Policy F: reasons for agreement or disagreement
Why do you agree with Policy F?
Base: All those who agree with Policy F (937)
| wdt_ID | Key themes | % |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Everyone should be able to use public transport safely and easily | 9 |
| 3 | Generally positive | 8 |
| 12 | Physical improvements and comfort/aesthetic improvements at stations/hubs/stops are needed/desirable e.g. toilets, seating, shelters at bus stops, smaller gaps between train and platform, travel lockers, solar panels, other sustainable initiatives, green roofs, make into clean and pleasant areas | 6 |
| 13 | Cycling comments e.g. better, segregated and joined up cycle routes, secure bike parking, lockers, priority on the roads, smooth surfaces | 5 |
| 14 | Much needed/essential | 5 |
| 15 | Safety/ASB comments e.g. staff, lighting, CCTV, manned taxi ranks, lack of enforcement of no smoking/vaping rules | 4 |
| 16 | Good accessibility will encourage/increase usage | 3 |
| 17 | Walking comments e.g. keep pavements clear, keep cyclists separate, encourage active travel, smoother services, more crossings, more pedestrianised areas, priority for pedestrians | 3 |
| 18 | Sceptical about implementation e.g. cost, space, size of project, illegal parking blocking bus stops/lanes and lack of enforcement | 2 |
| 19 | Anti cyclist/e-bike/e-scooter sentiment e.g. ride on pavements, too fast/reckless riding, dangerous for pedestrians | 2 |
| 20 | Should be a given/standard | 2 |
| 21 | Accurate RTI/information in different formats/better signposting needed | 1 |
| 22 | Other e.g. maintain/enable taxi or car drop-off and pick-up very close to hubs/stations, reliable service more important, gratitude for the improvements already seen and assistance given to less-able passengers | 3 |
| 23 | Na/no comment | 58 |
Please could you tell us why you disagree with Policy F?
Base: All those who disagree with Policy F (52)
| wdt_ID | Key themes | % |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Too expensive/waste of money | 17 |
| 3 | Sceptical about implementation/generally negative | 15 |
| 12 | Other things are more important e.g. reliable bus and train service/routes, capacity on 'free' bus days, space for mobility aids, working lifts, ample free parking | 15 |
| 13 | Too much focus on active travel/anti-motorist | 12 |
| 14 | Not needed | 8 |
| 15 | Not enough space to implement these changes | 6 |
| 16 | Bikes to be on the road but with priority | 4 |
| 17 | More seating/shelter at travel hubs/stops and along routes to those places | 4 |
| 18 | Will get vandalised | 4 |
| 19 | Other e.g. air-conditioning, working toilets, free travel for children, consult emergency services when planning, need a more measurable policy | 15 |
| 20 | Na/no comment | 29 |
Please could you tell us why you neither agree nor disagree with Policy F?
Base: All those who neither agree nor disagree with Policy F (111)
| wdt_ID | Key themes | % |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Other things are more important e.g. reliable/efficient service, affordable pricing, better air quality, true accessibility over aesthetics | 11 |
| 3 | Sceptical about implementation | 5 |
| 12 | Who will pay for it/too expensive | 5 |
| 13 | Not needed/already happening | 5 |
| 14 | Car parking also needed at interchanges (especially disabled) | 4 |
| 15 | Not enough space e.g. too crowded, would require too much demolition and rebuilding, loss of green space | 3 |
| 16 | Ensure driving is still an option/motorists not penalised | 2 |
| 17 | Other e.g. secure bike parking needed, ensure drop-off by motor vehicle still possible, staff needed to help, limited capacity for wheelchairs on buses, new road layouts for cyclists can be problematic, bus route along the seafront | 11 |
| 18 | Na/no comment | 61 |
