The question is worded in such a way as to guaging relative popularity of the three possible developments suggested. (Here I assume that the wording of the question has not been changed.) The results are in no way an indication as to whether people prefer things to change, so the inclusion of that fourth option is irrelevant.
Its interesting that you have come to that conclusion. Clearly I didn't.
I have just revisited the survey, and will also assume that the wording has not been changed. Doing so reminded me that I was already frustrated by the third question: "
Which of the following best describes your use for the Railway Service?" whose 3 permitted responses were already so constrained to exclude my accurate response!
But on to the crucial Q.4:
"
This section is aimed to find out what you, as a potential passenger of the railway service would most like to see in the future.
Please read the following three scenarios carefully and choose which you would be most interested in. "
We've established that the OP has not provided the "none of the above" possible response.
It is not an option.
And I detest all three proposals.
So what do we lack in order to provide meaningful responses?
The easy answer is: none of the above.
The more sophisticated, but easliy analysed answer comes from 2 questions or from further options: I'd suggest firstly an indicator of the respondent's wish for change / or not; then either, the 3 abitrary pre-concieved suggestions with a 'none of the above' option, or, perhaps more usefully, probing to determine which elements of the offerings the repondent was more or less amenable to changing without impacting negatively on their demand for the service.
As it stands, there is no reponse I can give which indicates that all 3 proposals would reduce my own demand for rail travel, and I am reasonably confident that the OP would want to quantify that loss of revenue if the results were to be of any value in determining future rail travel facilities.
