National Academies Press: OpenBook

Understanding How to Motivate Communities to Support and Ride Public Transportation (2008)

Chapter: Chapter 3 - Review of Prior Research and Case Studies

« Previous: Chapter 2 - Research Approach
Page 12
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Review of Prior Research and Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2008. Understanding How to Motivate Communities to Support and Ride Public Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14128.
×
Page 12
Page 13
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Review of Prior Research and Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2008. Understanding How to Motivate Communities to Support and Ride Public Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14128.
×
Page 13
Page 14
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Review of Prior Research and Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2008. Understanding How to Motivate Communities to Support and Ride Public Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14128.
×
Page 14
Page 15
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Review of Prior Research and Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2008. Understanding How to Motivate Communities to Support and Ride Public Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14128.
×
Page 15
Page 16
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Review of Prior Research and Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2008. Understanding How to Motivate Communities to Support and Ride Public Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14128.
×
Page 16
Page 17
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Review of Prior Research and Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2008. Understanding How to Motivate Communities to Support and Ride Public Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14128.
×
Page 17
Page 18
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Review of Prior Research and Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2008. Understanding How to Motivate Communities to Support and Ride Public Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14128.
×
Page 18
Page 19
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Review of Prior Research and Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2008. Understanding How to Motivate Communities to Support and Ride Public Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14128.
×
Page 19
Page 20
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Review of Prior Research and Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2008. Understanding How to Motivate Communities to Support and Ride Public Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14128.
×
Page 20
Page 21
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Review of Prior Research and Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2008. Understanding How to Motivate Communities to Support and Ride Public Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14128.
×
Page 21
Page 22
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Review of Prior Research and Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2008. Understanding How to Motivate Communities to Support and Ride Public Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14128.
×
Page 22
Page 23
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Review of Prior Research and Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2008. Understanding How to Motivate Communities to Support and Ride Public Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14128.
×
Page 23
Page 24
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Review of Prior Research and Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2008. Understanding How to Motivate Communities to Support and Ride Public Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14128.
×
Page 24
Page 25
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Review of Prior Research and Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2008. Understanding How to Motivate Communities to Support and Ride Public Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14128.
×
Page 25
Page 26
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Review of Prior Research and Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2008. Understanding How to Motivate Communities to Support and Ride Public Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14128.
×
Page 26
Page 27
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Review of Prior Research and Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2008. Understanding How to Motivate Communities to Support and Ride Public Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14128.
×
Page 27
Page 28
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Review of Prior Research and Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2008. Understanding How to Motivate Communities to Support and Ride Public Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14128.
×
Page 28
Page 29
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Review of Prior Research and Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2008. Understanding How to Motivate Communities to Support and Ride Public Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14128.
×
Page 29
Page 30
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Review of Prior Research and Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2008. Understanding How to Motivate Communities to Support and Ride Public Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14128.
×
Page 30
Page 31
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Review of Prior Research and Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2008. Understanding How to Motivate Communities to Support and Ride Public Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14128.
×
Page 31
Page 32
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Review of Prior Research and Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2008. Understanding How to Motivate Communities to Support and Ride Public Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14128.
×
Page 32

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

12 3.1 Perceptions of Public Transportation The scope of activities that can be seen as hypothetically supporting public transit is wide. These activities touch civic, commercial, social, and individual arenas; they may include • Civic – Voting in favor of additional funding for transit, and encouraging officials to do so; – Voting for politicians who support transit; – Attending public meetings about transit; – Publicly advocating for transit in conjunction with non- profit organizations that support transportation alter- natives or other related issues such as environmental initiatives; – Contributing vehicles, materials, or money to a public transit service; – Writing letters to newspapers in support of transit pro- grams and funding strategies; – Providing testimony to agencies in support of legisla- tion. • Commercial – Purchasing advertising in transit systems; – Instituting rideshare and transit programs for employ- ees; – Supporting and adhering to local/regional requirements imposed on major employers. • Social – Speaking positively about transit with friends, neigh- bors, and co-workers; – Boosting transit-friendly designs and policies to others who are skeptical; – Encouraging others to use transit. • Individual – Being more tolerant of inconveniences due to transit- related construction; – Increasing personal ridership by finding new ways to use transit or using it more frequently in ways that are not new. As these examples indicate, activities in support of public transportation extend well beyond transit ridership. In fact, individuals who support transit may not necessarily be tran- sit customers themselves. This section focuses on perceptions of public transporta- tion and is organized around the following questions: • Who are the transit industry’s stakeholders? • What is the current range of perceptions of public trans- portation by various stakeholders? • What are the factors that determine the perception of pub- lic transportation? 3.2 Transit Industry Stakeholders Stakeholders include the individuals and institutions that may be affected by a transportation program or project— whether that means a service modification, capital project, or funding referendum. In many instances—such as rerouting a service, or in limiting coverage for the sake of efficiency— riders may not always believe there is a benefit to the change. Just as actions in support of transit go well beyond riding the bus, potential transit stakeholders include riders and non- riders and supporters and opponents. Depending on the program specifics, public transportation stakeholders may include any or all of the following (2-4): • Current riders—Regular commuters and occasional riders may both benefit from a proposed program. • Potential riders—Proposed actions may attract new riders to transit. • Automobile commuters—Drivers and their passengers may benefit from reduced highway congestion when others use transit. C H A P T E R 3 Review of Prior Research and Case Studies

• Business community—Specific segments of the business community will realize different costs and benefits. For example, developers might not have the same concerns as retailers or manufacturers. • Community-based, grassroots, and advocacy organizations—Transit strategies may support the mobil- ity needs of their core constituencies. • Environmental organizations—Although they typically support transit initiatives, they may oppose multi-modal proposals that include highway expansion in addition to transit. • Elected officials—The local political landscape will deter- mine the players and their positions. • Transportation planners and managers—Local, regional, state, or federal professionals with jurisdiction over specific projects will be involved. • Transit employees and unions—Usually traditional tran- sit supporters, some may see rail proposals as a threat to bus-related jobs. • Conservative and/or anti-tax organizations—These groups tend to oppose public expenditures for new services. • Adjacent property owners and/or renters—They may benefit from increased access to their location or experience construction-related effects. • Transportation interest groups—Interests will depend on their particular organizational focus (e.g., transit, bicycle, pedestrian, or highway). The list of potential transit stakeholders is long and inclusive; specifics will vary by location. Identifying the relevant stake- holders for a specific project or referendum and understanding their attitudes and motivations will help transit operators bet- ter target their research, marketing, and public information campaigns. 3.3 Attitudes Toward Public Transportation Although the range of stakeholders is broad, much of the existing body of research on perceptions and attitudes toward public transportation is based on interviews with the general public, with some research targeted to specific demographic groups believed to be important transit markets, such as sen- iors and teenagers. Major findings from representative studies are summarized below. 3.3.1 Overview Transit is not high on the list of concerns for the general public. In 1998, APTA (5) conducted a study of attitudes toward public transportation. The survey of 1,500 adults found the following: • Most Americans (84%) equate public transportation with buses. The next most common images of transit were light- rail/trains (27%) and taxis (27%). • Two out of three respondents (64%) said transit was avail- able in their communities. Among the two-thirds with transit in their communities (N = 956), the study observed the following: • On average, respondents rated transit 6.5 on a 10-point scale (where “1” equaled “poor” and “10” equaled “excellent”). The two attributes that contributed most to the rating were “reliability/operating on schedule” and “convenience.” • Just over half of Americans (54%) perceived transit quality as either a major or minor issue–ranking behind the other eight issues included in the research. Only 21% considered the quality of public transportation a major community issue, well behind public school quality (40%); crime (39%); condition of roads, highways, and bridges (39%); and traf- fic congestion (37%). Respondents ranked transit quality on par with availability of community health services (22%), air pollution (22%), and parking availability (18%). • One third (33%) used transit in the past year, including about 15% who used transit within the past month. • Respondents generally believed that transit riders fell into a few broad categories—seniors (37%), people without cars (29%), students (28%), and commuters (25%). Concurrent with this is TCRP Report 63 (1), which docu- mented the strength of support for transit, especially in comparison with other industries: • Transportation was not a major concern for most Americans or Canadians. Rated on a scale of 1 through 10, where 10 was very concerned, transportation issues rated 6.1 among Amer- icans and 5.9 for Canadians. Respondents were more con- cerned about other issues, such as quality of education, healthcare, crime and safety, and pollution. • Attitudes toward transit are tepid, based on a meta-analysis of research studies conducted on various industries. On a 10-point scale, transit garnered a positive average rating of 5.6, in what the analysis defined as the “lower middle” cat- egory, along with industries like lumber (5.6), natural gas (5.5), healthcare (5.1), and coal (5.0). Transit’s ratings were well behind those for charitable associations such as the American Cancer Society (7.8) and the American Red Cross (7.8) and industries such as paper (6.6), steel (6.4), and the electric utility industry (6.4). Several industries also fare worse than transit, among them chemicals, oil and gas, nuclear energy, managed care, and tobacco. For some, this indifference over transit may be somewhat connected to the idea that transit’s existence is not threatened. 13

Anecdotal evidence from a brief transit strike in New York City in December 2005 illustrates this. When the striking employees returned to work, one commuter summed up her feelings succinctly: “I’m so happy. You take things for granted until something like this happens and then you realize how much you need the subway.” (6) TCRP Report 63 (1) also documented how respondents characterized specific elements of transit services. In the United States, individuals considered the following features to be personal benefits of transit: inexpensive (18%), con- venient (17%), good for the environment (12%), and reduces congestion (9%). Negatives included being time-consuming (20%), lack of availability/access (18%), inconvenient sched- ules (16%), and crowded (16%). Results were similar for Canadian respondents. Benefits included being good for the environment (17%), convenient (14%), and quick (11%). Dislikes included being time-consuming (25%), inconven- ient (22%), crowded (17%), and not available (16%). Looking more at the societal perspective, TCRP Report 63 (1) identified a range of societal perceptions about transit that were both positive and negative. Major benefits of transit included the following: • Transit can enhance quality of life by reducing congestion, improving air quality, and providing mobility for seniors, persons with disabilities, and students. • Transit is reliable, efficient, safe, and convenient. • Transit is affordable and provides good value. Negatives identified through the study research included the following: • Public transportation does not generate benefits for the community at large and takes funding away from roadway improvements. • Transit is inconvenient, unreliable, inaccessible, unsafe, and uncomfortable. • Transit is not a prestigious way to travel and focuses on serving the needs of disadvantaged individuals. The California Department of Transportation (7) under- took a study with similar findings. In a telephone survey of more than 3,000 residents, respondents were asked to rate characteristics of transit on a scale of 1 to 7 (where a “7” meant the statement definitely described public transportation). Survey respondents considered transit safe (5.3), inexpensive (5.0), frequent (4.8), clean (4.8), and reliable (4.6). They were less positive about other aspects of service quality and gave lower average ratings to reasonable travel times (4.4), conven- ience (4.0), and flexibility (3.9). Surveyed for a study of Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) initiatives (8), transit non-riders in four rural commu- nities displayed mixed attitudes toward transit. Generally, they appreciated the benefit of transit on the societal level, recog- nizing its benefits for the environment and its role as a safety net for individuals without vehicles or in emergency situa- tions. On a personal level, however, many of them indicated they would avoid using transit if they could. Explanations centered on service (transit was inconvenient), availability of alternatives (they needed their cars for work), and personal preference (transit was uncomfortable or not safe). APTA’s 1998 market research revealed a different mix of attitudes (5). Although most Americans appreciated the value of transit to individuals, they did not perceive its benefits to society as readily. A great majority of respondents considered transit as a “social equalizer,” agreeing with the following statements about transit: • Helps people with disabilities lead independent lives (94% somewhat or strongly agreed); • Ensures that everyone has access to doctors and hospitals (86%); • Allows people to work in any area of their community (80%); • Expands educational opportunities available to students (76%); • Provides a substantial number of job opportunities (76%); • It is more expensive to own and drive a car than to use pub- lic transportation (71%). Americans were less likely to attribute societal benefits to transit, supporting the following statements: • Transit attracts new business and tourism revenues (64% somewhat or strongly agreed); • Greater use would reduce traffic congestion (62%) or im- prove air quality (53%); • Passengers are the only people who benefit from transit (49%). (The survey questions were posed as negatives but were reframed here for easier comprehension.) Consistent with these attitudes, most of the respondents polled for this 1998 survey (70%) believed that people who use transit should bear the costs. Just over half (56%) said that tax- payers should subsidize transit and an equal percentage thought that transit and highway investments should be equal. 3.3.2 Seniors Because many seniors have given up driving by choice or necessity, they are frequently perceived as a key transit market. Research with seniors themselves, however, has shown that they overwhelmingly prefer other modes. In a study for the 14

American Association of Retired Persons (AARP), Coughlin (9) found that seniors aged 75 or older widely preferred driv- ing. Those who were no longer drivers almost universally con- sidered riding with friends or family the next best alternative. Although they recognized that transit offered independence and they appreciated the low fares, they also were concerned about safety and security (especially at night), difficulty access- ing the vehicles, and inconvenient schedules. In a survey of individuals aged 50 or older (10), 86% reported that driving was their usual mode. About 5% used public transit, 1% used taxis, and 1% used senior vans as their usual mode. Other studies have also looked at attitudes toward trans- portation among seniors, confirming that seniors over- whelmingly prefer traveling by automobile, either as driver or passenger. In another AARP study, Straight (11) found that nearly three out of four (73%) seniors (defined as age 75 or older) were currently driving. Among the non-drivers, two out of three (67%) got rides from others, 14% used tran- sit, and 9% used the senior van. In a study conducted for APTA (12), three out of four seniors (74%) said they never used transit in their own community. Among those with locally available transit services, more than half (55%) never used transit. Coughlin (9) documented mixed attitudes toward transit among seniors. They recognized the independence that tran- sit afforded them and appreciated its affordability (one focus group participant noted that she paid 15 cents to ride transit). At the same time, individuals expressed their concerns about personal safety and security, including anxiety about encoun- ters with teenagers (sometimes described as “menacing youth”). They also acknowledged frustration with inconven- ient schedules and long waits, especially in bad weather. In the APTA research mentioned above (12), the top three factors that would encourage seniors to use transit more focused on convenience, comfort, and service availability. 3.3.3 Teenagers Teenagers, particularly those not old enough to drive, are also considered a potential transit market. In a study for the state of Florida, researchers conducted a series of focus groups with teenagers and their parents (13). The researchers identified five issues that influenced teenagers’ mode choice decisions: • Safety—Safety was a major issue for teens and their par- ents. Respondents expressed concern about their personal safety while using transit, especially after dark, but parents and some teens also had concerns about driving safety. • Cost—Teens and their parents perceived transit as a more affordable alternative to driving. • Availability/Convenience—Teenagers who had access to vehicles (as drivers or passengers) generally considered them more convenient than transit. However, some teenagers do not have driver’s licenses, and others considered parking availability an obstacle. • Reliability—Teenagers generally considered transit unre- liable because of traffic delays and the potential for bus accidents and/or breakdowns. Traffic congestion affected driving, as well, but participants could schedule their automobile travel to avoid congestion. • Image—Transit was generally not considered “cool,” although rail had a better image than buses. Some respondents expressed extremely negative attitudes toward transit—and toward buses in particular—saying they were for poor people, they traveled in bad neighborhoods, and they were unsafe, unreliable, and dirty. Respondents expressed concern about being kidnapped or raped while waiting for the bus. Rail did not incur the same negative attitudes. Yet, based on these focus groups, the researchers identified some areas where parents and the teens themselves believed transit had a competitive advantage over driving, particularly independence, safety, and cost. (See Table 5, which summa- rizes the transit benefits that each of these groups perceive. If emphasized in communications they could conceivably increase ridership and/or support for transit.) 3.3.4 Anti-Transit Sentiment It is clear from the above that there is both indifference to transit (compared with other industries and issues) and recog- nition of negative aspects as well as positive benefits. Both the indifference and the ambivalence can be seen as hurdles to 15 Issue Teens Adults Independent mobility Dependent on parents for transportation Transporting children is time- consuming Safety Concerned about the responsibility of driving Concerned about child driving unsupervised or traveling with other teenage drivers Cost High cost of car travel High cost of car travel Source: Cain, A., Hamer P., and Sibley-Perone, J., Teenage Attitudes and Perceptions Regarding Transit Use. Table 5. Benefits of transit for teenagers and their parents.

provoking more support for public transit. Concentrating more clearly on the anti-transit attitudes (14), many of these beliefs stem from anti-tax philosophies or lack of information about transit’s benefit to them. Anti-transit arguments gener- ally focus on transit’s market share, construction costs, and economic benefits (or presumed lack thereof). Typical argu- ments include the following: • Only 2% of all trips are made on light rail. • Transit funding would be better spent on expanding high- way capacity. • Transit ridership has decreased. • Americans love their cars. • Transit agencies should be privatized and compete in the free market. • Bus is cheaper than light rail. • Transit is highly subsidized. • Most new jobs are in the suburbs, but rail transit can only serve urban cores. • Transit brings crime into a community. The facts about transit do not support these arguments. For example, Table 6 summarizes arguments frequently used to oppose investment in light rail and the facts that refute them. 3.4 Personal Values What accounts for these perceptions (or, in some case, mis- perceptions) of public transportation? In some cases, research has identified underlying values that influence attitudes toward transit. Many of these values are inextricably linked with atti- tudes toward driving and the private automobile. Others relate to perceptions of safety, class, and status. Some research has looked at particular market segments in some detail— particularly seniors and teenagers—in order to identify the values that guide their transportation attitudes and choices. 3.4.1 Characteristics of Transit Linked to Values Understanding the values that underlie (and indeed help form) these attitudes and perceptions is essential to develop- ing support for transit. TCRP Report 63 (1) identified four key values that resonated for riders and non-riders alike: • Providing opportunities for people from every walk of life; • Having lots of choices and options available; • Easy access to things you need in everyday life; and • Having mobility and freedom to do what you most want to do. The research also identified four secondary values that focused on the service-related benefits of public transporta- tion. Although these values may sound similar to the attitudes discussed in the last section, they are different in their power to motivate other attitudes and behavior. These included making transportation systems safer, reducing road conges- tion, less pollution, and economic vitality. (The last message was only meaningful to people who took publicly active roles in their communities.) In Portland, Oregon, the Tri-County Metropolitan Trans- portation District of Oregon (TriMet) (15) conducted the Voice of the Customer (VOC) research program to identify the products and messages that would attract and retain riders. Part of the research focused on the customer decision- making process and identified the key motivators for using TriMet. The study determined that transit was no different from other consumer products—individuals used the same decision process for riding transit as they used for any other product. Based on this customer research, TriMet defined a hierar- chy of motivators for trying and using transit. First, were three “primary motivators:” • Convenience—Included ease of access and ease of use; • Value—Focused on cost savings through employer sub- sidy programs and reduced driving costs; and • Necessity—Motivation for those who did not drive or chose not to for safety or other reasons. Next, several “supporting motivators” were identified. These were not motivating factors alone, but helped support the decision to use transit (or to increase usage). They included concerns about the environment, safety (the ability to avoid driving on dangerous roads), and clean transit facilities. Finally, TriMet identified a series of “ongoing motivators.” Again, these alone would not convince individuals to use transit, but they worked in combination with the primary and supporting motivators. They included • Performance/reliability—Issues of transit service, sched- ules, and vehicles. • Comfort—Concerns included overcrowded rail vehicles and buses without air conditioning. • Feeling secure—Included concerns about personal safety on transit vehicles as well as ability to avoid traffic accidents. Using this information, TriMet conducted a more detailed qualitative assessment that defined three communication themes that resonated with customers: • Value—Passengers saved time and money and could more easily reconnect with others in their community. • Adventure—Children and adults enjoyed seeing and doing new things. 16

17 Myth Response Examples Light rail has been a failure everywhere. Ridership has generally exceeded projections for new light rail lines. Salt Lake City’s TRAX projected weekday ridership of 14,000, but the first four months averaged over 19,000. Transit is a declining industry. Total transit ridership has increased every year since 1996. Seven of ten cities adding Light Rail saw increased ridership over time; in Sacramento, ridership increased 75.8%; the smallest increase was in Dallas (14.5%). Commuting by rail is slower than commuting by car or express bus. In urban areas, train travel is faster than driving through congested areas during rush hour. Virginia Railway Express users on the Manassas and Fredericksburg lines reported their trips were shorter with rail than with car. For the Manassas line, 44% reported trips of less than an hour with the train, vs. 36% before using the train. On the Fredericksburg line, 25% reported trips of less than an hour using train, compared to 18% beforehand. Transit does not relieve congestion. High-quality transit, especially rail, has been shown to reduce congestion. St. Louis’s MetroLink Light Rail removes an estimated 12,500 cars from rush hour traffic, and has been lauded by the Chief of Police for its positive impact on traffic patterns. Where transit is needed, buses are better than rail. Bus and rail may serve different markets, have different purposes, and are not interchangeable. Profiles of bus and rail riders are very different, and where bus provides mobility for many without cars, rail users typically can drive if they choose. In St. Louis, 79% of rail users were not transit users prior to rail’s introduction. Most new jobs are in the suburbs, but rail transit can only serve urban cores. Rail can be designed to serve suburban locations, especially in combination with local distributor services like shuttles. Tri-Met (Portland, Oregon) extended its rail service west to a growing area, with Westside MAX. It quickly exceeded its projected ridership figures, demonstrating how transit can serve even outlying areas. Rail transit does not spur economic development. Rail investment has been shown to bring increased investment, higher property values, higher rents, and more customers. Office rents increased near Metrorail stations in Washington, D.C. The Metrorail system has led to more jobs, more office space, and more revenue for Virginia. Transit brings crime into a community. Serious crime on rail transit systems is rare. While some evidence has suggested that property crimes have increased around new rail systems, security features can be built into the system from the start. Most crime on transit systems is fare evasion, which does not threaten riders or communities. (93% of all crimes are property crimes, and 81% of them are fare evasions.) Riders on San Diego’s trolley system rate safety and security highly, and given their urban context the scores are very positive. As for bringing crime to a community, no comprehensive studies have been done to support or erode this perception. Table 6. Perceptions and reality about light-rail investment. (continued on next page)

• Less stress—Respondents felt relaxed when they arrived at work or home, they did not have to find a parking space, and they avoided road rage. These themes integrated both the rational and emotional aspects of transit ridership and were incorporated into TriMet’s marketing materials. 3.4.2 Comparisons with Driving Some of the negative impressions of transit—such as inconvenience—appear to result from direct comparisons with driving. TCRP Report 82 (16, p.87) confirmed this in a study of transportation alternatives for seniors: At least for those seniors participating in the focus groups, the strengths of automobile travel are often directly juxtaposed against the weaknesses of public transit—at least, as those tran- sit services are most frequently offered at the present time. On all the travel attributes that seniors reported as most highly valued—reliability, proximity, flexibility, and comfort— automobiles were rated very highly and transit modes were rated poorly. A study of drivers in Vancouver, B.C., showed similar results (17). Respondents indicated their level of agreement with a series of statements on a 10-point scale; a score of 1 indicated disagree completely and 10 indicated agree com- pletely. Strong agreement indicated scores of 8-10, and disagreement showed scores of 1-4. • Most drivers agreed that everyone would save time with fewer single-occupant vehicles on the road (71% strongly agreed). Perhaps consistent with that perception, drivers did not think transit would help them save time, indicat- ing that they were more likely to arrive on time if they drove (58%) and that transit was too time-consuming (56%). They were less concerned about the value of their time—one in three (31%) strongly agreed that transit gave them time to read or relax and only 25% said that they wasted time sitting in rush hour traffic. • Drivers acknowledged the value of control over their schedules and activities. They strongly agreed that there would be things they could not do without driving (71%) and just under half (48%) did not want to be locked into a bus schedule. Drivers also enjoyed the privacy of driving (56%) and only 12% were interested in seeing the same people on the bus every day. The drivers surveyed also revealed some negative attitudes toward driving. About 47% agreed that driving in rush hour 18 Myth Response Examples Most light rail riders are former bus riders. Many light rail passengers are “discretionary” or “choice” riders who previously would have driven their cars. Los Angeles’s Blue Line is atypical, since it serves an area where people are heavily dependent on transit. In St. Louis, 85% of light rail riders were not former bus riders. One San Diego corridor saw weekday ridership increase from 3,000 on buses to 18,000 on Light Rail. Free market competition and privately operated transit are better for the economy. Both transit and highways are heavily subsidized and there is no practical way to level the playing field. Annual highway subsidies range from $439 billion to $1 trillion, far more than estimates of transit subsidies ($17.1 billion). On average, most of the seats on a bus or train are empty. Transit systems are designed to handle peak-period volumes, when vehicles are full. The percentage of seats filled on buses (24%) and commuter rail (28%) are comparable to private automobiles (22% if you assume 5 seats, 27% if you assume 4 seats). With rail, usage is over 40%. It would be cheaper to buy or lease a new car for every rider than to build a new light rail system. The cost of outfitting every transit rider with a new car would come close to half the annual federal deficit. Moreover, giving every transit rider a car would increase congestion and create demand for additional highway investment. While critics claim it would be less expensive to buy every rider a new BMW, this is an exaggeration. Doing that in St. Louis would have cost $1.1 billion, more than twice what it cost to build the St. Louis rail system. Source: Weyrich, P.M. and Lind, W.S., Twelve Anti-Transit Myths: A Conservative Critique. Table 6. (Continued).

was stressful, and only 19% said that they loved driving and loved their car. A study of transit riders and non-riders in Florida docu- mented similar attitudes toward transit in relation to driving (18). Generally, non-riders indicated that convenience and accessibility were barriers to transit use. They preferred to drive because of comfort in their own vehicles—they could lock the doors, decide who accompanied them, and choose their own routes or schedules. 3.4.3 Safety and Security Many individuals held strong opinions about their per- sonal safety and security while using transit. In the study cited above (18), transit riders in Florida expressed very specific concerns about their personal safety when using the bus. For example, they expressed agreement (agree and strongly agree) with the following statements: I worry about my safety when . . . • Walking to the bus stop (31%); • Waiting at the bus stop (24%); • Riding the bus (25%); • After getting off the bus (26%). I worry about my safety when a group of “loud, unruly” people . . . • Come to the bus stop (42%); • Get on the bus (43%). There are times when “unpleasant people” . . . • Come to the bus stop (46%); • Ride the bus (47%). I worry for my safety because of . . . • Crime around the bus stop (34%); • Terrorism (21%). 3.4.4 Status and Choice Also in Florida, about half of riders and three-fourths of non-riders surveyed agreed that most people use the bus because they have no choice (18). Most non-riders (78%) felt sorry for bus riders. Focus group participants generally con- sidered the bus to be a last resort and believed that people rode the bus only if they did not have access to a car. They characterized bus riders as poor or low income. A few focus group participants indicated that they would be embarrassed to ride the bus, but this was not a widely expressed opinion. Similarly, individuals surveyed by the California Department of Transportation (7) believed that transit riders were not like them and rated the statement “People who are like me use [transit]” 3.8 on a scale of 1 to 7 (where a “7” meant the state- ment definitely described public transportation). Drivers surveyed in Vancouver revealed complex attitudes toward status and cost issues (17). About equal numbers strongly agreed that their vehicle was a statement of status or lifestyle (37%) and that they were concerned about the high cost of owning and operating an automobile (39%). 3.4.5 Environmental Concerns Numerous market research studies have identified other values that influence attitudes toward transit. On the positive side, people who are concerned about the environment tend to see the benefits of transit. Drivers surveyed in Vancouver, B.C., also saw a connection between transit and the environ- ment (17). About 57% of drivers were highly concerned about global warming and/or pollution. Most attributed the source to be private vehicles for personal use (44%) or industry, farming, and manufacturing (34%). However, as TCRP Report 63 (1, Part I, p. 10) noted, “the fact that environmental issues are not high on the average citizen’s list of most impor- tant national problems means that public transportation, as a solution for cleaner air, is not in high demand.” 3.4.6 Summary Some values were cited frequently, crossing the lines between riders and non-riders, different demographic groups, and different geographic areas. These included values associ- ated with personal mobility, value, safety, stress, and social consciousness. Table 7 lists commonly identified values, along with their implications for transit. 3.5 Market Segmentation Market segmentation is a powerful tool for understanding how different members of the public approach transit. TCRP Report 36 (19) identified some commonly used ways to seg- ment survey data to better understand potential target cus- tomers, including the following: • Attitudinal – Psychographics—Consumer characteristics that may affect attitudes toward transit, such as lifestyle and per- sonality traits; – Benefits or needs—Based frequently on what the seg- ments believe is important in transit or getting to their destinations, but perhaps also on how transit is viewed for what it delivers, such as comfort and convenience; 19

• People Profiles – Behavior—Typically ridership frequency or usage, but it can also include behaviors such as participation in the “public square;” – Physical attributes—Demographic and socioeconomic characteristics, such as age, population density, and home ownership. Several different approaches to market segmentation are presented below. 3.5.1 Attitude-Based Segmentation Several studies have used attitudes or psychographic char- acteristics to segment transit riders and non-riders. Examples from APTA, TCRP Report 63, and TriMet are highlighted below. In its 1998 APTA study cited earlier, Fleishman-Hillard (5) identified five groups of consumers based on various attitudes toward public transportation. Three groups included transit supporters, one group opposed transit, and one group was undecided. Support for transit was measured by attitudes about the benefits of transit (for individuals and/or society), opinions about taxpayer support for transit, and perceptions of transit riders (e.g., people who do not own cars). Individuals were also categorized by their own level of transit ridership. (See Table 8.) As this typology makes clear, about two-thirds (66%) of Americans support transit, regardless of whether they them- selves ride public transportation. In fact, the largest segment of supporters—socially conscious non-users—consisted of non-riders by definition. Also of interest are the differences between the two user groups. Socially conscious respondents disagreed with the premise that people without cars are the primary users of transit; in fact, members of this group owned cars and still used transit. In contrast, the individual beneficiaries saw themselves in that statement; members of this group were the most likely to have one or fewer working vehicles in their household. As part of an effort to enhance transit’s visibility and image, TCRP Report 63 (1) grouped the public according to their overall attitude toward transit, using their rating on a 10- point scale to differentiate among them. Three groups were isolated: transit supporters (36%, rating 8-10 on the 10-point scale), swing (33%, rating 5-7), and non-supporters (31%, rating 1-4). Swing supporters were identified as a primary tar- get, given their potential for attitude change—that is, they were neither supporters nor non-supporters. By examining their levels of familiarity with and use of transit, it was deter- mined that “new information and new linkages to personal values will be required to improve the perception and sup- port for public transportation among these members of the 20 Category Transit Positive Transit Negative Safety Safer than driving Concern about personal safety at stations, bus stops, and vehicles Economic Value Cheaper than driving Uncomfortable/Crowded Emotions Less stress than driving No control over travel decisions Transit is an adventure Less status Participate in community life Mobility Provides independence to non- drivers (self or others) Inconvenient/Time-consuming Social issues Supports environmental goals Table 7. Summary of values associated with public transportation. Socially conscious, do not ride Socially conscious, and ride Individual beneficiaries (and ride) Nay- sayers (and do not ride) Fence sitters (and do not ride) Percent 26% 19% 21% 16% 18% Ride transit No Yes Yes No No Transit benefits individuals Yes Yes Yes No Maybe Transit benefits society Yes Yes No No Maybe Taxpayers should support transit Yes Yes Yes No No People without cars ride transit Yes No Yes Yes Yes Source: Fleishman-Hillard Research, Market Research on National Current Public Attitudes Toward Public Transportation. Table 8. Attitude-based market segments.

non-supporter and swing groups” (1, p.14). Without first breaking the public into groups based on support, this learn- ing might have been missed. Notably, there are differences in the proportion of the pub- lic who support transit as registered in Report 63 (36%) versus the 66% indicated in the 1998 APTA research by Fleishman- Hillard (5). Report 63 split people on a single dimension, as opposed to the multiple dimensions used in the 1998 APTA research. TriMet used a similar psychographic approach to better understand how to target services and marketing to residents of its service district (20). Based on a telephone survey of 2,600 residents, respondents were clustered into five groups based on their attitudes toward transportation benefits: • Transit is a lifestyle choice (35%)—Strong bus and TriMet supporters. They consider riding the bus convenient, a great idea, and economical and recognize a link between transit and quality of life. About 58% already ride TriMet. • I use transit when it makes sense (16%)—Occasional rid- ers with other transportation alternatives. Just over half (52%) ride TriMet at least twice a month. Respondents were generally positive about transit, but did not offer compelling reasons to ride more often. • Riding the bus saves money for my family (10%)— Occasional riders who consider transit a way to get around. Just under half (47%) ride TriMet at least twice a month. They showed less concern than average about environmental or social benefits of transit. • I’m not comfortable riding the bus (26%)—Mostly females who expressed concerns about personal safety. They were not comfortable with people they do not know nor did they like crowded vehicles with no available seats. They recognized the societal and environmental benefits of transit. • There’s no way I’m getting on a bus (13%)—Prefer driv- ing to transit in all circumstances and think that conditions in Portland are on the wrong track. When they ride transit (24% rode twice or more in the previous month) they prefer light-rail. They characterized the bus as slow, time- consuming, and inconvenient. Only 13% strongly opposed transit—especially the bus— and others showed support to varying degrees. All groups included riders and non-riders, although level of ridership showed some correlation with attitude. 3.5.2 Behavior-Based Segmentation Some transit organizations have used market segmentation to help target key subgroups among their existing riders. Although such approaches are not designed for assessing attitudes among the general public, these approaches can still help transit operators expand support among their rid- ership base. Customer Loyalty Recent research has explored the use of market segmenta- tion strategies based on measures of customer loyalty. For example, using data from the Australian passenger rail net- work, Cousin and Barrett (21) identified four market segments based on attitude and transit dependence. Committed transit riders generally had a positive attitude toward transit and had no other travel options; loyal riders also had positive attitudes, but had other alternatives. Customers who displayed negative attitudes toward transit were catego- rized as undependable (if transit dependent) or at risk (if they had alternatives). (See Table 9.) Similarly, Foote, Stuart, and Elmore-Yalch (22) looked at riders on the Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) bus and rail system. Customers were segmented based on their responses to three questions on a customer satisfaction survey: • How satisfied are you overall with CTA (bus/rail) service? • How likely are you to continue riding CTA (bus/rail) service? • How willing are you to recommend CTA (bus/rail) service to a friend, family, or co-worker? Based on their answers (using a scale of 1-5), customers were grouped into four segments: Very loyal or secure, Loyal, Vul- nerable to being lost, and Highly vulnerable to being lost. Public Visibility TCRP Report 63 (1) used an overall attitude toward tran- sit to define three groups of people, but also isolated a behav- ioral group that cut across all three groups of supporters, 21 No other travel options Other options available Positive attitude toward transit Committed Loyal Negative attitude toward transit Undependable At risk Source: Cousin, M-A and Barrett, S., “Using Customer Understanding to Drive Marketing Strategies in Public Transport” Table 9. Transit customer typology based on loyalty.

swing supporters, and non-supporters. Called Influentials, they made up about 22% of the population. These individu- als can be considered opinion leaders and have participated in at least four of the following activities: • Regularly read the editorial page; • Write or telephone radio or television stations to express their opinions; • Actively participate in a local issue; • Write to the editor of a magazine or newspaper; • Work for a political party or candidate; • Speak at a public meeting; • Have written or visited public officials about some matter of public business; • Write or say something that has been published. Since 2002, APTA has conducted a series of follow-up studies designed to track changing attitudes toward transit over time (23). The most recent study, conducted in Spring 2005, polled Influentials living across the nation and an addi- tional group living in Washington, DC. These tracking sur- veys revealed the following: • The overall level of favorable opinion toward public trans- portation increased between 2002 and 2004 and has held steady since. Within Washington, DC, favorable opinion has declined since the 2002 benchmark. • Although Americans continue to rank driving their own car more favorably than transit, positive attitudes toward driving have decreased since 2004 and favorability toward most types of transit has increased. Attitudes toward rail have stabilized at 2002 levels. • For the first time since tracking began in 2002, a slim ma- jority of Americans (51%) strongly support the allocation of tax dollars toward the expansion and improvement of public transportation services in their community; overall, 78% expressed some level of support for such investments. • In the District of Columbia, support for the allocation of tax dollars for transit, while still strong, has eroded some- what since 2002. In 2005, 58% of residents strongly sup- ported such investment, down from 63% in 2002. • The level of awareness of specific benefits centering on freedom and mobility, access, opportunity, community, economy and choice, and traffic congestion reduction increased among Influentials in Washington, DC., but decreased nationwide. The support for public funding of transit was substantially higher in this survey than in the earlier 1998 APTA survey. Much of this seeming disparity is the result of using different methods to split the general public into groups. Report 63 (1) used a single rating variable to define its groups; the 1998 research conducted by Fleishman-Hillard (5) used various attitudes as well as ridership. Situational Parsons and Stewart (24) tested an alternative approach to market segmentation, based on travel circumstances. They divided customers by trip type—regular or irregular. Key to this analysis is the recognition that customers can belong to both market segments, sometimes within the same trip. For example, an individual commuter may make a regular daily trip between home and work. On occasion, however, that commuter might make a stop along the way on the trip home to pick up groceries or dry cleaning. This errand (an example of trip chaining) would be considered an irregular trip in this typology. Market segments can be further subdivided by other characteristics, including trip type (e.g., work versus shopping) or demographic factors. The researchers used this typology to test the effectiveness of various marketing mes- sages in support of transit. 3.6 Current Practices in the Transit Industry As the previous section has shown, the transit industry faces some unique marketing challenges. Accordingly, public transportation agencies have used a wide range of strategies to enhance their public image, to build community support, and to encourage increased ridership. In this section, the challenges of marketing transit are summarized and success- ful strategies are documented. 3.6.1 Challenges of Transit Marketing Transit agencies face unique challenges in promoting their services and, by extension, themselves. TCRP Report 50: A Handbook of Proven Marketing Strategies for Public Transit (25) cites some of the challenges unique to transit marketing: • Subtle (or “invisible”) benefits that are often long-term: increased transit use leads to less pollution and congestion. • Beneficiaries include societal (and sometimes abstract) entities: these include long-term benefits like cleaner air, lower healthcare costs, and reduced congestion. • Multiple audiences with potentially conflicting agendas: the long list of stakeholders can include riders, politicians, officials, advocacy groups, and private-sector interests. • Limited opportunities for modifying services: routes and schedules may not be able to meet travel needs. • Marketing the same services to various groups: for exam- ple, seniors, students, and commuters may have different travel needs and may hold different values. 22

Despite these challenges, the report (25, p. 1) highlights the importance of applying standard marketing theory and prin- ciples to transit: The transit industry has realized that it is not unlike any other industry or business sector when it comes to customer relations. Some of the most successful public transit systems have adopted an approach to marketing of services that does not differ from any privately owned or operated service. Some transit organizations have successfully applied these principles, as summarized in the following sections. 3.6.2 National Marketing Campaigns Two national marketing campaigns have been launched to improve the image of transit: Public Transportation Partner- ship for Tomorrow (PT)2 and Visibility, Image, and Posi- tioning (VIP). Both campaigns emerged from the findings and recommendations of TCRP Report 63. In 2000, a coalition of transportation providers, government agencies, corporations, and other interested organizations formed (PT)2 to launch a national outreach campaign (26). Public Transportation: Wherever Life Takes You was designed to educate the public about the benefits of transit in order to develop broad-based support for increased investment in pub- lic transportation and pro-transit policies. According to APTA: The campaign will emphasize the American values that char- acterize the personal benefits of public transportation: opportu- nity, choice, access and freedom. These elements enable people to accomplish what is important to them, making communities stronger and more vibrant for riders and non-riders alike. The (PT)2 campaign has four major goals: • To increase federal funding for public transportation; • To broaden support at the regional, state, and local levels; • To improve perceptions about the value and benefits of public transportation; and • To increase appreciation for public transportation’s con- tributions to local communities. In 2002, the Canadian transit industry launched the VIP campaign, which was designed to increase awareness and build support for public transit in Canada. Like the (PT)2 campaign, VIP was based on the research conducted for TCRP Report 63 with a message organized around the per- sonal values of access, mobility, and freedom (27). Campaign activities have focused on building support for public transportation among riders and non-riders, particu- larly those who are considered activists and opinion leaders. Both campaigns have worked to disseminate a single national message through print and electronic media. In support of this message, APTA and VIP have made marketing materials available to local transit operators to customize for use within their own communities. In addition, (PT)2 focused many of its recent activities to support reauthorization of the national surface transportation program, SAFETEA-LU (Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users). 3.6.3 Local Initiatives In addition to these national marketing campaigns, indi- vidual transit agencies have implemented local programs to garner political support or increase ridership. In Portland, Oregon, TriMet (15) determined that its cus- tomers make decisions about transit use the same way they approach other consumer decisions. The five-step process, defined in the marketing literature, consists of the following: • Problem recognition—The buyer defines a need, which may include traffic stress, high costs of driving, or envi- ronmental concerns. • Information search—The buyer seeks information pas- sively (pays attention to existing transit advertising) and actively (gathers schedule and route information). • Evaluation of alternatives—Consumer develops beliefs about the various alternatives that influence the decision to purchase (or use) the product. For example, different con- sumers might consider light rail to be easy to use or, alterna- tively, convenient only for people who live within walking distance. • Purchase decision–Trial—The customer forms preferences among alternative products (e.g., bus, rail, and automobile) based on factors such as timing, risk, and convenience. For example, many respondents tried transit during a free week- end promotion for a new rail line. • Post Purchase Behavior–Adoption—Various motivating factors determine whether a consumer will become a reg- ular user after the trial. Using this information, TriMet identified a series of mes- sages that resonated with its customers and developed a highly targeted marketing program that incorporated these messages. The campaign targeted infrequent riders, aged 35–54, who had transportation choices and household in- come of $50,000 a year. A series of radio advertisements was developed using different musical themes (e.g., Broadway, jazz, mariachi, and country western) to promote off-peak events accessible by transit. The radio spots used the tagline How We Get There Matters. In another illustration of a marketing campaign, Partners for Smart Commuting (28), a coalition of government agen- cies in Washington, Oregon, Montana, Idaho, and Nevada, 23

developed the move it! Youth Project. The goal of the cam- paign was to create long-term attitudinal and behavioral change in middle school students regarding travel choices before they reached driving age. Designed as a grassroots community-based effort, the King County move it! Youth Project engaged students in discussing transportation issues. Brainstorming focused on three questions: • Why can’t we get there from here? • What is our transportation dream world? • What is our shared vision for eco-friendly transportation in our community? The program led to an outreach campaign designed to present alternative transportation information to fellow stu- dents by hosting tables at special events. Some 2,000 people visited the information table over the course of the program, and students were asked to make presentations to local gov- ernmental bodies and were interviewed on local television programs. Students distributed more than 3,000 promotional items; 1,200 booklets; and the move it! website received more than 500 hits. By tapping into shared visions for transit, the program identified key values that resonated with its target audience. Similarly, in Vancouver, B.C., Better Environmentally Sound Transportation (BEST) developed the off ramp pro- gram to encourage secondary school students to choose alter- native transportation modes (29, 30). The off ramp program recruits, trains, and supports student leaders as they develop programs targeted to their peers. Activities have included a “climate change jeopardy” game show, “sustainability joy ride,” “carpool dating game,” and “funky flash passes.” To date the program has reached more than 12,000 secondary school students and teachers. 3.7 Opportunities and Challenges Transit today faces numerous challenges—both external and internal. This section looks at the changing transit mar- ketplace and identifies strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats. 3.7.1 Changing Travel Patterns Total transit ridership has grown in recent years. According to APTA (31), transit ridership increased 2.1 percent in 2004, with the largest increases registered in light rail (8.2%) and paratransit (4.1%). This continued an upward trend, which saw U.S. transit ridership grow by 23% over the previous 10 years. Nevertheless, the transit market is changing and contin- ued growth may require new approaches to addressing travel needs. In a study prepared for APTA, Hemily (32) identified some of the changing land-use and travel patterns that provide challenges and opportunities for public transportation: • Growing sprawl—Migration of jobs and housing to the suburbs, growth of edge cities, and growth of big-box retail. • Growing automobile use—More cars, more single-occupant vehicles, and longer commutes. • Growing congestion in urban cores—Greater delays and worsening air quality. • Changing travel patterns—Increase in non-work trips, nontraditional work schedules, longer commutes, and more trip-chaining. Many transit agencies are finding it increasingly difficult to attract new riders and retain current passengers in the face of these major changes in land use and travel patterns. Services oriented around downtown cores and traditional commuting hours cannot easily serve dispersed origins and destinations and the 24/7 schedules associated with the service economy. In markets like this, transit cannot easily compete with the private automobile. As TCRP Report 63 (1, Part 1, p. 20) said clearly and emphatically, “The automobile is an indispens- able and loved member of the American family.” Reliance on the private vehicle continues to increase. According to Pucher and Renne (33), “The most salient trend in American travel behavior over the past four decades has been increased reliance on the private car for urban travel, with corresponding declines in public transit and walking.” According to the 2001 National Household Travel Survey (NHTS) (34), Americans own more cars and spend more time in them: • On average drivers in 2001 drove 3,000 more miles per year than those in 1995. • Between 1969 and 2001, the number of vehicles increased at an annual rate one-and-a-half times faster than the number of licensed drivers. • In 2001, 23% of households had three or more vehicles, compared with 19% in 1995. • In 2001, 5% of commuters used transit as their typical mode to work; this percentage has not changed since 1983. Perhaps most alarming, according to the NHTS, America now has more cars than licensed drivers. Although the mean number of vehicles per household was 1.9, the average num- ber of licensed drivers per household was 1.75. A recent phenomenon that has affected the balance between transit and automobiles is the rising price of gasoline. In one widely reported study (35), consumers indicated that they would begin to take actions to conserve gasoline when prices reached $2.50 per gallon. At that level, about 8% of con- sumers indicated that they would take public transportation 24

and 15% said they would carpool. At $5.00 per gallon, fully 59% of consumers would try transit and 66% would carpool. In fact, many transit agencies reported an increase in ridership when gas prices rose after Hurricane Katrina hit the Gulf Coast of the United States in August 2005 (36). With the average U.S. gas price peaking at $3.04 per gallon in early Sep- tember 2005, agencies in New York, Texas, Pennsylvania, and California were reporting ridership increases on bus and rail. Consistent with those findings, a national consumer survey conducted on behalf of the Urban Land Institute (37) reflected growing concerns about gas prices. Respondents listed gas prices as one of their top three concerns, following education and crime; findings were consistent across ages, regions, and land-use settings. Moreover, most respondents indicated that rising gas prices had encouraged them to make changes for commuting and other trips. About 35% of respondents bought a more fuel-efficient car, and half said they would switch to transit if service were closer to home or work. Whether these trends will continue after gas prices return to earlier levels is not yet known. Growing interest in smart growth and transit-oriented development (TOD) may help offset the problems associated with sprawl. Both encompass a range of planning and design strategies that encourage compact and mixed-use development and facilitate pedestrian activity and transit use. The Sierra Club (38) has identified exemplary examples of smart growth and TOD. Successful projects incorporated elements designed to encourage sustainability; of particular relevance to the tran- sit industry, these projects offered alternatives to driving, including opportunities for walking, bicycling, and transit use. For example, the Fruitvale Transit Village in Oakland, Califor- nia, converted a parking lot into a mixed-used development oriented around an existing station on the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) rail line. Instead of the large commuter park- ing garages originally planned for the site, the area has new housing, restaurants and offices, community facilities, and a bicycle storage facility. Commuter parking is still available, but it serves the periphery of this pedestrian-oriented locale, rather than dominating the site, as originally planned. 3.7.2 Demographic Shifts The demographic make-up of transit riders is also chang- ing. Much has been written about the aging of America. According to AARP (39), the number of individuals aged 65 and older has increased by 111% between 1960 and 2000, and the number is expected to grow an additional 17% by 2011. In 2000, only 21% of seniors lived in central cities, which typ- ically have the highest level of transit service; 56% lived in the suburbs and 23% lived in rural areas. Moreover, this trend is not confined to a few retirement areas. Contrary to popular belief, most seniors are not retiring to warmer climates but are aging in place. The Surface Transportation Policy Project (40, p.3) reported that 20 years from now seniors will make up at least 20% of the population in most U.S. states. Many will be living in localities with limited transit alternatives: Most older adults in 2025 will have spent their adult life getting around by driving, and in many cases, will have chosen a home in a place where the only transportation mode available is the au- tomobile. People aging in spread-out suburbs will soon be facing the transportation challenges that rural Americans already con- front: friends, stores and family are far away and often connected only by car. Another growing market is the immigrant population. According to the U.S. Census Bureau (41), foreign-born resi- dents made up 12 percent of the U.S. population in 2004, exceeding 34 million. Rosenbloom (42, p.40) identified immi- grants as an important transit market, noting that they “remain more likely to use transit, even after years in the United States and even when their income increases substantially.” Similarly, Heisz and Schellenberg (43, p. 1) examined the use of transit among immigrants to major Canadian cities: The central finding is that the propensity to use public transit to commute to work is far higher among recent immigrants than Canadian-born persons and that this difference remains when gender, age, income, distance to work, and distance from the city centre are taken into account. One implication is that population growth based on immigration, will place greater demands on public transit systems than growth based on natural increase. Ferrell and Deakin (44) reported that recent immigrants to California were more likely to use transit than native-born residents. The acculturation process took about 10 years, after which immigrants switched to driving, but newer arrivals can be expected to follow the same pattern. Referring to new His- panic immigrants, Casas, Arce, and Frye (45) observed that limited access to automobiles, coupled with high rates of labor force participation, made this group particularly dependent on transit. Similar patterns were noted in New York City, where recent immigrants contributed to high tran- sit ridership in certain neighborhoods (46). 3.7.3 Institutional Barriers Transit agencies also face numerous external constraints and internal barriers, which both affect their ability to market themselves and their services. External constraints include funding cuts, increased regulation, additional public over- sight, and political scrutiny. TCRP Special Report 257: Making Transit Work (47, p. 139) summarizes these issues: The decision-making authority of public transit managers in the United States is often highly circumscribed and subject to regu- latory and political influences that impede innovation, add to 25

management and labor inefficiencies, and otherwise complicate efforts to respond to the demands of customers. At the same time, transit agencies are facing challenges from within. This was the clear message of TCRP’s Strategic Road Map (48, p.5): “The real crisis is the traditional mindset held by public transportation operators, participants, and stakeholders.” The report goes on to discuss the difficulty of implementing large-scale change: Changing the paradigm of the industry is a challenge. A para- digm is not a single idea or silver bullet that will instantly change everything and save the industry. A paradigm change is in the assumptions, habits, and beliefs that people within the industry take for granted. Paradigm change in a company or industry needs four ingredients to occur successfully. First is a crisis that increases peoples’ readiness to change. Second is a vision for the future that is an attractive target toward which a company or industry can move. Third is a defined method or action steps to achieve the vision. Fourth is leadership, which seizes the crisis as an opportunity to articulate the vision, define the action steps, and provide necessary support and facilitation to move forward. The California Department of Transportation (7, p. 97) confirms these difficulties, particularly in relation to devel- oping new market-based services: Transit agencies have taken a “one-size-fits-all” approach to operating and marketing transit services. This “generic” approach has weakened the position of transit as a viable travel option to the public. An alternative approach, which includes the develop- ment of policies and priorities favoring the development and operation of market-based services, must be undertaken. This includes operation of services, which are: accessible, frequent, have limited stops, reliable and require limited transferring and wait times. Making some or all of these improvements to existing service may increase transit’s ability to compete with other travel options, including the automobile. Finally, Cronin and Hightower (49, p. 31) recently exam- ined the role of marketing in public transportation organiza- tions. Although transit organizations have come to recognize the importance of marketing, efforts have often fallen short: In a time when increasing the utilization of public transit options is perhaps more important than ever before, we find that there is a huge gap between the marketing knowledge available and its use by public transit organizations. Public transit organizations, as well as more specialized transit agencies, have belatedly recognized the importance of marketing the services they offer. Unfortu- nately, their marketing efforts are understaffed, underfunded, and underemphasized within their own organizations. This combination of external constraints and internal bar- riers to innovation continues to limit the ability of the transit industry to respond to changing conditions. The next section looks outside the industry to identify lessons from the private sector. 3.8 Current Practices in Other Industries This section reviews marketing theory and practice outside the transit industry, examining the relationship among atti- tudes, values, and behavior. Also discussed are the approaches that other industries have used to enhance their image and expand their markets. Finally, successful marketing cam- paigns focusing on changing behavior and selling products are reviewed. 3.8.1 Attitudes, Values, and Behavior Previous sections of this report have discussed consumer attitudes and values associated with public transportation. Many marketing campaigns have attempted to translate these thoughts and beliefs into actions—voting yes or boarding a train—with varying degrees of success. Although researchers have developed numerous theories to explain the influences on behavior, the relationship among attitudes, values, and behavior is not definitively known. However, when TCRP Report 63 (1) recounted the existing perceptions of transit and developed positioning statements to enhance transit’s image, it was implicitly drawing on a long history of research on values and attitudes by breaking out Supporters, “Swing” supporters, and Influentials. Although much of the research has been conducted in fields outside transit, it remains directly applicable to public transportation. The American Marketing Association (50) defines attitude as an “overall evaluation of a concept.” Attitudes generally involve positive or negative feelings and can be influenced by various internal and external factors. Values are defined as “the important, enduring ideals or beliefs that guide behavior within a culture or for a specific person.” Values are usually considered core beliefs that are not easily subject to change. Behavior comprises “overt acts or actions of consumers that can be directly observed.” In other words, attitudes are what people think or feel, values are what they believe, and behav- ior is what they do. 3.8.2 Influence of Attitudes on Behavior Although the relationship between attitudes and behavior is sometimes thought to be weak, several studies have demon- strated that attitudes can be quite influential in certain situa- tions. Specifically, the time available to make a decision can have a strong influence on behavior. Decisions made quickly often default to pre-existing attitudes or cultural norms. More deliberative decisions, without time pressure, do not neces- sarily reflect such pre-existing attitudes or norms and are more likely to take into account external information. Researchers at Stanford Business School (51) examined the role of culture in consumer behavior: 26

Four experiments found that culture-based differences show up when information is processed in a cursory and spontaneous manner . . . . But when you had the time to deliberate more—by examining information on the Web, for instance—attempts by advertisers to rely on cultural factors tended not to be as suc- cessful . . . . In other words, when pressured to form a quick judg- ment, we generally rely on cultural norms as a “default.” But when making a thoughtful deliberation, we’re more likely to engage in an internal debate, and waver. Fazio and Roskos-Ewoldsen posit (52) that attitudes guide behavior in two different ways. Spontaneous decisions—what ice cream flavor to choose—may reflect pre-existing attitudes that the consumer can access quickly and easily. In such a case, a decision between chocolate and vanilla would be easily made. When decisions are deliberate and planned and the consequences are significant, however, the consumer is likely to consider multiple sources of information. Existing attitudes would play a role in the decision, but they would not be the only factor influencing behavior. This would be the case, for example, when purchasing an automobile or choosing a col- lege. Consistent with this theory, awareness (or information) is believed to influence attitudes toward transportation. TCRP Report 63 (1, Part 1, p. 9) pointed out, “Evidence clearly sug- gests that increased awareness and familiarity with public transportation increases support.” In addition, Fazio and Roskos-Ewoldsen cite a 1974 study by Fishbein and Ajzen (53) that related overall religious attitudes to a series of 100 specific religious behaviors. The correlation between the attitude and any single, specific religious behavior was weak, but the correlation between the attitude and the number of religious behaviors people participate in was strong. In reviewing the body of literature surrounding the relation- ships between attitudes and behavior, Fazio and Roskos- Ewoldsen conclude (52, p. 58), “The pessimism concerning the relationship between attitudes and behavior during the 1970’s was clearly unwarranted. Attitudes can predict behavior.” Commercial industries continue to believe in the value of at- titudes as a tool for success; proprietary research studies fre- quently ask respondents to rate product or service attributes for their importance, and then rate brand performance on those same attributes. By asking for ratings about not only their own brand but for their competitors, marketers can compare their competitive advantages and disadvantages to the priorities of their target markets; through that effort, they can assess which segments are most susceptible to their marketing efforts or bet- ter understand their need to make improvements. 3.8.3 Influence of Values on Behavior Marketers have sometimes chosen to pursue values in their marketing strategies, rather than trying to change attitudes through persuasion. Some well-known approaches to values- based market segmentation include the Rokeach Value System (RVS), List of Values (LOV), and VALS™. Rokeach (54) introduced the concept of examining values in order to better understand public opinion. His theory posited two sets of values: instrumental, which reflect a preference for state of behavior, and terminal, which reflect a preference for an end-state of existence. Table 10 presents terminal and instrumental value scales. While widely used, this inventory has been criticized as cumbersome to apply, randomly defined, and not universally applicable (55, 56). In response, other researchers have developed alternative approaches to grouping individuals according to the values they hold. The List of Values (LOV) is a condensed list of nine values designed to support consumer market segmentation. Kahle and Kennedy (56, p. 50) describe the role of values in marketing: Rarely do consumers purchase anything exclusively for the func- tional aspects of the product. Rather, they hope to attain some greater benefit from the purchase . . . . For example, few people purchase a car exclusively for transportation. One current ad describes a vehicle as a mechanism of expressing self-identity, “Who you are,” as opposed to the function, “How you get there.” With only nine values, this list is easier to implement than the Rokeach inventory. Table 11 lists the values. VALS™ is a proprietary system that develops consumer mar- ket segments based on values and beliefs (57). Originally devel- oped at the Stanford Research Institute, VALS™ (which is an acronym for values and life styles) categorizes consumers into eight groups based on psychographic characteristics. The VALS™ market segmentation framework has two dimensions: • Primary motivation—Consumers are guided by ideals, achievement, and self-expression. Those motivated by ideals are guided by knowledge and principles. People 27 Terminal values Instrumental values A comfortable life Ambitious An exciting life Broadminded A sense of accomplishment Capable A world at peace Cheerful A world of beauty Clean Equality Courageous Family security Forgiving Freedom Helpful Happiness Honest Inner harmony Imaginative Mature love Independent National security Intellectual Pleasure Logical Salvation Loving Self-respect Obedient Social recognition Polite True friendship Responsible Wisdom Self-controlled Source: Rokeach, M., “The Role of Values in Public Opinion Research.” Table 10. Terminal and instrumental value scale.

motivated by achievement want to demonstrate their suc- cess to others. Individuals guided by self-expression seek social activity, variety, and risk. • Resources—These include personality traits like energy, self-confidence, leadership, and vanity. In combination with demographic characteristics, these factors can influ- ence a consumer’s expression of primary motivation. The eight consumer types are defined as follows: • Innovators are active consumers who are successful and sophisticated. They have high levels of resources and incor- porate elements of all three primary motivations. • Thinkers are motivated by ideals and actively seek out information when making decisions. • Achievers are motivated by the desire to achieve (as the name indicates). These consumers value consensus, stabil- ity, and predictability. These active consumers prefer prod- ucts that demonstrate success and status. • Experiencers are motivated by self-expression and actively seek “cool” products. • Believers are motivated by ideals, like Thinkers, and value products that are predictable and familiar. • Strivers are motivated by achievement, but have more lim- ited resources than Achievers. They follow trends and seek products that demonstrate their ability to buy. • Makers are motivated by self-expression and have a hands- on approach to their environment (e.g., building homes or fixing cars). They prefer practical products over luxury items. • Survivors have few resources and are cautious and conser- vative consumers. They do not show a strong primary motivation. While the VALS™ approach has the appeal of assigning identities to individuals, it has been subject to criticism from other researchers (56). Not only is the framework compli- cated to apply, but its proprietary nature makes independent evaluation extremely difficult. Other market researchers have also attempted to tap into the values that consumers associate with particular products. A study (58) of British and Spanish girls (aged 11-12) demon- strated how particular brands of snacks could satisfy personal values. The consumers associated the snacks with four values: well-being, friendship and belonging, fun and enjoyment, and self-satisfaction. This led the researchers to develop a consumer typology based on the characteristics and motiva- tors of each group of respondents: (1) Fun versus well-being and (2) Sociability versus internal satisfaction. Status is a growing influence on middle-market U.S. con- sumers, who increasingly are seeking so-called new-luxury goods (59). These consumers (defined as those earning more than $50,000) are willing to pay more (sometimes two or three times more) because these luxury items respond to an emotional need: Most important, even when they address basic necessities, such goods evoke and engage consumers’ emotions while feeding their aspirations for a better life (59, p.48). Several factors on the consumer and supplier side are com- bining to serve this market. Of particular interest are four “emotional pools”: • Taking care of me—These consumers are looking for products that help them relax and overcome the stresses of hard work and jam-packed schedules. • Questing—These consumers are seeking new experiences and challenges that help define them to others and to themselves. • Connecting—These individuals seek products that help them develop and enhance interpersonal relationships. • Individual style—These individuals use consumer choices to demonstrate their success in life and express their individuality. Some marketers (60, 61) believe that connecting with a consumer through values inspires more long-term loyalty than simply offering the lowest price. For example, cultural brands create a lifestyle around a product to establish an emo- tional connection with consumers. Although this approach has applications for all types of consumer goods, cultural branding has been particularly effective in the food and bev- erage industry. Classic examples include Starbucks, Whole Foods Market, and Stonyfield Farm. All of these brands have been successful in creating a community for their consumers that builds on shared values and preferences. 3.9 Social Marketing Social marketing uses traditional marketing techniques to achieve changes in behavior that benefit the public good (62, 63). Like all marketing campaigns, social marketing incorpo- rates four basic principles: 28 Sense of belonging Excitement Warm relationships with others Self fulfillment Being well respected Fun and enjoyment of life Security Self-respect A sense of accomplishment Source: Kahle, L. R. and Kennedy, P., “Using the List of Values (LOV) To Understand Consumers” Table 11. List of values.

• Product—Targeted action or behavior change; • Price—Costs or barriers associated with the desired change; • Place—Where the target audience will access information; and • Promotion—Messages, materials, and actions to encour- age behavior change. Unlike traditional marketing approaches, social marketing is often linked to public policy. Typical social marketing cam- paigns are designed around public health, safety, and envi- ronmental issues; examples include campaigns to promote recycling, use of seat belts, or healthy eating. Table 12 illus- trates the basic elements of social marketing. The Center for Applied Research (64) identified six steps for successful social marketing campaigns: • Make it easier to do—Making the desired behavior as easy as possible helps increase use. For example, providing peo- ple with examples of how they can save energy at home is more helpful than just telling them to conserve resources. • Accommodate a range of commitment—Rather than making the desired behavior an all-or-nothing proposition, allow people to find a comfortable level of participation. • Devise immediate feedback—Although difficult to build into many social marketing campaigns, people are more likely to change their behavior if they get immediate positive feedback. • Target those around the real target—Directing a message at potential beneficiaries of the action can help change behavior. For example, a campaign to reduce drunk driving could target its message at designated drivers or bartenders instead of the potential drinker. • Make the personal more obvious—Focus on the benefits to the individual rather than the benefits to society. • Leverage early adopters—Those who adopt a new behav- ior first can be at a disadvantage in the marketplace until all others comply. Using these early adopters as agents for change can help convince others to join them. Importantly, change may need to happen in stages rather than all at once (63): It is important to understand that change mostly happens on the “installment plan.” Most of us move through predictable stages as we change behavior. We start by not being aware that a change is necessary. At this first stage, we say, “show me.” Here, educa- tion and awareness are necessary. In the second stage, we become aware but still don’t shift behavior, possibly because there are barriers in the way. At this stage, we say “let’s negotiate.” Here, it is necessary to reduce the barriers. Social marketing is particularly useful in removing barriers that prevent behavior change. At any given time, only a percentage of your target audience will be ready to take action. It’s important to understand this when setting realistic expectations of what a cam- paign can accomplish or what an audience will accept. Effective social marketing campaigns also avoid optimism bias (65). For example, when faced with an advertisement showing the damaged lungs of a long-term smoker, individ- uals (who are themselves heavy smokers) believe that the same thing will not happen to them. This psychological phe- nomenon enables consumers to believe that they are not at risk for the negative consequences displayed in some social marketing or public interest campaigns: Optimism Bias is a specific form of self-decision, which allows people to believe that, in comparison to others, they are less vul- nerable to negative events (65, p. 16). Several specific strategies can help social marketers over- come this phenomenon. First, marketers can help maximize the similarity between the target audience and the individual experiencing the consequences of the negative behavior; this increases the likelihood that the consumer will identify with the example. Second, marketing strategies can ask audience members to compare themselves with a very specific example, rather than a generic, or average, person. Individuals are more likely to relate to the risk of getting lung cancer, for example, in comparison with a friend or brother rather than an anony- mous figure (whom they will assume is at much higher risk than they are). Third, personalizing the message—for exam- ple, by developing a risk assessment calculator—reduces the chances that the targeted audience member will deny his or her vulnerability. Finally, social marketing campaigns are more effective when they convey their message in a positive 29 Social Marketing Is … Social Marketing Is Not … A social or behavior change strategy Just advertising Most effective when it activates people A clever slogan or messaging strategy Targeted to those who have a reason to care and who are ready for change Reaching everyone through a media blitz Strategic, and requires efficient use of resources An image campaign Integrated, and works on the “installment plan” Done in a vacuum A quick process Source: Turning Point Social Marketing National Excellence Collaborative Table 12. Elements of social marketing.

manner. Researchers have learned that so-called “blood and guts” advertising makes consumers more defensive and can increase high-risk behavior among some individuals. 3.10 Successful Marketing Campaigns The scope of the campaigns reviewed here includes a wide variety of industries, including consumer packaged goods, services, charities, and public issues. Although the list of cam- paigns is not inclusive of all possible campaigns, the campaigns were selected for discussion because of how they persuaded people to consider the brand/service/charity in a different way, often using appeals to values as a lever. In some cases, a pow- erful icon or slogan was adopted that would particularly res- onate with the public. This is, in a sense, the challenge facing the transit industry as it seeks to energize the general public into giving greater support to transit. There are, however, inherent limitations to reviews such as this: the marketing literature usually does not provide an insider’s view of how themes and ideas were settled on; that type of information is usually proprietary and not released for competitive reasons. 3.10.1 Keep America Beautiful Keep America Beautiful and the Advertising Council cre- ated a campaign that dramatized how litter was damaging the environment and emphasized the responsibility of individu- als to adopt more positive behavior (66). The creative selec- tion of Iron Eyes Cody as the campaign symbol created attention and worked to overcome public apathy about pol- lution. The “Crying Indian,” as he came to be known, brought the issue into personal focus and underscored the need for personal responsibility. By the end of the campaign, Keep America Beautiful teams had helped to reduce litter by as much as 88% in 300 communities, 38 states, and several coun- tries. As this campaign made clear, memorable symbols work. 3.10.2 Smokey the Bear Along the lines of the “Crying Indian,” Smokey the Bear be- came a well-known and memorable symbol (with the well- recalled tagline “Only you can prevent forest fires”) for this public service effort to prevent forest fires (66). Since its start, this forest fire prevention campaign has reduced the number of acres lost annually from 22 million to 4 million. Smokey has been around since 1944 and still delivers his message. 3.10.3 Drunk Driving Prevention Not all social marketing efforts use symbols. Starting in 1983, the Advertising Council introduced the Drunk Driving Prevention campaign in partnership with the U.S. Depart- ment of Transportation (USDOT) (66). At that time, drunk drivers were responsible for half of automobile fatalities, and experts predicted that one out of every two Americans would be involved in an alcohol-related traffic accident in his or her lifetime. The campaign was originally designed to reach 16-24 year- olds. This age group accounted for 42% of all fatal alcohol- related car accidents. By 1986, 62% of young Americans reported that they were more conscious of the dangers of drunk driving than they had been previously and 34% refused to drink at all when they were planning to drive. Consistent with these findings, USDOT statistics showed a 25% decrease in the number of drunk drivers killed in accidents between 1980 and 1990. In 1990, a new campaign was introduced that used the tagline Friends Don’t Let Friends Drive Drunk. This campaign contributed to a 10% decrease in alcohol-related fatalities between 1990 and 1991, the largest 1-year drop in alcohol- related deaths ever recorded. Although drunk-driving acci- dents still claimed more than 17,000 in 1994, this figure had decreased by 30% since the campaign began. According to the Advertising Council, at one point, more than 68% of Ameri- cans exposed to this advertising campaign and its memorable tagline had taken action to prevent someone from driving drunk. The advertising effort demonstrates the effect of a memorable message on influencing attitudes and behavior. 3.10.4 United Negro College Fund The United Negro College Fund (UNCF) was founded in 1944. Its objective was to raise funds to make it possible for UNCF member colleges and universities to keep tuition within financial reach of every student. UNCF and the Advertising Council partnered to develop and launch a public service advertising campaign that encouraged Americans to support the fund (66). The tagline, A Mind Is a Terrible Thing To Waste, has remained unchanged for more than three decades and in fact has become part of the American vernacular. Statistics confirm the success of this campaign. To date, the campaign has helped raise more than $2.2 billion and has helped more than 350,000 minority students graduate from 43 UNCF member colleges and universities. 3.10.5 Afterschool Alliance The Afterschool Alliance focuses on the importance of after- school programs for children in grades 6-8. Approximately 3.9 million students in this age group go home to an empty house after classes are over for the day. Unsupervised children at this age are susceptible to engaging in high-risk behaviors such as substance abuse, sexual activity, and criminal activities. 30

Participation in after-school programs drops off signifi- cantly for students in this age group; they are reluctant to give up their newfound freedom. The challenge facing the After- school Alliance was to convince these “tweens” that it was “cooler” to go to an after-school program that to stay at home (67). This was not easily accomplished, but the Afterschool Alliance understood that many of these kids were simply bored by being at home. The campaign—Things Can Get Pretty Ugly When You’re Bored—capitalized on this insight. The advertising featured “cool kids” at home after school doing embarrassing things simply because they were bored. This creative approach did not promote after-school programs; nor did it portray happy students participating in such programs. It took the opposite approach—and showed bored teens at home. By featuring the problem—and making the students at home seem somewhat pathetic—the campaign made the desired alternative behavior seem more attractive. Three months after the campaign began, the website providing information about after-school programs received 20,000 hits per day. 3.10.6 Starbucks Bottled Frappuccino® Bottled Frappuccino® is a ready-to-drink coffee. It domi- nates its category and represents 85% of ready-to-drink cof- fee sales (67). The creative strategy used to promote this product had previously generated awareness levels of around 70%, trial levels of around 34% and conversion of awareness- to-trial ratios of around 49%. This was very strong perfor- mance, but in 2004 the product faced double-digit sales growth targets with a reduced media budget. The challenge was to increase sales for the product when most people were already aware of it and most of them had already tried it. Given the high level of awareness, Starbucks had to do a better job of turning awareness into trial. Starbucks determined that it needed to give the product a clearer role in people’s lives and to create an emotional con- nection that would tempt them into trying it. The decision was made to dramatize the emotional benefit of Bottled Frappuccino® as well as the need it answered. Starbucks based its campaign on the notion that the product offered a stolen moment to relax and rejuvenate during the work day. This emotional connection had a powerful effect on behav- ior. Trials increased by over 6% and the conversion ratio of awareness to trial increased by nearly 11 percentage points to almost 60%. 3.10.7 Toyota In the second half of 2003, the Chicago Region Toyota Dealer Association, a cooperative marketing organization made up of 112 dealerships, faced some serious problems. Industry sales were down and Toyotas were competing with other brands that cost significantly less (67). As Toyota’s advertising efforts began to focus on pricing incentives, the brand’s traditional quality-based message was getting lost. A creative strategy was developed to focus on value rather than price. Consumer research had indicated that value extended beyond price and included quality, safety, cost-of- ownership, product selection, and innovation. As a result, Toyota returned to its core values and heritage to develop the message Value begins with Toyota quality. The Fuel for Thought campaign was successful. Dealers reported an increase in 2004 sales over calendar year 2003, market share increase, and improved profitability. 3.10.8 GE In 2003, GE decided to drop its well-known tagline, We bring good things to life (67). The company’s goal was to mod- ify perceptions of the organization from a well-regarded but somewhat conservative old-line company to a company driven by innovation and imagination. The goal was to posi- tion the company as a high-technology, dynamic technical solution provider. This was no small job. Over many years, hundreds of millions of media dollars had been invested in support of the company’s image. Through the use of consumer research and internal work- shops, GE determined that the best expression of its goals was imagining progress and making it happen. A new campaign was created to position GE as the imagination company. After the first 2 years, awareness levels for the new tagline, imagi- nation at work, matched that recorded for We bring good things to life, and brand familiarity increased 7 percentage points to nearly 60%. Among GE’s key target of business executives, perceptions of GE as an innovative company offering high-technology solutions exceeded expectations. Although less tangible, the move to the new tagline also ener- gized the GE employees. Imagination at work is now the only tagline used in any GE communication. 3.10.9 UnitedHealthcare The healthcare industry is a high-interest/low-involvement category. In other words, consumers only pay attention when they need services. As the industry moves to a consumer- directed model, the customers (or patients) have more responsibility for choosing their own coverage. From a provider’s standpoint, this makes brand awareness and famil- iarity critically important. UnitedHealthcare (UHC) had low awareness, no brand equity, and little if any brand definition among consumers (67). Its competition, Blue Cross/Blue Shield, among others, 31

had been advertising for decades. In this situation, United- Healthcare developed a positioning strategy to differentiate the company from other healthcare providers by focusing on a common-sense approach to healthcare. UHC’s advertising capitalized on the lack of common sense in the industry by featuring a surprising lack of common sense on the part of the consumer: People don’t always use common sense. Fortunately, there’s a health care company that does. UnitedHealthcare. It Just Makes Sense. Results were striking. The campaign generated a 22% increase in total brand awareness and yielded a statistically significant increase in the number of people who said they would recommend UnitedHealthcare to their employer. 32

Next: Chapter 4 - Primary Research »
Understanding How to Motivate Communities to Support and Ride Public Transportation Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB's Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Report 122: Understanding How to Motivate Communities to Support and Ride Public Transportation explores the methods and strategies used by public transportation agencies in the United States and Canada to enhance their public images and motivate the support and use of public transportation. The report identifies and describes methods and strategies used by other industries (comparable to public transportation) to enhance their public image and to motivate the support and use of their products and services. This report also examines the perceptions, misperceptions, and use of public transit, and the extent to which these affect support. Finally, the report identifies effective communication strategies, campaigns, and platforms for motivating individuals to action in support of public transportation, as well as ways to execute those communication strategies, campaigns, and platforms.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!