic Coast, whereas only 26.7% of the residential addresses covered by the Devon Voice survey are within a similar distance of the Jurassic Coast. Therefore, where Sidmouth and Seaton are located on the Jurassic Coast and the average respondent to the Devon Voice survey is located further away than the average Dorset citizens’ panel respondent, you would expect to see a greater disparity in the Devon Voice survey comparison. This indicates, that the assignment of the ‘Don’t Know/Unsure’ responses for Dorset may be overly pessimistic and the actual bias within the results lower than the 7.7% assumed. However, as the removal of bias has the effect of reducing potential demand for the services, and in an effort to maintain robustness in the results, a rate of 7.7% bias will be applied when interpreting the results to question D1, I5 & I6 at all analysis levels. The remaining questions are not subject to self selection or question D1 response recording bias as the responses to D1 do not affect them.

Waterborne Transport as a Whole (Continued) Figure A2 & A3 below show the whole of survey responses to question D2 - How often would people use the services if they were available? - for both spring/summer (A2) and autumn/winter (A3).

Figure A2: Question D2 Results – Spring/Summer (Waterborne Transport as a Whole).

Figure A3: Question D2 Results – Autumn/Winter (Waterborne Transport as a Whole).

Waterborne Transport Study – Stage 2: User Survey Methodology and Findings Report.

These results were calculated by combining the useable responses to this question from all questionnaires, then working out the proportional split to each response option based upon the total number of respondents that would use waterborne transport.

The response recording for this question was the same across all questionnaires with both residents and visitors questioned for spring/summer and only residents for autumn/winter. However, the question asked was slightly different for visitors and residents with visitors asked “How often would you use waterborne transport during your stay?”. The question posed to residents was the same as in the figure titles. The reasoning behind the slight change in questioning was to reflect the fact that visitors were surveyed during the summer months and thus responses can reasonably be assigned to the spring/summer season. However, this has the effect of changing the timeframe to which visitors and residents are responding. Table 10 below provides an outline level of use that could expected from both residents and visitors in relation to each response option.

Response Resident’s Likely Level of Use Visitor’s Likely Level of Use

Most likely around 1 – 4 trips over the Most likely 1 trip per week of stay Occasionally spring/summer or autumn/winter with similar repeat trips on future periods. holidays.

The respondent will not use the service The respondent will not use the Never during the relevant seasonal period. service during any stay.

Table 10: Question D2 Response Options Estimated Usage Characteristics.

Figures A2 & A3 coupled with table 10 provide a useful insight into the potential demand for waterborne transport. During the summer months of those people that would use waterborne transport the majority would do so occasionally. In terms of visitors, this would equate to approximately one trip per week of stay with repeat trips on future holidays; and for residents between one and four trips per year over the spring/summer period. The next most popular response was ‘frequently’ which for visitors is likely to equate to 2-4 trips per week; and residents, anywhere between daily and monthly trips.

In total 92.9% of resident respondents and 83.3% of visitor respondents, who would use waterborne transport, would do so either ‘frequently’ or ‘occasionally’. These responses carry with them an indication that these respondents have the potential to be repeat users. Therefore, with the correct marketing, pricing structure and service facilities some 93% of residents and 83% of visitors that would use the services (78.3% & 83.7% respectively – bias removed) have the potential to be repeat

Waterborne Transport Study – Stage 2: User Survey Methodology and Findings Report. users. This finding draws out an interesting point, it indicates that residents are more likely to be repeat users than visitors. Highlighted in the ‘One Off’ results within figure A2, it can be seen that 10% more visitors than residents would be ‘One Off’ users with little likelihood of repeat trips. Initially this looks like an anomaly in the data as the services are predominantly leisure orientated as are the visitor respondents. However, when contemplating the users and uses of the services this stands to reason. It is likely that some residents would anticipate using waterborne transport for commuting or other regular trips. Whereas, visitors do not make those regular trips and would be more likely to use the services once for the experience rather than the functionality of reaching their destination.

During the winter months the usage characteristics of residents (visitors not asked) changes from those within the summer months. ‘Occasionally’ is still the majority response, however, the number of respondents indicating they would use the services frequently is 17% less than during the summer months. This reduction in repeat users is offset by an increase in those that would only use the service once or not at all during this seasonal period. In total some 72% of residents would use the services either ‘Frequently’ or ‘Occasionally’ meaning that a repeat trip is likely. This reflects what would be expected in reality, with users less likely to use the services due to perceptions of bad weather etc. and serves to highlight the validity of the survey.

The validity of the results in both figure A2 and A3 is believed to be high. The response options chosen were purposefully vague, as with fixed usage per period response options (i.e. twice per week etc.) what happens in reality is often substantially different to the response given in a survey. Therefore, the primary potential for error with these results focuses on the estimated usage characteristics. The estimated usage given in table 10 (page 40) is based upon an educated assumption of what respondents meant when responding to this question. It is up to the end users of this data to decide whether the estimated usage characteristics are valid.

With a number of assumptions applied it would be possible to extrapolate these demand related whole of waterborne transport results to an estimated demand for waterborne services along the Jurassic Coast. However, due to the fact finding nature of this report this has not been undertaken, preferring instead to allow potential operators to carry out this work as part of a detailed business case utilising this base data. Thus, ensuring their confidence in the assumptions applied and the results generated.

Waterborne Transport Study – Stage 2: User Survey Methodology and Findings Report.

East Devon Pilot. The following sub-section of the report details the analysis results of the demand related questions for the East Devon Pilot including the individual analysis of each landing point within the Pilot Route.

Figure A4: Question D1 Results (East Devon Pilot). Figure A4 shows the East Devon Pilot responses to question D1 - Assuming an appropriate vessel for the sea conditions, would people be interested in travelling by boat between the identified landing points?

Calculated in similar way as the whole of waterborne results to question D1, those East Devon Pilot respondents that would use waterborne transport and those that would not were identified and the proportion for each calculated. The primary difference between these results and those in Figure A1 are that only those questionnaires relating to the East Devon pilot have been used.

These results are shown without the identified 7.7% self selection and response recording bias removed. With this bias removed the level of positive response changes to: 87% visitors; 79.9% residents; and 83.3% combined. Having removed the bias, the response level still indicates a strong positive attitude to using waterborne transport for the East Devon Pilot, again highlighting the potential market for waterborne passenger transport and in particular for this pilot route. As with the wider results, visitors were more inclined to use the services than residents reflecting the leisure nature of the service, this group of users and the area that this pilot is centred on.

With the removal of self selection bias and the measures to maintain validity applied within the methodology, these results are believed to be valid and reliable. However, one should note that these figures give only the potential market for waterborne transport, this is not to say that 83% of the population will use any service put in place. To unlock this level of demand the services need to be supported by high quality facilities and marketing while offering good value for money.

Waterborne Transport Study – Stage 2: User Survey Methodology and Findings Report.

Figure A5: Question D2 Results – Spring/Summer (East Devon Pilot).

Figures A5 above & A6 on the following page show the East Devon Pilot responses to question D2 - How often would people use the services if they were available? - for both spring/summer (A5) and autumn/winter (A6).

These results were calculated by combining the useable responses to this question from all East Devon Pilot related surveys, then working out the proportional split to each response option based upon the total number of people that would use the East Devon waterborne transport pilot route.

PLEASE NOTE: This question was only posed to those who indicated that they would be interested in using waterborne transport in question D1. Thus, the proportions shown are of those users that would use waterborne transport for the East Devon Pilot; and The following discussion refers to table 10 on page 40, which gives the estimated usage characteristics based on each response option.

Figure A6: Question D2 Results – Autumn/Winter (East Devon Pilot).

The results show that during the summer months of those visitors that would use waterborne transport, the majority (60.6%) would do so ‘Occasionally’, equating to approximately one trip per week of stay with repeat trips on future holidays. The next most popular response was ‘Frequently’

Waterborne Transport Study – Stage 2: User Survey Methodology and Findings Report.

(23.1%) which for visitors is likely to equate to 2-4 trips per week, with the remaining respondents only using the service as a ‘One Off’ with little chance of repeat use on future visits.

In total some 83.7% of visitors that would use the services would do so either ‘Frequently’ or ‘Occasionally’, with both responses carrying a likelihood of future repeat trips. This is a high proportion of repeat users from a high level of visitors that would be interested in using the services, highlighting level of potential demand for this pilot route during the summer months.

The major differences between the data specific to this pilot and that from the average (whole of waterborne transport) results are the changes in likely usage characteristics for residents. A total of 92% of those residents that would use the services would do so either ‘Frequently’ or ‘Occasionally’ during the summer months. During the winter months this proportion decreases to 66.1%. Both the spring/summer and autumn/winter results show a lower level of respondents that would use the service ‘Frequently’ than that in the wider results. During the spring/summer this is offset by a corresponding increase in the number of residents who would use the service ‘Occasionally’, which still carries a likelihood of repeat use. However, during the autumn/winter the reduction in frequent users is offset by a higher proportion of respondents that would not use the service.

It is likely that the reduced level of frequent resident users is due to the nature of travel between the East Devon Pilot’s landing points. The landing points identified for this pilot are not large employment centres, especially when compared to Poole, Bournemouth and Weymouth. Therefore, commuting between these points is likely to be minimal and as commuting requires frequent journeys between home and work and reflected in the lower level of resident respondents who would use the service ‘Frequently’. Looking ahead within the report to question D2 demand analysis for the Weymouth to Portland and Poole Bay Pilots, shown in Figures A20 & A21 (Weymouth to Portland) and A25 & A26 (Poole Bay), these show an increased proportion of resident ‘Frequent’ responses in both spring/summer and autumn/winter, which serves to strengthen this theory.

This can be further investigated by the comparison of existing journey purposes to each pilot’s landing points, shown individually for each landing point under the Impact on the Existing Transport Network research area. From these results it can be seen that the level of respondents who currently commute to the landings is generally higher for those relating to the Poole Bay (Studland the exception) and Weymouth to Portland pilots. Thus, confirming the theory that the level of frequent resident users is directly related to the level of commuting between the landing points. As the East Devon Pilot has a lower level of commuting between the landings, the level of frequent resident users is lower than for the other pilot routes.

In terms of validity, the fact that the results serve to confirm what may be expected in reality and that the findings to different questions are consistent with each other, indicate a good validity in these responses. The primary potential for error focuses on the estimated usage characteristics given in table 10 on page 40. However, the validity of these assumptions is for the end users of this report to evaluate and adjust if deemed necessary.

Waterborne Transport Study – Stage 2: User Survey Methodology and Findings Report.

West Bay

Figure A7: Question D1 Results (East Devon Pilot – West Bay).

Figure A7 shows the West Bay responses to question D1 - Assuming an appropriate vessel for the sea conditions, would people be interested in travelling by boat between the identified landing points?

The data above was calculated by identifying those respondents within the West Bay survey area (see Figure 2 in Appendix A) that would use waterborne transport to at least one destination, along with those that would not use the service at all. The proportion for each was then calculated against the total useable responses. It should be noted that the wider area (Strategy 1b) responses were not used for this analysis, hence the low level of visitor respondents. Due to the questions asked within the Strategy 1b questionnaires, it is not possible to assign those that would not use waterborne transport to an individual landing point.

Shown without the identified 7.7% self selection and response recording bias accounted for, with the bias removed the level of positive response changes to: 90.1% visitors; 76.4% residents; and 79.6% combined. Bias removed the responses gained still indicate a strong potential demand for waterborne transport at West Bay, highlighting the potential market for the East Devon pilot service at this landing point.

It is expected that the level of resident demand will be lower than that for visitors due to the leisure nature of the service and that of visitor travel. Looking forward in the report to the data within the Impact on Existing Transport Network section this shows that the primary journey purpose for West Bay residents to each landing point is leisure, followed by a lower proportion that undertake shopping trips (Figure Axx). Helping to confirm the theory as to the lower overall level of resident demand compared to that of visitors.

The point of particular interest in these results is the increased visitor and a lower level of resident demand compared to that at the pilot level. The increased West Bay visitor demand can be associated with the low level of demand from visitors at Seaton (investigated further when interpreting the Seaton results), which reduces the overall visitor demand for the pilot route. However, this does not account for the lower level of resident demand against the pilot wide base. The likely reasons for this variation in resident demand are given in the bullet points below:

Residents are put off visiting the other landing points during the peak summer season due to the high level of visitor numbers, preferring instead to visit during the shoulder months

Waterborne Transport Study – Stage 2: User Survey Methodology and Findings Report.

when visitor numbers are lower. As this survey was undertaken during the summer it is likely that residents associated their responses with this period which is reflected in the results.

Resident’s perceive their opportunities, be that leisure, shopping or education, more towards the east from West Bay (Dorchester, Weymouth and even Bournemouth and Poole) rather than the west. Where West Bay forms the easternmost extent of the pilot route this is reflected in the lower level of resident demand against the pilot level base. This can be tested by looking at the resident demand from the central landing points (Lyme Regis & Seaton) where resident’s opportunities are picked up in both directions and both have a higher demand than West Bay. Obviously, it can be argued that visitor travel would be expected to follow a similar pattern, with more demand at the central landing points, as their opportunities can be in both the east and west. However, there are two reasons why within this data it does not. Firstly, the abnormally low Seaton visitor demand masks any variation at West Bay by reducing the overall pilot level visitor demand results; and secondly the other landing points that form this pilot are all visitor orientated with beaches and attractions at each that are generally of more interest to visitors and encourage visitor travel to these destinations.

In terms of validity there is only one point that could affect these particular results differently from other question D1 analyses. Put simply, the level of visitor responses. While the level of responses is over the identified ideal minimum (30), the fewer participants the results are based upon the more sensitive the result. Therefore, when interpreting the visitor responses above, which are slightly elevated compared to the wider East Devon pilot results, a certain amount of caution should be applied.

PLEASE NOTE: These results give only the potential market for waterborne transport, this data does not suggest that 79.6% (bias Removed) of the population will use any service put in place or at what frequency of use. To unlock this level of potential demand the services need to be supported by high quality facilities and marketing while offering good value for money to users.

Figure A8: Question D1 Results - Travel from West Bay (East Devon Pilot – West Bay).

Figure A8 shows the detailed West Bay responses to question D1 - Assuming an appropriate vessel for the sea conditions, would people be interested in travelling by boat between the identified landing points? - broken down by which point people would be interested in travelling to.

Waterborne Transport Study – Stage 2: User Survey Methodology and Findings Report.

PLEASE NOTE: The proportions shown are of those users that would use waterborne transport from West Bay, not all respondents, and are therefore not subject to self selection and D1 response recording bias.

Where the previous question D1 results grouped respondents that would travel by waterborne transport to at least one landing point as a ‘Yes’ response, the results above omit this grouping and allow for the analysis of demand to each individual landing point from West Bay.

In terms of the calculation of the results, for Strategies 1a (visitors) and 2 (residents) the individual West Bay survey area responses to question D1 were proportioned against the total number of people that would use waterborne transport from West Bay. The method of calculation for Strategy 1b (visitors) was slightly different. Those respondents that would use waterborne transport were identified and refined to those that would use West Bay as a start point. Then the destinations to which they would travel by waterborne transport were proportioned against the total number that would use the services from West Bay.

Figure A1 shows that the majority of respondents that would use waterborne transport from West Bay would use the service to travel to Lyme Regis (98%). Sidmouth is the next most popular destination for users from West Bay (78%) with Seaton the least popular destination (74%). Initially this would seem like an anomaly in the data, as one would expect demand to diminish with distance (gravitational attraction) and Sidmouth is further from West Bay than Seaton. However, this assumes that the base attraction is the same for each landing point and the only variable is distance. Obviously, respondent’s base attraction to each landing point is dependent on their perceived opportunities and this perception is different for each landing point. Thus, these results indicate that the respondents perceive there to be fewer opportunities, be that leisure, employment or education etc., within Seaton compared to Sidmouth and Lyme Regis.

This is an interesting finding as there are a number of attractions (opportunities) located within or close to Seaton and as such one would expect a strong demand for travel to the town. It is likely that respondents have not associated these attractions with the town and/or the potential to access these attractions via waterborne transport when responding to the survey and leading to the low result found. Therefore, applied marketing, integrated terrestrial transport and joint ticketing between waterborne transport and the attractions in Seaton is likely to increase demand to the town.

When considering the validity of this analysis it is important to highlight the use of the Strategy 1b responses in generating the results. As has been mentioned, there are validity issues relating clustering of distributors which will affect anticipated start point responses. However, the effect of clustering on the results is deemed to be minimal as respondents use their local start point and travel to the destinations they wish.

Waterborne Transport Study – Stage 2: User Survey Methodology and Findings Report.

Figure A9: Question D1 Results – Travel to West Bay (East Devon Pilot – West Bay).

Figure A9 gives the West Bay responses to question D1 from other the East Devon Pilot landing points - Assuming an appropriate vessel for the sea conditions, would people be interested in travelling by boat between the identified landing points? - broken down by landing point / survey area of responses.

PLEASE NOTE: The proportions shown are of those users that would use waterborne transport at the other landing points, not all respondents, and are therefore not subject to self selection and D1 response recording bias.

The results for graph A9 were calculated by identifying the number of respondents at each other landing point that would use waterborne transport to travel to West Bay. These were then proportioned by the total number of respondents that would use waterborne transport at each of the individual landing points. This method of calculation was the same for all survey strategies, with the only difference being the prior identification of start point for Strategy 1b (wider area) questionnaires which set the landing point to which the results were assigned.

These results are essentially the reverse of those shown in A8. Where A8 gives an insight into the demand for travel to the other landing points from West Bay, this graph shows the potential demand to West Bay from the other landing points. The data shows that resident demand is greatest from Lyme Regis and diminishes proportionally with distance to Sidmouth. With reference to Gravitational Attraction Theory, this is exactly what one would expect to see from the data. As the results focus on one destination the base attraction is constant with the only variable being distance and as would be expected: as distance increases, demand decreases.

The most interesting finding from the data in figure A9 relates to the visitor results. Here a similar demand/distance relationship can be seen in the Lyme Regis and Sidmouth results, however, a distinct spike in demand is present from Seaton. Indicating that visitors staying in Seaton who would use waterborne transport are more inclined to travel to West Bay than those in Lyme Regis and Sidmouth. The reasoning behind this finding is discussed in more detail when analysing the Seaton results in Figures A13, A14 & A15.

As with Figure A8, when considering the validity of this analysis it is important to highlight the use of the Strategy 1b responses which are affected by the clustering of questionnaire distributors. However, the effect of clustering on the results is deemed to be minimal and the results suitable for inclusion. Other than this, the validity of these results is believed to be good, although, the Seaton visitor results are questioned which is discussed further within the analysis of the Seaton data.

Waterborne Transport Study – Stage 2: User Survey Methodology and Findings Report.

Lyme Regis

Figure A10: Question D1 Results (East Devon Pilot – Lyme Regis).

Figure A10 shows the Lyme Regis responses to question D1 - Assuming an appropriate vessel for the sea conditions, would people be interested in travelling by boat between the identified landing points?

The data above was calculated by identifying those respondents within the Lyme Regis survey area (see Figure 2 in Appendix A) that would use waterborne transport to at least one destination, along with those that would not use the services at all. The proportion for each was then calculated against the total useable responses. It should be noted that the wider area (Strategy 1b) responses were not used for this analysis, hence the low level of visitor respondents. Due to the questions asked within the Strategy 1b questionnaires, it is not possible to assign those that would not use waterborne transport to an individual landing point.

The results above do not take into account the 7.7% self selection and response recording bias. With the bias removed the level of positive response changes to: 93.3% visitors; 74% residents; and 85.6% combined.

Following the pattern of the previous results, potential resident demand is slightly lower than that for visitors which reflects the leisure nature of the services and of visitor travel. The most interesting point to draw from the results relate to the increased level of potential demand from both residents and visitors at Lyme Regis when compared to the pilot level results and those from the other landing points within this route.

Whilst the increased level of visitor demand compared to the pilot level results can, in part, be ascribed to the low level of demand from Seaton. The fact that all Lyme Regis visitor respondents stated that they would use the service indicates either: a problem with the data; or a higher potential demand at Lyme Regis than for the other landing points.

In terms of a problem with the data there are two key aspects that could have an effect:

The small sample size for visitors will have affected the results. It can be safely assumed that with a larger sample size the potential demand will be reduced from the 100% gained from this survey.

Waterborne Transport Study – Stage 2: User Survey Methodology and Findings Report.

The Lyme Regis visitor responses were subject to a particularly high level of spoiled questionnaires, removed due to evidence of falsified data from one distributor. However, all questionnaires received from this distributor were discarded and the others checked thoroughly for falsified data. Unfortunately, at the time of writing the questionnaires have been destroyed in line with data protection protocols so the responses cannot be rechecked. Therefore, the 100% result remains suspect and with a larger sample size this level of demand would be reduced.

An indicator that points to the visitor demand figure being largely accurate is the increased level of resident demand. This data was gained through an entirely different methodology but also shows a higher level of demand at Lyme Regis than for the other landing points along the pilot route. The increased demand at Lyme Regis from both residents and visitors is likely to be due to one of three reasons outlined in the following bullet points:

Lyme Regis along with Seaton is one of the central landing points i.e. it has other points located to the East and West. Therefore, travel in both directions is covered by the pilot route and is reflected in a higher potential demand than that found at the landing points on the periphery (West Bay and Sidmouth) that only cover travel in one direction. From the results it can be seen that this is true for resident travel but the abnormally low visitor result from Seaton serves to mask the effect for visitors.

Lyme Regis is the most popular tourist destination of all the landing points tested, evidenced by the high number of visitors in the town and the acute transport issues suffered during the summer months. It is likely that the negative effects associated with the high visitor demand in Lyme Regis serve to encourage residents and visitors staying in the town to explore other less busy areas of East Devon and West Dorset. Therefore, as waterborne transport allows visitors and residents to travel to other local areas and bypass the existing transport issues this is reflected in the increased potential demand.

There is no large supermarket in Lyme Regis with only two express style supermarkets located in the town centre. These shops are unlikely to sell all of the goods desired by residents and visitors, thus encouraging travel outside of the town to access goods required. This coupled with the summertime transport issues serve to create a need for travel and a driver to use waterborne transport rather than terrestrial modes.

Within the discussion of these results the validity of the data has been interrogated. It is felt that the resident data is likely to be valid due to the large sample size and internal consistency with results from other landing points. However, there are questions as to the validity of the visitor results. It is very unlikely that 100% of visitors would use the services. There will always be some people that would not consider using waterborne transport. It is probable that Lyme Regis sees an uplift in demand due to the nature of the town and the results gained are likely to be only slightly high. However, the small visitor sample size for this survey (34) has affected the results by masking any subtle variation at the upper end of the demand spectrum.

PLEASE NOTE: These results give only the potential market for waterborne transport, this data does not suggest that 85.6% (bias Removed) of the population will use any service put in place or at what frequency of use. To unlock this level of potential demand the services need to be supported by high quality facilities and marketing while offering good value for money to users.

Waterborne Transport Study – Stage 2: User Survey Methodology and Findings Report.

Figure A11: Question D1 Results - Travel from Lyme Regis (East Devon Pilot – Lyme Regis).

Figure A11 shows the detailed Lyme Regis responses to question D1 - Assuming an appropriate vessel for the sea conditions, would people be interested in travelling by boat between the identified landing points? - broken down by which point people would be interested in travelling to.

PLEASE NOTE: The proportions shown are of those users that would use waterborne transport from Lyme Regis, not all respondents, and are therefore not subject to self selection and D1 response recording bias.

In terms of the calculation of the results, for Strategies 1a (visitors) and 2 (residents) the individual Lyme Regis survey area responses to question D1 were proportioned against the total number of people that would use waterborne transport from Lyme Regis. The method of calculation for Strategy 1b (visitors) was slightly different. Those respondents that would use waterborne transport were identified and refined to those that would use Lyme Regis as a start point. Then the destinations to which they would travel by waterborne transport were proportioned against the total number that would use the services from Lyme Regis.

Figure A11 shows that the majority of Lyme Regis respondents would use the service to travel to Sidmouth (87.3%), followed by Seaton (81.7%) and West Bay (80.3%). When broken down between residents and visitors this pattern is replicated for residents with the only difference for visitors being that West Bay has a slightly higher potential demand than Seaton from Lyme Regis.

As has been mentioned previously, gravitational attraction theory would suggest that all things being equal, demand should diminish proportionally with distance. As West Bay and Seaton are of a similar distance from Lyme Regis one can expect a certain amount of natural variation in the data which is shown between the residents and visitors results. However, Sidmouth being furthest from Lyme Regis and receiving the greatest potential demand from residents and visitors alike indicates that there are underlying factors with a bearing on the results. The following bullet points outline these likely factors: Respondents perceive greater opportunities (shopping, leisure employment etc.) in Sidmouth rather than West Bay or Seaton and therefore have a higher demand to access the goods and services on offer.

Waterborne Transport Study – Stage 2: User Survey Methodology and Findings Report.

The benefit of using waterborne transport to view the extended stretch of Jurassic Coast World Heritage Site to Sidmouth encourages this longer distance journey.

The first point can be tested by looking at the data gathered for the Impact on the Existing Transport Network section. The data of interest relates to existing demand for travel to the other landing points from Lyme Regis (Figures Axx, Axx & Axx); and also the journey purpose of these trips (Figures Ayy, Ayy & Ayy). From these results it can be seen that the majority of Lyme Regis respondents currently travel to Seaton followed by Sidmouth and West Bay. This would indicate that respondents perceive greater opportunities in Seaton rather than Sidmouth. However, when looking only at the resident results it can be seen that existing demand for travel to Sidmouth is of a same level as that for Seaton (resident responses can be considered more representative of each town’s attractiveness as they are more aware of what each has to offer). Considering the distance/time/cost of travel to Sidmouth over Seaton the increased attraction of Sidmouth becomes apparent.

Using the journey purpose data we can investigate the above further to find out why Sidmouth is more attractive to Lyme Regis respondents than Seaton and West Bay. The data in figures Ayy, Ayy & Ayy show that most respondents travel to each town for leisure purposes, which is to be expected with seaside towns. However, this data also shows a much greater proportion of respondents carry out shopping trips in Sidmouth than Seaton which is followed by a small proportion of shopping trips to West Bay. This serves to highlight the reasoning behind the increased attraction of Sidmouth which can be ascribed to better opportunities for shopping which has led to the increased demand for travel from Lyme Regis.

Another point of interest is the increased demand for resident travel to all other landing points than that of visitors. When looking at demand for travel via waterborne transport from the other landing points, the level of demand to each landing point is largely the same for residents and visitors which is not the case for Lyme Regis. This suggests that whilst visitors are more inclined to use waterborne transport from Lyme Regis than residents (Figure A10), they are likely to travel to fewer destinations indicating a high containment of visitors in Lyme Regis. In real terms this could equate to one or two day drips during their holiday to avoid the crowds and the rest of the holiday spent in Lyme Regis as it has a lot to offer and they are happy to spend most of their holiday in the town. Residents on the other hand are less attracted by the visitor orientated opportunities in the town and are encouraged to travel to avoid the crowds.

The increased demand for travel to Sidmouth over West Bay and Seaton is not thought to be symptomatic of an issue with validity. The sample size for residents and visitors is sufficient and both visitor and resident data show as similar pattern. As these responses were gathered through different methodologies any systemic validity issues are prevented. Other than the Sidmouth anomaly, the only aspect of validity to consider relates to the use of the Strategy 1b responses in generating the results. There are validity issues relating to the clustering of distributors which will affect anticipated start point responses. However, the effect of clustering on the results is deemed to be minimal as respondents tend to use their local start point and travel to the destinations they wish.

Waterborne Transport Study – Stage 2: User Survey Methodology and Findings Report.

Figure A12: Question D1 Results – Travel to Lyme Regis (East Devon Pilot – Lyme Regis).

Figure A12 gives the Lyme Regis responses to question D1 from other the East Devon Pilot landing points - Assuming an appropriate vessel for the sea conditions, would people be interested in travelling by boat between the identified landing points? - broken down by landing point / survey area of responses.

The results for graph A12 were calculated by identifying the number of respondents at each other landing point that would use waterborne transport to travel to Lyme Regis. These were then proportioned by the total number of respondents that would use waterborne transport at each of the individual landing points. This method of calculation was the same for all survey strategies, with the only difference being the prior identification of start point for Strategy 1b (wider area) questionnaires which set the landing point to which the results were assigned.

The data above shows that the demand for travel to Lyme Regis is high for both residents and visitors from all landing points. West Bay and Seaton have a slightly higher demand profile for travel to Lyme Regis than Sidmouth which is to be expected as these are closer than Sidmouth and are of a similar distance which accounts for the variation between residents and visitors.

It is the high level of potential demand from all landing points that is of most interest within these results. When compared to the results for the other landing points, Lyme Regis secures the greatest demand for incoming travel which is a key finding from this survey. This fits with what one may expect, Lyme Regis is by far and away the busiest visitor resort of all the landing points and this is reflected in the results indicating that the data gathered is valid.

When considering the validity of this analysis and as with other question D1 analysis that utilises the Strategy 1b responses, the clustering of distributors may have had a slight effect. However, this effect would relate more to start points rather than destinations which this analysis focuses on.

Waterborne Transport Study – Stage 2: User Survey Methodology and Findings Report.

Seaton

Figure A13: Question D1 Results (East Devon Pilot – Seaton).

Figure A13 shows the Seaton responses to question D1 - Assuming an appropriate vessel for the sea conditions, would people be interested in travelling by boat between the identified landing points?

The data above was calculated by identifying those respondents within the Seaton survey area (see Figure 2 in Appendix A) that would use waterborne transport to at least one destination, along with those that would not use the services at all. The proportion for each was then calculated against the total useable responses. It should be noted that the wider area (Strategy 1b) responses were not used for this analysis, hence the low level of visitor respondents. Due to the questions asked within the Strategy 1b questionnaires, it is not possible to assign those that would not use waterborne transport to an individual landing point.

The results above do not take into account the 7.7% self selection and response recording bias. With the bias removed the level of positive response changes to: 76.6% visitors; 80.2% residents; and 79.3% combined.

Seaton like Lyme Regis represents one of the central landing points with other landing points located to both the East and West. As such, travel in both directions is covered by the pilot route and, like Lyme Regis one could expect that potential demand at Seaton would be greater than for the landing points on the periphery (West Bay and Sidmouth). This is true for resident travel where demand from Seaton is slightly higher than for West Bay and Sidmouth. However, the potential visitor demand is significantly lower than that found at any other landing point tested for the East Devon pilot route.

The reduction in potential visitor demand from Seaton is an unexpected finding that requires more investigation to understand the influences behind the result. Initially the integrity of the data gathered was questioned with three key areas that could have affected the results checked through:

Use of distributors located in Beer as well as Seaton to distribute the questionnaires (see Figure 4 in Appendix A) - It was thought possible that using distributors in Beer which is a separate settlement to Seaton, albeit very close by, could have influenced the results. This separation could have had the effect of reducing respondent’s perceived benefit of using the services by increasing the perceived distance/time/cost of accessing them. It is possible to test this by looking at the potential demand from only the Strategy 1b results where all distributors were located further away from and within separate settlements to the landing

Waterborne Transport Study – Stage 2: User Survey Methodology and Findings Report.

points. The Strategy 1b Question D1 responses for this pilot indicate a potential demand of 95.9% of all respondents (88.2% bias removed). Showing that the distance/time/cost disbenefit of accessing the services could not have had the effect of reducing the demand from Seaton to the extent found and some other influence must be at work.

Holiday Park distributors could have been owner only parks - Where it is expected that resident demand will be slightly lower than visitor demand due the leisure nature of the services and the fact that residents have generally explored the area already. It is possible that if the Holiday Parks used to distribute the survey were owner only (visitors that own their own caravan and regularly spend time in the area) this would have the effect of reducing the potential demand found. Of the four distributors in Seaton three were Holiday Parks which may have been owner only (Manor Farm, Beer Head and Axe Vale Caravan Parks). Internet research has proven that all of these Holiday Parks have a significant proportion of rental caravans or camping pitches available to use and thus are unlikely to have affected the data.

Falsified data from distributors - Having investigated those areas with a potential effect on the integrity of the data above, the only other area that could have had a bearing on the results is the possibility of falsified data from distributors. All questionnaires were thoroughly checked for evidence of dishonest responses within the data entry phase and only three were found to be suspect and removed from the analysis. Unfortunately, at the time of writing the questionnaires have been destroyed in line with data protection protocols, meaning the responses cannot be rechecked and the data remains suspect for this landing point.

Having carried out the integrity check above, it is possible that the low results found from Seaton respondents is an accurate representation of potential demand at this landing point. Therefore, there must be other influences at work serving to reduce the potential demand, the predominant of which is likely to be a high containment of visitors to Seaton.

Containment relates to the propensity of people to travel outside of their place of residence and can be applied to both residents and visitors. In terms of visitors, a high containment means that visitors have a lower propensity to explore outside of the area in which they are staying. In terms of Seaton, it is argued that the tranquil nature of the town with the Seaton Marshes Nature Reserve, Pecorama Model Railway, The Donkey Sanctuary and Seaton Tramway attractions encourage a type of visitor who is less attracted by the hustle and bustle of Lyme Regis, Sidmouth and even West Bay preferring instead to visit the local attractions.

Obviously, this is not true for all visitors, however, when we segment visitors to: repeat/regular visitors and first time visitors. It is likely that first time visitors who have not yet visited the local attractions have a higher containment than repeat visitors who may prefer to explore the surrounding area having visited the local attractions on previous holidays. Looking ahead to the results in Figure A14 it can be seen that those who would use waterborne transport would generally use the services to travel to all destinations. This fits with the high containment of first time visitors (lower overall potential demand in A13) and low containment of repeat visitors who may wish to explore the busier resorts of Lyme Regis, Sidmouth and West Bay (high demand to all destinations from those that would use the service in A14). It is also perfectly feasible that the containment of visitors works in reverse, with repeat visitors less likely to travel outside Seaton, preferring instead to enjoy the tranquillity of the town and it’s surrounds; with those first time visitors who may prefer a little hustle and bustle more likely to explore.

Waterborne Transport Study – Stage 2: User Survey Methodology and Findings Report.

The containment of visitors can be tested by looking at visitors existing travel patterns which are analysed in the Impact on the Existing Transport Network Section. Figures Axx, Axx & Axx show the proportion of Seaton respondents that intend to visit the other landing points. From these figures it can be seen that over 90% of visitors intend to visit Lyme Regis and Sidmouth and some 60% West Bay. This result does not fit with a high containment of visitors in Seaton and suggests that the data gathered for Seaton may be subject to some falsified data from Holiday Park / Hotel distributors.

The potential for falsified data is indicated further by the increased level of responses from visitors at Seaton when compared to the other landing points. It is thought that a small number of the visitor questionnaires returned may have been falsified and this has had the effect of reducing the potential demand for waterborne transport for visitors at Seaton. Therefore, whilst the results show some 76.6% (bias removed) of visitors would use waterborne transport, it is likely that in reality a greater proportion of visitors would be interested in using the service.

PLEASE NOTE: These results give only the potential market for waterborne transport, this data does not suggest that 79.3% (bias removed) of the population will use any service put in place or at what frequency of use. To unlock this level of demand the services need to be supported by high quality facilities and marketing while offering good value for money to users.

Figure A14: Question D1 Results - Travel from Seaton (East Devon Pilot – Seaton).

Figure A14 shows the detailed Seaton responses to question D1 - Assuming an appropriate vessel for the sea conditions, would people be interested in travelling by boat between the identified landing points? - broken down by which point people would be interested in travelling to.

PLEASE NOTE: The proportions shown are of those users that would use waterborne transport from Seaton, not all respondents, and are therefore not subject to self selection and D1 response recording bias.

In terms of the calculation of the results, for Strategies 1a (visitors) and 2 (residents) the individual Seaton survey area responses to question D1 were proportioned against the total number of people that would use waterborne transport from Seaton. The method of calculation for Strategy 1b (visitors) was slightly different. Those respondents that would use waterborne transport were

Waterborne Transport Study – Stage 2: User Survey Methodology and Findings Report. identified and refined to those that would use Seaton as a start point. Then the destinations to which they would travel by waterborne transport were proportioned against the total number that would use the services from Seaton.

The results above show the visitors who would use the service from Seaton are more likely to travel to all other landing points than visitors at the other landing points tested for this pilot – discussed further in Figure A13. In terms of gravitational attraction, the visitor results above follow what would be expected: West Bay least demand, and Lyme Regis and Sidmouth with higher demand. One would expect that Lyme Regis would come out with a greater potential demand than Sidmouth as it is slightly closer. However, this discrepancy can be accounted for by the physiological effect of Lyme Regis being in Dorset and Sidmouth being in Devon. Coupled with this, the fact that Sidmouth is the closest major town to Seaton will also have the effect of strengthening the psychological link between the towns for visitors.

The Seaton results of greatest interest relate to resident travel. Again, as expected West Bay has the lowest likely demand from Seaton as it is furthest away and does not have the attraction of Lyme Regis and Sidmouth. However, Lyme Regis receives a higher potential demand from Seaton than Sidmouth. The reasoning for this is likely to be twofold. Firstly, as Sidmouth is the closest major town to Seaton, it can be expected that most residents already travel to Sidmouth via existing means (proven in Figure Axx showing existing travel to Sidmouth) and have developed travel habits that the benefit of waterborne transport is not sufficient to break. Secondly, the attraction of Lyme Regis coupled with the existing transport issues within the town, which include significant summertime delay and parking capacity issues, serve to encourage people to use waterborne transport to avoid these issues.

The final point to consider is the difference in demand profile between residents and visitors for travel to West Bay and Sidmouth. With the exception of Lyme Regis, the outbound demand profiles found at the other landing points are similar for residents and visitors. This is to be expected as both residents and visitors are responding to the same question, providing a good validity test as these groups were surveyed using different distribution methodologies and questionnaires. Thus, this difference in demand profile could be indicative of a validity issue. It is felt that the previously discussed effect of habitual behaviour is likely to have reduced the resident result for Sidmouth and that this is not an indicator of poor validity. However, where West Bay is much further away and does not experience a high existing demand for travel from Seaton (Figure Axx), habitual behaviour cannot have led to the results gained and this suggests that the visitor results are artificially elevated.

If the containment of Seaton visitors theory was found to be true, some visitors showing high containment and others low, it could be argued that the West Bay result was justified by the low containment of those that are willing to travel outside of the town. This would serve to increase the visitor demand with the resident demand more representative of the relative attractiveness of West Bay. However, as has been discussed in the analysis of Figure A13 the containment of Seaton visitors was not found to be true and there is evidence of some falsified visitor responses. Therefore, the visitor demand for travel to West Bay is believed to be artificially elevated and in reality the visitor demand is likely to be more in-line with resident demand.

When assessing the validity of the results and in addition to the points raised above the 100% visitor response for travel to Sidmouth is questionable. Whilst demand for waterborne travel to Sidmouth from visitors is likely to be high due to the proximity of the town, one would expect that some visitors who would use waterborne transport from Seaton may wish to use existing means of transport to Sidmouth. This can be ascribed this to the evidence of falsified visitor data. however,

Waterborne Transport Study – Stage 2: User Survey Methodology and Findings Report. not all of the data gathered has been falsified and one would still expect some visitors to use existing terrestrial modes of transport to Seaton. It is likely that the 100% results is directly related to the number of responses the results are based upon (50). With a larger sample size and no falsified data the results would provide a finer indication of the demand for travel to Sidmouth.

Other than sample size and the likelihood of some falsified visitor questionnaires, the only other point to consider is the effect of using strategy 1b responses in generating the results. There are validity issues relating clustering of distributors which will affect anticipated start point responses. However, the effect of clustering on the results is deemed to be minimal as respondents tend to use their local start point and travel to the destinations they wish.

Figure A15: Question D1 Results – Travel to Seaton (East Devon Pilot – Seaton).

Figure A15 gives the Seaton responses to question D1 from other the East Devon Pilot landing points - Assuming an appropriate vessel for the sea conditions, would people be interested in travelling by boat between the identified landing points? - broken down by landing point / survey area of responses.

The results for graph A15 were calculated by identifying the number of respondents at each other landing point that would use waterborne transport to travel to Seaton. These were then proportioned by the total number of respondents that would use waterborne transport at each of the individual landing points. This method of calculation was the same for all survey strategies, with the only difference being the prior identification of start point for Strategy 1b (wider area) questionnaires which set the landing point to which the results were assigned.

The demand for travel to Seaton from the other landing points does not fit with what one would initially expect. As this analysis is focused on a single destination with the same base attraction for all, gravitational attraction theory dictates that demand should diminish proportionally with distance. However, in this instance demand from Sidmouth is lower than from West Bay which is much further away.

In terms of resident’s responses, the West Bay and Lyme Regis results fit with gravitational attraction. However, demand from Sidmouth is depressed. The low demand from Sidmouth is replicated for both residents and visitors (shown best in Figure A17) which demonstrates that the

Waterborne Transport Study – Stage 2: User Survey Methodology and Findings Report. validity of the data is sound as different distribution methods and questionnaires were applied to each group. Looking ahead in the report to Figure Axx it can be seen that existing residential demand for travel to Seaton follows a similar pattern. This is difficult to explain, but is likely due to the fact that Seaton is smaller than Sidmouth with fewer goods and services on offer to attract Sidmouth residents. This coupled with the close proximity of the towns is likely to have lead to an apathy for travel to Seaton from Sidmouth as Sidmouth residents can get what they want in their home town without having to travel to Seaton.

The elevated Lyme Regis response, which is again replicated in the analysis of existing travel in Axx, is thought be due to two reasons. Firstly, high visitor demand in Lyme Regis during the summer months is likely to encourage residents to travel outside of the town to avoid the crowds. As this survey was undertaken during the summer season it can be expected that respondents conceive their responses based upon a summertime context which has led to the results found. Secondly, there is no large supermarket in Lyme Regis with the closest alternatives being located in Seaton or Bridport. It is likely that Lyme Regis residents travel to Seaton for their shopping along the A3052 which avoids the regular summertime delay on the A35 between Lyme Regis and Bridport. This can be tested with the data gathered for the Impact on the Existing Transport Network research area, which includes analysis of existing journey purposes to Seaton (Figure Axx) and can be broken down by landing point (not shown in this report – available on request). The data shows that some 57% of Lyme Regis residents travel to Seaton for shopping purposes which serves to confirm that Lyme Regis residents travel to Seaton for their grocery shopping. This is potentially useful information for a future operator as a shopper service between Lyme Regis and Seaton which is well integrated with local buses is likely to experience a strong demand, especially from those without access to a car.

The demand profile for visitors is largely flat with a similar level of demand from all other landing points. When compared to residential demand this equates to a depressed visitor demand from Lyme Regis. It is probable that this depressed demand from Lyme Regis is due to a lower demand for grocery shopping trips to Seaton from visitors staying in Lyme. This can be explained in two ways:

Some visitors are likely to be satisfied with the products available in the two express/small supermarkets as they are only in the area for a short period and do not need the full range of products available at larger supermarkets.

As the vast majority of visitors to Lyme Regis come from the North and East of the country (see Figure 5 in Appendix A), travel to Lyme Regis leads people through Bridport on the A35 where the local supermarket is visible from the main road. As visitors are less aware of the regular summertime delay between Lyme Regis and Bridport they are more likely to travel to this supermarket than the one located in Seaton which is reflected in these results.

Unfortunately, it is not possible to test the theory above as visitors were not asked questions relating to journey purpose. All visitor trips are generally either leisure or shopping and it was decided not to investigate journey purposes for visitors.

Overall, the demand for travel to Seaton from the other landing points via waterborne transport is of a similar level to that found for West Bay, which is lower than the potential demand for travel to Lyme Regis and Sidmouth. This could be expected as Lyme Regis and Sidmouth are larger towns with greater perceived opportunities for residents and visitors. However, this does not take into account the uplift in demand associated with a number of attractions situated close by i.e. Seaton Marshes Nature Reserve, Pecorama Model Railway, The Donkey Sanctuary and Seaton Tramway. It is likely that respondents did not associate the attractions above with the town and the possibility of gaining access to them by waterborne transport at Seaton. Therefore, whilst the results indicate that demand for travel to Seaton would be lower than for Lyme Regis or Sidmouth, targeted marketing

Waterborne Transport Study – Stage 2: User Survey Methodology and Findings Report. and integrated ticketing/transport connections to these attractions would likely increase waterborne transport demand to Seaton.

When considering the validity of this analysis, it is felt that there is unlikely to have been any factors that would have had a significant effect on the results. As with other question D1 analysis that utilises the Strategy 1b responses, the clustering of distributors may have had a slight effect. However, this effect would relate more to start points rather than destinations which this analysis focuses on.

Waterborne Transport Study – Stage 2: User Survey Methodology and Findings Report.

Sidmouth

Figure A16: Question D1 Results (East Devon Pilot – Sidmouth).

Figure A16 shows the Sidmouth responses to question D1 - Assuming an appropriate vessel for the sea conditions, would people be interested in travelling by boat between the identified landing points?

The data above was calculated by identifying those respondents within the Sidmouth survey area (see Figure 2 in Appendix A) that would use waterborne transport to at least one destination, along with those that would not use the services at all. The proportion for each was then calculated against the total useable responses. It should be noted that the wider area (Strategy 1b) responses were not used for this analysis, hence the low level of visitor respondents. Due to the questions asked within the Strategy 1b questionnaires, it is not possible to assign those that would not use waterborne transport to an individual landing point meaning that this data can only be interrogated at the pilot level.

The results above do not take into account the 7.7% self selection and response recording bias. With the bias removed the level of positive response changes to: 89.1% visitors; 79% residents; and 81% combined. similar to the other results found for this pilot, potential resident demand is lower than visitor demand, reflecting the leisure nature of the service and that of visitor travel in the area. Resident demand is slightly reduced against the pilot level results, which is to be expected at a peripheral landing point where travel is offered in only one direction. However, visitor demand, which can be expected to follow a similar pattern with a reduced demand at peripheral landings, is slightly elevated against the wider pilot level results. This can be explained by the abnormally low visitor demand found at Seaton which has the effect of reducing the pilot level demand, masking any variation at the peripheral landing points. In addition to this, the other landing points that form this pilot are all visitor orientated with beaches and attractions at each that are generally of more interest to visitors and encourage visitor travel to these destinations.

In terms of validity of the results gained, the greatest threat comes from the low number of visitor respondents (31). Whilst this level of respondents is above the identified minimum (30), required before validity would be adversely affected, this level is still low. A larger number of respondents would have the effect of increasing the reliability of the results gained i.e. the same result would be found if the survey was carried out again. Therefore, whilst this result can be deemed accurate, a

Waterborne Transport Study – Stage 2: User Survey Methodology and Findings Report. certain amount of caution should be applied in interpretation as there will likely be a slight variation between this data and what is found in reality.

PLEASE NOTE: These results give only the potential market for waterborne transport, this data does not suggest that 81% (bias Removed) of the population will use any service put in place or at what frequency of use. To unlock this level of potential demand the services need to be supported by high quality facilities and marketing while offering good value for money to users.

Figure A17: Question D1 Results - Travel from Sidmouth (East Devon Pilot – Sidmouth).

Figure A17 shows the detailed Sidmouth responses to question D1 - Assuming an appropriate vessel for the sea conditions, would people be interested in travelling by boat between the identified landing points? - broken down by which point people would be interested in travelling to.

PLEASE NOTE: The proportions shown are of those users that would use waterborne transport from Sidmouth, not all respondents, and are therefore not subject to self selection and D1 response recording bias.

In terms of the calculation of the results, for Strategies 1a (visitors) and 2 (residents) the individual Sidmouth survey area responses to question D1 were proportioned against the total number of people that would use waterborne transport from Sidmouth. The method of calculation for Strategy 1b (visitors) was slightly different. Those respondents that would use waterborne transport were identified and refined to those that would use Sidmouth as a start point. Then the destinations to which they would travel by waterborne transport were proportioned against the total number that would use the services from Sidmouth.

The results above show that Lyme Regis receives the greatest potential demand from Sidmouth, followed by Seaton and West Bay. Gravitational attraction theory suggests that West Bay would receive the lowest demand for travel from Sidmouth as it furthest away. However, one would expect Seaton to receive a greater demand from Sidmouth than Lyme Regis as it is closer. This indicates one of two things, either the data is corrupt and the validity is questionable or the perceived opportunities at Lyme Regis outweigh those in Seaton.

Waterborne Transport Study – Stage 2: User Survey Methodology and Findings Report.

In terms of validity of the data, as the results for both residents and visitors follow a similar pattern, with Lyme Regis receiving a greater potential demand than Seaton, and as these respondents received slightly different questionnaires and distribution methodologies, it can be assumed that the results are largely valid.

It is likely that Lyme Regis receives a greater demand due to the perceived opportunities available there. This fits with what has been found at the other landing points where Lyme Regis consistently comes out with the greatest demand for travel and also reflects existing travel demand patterns (Figures Axx, Axx & Axx). Lyme Regis is a very popular resort with large numbers of people visiting the town during the summer. Coupled with the existing transport issues in the area this serves to highlight the perceived opportunities and also the driver for respondents to use waterborne transport that avoids existing transport issues in Lyme Regis.

Whilst, the Lyme Regis results appear elevated, it can also be argued that the demand for travel to Seaton from Sidmouth appears depressed from both residents and visitors. There is a slight increase in demand from visitors compared to residents. Explained by the fact that most residents would have visited Seaton at some point due to its proximity and as visitors are not local they will wish to explore the area including Seaton. However, even with this slight elevation the results appear low, indicating that Sidmouth residents and visitors perceive fewer opportunities in Seaton and are not attracted to the town. This is contrary to what may be expected as a number of attractions are located close to Seaton and could be accessed via waterborne transport from Sidmouth: the Seaton Marshes Nature Reserve, Pecorama Model Railway and Seaton Tramway (The Donkey Sanctuary is closer to Sidmouth). It is probable that most Sidmouth residents would have already visited these attractions and thus would be less inclined to visit them again leaving only the base attraction of the town itself. However, one would still expect a greater demand from visitors. It is thought that this low visitor demand is due to two reasons:

Visitors do not associate the attractions with the town and/or the possibility of accessing them by waterborne transport (predominantly Pecorama which is located in Beer, rather than the Seaton Tramway or the Nature Reserve). Demand from Sidmouth could therefore be increased with the marketing of these attractions via waterborne transport coupled with well integrated terrestrial transport connections and joint ticketing. Although, due to the proximity of Sidmouth to Seaton some visitors may prefer to access these attractions by existing modes rather than undertaking the short waterborne trip which would require interchange between modes, the associated waiting time and possibly increased cost.

Where Seaton is close to Sidmouth and there are no specific transportation issues to encourage the use of other modes, the benefit of using waterborne transport to travel to Seaton does not outweigh the interchange/time/cost/wait time disbenefits associated with using a waterborne public transport service for this short journey.

As the demand profile for travel from Sidmouth is similar for both residents and visitors and each group was surveyed through different methodologies, the validity of these results is deemed to be good. There are potential issues associated with the use of Strategy 1b responses where clustering of distributors is likely to have had an affect on likely start points. However, as this analysis is focused on destinations the effect of the clustering is deemed to be minimal.

Waterborne Transport Study – Stage 2: User Survey Methodology and Findings Report.

Figure A18: Question D1 Results – Travel to Sidmouth (East Devon Pilot – Sidmouth).

Figure A18 gives the Sidmouth responses to question D1 from other the East Devon Pilot landing points - Assuming an appropriate vessel for the sea conditions, would people be interested in travelling by boat between the identified landing points? - broken down by landing point / survey area of responses.

The results for graph A18 were calculated by identifying the number of respondents at each other landing point that would use waterborne transport to travel to Sidmouth. These were then proportioned by the total number of respondents that would use waterborne transport at each of the individual landing points. This method of calculation was the same for all survey strategies, with the only difference being the prior identification of start point for Strategy 1b (wider area) questionnaires which set the landing point to which the results were assigned.

The combined residents and visitors results above follow gravitational attraction theory, the figure shows quite clearly that as distance decreases, demand increases with West Bay respondents least likely to visit Sidmouth via waterborne transport and Seaton respondents most likely. However, when interrogating the results for residents and visitors separately, it can be seen that the demand from these different groups follow a slightly different profile. It can be seen that demand from Lyme Regis residents is slightly above the trend with visitors below; and Seaton visitors are above trend with a 100% response rate.

The Seaton results can be explained by the fact that there is a strong psychological association with Sidmouth from Seaton as it is the closest major town, highlighted in Figure Axx showing that the vast majority of residents and visitors already intend to visit Sidmouth. For residents this would mean that travel is already undertaken by existing means forming habits that are hard to break and for some residents the benefit of using waterborne transport is not sufficient to break them, evidenced in the high but slightly below trend result. Visitors, who by definition are not local to the area, do not undertake this journey on a regular basis so have not developed the travel habits of residents and are more likely to use waterborne transport and thus the visitor result is elevated. Obviously, one would expect that some visitors who would use waterborne transport would prefer to use other modes to Sidmouth bringing into question the 100% result and highlighting the effect of the identified falsified visitor data for Seaton.

Waterborne Transport Study – Stage 2: User Survey Methodology and Findings Report.

The Lyme Regis results showing an increased demand from residents with a reduced demand from visitors is most likely due to the high attraction of Lyme Regis itself. The attraction for visitors has the effect of containing visitors within the town, reducing the amount they travel to the other landing points. However, has the reverse effect on residents whereby the high visitor numbers encourage residents to travel outside of the town to avoid the crowds during the summer months. This is evidenced in figure Axx where the existing resident demand for travel from Lyme Regis to all other landing points in the pilot is markedly increased against visitor travel.

When considering the validity of this analysis, the falsified data from Seaton is likely to have artificially increased the potential demand from Seaton to Sidmouth by visitors. However, the effect of this is not thought to be significant and the demand is likely to be similar to that found for residents, albeit slightly elevated due to the effect of habitual behaviour. As with other question D1 analysis that utilises the Strategy 1b responses, the clustering of distributors may again have had a slight effect. However, this effect would relate more to start points rather than destinations which this analysis focuses on.

Waterborne Transport Study – Stage 2: User Survey Methodology and Findings Report.

Weymouth & Portland Pilot. The following section of the report provides the analysis of the results for the Weymouth & Portland Pilot demand related questions, including the individual analysis of each landing point within the route.

Figure A19: Question D1 Results (Weymouth & Portland Pilot). Figure A19 shows the Weymouth & Portland Pilot responses to question D1 - Assuming an appropriate vessel for the sea conditions, would people be interested in travelling by boat between Weymouth and Portland?

Calculated in similarly to the whole of waterborne and East Devon Pilot results to question D1 (Figures A1 & A4 respectively), those Weymouth & Portland Pilot respondents that would use waterborne transport and those that would not were identified and the proportion for each calculated.

These results are shown without the identified 7.7% self selection and response recording bias removed. With this bias removed the level of positive response changes to: 82.1% visitors; 68% residents; and 72.9% combined.

It should be noted that response recording bias is not present in the results gained for the Weymouth & Portland pilot. This is because the questionnaires included a clear ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ response to question D1 whereas the other pilots utilised a null response as a no (See example questionnaires in Appendix B). The actual bias within the results is likely to be less than the identified 7.7%. However, there is no way separating response recording bias from self selection bias, so for the sake of robust results the 7.7% bias rate has still been applied.

The results indicate that there is a reasonable demand for waterborne transport between Weymouth and Portland. However, the demand for this pilot route is lower than the demand found for the East Devon pilot. Looking ahead in the report to the Poole Bay Pilot results (Figure A24) it can be seen that the visitor demand for this pilot is slightly greater, although, resident demand is significantly lower. Overall the demand for this pilot is lower than for both the East Devon and Poole Bay Pilots which suggests that the other pilot routes may be more suitable for implementation in the short term.

The reasoning for the reduction in demand against the other pilot routes is believed to be down to a number of reasons which are outlined below:

Waterborne Transport Study – Stage 2: User Survey Methodology and Findings Report.

There are only two landing points proposed for the pilot route. By only having two landing points the perceived opportunities for potential users are reduced compared to a service with greater number of landing points/opportunities that can be accessed via the service. Where the other pilot routes serve four landing points the opportunities that can be accessed are more numerous than for this pilot.

The topography of Portland is not well suited to waterborne transport. Portland is a small (6km long by 4km wide) limestone tied-island that rises to approximately 140m above sea level. The majority of dwellings are located toward the centre and south of the island (Grove, Easton, Weston and Southwell) which are set away from, and are at a higher elevation than the potential landing point at the northern end (See Figure 1 in Appendix A for location). This has the effect of increasing the time/cost/distance/interchange/wait time disbenefits associated with accessing the service from Portland and accessing the opportunities on Portland from the landing point for Weymouth based travellers, which is reflected in the lower overall demand for this pilot.

There are a number of employment opportunities located on Portland which are centred on the National Sailing Academy and are located within walking distance of the potential landing point. Serving to increase the utility/attraction of waterborne transport and thus demand from those who work in this area and live in Weymouth. However, the employment opportunities in Weymouth far outweigh those on Portland, meaning that the general trend for commuting trips is toward Weymouth from Portland (proven in Figures Axx & Axx showing journey purposes for existing trips). As the majority of dwellings are located away from and at a higher elevation than the potential landing point, the utility/attraction of waterborne transport is diminished for commuters to Weymouth.

The A354 is well served by bus services that link the residential areas to the centre and south of the island with Weymouth and on to Dorchester. Where waterborne transport would require a connecting trip to the landing point for the majority of Portland residents, this has the effect of reducing the utility/attraction of waterborne transport against existing bus services. Therefore, the service does not encourage mode shifting from bus for these residents and demand is subsequently effected.

In addition to the competing bus services there is a high quality Weymouth to Portland cycle route (The Rodwell Trail). Similar to private car transport, cycling offers a door to door service, the high quality traffic free route serves to encourage the more active and sustainably minded to cycle rather than use waterborne transport.

The Weymouth to Portland route is already served by Coastline Cruises (formerly White Motor Boats) which run a leisure service between Weymouth Harbour and Portland Castle. It is possible that existing passengers using waterborne transport for this route would rather support the existing service than use a new competitor.

The reduction in demand against the other pilots suggests that the Weymouth and Portland pilot route may not be a readily feasible in terms of demand and profit making enterprise. However, anecdotal evidence and verbal qualitative information gathered during the delivery of the surveys highlighted that an expanded route including Bowleaze Cove and Lulworth Cove may increase demand and make the service more viable. Unfortunately, testing of a pilot service that runs from Portland to Lulworth Cove including stops at Weymouth and Boleaze Cove was outside of the scope of this study and has not been undertaken.

Waterborne Transport Study – Stage 2: User Survey Methodology and Findings Report.

With the removal of self selection bias and the measures to maintain validity applied within the methodology, the results are believed to be reasonably valid and reliable. There are however two main threats to the validity of this data.

The first threat is applicable to residents and comes about from only using residential addresses within 2km of the identified landing points. Both Weymouth and Portland extend further from the landing point than 2km. Therefore, the respondents surveyed are closer to the landing points than the average Weymouth or Portland resident. This has the effect of reducing the disbenefits associated with accessing the services increasing the utility/attraction of using them. It is possible that if a further survey was undertaken that omitted the 2km address cut off, the results gained would be reduced further and the pilot route found less feasible.

The second threat to the validity of this data comes from the very low visitor result gained from Portland (13 responses). Therefore, the visitor pilot wide results shown above are weighted towards the Weymouth to Portland movement. It is possible that with an increase in Portland visitor respondents the pilot wide visitor demand for waterborne transport may decrease reflecting the demand found at Portland and also the issues discussed that relate to accessing the landing point on Portland.

One should also note that these figures give only the potential market for waterborne transport, this is not to say that 72.9% (bias removed) of the population will use any service put in place. To unlock this level of demand the services need to be supported by high quality facilities and marketing while offering good value for money.

Figure A20: Question D2 Results – Spring/Summer (Weymouth & Portland Pilot).

Figures A20 above & A21 on the following page show the Weymouth & Portland Pilot responses to question D2 - How often would people use the services if they were available? - for both spring/summer (A20) and autumn/winter (A21).

These results were calculated by combining the useable responses to this question from all Weymouth & Portland Pilot related surveys, then working out the proportional split to each response option based upon the total number of people that would use the Weymouth & Portland waterborne transport pilot route.

Waterborne Transport Study – Stage 2: User Survey Methodology and Findings Report.

PLEASE NOTE: This question was only posed to those who indicated that they would be interested in using waterborne transport in question D1. Thus, the proportions shown are of those users that would use waterborne transport for the Weymouth & Portland Pilot; and Please see table 10 on page 40, for estimated usage characteristics relating to each response option which will assist in developing likely user numbers based upon the responses below.

Figure A21: Question D2 Results – Autumn/Winter (Weymouth & Portland Pilot).

PLEASE NOTE: When interpreting this data it is important to highlight the very low Portland visitor response rate. Due to this the following interpretation of the visitor results focuses on the Weymouth to Portland movement as the results gained are heavily weighted to this.

The results shown in tables A20 & A21 above show that the usage characteristics for the Weymouth and Portland Pilot follow a similar profile to the other pilots tested. During the summer months the majority of visitors (54.4%) would use the service ‘Occasionally’, equating to approximately one trip per week of stay with repeat trips on future holidays. The next most popular response was ‘Frequently’ (21.1%) which for visitors is likely to equate to 2-4 trips per week. The remaining respondents (24.4%) would only use the service as a ‘One Off’ with little chance of repeat use on future visits.

The level of ‘frequent’ and ‘occasional’ responses from visitors, which both carry an indication that respondents would be repeat users, is lower than that found for the other pilots. The level of ‘one- off‘ response, that does not carry an indication of repeat trips, is higher than the other pilots tested. Thus, the level of repeat visitor users is likely to be less for this route than the others. It is likely that the reduction of repeat trips is due to one of three reasons outlined below.

The fact that this pilot offers travel to only one destination reduces the likelihood of repeat trips. Visitor users of the other pilot routes can travel to multiple locations using waterborne transport, meaning that repeat trips are encouraged as people can explore different destinations.

The number of visitor orientated attractions within Weymouth (Weymouth Beach, Sealife Park and Deep Sea Adventure etc.) serves to contain visitors in the town. Where the results are weighted to the Weymouth to Portland movement, the repeat trips these attractions may secure from Portland visitors has not been accounted for in the results (see validity assessment).

Waterborne Transport Study – Stage 2: User Survey Methodology and Findings Report.

There are a limited number of leisure opportunities for visitor families on Portland that would encourage repeat visitor trips from Weymouth. Therefore, visitors would only travel over once for the experience rather than make repeat trips.

Whilst the level of repeat visitor users is reduced against the other pilots, the majority of respondents would still be repeat users. Thus indicating that the attraction of Portland with it’s secluded beaches, coastal walks, stunning scenery and interesting museums is sufficient to encourage multiple trips to the island via waterborne transport.

Interestingly, the resident results, which received a good response rate from both Weymouth and Portland, show a significant difference to the visitor results. During the summer months the majority of residents (56.8%) would use waterborne transport ‘Occasionally’, which is likely to equate to around one to four trips during the spring/summer period. ‘Frequently’ was the next most popular resident response (38.8%) which could range from monthly leisure trips to weekly shopping trips or even daily commuting trips. The remaining resident respondents (4.3%) would only use the service as a ‘One Off’ with little chance of repeat use.

During the autumn/winter the level of resident ‘frequent’ response falls (15.8%). The drop in ‘frequent’ response is coupled with an increase in ‘occasionally’ (69.8%), ‘one-off’ (8.6%) and ‘never’ (5.8%) responses, which is to be expected as respondents will perceive harsher sea conditions during the autumn/winter season. However, the results still indicate that some 85.6% of Weymouth and Portland residents could be repeat users during the autumn/winter period.

The level of ‘frequent’ and ‘occasional’ resident response is higher than all other pilots tested. This contrasts with the visitor results found which have been influenced by the low level of Portland visitor respondents. This has weighted the responses to the Weymouth to Portland movement. As there are fewer shopping and leisure opportunities for visitors on Portland than in Weymouth, a greater level of Portland visitor responses would most likely increase the level of ‘frequent’ or ‘occasional’ response found.

The increase of resident repeat users against the other pilot routes is a key finding of this survey. This is due in part to the level of employment in Weymouth and Portland. In Weymouth (and in some areas of Portland) the number of jobs available is greater than for each of the landing points within the East Devon Pilot and also Swanage and Studland within the Poole Bay Pilot. As commuting trips require regular trips between home and work this has the effect of increasing the demand for regular trips between the two landing points. Coupled with this, the A354 which links Weymouth and Portland is often congested during the summer period and as waterborne transport avoids this delay it is likely that this has had a strong influence on the results found.

It is possible to test the above theory by comparing the waterborne transport based journey purposes to Weymouth and Portland (Figures Axx & Ayy) against those for the East Devon pilot landing points and those for Swanage and Studland (see analysis within the Impact on the Existing Transport Network section). These figures show that Weymouth has a greater proportion of incoming waterborne transport users that would use the service for commuting purposes than that found at all other landing points including Poole and Bournemouth confirming the above theory. Portland also has a large proportion of incoming commuters that would travel via waterborne transport, however, this is lower than Weymouth.

The other possible influence leading to the increased level of repeat users are the limited goods and services available on Portland, which has the effect of encouraging regular trips to Weymouth. When

Waterborne Transport Study – Stage 2: User Survey Methodology and Findings Report. coupled with regular summertime congestion on the A354 between Weymouth and Portland this serves to increase the number of repeat resident users for this pilot route.

When considering the validity of the results found in Figures A20 & A21 the most important point of note is the very low level of Portland visitor responses. This has the effect of weighting the visitor results toward the Weymouth to Portland movement, which is thought to have artificially reduced the level of repeat visitor users due to the limited opportunities available on Portland to attract repeat trips. With a greater level of Portland visitor responses it is possible that the level of repeat visitor users would be increased. Portland Based visitors currently make this movement regularly to access goods and services unavailable on the island and those that would use the service may use it regularly to avoid parking issues in Weymouth.

Another point of potential error focuses on the estimated usage characteristics given in table 10 on page 40 which have been used to extend the responses gained to a possible level of trips undertaken. It is for the end users of this report to decide whether the usage levels suggested for each response option is valid before this data is used to calculate potential patronage levels.

Waterborne Transport Study – Stage 2: User Survey Methodology and Findings Report.

Weymouth and Portland (Landing Point Level) The landing point level demand results for Weymouth and Portland have been analysed together below. This is because there are only two landing points for this pilot. Therefore, it is not necessary to investigate the incoming and outgoing demand to/from the other landing points as this is simply the results from the other landing point.

Figure A22: Question D1 Results (Weymouth & Portland Pilot – Weymouth).

Figure A23: Question D1 Results (Weymouth & Portland Pilot – Portland).

Figure A22 & A23 above show the Weymouth and Portland responses to question D1 - Assuming an appropriate vessel for the sea conditions, would people be interested in travelling by boat between the identified landing points?

The data above was calculated by identifying those respondents within the Weymouth and Portland survey areas (see Figure 2 in Appendix A) that would use waterborne transport, along with those that would not. The proportion for each was then calculated against the total useable responses. It should be noted that the wider area (Strategy 1b) responses were not used for this analysis, hence the low level of visitor respondents. Due to the questions asked within the Strategy 1b questionnaires, it is not possible to assign those that would not use waterborne transport to an individual landing point.

Waterborne Transport Study – Stage 2: User Survey Methodology and Findings Report.

Shown without the identified 7.7% self selection and response recording bias accounted for. With the bias removed the level of positive response for Weymouth changes to: 85% visitors; 63.7% residents; and 71.8% combined. With the bias removed from the Portland responses the level of positive response changes to: 61.5% visitors; 72.1% residents; and 70.8% combined.

It should be noted that similarly to the pilot wide results, response recording bias is not present in the results gained for the Weymouth & Portland pilot. This is because the questionnaires included a clear ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ response to question D1 whereas the other pilots utilised a null response as a no (See example questionnaires in Appendix B). The actual bias within the results is likely to be less than the identified 7.7%. However, there is no way separating response recording bias from self selection bias, so for the sake of robust results the 7.7% bias rate has still been applied.

The results above show that combined resident and visitor potential demand from both Weymouth and Portland is reduced against all landing points tested within the other pilot routes. Suggesting that the Weymouth and Portland pilot is less readily feasible than the East Devon and Poole Bay Pilots.

In terms of visitor travel, the Weymouth results follow what would be expected with visitor demand higher than residential demand reflecting the leisure nature of the service, the type of opportunities on Portland and the leisure based nature of visitor travel. However, the Portland results do not follow what would be anticipated with residential demand considerably higher than visitor demand. The primary reason for this is they very low Portland response rate which has significantly affected the reliability of the data. If this survey was undertaken again utilising the same methodology with a different group of 13 people surveyed the results may be different.

The resident results fit much more closely with what would be expected in terms of potential demand for waterborne travel. There is a greater demand for residential travel from Portland to Weymouth which reflects the strong existing out-migration of residents from Portland to Weymouth for shopping, leisure and employment purposes (see Figure Axx & Ayy). When combined with the summertime delay on the A354 the existing demand for travel has the effect of increasing potential residential demand for waterborne transport. Figure Axx which shows the existing demand for travel from Weymouth to Portland also shows a strong existing demand which would bring in to question the validity of the greater demand found from Portland to Weymouth. However, when we look at the existing journey purposes for travel between the two (Figures Ayy and Ayy), it can be clearly seen that there is a much greater demand for commuting and shopping trips (regular journeys) from Portland to Weymouth than from Weymouth to Portland which is predominantly for leisure purposes (irregular discretionary trips).

When considering the validity of the results found, single most important point is very low Portland visitor response rate. This has had the effect of severely reducing the reliability of the Portland visitor demand. When interpreting these results it must be noted that if this survey was to be carried out again the level of visitor demand found from Portland would likely be different.

The use of only those residential addresses that fall within 2km of the landing point may also have affected these results. It is possible that if the survey was carried out again with questionnaires sent to residents across the whole of Weymouth and Portland the resident demand found would be reduced. This is due to the fact that by surveying residents within 2km the connecting trip to the start point is reduced and could be carried out by walking and cycling that would avoid any parking issues at the landing points.

Waterborne Transport Study – Stage 2: User Survey Methodology and Findings Report.

PLEASE NOTE: These results give only the potential market for waterborne transport, this data does not suggest that with bias removed some 71.8% (Weymouth) and 70.8% (Portland) of the population will use any service put in place or at what frequency of use. To unlock this level of potential demand the services need to be supported by high quality facilities and marketing while offering good value for money to users.

Waterborne Transport Study – Stage 2: User Survey Methodology and Findings Report.

Poole Bay Pilot. The following sub-section of the report details the demand related question analysis for the Poole Bay Pilot, including the individual analysis of each landing point.

Figure A24: Question D1 Results (Poole Bay Pilot). Figure A24 shows the Poole Bay Pilot responses to question D1 - Assuming an appropriate vessel for the sea conditions, would people be interested in travelling by boat between the identified landing points?

Calculated in similar way to all question D1 pilot level results, those Poole Bay Pilot respondents that would use waterborne transport and those that would not were identified and the proportion for each calculated.

The figure above gives the results without the 7.7% self selection and response recording bias removed. With the bias removed the level of positive response changes to: 80.5% visitors; 80.6% residents; and 80.3% combined. This shows that there is a strong positive attitude towards using waterborne transport for the Poole Bay Pilot from both residents and visitors, indicating that this route may be suitable for implementation in the short term.

Potential resident demand is highest of all the pilot routes tested. Visitor demand is of a similar level to that of residents but when compared to the other routes visitor demand is slightly depressed. This initially looks like an anomaly in the data. One may expect a higher visitor than resident demand due to the leisure nature of the service, that of visitor travel and also of the landing points served. However, looking ahead in the report to the existing demand for travel between the landing points (Figures Axx, Axx, Axx and Axx), it can be seen that existing visitor travel between the landing points is reduced against resident travel which suggests that this finding is correct and the results are valid.

Another reason likely to have contributed to increased level of resident demand against visitors, is the level of existing resident commuting and shopping trips to Poole and Bournemouth (shown in Figures Axx & Axx). Travel to Poole and Bournemouth from southern Purbeck requires either a long trip around Poole Harbour on the A351 or a shorter trip on the Sandbanks Ferry. Both of these routes are subject to significant summertime congestion which can lead to extensive delays. These transport issues are thought to have had the effect of encouraging residents to consider other means of travel, such as waterborne transport, to avoid the delay and is reflected in the increased resident results.

When assessing the validity of these findings there are two main points to note:

Waterborne Transport Study – Stage 2: User Survey Methodology and Findings Report.

The residents surveyed were located within 2km of each landing point. Where Poole and Bournemouth are large urban areas that extend up to 6.5km away from the identified landing points, the majority of residents are located further from the landings than those used for this survey. This is likely to have increased demand from Poole and Bournemouth residents by reducing the length of the connecting trip to the start point.

Strategy 1a Poole visitor responses (19 responses) were all located in Sandbanks. Where Sandbanks was given as a Poole landing point option and is located very close to Studland, this is likely to have increased the potential demand from Poole visitors. However, the effect of this on the above results is deemed to be negligible, 19 responses represent only 8% of the overall result.

Other than these points the results above are believed to be valid and reliable. There were a significant number of respondents used for the survey and responses were gained at each of the landing points tested. It should be noted however that these figures give only the potential market for waterborne transport, this is not to say that 80.3% (bias removed) of the population will use any service put in place. To unlock this level of demand the services need to be supported by high quality facilities and marketing while offering good value for money.

Figure A25: Question D2 Results – Spring/Summer (Poole Bay Pilot).

Figures A25 & A26 show the Poole Bay Pilot responses to question D2 - How often would people use the services if they were available? - for both spring/summer (A25) and autumn/winter (A26).

These results were calculated by combining the useable responses to this question from all Poole Bay Pilot related surveys, then working out the proportional split to each response option based upon the total number of people that would use the Poole Bay pilot route.

PLEASE NOTE: This question was only posed to those who indicated that they would be interested in using waterborne transport in question D1. Thus, the proportions shown are of those users that would use waterborne transport for the Poole Bay Pilot; and The following discussion refers to table 10 on page 40, which gives the estimated usage characteristics based on each response option.

Waterborne Transport Study – Stage 2: User Survey Methodology and Findings Report.

Figure A26: Question D2 Results – Autumn/Winter (Poole Bay Pilot).

The results in tables A25 & A26 giving the usage responses for the Poole Bay Pilot follow a similar profile to each of the other pilot routes. During the summer months the majority of visitors (59.4%) would use the service ‘Occasionally’, equating to approximately one trip per week of stay with repeat trips on future holidays. The next most popular response was ‘Frequently’ (26.6%) which for visitors is likely to equate to 2-4 trips per week. The remaining respondents (14.0%) would only use the service as a ‘One Off’ with little chance of repeat use on future visits.

The majority of residents (62.1%) would use waterborne transport ‘Occasionally’, which is likely to equate to around one to four trips during the spring/summer period. ‘Frequently’ was the next most popular resident response (31.2%) which could range from daily commuting trips to weekly shopping trips or even monthly leisure trips. The remaining resident respondents (6.0%) would only use the service as a ‘One Off’ with little chance of repeat use.

The autumn/winter responses, which are only applicable to residents, show that the level of ‘frequent’ response falls (11.9%) with ‘occasionally’ (62.5%) remaining largely the same. The reduced amount of frequent resident trips is off set with an increase in ‘one-off’ (16.2%) and ‘never’ (9.4%) responses, which is to be expected due to perceptions of harsher sea conditions.

The point of greatest interest within the results relates to the level of ‘frequent’ resident responses. These are higher than the East Devon Pilot but less than the Weymouth and Portland Pilot. All East Devon pilot landing points do not have significant employment opportunities that require frequent trips between home and work and there is not a large migration of commuters between the landing points, leading to a lower level of ‘frequent’ resident response. Weymouth does have a number of employment opportunities and there is a significant migration of commuters from Portland which is highlighted in the larger potential for frequent resident travellers. Poole and Bournemouth also have a significant level of employment opportunities within them. However, the existing journey purpose results (Figures Axx & Axx) suggest that the level of commuting to Poole and Bournemouth from the landing points tested is less than that found for Weymouth from Portland. Therefore, the findings for this pilot with the level of ‘frequent’ response elevated against the East Devon Pilot and reduced against the Weymouth to Portland Pilot can be assumed to be largely correct.

In terms of validity, the fact that the results serve to confirm what would be expected in reality and that the findings to different questions are consistent with each other, indicate a good validity in these responses. Focusing the Poole and Bournemouth resident responses to those within 2km of

Waterborne Transport Study – Stage 2: User Survey Methodology and Findings Report. the landing point may however have increased the level of resident frequent response slightly. Residents located further from the landing point would need to undertake a longer connecting trip to the start point and this would discourage people from using the services for regular commuting trips.

The primary potential for error focuses on the estimated usage characteristics given in table 10 on page 40. However, the validity of these assumptions are for the end users of this report to evaluate and adjust before calculating possible patronage levels for the service.

Figure A27: Question D3 Results (Poole Bay Pilot Only).

Figure A27 above gives the Poole Bay Pilot responses to question D3 - Where would people rather the Poole landing point?

These results were calculated by combining the useable responses to this question from all Poole Bay Pilot related surveys, then working out the proportional split between Poole Quay and Sandbanks based upon the total number of people that would use the Poole Bay pilot route.

The above results show clearly that Poole Quay is the preferred location for the Poole landing point for both residents and visitors. This finding fits with what could be expected in reality due to Poole Quay’s proximity to the town centre and the increased level of leisure, shopping and employment opportunities available there compared to Sandbanks.

Interestingly, the results show that visitors are more amenable to a landing point at Sandbanks than residents. Greater resident demand for Poole Quay is likely to be due to the aforementioned employment and shopping opportunities that can be accessed nearby while avoiding existing road network delay. Whereas, a Sandbanks landing point offering a sandy beach, fine dining and glamorous surroundings is more suited to visitor demand and is reflected in the increased response from this group.

Another factor that could have affected the visitor response for Sandbanks was the location of the hotel distributors used for the Poole Landing point questionnaires (Strategy 1a). It was not possible to gain any holiday park distributors for the Poole landing point and only two hotels agreed to distribute the questionnaires. One of which was on Sandbanks and the other located between

Waterborne Transport Study – Stage 2: User Survey Methodology and Findings Report.

Sandbanks and Poole Quay. Unfortunately, only the hotel on Sandbanks managed to secure responses, so all (19) Strategy 1a Poole visitor responses are from the Sandbanks area and of those that would use waterborne transport, only one said that they would prefer the landing point to be at Poole Quay. Therefore, if the survey was undertaken again with a more geographically even spread between Poole and Sandbanks visitor respondents, it is likely that the visitor results would show up to 10% difference in favour of Poole Quay, which would bring the visitor result in line with that found from residents.

Other than the issue of clustering for the Poole landing point visitor responses the validity of the above results is believed to be sound.

Waterborne Transport Study – Stage 2: User Survey Methodology and Findings Report.

Swanage

Figure A28: Question D1 Results (Poole Bay Pilot – Swanage).

Figure A28 gives the Swanage responses to question D1 - Assuming an appropriate vessel for the sea conditions, would people be interested in travelling by boat between the identified landing points?

The data above was calculated by identifying those respondents within the Swanage survey area (see Figure 2 in Appendix A) that would use waterborne transport to at least one destination, along with those that would not use the service at all. The proportion for each was then calculated against the total useable responses. It should be noted that the wider area (Strategy 1b) responses were not used for this analysis, hence the lower level of visitor respondents. Due to the questions asked within the Strategy 1b questionnaires, it is not possible to assign those that would not use waterborne transport to an individual landing point.

These results are shown without the identified 7.7% self selection and response recording bias accounted for, with the bias removed the level of positive response changes to: 85.0% visitors; 84.4% residents; and 84.6% combined. With the bias removed these results show a strong positive public attitude towards the Poole Bay pilot route at this landing point.

Similar to the pilot wide results, the potential demand found from residents in Swanage is much the same as that found for visitors. It has been generally accepted for the other pilot routes tested that visitor demand would be greater than resident demand due to the leisure nature of the services. However, this does not hold true for the Poole bay pilot.

The reasoning for this finding has been touched upon within the analysis of the pilot wide results. Looking ahead in the report to the existing travel patterns from Swanage to the other landing points within the pilot (Figures Axx, Axx & Axx), it can be seen that residential demand for travel from Swanage is high to all other landing points, where existing visitor demand for travel is reduced to both Poole and Bournemouth. Travel to Poole and Bournemouth requires a long trip around Poole Harbour on the A351 or a shorter trip on the Sandbanks Ferry, both of which are subject to severe summertime congestion and delay. It is felt that the existing demand for resident travel coupled with the summertime congestion and delay issues on the transport network serves to encourage residents to consider other forms of transport to avoid the delay and is evidenced in the increased resident demand against visitor demand when compared to the other pilots.

Waterborne Transport Study – Stage 2: User Survey Methodology and Findings Report.

Another point worthy of note within this analysis is the comparison of the peripheral landing points for this pilot with those for the East Devon pilot. The peripheral landing points for the East Devon pilot generally showed a slightly reduced level of demand compared to that of the central landing points. Due to the effect of having opportunities available in both the east and west via waterborne transport for the central landing points, where peripheral landings would have opportunities in only one direction. Swanage receives the greatest potential demand for waterborne transport of all the landing points tested within this pilot which would bring question as to the validity of the assumptions within the East Devon pilot as it is a peripheral landing point. However, there are very limited opportunities except leisure located towards the west of Swanage with the closest town being either Dorchester (inland) or Weymouth (coastal). Therefore, it is believed that Swanage residents generally perceive their opportunities to be toward the east (Poole and Bournemouth) which is reflected in the results and contrasts with that found for the East Devon Pilot where opportunities are available in both the east and west for the peripheral landings.

The validity of these results is thought to be good. There were an adequate number of resident and visitor respondents suggesting that the results are reliable and would be largely the same if the survey was carried out again.

PLEASE NOTE: These results give only the potential market for waterborne transport, this data does not suggest that 84.6% (bias Removed) of the population will use any service put in place or at what frequency of use. To unlock this level of potential demand the services need to be supported by high quality facilities and marketing while offering good value for money to users.

Figure A29: Question D1 Results - Travel from Swanage (Poole Bay Pilot – Swanage).

Figure A29 provides the detailed Swanage responses to question D1 - Assuming an appropriate vessel for the sea conditions, would people be interested in travelling by boat between the identified landing points? - broken down by which point people would be interested in travelling to.

PLEASE NOTE: The proportions shown are of those users that would use waterborne transport from Swanage, not all respondents, and are therefore not subject to self selection and D1 response recording bias.

Waterborne Transport Study – Stage 2: User Survey Methodology and Findings Report.

In terms of the calculation of the results, for Strategies 1a (visitors) and 2 (residents) the individual Swanage survey area responses to question D1 were proportioned against the total number of people that would use waterborne transport from Swanage. The method of calculation for Strategy 1b (visitors) was slightly different. Those respondents that would use waterborne transport were identified and refined to those that would use Swanage as a start point. Then the destinations to which they would travel by waterborne transport were proportioned against the total number that would use the services from Swanage.

The results in Figure A29 show that demand for waterborne transport from Swanage would be greatest for those travelling to Poole, followed by Bournemouth with Studland receiving the lowest demand for travel. This is contrary to what one may initially expect. Gravitational Attraction theory dictates that all things being equal (i.e. transport network, attraction of destination etc.), Studland should receive a greater demand for travel than Poole and Bournemouth as it is closer, suggesting a possible validity issue with the data. However, as we are investigating a number of different destinations with varied opportunities/attractions and also variations in the transport network serving each landing point tested, all things are not equal. Thus, it is felt that contextual factors are responsible for the findings rather than issues with validity of the data. The following bullet points detail the contextual factors that are thought to have influenced the findings:

Poole and Bournemouth are large towns with many employment, leisure and shopping opportunities. Studland, whilst beautiful and offering great leisure opportunities, does not have the range of varied opportunities available and as such generates fewer trips which would equate to demand for waterborne transport. Figures Axx, Axx & Axx that show existing journey purposes to each landing point within the pilot route illustrate this point. Poole and Bournemouth receive trips for a range a journey purposes whereas trips to Studland are predominantly for leisure.

As has been discussed previously, there are significant summertime transport issues associated with accessing Poole and Bournemouth from southern Purbeck (Swanage and Studland). This serves to encourage people within southern Purbeck to consider other travel options to avoid the delay and/or a lengthy trip around Poole Harbour. When combined with the opportunities available at Poole and Bournemouth this has increased the potential demand for waterborne transport from Swanage to these destinations.

The existing transport network between Swanage and Studland does not suffer from excessive congestion and delay. Studland is also very close to Swanage meaning that when cost of travel; parking costs; interchange between modes; and wait time are considered, a trip via waterborne transport would most likely cost more and take longer than by existing transport options. Therefore, the benefit of using waterborne transport for this short trip does not outweigh the disbenefits, leading to a reduction in demand for waterborne transport to Studland.

There is no large supermarket in Swanage with only express style supermarkets available in the town. The nearest large supermarket is located in the Poole area meaning residents and visitors have to travel to Poole around Poole Harbour or on the Sandbanks Ferry to access goods and services unavailable in Swanage. This is likely to have increased the potential demand from those who are seeking to avoid transport delay for shopping trips which would be bypassed with waterborne transport.

These results suggest that a potential way of increasing demand to Studland from Swanage would be to benchmark waterborne travel costs to car park pricing / parking availability in Studland which

Waterborne Transport Study – Stage 2: User Survey Methodology and Findings Report. would encourage people to travel using waterborne transport to avoid costs of parking and / or extensive parking search trips. However, the financial viability of this would need to be assessed by the operator of the service.

The lack of a large supermarket within Purbeck could also be a means of increasing demand for waterborne transport from both Studland and Swanage. A shopper service between southern Purbeck and Poole which is well integrated with local buses and stores that offer home delivery for in-store purchases (to avoid carrying bags on return trip) may experience a significant demand, especially from those in southern Purbeck without access to a car.

The results found for travel from Swanage with Studland receiving the lowest potential demand could be indicative of an issue of validity. However, this is not thought to be the case. The response rate was good from both residents and visitors with a number of different distributors used for the visitor surveys. The responses gained from both visitors and residents show similar levels of demand for each destination. These groups were surveyed utilising different methodologies which prevented cross contamination of results. If there was an issue with the validity of the data, there would be more variation between the level of demand from residents and visitors.

A further test of validity is to look at the travel to Swanage which is analysed in the following figure. These results follow a similar pattern with Studland showing the lowest demand, serving to indicate good validity of the data as an entirely different people and geographic areas were used to acquire this data.

Figure A30: Question D1 Results – Travel to Swanage (Poole Bay Pilot – Swanage).

Figure A30 gives the Swanage responses to question D1 from other the Poole Bay Pilot landing points - Assuming an appropriate vessel for the sea conditions, would people be interested in travelling by boat between the identified landing points? - broken down by landing point / survey area of responses.

The results for graph A30 were calculated by identifying the number of respondents at each other landing point that would use waterborne transport to travel to Swanage. These were then proportioned by the total number of respondents that would use waterborne transport at each

Waterborne Transport Study – Stage 2: User Survey Methodology and Findings Report. point. This method of calculation was the same for all survey strategies, with the only difference being the prior identification of start point for Strategy 1b (wider area) questionnaires which set the landing point to which the results were assigned.

The results in Figure 30 give the potential demand for travel via waterborne transport to Swanage. it can be seen that these follow a similar pattern to that found for travel from Swanage. Studland shows the least demand followed by Poole then Bournemouth.

The reduction in demand from Studland to Swanage fits with the results found for travel from Swanage to Studland. Both are depressed against Poole and Bournemouth. However, when one looks at Figures Axx and Axx it can be seen that existing demand for travel between Swanage and Studland is high. This is believed to be due to the fact that Studland is very close to Swanage and the existing road network does not suffer from excessive congestion and delay. Therefore, when cost of travel; parking costs; interchange between modes; and wait time are considered, a trip via waterborne transport would most likely cost more and take longer than by existing transport options which serves to discourage people from using the service for this short hop.

There is a good existing demand for travel to Swanage from Poole and Bournemouth (Figure Axx). However, there is currently acute summertime congestion and delay found on the A351 and Sandbanks Ferry which are the only two options available for travellers between Poole and Bournemouth and southern Purbeck (Buses use these links and there is not currently a direct train from Swanage to Poole or Bournemouth). This has the effect of encouraging people to consider other travel options such as waterborne transport and is evidenced in the strong demand from Poole and Bournemouth.

The nature of travel from Poole and Bournemouth is also of interest. Figure Axx in the Impact on the Existing Transport Network section shows that the majority of respondents stated that they travel to Swanage for leisure purposes followed by shopping. This can be broken down by landing point (not shown in report – available on request), when carried out over 95% of trips to Swanage from Poole and Bournemouth are for leisure purposes, which is to be expected due to the opportunities available in Poole and Bournemouth. Leisure trips are discretionary, meaning that they do not have to be carried out and are less likely to be undertaken if the context is not supportive (i.e. congestion and delay, lack of parking, high fuel costs, high parking costs etc.). Therefore, it is likely that the existing transport issues between southern Purbeck and Poole and Bournemouth are suppressing demand for travel. The installation of waterborne transport could unlock this suppressed demand by improving the travel context, increasing the economic viability of both Swanage and Studland.

Similar to that found for travel from Swanage, the results suggest that a potential way of increasing demand to Swanage from Studland would be to benchmark waterborne travel costs to car park pricing / parking availability in Swanage which would encourage people to travel using waterborne transport to avoid costs of parking and / or extensive parking search trips. However, again the financial viability of this would need to be assessed by the operator of the service.

The results also indicate a potential threat to the demand for waterborne transport between Swanage and Poole and Bournemouth, which would also be found to a lesser extent for Studland. This threat is the intention to reconnect Swanage Railway with the mainline in Wareham, which would allow travellers between Poole and Bournemouth and southern Purbeck to avoid existing congestion and delay on the road network and would be in direct competition with waterborne transport. It would be possible to reduce this threat by working with Swanage Railway to integrate ticketing allowing for a circular waterborne / rail trip that avoids the congestion and delay and shares the benefits of realising the suppressed demand to both operators.

Waterborne Transport Study – Stage 2: User Survey Methodology and Findings Report.

In terms of validity, the fact that the Swanage to / from Studland results are mutually supportive and that these results were gained from different respondents in different geographical areas suggests that these results are largely valid and reliable. The threats to the validity of these findings come about from the location of Poole and Bournemouth resident responses and also the location of the Strategy 1a Poole visitor responses.

Where only residents within 2km of the landing points were used, this may have increased demand for travel to Swanage from Poole and Bournemouth as the connecting trip to the start point would be shorter than for the majority of residents. However, the journey time savings that waterborne transport would offer all residents in Poole and Bournemouth means that the effect of this is likely to be minimal.

The very low number of Poole visitor responses for Strategy 1a which were all located within Sandbanks may have slightly increased demand from Poole visitors. Where Sandbanks was tested as a potential landing point this would have reduced the perceived length of connecting journey to the start point and again could have increased the results. However, the inclusion of Strategy 1b responses in these results has reduced the effect on validity and reliability by incorporating a wider survey area and more responses.

Waterborne Transport Study – Stage 2: User Survey Methodology and Findings Report.

Studland

Figure A31: Question D1 Results (Poole Bay Pilot – Studland).

Figure A31 shows the Studland responses to question D1 - Assuming an appropriate vessel for the sea conditions, would people be interested in travelling by boat between the identified landing points?

The data above was calculated by identifying those respondents within the Studland survey area (see Figure 2 in Appendix A) that would use waterborne transport to at least one destination, along with those that would not use the services at all. The proportion for each was then calculated against the total useable responses. It should be noted that the wider area (Strategy 1b) responses were not used for this analysis, hence the low level of visitor respondents. Due to the questions asked within the Strategy 1b questionnaires, it is not possible to assign those that would not use waterborne transport to an individual landing point.

The results above do not take into account the 7.7% self selection and response recording bias. With the bias removed the level of positive response changes to: 66.2% visitors; 76.7% residents; and 73.3% combined.

The above results show that the potential demand from Studland is the least of all Poole Bay landing points tested. The potential demand from residents is also significantly higher than that found from visitors. This is an interesting finding that is in contrast to what one would initially expect and has been accepted for the East Devon pilot - where resident demand is generally less than visitor demand due to the leisure nature of the services, that of visitor travel and also of the landing points tested.

The reduction in visitor demand is believed to be due to a high containment of visitors within Studland. Containment relates to the propensity of people to travel outside of an area. An area with a high containment will have few outgoing journeys, whereas an area with a low containment will have a high level of outgoing journeys. It could be argued that Studland with it’s limited opportunities (when compared to the other landings) would have a low containment, with visitors travelling outside of the area to access leisure and shopping opportunities unavailable within the settlement. However, when we look at the existing travel patterns to the other landing points (shown in Axx, Axx & Axx) it can be seen that the existing visitor demand for travel is low to all other landing points tested.

Waterborne Transport Study – Stage 2: User Survey Methodology and Findings Report.

For Poole and Bournemouth the reduction in existing visitor travel demand can be explained by the differing nature of the areas. Studland is a very tranquil place surrounded by stunning scenery with plenty of coastal and inland walks and cycle tracks interspersed with country pubs offering high quality local food and drink. Poole and Bournemouth are much more urban in nature which is in stark contrast to Studland. It can therefore be expected that travel to Poole and Bournemouth from Studland visitors would likely be reduced as they have booked their holiday for what Studland has to offer and are less interested in the hustle and bustle of Poole and Bournemouth.

Existing visitor travel to Swanage from Studland is also less than would be expected. This is thought to be due to the type of accommodation on offer and the length of stay - which would also be applicable to travel towards Poole and Bournemouth. There are no holiday parks on Studland which generally offer self catering holidays over one or two weeks of stay. There is however a number of hotels and bed & breakfasts within Studland which are essentially not self-catering holidays and generally offer shorter periods of stay. This has the effect of reducing the time available for visitors to explore the surrounding area and also where self-catering is not an option, travel to Swanage for grocery shopping (express style) is not required. This is harder to prove as investigation of the length of stay at the hotels and bed & breakfasts is commercially sensitive information and further survey work to investigate this is outside of the scope of this study.

Resident demand is reduced against that found at Swanage which is an interesting finding as both settlements are subject to the same transport issues when travelling to Poole and Bournemouth. It is possible that the proximity of the Sandbanks Ferry has had an effect on the demand. The Sandbanks Ferry sails between Studland and Sandbanks offering onward travel by car, bus, bike or foot to Poole and Bournemouth. Where the ferry is located within Studland residents can travel at different times to avoid delay and have the benefit of their car with them. It is also feasible that there are other factors at work that could serve to reduce resident demand from Studland, such as age demographic, propensity to travel by boat etc. However, it is not possible to investigate further the reasoning behind the reduction in demand from Studland residents against Swanage. Questions relating to reasons why respondents would or would not use waterborne transport were not asked and further survey work is outside of the scope of this study.

The validity of the above results is thought to be reasonably good. There was a good response rate from both residents and visitors. However, visitor responses were only gained from two hotels and there were none gained from any local bed & breakfast accommodation. The effect of this is unknown and would likely be related to differences between the average length of stay between hotels and bed & breakfasts. If the average length of stay is shorter for local bed & breakfast’s than the hotels tested it is possible that visitor demand could be reduced further.

When considering the validity of the resident responses it should be noted that where Studland is a very small settlement all residential addresses were sent a questionnaire. The response rate gained was 48.3% and all but one of the returned questionnaires were useable. Therefore, some 47.8% of the resident population of Studland was surveyed so it can be assumed that the results found are valid and reliable.

PLEASE NOTE: These results give only the potential market for waterborne transport, this data does not suggest that 73.3% (bias Removed) of the population will use any service put in place or at what frequency of use. To unlock this level of potential demand the services need to be supported by high quality facilities and marketing while offering good value for money to users.

Waterborne Transport Study – Stage 2: User Survey Methodology and Findings Report.

Figure A32: Question D1 Results - Travel from Studland (Poole Bay Pilot – Studland).

Figure A32 shows the detailed Studland responses to question D1 - Assuming an appropriate vessel for the sea conditions, would people be interested in travelling by boat between the identified landing points? - broken down by which point people would be interested in travelling to.

PLEASE NOTE: The proportions shown are of those users that would use waterborne transport from Studland, not all respondents, and are therefore not subject to self selection and D1 response recording bias.

In terms of the calculation of the results, for Strategies 1a (visitors) and 2 (residents) the individual Studland survey area responses to question D1 were proportioned against the total number of people that would use waterborne transport from Studland. The method of calculation for Strategy 1b (visitors) was slightly different. Those respondents that would use waterborne transport were identified and refined to those that would use Studland as a start point. Then the destinations to which they would travel by waterborne transport were proportioned against the total number that would use the services from Studland.

The results above show that demand from visitors to all landing points is significantly reduced when compared to residents. This fits with the high containment of visitors in Studland theorised in the analysis of the previous figure. Where visitors are contained within the settlement due to a short length of stay or the type of opportunities on offer, this has the effect of reducing the amount of outgoing travel and thus the number of destinations visited. This is evidenced in the results above which come about from the majority of visitors indicating that they would only be interested in travelling to one or two of the available landing points and is supported by the low existing demand for visitor travel from Studland found in figures Axx, Axx & Axx.

Residential travel from Studland shows a much greater proportion of those that would use waterborne transport would use it to access all other landing points. The Poole and Bournemouth results are elevated against Swanage which is an interesting finding and replicates that found from Swanage to Studland, indicating that these results are valid. This finding is interesting as it contradicts the existing demand for travel between Studland and Swanage shown in Figure Axx. This is believed to be due to the fact that Studland is very close to Swanage and the existing road

Waterborne Transport Study – Stage 2: User Survey Methodology and Findings Report. network does not suffer from excessive congestion and delay unlike that between southern Purbeck and Poole and Bournemouth. Therefore, when cost of travel; parking costs; interchange between modes; and wait time are considered, a trip via waterborne transport would most likely cost more and take longer than by existing transport options which serves to discourage people from using the service for this short trip.

The Poole and Bournemouth results from both residents and visitors fit with gravitational attraction theory. Poole receives greater potential demand than Bournemouth from Studland as it is closer and both are large towns with similar opportunities in terms of shopping, leisure and level of employment. The existing transport issues found on the A351 and Sandbanks Ferry are also applicable to both Poole and Bournemouth as either route would have to be used to access both towns. Thus, the travel context and attraction of each is similar and it is distance that is the predominant factor for most respondents responses, which is evidenced in the reduced Bournemouth demand from Studland compared to Poole.

As has been mentioned in the demand analysis to / from Swanage the results indicate that a potential way to increase demand between Studland and Swanage would be to benchmark ticket prices to parking charges and parking availability. This would serve to increase the benefits of using waterborne transport for the short trip and would likely increase demand. Although, the financial viability of competing with parking charges would need to be assessed by the operator.

In terms of validity, the results above are believed to be valid and reliable. The findings from both Swanage and Studland corroborate each other and results found from other areas of the survey fit with the likely demand in these results. The greatest threat to validity comes about from the fact that no bed & breakfast distributors were gained for Studland. The effect of this is unknown and would likely be related to differences between the average length of stay between hotels and bed & breakfast’s on Studland. If the average length of stay is shorter for local bed & breakfast’s than the hotels tested, it is possible that visitor demand could be reduced further as a greater proportion of respondents would have less time to explore the surrounding area.

Figure A33: Question D1 Results – Travel to Studland (Poole Bay Pilot – Studland).

Figure A33 gives the Studland responses to question D1 from other the Poole Bay Pilot landing points - Assuming an appropriate vessel for the sea conditions, would people be interested in travelling by boat between the identified landing points? - broken down by landing point / survey area of responses.

Waterborne Transport Study – Stage 2: User Survey Methodology and Findings Report.

The results for graph A33 were calculated by identifying the number of respondents at each other landing point that would use waterborne transport to travel to Studland. These were then proportioned by the total number of respondents that would use waterborne transport at each of the individual landing points. This method of calculation was the same for all survey strategies, with the only difference being the prior identification of start point for Strategy 1b (wider area) questionnaires which set the landing point to which the results were assigned.

These results show that there would be a reasonable demand for travel to Studland from the other landing points via waterborne transport. However, this demand is lower than that found for each other landing point within the pilot route. This is an unexpected finding as Studland is often very busy during the summer season and on sunny days in the shoulder months, which was thought would equate to a strong demand for waterborne transport.

It should be noted that the Poole visitor responses are believed to be slightly artificially elevated as only one distributor which was located on the Sandbanks peninsular submitted completed questionnaires for Strategy 1a. As Sandbanks is very close to Studland requiring only a short trip on the Sandbanks Ferry to travel between the two, this will have increased potential demand from Poole visitors. However, the above results include the wider area responses gained through strategy 1b which dilutes the effect of this by incorporating more responses from a wider geographical area.

The reasoning for the reduced demand from Swanage can be explained by the fact that Studland and Swanage are located close to each other and there are no significant transport issues between the two. Thus, when travel costs, wait time and other disbenefits are factored in, a trip by waterborne transport would likely take longer and cost more than a trip by existing means which discourages some respondents from using the service for this short trip.

The reduction in demand from Poole and Bournemouth is more difficult to interpret. Figures Axx and Axx show the existing demand from residents and visitors. These results indicate that the potential waterborne transport demand found from Poole and Bournemouth above is in-line with the existing levels of travel demand, suggesting that these results are correct. However, it is known that many of the day visitors to Studland come from Poole and Bournemouth which would appear to contradict these findings.

The reduction in existing and future waterborne demand from Poole and Bournemouth can be explained in a number of ways given below:

Bournemouth and Poole respondents already have access to sandy beaches (Sandbanks beach for Poole) which reduces the need to travel to Studland to access this opportunity. Demand to Swanage (which also has a sandy beach) is less affected as there are a wider range of other opportunities to attract people from Poole and Bournemouth.

Poole and Bournemouth are of a different nature to Studland. Both are urban areas with plenty of nightlife. This is likely to attract a higher proportion of visitors (and to an extent residents) who are less attracted by what Studland has to offer and are thus less inclined to travel there.

Waterborne Transport Study – Stage 2: User Survey Methodology and Findings Report.

The long road journey around Poole Harbour and acute summertime congestion on the A351 and Sandbanks Ferry serves to discourage people from travelling to Studland via existing modes of transport. Waterborne transport will allow people to avoid these issues meaning that this is more applicable to existing demand. However, where respondents would not currently consider this trip, they will have developed habits in terms of what beach they visit and where they go cycling and walking etc. therefore reducing future demand with waterborne transport in place.

The opportunities available on Studland centre on the sandy beach, rural cycling routes and country walks. With the exception of country walks, these activities require a certain amount of equipment (i.e. cycles, windbreaks, parasols, beach towels etc.) to be brought along. It is likely that respondents would be less inclined to use waterborne transport for these activities due to perceptions of difficulty taking the equipment on-board.

The final two points suggest that there may be a certain amount of churn in the results. That is people that would not normally travel to Studland because of the congestion and delay would now do so because they can avoid this with waterborne transport; and some of those that do travel to Studland would not use waterborne transport because they perceive difficulties in taking all ‘necessary’ beach / cycle equipment on board. This finding highlights a possible way of increasing demand to Studland. If a beach equipment and cycle rental outlet could be established in Studland this would reduce the need for travellers to bring this equipment with them, reducing the perceived issues that this equipment brings about and thus increasing demand. Another way of solving this problem would be to make adequate space for storage of cycles and beach equipment on the vessels used for the pilot route. Both of these solutions would require adequate promotion and marketing to maximise the benefits.

The above points explain why demand to Studland from Poole and Bournemouth is reduced. However, do not address the accepted fact that many of the day visitors to Studland live in Poole and Bournemouth while the demand found appears lower than would be expected. This can be explained by the level of population at each of the landing points tested. Swanage has a population of 9,840 whereas, Poole has a population of 142,135 and Bournemouth 168,118 (DCC, 2011). If the existing demand proportions in Figure Axx are assumed as roughly applicable across the whole population this would equate to a total of 8,300 Swanage residents, 94,800 Poole residents and 114,500 Bournemouth residents who will at some point visit Studland. From this it can be seen that while the proportion of residents that currently visit Studland from Poole and Bournemouth appears low, the number of people this represents is large.

The large catchment population in Poole and Bournemouth is an important point to consider when assessing the feasibility of this pilot route against the other pilots. Poole and Bournemouth are large population centres and the potential demand to both Swanage and Studland is substantial. Therefore, a high quality service offering good value for money and supported with adequate promotion and marketing would likely see a strong resident demand from Poole and Bournemouth to both Studland and Swanage.

The reconnection of Swanage Railway to the mainline at Wareham represents a threat to waterborne transport demand to Studland. This will allow travellers between Poole and Bournemouth and southern Purbeck to avoid existing congestion and delay on the road network and would be in direct competition with waterborne transport. The threat to demand is reduced for Studland against Swanage as a connecting journey from Swanage would be required for train travellers and the perceived issues of taking beach equipment and cycles on-board is applicable to

Waterborne Transport Study – Stage 2: User Survey Methodology and Findings Report. both modes. It would be possible to reduce this threat by working with Swanage Railway to integrate ticketing allowing for a circular waterborne / rail trip.

The most important points to consider in terms of validity are the aforementioned issues with the location of Poole and Bournemouth resident responses, along with the location of the Poole visitor responses. Where only residents within 2km of the landing points were used, this may have increased demand for travel to Studland from Poole and Bournemouth as the connecting trip to the start point would be shorter than for the majority of residents in these towns. However, the journey time savings that waterborne transport would offer all residents in Poole and Bournemouth when travelling to Studland means that the effect of this is likely to be minimal. The very low number of Poole visitor responses for Strategy 1a which were all located within Sandbanks may have increased demand from Poole visitors. Where Sandbanks was tested as a potential landing point and is located in very close proximity to Studland, this would have reduced the perceived length of connecting journey to the start point and could have increased demand. However, the inclusion of Strategy 1b responses in these results has reduced these effects by incorporating a wider survey area and more responses.

Waterborne Transport Study – Stage 2: User Survey Methodology and Findings Report.

Poole

Figure A34: Question D1 Results (Poole Bay Pilot – Poole).

Figure A34 shows the Poole responses to question D1 - Assuming an appropriate vessel for the sea conditions, would people be interested in travelling by boat between the identified landing points?

The data above was calculated by identifying those respondents within the Poole survey area (see Figure 2 in Appendix A) that would use waterborne transport to at least one destination, along with those that would not use the services at all. The proportion for each was then calculated against the total useable responses. It should be noted that the wider area (Strategy 1b) responses were not used for this analysis, hence the low level of visitor respondents. Due to the questions asked within the Strategy 1b questionnaires, it is not possible to assign those that would not use waterborne transport to an individual landing point.

The results above do not take into account the 7.7% self selection and response recording bias. With the bias removed the level of positive response changes to: 87.0% visitors; 80.1% residents; and 80.9% combined.

The results above indicate that there would be a good demand for waterborne transport from both residents and visitors at the Poole landing point. The visitor demand is elevated against residents which does not follow the pattern found at the other landing points for this pilot, highlighting the validity issue within the Poole visitor results. The other landing points show a similar or slightly reduced visitor demand when compared to residents. This is believed to be due to the contrasting nature of the Bournemouth and Poole landing points against Studland and Swanage, with visitors generally less likely to travel between the two halves of the pilot route due to this contrast. This theory is supported when we look at existing travel between the landing points in Figures Axx, Axx, Axx & Axx where it can be seen that demand for visitor travel between the two halves of the pilot is substantially lower than resident travel (Poole to Studland the exception - due to validity issue below).

These points highlight an issue with the validity of the Poole visitor data. This issue comes about from the very low response rate attained for Poole visitors (19) and also the location of the distributor that gained visitor responses. The low response rate has the effect of reducing the reliability of the results. If this survey was to be undertaken again with a different set of respondents it is likely that these results would be different in ways unknown. The location of the distributor has also affected the validity of the findings above. The distributor used was located on the Sandbanks peninsular which is only a short trip on the Sandbanks Ferry from Studland. Thus, it can be expected

Waterborne Transport Study – Stage 2: User Survey Methodology and Findings Report. that a greater number of these visitors would travel to Studland than would be true for those located within other areas of Poole. This effect is displayed in the existing demand for travel in Figure Axx where it can be seen that the Poole visitor results are substantially elevated against residents and also Bournemouth visitors. Thus, the location of the distributor has had the effect of increasing the potential demand for waterborne transport from Poole visitors. It is likely that the actual demand levels will be similar to that found from Bournemouth which is of a similar urban nature to Poole.

Another issue worthy of note when assessing the validity of these findings is the use of residential addresses within 2km of the landing point. Poole is a large town extending up to 6.5km away from Poole Quay. Where only those dwellings within 2km of the Quay were sent questionnaires this has reduced start point connecting journey length when compared to the wider Poole resident population. It is likely that if the survey was undertaken again with a more representative spread of dwellings surveyed the Poole resident result would be reduced.

PLEASE NOTE: These results give only the potential market for waterborne transport, this data does not suggest that 80.9% (bias removed) of the population will use any service put in place or at what frequency of use. To unlock this level of demand the services need to be supported by high quality facilities and marketing while offering good value for money to users.

Figure A35: Question D1 Results - Travel from Poole (Poole Bay Pilot – Poole).

Figure A35 shows the detailed Poole responses to question D1 - Assuming an appropriate vessel for the sea conditions, would people be interested in travelling by boat between the identified landing points? - broken down by which point people would be interested in travelling to.

PLEASE NOTE: The proportions shown are of those users that would use waterborne transport from Poole, not all respondents, and are therefore not subject to self selection and D1 response recording bias.

In terms of the calculation of the results, for Strategies 1a (visitors) and 2 (residents) the individual Poole survey area responses to question D1 were proportioned against the total number of people that would use waterborne transport from Poole. The method of calculation for Strategy 1b (visitors)

Waterborne Transport Study – Stage 2: User Survey Methodology and Findings Report. was slightly different. Those respondents that would use waterborne transport were identified and refined to those that would use Poole as a start point. Then the destinations to which they would travel by waterborne transport were proportioned against the total number that would use the services from Poole. The inclusion of the Strategy 1b responses has increased the number of visitor responses that the data is based upon and spread the responses over a wider geographical area. Therefore, the negative validity and reliability effects associated with the low number of Poole Strategy 1a responses that were focused on Sandbanks is reduced.

The results in Figure A35 show that Swanage receives the greatest potential demand from Poole, followed by Bournemouth then Studland. This contradicts what could initially be expected in terms of gravitational attraction theory whereby demand is a function of generalised cost (distance, time, travel costs etc.) and attraction. Where Bournemouth can be considered highly attractive due to the number of opportunities within the town and is located close to Poole, it may be expected that demand would be greatest to this landing point. The bullet points below seek to explain why this is not the case through the possible influences behind the findings:

Where Poole and Bournemouth are located very close to one another, residents are likely to travel regularly between the two towns (See figure Axx & Axx). This regular travel has the effect of forming travel habits that the benefits of waterborne transport are not sufficient to break, reflected in the lower resident demand to Bournemouth. Visitors by definition do not travel regularly between Poole and Bournemouth and thus have not formed the travel habits of residents. This is exemplified in the higher visitor demand to Bournemouth from Poole even though they show a reduced existing demand when compared to residents (see Figures Axx).

The summertime congestion and delay on the A351 and Sandbanks Ferry serves to encourage people to consider alternative modes of transport to Swanage from Poole and has led to the increased Swanage result. This is true for both residents and visitors, although, visitors are less likely to be aware of these issues. It is probable that the strong visitor demand is made up of those repeat visitors who are aware of the existing transport issues and first time visitors who are not aware, yet would use waterborne transport due to the leisure nature of the service and the benefits of experiencing a different type of transport including seeing the Poole Bay / Jurassic Coast from the water.

The above would suggest that demand to Studland should also be high as either the A351 or Sandbanks Ferry must be used to access the settlement from Poole. However, there are a wider range of opportunities available for people in Swanage to attract people into the town thus increasing the overall attractiveness of Swanage over Studland. Coupled with this the opportunities on Studland centre on cycling, walking and the sandy beach. Both cycling and a day at the beach generally require the use of equipment (i.e. bicycle, windbreaks, parasol etc.) and it is likely that respondents perceived difficulties in taking this equipment on board a waterborne transport trip when responding, thus reducing the demand to Studland from Poole.

Another point worthy of note when assessing the demand from Poole to Bournemouth is the nature of congestion and delay between the towns. Travel to Bournemouth does not suffer from the acute summertime congestion problems associated with the A351 and Sandbanks Ferry that can lead to extensive delay. However, travel between Poole and Bournemouth does suffer from urban congestion problems which can also lead to extensive delay. Urban transport issues centre on AM and PM peak periods and are felt throughout the year. Thus, it may be found that while demand between southern Purbeck and Poole and Bournemouth is greatest in the summer months due to

Waterborne Transport Study – Stage 2: User Survey Methodology and Findings Report. the effect of the existing transport issues. Demand between Poole and Bournemouth will be more stable throughout the year as changes to congestion and delay during the summer are less pronounced.

The reconnection of Swanage Railway to the mainline at Wareham represents a threat to waterborne transport demand from Poole to Southern Purbeck. This will allow travellers to avoid existing congestion and delay on the road network and would be in direct competition with waterborne transport. It would be possible to reduce this threat by working with Swanage Railway to integrate ticketing allowing for a circular waterborne / rail trip.

The above results are believed to be reasonably valid. The profiles from residents and visitors which have been surveyed through different methodologies are similar indicating that the demand levels found are accurate. The greatest threat to the validity of the findings comes from only surveying residents located within 2km of the landing point. This will have increased the resident demand from Poole to Bournemouth as the initial trip to the landing point would be short and those residents on the outskirts of Poole who are closer to Bournemouth have not been surveyed. The low Strategy 1a visitor responses which all came from a distributor located on Studland will have had slightly increased visitor demand to Studland from Poole due to the proximity of Sandbanks. However, the visitor responses include those found through Strategy 1b which has increased the number of respondents and spread the responses over a wider geographical area, thus increasing the validity and reliability of the visitor findings.

Figure A36: Question D1 Results – Travel to Poole (Poole Bay Pilot – Poole).

Figure A36 gives the Poole responses to question D1 from other the Poole Bay Pilot landing points - Assuming an appropriate vessel for the sea conditions, would people be interested in travelling by boat between the identified landing points? - broken down by landing point / survey area of responses.

The results for graph A36 were calculated by identifying the number of respondents at each other landing point that would use waterborne transport to travel to Poole. These were then proportioned by the total number of respondents that would use waterborne transport at each of the individual landing points. This method of calculation was the same for all survey strategies, with the only

Waterborne Transport Study – Stage 2: User Survey Methodology and Findings Report. difference being the prior identification of start point for Strategy 1b (wider area) questionnaires which set the landing point to which the results were assigned.

The resident results above indicate that waterborne transport demand will be greatest from Swanage, followed by Studland with the least demand found from Bournemouth residents. Similarly to travel from Poole this would appear to contradict gravitational attraction theory where one would expect greatest demand from the landing points closest to Poole (Studland and Bournemouth), indicating that contextual factors are at work to affect the results.

The increased resident demand from Swanage and Studland can be ascribed to the level and type of opportunities available in Poole compared to those in southern Purbeck. There is no large supermarket in Purbeck with the closest being located in Poole. Poole also has many more employment opportunities than both Swanage and Studland. Both of these points serve to encourage / make necessary trips between southern Purbeck and Poole and are confirmed in Figures Axx & Axx that show the existing level of demand for travel to Poole along with the purposes of these journeys. The journey purpose results can be broken down by landing point (not shown in report – available on request) and show that some 90% of journeys from Swanage and Studland are for shopping purposes with approximately 12.5% for commuting (highest of all landing points). This shows that residents within southern Purbeck are subject to low containment meaning that many trips are made outside of the area to access good and services. When coupled with the existing congestion and delay experienced on the A351 and Sandbanks Ferry, the need to travel to Poole and the existing transport issues serve to encourage residents to explore other means of travel, evidenced in the strong demand from southern Purbeck residents.

The reduced demand from Bournemouth residents is likely to be due to the effect of travel habits that the benefit of using waterborne transport is not sufficient to break. Figure Axx within the Impact on the Existing Transport Network section shows that existing demand from Bournemouth to Poole is high and similar to that from Swanage and Studland. The high level of existing travel will have formed habits for travellers with people used to travelling by a certain mode, along a certain route etc. Obviously this is also true for existing travellers between Southern Purbeck and Poole. However, where the traffic issues are less pronounced between Poole and Bournemouth than those between southern Purbeck and Poole, shifting mode to waterborne transport does not carry with it the level of time saving benefit that switching mode from southern Purbeck would. Thus, demand is reduced from Bournemouth residents. Where visitors are not local to the area they have not had the time to form travel habits and this is reflected in the increased Bournemouth to Poole visitor demand response.

Visitor demand follows a similar pattern to residential demand with the exception of Studland visitors. The high demand from Swanage visitors is believed to be for much the same reasoning as for residents – access to opportunities (particularly shopping) unavailable in Purbeck coupled with effect of existing transport issues. This reasoning is also true for Studland. However, the level of demand from Studland is much lower than that from Swanage. This is thought to be due to the high containment of visitors in Studland which comes about from a function of the type of accommodation on offer in Studland and also the nature of the area. Studland is a rural place with county walks, cycle rides, good pubs and sandy beach to attract visitors to the settlement. Poole is more urban in nature and in stark contrast to Studland thus visitors to Studland are likely to be less inclined to travel to Poole, preferring instead to remain in Studland to experience what the area has to offer. In addition to this there are no holiday parks within Studland with the visitor accommodation available being predominantly hotels and bed & breakfast establishments. Holiday parks generally offer self-catering accommodation over one or two weeks of stay, whereas hotels and bed & breakfast’s are not self-catering holidays and generally offer shorter periods of stay. Therefore, visitors have less time to explore the surrounding area and also have less need to travel

Waterborne Transport Study – Stage 2: User Survey Methodology and Findings Report. to Poole for grocery shopping. Figure Axx that shows the existing level of demand from Studland serves to lend weight to this theory as it can be seen that demand for travel to all landing points is low, highlighting the containment of visitors within Studland.

The intention to reconnect Swanage Railway with the main line in Wareham represents a threat to the demand for waterborne transport. When reconnected this service will allow people located in southern Purbeck to travel to Poole avoiding the existing transport issues on the A351 and Sandbanks Ferry, which will be in direct competition with waterborne transport and could abstract some demand.

The above results are believed to be largely valid and reliable. The number of resident and visitor respondents used for each landing point was good and the methodology used attempted to maximise the validity of the results found. The greatest validity issue to note is the use of Bournemouth residents within 2km of the landing point. Where Bournemouth and Poole are large towns in very close proximity it is likely that demand from Bournemouth is increased as the connecting trip is shorter for those tested against the average Bournemouth resident.

Waterborne Transport Study – Stage 2: User Survey Methodology and Findings Report.

Bournemouth

Figure A37: Question D1 Results (Poole Bay Pilot – Bournemouth).

Figure A37 shows the Bournemouth responses to question D1 - Assuming an appropriate vessel for the sea conditions, would people be interested in travelling by boat between the identified landing points?

The data above was calculated by identifying those respondents within the Bournemouth survey area (see Figure 2 in Appendix A) that would use waterborne transport to at least one destination, along with those that would not use the services at all. The proportion for each was then calculated against the total useable responses. It should be noted that the wider area (Strategy 1b) responses were not used for this analysis, hence the low level of visitor respondents. Due to the questions asked within the Strategy 1b questionnaires, it is not possible to assign those that would not use waterborne transport to an individual landing.

The results above do not take into account the 7.7% self selection and response recording bias. With the bias removed the level of positive response changes to: 79% visitors; 80.2% residents; and 79.9% combined.

The results above show that with self selection and response recording bias removed there would be a good demand for waterborne transport from both residents and visitors for the Bournemouth landing point. These results fit with that found at the other Poole Bay landing points (Poole the exception due to validity issue) with resident and visitor demand at a similar level. This is in contrast with the results from the East Devon and Weymouth & Portland pilots, where it was found that visitor demand is generally greater than resident demand. Believed to be due to the leisure nature of the services, that of visitor travel and also the landing points tested.

The reasoning for the similar demand found from residents and visitors is likely to be due to the strong existing residential demand for travel between the landing points with lower visitor demand shown in Figures Axx, Axx & Axx. Coupled with the existing transport issues on the A351 and Sandbanks Ferry this encourages residents to consider other modes of transport and has increased the residential demand against visitors when compared to the other pilot routes.

When comparing the potential demand found above to that found at the other landing points it can be seen that Bournemouth receives a similar level of demand to that found at Poole (visitors the exception due to Poole visitor validity issue). This indicates that the findings are largely accurate as

Waterborne Transport Study – Stage 2: User Survey Methodology and Findings Report. both Poole and Bournemouth are large urban areas with similar opportunities that could affect people’s decision to travel and are in contrast with the more rural southern Purbeck half of the pilot route. It may be expected that where Bournemouth represents one of the peripheral landing points demand may be reduced against Poole which is a central landing point. Waterborne transport would only offer access to opportunities towards the west from Bournemouth and in both directions from Poole. However, this is not the case suggesting that visitors and residents within Bournemouth generally perceive their opportunities towards the west rather than the east (Christchurch, New Forest National Park and Southampton). This finding may also be true for Christchurch due to the close proximity to Bournemouth, indicating that an extension of the route to Christchurch may be feasible in terms of demand. However, this has not been tested within this research exercise and further survey work would be required to explore this.

In terms of validity, the greatest threat comes about from the low number of visitor responses used for the analysis (30). This level of response equates to the identified minimum level of responses, required before validity would be severely adversely affected. However, this number is still low and the reliability of the results must be questioned. Therefore, caution should be applied when interpreting these results as it is possible that if the survey was undertaken again with a different group of visitors the demand found would vary.

Only residential addresses located within 2km of the potential landing point were used for this survey exercise and this may have increased the overall level of residential demand from Bournemouth. Where the majority of Bournemouth residential addresses are further from the landing point that those tested, this will have reduced the length of any connecting journey to the landing point increasing the benefit of using the services and thus potential demand.

PLEASE NOTE: These results give only the potential market for waterborne transport, this data does not suggest that 79.9% (bias Removed) of the population will use any service put in place or at what frequency of use. To unlock this level of potential demand the services need to be supported by high quality facilities and marketing while offering good value for money to users.

Figure A38: Question D1 Results - Travel from Bournemouth (Poole Bay Pilot – Bournemouth).

Figure A38 shows the detailed Bournemouth responses to question D1 - Assuming an appropriate vessel for the sea conditions, would people be interested in travelling by boat between the identified landing points? - broken down by which point people would be interested in travelling to.

100

Waterborne Transport Study – Stage 2: User Survey Methodology and Findings Report.

PLEASE NOTE: The proportions shown are of those users that would use waterborne transport from Bournemouth, not all respondents, and are therefore not subject to self selection and D1 response recording bias.

In terms of the calculation of the results, for Strategies 1a (visitors) and 2 (residents) the individual Bournemouth survey area responses to question D1 were proportioned against the total number of people that would use waterborne transport from Bournemouth. The method of calculation for Strategy 1b (visitors) was slightly different. Those respondents that would use waterborne transport were identified and refined to those that would use Bournemouth as a start point. Then the destinations to which they would travel by waterborne transport were proportioned against the total number that would use the services from Bournemouth.

The results above show that resident demand from Bournemouth would be greatest to Swanage with Poole and Studland receiving a similar lower level of demand from Bournemouth. Visitor demand follows a different pattern with Swanage and Poole receiving greatest demand with Studland the least demand from Bournemouth.

The strong demand found from residents and visitors to Swanage is likely due to the combination of a high existing demand for travel (shown in Figure Axx) coupled with the existing transport issues on the A351 and Sandbanks Ferry. These serve to encourage both residents and visitors to explore other means of accessing Swanage to avoid the existing delay.

Travel to Studland is also subject to the existing acute summertime congestion and delay on the A351 and Sandbanks Ferry. However, the waterborne transport demand to Studland found is least from both residents and visitors alike. Looking at the existing demand for travel from Bournemouth to the other landing points in Figures Axx, Axx & Axx, it can be seen that demand to Studland is the least of all landing points within the pilot route indicating that these results are valid. The reasoning for the reduced demand to Studland from Bournemouth is likely due to the fact that the opportunities in Studland are focused on the sandy beach along with coastal and in-land walks and cycle rides. Where Bournemouth has it’s own sandy beach, the existing congestion and delay between the two and the parking issues found in Studland discourages travel to the area with people preferring to visit Bournemouth beach instead. In addition to this, it is likely that perceptions of difficulty in taking beach equipment and cycles on-board the vessels will have also reduced future demand via waterborne transport from Bournemouth to Studland.

The differing nature of Studland and Bournemouth is also likely to have affected travel demand between the two. Where Studland is rural and tranquil in nature with stunning scenery to attract visitors, Bournemouth is an urban area with numerous restaurants, bars and clubs. Therefore, it is thought that what Studland has to offer is generally of less interest to visitors in Bournemouth (and to a lesser extent residents) which is evidenced in the low existing and with waterborne transport demand.

It could be argued that the contrasting nature of Bournemouth with Studland is applicable to Swanage, albeit to a lesser extent as both are Victorian seaside towns. However, Swanage receives a high demand from both residents and visitors from Bournemouth. This is thought to be due to the wider range of opportunities available in Swanage to attract people to the town; the fact that

101

Waterborne Transport Study – Stage 2: User Survey Methodology and Findings Report.

Swanage is better known than Studland as a destination; and also the high level of coach excursions which currently run to Swanage from Bournemouth.

Resident demand for waterborne transport to Poole is of a similar level to that found for Studland. This is an interesting finding that contradicts the existing demand level found in Figure Axx showing that there is currently a strong movement of residents between the towns. The reasoning for this finding is likely to be twofold. Firstly, where Bournemouth and Poole are large urban areas in close proximity, a trip via waterborne transport would require a detour to the landing point at the start of the journey and possibly also a connecting trip from the landing point in Poole – dependant on destination. Therefore, the interchange/wait-time/travel cost disbenefits of using the service outweigh the benefits associated with using the services and thus residents will tend to retain existing travel choices for many trips. Secondly, where regular trips are already made between the Poole and Bournemouth, this has the effect of creating travel habits that the benefits of using waterborne transport are not sufficient to break.

Visitor demand to Poole is elevated compared to resident demand which is largely due to the fact that both of the above theories are less applicable to visitors. Where the majority of Bournemouth’s Hotels are located on or close to the seafront, only a short trip is required to the landing point to access the services. In addition to this, Poole Quay is a destination itself and located close to the town centre reducing the need for a connecting trip on the Poole end of the journey. Also visitors do not make regular trips between the towns as they are not local. Therefore, travel habits have not formed for visitors and waterborne transport is perceived as a more viable option.

The discussion above has highlighted a potential way of increasing demand for waterborne transport from Bournemouth. The high level of coach visitors within Bournemouth and where Swanage is a popular excursion destination, consideration should be given to working with coach operators to secure excursions to Swanage using waterborne transport. This would avoid a delayed road journey and could be coupled with a Swanage Railway trip to include Corfe Castle which is also a popular coach excursion destination.

The greatest threat to the validity of these findings is the use of residents within 2km of the landing point. Bournemouth is a large town with residential areas extending up to 6.5km from this point but the questionnaires were only sent to residents within 2km of this point. Therefore, the average length of trip to the landing point for the respondents of this survey is reduced against the average Bournemouth resident. This is likely to have increased the demand for waterborne transport from Bournemouth residents against what may be found across the wider resident population. The effect of this is only likely to have affected trips to Poole due to the close proximity of the town and also the existing transport issues on the A351 and Sandbanks Ferry encourage people to use alternative modes of transport to southern Purbeck. However, demand from residents on the outskirts of Bournemouth may be found to be less to all landing points due to the length of the connecting journey and urban transport issues within Bournemouth which would serve to discourage making the connecting trip to the start point.

Other than these points the results found are believed to be largely valid and reliable. The methodology employed sought to minimise and validity issues and there was an adequate number of both residents and visitors that responded to the survey to base the findings upon.

102

Waterborne Transport Study – Stage 2: User Survey Methodology and Findings Report.

Figure A39: Question D1 Results – Travel to Bournemouth (Poole Bay Pilot – Bournemouth).

Figure A39 gives the Bournemouth responses to question D1 from other the Poole Bay Pilot landing points - Assuming an appropriate vessel for the sea conditions, would people be interested in travelling by boat between the identified landing points? - broken down by landing point / survey area of responses.

The results for graph A39 were calculated by identifying the number of respondents at each other landing point that would use waterborne transport to travel to Bournemouth. These were then proportioned by the total number of respondents that would use waterborne transport at each of the individual landing points. This method of calculation was the same for all survey strategies, with the only difference being the prior identification of start point for Strategy 1b (wider area) questionnaires which set the landing point to which the results were assigned.

The results above show that potential resident demand to Bournemouth is greatest from Swanage followed by Studland with a reduced demand for waterborne transport from Poole.

Both Swanage and Studland show a strong resident demand to Bournemouth. The increased level and range of opportunities available in Bournemouth compared to those in southern Purbeck serve to attract people from Swanage and Studland to access opportunities unavailable in southern Purbeck. Shown in Figure Axx where it can be seen that existing travel demand to Bournemouth is high. In addition to this, the long journey around Poole harbour or shorter trip utilising the Sandbanks Ferry which are both subject to severe summertime congestion and delay, create a driver for residents to consider other means of transport to avoid long and/or delayed journeys. Where waterborne transport allows people to avoid these issues this has led to the high demand from Swanage and Studland.

Figure Axx also shows a strong existing travel demand from residents in Poole to Bournemouth. However, this has not translated to waterborne transport demand as readily as for southern Purbeck residents. It is thought that this is predominantly due to reduced journey time savings that waterborne transport would offer Poole residents against those in southern Purbeck. A trip via waterborne transport would generally require a connecting trip to the start point in Poole and

103

Waterborne Transport Study – Stage 2: User Survey Methodology and Findings Report. onward connecting trip from Bournemouth - depending on origin and destination. Where Poole and Bournemouth are large towns located in close proximity, the majority of trips journeys would require connecting trips at the start and end which will increase overall journey time along with the interchange, wait time and travel cost disbenefits of using the service. These increased disbenefits when compared to existing means of transport, particularly the private car which offers door to door travel, serve to discourage residents to use the service for the short hop between Poole and Bournemouth. Where trips from southern Purbeck are longer and often more delayed, the journey time savings that waterborne transport would offer over existing transport modes reduces the negative effects of the disbenefits discussed and thus demand is increased.

Where there is already a high demand for travel between Poole and Bournemouth, this serves to create travel habits where people tend to travel by the same mode, along the same route and park in the same place etc. Where a trip from Poole by waterborne transport would generally take longer and cost more than by existing means, the benefit of using waterborne transport is not sufficient to make people consider changing their habits and thus use waterborne transport. Travel from Swanage and Studland would likely be quicker via waterborne transport and the existing issues on the network encourage people to consider there travel habits more, thus demand is increased from southern Purbeck as these travel habits are easier to break and waterborne transport would offer a viable alternative to existing modes.

Visitor demand to Bournemouth follows a pattern to that found from Bournemouth. Demand is greatest from Swanage and Poole with a substantially reduced potential demand found from Studland.

The reduced demand from Studland is thought to be due to a high containment of visitors within the area. The existing demand for travel from Studland in Figures Axx, Axx & Axx show that visitors generally travel less than visitors at all of the other landing points including to Swanage, highlighting the high containment theory. Believed to be due to the effect of short, non-self catering holidays in Studland which reduce the need and desire to travel and keep people within the settlement during their stay.

The strong visitor demand from Swanage comes about from much the same reasoning as resident demand. Bournemouth offers lots of things to see and do (opportunities) and the existing transport issues/length of journey to Bournemouth encourage people to consider alternative transport options. Obviously, where visitors are not local to the area it can be expected that they would be less aware of the transport issues. However, there is an additional uplift in demand due to the leisure nature of the services and that of visitor travel. Put simply, waterborne transport offers a nice day out. The above is also true for Poole visitors. However, as has been discussed for residents, the benefits of using waterborne transport for this short hop is reduced against existing modes due to the requirement for connecting journeys, although, demand from Poole visitors is similar to Swanage. This exemplifies the ‘nice day out’ effect, where the leisure nature of the services and that of visitor travel serves to encourage visitor demand.

As with all the landing points tested for this pilot the reconnection of Swanage Railway with the mainline in Wareham represents a threat to the potential demand for waterborne transport. When completed the reconnection will allow visitors and residents to travel between Poole and Bournemouth by train and avoid the existing congestion and delay issues which have had a strong effect on waterborne transport demand between the two halves of this pilot route.

When considering the validity of these responses there are three main points to note. Firstly and most significantly, is the effect of surveying residents within 2km of the potential landing points. This

104

Waterborne Transport Study – Stage 2: User Survey Methodology and Findings Report. has had the effect of increasing resident demand between Poole and Bournemouth by reducing the average length of connecting journey to and from the landing points when compared to the wider resident population. Secondly, the visitors surveyed within Studland were all staying in hotels. Where it is believed that demand is reduced in Studland due in part to the length of stay, if the average length of stay in bed and breakfast’s is significantly different to that in hotels this will have affected the results. If bed & breakfasts offer longer average stay than hotels, results are likely to be artificially reduced. The reverse is also true: B&B stay shorter than hotels, results artificially elevated. The final point to consider in terms of validity is the low number and location of Poole visitor respondents for Strategy 1a. Where all were located on Sandbanks which was one of the possible landing point options given this would have reduced the perceived connecting journey for these respondents. However, the inclusion of strategy 1b responses in these results has reduced this and the results are only likely to be slightly affected.

105

Waterborne Transport Study – Stage 2: User Survey Methodology and Findings Report.

Conclusions Conclusions yet to be written.

106

Waterborne Transport Study – Stage 2: User Survey Methodology and Findings Report.

Factors that Could Affect Demand This section of the report provides the analysis of the factors that could affect demand for waterborne transport. The questions relating to this research area are F1 and F2 detailed below.

(F1) What factors would influence peoples decision to travel by boat? (F2) Would potential users like an on-board commentary describing the features of the Jurassic Coast as they pass them?

Question F1 is analysed at only the whole of waterborne transport level. The results gained were similar for each pilot route and the analysis of the differences between the pilot routes will add little value in terms of assessing the feasibility of the services. The data is available at both the pilot route and individual landing point level and can be provided on request.

Question F2 is analysed at only the pilot route level. It is not necessary to analyse the results at the landing point or whole of waterborne transport levels as the decision to include or omit an on-board commentary would be made for an entire route rather than an individual landing point. It is possible to provide the results at the landing point level and these can be made available on request.

Question F1 Analysis – Waterborne Transport as a Whole. Figure 40 on the following page and Table 11 below provides the whole of survey responses to question F1 - What factors would influence people’s decision to travel by boat?

Residents Combined Response Option Visitors (482) (897) (1379) Cost 76.76% 74.36% 75.20% Journey time compared to land travel 26.97% 27.09% 27.05% Frequency and departure/arrival timing of service 57.88% 60.31% 59.46% Reliability of service 51.24% 50.95% 51.05% Connections with public transport 14.32% 15.27% 14.94% Availability of taxis at landings 2.70% 2.45% 2.54% Links to walking and cycling routes 10.37% 11.15% 10.88% Parking availability at start point 43.78% 18.06% 27.05% Comprehensive, clear and readily available information 23.44% 28.09% 26.47% on the service Sea conditions 47.51% 53.96% 51.70% Weather 26.56% 39.69% 35.10% Other factors 10.58% 9.59% 9.93% Total (up to 4 factors ticked - 400% max) 392.12% 390.97% 391.37% Table 11: Question F1 Results – Whole of Waterborne Transport.

This question was posed in the same way with the same progression of response options in all questionnaires distributed for this survey (see example questionnaires in Appendix B). This ensured that all responses were based upon the same question and thus suitable for inclusion when analysing across the pilot routes.

To derive the data used for Figure 40 and Table 11, the total number of responses to each response option was calculated and proportioned by the total number of useable responses to the survey. This was carried out separately for residents and visitors with final calculation that included both groups for the combined response.

107

Waterborne Transport Study – Stage 2: User Survey Methodology and Findings Report.

Figure A40: Question F1 Results – Factors that could affect demand (Whole of Waterborne Transport).

Waterborne Transport Study – Stage 2: User Survey Methodology and Findings Report.

The results in Table 11 and Figure 40 show that Cost is the most important factor that could affect demand for both residents and visitors. This suggests that the demand for waterborne transport would be elastic and small increases in costs above what people would be willing to pay could lead to a comparatively large decrease in demand. Therefore, the willingness to pay for the services in the following section should be given careful consideration when planning the pilot routes and assessing profitability. As with most products and services there will be an equilibrium point at which maximum profitability can be achieved. This is the point at which demand for the service multiplied by the costs charged is highest. A charge lower than this will bring greater demand but lower overall profits and charges above this equilibrium point will reduce demand and again overall profits. Where this survey was focused upon fact finding the elasticity of demand for waterborne transport has not been calculated. However, all data gathered via this research is available upon request and will assist future operators in the calculation of cost price elasticity of the services.

The Frequency and arrival/departure timing of the service is the second most important factor for all respondents. Interestingly the importance of this factor is similar for residents and visitors. One may expect that the arrival and departure timings of a service would be less important for visitors as their travel is generally for leisure purposes that often do not require a specific arrival / departure time. Unfortunately questions relating to the ideal frequency and arrival/ departure times of the services were not asked. However, the analysis of potential demand in the previous section gives some clues towards the drivers behind using the services and this can be used to consider ways to maximise demand through the frequency and timing of the services. The bullet points below give the key findings of the demand analysis for each pilot route with relevant frequency and arrival/departure timing considerations.

East Devon Pilot High demand to Lyme Regis from all landing points - Low demand for commuting between the landing points with leisure being the predominant purpose for travel - Grocery shopping trips from Lyme Regis to Seaton and Sidmouth – Potential for high demand to Seaton allowing access to local attractions (Donkey Sanctuary etc.) -

Weymouth and Portland Pilot High commuting demand between Weymouth and Portland – Leisure demand to Portland - Leisure and shopping demand to Weymouth -

Poole Bay Pilot Reasonable commuting demand from southern Purbeck to Poole and Bournemouth – High leisure demand from Poole and Bournemouth to southern Purbeck - Shopping trips from southern Purbeck to Poole and Bournemouth - Low demand between Swanage and Studland and also Poole and Bournemouth - High containment of visitors in Studland with low demand for travel to Poole and Bournemouth -

It should be noted that the influences on demand are investigated in more detail within the analysis of potential demand section, those given above are only the key points of note. When planning the

Waterborne Transport Study – Stage 2: User Survey Methodology and Findings Report. frequency and timing of the pilot routes a detailed study of the demand influences should be undertaken to maximise the potential demand for the services.

The third most important factor that could affect demand is the Reliability of the services. Initially this would appear to be a difficult factor to manage as the reliability of the services is tied to sea conditions which it is not possible to control. However, the reliability of the services can be maximised through information provision relating to sailings and the potential for cancellations due to sea conditions. It is suggested that any future operator’s website should have the status of the service (running/cancelled) accessible on the front page with the potential for future service interruptions/cancellations also documented and very easily accessible. This will allow users to plan their journeys in advance and also avoid the disappointment (and effect on repeat custom) of arriving at the landing point only to find the sailing cancelled. There are also other ways of delivering this information which will maximise the reliability of the services for users:

Pre-booked ticket holders could be sent SMS messages warning them of possible or actual cancellations before they make the connecting journey to the start point; A telephone line with a pre-recorded answer phone message giving the status of the services could be employed. This will allow users who are less comfortable with computers or the internet to access the information; A Twitter page could be set up that updates the status of the services in real time along with the potential for future interruptions; Service status updates could be issued to local media outlets such as Wessex FM, Fire Radio and BBC Southwest for broadcast at near to real time. This is also very good for raising awareness of the services; and Service status information including the possibility of future cancellation could be sent to TravelDorset.org and GettingAbout.info which provide real time information and advice to travellers across Bournemouth, Poole and Dorset.

It should be noted that any information sources employed will require high quality marketing to ensure that all users are fully aware of the availability of this information. If the information is available but users are not aware of it, they will arrive at the landing points expecting to travel and this could have a severe effect on repeat custom/ongoing demand.

Sea conditions are the fourth most important factor that would have a bearing on the demand for the services. It is not possible to control sea conditions and as such they are a major threat to the demand for waterborne transport. However, this fits with the reliability of the services in that people want the service to be reliable but sea conditions may put them off travelling. This highlights that cancelling services due to sea conditions may be feasible (and possibly advisable for running cost savings as demand may be low) without too much of an affect on repeat custom. However, there must be high quality and readily accessible information regarding the status of the services to prevent people arriving at the landing point only to be turned away disappointed.

Other factors that are important to users but do not score as highly as those above are: Weather; Journey time compared to land travel; Parking availability at the start point; and Service information availability.

Parking availability at the start point scores highly for visitors, coming a close fifth behind sea conditions. However, this factor does not score well with the residents surveyed. This is belied to be directly related to the location of the residents used for the survey with all living in residential addresses within 2km of the landing point. 2km is a short distance that is suitable for walking and

Waterborne Transport Study – Stage 2: User Survey Methodology and Findings Report. cycling to the landing point. Therefore, the residents surveyed are less concerned with the parking availability at the landing points than may be true for Devon and Dorset residents located farther away. This is an important validity consideration. It is very likely that if the survey was carried out again with a wider geographic spread of residents, parking availability at the start points would come out as the fifth most important factor for both residents and visitors. Thus, this should be treated as an important factor when assessing the feasibility of the pilot routes.

There is also a significant difference in visitor and resident response levels for the Weather and Sea Conditions response options with residents being more sensitive to these than visitors. However, this is not believed to be a symptom of a validity issue. The reasoning behind this difference in response is though to be due to the time period available for residents and visitors to use the services. Where visitors are in the area for a short period they are more willing to travel in bad weather and poor sea conditions so that they can experience the services during their stay. Residents have the ability to wait until the conditions are more suitable for a waterborne trip as they live in the area. The effect of this on demand is hard to gauge. It is likely that on those days where the weather/sea conditions would allow sailing but are not ideal, there will be a reduced demand from residents but visitor demand may be slightly more robust.

The final validity point to note relates to the Cost response option. This response option was at the top of the list of options. Where cost is an important consideration for all goods and services the inclusion of this option at the top of the list may have increased the number of respondents who recorded this as a factor that could affect demand. Therefore, whilst it is likely that cost would be important factor that could affect demand, the actual importance of this may be slightly elevated against what would be found in reality. It is not possible to estimate by magnitude of this effect and as cost would be an important factor it is not felt necessary to reduce the importance of this factor.

In addition to the standard response options analysed above, space was made available for other factors respondents felt may influence their decision to travel by boat. Table 12 on the following page shows these other factors.

The data in Table 12 was derived by analysing the data to find themes in the other factors given. These themes were used to generate categories that the responses were assigned to. The number of responses to each category was then calculated and proportioned by the total number of respondents who gave other factors that could affect demand. Therefore, the percentages given are of those respondents who indicated that other factors would affect their decision to travel by boat (approximately 10% of those that would use waterborne transport). During this process any responses that were irrelevant to factors that could affect demand and any that reiterated options within the main list were discarded and not used for the analysis.

Detailed analysis of the other factors that could affect demand has not been undertaken as this represents only a small portion of respondents. However, there is useful information within Table 12 that should be used by operators when planning the services, selecting vessels and designing the landing point infrastructure.

When considering the validity of these responses the main point to note is that these factors were offered by respondents and were not included in the list of response options. If any of these were included in the main list of response options they would likely have scored more highly. Therefore, whilst these factors receive only a small proportion of respondents they are believed to be representative of the needs of users and should be given adequate consideration by potential operators.

Waterborne Transport Study – Stage 2: User Survey Methodology and Findings Report.

Frequency of % of Factor Response Responses How Enjoyable the Journey is 26 24.30% Quality/Safety of Vessel and Access 16 14.95% Disabled Access Available 10 9.35% Dogs Allowed to Travel 10 9.35% Avoid Congestion 6 5.61% See the Jurassic Coast 6 5.61% Free Bus Pass Accepted/Concessionary Fares 5 4.67% Convenience of the Service 5 4.67% Parking Costs/Integrated Park and Ride 5 4.67% Bicycles Allowed On-Board 4 3.74% Refreshments Available On-Board 3 2.80% Indoor Seating 2 1.87% Guaranteed Return Journey 2 1.87% Reduce Car Use (Environmental Reasons) 2 1.87% Season Ticketing Available 1 0.93% Family Ticketing Available 1 0.93% Day Rover Ticketing Available (Multi Stop Ticket) 1 0.93% Quality of Staff 1 0.93% Child Friendly with Storage for Pushchairs etc. 1 0.93% Total number of relevant responses 107 100.00% Table 12: Question F1 Results – Other Factors that could affect demand – Whole of Waterborne Transport.

Waterborne Transport Study – Stage 2: User Survey Methodology and Findings Report.

Question F2 Analysis – Pilot Route Level. Figures 41, 42 & 43 show the pilot route level responses to Question F1 - Would potential users like an on-board commentary describing the features of the Jurassic Coast as they pass them?

This question was posed in the same way for the East Devon and Weymouth and Portland Pilot routes. The question was slightly modified for the Poole Bay Pilot highlighting that only Swanage and Studland are part of the Jurassic Coast World Heritage Site. Therefore, respondents to the Poole Bay Pilot have responded believing the commentary would only be available for the Swanage and Studland area.

The results shown in Figures 41, 42 & 43 were all calculated in the same way. The total number of responses to each response option for each pilot route was calculated and proportioned by the total number of useable responses for that pilot route. This was carried out separately for residents and visitors with final calculation that included both groups for the combined response.

Figure A41: Question F2 Results – Onboard Commentary (East Devon Pilot).

Figure A42: Question F2 Results – Onboard Commentary (Weymouth & Portland Pilot).

Waterborne Transport Study – Stage 2: User Survey Methodology and Findings Report.

Figure A43: Question F2 Results – Onboard Commentary (Poole Bay Pilot).

The results shown in Figures 41, 42 & 43 are similar for all pilot routes. Visitors are significantly more amenable to an on-board commentary than residents. Residents are largely indifferent although a larger proportion would like a commentary rather than dislike one. These findings are believed to follow what may be expected in reality. Where residents are local to the areas and are more likely to be repeat users, the benefit of an on-board commentary is reduced after the first trip and could discourage some users if the commentary is too intrusive.

The level of residents that would like and onboard commentary is greatest for the East Devon Pilot. This is most likely due to the range of Jurassic Coast features that are contained within this stretch of coast. Visitors in the Weymouth and Portland area are most favourable to an onboard commentary which is interesting as there is only a small section of the Jurassic Coast on this stretch. However, Portland Harbour has an interesting military history that could be of interest to visitors.

The Poole Bay pilot receives the lowest demand for an on-board commentary from both residents and visitors. Most likely due to the slight change in the question asked that made respondents believe the commentary would only be in place for the Swanage and Studland area. It is possible that if the commentary covered the whole route there would be a greater demand, similar to that found for the other pilots tested.

Overall the results show that an onboard commentary would be more of a selling point to users than a deterrent. However, to maximise repeat resident demand this commentary should not be too intrusive. A possible solution to this would be to employ wireless headphones with a pre-recorded commentary that could be triggered by the crew as certain points are passed on the coast. This would allow those users who would rather not hear a commentary to quietly enjoy the journey and those who would like a commentary to learn about the coast.

The validity of the above findings is thought to be high. There we a large number of respondents who took part and it is unlikely that any would have falsified their responses. The only point worthy of consideration is the slight questioning change for the Poole Bay Pilot which has reduced the proportion of residents and visitors who would like an onboard commentary.

Waterborne Transport Study – Stage 2: User Survey Methodology and Findings Report.

Conclusions Conclusions yet to be written.

Waterborne Transport Study – Stage 2: User Survey Methodology and Findings Report.

Willingness to Pay This section of the report gives the analysis of respondent’s willingness to pay for the services. The question that relates to this research area was W1 which is detailed below.

(W1) How much would people be willing to pay for a waterborne return trip between the landing points? This question is analysed at the pilot level with the willingness to pay given for each possible trip within the pilot. It was not necessary to investigate the results across the whole of waterborne transport as differences in leg lengths and the location of the routes makes amalgamating the results invalid.

The actual question posed to participants was similar across all surveys although a slight change was required for the wider area visitor questionnaires (Strategy 1b), because there was no assumption of starting point for these journeys. An example of the questions posed is given below. These are those for West Bay residents and visitors within the East Devon Pilot (Strategies 1a & 2) and also the East Devon Pilot wider area visitors (Strategy 1b).

Question - W1 East Devon Pilot – West Bay Residents and Visitors (Strategies 1a & 2) Please use the table below to indicate how much you would be willing to pay for a waterborne return trip between West Bay and:

Lyme Regis Seaton Sidmouth Adult Child Conc. Adult Child Conc. Adult Child Conc.

Question - W1 East Devon Pilot – Wider Area Visitors (Strategy 1b) Please use the table below to indicate how much you would be willing to pay for a waterborne return trip from your likely starting location to the given destinations. (Leave your likely start location blank in the table below)

West Bay Lyme Regis Seaton Sidmouth Adult Child Conc. Adult Child Conc. Adult Child Conc. Adult Child Conc.

In terms of differences between the questionnaires, for Strategy 1a & 2 the start point given in the question and the destinations within the response table were changed depending on location (see appendix B for example questionnaires showing the differences). Strategy 1b questionnaires remained the same with only the destinations changing based upon the pilot route being tested.

The results are analysed separately for each pilot. However, the method of calculation was the same for each. Therefore, the method of calculation is given below for all pilots and not within each pilot route heading.

To calculate the data given within Tables 13, 17 & 20 the responses given were initially grouped into trips i.e. trips between West Bay and Lyme Regis, West Bay and Seaton etc. Once all possible trips were grouped spreadsheet analysis was employed to calculate the average mean, median and mode cost that respondents would be willing to pay for each possible trip within the pilot routes.

Waterborne Transport Study – Stage 2: User Survey Methodology and Findings Report.

In addition to the calculation of willingness to pay for each possible trip, those trips that represented a single hop (e.g. between West Bay and Lyme Regis), a double hop (e.g. Sidmouth and Lyme Regis) and a triple hop (e.g. Sidmouth and West Bay) were also grouped and the average mean, median and mode response calculated. It should be noted that the mean, median and mode calculated for the single, double and triple hop trips was carried out by analysing the base data not by averaging the individual trip results which would have led to false data due to the averaging of an average.

Also, when carrying out the calculations any blank spaces in the questionnaires were not recorded as a 0 which would have affected the results by artificially reducing the average. Also, when inputting the data checks were carried out on the responses supplied to identify and discard any obviously false responses which could skew the results and affect the validity of the findings.

Calculation of Mean, Median and Mode Averages. The arithmetic mean average was calculated by adding up the values of all of the responses given, then dividing this sum by the total number of responses.

Mean of the group 2, 4, 6, 4, 8 & 3 = (2+4+6+4+8+3)/6 = 4.5.

The median average is the response found in middle of all responses when they are ranked in order. Note: If there is an even number of responses, the mean of the middle two is taken.

Median of the group 2, 4, 6, 4, 8 & 3 = 2, 3, 4, 4, 6, 8 = (4+4)/2 = 4.

The mode average was the most frequently occurring response within the group of responses being averaged.

Mode of the group 2, 4, 6, 4, 8 & 3 = 4 as it appears twice.

The method of calculation for the different types of average is important information to consider when interpreting the findings for question W1.

Each of these methods of calculating the average response have there own issues when it comes to the validity of the findings. The mean average can be skewed by very high or very low responses and may not represent what most respondents are willing to pay. However, the checking of the responses prior to input has reduced the possibility for skewed results by removing any that are obviously false. The median is less affected by high or low responses as it shows the value in the middle of the responses when ranked in order. However, again this may not represent what most respondents are willing to pay. The mode gives the most frequently provided response which overcomes the issue with the mean and median averages not showing what most respondents would be willing to pay. However, this does not take into account the range of responses provided and could be skewed if very few responses given were the same, leading to a high or low mode average. Therefore, when interpreting the willingness to pay analysis it is important to consider all averages given as this will allow for a better more full understanding of the results.

The standard deviation (σ) of the mean average is also important to consider when interpreting the results. This indicates how much variation there is within the data that the mean is calculated from, by showing the average variation in the results in the same units as the calculation. A mean average that is based upon a dispersed range of values will have a high standard deviation. Whereas, an average based upon a narrow range of values will have a low standard deviation.

Waterborne Transport Study – Stage 2: User Survey Methodology and Findings Report. East Devon Pilot

Table 13: Question W1 Results – East Devon Pilot. 9

Waterborne Transport Study – Stage 2: User Survey Methodology and Findings Report.

Table 13 above provides the willingness to pay analysis for the East Devon pilot route. The key theme of note is that residents are willing to pay more than visitors consistently for all possible trips. Visitors represent the largest market for this pilot which was found within the demand analysis. Therefore, the pricing structure should reflect this group’s willingness to pay to ensure maximum demand is generated.

Table 14 shows the suggested pricing structure for the East Devon pilot. This table shows only the suggested prices for single, double and triple hop trips rather than a detailed pricing structure for each individual leg. The purpose of this is to keep the pricing structure simple, any subtle changes between individual legs can be decided upon by a future operator. However, it should be noted that a complex pricing structure may have a negative effect on demand for the services.

Suggested Trip Type Ticket Price £5.00 Ad Single Hop £2.50 Ch. £3.50 Conc. £6.75 Ad Double Hop £3.50 Ch. £5.00 Conc. £8.50 Ad Triple Hop £4.50 Ch. £6.50 Conc. Table 14: Suggested Ticket Prices – East Devon Pilot.

In addition to these prices a day and week ‘roamer’ ticket could be offered. These tickets would allow users to travel to all destinations on the route as often as they would like during the period in question. These tickets encourage repeat travel by users within the time period, thus increasing overall demand for the service. This is especially true for the week long ‘roamer’ ticket which is likely to encourage a higher level of waterborne transport use over the period than would be found without the ticket. Users will see the savings as a direct benefit to them and will want to use the service more often to realise that saving. The suggested price for these tickets is given in table 15 below.

Suggested Trip Type Ticket Price £10.00 Ad Day Roamer £5.00 Ch. £7.50 Conc. £20.00 Ad Week Roamer £10.00 Ch. £15.00 Conc. Table 15: Suggested Roamer Ticket Prices – East Devon Pilot.

Waterborne Transport Study – Stage 2: User Survey Methodology and Findings Report.

It should be noted that the suggested ticket prices given above are based solely upon the willingness to pay responses gathered from the survey. The operating costs and potential patronage levels expected at each price increment will have a strong influence on the final pricing structure. Detailed modelling work will be required by any future operator to identify the likely income generation based upon ticket price to identify the equilibrium point where the greatest income can be generated. This work is outside of the scope of this study. However, the results gained can and should be used as a basis for this work.

To assist future operators when setting the pricing structure for the pilot route, study has been undertaken into the comparative bus prices and parking charges at each of the landing points tested. Table 16 shows the bus ticket prices between the landing points with table 17 showing the average single, double and triple hop price.

It can be seen that the prices suggested in table 14 compare favourably with the competing bus services. Generally bus travel between the landing points is slightly cheaper than waterborne transport. However, the increased bus journey cost between Seaton and Sidmouth tips the average bus price in favour of waterborne transport. Where waterborne transport is not subject to road congestion and delay, and there is the added benefit of viewing the Jurassic Coast from the sea, it is likely that users would be willing to pay more for waterborne transport than for bus travel. This indicates that the price suggested in table 14 may be a good place to start when setting the pricing structure for the service.

Destination → West Bay Lyme Regis Seaton Sidmouth

Starting Point ↓ Cost Services Cost Service Cost Services Cost Services £3.80 A £4.80 A £10.30 A X53 + West Bay X53 X53 £2.60 C £3.20 C £6.70 C 52a £3.80 A £3.90 A £9.40 A X53 + Lyme Regis X53 X53 £2.60 C £2.60 C £6.30 C 52a £4.80 A £3.90 A £5.50 A Seaton X53 X53 52a £3.20 C £2.60 C £3.50 C £10.3 A X53 + £9.40 A X53 + £5.50 A Sidmouth 52a £6.70 C 52a £6.30 C 52a £3.50 C Table 16: Competing Bus Service Prices – East Devon Pilot.

Mean Trip Type Average Cost £4.40 A Single Hop £2.90 C £7.10 A Double Hop £4.75 C £10.30 A Triple Hop £6.70 C Table 17: Competing Bus Service Prices – Average Single, Double and Triple Hop – East Devon Pilot.

Please Note: Bus price information correct as of October 2012. This information was gathered from the bus operating companies and is based upon travelling to/from the centre of each settlement. Prices may differ for other stops within each settlement.

Waterborne Transport Study – Stage 2: User Survey Methodology and Findings Report.

Landing Point Car Park Cost (4hrs) Cost (all Day) West Bay Rd. West Bay - £1.70 Station Yd. Lyme Regis Holmbush - £1.70

Seaton Harbour Rd. £4.00 £6.00

Sidmouth Manor Rd. £4.00 £6.00 Table 18: Car Parking Costs – East Devon Pilot.

Please Note: Parking cost information correct as of October 2012. This information was gathered from the relevant District Councils and is based upon those car parks mentioned in the table.

Table 18 gives the car parking prices for large, long stay car parks at each of the landing points, with prices given for a four hour and all day stay. Four hours was deemed representative of how long visitors generally park for when visiting destinations using a car. The whole day charges were found as users of waterborne transport will likely require this increased length of stay when parking at their journey start point due to the inclusion of travel time.

The car parks used for the table above were decided upon based upon a function of proximity/accessibility to town centre, size/utilisation, parking cost and surrounding topography. Cost was generally the overriding factor, however, very small or on-street car parks were not used due to the difficulty of finding spaces.

Based upon the table above a comparison of costs for visiting each landing point via waterborne transport and by car was undertaken (See Appendix D). The total cost of car travel was calculated by working out the average cost per mile, multiplying this by the distance between the landing points and then adding the fuel costs to the four hour parking charges at the destination. For this calculation fuel price was assumed at £1.38 per Litre, fuel consumption at 38 MPG (DfT, 2011). The cost of travel by waterborne transport was calculated by adding the cost of parking all day at the start point to the

The comparison identified that it is cheaper to travel by car to West Bay and Lyme Regis, whereas travel to Seaton and Sidmouth is slightly more expensive by car than the suggested adult ticket price from all landing points. However, this is the total cost per car not per passenger. Therefore, with more than one person in a car waterborne transport would be more expensive. Where the demand for this pilot is predominantly for leisure purposes and a large proportion will be visitors, it is likely that most car trips between the landing points will be multi-occupancy. In addition to this, for the majority of users a trip via waterborne transport will require a connecting journey to the start point and the associated cost of parking at this point. Therefore, based upon the suggested ticket prices, which are set quite low, waterborne transport simply cannot compete with private car transport for all but those users who could walk or cycle to their start point and are travelling to Seaton or Sidmouth on their own.

Waterborne transport does offer non-monetary benefits over the private car however. These include: avoiding congestion and delay on the road network; avoiding parking capacity issues in Lyme Regis and other landing points during the summer months; viewing the Jurassic coast from the sea; and, waterborne transport offers a leisure attraction in it’s own right. Therefore, while waterborne transport cannot compete in monetary terms with the private car, if the pricing structure can be kept largely in line with what users are willing to pay for the service then there will be a demand present and this is likely to abstract some private car trips from the road network.

Waterborne Transport Study – Stage 2: User Survey Methodology and Findings Report.

It may be possible to increase the competitiveness of waterborne transport compared to the private car through joint working with other bodies. One way of achieving this would be to work with local car park and Park & Ride operators to increase the cost of parking at the landing points for non- waterborne transport users, with a full or partial parking charge refund for those who use the service. This will increase the cost of travelling by car whilst reducing the cost of reaching the start point waterborne transport users making it a more monetarily attractive option.

Waterborne Transport Study – Stage 2: User Survey Methodology and Findings Report.

Weymouth & Portland Pilot

Table 19: Question W1 Results – Weymouth & Portland Pilot.

In addition to these prices a day and week roamer ticket could be offered. These tickets would allow users to travel to all destinations on the route as often as they would like during the period in question. These tickets encourage repeat travel by users within the time period, thus increasing overall demand for the service. This is especially true for the week long roamer ticket which is likely to encourage a higher level of waterborne transport use over the period than would be found without the ticket. Users will see the savings as a direct benefit to them and will want to use the service more often to realise that saving. The suggested price for these tickets is given in table 15 below.

Suggested Trip Type Ticket Price £10.00 Ad Day Roamer £5.00 Ch. £7.50 Conc. £20.00 Ad Week Roamer £10.00 Ch. £15.00 Conc.

Waterborne Transport Study – Stage 2: User Survey Methodology and Findings Report.

Table 15: Suggested Roamer Ticket Prices – East Devon Pilot.

In addition to the pricing structures given in tables 14 & 15 above, consideration also should be given to family ticketing. Many users of the service will be families who may resent having to pay for each adult and child in the family group individually. This can become expensive and may discourage families from using the services which could have a significant impact on demand. A possible solution to this would be to offer a free child place for every full paying adult fare or roamer ticket. This allows flexibility in family group size where a simple two adult, two child family ticket may not be suitable. There is also potential for variation of this theme with ½ price child tickets with full paying adults or something similar. The actual family ticketing scheme put in place will be dependent on financial viability for the operator. It should be noted that the suggested ticket prices given above are based solely upon the willingness to pay responses gathered from the survey. The operating costs and potential patronage levels expected at each price increment will have a strong influence on the final pricing structure. Detailed modelling work will be required by the operator to identify the likely income generation based upon ticket price to identify the equilibrium point where the greatest income can be generated. This work is outside of the scope of this study. However, the results gained can and should be used as a basis for this work.

It can be seen that the prices suggested in table 14 compare favourably with the competing bus services. Generally bus travel between the landing points is slightly cheaper than waterborne transport. However, the increased bus journey cost between Seaton and Sidmouth tips the average prices in favour of waterborne transport. Where waterborne transport is not subject to road congestion and delay, and there is the added benefit of viewing the Jurassic Coast from the sea, it is likely that users would be willing to pay more for waterborne transport than for bus travel. This indicates that the price suggested in table 14 may be a good place to start when setting the pricing structure for the service.

Bus Services Cost £3.25 A 1 & 10 £2.30 C Table 20: Competing Bus Service Prices – Weymouth & Portland Pilot.

Location Car Park Cost Length of Stay Swannery £3.20 Weymouth 4 hrs Pavilion £6.00 Chesil beach £3.20 Portland 4 hrs Castletown £4.20 Table 21: Car Parking Costs – Weymouth & Portland Pilot.

Please Note: Parking cost information correct as of October 2012. This information was gathered from the relevant District Councils and is based upon those car parks mentioned in the table.

Waterborne Transport Study – Stage 2: User Survey Methodology and Findings Report.

Text about what table 14 shows

Waterborne Transport Study – Stage 2: User Survey Methodology and Findings Report. Poole Bay Pilot

Table 22: Question W1 Results – Poole Bay Pilot. 17

Waterborne Transport Study – Stage 2: User Survey Methodology and Findings Report.

Table 13 above provides the willingness to pay analysis for the East Devon pilot route. The key theme of note is that residents are willing to pay more than visitors consistently for all possible trips. This is an interesting finding which is thought to be linked to the differences between the socio- economic demographic of residents and visitors in the area.

Destination → Swanage Studland Poole Bournemouth

Starting Point ↓ Cost Services Cost Service Cost Services Cost Services £5.10 A £7.60 A £7.90 A Swanage 50 40 50 £3.50 C £4.60 C £4.60 C £5.10 A £11.20 A £6.90 A Studland 50 50 + 52 50 £3.50 C £7.00 C £4.60 C £7.60 A £11.20 A £2.70 A 1b, 1c Poole 40 50 + 52 £4.60 C £7.00 C £1.70 C or M1 £7.90 A £6.90 A £2.70 A 1b, 1c Bournemouth 50 50 £4.60 C £4.60 C £1.70 C or M1 Table 23: Competing Bus Service Prices – Poole Bay Pilot.

Mean Trip Type Average Cost £6.33 A Single Hop £4.06 C £7.25 A Double Hop £4.60 C £7.90 A Triple Hop £4.60 C Table 24: Competing Bus Service Prices – Average Single, Double and Triple Hop – Poole Bay Pilot.

Location Car Park Cost Length of Stay Main Beach £6.40 Summer Swanage 4 hrs Victoria Ave. £2.50 Winter £6.00 Summer Studland All NT Car Parks ½ day = 4 hrs £3.00 Winter Poole Quay Poole £3.20 4 hrs Visitors BIC £6.00 Bournemouth 4 hrs Bath Road (N&S) £4.20 Table 25: Car Parking Costs – Poole Bay Pilot.

Please Note: Parking cost information correct as of October 2012. This information was gathered from the relevant District Councils and is based upon those car parks mentioned in the table.

Text about what table 15 shows

Waterborne Transport Study – Stage 2: User Survey Methodology and Findings Report.

Conclusions Conclusions yet to be drawn / written.

Waterborne Transport Study – Stage 2: User Survey Methodology and Findings Report.

Impact on the Existing Transport Network Section not yet written – to be completed

Waterborne Transport Study – Stage 2: User Survey Methodology and Findings Report.

Contextual Questions Section not yet written – to be completed

Waterborne Transport Study – Stage 2: User Survey Methodology and Findings Report.

Conclusions

Section not yet written – to be completed