The importance of comfort was positively correlated with time elapsed since the most recent long-distance trip by rail, air and coach, indicating lower perceived importance of comfort for more recent trip-makers by those modes. For time elapsed since the most recent long-distance car trip, a negative correlation indicated that more recent car trip-makers perceived the importance of comfort to be greater. The comfort items relating to having a seat, being able to carry a lot of luggage, and preferring not to stand explain why those who rated comfort as important were more recent long distance travellers by car; which as a mode offers the best means of meeting those aims. Travelling by car without being seated is impossible (thus no chance of being forced to stand) and the availability of personal luggage space without carriage restrictions (other than space) are clear advantages of the car for meeting the comfort requirements. None of the other modes can guarantee meeting these requirements; air and coach guarantee a seat, but can limit luggage allowance, and while rail has fewer luggage limits, being seated is not guaranteed. While previous research found those with a preference for comfort favoured bus over car, this is explained by the comfort variable used including being able to move around, working and resting (Johansson et al., 2006). Other literature has also identified that perceived age related constraints can lead to such individuals choosing to travel by car instead (Fiedler, 2007).
The importance of comfort (F4) was found to differ by commuting behaviour, with non-commuters perceiving comfort to be of greater importance compared with commuters. A possible explanation is that commuters may be more accustomed to rush-hour conditions where standing on crowded transport may be necessary and it is accepted that getting a seat is unlikely. Non-commuters are likely to experience
180
crowding less than commuters, and may therefore perceive conditions as crowded at a much lower threshold. Costa et al. (1988) identified that out of people experiencing uncomfortable conditions, 75.4% were commuters, while only 42.2% were non-commuters. Commuters also suffered more overcrowding (50%) compared to non-commuters (12%). Anable and Gatersleben (2005) found that affective motives and instrumental motives are of similar importance on leisure trips, but on work trips instrumental factors are of greater importance. Comfort is affective and is relatively more important on leisure trips, which is consistent with the finding of the research of this thesis. It should be noted that the reduced travel time between London and Birmingham resulting from HS2, is likely to make increased commuting possible between these cities. Therefore, many of the potential future users of HS2 may be commuters, and as the standards of HS2 might be perceived as comparatively high due to being newer trains, and also due to the provision of new capacity reducing crowding; Willingness-to-pay could therefore increase due to improved perceived quality of service. This thesis research found that those who considered comfort to be more important, were less willing-to-pay for travel time savings (on all trips except the 30 minute saving on a three hour trip). It may be that respondents with a high perceived importance of comfort would rather travel in comfort, seated and enjoying the scenery, than seeking to reduce their travel time. This finding conflicts with suggestions that a trip is a cost yielding negative benefit (Masson and Petiot, 2009), but fits with claims that the travel time itself is useful (Mokhtarian and Saloman, 2001).
It is also important to consider that travelling in comfort is known to affect perceived travel time, being perceived as longer than real time when unpleasant, but shorter when comfortable (Litman, 2008). Issues such as crowding affect comfort, and raise the perceived travel time, making the travel time feel longer. Travel time costs can therefore be higher when travelling on a trip considered to be unpleasant (Litman, 2008). It therefore appears logical that respondents travelling in crowded conditions would be willing-to-pay for more comfortable conditions (Haywood and Koning, 2011). However, this was not found, as willingness-to-pay for travel time reductions did not differ by commuting behaviour. This may mean that respondents would be willing to extend their travel time to travel on less crowded services (Haywood and Koning, 2011). While this is similar to the ‘Slow Motion Behaviour’ concept (Nijkamp and Baaijens, 1999), it was not tested as part
181
of this thesis and therefore provides an opportunity for future research. However, it is possible that existing lines may see reduced crowding were HS2 to open, and it is therefore possible that while some long distance travellers may pay for the travel time reductions, others may be willing to extend their journey time to use less crowded services. Therefore, for existing lines to continue to be competitive following HS2, enhancements to comfort may be helpful.
It may be possible to conclude that commuters in the population sample of this thesis are not being exposed to extreme levels of crowding (and discomfort) as they do not perceive comfort to be of greater importance compared with non- commuters, and are not willing-to-pay more to reduce their travel time. However, as mentioned earlier in this discussion chapter, commuters threshold of perceived comfort may be lower, and therefore non-commuters may travel on services they consider crowded, but are not perceived as crowded by commuters.
It is difficult to split perceived importance of comfort, from comfort as a determinant of mode choice. Respondents may desire improvements to comfort levels, but accept crowded conditions as necessary and therefore do not consider comfort as important in their travel decision-making – hence its low rank (10th). Therefore, while improved comfort would be desired, respondents do not necessarily feel that they always want to have a seat, and would choose not to travel if they had to stand.