« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
Statistical Bulletin Transport Series - Trn/2005/1: Bus and Coach Statistics: 2003-04
4. Scottish Household Survey results
4.1 Introduction
The Scottish Household Survey (SHS) collects a wide range of information, some about the household as a whole, and all the people in it, and some about one randomly-chosen adult (aged 16 or over). The results are weighted to take account of different selection probabilities. The SHS figures given in this bulletin were produced from the survey's samples for the calendar years 1999 to 2003. Due to the timing of changes to the SHS questionnaire, some figures relate only to parts of some years (e.g. April to December 2003). Further information about the SHS is given in section 5.3 and in section 7.
4.2. The accessibility and frequency of bus services (Table 11, Chart N))
The SHS interviewer asks how long it would take him/her to walk to the nearest bus stop (or place where one could get on a bus). The first row of the left hand part of Table 11 shows that, in 2003, over half of all households (55%) were said to be up to 3 minutes walk away from the nearest bus stop, and that about a third of households (31%) were 4-6 minutes walk away from a bus stop. In fact, about seven-eighths of households said that they were within 6 minutes walk of a bus stop. 9% of households reported a 7-13 minutes walk, and only 3% said that the interviewer would have to walk for 14 minutes or longer. 1% of households did not know how long it would take to walk to the nearest bus stop. Another 1% said that there was no bus service. The numbers in italics at the right-hand end of the first row show that these results are produced from the answers given for 14,880 households.
The left hand parts of Table 11 show how the walking time to the nearest bus stop varies for households in different categories. For example there was great variation between "urban" and "rural" areas, using a six-way classification that was developed for the analysis of the SHS results. In this classification, a "small town" has a population between 3,000 and 9,999 and an area is described as "accessible" if it is within 30 minutes' drive of a settlement with a population of 10,000 or more (otherwise it is described as "remote"). A "large urban area" is a settlement with a population of 125,000 or more. More details of the classification are given in section 5.3. In 2003, 15% of householders in "remote" rural areas said that they had no bus service, as did 5% of those in "accessible" rural areas and 2% of those in "remote" small towns. A further 13% of householders in "remote" rural areas, and 10% of those in "accessible" rural areas, said that it would take at least 14 minutes to walk to the nearest bus stop (or place where one could get on a bus). The percentage within 3 minutes walk of a bus service was only 38% for households in "remote" rural areas, and 48% for those in "accessible" rural areas, compared with between 53% and 62% of those in other areas. 61% of those living in the most deprived 20% of areas were within 3 minutes walk of a bus service compared with 48% of those living in the least deprived 20% of areas. Table 11 also shows that there is some variation with (e.g.) social class, annual net household income and property type.
Chart N: Those with no bus service, or with a 14+ minute walk to the nearest bus stop (or place one can get a bus): 2003
The interviewer asks about the frequency of service at the nearest bus stop (or place one could get on a bus). If the householder says that the frequency of service varies, the interviewer asks for the week-day off-peak frequency. The right hand part of Table 11 shows that 22% of householders did not know how often one could get a bus from the nearest stop during the day ( not counting those without a bus service). This percentage was highest for households in "remote" small towns (38%): all the other types of area had figures in the range 16-29%.
Overall, 24% of householders said that there was at least one bus every 13 minutes, 25% thought that there was one every 14-26 minutes, 24% answered that there was a bus every 27-63 minutes, and 4% indicated that the interval between buses was 64 minutes or longer ( not counting those without a bus service). The differences between urban and rural areas were very clear. For example, 43% of householders in large urban areas reported at least one bus every 13 minutes, compared with small percentages of householders in small towns and rural areas. 34% of householders in "remote" rural areas said that there was one bus every 64 minutes or more, as did 15% of those in "accessible" rural areas, compared with under 1% of those in urban areas. The frequency of bus service is greater in the most deprived areas, with 34% having a bus service frequency of at least one every 13 minutes compared with 22% of the least deprived areas having this frequency.
The top part of Chart N shows that a far smaller percentage of households in urban areas have no bus service, or a 14+ minute walk to the nearest bus stop, than those living in rural areas.
4.3 The availability of bus services to the population (Table 12, Chart N)
Table 11 looked at the availability of bus services to households, whereas Table 12 does so in terms of the population. The left hand part of Table 12 covers people in households with walking times to the nearest bus stop of up to 6 minutes. Overall, in 2003, about 85% of people lived within 6 minutes walk of a bus stop, and they included 22% in households where it was said that there was at least one bus every 13 minutes, 22% with a bus every 14-26 minutes, 21% with a bus every 27-63 minutes, 3% with a bus every 64+ minutes and 17% in households where the respondent did not know the frequency of the bus service. The right hand part of Table 12 covers people in households with longer walking time to the nearest bus stop: about 10% of people lived within 7-13 minutes walk of a bus stop, and 3% lived 14+ minutes walk away.
Chart O: Views on the convenience of public transport: 2003
Chart P: Views on public transport as an aspect of the neighbourhood: 2003
The SHS is designed to provide results for each local authority area only for two year sampling periods (e.g. 1999/2000 and 2001/2002). However, the survey's design is such that results for single years can be produced for the Councils with the largest populations, which therefore appear individually (while other Councils are grouped with one or more neighbouring authorities) in the tables which provide figures for different parts of Scotland for 2003 and for the earlier two-year periods. In 2003, about 89% of the populations of both Glasgow and Edinburgh were within 6 minutes walk of the nearest bus stop, including around 68% and 75% respectively having a bus every 26 minutes or less at that stop. About 72% of the population in Highlands/Islands were within 6 minutes walk of the nearest bus stop but only around 11% had a service of one bus every 26 minutes or less at that stop. Similarly, around 74% of the population in Borders/Dumfries & Galloway were within a 6 minute walk of the nearest bus stop but only about 6% had a frequency of service there of every 26 minutes or less.
The bottom part of Chart N shows that the percentage of people who had no bus service or who had a 14+ minute walk to the nearest bus stop (or place one could get a bus), was highest for Highlands/Islands (about 15%) and Borders/Dumfries & Galloway (around 13%). This compares with about 4% for Scotland as a whole.
Table 12 also compares the figures for 2003 with the two-year periods of 2001/2002 and 1999/2000, for Scotland as a whole and for groups of council areas. The figures do not suggest any great changes between the three periods, either overall or in any of the council groups. However, the population within 6 minutes walk of a bus stop which has a frequency of at least one bus every 13 minutes has increased for most council areas, with the largest rises being for Grampian (10% to 18%) and Edinburgh (35% to 45%). and However, the percentage for Borders/ Dumfries and Galloway stayed the same, whilst there were slight falls in Highlands/Islands, Lothians and Renfrewshire/Inverclyde.
4.4 Views on the convenience and quality of public transport (Table 13; Charts O and P)
In the second part of the SHS interview, one randomly-chosen adult member of the household is asked about his/her circumstances and views. As it is sometimes not possible to arrange an interview with the chosen person, these results are based on smaller sample numbers than the earlier analyses. One set of questions is about the convenience of public transport and of some other types of services (such as post office, doctor's surgery, etc). The interviewer says: "… please tell me how convenient or inconvenient you would find it to make use of their services during their normal opening hours, assuming that you needed to?" The left-hand part of Table 13 shows how the "convenience" of public transport was rated in 2003: overall, 40% of adults said it was "very convenient" and 36% described it as "fairly convenient", 4% responded "neither convenient nor inconvenient", 4% had no opinion, 8% thought it "fairly inconvenient" and a further 7% felt it was "very inconvenient".
The types of people most likely to describe public transport as "inconvenient" were the self-employed (about 26%), those small employers and sole traders (around 27%), people living in households with an annual net income of over £25,000 (18-21%), those aged 80 or above (about 20%) and those living in rural areas (39-46%).
The marked difference between urban and rural areas in views of the convenience of public transport is illustrated in Chart O. In 2003, 50% of adults living in large urban areas regarded public transport as "very convenient" compared with only 21% of those in both "accessible" and "remote" rural areas. Public transport was rated "very inconvenient" by 28% of adults living in "remote" rural areas and 23% of those in "accessible" rural areas but only by 2% in large urban areas.
Chart Q: Adults (16+) who had used a local bus service every day or almost every day in the past month: 2003
The randomly-chosen adult is also asked about aspects of the immediate neighbourhood. The interviewer can record one or more of 14 "likes" (including "good public transport", "safe area / low crime" and "good local schools") and 17 "dislikes" (such as "poor public transport", "drug abuse" and "poor local shops"). The right hand part of Table 14 shows that, overall, in 2003, 16% said that good public transport was an aspect of the neighbourhood that they liked, and 5% said that poor public transport was an aspect that they disliked. In general, these percentages did not vary much between different groups (there were a few exceptions).
Chart P shows that the percentage referring to good public transport was highest in the large urban areas (27%) and lowest in "remote" rural areas (3%) and "accessible" rural areas (4%). "Poor public transport" was one of the aspects of their neighbourhood that was disliked by 12% of adults living in "accessible" rural areas, and by 9% in "remote" rural areas.
4.5 Use of local bus services (Table 14; Chart Q)
The interviewer asks the randomly selected adult how often he/she has used the local bus service in the past month. Table 14 shows the results. The first row of the table shows that, in 2003, 41% of adults had used a local bus service in the previous month: about 10% used the bus every day or almost every day, 12% 2 or 3 times a week, 8% about once a week, and around 11% once a fortnight or once a month.
Table 14 shows that females make more use of local bus services than males, with 12% of women using a bus service every day or almost every day, and 14% doing so 2/3 times per week, compared to 8% and 9% of men respectively. 65% of men had not used the bus in the past month, compared to 55% of women. The use of local bus services differed among the age groups in that about 25% of 16-19 year olds and around 18% of 20-29 year olds used the bus every day or almost every day, compared to 6-11% of those aged 30 and above. A further 17% of 16-19 year olds and 12% of 20-29 year olds used the bus 2/3 times per week along with 17-21% of those aged 70+. Approximately two-thirds of 16-19 year olds had used a bus in the previous month, compared to only approximately one-third of 30-59 year olds. There is considerable variation in the use of buses with the current situation of the interviewee. Only 17% of self-employed people had used a bus in the previous month, as had 32% of those employed full-time, compared to 53% of those unemployed and seeking work, and 63% of those in higher or further education. Considerable variation is also shown with socio-economic classification: for example, 46% of those in "semi routine" occupations had used a bus within the last month, compared with 18% of small employers and sole traders. Chart Q illustrates variation in the use of local bus services of each of the sexes, by age, employment status and frequency of driving.
Table 14 also shows how use of bus services decreases with the net annual income of the household, ranging from 52% of those earning up to £10,000 per annum having used a bus in the previous month, to 28% of those earning £40,000 or more. Usage of local bus services also varies between "urban" and "rural" areas. In 2003, 56% of households in large urban areas had used a local bus in the previous month, with 5% using one every day, and a further 12% almost every day, whereas only 16-22% of those in rural areas or "remote" small towns had used a bus, and just 1-3% used one every day or almost every day. Predictably, the use of buses decreases with increased use of cars. Only 17% of those who use a car every day had used a bus in the previous month, compared with 64% of those who had a driving licence but never drove, and 68% of those who did not hold a driving licence.
Chart R: Employed people: % who travel to work by bus; % of car/van commuters who could use public transport: 2003
4.6 Views on local bus services (Table 15)
Adults who said that they had used local bus services in the past month were asked how strongly they agreed or disagreed with a series of statements about the service. The top part of Table 15 shows the responses to these statements. 71% of bus users agreed with the statement that the buses run on time, while 19% disagreed and 10% had no view. Nearly three-quarters agreed that the buses ran when they were needed, 76% found them comfortable, 86% felt safe and secure on the bus, 91% found the range and price of tickets easy to understand, and 70% of bus users felt that bus fares were good value. Fewer than 10% of users disagreed with the statements that they felt safe and secure on the buses, that the range and price of tickets is easy to understand, and that it is easy to change to other forms of transport.
The lower half of Table 15 shows the percentages of different groups who agreed with each of the statements regarding bus services. There was very little difference between the sexes in the proportions agreeing with each of the statements. There was some variation in responses according to age group, with a greater proportion of those aged 60 or over agreeing with nearly all the statements. The most notable differences were in those agreeing that fares were good value, with 58-59% of 16-29 year old bus users agreeing the fares were good value, compared to 79-84% of those aged 60 or over; and in those feeling safe and secure on the bus, ranging from 79% of 16-19 year olds, to 93% of those aged 80 and above. Similarly, those whose current situation was permanently retired from work tended to be the most likely to agree with most of the statements.
The proportions agreeing with the statements tended to vary with the frequency of use of local bus service. Those who used the buses least often had the smallest proportion agreeing with most of the statements. A higher proportion agreed that services were on time in "remote" rural areas (96%), compared to large urban areas (67%), but only 60-62% in rural areas agreed that the services were frequent, compared to 78-84%% in urban areas and small towns. Higher proportions in rural areas considered the buses to be clean, and felt safe and secure on the bus, but a lower percentage felt that the service ran when they needed it.
4.7 Travel to work - employed adults (16+) who do not work from (or at) home, and could car/van commuters use public transport (Tables 16 and 17; Chart R)
The interviewer asks about travel to work if the randomly-chosen adult's current situation was described as "self-employed", "employed full-time" or "employed part-time", and the person does not work from (or at) home. People described in some other way (e.g. "in full-time education") are not asked about travel to work, even if they have part-time jobs.
The left hand part of Table 16 shows that, in 2003, 11% of commuters said that they usually travelled to work by bus, compared with 69% who went by car or van, and 20% who used other modes of transport (mainly walking). A greater percentage of women than men went by bus (13% against 10%). The percentage who commuted by bus was lowest for the self-employed (4%), small employers and sole traders (3%), those living in households with an annual net income of over £30,000 (6-9%), those living in the least deprived 20% of areas (9%) and those living in rural areas (6%). It was highest for 16-19 year olds (26%), those in intermediate and semi-routine occupations (16%), people from households with an annual net income of up to £10,000 (21%), those in the most deprived 20% of areas (22%) and those living in large urban areas (19%).
Commuters who usually travelled by car or van were asked whether they could use public transport. The right hand part of Table 16 shows that 45% of them said that they could use public transport to travel to work. The percentage was highest for 16-19 year olds (56% - but based on a very small sample), and those in intermediate occupations (56%). It was lowest for the self-employed (36%) and small employers and sole traders (30% - but based on a small sample).
The percentage of those people who usually travelled to work by car or van who said that they could use public transport to travel to work was particularly high for large urban areas (54%), and particularly low for "remote" rural areas (14%). Over the five years for which the survey has collected information, the proportion of car or van commuters who felt that they could use public transport has varied between about 45% and 49%, and the proportion of adults who usually travel to work by bus has fluctuated around 12%.
Table 17 provides figures for council areas within Scotland. People are counted on the basis of where they live, not where they work. Therefore, for example, the "travel to work" percentages for Edinburgh reflect the answers of the sample members who lived there, and so may not be representative of all who work in Edinburgh (including commuters from - e.g. - Fife). It must also be remembered that the figures for some Council areas are based on small samples, so could be subject to sampling errors of several percentage points.
The bus was said to be the usual means of travel to work for 11% of commuters in 2003. It was highest for Edinburgh (24%) and Glasgow (22%) and lowest in Borders / Dumfries and Galloway (4%). The right hand side of Table 17 shows that the percentage of people who usually travel to work by car or van who said that they could use public transport to travel to work was 45% for 2003. Chart R shows it was highest for Edinburgh (60%) and Glasgow (58%), and only 17% for Borders / Dumfries and Galloway.
Table 17 also compares the figures for 1999/2000, 2001/2002 and 2003. The figures do not suggest great changes between the three time periods, either overall or in any of the areas shown, in the proportion actually using buses to travel to work. However, the proportion of car or van commuters has increased slightly for Scotland as a whole, from 67% in 1999/2000 to 69% in 2003.
4.8 Reasons for travelling to work by bus; for car/van commuters not using public transport, and for not using buses more often (Tables 18 to 21)
The interviewer continues with a series of questions about travel to work, which are asked of all those randomly-chosen adults whose current situation was described as "self-employed", "employed full-time" or "employed part-time". Therefore the results shown in Tables 18 to 21 do not apply in the case of any travel to work by people whose current situation was described in some other way. (For example, these questions were not asked of people who were described as "in full-time education", some of whom may have part-time jobs.) The percentages in these tables may add up to more than 100 because some people gave more than one reason.
The interviewer asks why the randomly-chosen adult uses his or her usual means of transport to work. Table 18 summarises the reasons given in 2003 by those who went by bus: mentioned most were that it was the most convenient method (62%), that it was the only method available (21%), that it was the quickest method (18%), that they had no car or other transport (10%), and that it was too far to walk (9%).
Between April and December 2003, 44% of car and van commuters said that they could use public transport to travel to work. They were asked why they did not use public transport. The left-hand column of Table 19 shows that the most common reasons that they gave were that it would take too long (59% of these people), it would be inconvenient (40%), that there was no direct route (31%), they preferred to use their cars (20%), they needed a car at or for work (14%), cost (10%), and that they worked unsocial/unusual hours (10%). Those who gave more than one reason were asked which was the main one. Table 19 also shows the percentage of people for whom each reason was given as the main (or only) reason.
Those who said that they could not use public transport to travel to work were asked why it was not possible to do so. The left-hand section of Table 19 shows that the most common reasons given in 2003 were that there was no direct route (38% of this sub-group), a lack of a service (27%), that the person needed a car for work (23%), that the person worked unsocial or unusual hours (22%), that it would take too long (19%), that it would be inconvenient (16%), and that they used their own car (10%).
The right-hand side of Table 19 analyses the answers which were obtained in 2002 and 2003 for sub-groups with different frequencies of use of local bus services. Their views are similar. For example, 49% of those who had not used a bus in the past month said that it would be inconvenient whilst 47% said it would take too long. For the most frequent users - at least once a week - 48% gave the reason that it would be inconvenient and 41% said it would take too long.
One must use several years' data in order to get a sample which is large enough for more detailed analysis. Table 20 shows that, from July 1999 to December 2003, the most common reasons that car/van commuters who could use public transport gave for not using public transport were that it was inconvenient (51%) and that it takes too long (40%). Cost was cited as a reason for not using public transport by 20% of those aged 16-19% but only 7-8% of those aged 40 or over. 26% of the self-employed said they needed a car for work compared with 12% of those employed full time. Only 9% of those living in remote rural areas said the lack of a direct route was a reason compared with 26% in large urban areas.
Table 21 shows that from July 1999 to December 2003 the most common reasons for car/van commuters who said they could not use public transport were the lack of a direct route (36%) followed by lack of service (32%). Sixty-four percent of those living in remote rural areas indicated lack of service compared with 43% of those living in remote small towns and only 16% of those in large urban areas.
4.9 Reasons for not using buses more often (Tables 22 to 24)
The interviewer asks those who stated that they had used their local bus service at most "about once a week" in the past month, or not at all, why they did not use buses more often. The most common reasons given in 2003 are shown in Table 22. Thirty six percent of people said that they used their own cars (38% of men and 34% of women), 18% felt that it would be inconvenient to go by bus, similarly 18% said that they had no need to use buses more often, 12% said that it would take too long and 11% cited lack of service. Health reasons and the difficulty of access to buses were mentioned mainly by older people.
With effect from April 2003, those who gave more than one reason were asked which was the main one. Table 23 shows the percentage of people for whom each reason was given as the main (or only) reason given for not using buses more often. Only 10-11% of 16-19 year and 80+ year olds said that they preferred to use their own cars, compared with approximately a quarter of those aged 20-69. 30% of 16-19 years olds said they had no need to use buses more often, compared with 13-19% in each of the older age-groups. More women (10%) than men (6%), and more people in the older age-groups, gave health reasons for not using the bus more often.
Table 24 provides a more detailed analysis, using the combined samples for 2002 and 2003. 39% of adults who said that they had used their local bus service at most "about once a week" in the past month (or not at all) said they did not use buses more often because they used their own car rather than buses. This was highest for those in employment (42-44%). Health reasons were cited by 17% of those in the most deprived 20% of areas compared with 4% in the least deprived 20% of areas. Lack of service was a reason given by 26-36% of those in rural areas compared with 5-7% for those in urban areas. About a third of those who normally travel to work by car or van said that they did not use buses more often because they were inconvenient.
4.10 Frequency of evening travel by bus and how safe from crime would they feel (Table 25)
The interviewer asked the randomly-chosen adult about the frequency of his or her evening travel by bus and how safe from crime he/she would feel when travelling by bus in the evenings. The left hand columns of Table 25 show the frequency of evening journeys within 5 categories. Only 3% said that they travelled by bus in the evening on "most days", and a further 7% did so "at least once a week"; 79% said that they never travel by bus in the evening. There does not seem to be a significant difference between males and females. The people most likely to travel by bus in the evening on "most days" are the 16-19 year olds (11%), and those in higher/further education (12%). Those most likely "never" to travel by bus in the evenings are 70+ year olds (84-92%), those who are self-employed (86%) and those living in small towns and in rural areas (86-93%).
The right hand columns of Table 25 show how safe from crime adults would feel travelling by bus in the evening: 39% would feel "fairly safe" and 14% would feel "very safe", with 20% of males and 9% of females feeling "very safe". However, 8% of adults said that they would feel "not safe at all", and 13% "not particularly safe". The people most likely to feel "very safe" are the 16-19 year olds (21%) and those living in remote rural areas (33%). Those most likely to feel "not safe at all" are 70+ year olds (11-17%), those who are permanently sick or disabled (15%) and those living in large urban areas (11%). 25% of those who travelled by bus in the evenings on "most days" said that they would feel "very safe" compared with only 12% of adults who "never" travelled by bus in the evening.
4.11 Concessionary Travel Passes (Table 26)
A national minimum standard of free off-peak local bus travel for elderly and disabled people in Scotland was introduced on 30 September 2002. On 1 April 2003, the arrangements were extended to men aged 60-64, who then became eligible to receive the same travel benefits as women aged 60+ and men aged 65+.
With effect from April 2003, randomly-chosen adults who were aged 60+, or who had said earlier that they had a long-standing illness, health problem or disability that limited their daily activities or the work that they could do, were asked if they had a concessionary travel pass which allowed them to travel free of charge on off-peak local bus services. Table 26 summarises the results. Twenty-six percent of adults hold a concessionary pass: only a small percentage of those aged under 60, 64% of those aged 60-64, and 81-86% of those aged 65 and over. More women aged 60-64 (82%) hold a pass than men in the same age group (42%), reflecting historical differences in eligibility for concessionary travel. The percentage with a concessionary pass was highest for those who are permanently retired from work, those with an income up to £15,000 and those living in urban areas. Among those aged 65+, a concessionary travel pass was held by over three-quarters of those who also held a full driving licence, and by over 90% of those aged 65-79 who did not have a driving licence.
4.12 Journeys by bus as a percentage of all journeys by adults (Table 27)
The interviewer asks the randomly-chosen adult about any journeys that he or she made on the previous day. The interviewer says that there is no need to mention short journeys of under a quarter of a mile, or under five minutes by foot. To be counted, the main purpose of a journey must be for the traveller to reach the destination: the statistics cover travel for private purposes, or for work or education, but not journeys made in the course of their work by (e.g.) people who are employed as drivers of buses or lorries, or to deliver letters and parcels, or as police officers or traffic wardens, etc. The reweighting procedure adjusts for the uneven spread of interviews over the week.
The main part of Table 27 shows the number of journeys which adults made by bus as a percentage of all their journeys in 2003. The percentage of journeys made by bus was 9-12% on each day from Monday to Saturday inclusive, and overall, but was only 5% on Sunday. Women used the bus for more of their journeys (11%) than men (8%). 16-19 year olds made 21% of their journeys by bus, and it was used for 19-20% of journeys by those aged 70+, but only for 6-7% of journeys by 30-59 year olds. The groups which tended to make little use of the bus were the self-employed (1% of their journeys) and people in full and part time employment (7%). Usage was highest among those who were permanently sick or disabled (15%), permanently retired from work (16%) and those in further or higher education (21%). People in managerial and professional occupations made only 3-5% of their journeys by bus, in contrast to those in intermediate, routine and semi-routine occupations (9-12%). The percentage of journeys made by bus was highest for adults living in households with an annual net income of up to £10,000 (19%), thereafter falling as income increased to just 3% of journeys made by those with a household income of over £40,000. The percentage of journeys made by bus was highest for adults living in large urban areas (15%), and below the overall figure of 10% in all other types of areas. Just 4% of journeys by people living in "remote" small towns were made by bus and 3-4% of journeys made by people living in rural areas.
The final column of Table 27 shows the percentage of adults in each category (including those who had not made any journeys at all) who said that they had made a bus journey on the previous day. In general, the percentages are similar to the percentages of journeys which were made by bus (eg high for those living in large urban areas, low for "remote" rural areas) - the main differences from the earlier pattern are for the people least likely to travel, such as those aged 80+ (only 9% of them had made a journey by bus on the previous day, whereas 20% of their journeys were by bus) and those who were permanently sick or disabled (10% of whom had made a journey by bus on the previous day, whereas 15% of their journeys were by bus).
« Previous | Contents | Next »