4 Investment Objectives

4 Investment Objectives

Overview

The primary purpose of this research was to provide a high level assessment of the extent to which the new railway is achieving its Investment Objectives.  This Chapter provides a summary of the findings of the research from this perspective.  In order to frame the argument, the Chapter is structured around a series of key questions aimed at informing each of the FBC Investment Objectives as outlined in the Table 4.1 below.

Table 4.1: Borders Railway Investment Objectives and Key Questions
Investment Objective Key Questions
Promote accessibility to and from the Scottish Borders and Midlothian to Edinburgh (including the airport) and the central belt
  • Where are people travelling to / from on the Borders Railway?
  • Where do users of the Borders Railway live?
  • What are people using the Borders Railway for?
  • How frequently are people making trips using the Borders Railway?
  • Are people making journeys / taking up opportunities which they did not previously make / do?
Foster social inclusion by improving services for those without access to a car
  • What proportion of users of the Borders Railway do not have access to a car?
  • To what extent has there been changes to the local bus network since the re-opening of the line which may have reduced access for this group
Prevent decline in the Borders population by securing ready access to Edinburgh’s labour (jobs) market
  • To what extent is the Borders Railway used for commuting trips to and from Edinburgh and the Central Belt?
  • Have people made changes to their home location as a result of the re-opening of the line?
  • Have people made changes to their employment as a result of the re-opening of the line?
Create modal shift from the car to public transport
  • By which mode did users previously make the journey they are making prior to the re-opening of the line? 
  • How do users get to and from the station?
  • Has there been any change in car ownership since the re-opening of the line?

Promote accessibility to and from the Scottish Borders and Midlothian to Edinburgh and the Central Belt

Where are people travelling to / from on the Borders Railway?

In order to develop an accurate picture of where users of the Borders Railway are travelling to and from, a detailed analysis of industry ‘LENNON’ data provided by ScotRail was undertaken.  As discussed in Chapter 2, the data was provided in 4-week ScotRail reporting periods.  To provide a complete year of data, the 13 reporting periods 2016/P07 to 2017/P06 were therefore used, covering the period 20/09/2015 to 17/09/2016.  Figure 4.1 below shows the split of trips made to, from or between the Borders Railway Stations (Shawfair to Tweedbank) by ‘origin’ i.e., trips made using single, return and season tickets:

  • bought from Borders Railway stations travelling to other (i.e. non Borders Railway) stations – these could include for example a return ticket from Galashiels to Edinburgh and back as two trips allocated to Galashiels
  • bought from Borders Railway stations to other Borders Railway stations
  • bought from non-Borders Railway stations to Borders Railway stations – these could include for example a return ticket from Edinburgh to Tweedbank and back as two trips allocated to Edinburgh

Figure 4.1: Number of Trips by Origin (Lennon 2016/17)

Figure 4.1: Number of Trips by Origin (Lennon 2016/17)

The above figure suggests that 63% of travel originates from the Borders Rail stations to / from elsewhere in Scotland, 7% of travel is between Borders Rail stations and 30% of travel is from elsewhere in Scotland to / from the Borders Railway stations.  The ratio of ‘outbound’ to ‘inbound’ travel is therefore around two to one.

Figure 4.2 below breaks down these trips by station and shows trips made using single, return and season tickets:

  • (1) Outbound: to Non-Borders Railway Stations - e.g. a return from Tweedbank to Edinburgh (counted as two trips at Tweedbank)
  • (2) Intra: to other Borders Railway Stations - e.g. a return from Tweedbank to Gorebridge (counted as two trips at Tweedbank)
  • (3) Intra: from other Borders Railway Stations - e.g. a return from Gorebridge to Tweedbank (counted as two trips at Tweedbank)

Note that (2) and (3) comprise the same trips expressed in a different way – it would be double counting to include these twice

  • (4) Inbound: from non-Borders Railway Stations – e.g. a return trip from Edinburgh to Galashiels (counted as two trips at Galashiels) 

Figure 4.2: Number of Trips by Station (Lennon 2016/17)

Figure 4.2: Number of Trips by Station (Lennon 2016/17)

By some distance, the single biggest component of demand on the line is from Tweedbank outbound.  Passenger numbers originating from the Scottish Borders stations are much higher than at the Midlothian stations, accounting for 67% of ‘outbound’ trips and also 63% of inbound trips.  

The main elements of intra-Borders Rail travel are shown in Figure 4.3 below.  In this chart the figures are the sum of the ticket sales in both directions (i.e. Newtongrange to Galashiels plus Galashiels to Newtongrange).  The main intra-line movement is therefore between Tweedbank and Galashiels, followed by Galashiels to Eskbank, although overall these volumes are low.

Figure 4.3: Intra-Borders Rail Travel (Lennon 2016/17)

Figure 4.3: Intra-Borders Rail Travel (Lennon 2016/17)

Figure 4.4 shows the top 10 destinations for tickets bought at the new Borders Railway stations. Overall, the top 10 destinations account for 93% of all trips made in terms of tickets bought at the new Borders Railway stations. Edinburgh Waverley is the most frequent destination for those buying tickets at each station, with trips to Edinburgh accounting for 60% of the overall total. There is also evidence of Midlothian residents using the train to make trips down the line to the Borders.  For example, Galashiels is the second most frequent station for those buying tickets at Newtongrange.

Figure 4.4: Top Ten Destinations for Tickets bought at the new Borders Railway Stations (Lennon 2016/17)

 Figure 4.4: Top Ten Destinations for Tickets bought at the new Borders Railway Stations (Lennon 2016/17)

Figure 4.5 shows the origin stations of all trips made to the Borders Railway stations.  There is a slightly wider distribution of trips to the stations on the line, with Edinburgh Waverley this time accounting for only 45% of trips.  Glasgow accounts for 8% of inbound trips.  There are a very large number of stations from which very small numbers of trips are made and these comprise the 15% ‘Other’ trips.

Figure 4.5: Origin Stations of all Trips made to the Borders Railway Stations (Lennon 2016/17)

Figure 4.5: Origin Stations of all Trips made to the Borders Railway Stations (Lennon 2016/17)

Key Point:

The majority of patronage on the line is outward with passenger numbers from the Scottish Borders stations much higher than Midlothian stations, and Tweedbank accounting for the biggest component of demand.

Edinburgh Waverley is the most frequent destination for those buying tickets at Borders Rail Stations.  However, there are also trips to / from elsewhere in the Central Belt including Glasgow and Kirkcaldy. 

Where do users of the Borders Railway live?

Table 4.2 provides a breakdown of the responses to the User Survey by the home location of the respondent along with the estimated total number of single annual trips associated with the responses.  The geographical distribution of those respondents based in the UK is also shown graphically in Figure 4.6.  Overall, 60% (n=669) of the users captured in the survey lived in the Scottish Borders compared to 8% (n=84) from Midlothian and 7% (n=81) from Edinburgh.  In terms of journeys, 59% originate in the Scottish Borders compared to 12% from Midlothian and 9% from Edinburgh. There were also considerable numbers from elsewhere in Scotland, the UK and overseas.

Table 4.2: Number and Percentage of Responses and Journeys by Home Location of Respondent
Location Number of Responses Percentage of Responses Number of Single Journeys Percentage of Journeys
Scottish Borders 669 60% 83,996 59%
Midlothian 84 8% 16,684 12%
Edinburgh 81 7% 12,294 9%
Other Scotland 104 9% 7,846 6%
Other UK 46 4% 1,326 1%
Overseas 23 2% 1,510 1%
Home location not provided 105 9% 18,126 13%
Total 1,112 100% 141,782

Figure 4.6: Home Location of Respondents to the User Survey (UK Only)

Figure 4.6: Home Location of Respondents to the User Survey (UK Only)

Figure 4.7 and 4.8 below show the home location of the respondents who started their journey at each of the stations in the Scottish Borders and Midlothian respectively.  As shown, the catchment areas for Tweedbank is far larger than that of each of the other stations, with Tweedbank users travelling from as far away as Duns, Coldstream and Peebles to use the station.  In contrast the majority of users for each of the other stations on the line are concentrated within a much smaller, local area.  The relatively large size of the catchment area for Tweedbank may in part account for the higher than predicted patronage at this station.

Figure 4.7: Catchment area for Midlothian Stations

Figure 4.7: Catchment area for Midlothian Stations

Figure 4.8: Catchment area for Scottish Borders Stations 

Figure 4.8: Catchment area for Scottish Borders Stations 

Key Point:

Overall, 60% of the users captured in the survey lived in the Scottish Borders compared to 8% from Midlothian and 7% from Edinburgh.  There were also considerable numbers from elsewhere in Scotland, the UK and overseas.  

The catchment area for Tweedbank Station covers a considerably larger area than that of the other stations, where the catchment is much more local.  People are travelling further to reach Tweedbank from e.g. Selkirk, Kelso, Hawick and Newton St Boswells.  As well as being the end of the line, this is a result of the availability of free parking at the site (and the absence of free parking at Galashiels). This wide catchment area may also explain the higher than predicted passenger numbers at this location. 

What are people using the Borders Railway for?

Figure 4.9 shows the purpose of respondents’ current trip and the same data weighted by the frequency with which respondents make this trip.  Overall, when the responses are weighted by trip frequency, commuting is the most common journey purpose accounting for 45% of recorded trips.  There are also a considerable number of trips to and from education (20%), such as trips to Edinburgh College, as well as a large volume of leisure users with the majority of leisure trips being shopping.  A proportion of these were tourist day trips and overnight stays.  These are discussed in more detailed in Chapter 5.

Figure 4.9: Trip Purpose by Percentage of Responses and Percentage of Single Trips

Figure 4.9: Trip Purpose by Percentage of Responses and Percentage of Single Trips

ScotRail journey purpose data is available for the ScotRail urban network as a whole.  This data is drawn from LENNON data and is assumed based on the ticket type purchased.  Journeys are broken down into four categories as shown in Table 4.3. While comparisons to these benchmark figures are difficult due to differences in the way the data is collated and categorised, it can be seen that the proportion of commuter trips is broadly in line with the ScotRail figures.

Table 4.3: Proportion of Journeys on the ScotRail Urban Network by Journey Purpose
Journey Purpose Purpose
Commuter 48%
Business 3%
Leisure 48%

Key Point:

Commuting is the most common journey purpose with commuting trips accounting for 45% of recorded journeys.  There are also a considerable number of trips to and from education (20%) and large volumes of leisure users.  

How frequently are people making trips using the Borders Railway?

Figure 4.10 shows the frequency with which respondents indicated they make their current trip.  Overall, a large proportion of respondents were relatively infrequent users, with the majority (24%, n=257) indicating that they make the journey less than once a month.  As shown below, this proportion increases to 32% (n=124) when only those travelling on the weekend were considered.

Figure 4.10: Frequency of Trip by weekday / weekend 

Figure 4.10: Frequency of Trip by weekday / weekend 

Key Point:

A large proportion of respondents to the user survey were relatively infrequent users, with the majority (24%) indicating that they make the journey less than once a month. 

Are people making journeys / taking up opportunities which they did previously make / do?

Overall 29% (n=305) of respondents to the User Survey said that they did not previously make their current trip prior to the re-opening of the railway. The frequency with which each respondent indicated they made their current trip was used to calculate an estimated annual trip figure for each respondent using the conversion factors included in Appendix B. Using this approach, it is calculated that an estimated 50,286 annual trips on the railway or approximately 36% of those recorded via the sample, i.e. over one third of journeys would not have been undertaken had the Borders Railway not been in place.  

Respondents to the User Survey were also asked how much they agreed or disagreed with a series of statements about what the Borders Railway had enabled them to do.  Figure 4.11 below shows the net agreement (proportion of respondents who agree minus proportion of respondents who disagree (excluding the ‘Don’t Knows’) with a range of statements for the sample as a whole and for respondents from Midlothian and the Scottish Borders.  Overall, the results suggest that the re-opening of the line has led to people making journeys and taking up a range of opportunities which they previously could not make or do, with the most popular response (in terms of accessing new activities) being ‘the Borders Railway has enabled me to access leisure opportunities which I couldn’t previously access’ for which net agreement was 29%. 

In addition, as well as encouraging new trips, the data suggests that the railway has also been successful (indeed more successful) in encouraging people to switch from car to rail for existing trips.  For example, there was a 59% net agreement with the statement ‘the Borders Railway has allowed me to access leisure opportunities without using the car / only using the car for a portion of the journey’ and 41% for the statement ‘the Borders Railway has enabled me to ‘visit friends and family without using the car / only using the car for a portion of the journey’.

Figure 4.11: The Impact of the Scottish Borders Railway – Net Agreement 

Figure 4.11: The Impact of the Scottish Borders Railway – Net Agreement 

Key Point:

The data suggests that the railway is enabling people to make new journeys and take up (particularly leisure) opportunities which they previously could not access, with approximately 50,000 (36%) of the estimated annual single trips recorded via the sample defined as ‘new trips’. 

There was also strong agreement amongst respondents that the railway has enabled them to access leisure opportunities and visit family and friends without using the car / only using the car for a portion of the journey.  

Foster social inclusion by improving services for those without access to a car

What proportion of users of the Borders Railway do not have access to a car?

Overall, 15% (n=138) of respondents to the User Survey stated that their household did not own or have access to a car. This figure fell to 14% (n=121) amongst those from Edinburgh, the Scottish Borders and Midlothian and 11% (n=74) amongst those from the Scottish Borders and Midlothian only[6]. As would be expected car ownership was lower amongst those from Edinburgh with 53% (n=39) of Edinburgh residents stating they did not have access to a vehicle compared to 8% (n=6) of those from Midlothian and 11% (n=68) from the Scottish Borders. It is noted however that the sample size for Midlothian is small.  The proportion without access to a vehicle recorded in the survey is lower than the 2011 Census data for the Scottish Borders and Midlothian (20% and 25% respectively).  However, rail users are generally drawn from higher income groups and therefore figures below these rates are not unusual.  

To what extent has there been changes in the local bus network since the re-opening of the line which may have reduced access for this group?

As discussed in Chapter 2, since the re-opening of the Borders Railway there have been a number of changes to the bus network within the vicinity of the line as a result of declines in patronage.  While some of these changes are likely to be a result of other factors, some may be a result of modal shift from bus to rail.  Where this is the case, there may be a negative impact on access, particularly for those without access to a car.

In order to examine these changes a bus stop frequency calculation was undertaken using TRACC accessibility software.  This calculates a frequency value (number of services per hour) for all bus services stopping at each bus stop over the period for which the calculation is undertaken.  Two calculations were completed, one using the public transport network from July 2015 (representing the pre-railway scenario) and the second using the public transport network from October 2016 (representing the post railway scenario).  

Figure 4.12 and 4.13 show the change in the frequency of buses stopping at each bus stop over this period in the AM peak (0700 – 0930).  As shown the frequency of bus services has declined at a number of stops.  In Midlothian there is a notable decline in the bus frequency at each bus stop along the A6094 between Dalkeith, Eskbank and Bonnyrigg.  This is likely to be a result of service 49 (Portobello - Edinburgh - Dalkeith - Rosewell) being reduced to a 30-minute service in October 2015.  

Similar changes have also been made in the Scottish Borders.  For example, in August 2016 the frequency of the X95, the key bus link between Edinburgh and Galashiels was reduced from a 30-minute service to an hourly service.  It is also evident that there have been a number of reductions in service frequency at bus stops in Galashiels and Tweedbank.  These are likely, in part, to be a result of the changes introduced by Frist Group (in August 2016) which saw the reduction / withdrawal of several services linking Galashiels to surrounding towns including Service 61 to Oxton; service 67 to St Boswells; service 68 to Howdenburn, the hourly service 73 to Bannerfield, and services 8 and 9 to Melrose.

Figure 4.12: Change in Bus Stop Frequency 2015 – 2016 (Midlothian)

Figure 4.12: Change in Bus Stop Frequency 2015 – 2016 (Midlothian)

Figure 4.13: Change in Bus Stop Frequency 2015 – 2016 (Scottish Borders)

Figure 4.13: Change in Bus Stop Frequency 2015 – 2016 (Scottish Borders)

Key Point:

The re-opening of the Borders Railway has provided those without a car with a means to more quickly access destinations along the route. The results suggest that 11% of users of the service from the Scottish Borders / Midlothian do not own or have access to a vehicle.  This is relatively low compared to the results for the total population of the Scottish Borders and Midlothian as recorded in the 2011 Census but is likely down to the fact that rail users are usually drawn from higher income groups.  While the re-opening of the railway has resulted in improvements in access between the stations on the line, there have been changes in the bus network since the railway re-opened which may have resulted in declines in accessibility elsewhere.  The extent to which these changes are a result of the new line would depend on the level of abstraction of bus users to rail.  This is discussed further below.

Prevent decline in the Borders population by securing ready access to Edinburgh’s labour (jobs) market

To what extent is the Borders Railway used for commuting trips to/from Edinburgh and the Central Belt?

As discussed in Section 2.3 of this Chapter, commuting trips accounted for the largest proportion of journeys on the Borders Railway captured by the sample, with 45% of recorded single trips being commuting trips.  Of these 70% (n=129) start or end at Edinburgh Waverley while a further 7% (n=14) start or end at stations beyond the Borders Railway.

Key Point:

Commuting is the most common journey purpose when travelling on the Borders Railway, with 70% of commuters starting or ending their journey at Edinburgh Waverley.  

Have users made changes to their home location as a result of the re-opening of the Borders Railway?

In total, 10% (n=62) of those from the Scottish Borders and 9% (n=7) of those from Midlothian had moved house since the re-opening of the line.  This compares to 25% (n=17) of Edinburgh residents.  Figure 4.14 below shows the extent to which the re-opening of the Borders Railway was a factor in respondents’ decision to move house.  Overall, 56% (n=47) stated that the line had been a factor in their decision to move.  The proportion of respondents stating that the Borders Railway was a factor was particularly high amongst residents of Midlothian (86%, n=7).  However, it is noted that the sample size for this question for both the Midlothian and Edinburgh subgroups is low (n=7 and n=15 respectively) which could influence the reliability of the results.

Figure 4.14: Importance of the Borders Railway in Respondents’ decision to move house

Figure 4.14: Importance of the Borders Railway in Respondents’ decision to move house

Figure 4.15 shows the home location of those respondents who provided their current postcode and stated they had moved home since the re-opening of the line.  The results are split by those who said that the Borders Railway had been a factor, and those who said it had not been a factor in their decision to move.  As shown, the largest proportion of those who moved are located within the catchment area for Tweedbank, with smaller numbers moving to each of the other stations on the line (excluding Shawfair).  This relatively high rate of in movement to the Tweedbank catchment area, if the results of this question are reflective of the wider population, could be a factor in the higher than expected patronage figures recorded at this station.  However, it is noted that the sample sizes are relatively small and this could influence the veracity of the results.

Figure 4.15: Home location of those who have moved home since the re-opening of the Borders Railway and the extent to which the railway re-opening was a factor in their decision to move

Figure 4.15: Home location of those who have moved home since the re-opening of the Borders Railway and the extent to which the railway re-opening was a factor in their decision to move

Respondents to the User Survey who had moved home were also asked whether they would have moved to their current location if the Borders Railway had not re-opened.  Overall, 59% (n=30) of those from Edinburgh, Midlothian and the Scottish Borders who had moved house since the re-opening of the line stated that they would not have moved to their current address if the Borders Railway had not re-opened, with 22% saying that would have moved and 20% saying they did not know.  When split by geography the proportions are highest for those living in the Scottish Borders with 64% (n=23) saying that they would not have moved compared to 50% (n=3) of the Midlothian sample.  However, as above, it is noted that the sample sizes, particularly that of the Midlothian subgroup is small (n=6).

Key Point:

The results suggest that there is evidence that the Borders Railway has affected peoples’ residential choices.  Of those identified in the sample who had moved house since the line opened, over half reported that the railway was a factor in determining their current address.  

Have users made changes to their employment as a result of the re-opening of the Borders Railway?

In total, 6% (n=49) of respondents to the User Survey from Edinburgh, Midlothian or the Scottish Borders had changed their workplace since the re-opening of the railway.  Of these, 53% (n=24) stated that the re-opening of the Borders Railway was the main factor in their decision to move workplace (see Figure 4.16), with a further 29% (n=13) stating that it was one of a number of important factors and 7% (n=3) stating that it was a fairly minor factor.

Figure 4.16: Importance of the Borders Railway in Respondents’ decision to change Workplace

Figure 4.16: Importance of the Borders Railway in Respondents’ decision to change Workplace

Respondents were also asked whether the number of hours they work had changed as a result of the re-opening of the Borders Railway.  As shown in Figure 4.17, the majority of respondents (53%, n=435) stated that the railway had had no impact on the number of hours they work, with 7% (n=59) stating that they now work more hours and 2% (n=14) stating that they now work fewer hours.

Figure 4.17: Impact of the Borders Railway on the number of hours worked by respondents

Figure 4.17: Impact of the Borders Railway on the number of hours worked by respondents

Key Point:

There is evidence that the Borders Railway has had an impact on peoples’ choice of workplace.  Amongst those who had moved employment, a relatively large proportion stated that the re-opening of the line had been the main factor in their decision.  Overall, the data suggests that there has also been a modest impact on working hours.  

Create modal shift from car to public transport

By which mode did users previously make their journey prior to the re-opening of the Borders Railway?

Overall, 66% (n=698) of respondents to the User Survey said that prior to the re-opening of the Borders Railway they had regularly made the trip they were making at the time of the survey by another mode.  Of these, 678 respondents provided details of the mode they previously used and the majority (57%, n=388) stated that they previously drove all the way to their destination (see Figure 4.18), suggesting that the railway has resulted in significant modal shift from car to rail.  In addition, a large proportion previously travelled by bus indicating that modal shift from bus to rail has also occurred.  As discussed above, this abstraction of bus users to rail may have contributed to a decline in patronage on some bus services in the area such as, for example, the X95 which links Galashiels to Edinburgh leading to reduced services.

Figure 4.18: Main Method of Transport used by respondents to the User Survey for their current Trip prior to the Re-opening of the Borders Railway

Figure 4.18: Main Method of Transport used by respondents to the User Survey for their current Trip prior to the Re-opening of the Borders Railway

The frequency with which each respondent indicated they made their current trip was used to estimate the number of single trips associated with respondents’ previous journeys using the conversion factors in Appendix B. Using this approach, it is estimated that almost 40,000 single car trips and 22,000 bus trips per year have been shifted to rail (see Table 4.4). It is noted however, that this approach assumes that there has been no change in the number of trips made by respondents since the re-opening of the railway and all trips now made by rail by these respondents were previously made by another mode.  

Overall 29% (n=305) of respondents to the User Survey said that they did not previously make their current trip prior to the re-opening of the railway. Using the approach discussed above, it is calculated that an estimated 50,286 annual trips on the railway or approximately 36% of those recorded via the sample, i.e. over one third of journeys would not have been undertaken had the Borders Railway not been in place.

Table 4.4: Mode used by respondent for current trip prior to the re-opening of the railway and associated number of single trips per annum
Mode used by respondent for trip prior to re-opening of railway Number of Responses Percentage of Responses Number of implied single Journeys per annum Percentage of Journeys
Car, drive all the way to destination 388 57% 39,332 56%
Car, passenger all the way to destination 33 5% 2,538 4%
Bus based park and ride 31 5% 3,646 5%
Bus, all the way to destination 199 29% 22,342 32%
Other 27 4% 2,666 4%
Total 678 70,524

Overall, the above figures suggest that the railway has resulted in almost 40,000 ‘saved’ car trips.  While some of these saved car journeys will be offset by the car miles linked with new rail trips for which the car is the station access mode, the latter are likely to be shorter journeys and therefore overall there is likely to be a net reduction in car miles.  Although not examined in detail here, this saving in terms of car miles is likely to have led to a number of environmental and other benefits.  These include, for example, carbon savings associated with fewer car trips (a key aim of the Scottish Government as set out in the Climate Change Delivery Plan[7]), reductions in congestion (particularly in Midlothian as a result of reduced through traffic) and improvements in local air quality.   

Key Point:

The re-opening of the Borders Railway has resulted in significant modal shift from the car to public transport, with the majority of respondents (57%) who previously made their trip by another mode stating that they drove all the way to their destination.  Based on the journey frequency of this group this equates to an estimated 40,000 saved car journeys. 

While some of these saved trips will be offset by the car miles linked with new trips on the railway for which the car is used to access the station, the latter are likely to be shorter trips and therefore the net impact in terms of saved car miles is likely to be positive with resultant benefits in terms of carbon reduction, congestion and local air quality.  

In addition to the shift from car to rail, it is also evident that there has been a shift from bus to rail with 29% of the sample stating that they previously made their current journey by bus equivalent to 22,000 bus journeys.

How do users get to the station?

Figure 4.19 shows the main method of transport used by respondents from the Scottish Borders, Midlothian and Edinburgh to travel to their origin train station for the new Borders Station and Figure 4.20 shows the same data weighted by the frequency with which respondents make their current trip.  

As shown, driving and parking at the station is the most common method of transport used by those travelling from Tweedbank Station, with 72% (n=302) of respondents travelling from Tweedbank using this method, equating to 68% (n=29,858) of the journeys for which a mode was provided.  In contrast, walking is the most common method of transport to Galashiels, Stow, Gorebridge, and Newtongrange.  Overall, the highest percentage share for bus is at Galashiels, with 21% (n=37) of respondents who started their journey at this location travelling by bus, equivalent to 16% (n=4,372) of journeys.  It is noted that the sample size for Shawfair is very small (n=2) and therefore the results for this station are unlikely to be reliable.

It is worth noting that the data below provides a snapshot of results at a single point in time.  To some extent modal use is seasonal and it is likely that the active travel mode share across all stations would be higher should the survey have been undertaken during the summer months.

Figure 4.19: Main Method of Transport used to access Train Station (Respondents)

Figure 4.19: Main Method of Transport used to access Train Station (Respondents)

Figure 4.20: Main Method of Transport used to access Train Station (Journeys)

Figure 4.20: Main Method of Transport used to access Train Station (Journeys)

Key Point:

Driving and parking at the station is the most common method of transport used by those travelling from Tweedbank Station, with walking to the station more common at Galashiels, Stow, Gorebridge, and Newtongrange.  Overall, the highest percentage share for bus is at Galashiels followed by Eskbank, with bus accounting for relatively few journeys to the other stations. 

Has the re-opening of the Borders Railway resulted in changes in car ownership?

Overall, the majority of respondents to the User Survey (94%, n=783) stated that the re-opening of the line had had no impact on the number of vehicles owned or run by their household.  However, 3% (n=22) said that their household had reduced the number of vehicles because they were now able to take the train and 1% (n=5) stated that they had increased the number of vehicles as a result of the removal / changes in bus routes. 

Figure 4.21: Number of cars respondents to the User Survey had access to or owned

Figure 4.21: Number of cars respondents to the User Survey had access to or owned

Key Point:

While not an objective of the study and perhaps a longer term impact, the results suggest that the re-opening of the line has also resulted in some changes to car ownership levels.