Wider Impacts

The environment

Whilst survey respondents were not asked about the impact of the Scheme on the environment specifically, most thought that buses were environmentally friendly (78%) and that bus travel helped to make the roads safer (68%) (see Annex - Table 39). The results in the chapters above also show that cardholders generally used the bus more often (where it was available and accessible), and that the Scheme had reduced levels of car use. Both survey and focus group respondents also discussed perceptions that the Scheme would have a positive environmental impact, both in terms of reducing pollution/carbon emissions (particularly where electric or low emission buses were in place), and in reducing congestion.

A few focus group participants confirmed that environmental impact was an important factor for them and their travel decisions. Several private vehicle owners also said that they had cut their own car use as a result of holding the NEC, and this had reduced their own emissions.

Some also commented that they welcomed a reduction in congestion and improved road conditions linked to the reduction of private cars on the roads:

Some participants who wanted to be more environmentally friendly, however, again raised concerns that poor public transport provision meant that their good intentions could not be realistically achieved.

The wider economy

While survey respondents were not asked specifically about impacts on the economy, several did indicate concern for the cost of the Scheme to the government, local authorities, and the tax payer. It should be noted that the Value for Money assessment conducted as part of this evaluation (and reported separately), however, showed that the cost of the Scheme was largely in line with the measurable value of the benefits it brought. Note that the Value for Money assessment did not consider the wider economic factors explored below.

Many respondents noted that they used the Scheme to access local services and spend money in their own local economy. Some also indicated that they used the Scheme to travel to new places and/or further afield, and that they would therefore spend money in that local economy. While much of this may result in displaced spending (i.e. moving spending from local areas to those further afield), many indicated that they travelled and got out and about more often. As such, at least some new or additional journeys were being made, as well as some degree of additional spending in the local economy. As noted above, a few respondents also discussed how the Scheme allowed them to find or remain in work, or to access and sustain volunteering opportunities. Some also supported working family members by using the Scheme to allow them to provide childcare, typically grandparents looking after grandchildren.

Several focus group participants also acknowledged that the Scheme helped to generate spend. In particular, it was noted that older people were among the most likely to have disposable income in society. They were also perhaps more likely to stay ‘local’ in their travel which meant that economic benefits were being felt by local communities specifically:

In addition, the Scheme was considered an important element which enabled disabled people to contribute to the wider economy, either by supporting them to access work or volunteering opportunities, or to access services. In one focus group, a sight impaired cardholder explained that there was strong evidence to suggest that disabled and sight impaired people could contribute significantly to the economy, if access allowed:

Some focus group participants also perceived that the Scheme would be valuable to bus operators, as it ensured a steady income through the reimbursement payments, and that usage by cardholders would help to keep services running.

Other uses of the NEC

Sometimes the NEC can be used for other things, with additional benefits being determined and provided by local authorities, or other organisations, rather than Transport Scotland.

All survey respondents were asked what else, if anything, they used their free bus pass for (see Annex - Table 42). The main additional uses (other than bus travel) were to access discounted or free train travel (26%), and as age verification or identification (15%). Almost half (47%) did not know they could use their bus pass for other purposes.

It was, however, highlighted by survey respondents, focus group participants, and support organisations, that these additional uses varied by region and by card type. For example, those who lived in Edinburgh were able to use their NEC to access free travel on the tram. Similarly, those with a sight impairment card could travel on the train either at a discounted rate or for free. It was stressed that this made it difficult for cardholders to know what they were entitled to, when and where. These additional uses/benefits were also not being experienced equitably across different areas and by card type:

Overall satisfaction

Survey respondents were asked to rate their level of overall satisfaction with the Scheme. Table 23 shows that the vast majority of cardholders (94%) were either very or fairly satisfied, while 4% were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, and just 2% were either fairly or very dissatisfied. Results were consistent by card type.

Table 23 Overall satisfaction (survey respondents)

Satisfaction	Over 60 Card	Disabled Card	All respondents
Very satisfied	79.5%	75%	78%
Fairly satisfied	14%	20%	16%
Neither	4.5%	3%	4%
Fairly dissatisfied	1%	1%	1%
Very dissatisfied	1%	1%	1%
Total	1,584	904	2,488

Note: 14 respondents either did not know or did not answer the question.

Respondents were also asked to explain their reason for their level of satisfaction or dissatisfaction. Feedback was provided by 1,410 respondents.

Those who were satisfied with the Scheme (including some who noted that they rarely used it) generally outlined the benefits and positive impacts it provided:

The main issues which reduced levels of satisfaction or drove dissatisfaction were the lack of bus services or routes available to respondents, poor local services, or problems with the accessibility of services. These meant that cardholders could not use the Scheme or access the benefits it provided: