Number of cardholders and usage

Number of cardholders

The Scheme launched in April 2006, however data suitable for use in this evaluation was only available from 2017 onwards. Figure 1 shows the total number of Scheme cardholders on the 31 March each year since 2017. This shows steady growth in cardholder numbers between 2017 and 2020, before a reduction in 2021 and 2022 during the Covid pandemic. The number of cardholders recovered and grew again by 2023. An audit of the database was conducted in 2024 which resulted in many deceased people being removed. This led to a reduction in the total numbers, before a small increase was seen by March 2025, with the figure in line with that recorded at March 2023. Overall, between March 2017 and March 2025, the total number of cardholders had grown by 257,225 people, from 1,299,024 to 1,556,249.

Appendix B includes charts outlining the total number of cardholders by age, gender and local authority where the card was registered, based on the most recent data available (as at 30 September 2025). Most (70%) disabled cardholders were between the ages of 20 and 59, while a quarter (25%) were aged 60+, and 5% were aged 19 or under. Among those with an over 60 card, 41% were aged 60-69, 36% were aged 70-79, and 23% were aged 80+. Disabled cardholders were relatively evenly split between women (45%) and men (41%), with gender unknown or other in 14% of cases (gender is not a mandatory response on the application). For the over 60 card, there were more women (52%) compared to men (42%) (gender unknown or other 6%).

The local authorities with the highest and lowest numbers of registered cardholders largely mirrored those with the largest and smallest overall population sizes. As the total estimated eligible population could be established for the over 60 card (based on National Records of Scotland (NRS) data, population estimates of data zones by single year of age: mid-2022), comparison of population data and the number of cardholders by local authority showed that uptake ranged from 86% in the Scottish Borders to 115% in Edinburgh. As noted above, areas with uptake close to or over 100% may be due to limitations in the population data and/or cardholder data.

Both Table 3 and Figure 2 below show the number of Scheme cardholders and by Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation (SIMD) decile (based on data at 1 August 2025). These show that the number of disabled cardholders was higher in more deprived areas. Conversely, the number of people with an over 60 card and the uptake of this type of card was higher in less deprived areas. The least deprived areas (least deprived 10% of datazones) had the highest number of cardholders and highest uptake (105%) of the over 60 card, while the most deprived areas (most deprived 10% of datazones) had the lowest number of cardholders and lowest uptake (89%). The reasons for the conflicting patterns in cardholder numbers was not clear however, and further investigation would be required to determine whether this represents lower engagement with the Scheme (which may benefit from awareness raising efforts among those in more deprived areas), or whether older residents in more deprived areas are more likely to hold a disabled card instead.

Table 3 Number of cardholders by SIMD decile (as at 1 August 2025)

SIMD 2020 decile	Disabled cardholders	Over 60 cardholders	Total number of cardholders	Uptake of over 60 card
1 - Most deprived 10% of data zones	37,315	99,428	136,743	89%
2	29,965	113,402	143,367	90%
3	24,465	122,750	147,215	92%
4	21,100	132,924	154,024	93%
5	16,934	144,159	161,093	94%
6	13,553	149,132	162,685	94%
7	11,933	153,969	165,902	95%
8	10,036	158,207	168,243	97%
9	8,025	158,302	166,327	99%
10 - Least deprived 10% of data zones	6,280	165,712	171,992	105%
Total	179,606	1,397,985	1,577,591	95%

Note: Uptake is only possible to calculate for the over 60 card as population data is available (based on NRS population estimates of data zones by single year of age: mid-2022), there is no reliable equivalent for the population of those eligible for a disabled card. Source: Transport Scotland, NECPO and NRS.

Appendix B also details the number of cardholders by urban/rural classification (as at 1 August 2025). This shows that most disabled cardholders (79%), as well as two thirds (67%) of those with an over 60 card, live in either large or other urban areas. The uptake levels of the over 60 card varies by area, but without any clear pattern, ranging from 100% uptake in large urban areas compared to 91% in remote small towns.

Number of journeys made

Figure 3 shows the total number of smart journeys each financial year since 2016-2017. As noted above, these are the journeys recorded when the NEC is scanned by the machine on board the bus.

The chart shows that the number of journeys was reasonably consistent each year between 2016-2017 and 2019-2020. This was impacted by the Covid pandemic, where the number of journeys dropped significantly in 2020-2021. While journey numbers steadily increased again, they had still not yet returned to pre-Covid levels by 2024-2025, despite the higher number of cardholders recorded in recent years. This in line with overall trends in bus passenger journey numbers in Scotland following the Covid pandemic. More information can be found in Scottish Transport Statistics. Overall, between 2016-2017 and 2024-2025, the total number of annual journeys made using the NEC had reduced by nearly 32.28 million, from 140.85 million to 108.57 million.

Appendix B outlines the number of journeys made in the financial year 2024-2025 by age, gender, local authority where the card was registered, time of day, and month of the year. The vast majority of journeys were made by those aged 60+. Women made more journeys than men (56% versus 42% respectively) using the over 60 card. Meanwhile, men made slightly more journeys than women (49% versus 45%) using one of the disabled cards, despite there being slightly fewer male cardholders for these types of cards. Cards registered in Edinburgh and Glasgow recorded the highest number of journeys (but these journeys could have been made anywhere across Scotland).

The vast majority of journeys, by both over 60 and disabled cardholders, took place in the inter-peak period (i.e. 10.00am-3.59pm), although there was also notable usage during both the am and pm peak periods (i.e. 7.00-9.59am and 4.00-6.59pm). The number of journeys fluctuated throughout the year, ranging from around 8 million journeys in January 2025, to nearly 10 million journeys in August 2024. Journey data was not provided by SIMD or urban/rural classification.

Aging population

Over the lifetime of 60+ concessionary travel policy, the 60+ population has grown in Scotland and is forecast to continue growing. While the results above show that the number of people with a 60+ card has tended to increase in line with population increases, the total number of journeys made has not necessarily increased in line with this (with recent increases being a result of Covid recovery). Analysis undertaken by Transport Scotland shows that concessionary bus use is determined by several social and economic factors, which can both increase and decrease bus use. These include population changes, bus service provision and quality, alternative transport options, cost of living, employment trends and changes in travel behaviours. Although the 60+ population in Scotland is forecast to continue growing, it does not necessarily mean that use of the Scheme will grow as a direct result of an aging population due to the other factors that also influence bus use.

Use of the Scheme

Survey respondents were asked about their use of the free bus pass over the last 12 months. Over half (59%, n=1,462) noted that, on average, they had used the free bus pass about once a week or more often in the last 12 months. Respondents who used the free bus pass either a few times a year or not at all in the last 12 months (18%, n=455) were considered to be infrequent users and, at certain points throughout the survey, they were asked different questions about their travel behaviour.

Table 4 On average, how often have you used the free bus pass for travelling on buses in the last 12 months? (survey respondents)

Frequency	Over 60 Card	Disabled Card	All respondents
Five days a week or more	9%	19%	13%
Two to four times a week	25%	36%	29%
About once a week	18%	14%	17%
About once a fortnight	11%	8%	10%
About once a month	16%	10%	13%
A few times a year or less	17%	10%	14%
Not used it in the last 12 months	4%	3%	4%
Total (n)	1,590	912	2,502

Disabled cardholders were more likely to use the free bus pass more often, with higher instances of multiple uses per week (55%) compared to those who held an over 60 card (34%). Similarly, those who were finding things difficult financially were more likely to use their free bus pass multiple times per week (56%) compared to those who managed very or quite well financially (34%). Full results are included in the tabular Annex - Tables 1 and 2.

Those who used the free bus at least once in the last 12 months were asked to outline the main reason they chose to travel by bus. The most common reasons were that it was free/costs less than travelling by another means (33%), that they had no other travel options (25%), and because it was more convenient than using the car (16%) - see Table 5.

Table 5 When using the bus for travelling, in general what is your main reason for choosing to take the bus? (survey respondents)

Reason	Over 60 Card	Disabled Card	All respondents
It's free/it costs less than travelling by another means	37%	26%	33%
I don't have the option of travelling by another means	13%	47%	25%
It's more convenient than the car	22%	6%	16%
It's more convenient that other transport options	9%	6%	8%
It's better for the environment than the car	8%	3%	6%
It's better for the environment than other public transport options	1%	<1%	1%
I prefer the bus to other means of travel	2%	4%	3%
Other	8%	8%	8%
Total (n)	1,519	869	2,388

Note: 114 respondents did not answer this question.

When comparing the results by the type of card held, cost and convenience were the main reasons for those with an over 60 card (37% and 22% respectively). Meanwhile, a lack of alternative options was the main reason for disabled cardholders (47%).

‘Other’ reasons for choosing to take the bus included that it allowed respondents to have an alcoholic drink while out; they could not use their car or the driver was not available; to avoid parking issues and costs as well as fuel costs; difficulty or dislike of driving in certain areas or at particular times of day; and to avoid the cost of taxis. Some also noted that the card was used to travel on trains, the tram and on ferries, either for free or at discounted cost.

There were differences in the reasons for using the Scheme by how well respondents were managing financially (Annex - Table 4). Those who had financial difficulties were more likely to indicate that they did not have the option of travelling by another means (45%). Meanwhile, cost was the main reason for those who were managing well (35%) and those who managed alright (34%).

There was variation across focus group participants in how frequently they used the Scheme. Where respondents lived and the quality of their local bus service were a key driver of levels of use. Those living in or on the outskirts of cities and large towns typically used the bus most often. Conversely, those living in areas where bus services were scarce or had been reduced tended to be infrequent users.

Use of the companion NEC

The 604 survey respondents who held a disabled plus companion card were asked to provide feedback about the companion element of the card. Most (65%) indicated that they had a companion travelling with them either every or most of the time they travelled. Only 10% suggested they rarely or never travelled with a companion. Full results at provided in the Annex - Table 5.

Both survey and focus group participants stressed that the companion element was essential, noting that they would not be able to travel without someone to help/support them. Even those who did not travel with a companion every time noted that it was essential on certain occasions, typically where health conditions fluctuated or where support was needed only for certain types of trips.

Several appreciated that the companion card was not restricted to a single named companion. This flexibility allowed a mix of people to act as the companion and meant the cardholder could travel with different people, at different times, and for different purposes.

A few survey respondents and focus group participants also noted that they often travelled with other cardholders as companions, so they did not always need to use the companion element. It was suggested that finding a companion to accompany them on all occasions was difficult as people were not always available.

Journey purpose

Frequent users

Survey respondents who used their free bus pass about once a month or more often (frequent users) were asked to detail all the types of journeys they made by bus, and to identify the one type of journey they made most often (main journey) by bus over the last 12 months. Table 6 details the responses. This shows that social and leisure purposes, shopping and personal business, and to access health and medical appointments/services were the most common in both cases.

Table 6 Journey purpose (survey respondents that use their free bus pass about once a month or more)

Journey purpose	All journeys	Main journey
Social and leisure purposes	75%	35%
Shopping and personal business	67%	24%
Health and medical appointments/services	56%	14%
Visiting family and friends	45%	7%
Day trips and holidays (including overnight trips)	33%	3%
Just to get out	30%	3%
Commuting to/from work	17%	8%
Volunteering	13%	2%
Education / training	12%	3%
Travelling within my job/as part of my job	6%	1%
Other	1%	<1%
Total (base)	2,047	2,045

Note: multiple responses were possible regarding all journeys made so percentages in this column do not add to 100%. In addition, two respondents did not detail their main journey purpose.

Journey purposes were disaggregated by card type and the age of respondents that held an over 60 card (see Annex, Tables 6-8). In relation to the card type, holders of the over 60 card were most likely to use the free bus pass for social and leisure purposes (82%), with this also being the most popular main journey type (47%). Among disabled cardholders, however, social and leisure purposes was the third most popular use (behind healthcare and shopping and personal business), with 64% using it for this, and 18% indicating that this was the type of journey they made most often. Those with a disabled card were most likely to use the free bus pass for health and medical appointments/services (73%). They were also more likely to use it just to get out (39%), for commuting (23%) or other work related travel (10%), and for education/training (21%), compared to those with an over 60 card. Levels of use for shopping and personal business were similar between both card types (at 67% each).

Meanwhile, social and leisure travel remained the most common use of the over 60 card across all age groups. However, there were differences by age at some other journey purposes. Shopping and personal business was less prevalent among those aged 60-64 (62%), becoming more common through the age groups, up to 74% for those aged 80+. Similarly, travel for health and medical reasons was less common among those aged 60-64 (37%), rising to 57% for those aged 75-79 and 80+. Conversely, those aged 60-64 were more likely to use the free bus pass to commute to work (24%), with this declining as age increased.

In terms of the main journey purpose, those using the bus tended to travel for this reason either two to four times a week (33%), or about once a week (23%) (see Table 7). Meanwhile, the journey duration tended to be 11 to 30 minutes (38%) or 31 to 45 minutes (24%) (see Table 8).

Table 7 Frequency of main journey purpose (more frequent bus users only)

Frequency	Number	Percentage
Five days a week or more	176	9%
Two to four times a week	668	33%
About once a week	463	23%
About once a fortnight	259	13%
About once a month	364	18%
A few times a year or less	94	4%
Total	2,024	100%

Note: 23 respondents either did not know or did not answer this question.

Table 8 Length of main journey (more frequent bus users only)

Length	Number	Percentage
Up to 10 minutes	89	4%
11 to 30 minutes	770	38%
31 to 45 minutes	486	24%
46 minutes to 1 hour	356	18%
Over 1 hour and up to 1.5 hours	188	9%
Over 1.5 hours	136	7%
Total	2,025	100%

Note: 22 respondents either did not know or did not answer this question.

Infrequent users

Survey respondents who had used their free bus pass only a few times in the last 12 months, or who had not used it at all over this time period (infrequent users), were asked to outline their journeys more generally, regardless of the mode of transport used. Again, respondents were asked to outline all the types of journeys they made in the last 12 months, and to identify the journey type they made most often (main journey). Table 9 details the responses.

Table 9 Journey purpose for infrequent users (survey respondents)

Journey purpose	All journeys	Main journey
Social and leisure purposes	77%	27%
Shopping and personal business	66%	24%
Health and medical appointments/services	60%	15%
Visiting family and friends	57%	10%
Day trips and holidays (including overnight trips)	51%	5%
Just to get out	28%	2%
Commuting to/from work	16%	9%
Volunteering	15%	1%
Travelling within my job/as part of my job	10%	3%
Education/training	7%	2%
Other	3%	2%
Total (base)	455	455

Note: multiple responses were possible regarding all journeys made so percentages in this column do not add to 100%.

Consistent with more frequent bus users, in both cases the top reasons for travelling were social and leisure purposes, shopping and personal business, and to access health and medical appointments/services. A higher proportion of infrequent bus users reported that they travelled for day trips and holidays compared to more frequent bus users; 51% of infrequent users reported travelling for this reason compared to 33% of more frequent bus users (although there was little difference in the proportions who said this was their main journey type).

Those who travelled by bus infrequently were also asked to indicate how they would typically travel for their main journey purpose. Most (79%) said they would travel by car (either as a driver or passenger). Full results are provided in the Annex - Table 9.

Those who did not use their free bus pass for their main journey purpose were also asked to outline the main reason for this. Responses were largely mixed, although the most commonly raised issues were the lack of a direct bus route (20%), and the buses not running often enough or at the times needed (13%). In addition, 15% said they either needed to or preferred travelling by other modes. The full set of responses can be found in the Annex - Table 10.

Again, looking at the main journey purpose (by any transport mode), most respondents said they either made this journey two to four times a week (40%) or five times a week or more (19%) (see Table 10). Consistent with more frequent bus users, infrequent users (those largely travelling by other modes) were likely to indicate that their main journey lasted 11 to 30 minutes (43%) or 31 to 45 minutes (17%) (see Table 11).

Table 10 Frequency of main journey purpose for infrequent bus users/those using other modes

Frequency	Number	Percentage
Five days a week or more	83	19%
Two to four times a week	178	40%
About once a week	41	9%
About once a fortnight	20	4%
About once a month	29	6%
A few times a year or less	97	22%
Total	448	100%

Note: 7 respondents either did not know or did not answer this question.

Table 11 Length of main journey for infrequent bus users/those using other modes

Length	Number	Percentage
Up to 10 minutes	34	8%
11 to 30 minutes	191	43%
31 to 45 minutes	73	17%
46 minutes to 1 hour	62	14%
Over 1 hour and up to 1.5 hours	33	7%
Over 1.5 hours	49	11%
Total	442	100%

Note: 13 respondents either did not know or did not answer this question.

The above results suggest that there were few notable differences in the main journey purpose or the duration of the main journey between more frequent bus users (i.e. this using their NEC to travel) and infrequent bus users (i.e. those largely using other modes to travel). However, those travelling by other modes may travel slightly more often for their main journey purpose compared to those using their NEC.

Reasons for not using buses or the Scheme more often

Bus service provision and accessibility

Survey respondents were asked about their reasons for not using buses or the Scheme more often, with multiple responses possible. Different questions were asked depending on whether respondents used their free bus pass about once a fortnight or more (i.e. frequent users, n=1,709) or less than once a fortnight (i.e. less frequent users, n=793). While a long list of options were offered, responses were also collated into themes for analysis purposes (see Annex - Tables 11-13).

The reasons for not using the bus more often were largely consistent between more and less frequent users, with the most common issues being related to service provision (56% of frequent users and 61% of less frequent users identified one or more related issues). This included buses not running when or as often as needed, a lack of direct routes, that buses were unreliable, and that they took too long.

In addition to service provision issues, a lack of bus services and/or stops or stations nearby was an issue for 19% of less frequent users (this option was not available to more frequent users).

Issues relating to the on-board environment (such as being busy, concerns about anti-social behaviour, not feeling safe, and concerns about illnesses) were also noted by 27% of more frequent users and 21% of less frequent users.

Accessibility issues were highlighted by 17% of frequent users and 18% of less frequent users. These included, difficulty physically accessing the bus, buses not being suitable for the respondent’s condition, a lack of information/accessible information to help journey planning, and information during journeys not being available or accessible. These accessibility issues were noted despite the Public Service Vehicles Accessibility Regulations (PSVAR) requiring that buses and coaches be accessible to disabled passengers. The Public Service Vehicles (Accessible Information) Regulations 2023 (PSVAIR) now mandates the provision of audible and visible information on board local bus and coach services in Great Britain.

When considering the full list of reasons for not using the bus more often, the survey responses were broadly similar between more frequent and less frequent users, with fewer than five percentage point differences at each response. The only exceptions were for ‘buses take too long’ (19% of frequent users and 27% of less frequent users), ‘prefer/need to use other modes of travel’ (8% of frequent users and 33% of less frequent users), and there being ‘no specific reason’ (16% of frequent users and 8% of less frequent users). These broadly similar responses by more and less frequent users means it is difficult to determine the extent to which these issues actually impact usage, and suggests that frequency of use did not necessarily impact on the reasons for not using the bus more often.

Differences were more prevalent by card type, however, with several issues being more common among disabled cardholders compared to those with an over 60 card. These included buses being unreliable, the physical accessibility and suitability of the bus for respondents’ conditions, that buses were too busy, concerns about anti-social behaviour, not feeling safe, and being concerned about catching illnesses. These differences were largely consistent between both frequent and infrequent users by card type. The only exception was the physical accessibility and suitability of buses, where the issues were more common among less frequent disabled users compared to more frequent disabled users. This suggests that these elements may present tangible, physical barriers which impact on usage, with a lack of access reducing the frequency of travel and buses being unsuitable for conditions making travel less practical and desirable. Full results can be found in the Annex.

The Scottish Household Survey (SHS) asks the general population (aged 16 and over) what discourages them from using the bus more often. Analysis shows that three reasons (nothing discourages; use my own car; no need) have remained the most commonly cited between 2018-2024. The similar question asked of Scheme cardholders found the reasons given included those cited in the SHS, but the most common reason among frequent and infrequent users was buses don’t run when or how often as needed.

Routes and reliability concerns were also highlighted by many focus group participants, with them being less likely to use the bus for work and appointments as a result. In many such cases, people opted to use the car (where available), and this was especially true if they would be reliant on making multiple connections or changes by bus. For some (older and disabled cardholders alike), the deadlines imposed by appointments and the associated fear of missing these due to unreliable bus services meant that they were using taxis. This group perhaps experienced the greatest travel costs, and felt they would benefit most from the Scheme if only the services allowed for it.

There was also a strong sense among survey respondents that a lack of suitable or available bus services limited the impact and benefits of the Scheme. It was felt that the provision of the card and advertising free bus travel anywhere in Scotland could lead to unfulfilled expectations. Similarly, by far the single biggest barrier to greater bus use among focus group participants was the stated lack of suitable or sufficiently frequent and reliable services. This meant that while they were very satisfied with the principles of the scheme, their use and access to the benefits provided were restricted:

Several participants pointed out that the discrepancy in availability, frequency and reach of services across different parts of the country meant there was a clear differential between those living in different places. Indeed, there was a strong sense of frustration, inequity and unfairness that people in certain areas could not access the benefits that the Scheme offered in the same way as their peers in other areas:

Those in rural areas discussed services that had been reduced or removed, making travel by public transport very difficult and impacting on their ability to use the Scheme. The accessibility of buses was also highlighted as an issue in some rural areas, with bus stops being unsuitable for those with any type of mobility issue to board or alight the vehicle, not being located near residential areas, and the need to use coaches rather than local service buses which were difficult for those with ambulatory disabilities/limitations to board/alight (although it was noted that a lift/winch was provided for wheelchair users). Some also felt that older vehicles had been relocated to more remote/rural areas, meaning they lacked accessibility features such as ramps or step lowering mechanisms.

Exclusion of Section 19 services

A key issue raised by community transport operators was the exclusion from the Scheme of those operating on a Section 19 (S19) permit to deliver door-to-door services using smaller vehicles. The NEC can be used on any Section 22 scheduled bus service which must use a vehicle over a certain size, or a door-to-door service operated by a Public Service License (PSV).

Two (out of the three) community transport operators who participated in an interview highlighted that, in many remote, rural and island locations, there was an aging population who increasingly found accessing scheduled bus services difficult (especially where they were only available at some distance from their home). This was often combined with narrow roads which larger buses could not navigate, meaning that scheduled services often could not be routed/re-routed to be accessible to many residents. Where door-to-door services (operating on a S19 permit) are used in such situations, they are not eligible within the Scheme, and therefore, service users need to pay, either via a membership/ subscription or on a per journey fare basis. Those who needed to use such a service, either due to their location and the lack of an alternative bus service, or due to their age or health condition were not able to use their NEC.

Issues for disabled cardholders

Disabled respondents (across both the survey and focus groups) also indicated that a lack of accessible seating and/or wheelchair space on buses meant they did not use buses or the Scheme more often. Several reports were given of fellow passengers (perceived to be younger and able-bodied) often using and not offering to vacate the accessible seats, drivers refusing access to wheelchair users if the designated wheelchair space(s) was already taken (with some buses only providing one wheelchair space), and wheelchair users having to compete with prams/buggies for space on board. Participants felt there needed to be more support from drivers to access the relevant seating/space to ensure passengers did not come into conflict with each other. Several respondents also noted that some buses did not have access for wheelchairs, mobility scooters or rollators, and that there was a lack of consistency in this respect.

Several disabled cardholders (across survey responses and focus groups) suggested that they had felt judged, or been questioned or challenged by bus drivers regarding the legitimacy of their disability or right to access free bus travel (particularly for companion cardholders). This had left them feeling embarrassed or annoyed. One young sight impaired companion cardholder described often rude behaviours from drivers questioning their need for a free bus pass and for a young companion to also travel for free. Another explained that they had been challenged for not having a companion with them when they held a companion card, and feeling that they needed to justify their fluctuating needs and legal entitlement to the driver.

Survey and focus group participants also identified a range of other issues they experienced with bus drivers. This included them failing to stop for visibly disabled passengers; parking too far from the kerb making it difficult to board or alight; not using the lowered step; not providing assistance to board; not providing information to visually impaired passengers; and recording longer trips on ticket machines than cardholders ask for. In addition, companion cardholders also noted that some drivers appeared to be frustrated or impatient at the need to enter information into the ticket machine for the companion element; that they lacked understanding of the companion cards and that it allows two travellers; and that they could be difficult about accepting the companion card.

There were also issues with drivers misidentifying companion cards for other schemes, particularly when it involved young people. Drivers would assume the card was for the Young Persons’ Free Bus Travel Scheme, or question adult companions travelling with young children (where the child was the cardholder):

It is important to note, however, that poor experiences with drivers was not an issue in all cases/areas, with many survey respondents and focus group participants indicating that they had very positive experiences with bus drivers. One focus group participant also reported that they had seen notable improvements in their local area over time, but recognised that the problem was still evident elsewhere:

Impact of the Young Persons’ Free Bus Travel Scheme

Many cardholders (from both the survey and focus groups) also commented on the Young Persons’ Free Bus Travel Scheme (Young Persons’ Scheme) and the changes in their experiences of using buses since this was introduced. Some cardholders indicated that they did not use certain buses/routes at particular times of day due to the increased use by Young Persons’ Scheme cardholders. The demand for, and busyness of, buses at certain times of day and times of the year were said to be problematic. Respondents also highlighted safety concerns and perceptions about anti-social behaviour, both onboard and at bus stops and stations. While some speculated that these issues were linked to the Young Persons’ Scheme, a few focus group participants felt they were more general problems not linked to any specific group.

Other reasons

Other reasons for not using buses or the Scheme more often, noted across a number of focus groups and generally echoed by survey respondents, included:

• The lack of timetable information - this included a preference among many cardholders for paper copies of timetables.
• The lack of buses at night - this impacted employment and volunteering, the ability to attend medical appointments, as well as social and leisure activities.
• A lack of knowledge/familiarity with how buses operate or the route needed - it was suggested more information could be provided when the card is issued.
• Challenges making longer journeys and those requiring interchanges - while this was physically difficult for some, there was also concern about whether there would be any support at interchange stops.
• Complicated booking systems for longer journeys, with some preferring phone and in person booking options.

Despite the strong feelings expressed about the reasons for not using buses or the Scheme more often, it should be noted that the numbers who indicated they experienced little/no benefits from the Scheme were low overall. The free bus pass was considered to have limited or no benefits for 12% (n=274) of survey respondents due to the lack of bus services, and for 5% (n=111) because buses were not suitable for their condition, illness or disability (see Annex - Table 14).