Appendix A: Detailed Study Methodology AECOM 2 Appendix A: Detailed Study Methodology Overall Approach The study was undertaken in two main parts. The first stage comprised a literature review and an initial phase of qualitative research. The locations in which the initial qualitative research was carried out were defined by the identification of case study areas. The case study areas were identified and agreed with the client group prior to the execution of the initial qualitative research. An interim report was produced which identified the implications of the findings of the stage one work for the second phase of the study. The second stage of the study comprised a detailed assessment of bus demand in each of the ten case study areas. This involved consultations with Local Authorities and bus operators including collating any available local data that could be used in the detailed analysis of bus patronage. The bus scheme designers were interviewed, where possible, to gain an understanding of how ‘softer’ factors are incorporated into scheme design. Primary data on attitudes towards and usage of bus services for users and non users was also collected in the case study areas. Part of the primary data collation involved collecting stated preference data on how people trade off different bus service attributes – both ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ when they make their travel choices. This provided relative valuations of different bus service attributes. This element of work investigated how the valuations of soft variables should be incorporated into multi-modal models and forecasting models of bus patronage. Detailed analysis of current bus trip rates for public transport was undertaken using the National Travel Surveys and was supplemented with the primary data collated in the ten case areas and with secondary data from elsewhere. An attempt was made to identify the differences in trip rates resulting from socio- economic, demographic, geographic and public transport service variables. This was then used to identify any differences between areas that may be attributable to other factors such as bus service quality. The risk of bias was in part avoided by undertaking research on two before and after situations during the period of the commission. The final step of the study was for the resulting models and values to be applied in transportation models that had been used to justify bus service improvements or compared enhanced bus with light rail schemes. Stage 1: Literature Review Few studies in the public domain have attempted to value the influence of softer factors in bus operation. The focus of this type of research in the UK is usually on fixed rail systems or undertaken in the context of London. The key “softer” interventions to be examined fall into the following broad categories: Vehicle quality; Driver quality; AECOM 3 Security/fear of crime; Accessibility Marketing and branding; Multi-operator tickets; Simplified fare structures; Smart cards; and Real time information systems There are a greater number of studies covering some issues than others. Information provision and real time information provision are perhaps the most heavily studied areas with new studies emerging all the time. Even here however, the number of studies seeking to identify willingness to pay remains small. Information and marketing is part of a continuum of communication which is perhaps most intense with respect to personalised travel planning interventions. Whilst workplace and other location based travel plans are qualitatively different in that their aim is to reduce car use rather than increase passenger transport use – this will often be part of the proposed solution. The impacts of travel planning on public transport patronage have therefore been considered as part of the information continuum. Other demand management policies were considered outside the scope of this literature review. The review has focused on evidence relating to the introduction of “softer” factors and their impact on travel behaviour. The review phase comprised four main strands: Search for, and examination of published sources of UK and international experience; Consultation to identify sources of further unpublished information or studies (integrated with the consultation, pre-case study phase); Identification of scope for and data for a meta-analysis; and Integration of information into a definitive statement of the evidence on the role of softer factors in impacting on bus demand and modal shift. The review clearly defined each type of intervention and the boundaries of the review and then examined published sources seeking to identify evidence on: Change in patronage; Modal shift; and Values relating to specific soft factors. An early task was to define the quality criteria for judging studies. Indicative quality assessment criteria for studies reviewed: Before and after evidence of impacts on patronage, scale and timing of surveys; Modal shift: scope of surveys, does it identify the nature of the shift: direct shift of a trip, indirect through new trips being made by bus; SP studies: sampling procedure, range of attributes and levels, plausibility, quality of models; and For all studies the degree to which other potential causal factors are studied and contextual factors. Given that much of the evidence identified was from studies of multiple interventions or “packages”, a meta-analysis was undertaken that sought to disentangle these effects. AECOM 4 The initial search enabled the production of an initial draft review designed for further consultation with experts to identify gaps both in knowledge and the review. There was a need to consult widely with organisations and individuals in order to supplement published information by identifying grey literature: PTEG, CPT, ATCO, ACT, UITP, TfL, and the main operators. The final phase brought all the material together within a rigorous framework to provide a definitive review. The review: Defined the range of “softer” factors; Assessed the types of evidence available; Reviewed evidence; Draws conclusions on the quality of the evidence by factor; and Provides the basis for undertaking a meta-analysis. Stage 1: Selection of Case Study Areas The literature review provided a starting point for making contact with potential case study consultees – this enabled a case study wish list to be developed which includes “interesting” potential case studies, case studies which meet the project team and client’s requirements, case studies where consultees’ appear to be cooperative and case studies where there is likely to be significant (quantitative) data to be collected. Initial case study consultation took place with the Passenger Transport Executive Group (PTEG), individual PTEs, the Confederation of Passenger Transport (CPT) nationally and within the East Midlands. The Association of Transport Coordinating Officers was consulted, and the organisation’s ATCO mailing list was used to consult all ATCO members about potential case studies. The Bus Interventions Study1 database was consulted in detail, as was the DfT ‘Kickstart’ database, to ascertain whether any of these schemes would lend themselves to case study status within this study. Discussion also took place with a number of bus operators, and the literature review revealed some possibilities for case study selection. An initial list of 56 potential case studies was drawn up from which the final case studies could be selected. In some cases the studies were proposed by the promoters themselves, some arose from discussion and consultation with stakeholders, some were contained within the databases consulted and many arose from consultation with the CPT. Others arose from discussion and proposals within the study team. Consultation also took place at the national level with representatives of Stagecoach, First, Go Ahead and National Express. This had the dual benefit of putting forward suggestions for potential case studies, and also ensuring a high degree of cooperation with the study. Operators saw the benefit of this study in enabling them to forecast more accurately in the future the likely impacts of individual soft measures or packages thereof. The initial number of potential case studies was reduced to 33 and then to 15. These case studies were discussed with the client and a set of 7 case studies with 3 potential case studies was agreed. Initial consultation with the case study stakeholders demonstrated some potential difficulties in obtaining 1 An earlier research study undertaken by AECOM for the Department for Transport AECOM 5 quantitative data; for example, in Merseyside no quantitative analysis has been undertaken to establish any link between the TravelSafe initiative and bus patronage; in Cornwall not all operators were willing to take part in the research. The final set of case studies chosen was: 1. Poole MORE services (quality corridor). 2. Hull (interchange). 3. Go Ahead North East (branding) – Sunderland. 4. Warrington (interchange). 5. Cambridge/CITIBus (network simplification; branding). 6. Leeds ftr (image). 7. Fastrack (busway) – Dartford, Kent. 8. Blazefield Witch Way (quality corridor) – Burnley, Lancashire. 9. Goldline Service 66 Warwick/Leamington Spa (new quality route). 10. Nottingham Route 30 (Eco Bus). Interviews were set up with stakeholders in each of the case study areas (both bus operators and local authority representatives). A topic guide was developed to discuss the development and implementation of the soft measures