COVID19 Transport, travel & social adaptation study Wave 1 panel survey: interim findings University of Leeds, Institute for Transport Studies Professor Greg Marsden Professor Jillian Anable Dr Llinos Brown University of Stirling Professor Iain Docherty

1. University of Leeds, Institute for Transport Studies
Professor Greg Marsden
Professor Jillian Anable
Dr Llinos Brown
University of Stirling
Professor Iain Docherty
COVID19 Transport, travel & social
adaptation study
Wave 1 panel survey: interim findings V1.0
17th August 2020
https://covid19transas.org/

2. Suggested citation:
Anable, J., Brown, L., Docherty, I. and Marsden, G. (2020) COVID19
Transport, travel & social adaptation study - Wave 1 panel survey:
interim findings

3. Acknowledgements to our funders
• UKRI (emergency funding + CREDS +
DecarboN8 + Productivity Insights Network)
• ClimateXChange – 2 year fellowship (Llinos
Brown)
• Transport Scotland
• Strathclyde Partnership for Transport
• Liverpool City Council
• Transport for the North

4. Research Questions
• What have the greatest travel adaptations been as a result of COVID19 and where and who have
demonstrated the greatest changes?
• Have interventions in the transport system post COVID19 (e.g. expansion of walking and cycling
opportunities; guidance on mask wearing) and actions by employers and businesses aided or
hindered personal adaptive capacity?
• Will a phased lifting of social distancing restrictions impact on the longer-term attractiveness of
public transport, cycling and car use and how varied will this be?
• To what extent could virtual activities be embedded in place of physical activities and for what
sorts of activities? What would need to happen to maintain this?
• What role have local restrictions, infrastructure quality, economic circumstances, disease
prevalence played in shorter and longer term adaptations vis a vis individual factors?
• From people’s experience of lockdown, their stated ability to cope (practically and emotionally)
and views on priorities for ‘unlocking’, what can we say about ‘essential’ vs non essential
mobility?
• Will behaviour change ‘stick’ in some locations more than others?
Note: this interim set of slides is the first swathe of analysis of the Wave 1 results. It represents a descriptive
overview across all the topic areas included in the survey. Analysis will go on to investigate some of the differences
in behaviour to begin to address the questions above.

5. Study design and survey administration
• 3 wave online quantitative* survey in 10 city-regions/ areas in
England/ Scotland
• N= July 2020: ~9500 + September 2020: ~6400 + February 2020: ~5000
• 2 waves of in depth interviews in 5 of the locations
• N= July 2020: 100 + October 2020 ~100
• 3 waves of expert/policy interviews
*Administered through YouGov

6. Wave 1
Public Interviews
5 city-regions
N=~100
July 2020
Wave 3
Online Survey
10 city-regions in
England/Scotland
N=~5000
Feb 2021
Wave 1
Online Survey
10 city-regions in
England/Scotland
N=~9500
July 2020
Wave 2
Public Interviews
5 city-regions
N=~100
Oct 2020
Wave 2
Online Survey
10 city-regions in
England/Scotland
N=~6400
Sept 2020
Survey Locations
Scotland – Aberdeen & Aberdeenshire, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Ayrshire
England – Bristol, Lancashire, Liverpool, London, Manchester, Newcastle
Wave 1
Policy Interviews
N = ~20
July 2020
Public Interview Locations
Scotland – Glasgow
England – Bristol, London, Manchester, Newcastle
Wave 1
Policy Interviews
N = ~20
?? 2020
Wave 1
Policy Interviews
N = ~20
?? 2020

7. Wave 1
Interviews
5 city-regions
N=~100
Glasgow
N=20
July 2020
Wave 1
Online Survey
10 city-regions in
England/Scotland
N=~9500
Scotland
N=~3500
July 2020
Wave 1 InterviewThemes
• Household structure and occupations
• Most significant impact of lockdown
• Work situation – WFH, Furloughed, Long-term Sick/disabled
• Home schooling
• Leisure time
• Shopping
• Transport modes – walking, cycling, public transport, car use
• Second spike
• Anything else interviewees would like to add
Wave 1 SurveyThemes
• General travel patterns before, during and after
• Household structure, children and (home)schooling
• Working situation before and during lockdown
• Commuting and homeworking
• Shopping
• Leisure and exercise
• Online and online activities
• Neighbourhood attachment and social capital
• What should happen next

8. Wave 1: Sample sizes

9. 1. General travel patterns before, during and
after
1.1 Household car ownership
1.2 Stated likelihood of acquiring a driving licence before and after
1.3 Stated likelihood of getting a car before and after
1.4 Bike ownership and acquisition during lockdown
1.5 Change in use of different modes before and after lockdown
1.6 Self-reported change in car use
1.7 New ways of travelling during lockdown and expected changes after

10. Households with at least
one car varies between
61% in London and 84%
in Aberdeen
• In Ayrshire, there are very few people
who have a licence but do not also have a
car. However, in London, this applies to
around a fifth of respondents
• Glasgow is the location with the most
participants who are not licenced to drive
1.1 Household car ownership

11. Stated likelihood of
acquiring a driving
licence in the next year
reduced in all locations
• 25% of the sample did not have a driving
licence
• Before lockdown, a quarter of non licence
holders expressed a likelihood (‘likely’ or
‘very likely’) to get a licence in the next
year
• After lockdown, this had reduced to 17%
on average, with reductions seen
everywhere
• The greatest proportional reduction was
in Bristol (56% drop), followed by Ayrshire
(49%) and the lowest in London (9%).
However, note these differences between
locations are not statistically significant.
1.2 Likelihood of getting a driving licence

12. Stated
likelihood of
acquiring a
licence in the
next year –
complete data
Independent Samples Kruskal Wallis Test shows the differences between locations are NOT statistically significant
1.2 Likelihood of getting a driving licence

13. Stated likelihood of
getting a car in the next
year rose in some places,
but reduced in others
• 9.4% of the sample were licence holders
with no access to a car, ranging from only
3% in Ayrshire to over a fifth in London
• The stated likelihood to acquire a car
(‘likely’ or ‘very likely’) fell noticeably in
Glasgow, Ayrshire and Manchester
• The likelihood increased noticeable in
Edinburgh, Bristol, Liverpool and slightly
in London
19.5%
20.8%
17.5%
33.3%
20.3%
18.8%
13.6%
22.7%
14.6%
12.1%
18.1%
20.5%
23.8%
10.5%
20.0%
23.9%
17.5%
18.2%
18.8%
13.4%
14.0%
17.8%
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
35.0%
Aberdeen Edinburgh Glasgow Ayrshire Bristol Lancashire Liverpool Manchester Newcastle London Total
Stated likelihood of getting a car before and after lockdown
(Those who are licence holders but with no car (N=1113))
Likely BEFORE Likely AFTER
1.3 Likelihood of getting a car

14. Stated
likelihood of
getting a car in
the next year –
complete data
1.3 Likelihood of getting a car
Independent Samples Kruskal Wallis Test shows differences are significant at the 95% confidence level

15. Just under a third of
those who had a bike
had acquired it during
lockdown
• On average, just under a third have access to a
bike, the most in Bristol and the least in
Glasgow
• The highest proportional rates of uptake of
bikes happened in London (45%) and
Manchester (45%)
• Those who acquired a bike during lockdown
were disproportionately likely to be:
• Driving licence holders but without cars
• 25-44 years of age
• Without children at home
• Those still in paid employment were more likely
to acquire a bike during lockdown, but if also on
furlough, the likelihood increased more.
• Those who purchased a bike during lockdown
were twice as likely to agree with the statement
‘I discovered new leisure activities during
lockdown’ than the sample average
1.4 Bicycle ownership

16. All areas saw an increase
in walking frequency, but
three saw a reduction in
cycling
• The greatest reductions in the number of
people driving a car at least once a week
were in Lancashire (-16.6%), Aberdeen (-
14.6%) and Edinburgh (-14.3%)
• Car driving increased in Liverpool and
stayed almost static in Newcastle and
Glasgow
• Bus use reduced by just over 80% overall,
with the lowest reductions in Glasgow
• Walking increased by between a fifth
(London) to a third (Bristol)
• The amount of change in weekly cycling
varied a lot between locations from a
reduction of 6% in Bristol to an increase
of 34% in Edinburgh
See figures behind this chart on the next slide
1.5 Change in transport mode use

17. Change in use of each mode at least once a week during
lockdown compared to before
Aberdeen Edinburgh Glasgow Ayrshire Bristol Lancashire Liverpool Manchester Newcastle London TOTAL
Car driver -14.6% -14.3% 0.7% -10.5% -9.0% -16.6% 2.8% -3.1% 0.0% -5.1% -6.9%
Bus -85.4% -85.3% -71.0% -85.9% -88.2% -81.9% -78.9% -80.0% -79.9% -78.2% -81.3%
Train -86.1% -89.1% -85.3% -86.4% -78.0% -94.3% -80.9% -77.5% -87.9% -84.6% -84.5%
Tram/underground -62.5% -78.9% -76.0% -76.9% -31.3% -92.8% -91.1% -77.6% -82.4% -90.9% -84.9%
Bike 18.4% 28.0% 17.0% -1.6% -6.3% -2.7% 43.7% 41.7% 15.8% 2.6% 13.9%
Walk 23.8% 34.1% 32.6% 24.3% 32.3% 15.3% 27.3% 22.8% 22.5% 21.1% 25.7%
Taxi -49.9% -70.2% -59.8% -56.7% -55.2% -76.6% -66.3% -70.1% -82.1% -58.3% -66.3%
Percentage reduction, not %-point
1.5 Change in transport mode use

18. Just under a third of those who
used the car less said they liked
it, but around a fifth said they
didn’t
A minority (around 6%) reported
using a car more in lockdown, the
most in London (14%), the least
in Lancashire (3.5%)
1.6 Self-reported change in car use

19. But almost a quarter say they
think they will be using different
modes after lockdown
Less than 10% say they
discovered new ways of getting
around during lockdown
1.7 New ways of travelling during lockdown and expected changes after
• The differences between locations are statistically significant, but
this because London is different
• 16.5% of people in London said they had found new ways of
getting around
• Again, London stands out as expecting more change, but there
are other differences between locations, too. The two more rural
locations (Ayrshire and Lancashire) show the least change

20. 1.7 Expected changes after lockdown
“In the coming weeks and months, compared to before lockdown, how much more or less do you think you will use
the following methods of transport?”
In all locations,
around 40% say
they will be
walking more
• Walking looks set to make the
greatest gains, with more than
50% in London and Edinburgh and
over 40% in most other places
(except the more rural locations)
• On average, 17% of people say
they will cycle more, rising to over
20% in London, Bristol and
Edinburgh
• Bus travel shows a strong decline
with just under 40% claiming they
will use it much or a little less
• Many people also say they will use
the car less (although not as many
who say they will use it more).
This indicates that responses to
this question are also about how
much people generally feel they
will be going out and about by any
mode, not just the degree of
mode switching

21. 2. Household structure, children and
schooling
2.1 Household structure of the sample (those with and without kids)
2.2 Homeschooling during lockdown
2.3 Expectations of mode choice for the journey to school after
lockdown

22. Around a quarter of households
included children (0-18 yrs). Bristol
has a markedly greater share of
housesharers and fewer children.
Around 12% of households had
someone come to live with them
or someone move away for the
lockdown period.
2.1 Household structure

23. Only just over half of
households with children
of school age were
home-schooled during
lockdown
• Overall, only 11% of households
contained children being home-schooled
during lockdown
2.2 Home-schooling

24. Over 10% of respondents
with school-age children
feel they will be
homeschooling their
children much more
after lockdown
2.2 Home-schooling

25. In some areas, almost a
quarter expect to use the
car more for the school
run after lockdown
• Car use and walking look likely to increase
the most for the journey to school, with
some, but not all, places also seeing
increases in cycle use
• On average, 20% said they expect to use
the car more/much more, compared to
only 6% who said they would use it less
• The greatest stated increases in car use
were in London, Manchester and
Liverpool
• For public transport, the greatest
reductions are likely to be in London,
Ayrshire and Liverpool
• Cycling looks like it could gain users in
Bristol and Edinburgh
2.3 Journey to School

26. 3. Work and commuting
3.1 Work status before and during lockdown
3.2 Travel to work before and during lockdown
3.3 Satisfaction with commute journey before and during
3.4 Frequency of meetings before and during
3.5 Expectations of mode choice after lockdown

27. 3.1 Work status before and during lockdown
See next
slides for
more detail
on the
change in
work
situation
during
lockdown

28. There was some churn in work status as a result of lockdown that was
still playing out as the survey was being undertaken.
Working before
57.6% (N=5377)
NOT Working
before
41.6% (N=3856)
Other before
0.8% (N=74)
Working after
53.9% (N=5044)
NOT Working
after
44.3% (N=4146)
Other after
0.8% (N=76)
93.3%
98.3%
74.3%
Of those working before who became
non-workers:
• 2.9% were made unemployed
• 2.6% were self-employed or casual
workers whose work dried up
• 0.5% went on sick leave
3.1 Work status before and during lockdown
22.2% (N=1124) were
furloughed for all or part of
the time

29. • Unemployment
increased in all areas
• London, and to a very
small extent Glasgow,
were the only places to
see an increase in part-
time employment
• Casual/sporadic work
saw small increases in
all the Scottish
locations, as well as
Bristol
3.1 Work status before and during lockdown

30. 30% of workers who
commuted to work
before lockdown
were also in work
and leaving the
home to commute
during lockdown
See next slides for
detailed analysis of
commute mode
share
X.1 Travel to work during and after lockdown
N= Aberdeen (169); Edinburgh (147); Glasgow (156); Ayrshire (101); Bristol (144); Lancashire (187); Liverpool (136); Manchester (182); Newcastle (184); London (127)
3.2 Travel to work before and during lockdown

31. 30% of workers who
commuted before lockdown
continued to leave the home
to go to work during lockdown
• The general pattern of mode shift on the
journey to work was similar everywhere
• As expected, public transport share declined
the most, with the lowest percentage decline in
London
• Car passenger travel appears to have increased
in most places (although from relatively small
bases, hence the large apparent proportional
increases)
• Many of these car passengers were previously
public transport users (see next slide)
• London and Bristol were the only locations to
see some decline in walking trips. At the same
time, the gain for cycling was strong in these
locations. This might indicate a latent demand
among walkers to cycle more which they acted
upon when the roads were quieter
2.2 Home-schooling3.2 Travel to work before and during lockdown
N= Aberdeen (169); Edinburgh (147); Glasgow (156); Ayrshire (101); Bristol (144); Lancashire (187); Liverpool (136);
Manchester (182); Newcastle (184); London (127)
Within-location differences between before/after mode shares in different locations unlikely to be statistically significant
other than for car driver use due to small sample sizes in each cell
‘Other’ includes: motorcycles, taxis, vans and ‘other’

32. More than half of those
travelling to work by public
transport before lockdown
also used this during lockdown
if they were not WFH*
• 30% of workers who commuted to work
before lockdown were also in work and
leaving the home to commute during
lockdown
• 95% of those who commuted as a car
driver before, also used this mode during
• A quarter of car passengers switched to
either using the car as a driver (half of
them) or a variety of other modes
• The 45% of public transport users who
did not carry on using the buses etc
switched to a variety of other modes,
including car as a passenger – indicating
lift-giving by family members
2.2 Home-schoolingX.1 Travel to work during and after lockdown
*Working from Home
3.2 Travel to work before and during lockdown

33. Commute satisfaction
increased slightly during
lockdown in all places
except London
The greatest
improvements were in
Newcastle and
Lancashire.
2.2 Home-schoolingX.1 Travel to work during and after lockdown
Caution: differences between places and over-time within places may not be statistically significant – yet to be tested
3.3 Satisfaction with commute before and during lockdown

34. During lockdown, this rose to over 50%
Before lockdown, around 10% of
workers used the phone or internet
several times a week or more to attend
business meetings instead of travelling
3.4 Frequency of virtual meetings before and during lockdown
• There are statistically differences between locations in the amount of virtual business meeting activity before lockdown
• During lockdown, the same locations which had the highest amount of virtual substitution before, also showed the greatest gain in that
activity after. For example, the number of people who said they never did this rose reduced by 57% in London, 55% in Bristol and 50% in
Aberdeen, whereas there was only a 18% in Ayrshire

35. In some areas, around
a quarter expect to
walk more to work
• Around 15% of workers expect to use
their car more to drive on the commute,
whereas being a car passenger is down in
most places
• The bus is expected to reduce the most,
and walking to increase the most
• Cycling looks to have the most popularity
in London, Edinburgh and Bristol and will
appear to gain little use for commuting in
Ayrshire, Lancashire and Liverpool
3.5 Expected mode to work after

36. 4. Working from home (WFH)
4.1 Working from home before and during lockdown
4.2 Evaluations of WFH before and during lockdown
4.3 Evaluations of EFH in households with and without children
4.4 Expected increases in WFH and virtual business meetings after
lockdown

37. There are large
geographical variations
in the amount of WFH
• On average, 28% said their job could not
be carried out from home before
lockdown, and 23% during
• This varied by location, ranging from 20%
in London to 37% in Ayrshire (before)
• WFH 5 days a week increased 10-fold
during lockdown
• Before lockdown, Lancashire had the
greatest proportion of people outside
London WFH 5 days, but during
lockdown it had the lowest
4.1 WFH before and during lockdown

38. Over 40% of those WFH
during lockdown found
this to be too much
• Most home workers (>80%) had no choice but
to WFH during lockdown.
• Londoners were most likely to say that the
amount they WFH was more than they would
have liked
• Three quarters said they had good support
from their employer to WFM during lockdown
• Two thirds feel better set up to WFM in the
future
4.2 Evaluations of WFH before and during

39. Evaluation of WFH
deteriorated slightly
during lockdown
• WFH was evaluated positively by all who
experienced it
• For those WFH both before and during
lockdown, the experience was slightly
more stressful and slightly less
satisfactory than before
• For those who did not WFH before
lockdown, but did so during, they
evaluated WFH less favourably than those
who were more used to WFH
Note: differences between locations on all these parameters were not statistically significant, hence only showing the averages for
the sample as a whole. However, differences over ‘time’ may not be statistically significant – yet to be tested
4.2 Evaluations of WFH4.2 Evaluations of WFH before and during

40. There was little
difference in the
evaluation of WFH
between households
with and without
children
• 30% of participants who WFH at least one
day a week during lockdown had children
at home, 21% with children of school age
and 15% with children who were home-
schooled
• Households without children find WFH
less stressful and easier. However, these
differences are small (and have not been
tested for statistical significance)
Note: differences between households with and without children etc may not be statistically significant – yet to be tested
4.2 Evaluations of WFH4.3 Evaluations of WFH with and without kids

41. A quarter of workers
expect to WFH more
and/or conduct more
virtual business meetings
after lockdown
• There were statistically significant
differences between locations in the
proportion of people who expect to
undertake more virtual working
• Those locations with the greatest
proportion of WFH during lockdown
(Bristol, Edinburgh and London) tend to
also be the locations where more of this
might be expected to take place
• The proportion of people expecting to
undertake more business meetings online
rather than travelling is much the same as
for WFH
4.2 Evaluations of WFH4.4 Expected increases in WFH after lockdown

42. 5.Shopping
5.1 Change in use of types of shops before and after lockdown
5.2 Attitudes towards online grocery shopping
5.3 Expected increase in online shopping after lockdown

43. Just over 30% said they
changed the location of where
they shopped for food during
lockdown
• New ways of shopping or acquiring
groceries during lockdown (Online
delivery, Click & Collect, personal
delivery) saw large proportional increases
(from very low bases), whereas visits to
both large or small shops saw reductions
• On average, 2% said they never visited
large supermarkets before lockdown,
rising to 17% during
• The use of small food shops did not
increase, suggesting supermarket visits
were replaced by online or family
delivery, not by visiting local smaller
shops
• Foodbank use increased the most in
Ayrshire, Glasgow and Lancashire.
However, it reduced in Newcastle. (But
these figures unreliable as from very small numbers -
on average only 1% of the sample before and during)
2.2 Home-schooling5.1 Change in use of types of shops
Within-location differences between before/after have
not been tested for statistical significance
• Over half the sample said that
expenditure on food increased
during lockdown compared to just
under a fifth who said it decreased

44. The numbers using online and
click & collect increased, but
the frequency reduced
• The proportion visiting a supermarket at
least once a month fell from 98% to 72%.
Those who did go during lockdown went less
frequently
• Before lockdown, 81% said they used small
grocery shops, but only 68% during
2.2 Home-schooling5.1 Change in use of types of shops
Within-location differences between before/after have not been tested for statistical significance
• Before lockdown, 17% received online
deliveries from supermarkets at least once a
month and this rose to 25% during
• Whilst more people used click and collect,
the average frequency with which it was
used went down
Within-location differences between before/after have not been tested for statistical significance

45. The majority previously
rejected online grocery
methods because they prefer
to see the products in person
2.2 Home-schooling5.2 Attitudes to online grocery shopping
Differences between locations were not significant other than for ‘getting convenient slots’ in which case
Bristol, London and Liverpool seemed to experience this more

46. During Lockdown, not wanting
to wait in queues or needing
to self-isolate were the main
reasons given for online
shopping. However, concern
about travelling, or not being
able to get to the shops, were
other key reasons
2.2 Home-schooling5.2 Attitudes to online grocery shopping
Differences between locations were not significant other than for ‘no way of getting to the shops’
• Having no way to get to the shops was
provided as a reason for online shopping
more in Ayrshire and Manchester

47. Just over a quarter say they
will shop more for food online
after lockdown compared to
before
• The is little geographical difference in
expected increases in online shopping for
food across locations, although London
residents appear slightly keener to
increase their take-up of this activity than
others
2.2 Home-schooling5.3 Expected increase in online shopping after lockdown
• For non-food items, just under a third on average say they will do more of
this, with some slightly larger differences between locations
• This follows around 40% on average saying that expenditure on non-food
items had increased during lockdown, although a quarter said it had
decreased

48. 6. Socialising, leisure and exercise
6.1 Social contact with friends and family
6.2 Outdoor sport and activity
6.3 Discovery of new activities during lockdown
6.4 Difficulty of coping with restrictions on different activities
6.5 Sense of connection to neighbourhood
6.6 Expected increase in online socialising after lockdown

49. Frequency of f2f contact
with friends and family
differed significantly
between locations
before lockdown
• Ayrshire and Liverpool, and to a less
extent Newcastle, stand out as having
more frequent visiting with friends and
family at each others homes before
lockdown. London and Bristol the least.
• During lockdown, use of videocalling
increased much more than phone calling
– on average by +127% compared to
+26%
6.1 Social contact with friends and family

50. The increase in outdoor
activity was different in
different places
• Unsurprisingly, organised outdoor sporting
activity sport reduced everywhere
• More surprising was the reduction in the
average number of times local parks were
visited in many places other than Edinburgh,
Bristol, Manchester in London
• Increases in walking and cycling for pleasure
were modest – 40% and 34% on average
• Cycling for pleasure saw a greater
proportional increase than walking in most
places except Ayrshire, Bristol, Newcastle
and London
• Further analysis showed those with children
visited parks less than before during
lockdown but increased their walking for
pleasure more than those without children
• Those with dogs and/or gardens reduced
their use of local parks whereas those
without dogs and/or gardens increased their
visits
6.2 Outdoor sport and activity

51. On balance, new ways of
socialising were
discovered, but local
places to visit were not
• More people agreed than disagreed that
they discovered some new ways of
socialising during lockdown. Agreement was
particularly high in Bristol and London
• However, there was sometimes twice as
many people disagreeing as agreeing that
they had discovered new leisure activities or
new places to visit during lockdown
• Nevertheless, between 25 and 40% did
discover new places to use and visit, the
highest numbers in Bristol, Aberdeen and
Edinburgh
6.3 Discovery of new activities during lockdown

52. More than half found not
being able to go to the
pub, café or eat out to
be difficult to cope with
• Restrictions on seeing friends and family
were more difficult to cope with than any
restrictions on ‘commercial’ activity
• Not being able to go on holiday gained the
highest ‘very difficult’ score of over one
third of participants. However, it is worth
noting that almost 20% said they did not do
this before anyway
• Just under a third found restrictions on
voluntary work outside the home to be
difficult or very difficult
• Almost an equal number found restrictions
on going to the cinema/theatre to be
difficult as found it to be easy
• Restrictions on outdoor sports and going to
live sporting matches were experienced as
difficult by the least number of people but
still impacted almost 20% in each case.
6.4 Difficulty of coping with restrictions on each activity

53. 6.5 Sense of connection to neighbourhood
Attachment to neighbourhood varied only slightly between locations,
with Bristol participants standing out as having the least sense of
belonging and attachment to where they currently live

54. On balance:
-> people did not feel more
connected to their
neighbourhood during
lockdown
-> more people felt lonely
than did not feel lonely
6.5 Sense of connection to neighbourhood

55. Many expect to carry
on socialising online
after lockdown
• Socialising online appears to receive quite
an enthusiastic response as over a third
of respondents, and nearing a half in
Bristol and London, expect to socialise
more online than they did more
lockdown
• Entertainment does not receive quite
such a high response, but this may be due
to this already being at quite high levels
before lockdown
4.2 Evaluations of WFH6.6 Expected increases in online socialising after lockdown

56. 7. Other online activities
7.1 Satisfaction with internet access
7.2 Personal business activities undertaken online
7.3 Comparative overview of expected online activity

57. Levels of satisfaction
with internet access at
home are high
everywhere
• Virtually everyone had internet access at
home (as expected for an online survey)
• Over 90% in each location had fixed
broadband internet
• Levels of ‘highly satisfied’ were greatest
in Newcastle, Lancashire and Glasgow
and lowest in Bristol, London and
Ayrshire
7.1 Satisfaction with internet access

58. Online access also
proved important for
many other non-work,
shopping or leisure
activities
• A geographical pattern is difficult to
discern other than London residents
consistently more engaged with all online
activities and Glasgow and Lancashire
often less so
7.2 Personal business activities undertaken online

59. Comparing all the
potential online
activities, more people
are likely to be carrying
on with socialising and
entertainment than
work-related activities
online
7.3 Comparative overview of expected online activity

60. 8. Attitudes to what should happen next
8.1 Attitudes to social distancing and mask wearing on public transport
8.2 Attitudes towards footpath and cycle path widening
8.3 Attitudes towards prioritised grocery deliveries
8.4 Attitudes toward priorities for the economic recovery
8.5 Priorities for ‘unlocking’

61. 8.1 Attitudes to social distancing etc on public transport
Three-quarters say they would rather travel by car than public
transport, but almost as many say they would rather walk or cycle for
some journeys. Over a quarter say they have no choice but to use PT.

62. There is high
agreement with mask
wearing everywhere
• There are no statistically significant
differences between the 10 locations on
attitudes towards mask wearing
8.1 Attitudes to social distancing etc on public transport

63. Over half agree that
more footpaths and
cycle paths should be
provided
• There are some differences between
locations with regard to attitudes towards
footpath and cycle path widening
• The more rural locations (Ayrshire and
Lancashire) perhaps unsurprisingly are
less likely to agree (and more likely to
disagree) with these propositions
• It is also interesting to see how Bristol,
Liverpool seem relatively keen on cycle
path widening
• Whereas London exhibits relatively high
agreement for footpath widening, it does
not show one of the highest levels of
agreement for cycling
• Newcastle has the highest level of
disagreement in relation to cycle lane
provision
8.2 Attitudes to footpath and cycle path widening

64. There is much higher
agreement for prioritised
deliveries to those
vulnerable to Covid than
for non-car owners
• There is very high agreement and very
little disagreement at the idea of
prioritising grocery deliveries to Covid
(although there are differences across the
results in these locations). Those in
Lancashire have a slightly lower tendency
to agree. This could be because they
believe more rural areas should also
prioritised (but we cannot know this)
• Agreement with the idea that non-car
owners should be prioritised is almost
half that for prioritising people vulnerable
to Covid. Indeed, less than half agreed
with this idea in all locations and almost a
quarter disagreed.
8.3 Attitudes to prioritised grocery deliveries

65. Twice as many disagree
with bailing out the
airlines as agree
• There is higher agreement with road
building than there is with the idea of bailing
out the aviation industry
• However, neither road building nor aviation
support command majority support with
around a third and a quarter respectively
• Bristol residents stand out as having the
highest disagreement with road building and
aviation support
• London residents have the highest
agreement and lowest disagreement with
bailing out the aviation industry
• Support with the idea that the economic
recovery should be used to boost
environmental causes is almost 60% overall.
Bristol once again stands out as having
stronger attitudes on this issue
8.4 Attitudes to priorities for the economic recovery

66. The highest priority for unlocking is schools and childcare facilities,
followed by hospitality and non-food shopping
8.5 Priorities for unlocking