The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

CHAPTER FIVE VISITOR EXPERIENCE AND PERCEPTIONS OF TRANSPORT SUPPLY IN SCOTLAND

Background

5.1 Studies of transport service quality and performance from the passenger perspective typically focus on the attitudes of local users regarding the adequacy of existing public transport provision and there has so far been limited attention to the attitudes and experiences of tourists with regard to transport provision. However, it seems legitimate to propose that tourism planners should exercise an influence on transport planning and, vice versa, that transport planners should pay greater attention to tourists' transport requirements, particularly in areas where a high ratio of visitors to residents is the norm at certain times of year, or in the case of large scale events. Customer centred transport systems may be an important factor in influencing the use of local transport services by tourists and whilst local transport needs should indeed take precedence over tourists' needs, consideration of the transportation requirements of visitors to urban and rural areas requires further attention.

5.2 The ability of tourist dedicated transport to add to the attraction and enjoyment of a destination is evident, since this type of transport is often intended as an attraction and consumed by the tourist for its own sake. Detailed investigation of how transport which is not dedicated to tourist use influences the tourist experience remains limited. Visitor experiences and perceptions of destinations are routinely measured using structured methods such as attribute-based models, which measure the importance and/or performance of a range of tangible and intangible elements of the tourism product at a destination, typically attractions, facilities, infrastructure, hospitality and cost. Transport related attributes that are typically measured in tourism studies include those relating to the cost of transportation and the adequacy of transport nodes such as airports and bus stations. However, it is beyond the scope of most destination satisfaction studies (academic or practitioner) to investigate the detail of public transport performance from the visitor perspective.

5.3 For the purpose of this study, visitor satisfaction surveys from destinations and attractions across Scotland have been examined for the inclusion of variables measuring experiences of and perceptions of local transport. Moreover, public transport operators in Scotland have been asked to identify to what extent it is possible to distinguish between local users and visitors within the passenger satisfaction surveys that they may have conducted. Since no studies have been uncovered which have the sole purpose of measuring visitor satisfaction levels with public transport, the aforementioned are the two principal sources of data which have informed this section of the report. Qualitative data has also been included, which reports the adequacy of transport links to attractions, since this also informs the above objective. This chapter of the report may appear rather piecemeal, since it has been necessary to extract and interpret relatively minor sections of data from the reports in question. The studies are unrelated and have used different methods of investigation, within a variety of geographical locations and focussing on different transport modes. Moreover, the wording of questions means that it is not always easy to be precise about whether the respondents are commenting on the quality of the transport experience per se or the impact which this has had on their enjoyment of the destination. Due to the resulting difficulties in combining and comparing the available data, a more seamless synthesis of the data has not proved possible.

5.4 This section of the report commences with a review of data sources and reports which enhance our understanding of visitor perceptions of and satisfaction with public transport in Scotland, measured respectively by visitor attractions and transport providers. There follows a review of existing data on the link between transport satisfaction and destination satisfaction. Examples of good practice in enhancing the visitor transport experience are provided from Scotland and beyond. The role of information in the accessibility of transport for visitors to Scotland will be explored and key barriers to travel within Scotland for the tourist are examined, within the context of the various modes of available transport. Finally conclusions are drawn on the internal accessibility of Scotland as a visitor destination.

Data from tourist attractions or destinations reporting visitor perceptions of transport

Tourism Attitudes Survey (VisitScotland, 2005)

5.5 Since 1999, VisitScotland has commissioned four Tourism Attitudes Surveys ( TAS). The main objectives of these surveys were to:

• Understand the decision-making and planning process of the holiday maker
• Analyse the visitor experience throughout the duration of their stay from arrival to departure
• Identify, in some detail, the likes and dislikes of every aspect of the visitor's holiday experience
• Probe the visitor's overall experience and his/her future intentions to return to Scotland

5.6 The TAS 2005 asked a sample of 651 visitors to Scotland (domestic and international) about their expectations and experiences of Scotland. 151 visitors from England and Wales were included in the sample, as well as 100 visitors each from Germany, France, Italy and Sweden. Previous Tourism Attitudes Surveys have monitored the experience of other key markets ( USA, Canada, Spain, Holland).

5.7 One of the questions included in the TAS asks visitors to rate how easy it was to travel around during their holiday in Scotland. The question does not appear to distinguish between public and private transport. Therefore, we can assume that responses indicate not only visitors' perceptions towards the adequacy of public transport in conveying them around the destination, but also to a number of other factors relating to private transport and infrastructure. Closer inspection of Table 5.1, which shows the modes of transport used at the destination by the different nationalities surveyed can provide further intelligence on this.

Table 5.1 Percentage of visitors from outside Scotland using different forms of destination transport

Notes to table
Source: Tourist Attitudes Survey 2005, VisitScotland

5.8 Clearly the sampling methods employed for the TAS survey may have influenced the findings outlined in Table 5.1, but without further detailed information on these, it is not possible to speculate on the extent to which the sample is representative of the population. However, these percentages appear to indicate that German visitors are the most likely to use forms of public transport (train, bus and longer distance coach), whereas visitors from France are the least frequent users of public transport, but the most likely to travel by road. Compared to other nationalities, a relatively high percentage of Swedish visitors appear to travel as part of a private tour coach. It is also clear from Table 5.1 that, with the exception of French tourists, public transport use is more prevalent among overseas visitors than domestic visitors.

5.9 Such differences across the nationalities surveyed in terms of the patterns of usage of modes of transport will influence satisfaction ratings. Public transport quality and availability is likely to play a more significant role in rating the ease of travel around Scotland for German, Italian and Swedish visitors, than it is for visitors from England, Wales and France. The latter are more likely to rate ease of travel on the basis of attributes associated with car travel, such as signing, lack of congestion and good quality roads.

5.10 Figure 5.1 depicts the ratings of visitors from outside Scotland on the question 'How easy was it to travel around during your recent holiday?'. Responses are rated on a scale of 1 to 5, 5 signifying 'very easy'. The mean results, shown on the right hand side of the figure, indicate that, on average, visitors from all countries consider Scotland relatively easy to get around. Figure 5.1 indicates that Scottish domestic tourists holidaying within Scotland are the most likely to consider Scotland very easy to get around. This could, of course, be due to the fact that local knowledge makes travelling easier, but also potentially the fact that they have the highest incidence of car use (81%) with less than 20% using public transport during their trip. Without further investigation, it is not possible to surmise whether use of public transport makes the destination less accessible. It is suggested that in future TAS exercises, a question might be included which allows this distinction to be made. It should further be noted here that the TAS data presents a limited picture of visitor experience and perceptions of public transport, questioning visitors at a very general level on the internal accessibility of the tourism product. In other words, what is measured here is the final outcome of the transport service, i.e. the visitor getting to where they actually want to go. Even where the outcome is satisfactory, the process, i.e. the speed and comfort of the trip, as well as intangible aspects such as ease of access to information and attitude of transport staff, may be less than satisfactory. This distinction should be borne in mind when interpreting the results of the TAS. Moreover, it is not clear how attitudes towards the cost of transport in Scotland might be involved in the ratings in Figure 5.1.

Figure 5.1 Rating of ease of travel around Scotland

Source: Tourist Attitudes Survey 2005, VisitScotland

Visitor Attractions Monitor ( VAM) (Moffat, 2004)

5.11 The Moffat Centre for Travel and Tourism Business Development at Glasgow Caledonian University has been involved in the collation of data regarding the Scottish visitor attraction sector since 1999. Data is collated in two separate surveys:

1. An annual survey based on total visitation numbers, which also asks for qualitative information on a number of aspects. In 2004 1051 visitor attractions were contacted to participate in the research project. Some 765 operators returned the questionnaire, with 682 providing usable data.

2. A monthly survey that only asks a sample of visitor attraction operators for total visits to their attraction, and any qualitative comments they may have. Some 430 visitor attractions provided monthly data for the year 2004.

5.12 The definition of a visitor attraction for the purposes of these research projects was harmonised for the year 2000 data collation by all four national tourist boards ⁷and excludes attractions that may be open by appointment only (such as many Historic Houses Association properties), leisure amenities such as cinemas, sports halls, swimming pools and shopping complexes.

5.13 One question in particular provides insights into visitors' experiences and perceptions of transport supply within Scotland. Question 2.9 on the annual survey of visitors to Visitor Attractions, illustrated below as Figure 5.2, requested qualitative responses concerning positive and negative factors influencing visitation, as compared with the previous year. It should be noted however, that the reliability and validity of these findings are questionable, due to the fact that it is the operator who makes the judgement on the factors that have affected total visitor numbers. The VAM does not include any primary research conducted on visitors to the attractions, nor is it clear whether the opinions of attractions operators, who complete the questionnaire, are based on research they may have conducted in house, or simply on the individual's overall knowledge of the business. It should be clear that these comments are therefore rather subjective, since they represent the views and wisdom of only one individual. At best, they can be regarded as representing the visitor attractions' views on tourists' perceptions and experiences of transport.

Figure 5.2 Question 2.9 Survey of Visits to Visitor Attractions 2004

5.14 Some 474 operators provided an answer to the above question in 2004. Transport related issues identified as positive factors in influencing visitor numbers included improved signage to individual attractions, whereas negative factors included the high cost of public transport and closures of main access roads (for maintenance work). Tables 5.2 and 5.3 show the results for both positive and negative factors. Percentages are calculated over the number of responses rather than the number of visitor attractions, so that one attraction operator may have provided more than one factor. These tables show that 2% of factors identified as having the most important positive effect on visitor numbers were transport related. A further three percent of responses in the 'other positive factors' category were also transport related. With regard to factors negatively influencing visitor number in 2004, the percentages are slightly higher, at 3% and 4% respectively. It can therefore be surmised that transport is considered by attractions operators to have a small but significant effect on visitor numbers.

Table 5.2 Positive factors influencing visitor numbers at Scottish attractions

Notes to table
Source: Moffat, 2004

Table 5.3 Negative factors influencing visitor numbers at Scottish attractions

Notes to table
Source: Moffat, 2004

5.15 Further qualitative data could be extracted from the VAM database in order to provide more detail on visitor perceptions and experiences of transport in accessing attractions, as reported by the attraction operator. For the purposes of this research, a number of 'search' words were entered such as 'transport', 'remote', 'car', 'ferry' etc. These are presented in Table 5.4 in the column entitled 'Search Word'. It should be noted that a search on the words 'remote' and 'toll' was also carried out with no result. Of a total 945 comments in the database (roughly 50/50 positive and negative) 83 were extracted as being related to transport.

5.16 The Factor column indicates whether the influence of the factor was quoted by visitor attraction operators as being 'Positive, Most important' (+++); 'Positive, Other' (+); 'Negative, Most Important' (---) or 'Negative, Other (-)' as per question 2.9. In addition, Positive factors were colour coded in blue and Negative factors in green for ease of recognition. Each attraction has a unique identity number. This has been left in for the researchers' use to refer back to the attractions. Location and visits range was also included by the Moffat Centre for cluster purposes, however there are insufficient attractions from any one destination to draw many inferences about the relationship between location of the attraction and adequacy of transport supply. The column entitled 'Description' details the text written by attraction operators on the questionnaire form itself. The table is presented in alphabetical order of attraction location, however there are insufficient attractions.

5.17 Several assumptions can be made from the comments reported in Table 5.4. Firstly, a not inconsiderable number of comments relate to the access to attractions by public and private transport. It is clear that the accessibility of the attraction, in terms of visitors transport experiences, is perceived as a very significant factor by visitor attraction operators. Secondly, it is notable that 57 of the 83 comments relating to transport are negative (69%), suggesting that many attractions operators perceive transport as a hindrance to their success, for a variety of reasons. Factors relating to visitors perceptions and experiences of public transport which were perceived to have had a positive effect on visitation levels included; opening of new routes, improved signage, and increased parking facilities. Meanwhile, lack of access by public transport, poor signage and road closures were cited among the negative factors. The frequent occurrence (more than 10% of the total) of cost related factors within this table is also noted. These cost factors relate to both public and private transport, with island locations being especially likely to cite cost as having a negative influence on visitation levels.

Table 5.4 Positive and negative experiences and perceptions of transport and accessibility affecting visitation levels at Scottish visitor attractions in 2004.

Notes to table
Source: Visitor Attractions Monitor 2004

Cairngorms National Park Visitor Survey (Lowland Market Research, 2004)

5.18 The report on the above survey, previously discussed in Chapter 4, gives an indication of visitor satisfaction with the transport network and the link with destination satisfaction through comments on likes and dislikes and rating of facilities. However, this information is brief in nature and rating scales unfortunately do not disaggregate the responses of visitors from those of local residents. It can be seen from Table 5.5 that, of the facilities which visitors and residents were asked to rate within Cairngorms National Park, public transport accounted for the highest percentage of ratings at the lowest end of the scale 'very poor'. However, average ratings have not been calculated for each of the facilities.

Table 5.5 How would you rate the following facilities in the Cairngorms area?

Notes to table
Source: Cairngorms National Park Visitor Survey

5.19 As regards ratings of public transport within Cairngorms National Park, the report claims that 16% of respondents state these are poor or very poor, although quite how this figure tallies with Table 5.5 is unclear. Moreover, when responses to the question are recalculated to only take into consideration those respondents who have used the transport facilities in question, 62% stated that they are poor or very poor. In other words, of those who used public transport within Cairngorms National Park, 62% had negative experiences of the service. However, it must be pointed out that, whilst 31% of residents indicated that public transport within the park was either poor or very poor, only 5% of people on a longer break, the category within which overseas visitors are best represented rated public transport below average. Thus it would appear that visitors to the park have considerably more positive experiences and perceptions of public transport within that area than residents. The findings reported in Table 5.5 suggest that satisfaction with private transport facilities within the park is considerably higher, with a high percentage of visitors and residents rating parking provision and signposting either good or very good.

Data from transport operators reporting visitor perceptions of transport

Trossachs Trundler (Lancashire Business School, 2004)

5.20 The Trossachs Trundler has been placed in this section since it can legitimately be described as a transport service rather than a visitor attraction. However, it should be noted that the service is provided in conjunction with the Trossachs Bus Walks project, funding for which originates from a number of public sector organisations within the Trossachs region. The report was commissioned by Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park Authority and not by the transport operator, Harlequin Coaches. The Trossach's Trundler study was carried out by Lancashire Business School.

5.21 The Trossachs Trundler is a seasonal bus service which has operated during the summer months since 1993, linking a number of visitor attractions throughout the Trossachs. The service is discussed in Paragraph 5.87 below as an example of good practice in transport for tourism in the Trossachs area.

5.22 The Trossachs Trundler study had two principle objectives:

• to evaluate the Trossachs Trundler service and marketing and promotional materials associated with the service,
• to interview current non-users of the Trossachs Trundler service and identify the factors that would make them more amenable to using the service in the future.

5.23 A variety of primary research methods were employed for the investigation, including a 'mystery shopper' exercise in which a researcher used the Trundler service and undertook one of the advertised associated bus walks. Other methods used included discussions with tourism service providers, telephone interviews with Tourist Information Centres ( TICs) in the area and a survey of tourists using the car park at the Loch Katrine Visitor Centre. Of the above methods, the mystery shopper exercise proves the most useful in evaluating the quality and adequacy of this particular transport mode from the visitor perspective. Before outlining these findings, it is important to put the research into context. It should be noted that the Trossachs Trundler is marketed as a form of leisure transport, if not entirely tourist dedicated. Although its route and pricing structures are designed to specifically appeal to visitors to the Trossachs area, it is, however, also valued by local residents in an area where the local bus service is very thin. It might be expected that a service that is specifically marketed for tourism and recreation purposes would be more likely to make a positive contribution to the visitor experience, than a regular service bus. Secondly, the mystery shopper evaluation of the Trundler service must be considered subjective as it based on the experience of one researcher and not on the perceptions of a wider sample of visitors and/or passengers. Thirdly, the report does not provide any indication of the geographical breakdown of passengers using the Trossachs Trundler. It is therefore not possible to estimate the degree of use of this service by visitors from outside Scotland.

5.24 The report on the mystery shopper experience criticises the format of displays at the bus station in Stirling as the service was not easy to find and board. It is also felt that stops along the route should be more prominent and that shelter should be provided from the weather. Whilst the mystery shopper found the bus clean, if ageing slightly, concerns were raised over the small size of the vehicle and the facilities for carrying bicycles and wheelchairs. The report praises the relaxed pace of the journey, the attractive scenery and the fact that the timetabling accommodates those wanting to take a Loch Cruise, however the communication between organisations, the lack of inclusive tickets covering the bus and visitor attractions and the lack of incentive discounts for bus users are highlighted as areas that should be addressed. Moreover, there was some indication, based on information gleaned during interviews and discussions with service providers in the area, that problems existed with ticketing, the lack of cycle provision and inconsistencies in the service standards of drivers, all of which, in the past, had led to dissatisfaction on the part of visitors, and had been reported to the local TICs.

5.25 Whilst the mystery shopper experience only provides an account of the performance of one survey on a given day from the point of view of one researcher, the comments on and criticisms of the service, in conjunction with the remarks of service providers and the TIC, make a valuable contribution to any efforts to improve visitor services within the Trossachs area.

Travel Dundee ( TARP Limited, 2005)

5.26 In June 2005 TARP Limited conducted a customer satisfaction survey for Travel Dundee, part of National Express Group plc. Travel Dundee own a fleet of around 130 buses and coaches and are the major operator of local bus services within the City of Dundee. The company's coaching subsidiary, Travel Greyhound, operate coach services throughout the United Kingdom and Europe. The survey obtained 368 responses from passengers of Travel Dundee. A summary of the data from this survey has been made available, but the dataset itself was not accessible. Unfortunately, the origin of respondents has not been measured. However, the survey does disaggregate passengers by main usage purpose, thus it is possible to distinguish between leisure visitors and those travelling for work or study purposes or on personal business. In total, 49% of the Travel Dundee passengers surveyed were travelling for leisure purposes, although in 19% of cases, this involved travelling to see friends and relatives, rather than on a day out. Leisure visitors appeared to be, on average, more satisfied with the overall service received from Travel Dundee. On an index of 1-100, those on a leisure trip rated the satisfaction levels on average at between 75 and 82. Commuters and business travellers, by contrast, rated their overall satisfaction at between 63 and 73 out of 100.

Virgin Trains (Virgin Trains, 2005)

5.27 Virgin trains are one of the key providers of intercity rail travel in the UK and afford access for visitors to Scotland from England and Wales, including visitors from overseas arriving via these two countries. Between February 2005 and January 2006, a customer satisfaction survey was conducted for Virgin Trains by Synovate UK. Data from this survey has been extracted for a sample of 121 passengers on outbound journeys from England to Scotland or on return journeys from Scotland to England. Of the total passengers surveyed, 50% are travelling for leisure purposes and 36% for business purposes. Only 4% are from overseas. The satisfaction ratings can therefore principally be attributed to domestic visitors to Scotland, however, all respondents can be classified as visitors to Scotland. The data is also disaggregated to show business, commuting and leisure trips. 50% of the sample were travelling to Scotland for leisure purposes, 36% on employer's business, 4% were commuters and the remaining 10% either did not answer the question or were travelling for other purposes.

5.28 Satisfaction ratings are available for no less than 51 different aspects of the journey experience, including some of the key indicators of public transport satisfaction, such as reliability, speed and customer service. Whilst a full analysis of such extensive data is beyond the scope of this report, it is useful to provide an overview of the findings, identifying the key differences between leisure/business and overseas/domestic visitors in terms of the satisfaction rating.

5.29 As regards overall satisfaction with the journey experience (including planning the journey and the onboard experience) overseas visitors are, on average, better satisfied than visitors from England and Wales. This finding echoes the results of surveys discussed elsewhere in this section and reinforces the observation that domestic visitors are most likely to express dissatisfaction with destination transport services. It should, however, be pointed out that overall satisfaction levels with the journey are relatively positive, business travellers expressing the lowest average level of satisfaction, 7.0 on a scale of 1-10.

5.30 Aspects of the journey which overseas visitors rated considerably lower than domestic visitors include the following:

• Satisfaction with being able to rely on timetabled services not being cancelled
• Satisfaction with the helpfulness and knowledge of the staff you contacted
• Satisfaction with the ticket you bought meeting your requirements (e.g. the best value/the fastest route)

5.31 Two of these variables relating to accessibility of public transport for overseas visitors will be examined further in Paragraphs 5.73 to 5.86 of this report. Overseas visitors were particularly satisfied with aspects of the stations they had used, including the helpfulness of station staff, accessibility and cleanliness of the station and personal safety within the station. They also tended to express greater levels of satisfaction with the comfort and cleanliness onboard the trains than domestic visitors and were highly satisfied with the ability to store luggage onboard.

5.32 There were also notable differences between leisure and business travellers with regard to their levels of satisfaction on particular variables. Business travellers were considerably less satisfied then leisure visitors with the following aspects of the journey:

• Speed and efficiency of response to problems by staff;
• Car parking facilities at stations;
• Cleanliness of stations, train carriages and toilets;
• Time spent waiting to purchase ticket.

5.33 Leisure visitors were, on average less satisfied with luggage storage facilities on board the train and with the level of knowledge of staff whom they contacted for information about their journey. Overall levels of satisfaction with the journey, however, were almost identical.

5.34 The survey conducted by Synovate UK on behalf of Virgin Trains points to good practice in the measurement of passenger satisfaction with inter city rail services. Unfortunately the number of passengers from overseas within the sample is rather small, but nonetheless probably representative of the proportion of Virgin Train's customers from overseas over the period of the survey. The fact that the survey distinguishes between business and leisure travellers is very helpful, access to the data set would allow a cross analysis of the grouping variables (e.g. domestic leisure visitors), which may be of interest from a tourism perspective.

5.35 The above section has reported on qualitative and quantitative data which provides some insight into visitors' experiences and perceptions of transport supply in Scotland. However, it should be clear from the above discussion that there is a distinct lack of research within this area. It appears that any research which has taken place is at a fairly general level and has not attempted to investigate in detail the specific attributes and dimensions of transport performance which influence visitor experiences, perceptions and levels of satisfaction. Moreover, the studies are localised, referring either to the case of a very specific transport service, or a distinct area of tourist activity. It is not possible, for example, to distinguish whether experiences and perceptions of transport differ across the modes or within different regions of Scotland. Nonetheless, some detail has been provided not only on the types of research taking place within this area, but also on the positive and negative experiences and perceptions of transport from the visitor perspective that have been recorded throughout Scotland.

Potential relationship between satisfaction with transport provision and satisfaction with Destination Scotland

Tourism Attitudes Survey (VisitScotland, 2005)

5.36 The Tourism Attitudes Survey was discussed above in Paragraph 5.5 in relation to overseas visitors' satisfaction levels with transport provision. This survey also provides us with an insight into the way in which transport impacts on destination satisfaction. The research attempts to establish an overall impression of the holiday experience in Scotland, listing the most frequently citied holiday highlights and disappointments. The survey revealed that 2% of all respondents (overseas and domestic) questioned were disappointed with public transport provision in Scotland and 4% did not enjoy travelling.

5.37 All nationalities surveyed, with the exception of the French, cited travelling around Scotland as one of the most disappointing parts of their holiday. However, the percentages were relatively low, with more visitors from England and Wales being dissatisfied with this aspect of their holiday than other nationalities. In the case of German visitors, four factors relating to transport appeared in the list of disappointments: travelling, public transport, price of petrol and damage to car. A percentage of French and Italian visitors were also disappointed with public transport and with the roads in Scotland. 3% of Swedish visitors stated that they were disappointed with sign posting in the Scotland. By contrast 6% of German visitors, 4% of those travelling from England and Wales and 3% of those from France commented that walking and hiking was a particular highlight of their holiday. Clearly, however, in many instances respondents may have chosen to partake in a walk simply as a leisure activity rather than as a mode of transportation from one destination to another. Although the numbers of visitors citing transport related factors as a disappointment are fairly limited, the survey does appear to establish a link between dissatisfaction with transport and satisfaction levels with Destination Scotland.

5.38 Some further, destination specific data can be added to this picture from the TNS survey for Greater Glasgow and Clyde Valley Tourist Board ( GGCVTB) conducted in 2003/2004 of 1350 visitors to the Tourist Board area ( TNS, 2004). Since access to the data was not granted, it is not possible to distinguish clearly between domestic and overseas visitors, however 35% of respondents are know to be from outside Scotland. The number of VFR and holiday makers is much greater among this group, with Scottish respondent being overwhelmingly day trippers.

5.39 The survey included a question which allowed respondents to comment on their likes and dislikes regarding Glasgow ( TNS, 2004). Transport again featured among these, but the picture was rather more positive for public transport than private. 6% of respondents cited good transport as one of the things they liked about the area, whereas 4% identified poor transport as a dislike. It would be interesting to examine the data set further, to establish any differences between overseas and domestic visitors in this question. As regards road transport, signposting was considered poor by 3% of respondents, and 10% declared that one of their key dislikes about the area was road congestion. Over a third of the sample had used a private car within the area (37%) whilst 10% and 7% had used bus and subway.

Examples of good practice in enhancing the visitor transport experience in Scotland

5.40 It is not the purpose of this section to highlight or promote successful transportation management projects. Nor will specific illustrations of good practice by transport and tourism operators be discussed here. Such examples were provided in Chapter 4, as part of the discussion on the scope and limitation of transport provision for visitors. The aim of this final part of this chapter is to review examples of good practice in research towards enhancing the visitor transport experience. Three salient reports are reviewed, two commissioned by Scottish Natural Heritage, the other by Cairngorms National Park. Each of these reports examined aspects of public and private transport in rural areas of Scotland, with a view of improving both accessibility and visitor satisfaction with transport for leisure purposes.

The View from the Road (David Jarman, Rural Landscape Enrichment, 2005)

5.41 An interesting example of transport being evaluated in relation to user/visitor satisfaction is highlighted by The View from the Road report, which was commissioned by Scottish Natural Heritage following increasing recognition that roads have become important features of the landscape. The study aimed to assess the 'View from the Road' seen by motorists travelling through the Scottish countryside (townscapes etc. were excluded) by presenting a number of detailed examples. For the purpose of the initial investigation, the A82 from Glasgow to Inverness was adopted as the object of the research. The report is based on the interview responses of more that 50 people acting as representatives of key public and private sector interests in the area as well as the conclusions of a workshop attended by over 30 delegates. The scoping study also explores the feelings of key stakeholders towards the concept of 'View Management'. However, it is stressed that the idea will only develop if wide partnerships are formed and maintained.

5.42 The study found that, in many instances, picturesque scenery was obstructed by vegetation and concluded that this could be seen to detract from the tourism product. Conifer afforestation was viewed as a particular problem, although it is said that this has been recognised for some time and is now being addressed through a variety of measures including clear felling, selective felling and increasing the distance between the roadside and plantation, thereby enabling motorists to admire the landscape. On the other hand, the potentially obstructive natural regeneration of native species was found to be a relatively recent phenomenon which is poorly understood. It is proposed by the report that eventually natural regeneration may evolve beyond a density where views are obscured and that traditional woodland management practices may accelerate this process.

5.43 The report also regards as important the ability of visitors and locals to stop and properly admire the Scottish countryside. Questions are raised concerning viewpoints and the provision of roadside amenities, including tourist information, public toilets and dining facilities. It is noted that, while this is an area in which many agencies show considerable interest, there is no obvious organisation to take the lead in developing and implementing policy. Several good examples of 'scenic pull-offs' and future opportunities are highlighted and questions over the maintenance of such facilities are raised. Comparisons are also drawn with other European countries where it is now common to find a variety of commercial ventures at scenic locations.

5.44 It is suggested that 'View Maintenance' could have an influence on the sustainability of the tourism industry as the pace of travel could be slowed, allowing people to appreciate the area and stop more often thereby covering less distance in the course of the visit and necessitating a return trip. It is also believed that investment in the scenic product would aid regional development through increased visitor spending, promotion of road safety and access to the landscape.

5.45 The report goes on to consider the concept of View Corridor Management Plans ( VCMP) which were welcomed by the majority of those involved in the study. It was proposed that VCMP's may comprise an evaluation of the route character and highlights and the views observable whilst travelling along measures to develop stopping places and aid rural regeneration. The report states that there is a strong argument for the development of both bottom-up and top-down management strategies as local strengths could be supported and reinforced by national standards tourists could rely on. The group also supported the principle of a 'Scottish Collection' of iconic views to be promoted as a package.

5.46 The report then explores the potential sources of funding for view management plans, further research that would be of benefit to such initiatives and the possible locations of a pilot scheme. As some major improvements can be made with little need for research, consultation, legislation or funding, the study advocates immediate action in this area.

5.47 The report highlights routes across the country that are seen to be of value to visitors, without commenting on the volume of visitors travelling on such roads. Attention is also drawn to the fact that very little comprehensive data exists to assess what visitors think of the views they see when travelling. It is hence not possible, from the evidence presented, to assess intangibles such as visitor satisfaction with a roadside view.

5.48 The report and the examples contained purposely focus on the A82 route and are not, therefore, representative of Scotland as a whole. It recognised that different types of road in other locations will require different measures to enhance the satisfaction of visitors and that future investigation of this issue will be necessary. However, the themes raised by the report are considered important, particularly due to the high percentage of visitors travelling around Scotland by private and hire car.

Transport, Tourism and the Environment (Transport for Leisure, 2000)

5.49 A further report commissioned by SNH has relevance to good practice in research towards enhancing the visitor transport experience, though its key focus was on limiting the economic, environmental and social impacts of tourism and tourist related transport in the Scottish countryside. The report, entitled 'Transport, Tourism and the Environment in Scotland' was undertaken by Yorkshire based consultants Transport for Leisure Ltd and Roger Smith the outcome being a series of recommendations regarding the future role SNH should play in research, policy development and action with regard to tourism, transport and the environment.

5.50 The report defined 'Leisure Transport' as "any journey which is made by a visitor into the Scottish countryside either to access that countryside for a leisure activity or as a leisure experience in itself" and the term 'visitor' was used to refers to "someone who travels ten or more miles away from home" (p9). However, there does appear to be some inconsistency in the use of such terms with 'tourist' and 'tourism related transport' being used in some instances.

5.51 The report begins by commenting on the subject of leisure travel at the global, national and local level, quoting figures from sources such as the DETR: Transport Statistics and British Social Attitudes survey as evidence of the increasing importance of air travel and growth of car ownership and use. Whilst there is acknowledgement of the environmental impact of air travel, the fact that much of it occurs as a result of international flights outside Scotland is seen to place the issue largely out with the scope of the study thereby justifying the focus on car travel.

5.52 The principle impacts of car travel on the environment and other road users are categorised and examined in turn, beginning with air pollution followed by visual pollution, noise pollution, increasing numbers of accidents and 'accident-risk fear', seen to deter other road users such as walkers and cyclists, and congestion.

5.53 While discussing visitor expectations the report makes a distinction between 'Pale Green' and 'Deep Green' visitors. Pale Green visitors are described as those who travel by whatever mode is seen to be the most convenient, inexpensive and practical (p10). It is suggested that, given the correct publicity and motivation, such people could be persuaded to walk, cycle or use some form of public transport as an alternative to the private car.

5.54 Deep Greens, described as those "who by necessity or choice, do not own or use a car, or who are prepared to leave their car at home for the day and travel the whole way by bus or train" (p12) are viewed as a particularly important group in terms of long term behavioural change.

5.55 It is suggested that an extensive and reliable public transport network is required, combining rail, bus and boat services, allowing visitors to explore the whole of the country. Quality information, enabling connections, clean and spacious vehicles, and multi-modal rover tickets which can be pre-booked are also recommended. The authors believe that existing public transport networks can, in many instances, provide visitors with excellent access to the countryside, but these need to be effectively publicised. This is seen to make sound economic sense but it is also noted that dedicated tourist services may be necessary in some instances.

5.56 The second section of the report begins with a brief overview of tourism in Scotland followed by a similar summary of the walking and cycling market using 1999 figures provided by the Scottish Tourist Board on the ScotExchange website. Cycle touring, where the visitor cycles between accommodations on a daily basis, is mentioned but no figures are provided suggesting a lack of research in this area.

5.57 A brief overview of travel to and within Scotland is providing using DETR Transport Statistics, the National Travel Survey and Scottish Executive Transport Statistics. The lack of detailed local data and formal research is once again highlighted, as is anecdotal evidence concerning the negative impact of leisure travel in the countryside. For example, in summer months and at busy weekends traffic congestion and parking problems are frequently reported on the shores of Loch Lomond, in highland settlements such as Fort William, coastal resorts such as Girvan and in the heritage towns of Stirling and St Andrews.

5.58 In conclusion the report draws attention to the "complex and contrasting patterns of provision and promotion of public transport in Scotland" (p31). It is suggested that SNH should view the promotion of existing services to the leisure market as a top priority, working to build partnerships between stakeholders and to integrate transport provision into wider visitor management strategies (p31).

5.59 The report moves on to provide an overview of transport provision in different regions of Scotland, reporting the current situation and highlighting good practice and opportunities for future development. In this section the Northern and Western Isles, the Highlands, Stirling Council area, Fife, Strathclyde and the Boarders are looked at in turn. A number of best practice examples in the provision of transport for leisure are cited by the report, including the Western Isles integrated Bus Network, which in April 1999 won the annual award of the Institute of Logistics and Transport for Passenger Transport Operations. Further examples include the Great Days Out scheme run by Strathclyde Passenger Transport, which offered tickets combining travel with admission to specified visitor attractions, and the Trossachs Trundler buses, discussed above in Paragraph 4.45.

5.60 SNH has limited direct influence over transport services within the Scottish Countryside, and the report recommends that SNH should involve itself primarily in;

• Research (including demonstration projects)
• Advice
• Grant Aid

5.61 Discussion with a representative of SNH indicates that study reports a position that continues to be supported by the organisation, however as the report is now a number of years old, some of the information it contains may now be out of date.

Loch Lomond and The Trossachs National Park People Movement and Transport Management Study (WS Atkins, 2002)

5.62 Immediately prior to the establishment of the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park, WS Atkins were commissioned to undertake a People Movement and Transport Management study with the following aims:

• To provide an overview of the current strategies and policies, infrastructure and areas experiencing transport pressure;
• To identify gaps in policy, knowledge and infrastructure requiring attention by the future National Park authority; and
• To identify 'hot spots' within the area where transport management solutions are required and propose action plans to address the transport problems of these areas.

5.63 The findings of this report are now rather dated, since various of the measures recommended by the report have been actioned. The nature of the study as an example of good practice is thus interesting, rather than its actual conclusions.

5.64 The report commences with an outline of the existing transportation conditions within the National Park area and identifies key transport related issues, such as the relative inaccessibility of the park and its visitor attractions by public transport and locations of congestion during summer months. A set of transport policies for the park are defined and the importance of encouraging the inclusion of park specific transport policy statements in the relevant policy documents is highlighted. A series of key transport objectives for the park are recommended including:

• Reduction of the impact of visitor traffic upon the National Park;
• Increase in the use of non-car transport for access to/from and travel within the National Park; and
• Positive encouragement towards more sustainable transport use.

5.65 The report draws attention to the need to build a knowledge base regarding transport in the park before details objectives can be defined, but proposes an initial strategy based on the following approaches:

• Build upon existing resources and facilities, particularly public transport services;
• Maximise opportunities for interchange and interconnection between transport modes and services;
• Provide improved information and signage in an integrated manner to enable increased travel choice; and
• Collect and collate data to develop a clear understanding of current transport provision, usage and problems.

5.66 Funding sources are suggested and an action plan is proposed to progress the recommended actions, including the preparation of funding applications. Crucially, the report identifies key opportunities created by the establishing of the new National Park, particularly the opportunity to provide a framework for transport, tourism and recreation and the opportunity to improve coordination of management and joint working between all organisations with responsibilities for, and involvement in, transport and tourism within the park.

Cairngorms Sustainable Tourism (The Tourism Company, 2005)

5.67 In Scotland's second National Park, the Cairngorms National Park Association ( CNPA) commissioned The Tourism Company to produce a draft Sustainable Tourism Strategy and Action Plan for Cairngorms National Park in association with the ViSIT (Visitor Services, Information and Tourism) Forum. The report was published in March 2005. A key objective of the report was to suggest a framework within which the Cairngorms National Park Authority ( CNPA) and its partners might work together towards the successful development and management of tourism in the Park.

5.68 Accessibility and transport within the park was given particular consideration in the report and the findings suggest ways of enhancing the visitor transport experience whilst increasing movement around the park and distributing the benefits of tourism.

5.69 Poor public transport within the Cairngorms National park area and high fuel prices were seen to be a key weakness of the area. Although the Cairngorms is relatively accessible by car from Scotland's main centres of population and public transport to and from the Park was considered reasonable, movement within the Park via public transport was perceived by the report to be very difficult. The report refers to the Cairngorms National Park Visitor Survey (see Paragraphs 5.18 - 5.19 above) which established that 62% of visitors to the park felt that public transport was either poor or very poor. The North East and South East of the park were perceived to be particularly inaccessible.

5.70 A visitor management strategy was proposed by the report "to encourage an optimum flow and spread of visitors across the Cairngorms and minimise social and environmental impact and congestion from visitors and traffic generated by tourism".

5.71 The report made the following recommendations regarding the management of visitor flow within the park:

• Consider the needs of tourism in the context of a Park management and transport plan
• Monitor visitor and traffic volumes and movements, especially at peak times
• Promote visitor use of existing public transport and improve it where possible
• Promote public transport options to potential and existing visitors, especially for consideration on return visits.
• Encourage information services and individual enterprises in the main local centres to identify and promote circuits using public transport.
• Promote public transport based excursion packages from main population centres such as Aberdeen and the central lowlands.
• Identify gaps in provision and timetabling on routes that might be used by tourists, and investigating possibilities for improving the service, including strategic use of public subsidy.
• Encourage exploration by foot, cycling, riding and on water
• Develop walking packages, single journey, from place to place or centre based.
• Extend cycling provision and packages.
• Extend opportunities for carrying cycles on trains and buses.
• Research the feasibility of dedicated transport to facilitate non-car exploration, e.g. dedicated shuttle bus for visitors.
• Engage in active dialogue with coach operators
• Investigate needs and interests of coach operators through dialogue
• Examine routes used, toilet provision and parking practices, environmental management and purchasing policies etc.
• Produce coach drivers' area information handbook.

5.72 The report notes the complex network of public sector organisations involved in supporting tourism within the Cairngorms National Park ( CPNA, Area Tourist Boards, Local Tourism Associations and the Local Enterprise Companies) and particularly highlights the role of local councils with respect to infrastructure and transport, underlining the fact that local councils within the Cairngorms National Park have retained planning powers. The report stresses the need for communication, co-ordination and cooperation in achieving the recommended visitor management strategies.

Information and the Accessibility of Public Transport to the Visitor

5.73 The decision to use public transport is considered to be based on perceptions of the following six attributes (Hovell et al., 1975):

• Price;
• In-vehicle time (duration of trip, speed);
• Mesh density (route coverage and access to stops);
• Frequency;
• Reliability ;
• Comfort.

5.74 However, perceptions of these six service attributes are argued to be influenced by available information and promotional tactics, particularly in the case of non-local and first time users. Likewise, Kittleson and Associates et al. (1999) contend that the usability of public transport is assessed on the basis of four attributes, one of which is information availability (the availability of adequate and accurate information). A study by Railtrack (1998) provides an indication of the importance of a range of attributes in influencing the decision to use public transport. Information fell sixth in a list of ten attributes, cited by 29% of respondents.

5.75 Information was one of eight attributes found to be quality indicators for public transport by a major project on public transport benchmarking, funded by the European Commission under the transport programme of the European Union's Fourth Framework Programme for Research, Technological Development and Demonstration (see Quattro, 1998). Information was also shown, by the same project, to be one of the service quality attributes most often included in the customer evaluation surveys of European public transport operators (Quattro, 1998). Indeed information may play an even more important role for overseas visitors than it does for local users of an urban public transport service.

5.76 Visitors may be wholly unfamiliar with the local transport system and may therefore require supplementary or different types of information to those generally available. Certainly, the amount, type, time and location of information required by overseas visitors is likely to be different to that favoured by local users. For example, visitors may place greater importance on the availability of information in advance of arrival and they may desire information to be available in a variety of languages. Furthermore, the availability of public transport customised for the tourist and integrated with attractions information may also be valued. Certainly there is evidence, as outlined above in this chapter, to suggest that information is one of the factors affecting satisfaction with destination Scotland. Moreover, in the Virgin Trains customer satisfaction survey discussed in Paragraphs 5.27 to 5.35 above, it emerged seems that commuters were more likely to rate information provision highly, indicating that info sources are not as readily available to less frequent users of the service.

5.77 Studies of bus passengers' use of bus services have shown that differences exist in the types of information required by regular and occasional users of services; regular users tend to rely on experience and seldom use information sources, whilst occasional users depend, to a large extent, on friends or telephone enquiries for information (Blackledge, 1992). Furthermore, where a journey is to be made for the first time, a considerably higher percentage of bus users require information before and during the journey (Balcombe and Vance, 1998). For example, Balcombe and Vance (1998) found that 48% of passengers making a new journey require information on where to alight. This information is required by only 1% of regular users (see Table 5.30).

Table 5.30 Information required by bus passengers before making a journey

Source: Adapted from Balcombe & Vance (1998)

5.78 More critical for the overseas visitor are the usefulness and intelligibility of available information. van der Berg et al. (1995) highlight the fact that public transport in tourist destinations is not easily accessible for foreign visitors, specifically noting the lack of public transport information in foreign languages. Overseas visitors may, for example, be unwilling to utilise telephone information lines due to lack of confidence in the English language. This problem is exacerbated where the principal attractions of a destination are spread over a broad geographical area. Recognition of the need to provide comprehensive transport information for the tourist has been demonstrated at national and international level. A report published by the World Travel and Tourism Council ( WTTC) in 1997 applied the sustainable principles of Agenda 21 to the travel and tourism industries and advocated improved provision of information for tourists to encourage the use of public transport at the destination ( WTTC, 1997). More recently, the ETC has recognised the potential to influence tourist travel through the provision of effective information ( ETC, 2001) and the Scottish Executive has highlighted the importance of multilingual information and ticketing facilities ( SE, 2006).

5.79 However, the significance of the use and usefulness of public transport information from an overseas visitor perspective remains unexplored. One useful study of the use of ICTs by Tourist Information Centres ( TICs) has identified the need to establish visitors' information requirements and to ascertain the best means of providing this information to the visitor (Connell and Reynolds, 1999). This principle can clearly be applied equally to public transport information. TICs play an important role not only in providing information for the visitor, but also in arranging guided tours and walks throughout the destination. Furthermore, the larger the destination is, the more effective tourist signposting and way-marking needs to be.

5.80 Findings from a study of overseas visitors use of transport information in Manchester show that respondents were more likely to have used TICs to access public transport information than the public transport information centres, despite their geographical proximity (Thompson, 2004) . It was found that visitors tended to use more than one source of public transport information and that local people were a very important source of public transport information (see Table 5.31). The internet was also commonly used as a transport information source, perhaps suggesting that visitors access public transport information in advance of their trip. The above findings are specific to Manchester, but a similar examination of information usage and usefulness in Glasgow would be very useful.

Table 5.31 Public transport information sources used by overseas visitors to Greater Manchester 2003

Source: Thompson (2004) (Multiple response analysis)

5.81 73% of visitors to Manchester used tourist attraction leaflets for information on public transport. The public transport information provided by visitor attractions is often very basic and compiled by non-specialists without collaboration with transport operators. In an attempt to investigate further the travel advice available to visitors to Scotland via visitor attractions, content analysis of visitor attraction marketing information was undertaken. ⁸ The marketing leaflets and websites of Scotland's most frequented attractions, as identified by the 2005 Visitor Attraction Monitor, were examined along with information provided by a number of other attractions from across the country. Visitor attractions with both paid and free admission were selected.

5.82 For the purpose of the study references to travel by road, rail, bus, cycle, foot, boat and air were noted, as were mentions of car parking facilities and the presence of a location map. It was found that all of the attractions selected for study provided a degree of travel information to potential visitors although many inconsistencies in the level of detail made available were discovered. All attractions provided a description of their location, perhaps only brief in nature, or a map illustrating the position of the site. Many leaflets and websites contained both.

5.83 The majority of attractions contain information, to a greater or lesser extent, notifying visitors of the best way to access the attraction by road. It is noteworthy that many of marketing leaflets which lack information concerning road travel belong to central attractions in cities that may form a holiday base for visitors. Such attractions, including Edinburgh Castle, the Scottish Whisky Heritage Centre situated on the Royal Mile and the Museum of Transport in Glasgow, are often easily accessible, on foot or by public transport, from the city centre.

5.84 Public transport information is also seen to vary between attractions. While many provide details of the location of railway stations and bus stops and note the distance and service numbers of buses serving the attraction, others simply state that the attraction is accessible by train or bus and provide little further information. For example, travel information provided by Historic Scotland appears to be presented in a standard form across the organisation, hence visitors are simply advised to contact Traveline to enquire about public transport provision in the locality of the property they wish to visit. While this may be seen to inconvenience visitors, given the comprehensive information available through services such as Traveline and the changeable nature of public transport timetables it is perhaps surprising that less half of the attractions surveyed provided visitors with telephone numbers or internet addresses of local transport providers and organisations such as Traveline.

5.85 While in many instances visitors are advised to walk to attractions from central areas and nearby bus and train stations, there are few attractions that make reference to the use of bicycles as a method of transport. The principle exceptions appear to be properties managed by Historic Scotland and the National Trust for Scotland. Currently in the care of the National Trust for Scotland, Culzean Castle and Country Park in Ayrshire (the 7th most popular paid admission visitor attraction of 2005) informs potential visitors of the property's location on a National Cycle Network Route, while Historic Scotland advises visitors to contact Sustrans in order to find out about cycle routes in the vicinity of its properties.

5.86 The Royal Yacht Britannia and New Lanark Village and Visitor Centre both advertise inclusive tickets covering transport to the attraction as well as admission. It is also interesting to note that the National Gallery of Scotland promotes a free bus which is provided by and runs between the National Galleries of Scotland.

Review of key barriers to public transport emerging from the data and reports

5.87 Very little data exists on barriers to public transport use, as surveys tend to ask simply what mode of transport people have used. Moreover, the studies undertaken by the transport operators ask only users of public transport and data is therefore missing on why visitors have elected not to use public transport. Nonetheless, conjectures on the key barriers to public transport use for visitors to Scotland can be made inter alia by appraising the data on visitor satisfaction with public transport use outlined in this chapter and from comments made in transport related reports that have been reviewed as part of this study.

• The Trossachs Trundler report (Lancashire Business School, 2004) provides some insight into tourists' decision to travel by private car, rather than public transport. When asked why they had chosen to travel to Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park in a private vehicle as opposed to using public transport, time and flexibility were the most prominent answers. Others stated that there were no buses of which they were aware (although this was often a misguided perception) that the car was their natural choice for a trip, that the party and belongings would be problematic to transport on a public service and that it would prove too expensive to use public transport (see Table 5.32). Findings also indicate that the majority of respondents would have postponed their trip, had the car not been available on that particular day, and that holiday makers would be more likely to use public transport than those on a day trip from home. However, the survey was carried out on a small scale and, as such, cannot be considered fully representative of those visiting the National Park area throughout the year.

Table 5.32 Why visitors to LLTNP would not use public transport (n=52)

Source: Lancashire Business School (2004)

• Evidence has been found, as part of an ongoing research project into the seasonality of the accommodation industry with particular reference to SMEs within the Scottish Tourism Research Unit, to suggest that seasonality affects visitor travel behaviour. Owners of homestay accommodation properties throughout Scotland reported that one of the key reasons why their business is only operational at certain times of year is that access to the property, other than by private car, is restricted due to the season nature of timetables. This effect is particularly acute in the off-peak season for areas which require access by ferry.
• Barriers to public transport use relating to transport supply are perceived by tourism operators as evidenced by the statement below from the anonymous owner of a Destination Management Company in Scotland, commenting on the suitability of Scotland's rail services for group travel:
  
  "My own company is a Destination Management Company providing services in Scotland for overseas leisure tourists, mainly from the USA. Before the recent Rail Franchise was awarded, I sent in a submission re my concerns re the lack of suitable rail transport in Scotland for the overseas tourist, in particular for any groups wanting to travel round Scotland by rail. I know that similar concerns were expressed by VisitScotland.
  
  We are possibly the only country in Europe where our commuter trains "double-up" as long distance trains and are completely unsuitable for this. With the exception of one GNER service per day to/from Inverness and two, I think, to Aberdeen, the normal FirstScotRail train is not suitable for tourists with large suitcases.
  
  Several years ago, my main American client used to have a "Britain by Rail" tour. This tour, after it had arrived in Edinburgh, would go up to Inverness by train, spend a couple of nights there, then on to Kyle of Lochalsh for another two nights. We would then collect them by coach and take them down to Glasgow to connect with another train for England.
  
  There is no way that I could, with the present trains, book a group of anything over 10/12 passengers comfortably (with all their large suitcases), on that kind of routing today. We would normally use first-class for our groups and there would not be enough seats available."

• Cycling as a mode of tourist transport has only briefly been touched on by this report. However, evidence exists to suggest that difficulties in transporting bicycles on public transport create restrictions. There is clear potential for train companies to bring cyclists and their bikes to Scotland from the rest of the UK and beyond, and ferry companies are important as a means of transporting visitors to the islands. While it is suggested that ferries are generally able to accommodate cyclists, trains and buses are seldom able to cope with demand during peak periods. Reservations are required on some key rail routes, on others they are not required but space is limited. In the case of bus travel, cycles are seldom catered for. However, it should be noted that First Scotrail does provide extensive information for cyclist on its website including integrated travel information regarding rail and the National Cycle Routes. Moreover, they also provide a very useful cycle rescue service under which they will transport the visitor (plus damaged bike) to the nearest suitable cycle repair shop, railway station, car rental agency or overnight accommodation.
• The State of the Park report (Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park Authority, 2005) identifies a number of issues which it perceives to present barriers to effective movement within the park by public transport. Low frequency of transport services is cited and this is clearly a problem in rural areas. The Trossachs Trundler represents a good practice example of how low density public transport, provided in conjunction with cycling and walking, can appeal to both visitors and local residents. This is a model which could be replicated in other parts rural Scotland. The lack of integrated public transport information and marketing is also cited. The National Parks are already taking steps to integrate bus and rail information within their territory. Ideally this could also incorporate tourist information. Finally, cost is perceived to be a barrier to public transport use. For some of the key overseas markets in particular, the cost of public transport in Scotland, indeed in the UK as a whole, is comparatively high. Integrated ticketing may go some way to resolving this. For example, the Mackintosh Trail ticket in Glasgow represents value for money as it includes not only unlimited travel across the SPT network, but also access to several paying attractions on the Rennie Mackintosh theme. It should be reiterated, though, that the Freedom of Scotland Travelpass is regarded by visitors to Scotland as very good value for money.
• Although, for a variety of reasons, travel by public transport in rural areas may be perceived to pose the greatest challenge to the visitor, it should not be taken for granted that travel within Scotland's cities is problem free for the visitor. On 28th June 2006 the Glasgow Evening Times reported on the attempts of an overseas visitor to visit three of Glasgow's key tourist attractions in one day. Although some aspects of the transport system were reported to be efficient and easy to use, criticisms which emerged included the lack of an integrated ticketing system suitable for visitors, problems in accessing information and poor route coverage which resulted in journeys taking longer than necessary. A copy of the article is reproduced in Annex 3 of this report.

Chapter Summary

5.88 On average and across the studies reviewed there is no evidence to suggest that visitors from the UK and overseas, and those travelling for leisure purposes have lower levels of satisfaction than local transport users in Scotland. Indeed, the available evidence suggests that, although domestic visitors find it easiest to get around Scotland, they are the most likely to be dissatisfied with transport provision. There is also some evidence to suggest that leisure visitors are better satisfied with some public transport services than business travellers. Moreover, experiences of private transport appear in general to be more positive than those of public transport.

5.89 Some key themes emerge, however, which appear to affect visitor satisfaction and these can be related to the personal, system and environmental factors affecting modal choice, highlighted in Chapter 2. Factors relating to the transport system and its operations which appear to cause negative satisfaction include congestion and particularly signage for those travelling by car. For passengers of public transport, cost, information, ticketing and the helpfulness of staff have been shown to suffer lower levels of satisfaction among visitors. Environmental factors include the rural setting and remoteness of some attractions, whereas personal factors include size of group and the carrying of luggage. The lack of cycle provision is also a theme which emerges in various reports. Scotland has, in UK terms, a relatively comprehensive cycle network. However the inability of public transport services, in particular rail but also bus services in more rural destinations, to act as a back up for cycle tourists, is likely to either discourage cycling, or force more visitors to use a car to transport their bicycles.

5.90 There is some evidence, particularly from the Visitor Attractions Monitor, to suggest that visitor attractions in Scotland consider transport to have a small but significant effect on visitor numbers and satisfaction. This effect is perceived to more negative than positive. Indeed, the establishment of a Transport Study Group as part of the Scottish Tourism Forum is evidence of the fact that Scotland's tourism providers see transport as a key area for action in enhancing the quality of the visitor experience and increasing visitor numbers to attractions nationwide, and particularly in rural areas.

5.91 Ultimately, it should be stressed that there is a greater amount of data available on visitor use and perceptions of transport in Scotland than is immediately obvious. There are some inconsistencies in the way some of the data is collected, which create difficulties for collating and comparing the results. Nonetheless, the exercise of pulling together this data has been a useful one and there is a strong argument for greater coordination of this data and sharing of information in the future. A number of key barriers to public transport use by visitors have been identified, however these have largely been surmised in a piece-meal fashion from a number of reports which only deal with specific modes, as well as inferences from passenger and visitor satisfaction studies. There is certainly scope for extending this list. With greater resources and time, and cooperation from more of the attractions and transport providers, the picture could be improved. There is certainly scope for further study within this area. Such research should explore in greater detail the aspects of both public and private transport which are not performing to visitor expectations and identify more conclusively the key reasons why visitors elect to travel by private or hire. At present such evidence is largely anecdotal. Moreover, without further study, it is not possible to comment with any degree of certainty on the influence that the above mentioned barriers to public transport use have on the general travel behaviour of visitors to Scotland.

« Previous | Contents | Next »