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 2005. Due to the timing of changes to the SHS questionnaire, some figures relate only to parts of some years. Further information about the SHS is given in section 6.3 and in section 8.
Some tables show results for RTP areas (see section 6.1). Results for the smaller RTPs (Shetland and South-West) are not available for 2005 because the SHS is not designed to produce single year results for the smaller LAs (their sample sizes are too small, and may not be representative). In addition, results are given for the five LAs with the largest populations, for which the survey's sample size and design are sufficient to give annual results.
4.2. The accessibility and frequency of bus services( Tables 11, 12 & A to C; 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). Table 11 shows that, in 2005, 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 (30%) were 4-6 minutes walk away from 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 said that they had no bus service.
Table 11 also shows 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 - see section 6.3. The percentage within 3 minutes walk of a bus service was only 39% for households in "remote" rural areas, and 44% for those in "accessible" rural areas. 23% of householders in "remote" rural areas said that they had no bus service or that it would take at least 14 minutes to walk to the nearest bus stop, as did 15% of those in "accessible" rural areas. Table 11 also shows that there is some variation with (e.g.) social class, annual net household income and property type.
Chart M: Local bus services: passenger journeys and distance travelled by services (vehicle kilometres) - Scotland
The interviewer asks about the frequency of service at the nearest bus stop. If the householder says that the frequency of service varies, the interviewer asks for the week-day off-peak frequency. Table 11 shows that 24% 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 (39%).
Overall, 25% of householders said that there were 5 or more buses an hour, 22% said 3-4 buses an hour, 24% answered that there were 1-2 buses an hour, and 4% said that the bus service was less frequent ( not counting those without a bus service). The differences between urban and rural areas were very clear. For example, 44% of householders in large urban areas reported that there were 5 or more buses an hour, compared with small percentages of householders in small towns and rural areas.
Table A shows that between 1999 and 2005 there has not been a great change in the walking time to the nearest bus stop, both for Scotland as a whole and for each type of area. Some of the figures fluctuate from year to year, presumably due to sampling variability, but (in general) no real trend can be seen. Table B shows that the percentage of households who say that there are 5 or more buses an hour has risen from 19.7% in 1999 to 24.9% in 2005.
Table 12 shows the frequency of bus service within the walking time to the nearest bus stop. In 2005, the 85% of households within 6 minutes walk of a bus stop included 23% who said there were 5 or more buses an hour, 20% who had 3-4 buses an hour, 20% with 1-2 buses an hour, 3% with a less frequent bus service and 19% of households who said they did not know the frequency of the bus service. The right hand part of Table 12 covers households with longer walking time to the nearest bus stop. Table 12 also shows the figures for RTP areas and the LAs with the largest populations.
Table C shows that the percentage whose nearest bus stop is within a 6 minute walk and has 5 or more buses per hour has increased from 18.3% in 1999 to 22.9% in 2005. The percentage who live within a 6 minute walk but do not know the frequency of buses at the nearest bus stop has also increased (from 14.5% in 1999 to 19.1% in 2005).
4.4 Views on the convenience and quality of public transport( Tables 13, 14 & D; Charts N & O)
In the second part of the SHS interview, one randomly-chosen adult member of the household is asked about his/her circumstances and views. The interviewer says: "… please tell me how convenient or inconvenient you would find it to make use of" public transport and of some other types of services "during their normal opening hours, assuming that you needed to?" Table 13 shows how the "convenience" of public transport was rated in 2005: overall, 50% of adults said it was "very convenient" and 34% described it as "fairly convenient", 3% responded "neither convenient nor inconvenient", a further 3% had no opinion, 5% thought it "fairly inconvenient" and a further 4% felt it was "very inconvenient".
The types of people most likely to describe public transport as "inconvenient" were the self-employed (about 14%), people living in households with an annual net income of over £40,000 (16%) and those living in remote rural areas (36%). The differences between urban and rural areas are illustrated in Chart N: for example, 60% of adults living in large urban areas regarded public transport as "very convenient" compared with only 23% of those in "remote" rural areas and 25% of adults in "accessible" rural areas. Table 14 shows views on the convenience of public transport for RTP areas and the LAs with the largest populations.
Chart N: Views on the convenience of public transport: 2005
Chart O: Views on public transport as an aspect of the neighbourhood: 2005
The percentage of adults who find public transport convenient has increased from 74.7% in 1999 to 83.7% in 2005 ( Table D). At the same time, the percentage who find public transport inconvenient has fallen from 18.2% in 1999 to 9.4% in 2005.
The randomly-chosen adult is also asked about aspects of the immediate neighbourhood. Table 13 shows that, overall, in 2005, 19% said that good public transport was an aspect of the neighbourhood that they liked, and 4% said that poor public transport was an aspect that they disliked. Chart O shows how these percentages vary between urban and rural areas. Otherwise, in general, these percentages did not vary much between different groups. Table 14 shows these results for RTP areas and the LAs with the largest populations.
Table D shows that, over seven years, the percentage of adults who feel that "good public transport" was a positive aspect of their neighbourhood has fluctuated between 16% and 19%, presumably reflecting sampling variability, and that the percentage who felt "poor public transport" was something they disliked about their neighbourhood has been roughly 4_-5_%.
4.5 Use of local bus services( Tables 15, 27 & F; Chart P)
The interviewer asks the randomly selected adult how often he/she has used the local bus service in the past month. Table 15 shows the results. In 2005, 43% of adults had used a local bus service in the previous month: about 4% used the bus every day, 8% almost every day, 12% 2 or 3 times a week, 8% about once a week, 6% once a fortnight, and a further 6% once a month. Females make more use of local bus services than males, with 13% of women using a bus service every day or almost every day compared to 10% of men. 63% of men had not used the bus in the past month, compared to 52% of women. The use of local bus services differed among the age groups in that about 28% of 16-19 year olds used the bus every day or almost every day, compared to roughly 10% of those aged 30 and above. There is considerable variation in the use of buses with the current situation and socio-economic classification of the interviewee, annual net household income and urban/rural category.
Chart P illustrates variation in the use of local bus services for each sex, by age, employment status and frequency of driving; the left-hand part of Table 27 gives the results for RTP areas and the LAs with the largest populations, for the years for which data are available.
Table F shows that usage of buses has not changed greatly between 2002 (when the question was first asked) and 2005.
4.6 Views on local bus services( Table 16)
Adults who said that they had used local bus services in the past month were asked how strongly they agreed or disagreed with eleven statements about bus services. The top part of Table 16 shows that (for example) 73% of bus users agreed with the statement that the buses run on time, 76% agreed that the buses ran when they were needed, 77% found them comfortable, 86% felt safe and secure on the bus, 88% found the range and price of tickets easy to understand, and 66% of bus users felt that bus fares were good value.
The lower half of Table 16 shows the percentages of different groups who agreed with each of the statements. There was very little difference between the sexes, some variation with age group (with a greater proportion of those aged 60 or over agreeing with nearly all the statements), and those who used buses least had the smallest proportion agreeing with most of the statements.
Chart P: Adults (16+) who had used a local bus service every day or almost every day in the past month: 2005
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 17, 18 & E)
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.
Table 17 shows that, in 2005, 12% of commuters said that they usually travelled to work by bus, compared with 68% 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 (14% against 9%). There are also marked differences between age-groups, income bands and urban/rural category. Table 18 provides figures for RTP areas and selected LAs. Please note that people are counted on the basis of where they live, not where they work.
The right hand part of Table 17 shows that 44% of commuters who usually travelled by car or van said that they could use public transport to travel to work. The percentage was particularly high for large urban areas (55%), and particularly low for "remote" rural areas (21%). Table 18 provides figures for RTP areas and selected LAs.
As can be seen from Table E, over the seven 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 43% and 49%, and the proportion of adults who usually travel to work by bus has fluctuated around 12%: given the sample sizes involved and the lack of clear trends in the figures, the apparent year-to-year changes are likely to reflect sampling variability.
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 19 to 22)
The percentages in the tables in this section 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 19 summarises the reasons given in 2005 by those who went by bus: mentioned most were that it was the most convenient method (60%), that it was the quickest method (19%) and that it was the only method available (17%).
Between April 2003 and December 2005, 43% 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. Table 20 shows that the most common reasons that they gave were that it would take too long (58% of these people), it would be inconvenient (36%), that there was no direct route (28%) and that they preferred to use their cars (17%). Table 20 also shows the percentages for whom each reason was given as the main (or only) reason (those who gave more than one reason were asked which was the main one). The right-hand side of Table 20 shows that these people's views do not vary much with their use of local bus services. For example, 59% of those who had not used a bus in the past month said it would take too long, as did 54% of the most frequent users.
Chart Q: Adult (16+) bus passengers by age (1999-2005)
Chart R: Adult (16+) bus passengers by purpose (1999-2005)
Table 21 analyses in more detail why car/van commuters choose not to use public transport. For example, cost was cited as a reason for not using public transport by 28% of those aged 16-19 but by only 8% or less of those aged 40 or over. 34% of the self-employed said they needed a car for work compared with 13% of those employed full time. The percentage saying "takes too long" tends to increase with the distance between home and work.
Those who said that they could not use public transport to travel to work were asked why it was not possible to do so. Table 20 shows that the most common reasons given between April 2003 and December 2005 were that there was no direct route (35% of this sub-group), the lack of a service (24%), that the person needed a car for work (24%) and that the person worked unsocial or unusual hours (21%).
Table 22 analyses in more detail the reasons for not being able to use public transport to travel to work: for example, 54% of those living in remote rural areas indicated lack of service compared with 30% of those living in remote small towns and only 10% of those in large urban areas.
4.9 Reasons for not using buses more often( Tables 23 to 25)
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 interviews between April 2003 and December 2005 are shown in Table 23. 29% of people said that they used their own cars (30% of men and 27% of women), 22% said that they had no need to use buses more often, 15% said that it would take too long, 13% felt that it would be inconvenient to go by bus. Health reasons and the difficulty of access to buses were mentioned mainly by older people.
Table 24 shows the percentage of people for whom each reason was given as the main (or only) reason for not using buses more often. Only 7-8% of 16-19 year and 80+ year olds said that they preferred to use their own cars, compared with approximately 15-20% of those aged 20-69. More women (12%) than men (8%), and more people in the older age-groups, gave health reasons for not using the bus more often.
Table 25 provides a more detailed analysis. For example, the percentage citing health reasons was 19% for those in the most deprived 20% of areas compared with 10% overall; lack of service was a reason given by 38% of those in rural areas compared with 4% for those in large urban areas.
4.10 Frequency of evening travel by bus and how safe from crime would they feel( Tables 26 , 27 & F)
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. Table 26 shows that in 2005, only 3% said that they travelled by bus in the evening on "most days", and a further 6% did so "at least once a week"; 78% 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 (10%), and those in higher/further education (10%). Those most likely "never" to travel by bus in the evenings are 80+ year olds (87%) and those living in remote rural areas (91%).
Chart S: Adults (60+) - Concessionary fare pass possession and use by age: 2005
Chart T: Adults (60+) - Concessionary fare pass possession and use by income: 2005
The right hand columns of Table 26 show how safe from crime adults would feel travelling by bus in the evening: 41% would feel "fairly safe" and 13% would feel "very safe", with 18% of males and 9% of females feeling "very safe". The people most likely to feel "very safe" are the 16-29 year olds (18%) and those living in remote rural areas (31%). However, 8% of adults said that they would feel "not safe at all", and 15% "not particularly safe". Those most likely to feel "not safe at all" are 80+ year olds (14%), those who are permanently sick or disabled (14%) and those living in urban areas (9%). The percentage who said they would feel "very safe" fell as frequency of using the bus in the evening fell.
The right hand side of Table 27 shows how safe from crime adults would feel when travelling by bus in the evening for RTP areas and selected LAs.
Table F shows evening travel by bus and how safe from crime adults would feel for the years for which the questions have been asked (2001 onwards). The frequency of travel does not appear to change much over the years. The proportion of those who feel, or would feel, very safe travelling by bus in the evening has fallen in every year, from 21.5% in 2001 to 12.8% in 2005: a clear downward trend, and a greater change than can be attributed to sampling variability.
4.11 Adult (16+) bus passengers( Tables 28 & H; Charts Q & R)
The interviewer asks about any journeys made on the previous day (for more information on the Travel Diary, see section 8.1). Table 28 shows the characteristics of adults making bus journeys at various time of the week. Each bus journey is counted separately. Women make 65% of all bus journeys. The main purposes of adults' bus journeys are shopping (31%), commuting (28%) and visiting friends or relatives (10%). Chart Q shows how adult bus passengers vary by age at different times of the week; for example, 50% of bus journeys between 9.30 a.m. and noon on weekdays are made by those over 60, compared with 10% before 7 a.m. and 16% after 6.30 p.m. Chart R illustrates the differences by purpose of journey: as may be expected, commuting journeys make up a large proportion of journeys at "rush hour" times (for example 60% of bus journeys between 7 a.m. and 9.30 a.m. on weekdays are for commuting purposes, compared with 9% between 9.30 am and noon).
Table H shows the characteristics of adults making bus journeys in each year since 1999. The apparent change in their distribution by income is mainly due to the change in income levels in Scotland, and therefore in the SHS sample (the income data are not adjusted for inflation). For example, those who live in households with an annual net income of up to £10,000 made a smaller percentage of all bus journeys in 2005 than they did in 1999 (45% in 1999 compared to 28% in 2005), but most of that fall can be attributed to the fact that they made up 31% of the SHS respondents in 1999, but only 19% in 2005. Add to that the potential sampling variability of around (+ or -) two percentage points on each estimate, and one cannot be sure there has been a real shift. Looking at the other characteristics of bus passengers, there have been some year-to-year fluctuations, but there do not appear to be any marked changes.
4.12 Journeys by bus as a percentage of all journeys by adults( Tables 29 & G)
Table 29 shows that, in 2005, the number of journeys which adults made by bus as a percentage of all their journeys was 10-12% on each day from Monday to Saturday inclusive, and overall, but was only 6% on Sunday. Women used the bus for more of their journeys (12%) than men (8%). About two-fifths of journeys by 16-19 year olds and 70+ year olds were by bus, compared to 6-7% of journeys by 30-59 year olds. Usage was highest among those in further or higher education (20%), those in routine occupations (15%), those living in households with an annual net income of up to £10,000 (20%), and those living in large urban areas (16%). Table G shows that the percentage of adults' journeys which were made by bus has fluctuated around 10% in the seven years covered by the survey.
4.13 Concessionary Travel Passes: possession and use( Tables 30 & 31; Charts S & T)
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+. For the purposes of these arrangements, "off-peak" means at the weekend or after 9.30 a.m. on a weekday. These data do not show the effect of the new arrangements which came in on 1 April 2006.
With effect from April 2003, the interviewer asked 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, if they had a concessionary travel pass which allowed them to travel free of charge on off-peak local bus services. Table 30 summarises the results of interviews conducted between April 2003 and December 2005. 26% of adults held a concessionary pass: only 3% of those aged under 60, 68% of those aged 60-64, and over four-fifths of those aged 65 and over. More women aged 60-64 (81%) held a pass than men in the same age group (52%), 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 £10,000 and those living in urban areas.
Table 31 shows the usage in the past month of these passes for adults aged 60 and over. In 2005, 81% of adults aged 60+ held a pass: 15% used it every day or almost every day, 25% used it 1 to 3 times a week, and 13% had used it less often. 28% of adults aged 60+ had a pass but had not used it in the past month. 44% of women (60+) had used a pass at least once a week in the past month, compared to only 32% of men (60+).
Charts S and T show how the possession and usage of concessionary fare passes varies with age and income, for adults aged 60 and over.