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.
33 4.1 In-Depth Exploratory Interviews Exploratory research was conducted with members of the general public to provide a thorough understanding of the underlying dimensions surrounding use, attitudes, and sup- port of transit. Telephone interviews were conducted with 30 individuals in selected localities in the United States and Canada: ⢠Jersey City (NJ), ⢠Milwaukee (WI), ⢠Vancouver (BC), ⢠Houston (TX), ⢠Clark County (WA), ⢠Halifax (NS), ⢠Boise (ID), ⢠Albany (GA), and ⢠Brandon (MB). These localities were selected to represent high-, medium- and low-density transit markets (see Tables 1 and 2). The information gathered through these interviews was incorporated into the final survey instrument and is described below. 4.1.1 Role of Transportation The initial part of the interview focused on current travel behavior for the respondents. Respondents described their current travel patterns for work and for leisure and their typ- ical mode choice. Modes Used All markets surveyed had bus service, and Vancouver also had rail. In addition, respondents in Jersey City had access to bus and rail services in New York and elsewhere in New Jersey, and those in Clark County (WA) had easy access to bus and rail in Portland (OR). Based on these interviews, respondents fell into one of three segments. A minority of respondents reported that public trans- portation was their primary means of travel. Most of these individuals had no access to private transportation unless friends or family occasionally provided this option. Some had previously owned a car, and one respondent reported using transit exclusively because of core personal values. Other respondents reported a mix of public transporta- tion and private car use. This ranged from 50/50 to very occasional bus use. In the first case, the bus was typically used to get to and from work and school and/or because the spouse had first call on the family car. Some reported using transit because of economic considerations. Respondents generally saw the bus as a lower cost alternative to the private car, and several commented that the current high cost of fuel made this particularly topical. Some respondents reported that they walked or rode a bike. In some cases, this was a per- sonal exercise choice. Others considered local bus service only marginal, calling it slow or indicating that the bus stops were too far away or the service did not run when they needed to travel. The third segment was made up of people who had their own cars and rarely, if ever, used public transportation (âI havenât ridden the bus in 25 yearsâ). For some, public transportation was simply not a consideration: âI donât need to take the bus. I have my own car.â For others, it was not a feasible choice because it did not run when or where they needed to travel. Some believed that their travel patterns were too complicated to use transit easily, either because they had to pick up and drop off their children at various destinations or they needed to travel during the day for work. Several respondents made the point of saying that they were not opposed to public transportation per se and went on to report that when they were living elsewhere, they frequently used public transportation. C H A P T E R 4 Primary Research
Current Travel Patterns Public transportation users generally used the bus or train to commute to work and school, to see doctors, to visit fam- ily and friends, to attend support group meetings, and to han- dle everyday shopping needs. Generally, those respondents who were primary bus riders seemed to be on the lower end of the household income range and comments about recre- ation were infrequently heard or reported. The bus handled the basics for them. With the exception of expanded reports of recreational and non-essential shopping, the balance of the respondents who were occasional bus riders or non-users reported the same trip purposes. One respondent made a choice not to own a car for political reasons (he could easily afford one if he chose) and used transit for all local, regional, and interstate travel. Other than a general morning to late afternoon work schedule, there was no discernable pattern of time of day for travel. Trip length ranged from 5 to 10 minutes each way to 90 minutes. Respondents generally reported short travel times for vehicle trips; transit trips usually took longer. 4.1.2 Perception of Transit Riders Respondents talked about their perceptions of people who used transit. They were asked why people used transit and whether they could envision themselves using transit (if they were not already transit riders). Why Do You Think Other People Take Transit? There was generally a perception that people used transit (especially the bus) for one of two reasonsâeither they could not afford to drive or they were not willing or able to drive. Besides costs, perceived reasons for not driving included age (i.e., too young or too old to drive), physical or cognitive dis- ability, loss of license, difficulty finding parking, or unwill- ingness to drive in traffic. A minority of respondents believed that people made a conscious choice to use transit, and only a few saw transit ridership as a deliberate pro-environment strategy. Some specific answers are presented below: ⢠Itâs the only affordable and practical alternative. ⢠About 50% of the people using transit donât have a choice; they donât have a car. The rest are choosing to take the bus so that they can relax, read, and do some work. ⢠People who use the local bus (in Albany) have no other means of transportation. ⢠Thereâs a mix between monetary reasons and necessityâ some might not be able to afford to drive. Others have lost their licenses, and a few might have medical restrictions that make it difficult to drive. ⢠In Boise, the people using transit donât drive. Either they donât know how, theyâre too young, or theyâre not permit- ted to drive (e.g., people with developmental disabilities). ⢠The price of gas is making some people ride transit. ⢠People who donât have their own transportationâthey canât afford a car or auto insurance. ⢠People who donât have a choice. ⢠People who donât have a vehicle use transit. Some choose not to have the expense of a vehicle, some canât afford one. Some make a personal choice to use transit. ⢠People who canât afford to driveânot just the out of pocket costs for gas and parking, but also the invisible costs like the potential for accidents, wear and tear on the vehi- cle and tires, and maintenance. ⢠Some people donât want to drive in trafficâit makes them nervous. ⢠People use the bus because itâs difficult to park at their des- tination (e.g., downtown Portland). ⢠People on the bus donât want to sit in traffic. ⢠People who donât want to drive. ⢠Some people take the bus in bad weather when they canât walk or ride a bike. ⢠People who support the environmental benefits of transit. Do People Like You Use Transit? For those who use transit on a regular basis, the answer was yes. Students saw other students. Commuters saw other workers. The elderly saw other elderly users (âOther retired peopleâ). Whether or not they themselves used transit, peo- ple categorized riders in the following groups: ⢠Students; ⢠Young people and teenagers; ⢠Elderly people; ⢠People with disabilities; ⢠Hispanics ; ⢠Immigrants making work tripsâPeople from El Salvador, Mexico, China ⢠Other working class people; and ⢠Lower income people. A few respondents saw transit users more broadly, saying that âEverybody takes the busâ or they see âlots of different peopleâ or people from âall walks of lifeâ on transit. One woman, who previously only used transit when she accom- panied a relative using paratransit, said that people on the bus always seemed âreal nice.â For most of those who never or rarely used transit, the answer was noâpeople like them did not use transit. Responses in- cluded âI donât need to,â and âMy friends drive.â The non-users had a general perception that economic considerations were the 34
primary factor influencing use of public transportation (âJust my sister in law . . . sheâs motivated by cost.â) 4.1.3 Attitudes Toward Transit The interviews moved to general attitudes and perceptions of transit. Respondents were asked to talk about why they did or did not use transit and what they perceived as its advan- tages and disadvantages. Why Do (or Donât) You Use Transit? Although some respondents saw transit as something for other people, some professed that they would take the bus if it were more convenient in some way. Some took transit when they lived in other locationsâNew York City, Oahu, Portland, or Chicago. Although many bemoaned rising gas prices, only a few said that the rising costs of driving might force them to start taking the bus. A handful said they felt âguiltyâ or âlazyâ or âhypocriticalâ driving because they sup- ported the idea of transitâfor others. Those who used transit cited the following reasons: ⢠Cars can be âmoney pitsââespecially with gas prices now, but even before. ⢠I refuse to be a part of destroying the world. ⢠He does not contribute to pollution when he uses transit the way he does when he is one person in a car. ⢠He used to take it when traveling from pub to pub as an alternative to driving. ⢠There is a perception that youâre moving on the train, while the bus is stuck in traffic. That boosts your morale. ⢠You donât have to park. When you get near your destina- tion, you just jump off a bus or get out of a taxi. This is close enough for me. When you drive, you have to find a place to park. ⢠You donât have to contend with traffic. ⢠Itâs nice for someone else to be in charge for a change. ⢠You can relax on the bus. Reasons for not using transit included the following: ⢠Driving is more convenient. ⢠The bus stop is too far from work and/or home. ⢠By the time they drive to the bus stop they are practically at their destination. If she walked to the nearest bus stop sheâd be halfway to school so she might as well drive. ⢠The bus doesnât run when they need it. It doesnât run late enough in the evening or on weekends. ⢠Itâs more convenient to jump in my car. ⢠Her job requires her to drive clients during the day so she drives a hybrid car to âmitigateâ the impacts of driving. ⢠They are cutting back service because people donât ride, and people donât ride because they cut back service. ⢠He stopped using the bus once he graduated from univer- sity, got a car, and started working. ⢠Not unless the price of gas âgoes crazy.â ⢠For him, if his car was not available, he could bike across town in 15 minutes. In the winter, he would take a taxi. ⢠She would like to use the bus, but itâs not practical. She canât afford to be late to work; people depend on her. ⢠She needs a car because sheâs taking her kids to different places. Maybe if she had âno strings attached.â ⢠She has friends who have tried to use the bus to get to work but the schedule was not convenient. Because they were âcommitted to the cause,â they rode their bikes to work instead. ⢠Itâs too difficult physically to take the bus â âIâm an old lady.â ⢠She has a disability now, but she still drives. If she reaches a point where she canât walk, sheâll have to rely on friends and family for mobility. She hopes she wonât end up in a wheelchair. But if that happens sheâll have to depend on friends and family or not go out. ⢠Paratransit (for people with disabilities) is not convenientâ you have to call a day in advance, you have to be ready a half hour early, and you canât get on their schedule because too many people want to use it. 4.1.4 Advantages and Disadvantages of Transit Respondents were asked to elaborate on the advantages and disadvantages of transit. Some also talked about the pros and cons of driving, as well. Advantages of transit included âon time and safe,â âsaves money,â âconvenient,â âno worry about park- ing,â âitâs reliable . . . no more than a 10-12 minute wait,â âdonât have to worry about driving,â â saves wear and tear on the car,â âcheapâ and âavoid traffic.â Some respondents found transit relaxing because they could read, sleep, or listen to music while riding. Several focused on the social aspects of transit: meeting others and being in touch with their community. Disadvantages were more numerous and seemed to be expressed with greater conviction. Comments included âtakes too much time,â âcrowded-overcrowded,â ânot on time,â âslow,â âBoise transit is not well thought out,â âyou always have to wait,â âbuses are too big . . . smaller would save energy,â âcanât get a seat so Iâm always standingâ and a mix of advantage and disadvantage, âit takes too long, but it gets you there eventually.â More specifics are highlighted below. Transit Advantages Whether or not they were regular riders, respondents iden- tified a wide range of advantages for transit. One major 35
advantage, frequently cited, was the ability to avoid driving and the associated costs and headaches: ⢠No need to find a parking space at your destination. ⢠No need to pay for parking at your destination. ⢠Transit gets you closer to your destination because you donât have to park somewhere else first. ⢠Taking transit saves gas. ⢠Transit is cheaper than driving. ⢠You donât spend money on a car. ⢠You can read and not âstressâ or be âmiserableâ in traffic. ⢠You donât have to contend with traffic. ⢠Sometimes itâs nice for someone else to drive. ⢠Thereâs less tension and more ease. Taking the bus is not as stressful as driving. ⢠Driving takes longer than transit with congestion and traffic. ⢠Transit is more economical than driving. ⢠If they could use transit, her family would probably just have one car and not two. ⢠Avoid driving in traffic jams. ⢠Having a car is very expensive for seniors. Respondents also perceived transit as relaxing. They liked the ability to read, sleep, or listen to music while on the bus or train: ⢠You can do other things while someone else is driving (multi-tasking). ⢠You can relax, read, listen to music, meditate, or take a nap. Respondents appreciated the dependability, convenience, and safety of using transit: ⢠The bus is convenient. ⢠The bus is dependable. ⢠You donât have to worry if your car wonât start in the winter. ⢠Itâs safer than drivingâyou donât hear about a lot of bus accidents. ⢠Transit can improve safetyâthere are a lot of poor drivers out there and you hear about accidents on the traffic reports. ⢠Waiting isnât a problem once you know the schedule. ⢠A positive experience. Some participants focused on the social aspects of transit: ⢠You get to chat with other people. ⢠I like to meet a lot of people and itâs a way of meeting a lot of people. ⢠Transit is friendlier than driving. ⢠You are riding with other people, so you canât hide from how average people live. ⢠You can meet some very nice people on the bus. ⢠You can connect with the world rather than be isolated. Finally, some respondents talked about the environmental advantages of using transit: ⢠Transit can move more people in less space. ⢠Transit can handle multiple schedules. ⢠Itâs good for the environment. ⢠Itâs pretty clean. ⢠Itâs efficient for the environment. Less fuel is wasted. Transit Disadvantages Most of the disadvantages of transit focused on service characteristicsâtransit was not available when or where peo- ple needed to travel or they found it inefficient and unreliable. Transit also suffered from an image problem among some respondents, and others were uncomfortable around their fellow passengers. The major disadvantage to transit ap- peared to be frustration with service availability and travel conditions: ⢠The bus limits where you can go. ⢠You have to arrange your life around their schedule. ⢠You have to wait in bad weatherârain, cold, heat, humidity. ⢠Bus stop is not close to home. ⢠Transferring from bus to bus is a pain. ⢠Thereâs not enough parking near transit. ⢠I would leave the house earlier because I was afraid to miss the bus. I was always tired because I lost an hour of sleep. ⢠You have to get up earlier to catch the bus. ⢠Sometimes you have to stand because the bus is so packed or wait for the next one. ⢠The bus follows a set schedule and route. ⢠Transit is inconvenient. ⢠Buses are not reliable. If something happens up the line, youâre waiting, youâre anxious to see it and when it comes along you wonder how many seats are available and how many people are on it. ⢠If the bus is late, you miss connections. ⢠It was very aggravating. ⢠You have to learn all the bus routes and figure out how to get to different places. ⢠Impractical. ⢠People donât like to plan their trips in advance. ⢠Transit takes longer than driving. ⢠Transit is not as convenient as driving. Some respondents expressed concerns about their fellow riders, their own comfort and, in some cases, their personal safety when using transit: 36
⢠You can get a cold from someone elseâs germs. ⢠Itâs crowded and stressful standing so close to other people who are in your personal space (and who might have eaten a garlic sandwich for lunch). ⢠People like to be independent agents. ⢠Transit has an image problemâitâs âuncoolâ to ride. ⢠You may encounter âunfavorable clienteleâ on the bus, es- pecially at nightâdrunks, drug use, homeless people, or âwildâ people. ⢠Women and children may be intimidated by strangers on the bus. ⢠Sheâs concerned about her personal safetyâlike getting mugged or getting hit on the head. ⢠Some services do not feel safe at night. ⢠People are not themselves on the bus. Theyâre not as per- sonable. Youâre restrictedâevery word is noted. ⢠The bus is crowded. ⢠The bus is sweaty. ⢠In winter the bus is foggy. ⢠The bus is cramped. ⢠âIâm always in a bad mood on the bus.â Finally, some respondents talked about the inefficiencies of transit, especially in low-density areas or when compared with foreign systems: ⢠Sometimes itâs not as efficient as it could be, especially comparing U.S. systems to those in Japan or France. ⢠Not efficient in a spread-out area. ⢠Heavy diesel smoke. ⢠You usually only see a few people on the bus. ⢠Empty buses are wasteful. Driving Advantages The advantages cited for driving focused on convenience, flexibility, and dependability. Although some respondents needed their cars for work, others needed the flexibility to take their children to various activities. A few just appreciated the ability to make spontaneous travel decisions. ⢠Driving is convenient. ⢠I drive out of habit. ⢠I can travel on the spur of the moment and not have to make plans in advance. ⢠Driving is recreational. ⢠I know what time I have to leave my house to get to work on time. ⢠I know what the traffic will be like. ⢠I can stop at the store or go to the cleaners on the way home. ⢠Itâs there when I need it. ⢠He drives because of the âfreedom.â He can go home or go out to lunch. He doesnât work set hours; maybe he can choose to stay longer at work. ⢠Workplace locations change frequently. ⢠I can drive where and when I want to. ⢠For work, the car is more dependable. ⢠I wanted the flexibility of a vehicle. ⢠Driving gives her the freedom to go where and when she wants. Sheâs on her own clock and doesnât have to wait. Driving gives her freedom and independence but itâs quite expensive. Driving Disadvantages A few respondents identified specific disadvantages of driving: ⢠Maybe my car will have a flat tire in the morning. ⢠Driving is stressful. You have to be alert all the time. I won- der if today Iâll have an accident. ⢠Driving takes longer than transit in congested areas. 4.1.5 How Does Transit Fit Into Your Community? Most respondents could define a role for transit in their communities, although some required prompting. Some respondents were better able to envision the reverseâhow would their communities fare without transit? Generally, people acknowledged that transit provided mobility, partic- ularly for individuals without personal transportation. With- out transit, some people would have trouble getting to work or to the grocery store. Respondents saw a greater role for transit in larger cities, where people had to travel longer dis- tances and road congestion was greater. In small towns, like Brandon (MB) or Albany (GA), respondents indicated that they would not notice if the bus disappeared from their com- munity tomorrow. Not surprisingly, frequent users regarded transit as very important to definitely important. Non-users, along with those who used transit less frequently, recognized intellectu- ally that transit had a role, but given the small part that tran- sit played in their daily lives, they did not offer that opinion with real vigor. Does Transit Support Economic Growth? This question was unexpected by practically all respon- dents. After some consideration, a small minority expressed the opinion that by virtue of âgetting people to work,â tran- sit does make an economic contribution. With prompting, 37
the balance adopted this point of view, but there did not appear to be real conviction about transitâs supporting role: ⢠Taking transit away in Albany would not do much harm. ⢠A lot of people depend on transit to get to work. ⢠Brandon would lose some big employers without the bus. ⢠If people didnât have an easy way to get to school by bus it might discourage them from living here. ⢠If we didnât have transit, weâd have a lot of folks with a lot of problems. ⢠Transit helps the economyâsome people couldnât get to work without the bus. There are a lot of people who could not shop without the bus. ⢠In Hawaii, you saw the same people on the bus every day. It extended your community to people on the bus. ⢠Transit can further a sense of community. You see the same people on the bus every day, itâs like networking. ⢠Transit has been good and bad for communities. It has en- abled people to live in bedroom communities and changed the way people live and work. ⢠In Portland (OR), the system looks nice. The stations can be pleasing to the eye with planning and zoning. ⢠Transit does have an economic impact, at least for transit workers. ⢠Transit can also create jobsâpeople driving the buses, tak- ing care of the stations ⢠Transit plays a pretty big role in my community (Jersey City). The streets are public transportation arteries; there are âtons of buses.â ⢠If transit disappeared from a small place like Brandon it might not make much of a differenceâyou can bike or walk anywhere. ⢠If transit werenât there, what would people do? People need it to get to work. Itâs âpivotal.â ⢠Transit saves wear and tear on the streets from traffic. ⢠People donât have space to park more cars. When transit shut down during a strike people lost their jobs and busi- nesses shut down. Transit is a condition of employment for many people. Not having transit would be a catastrophe. The economy relies on it. You need public transit. Does Transit Help the Environment and/or Reduce Congestion? There were mixed responses to this. Those who had a point of view were generally positive about transitâs ability to help in terms of environmental issues. The prevailing opinion, after some consideration, was that buses kept cars off the road especially in major metropolitan areas. Given that most of these respondents also reported that people rode the bus largely because they didnât own or have access to cars, there is an obvious disconnection here. Nevertheless, comments like âgets cars off the road and this cuts down on emissions,â âthe bus is packed so fewer carsâ were frequently heard. Oth- ers thought the question over and finally concluded âI donât know.â The add-on to this was that transit âreduces pollution especially in the downtown area.â Electric buses were cited by one respondent as a positive transit move. Negative responses to the above environmental question were âbuses smell . . . but there could be 100 cars in its placeâ and in one case, a strong and unequivocal opinion that tran- sit (buses) âadd pollution.â Several respondents specifically mentioned diesel fumes as a disadvantage to buses: ⢠In Boise, winter weather inversions make people sick from the smog and pollution. Transit could help that. ⢠The bus saves a lot of gasâgetting 30 people on the bus instead of driving their cars would save a lot of gas. ⢠The bus helps reduce pollution. ⢠Thereâs no question that transit provides an advantage. You just have to look at the 10,000 cars a day, idling in traf- fic, burning gas. ⢠Transit provides fuel economy and time savings. Right now people will sacrifice anything to drive their cars, even at $3-4 a gallon for gas. But that will change eventually. ⢠If thereâs a transit strike, you donât see an impact until Day 10. Then traffic is too thickâit binds up the roadsâyou see 100,000 people on the roads. ⢠Buses are still diesel-guzzling, but per person-pound theyâre still better than driving. ⢠Transit conserves energy; there are fewer cars on the road. Does Transit Provide Mobility and/or a Safety Net? There was general agreement that transit provides a safety net. A typical response was: âBasically, the only people who take the bus donât have a car.â A few could envision a larger role for transit in support of an aging society, but most saw transit as serving those who could not driveâfor reasons of economics, age, or disability: ⢠Transit provides mobility for people without the means to have a car. ⢠As more people retire, mass transit will be the only answer. ⢠If there were not transit, people would call a neighbor and get a lift for a day or two. ⢠Transit is not at the top of the agenda for most people in Houston. If transit disappeared tomorrow it would be most difficult for the people without transportation. They wouldnât be able to get to work or to buy their groceries. For people who take the bus because they can relax or multi-task, not having transit wouldnât make much of a difference. It would be an inconvenience. 38
⢠Transit is not part of the city fabric (in Halifax). Some peo- ple would have trouble getting around if transit closed down, but it wouldnât be like the problems youâd see in big cities. 4.1.6 Support When asked what major issues affected them and their community, in most cases there was a striking absence of recognition or concern reported about well-publicized prob- lems. Prompting had to take place before this subject area was understood. Even with prompting, practically all these re- spondents indicated by their remarks that there were few, if any, major national issues that were on their minds. Local issues had more visibility. (Despite the fact that the interview to this point had focused on transportation, this subject was almost never mentioned as an issue.) With prompting, some respondents acknowledged that they were âworriedâ about education and healthcare, especially in the context of medical charges and insurance coverage. Con- cern about taxes and crime were frequently mentioned. Drugs got some mention, including drugs in schools. Oil prices, for- eign policy, and the war in Iraq were on their minds. Some of the older respondents mentioned social security and Medicare as issues and federal spending in general. Employment was a fairly frequent mention. In Boise, one respondent commented negatively about land utilization and reported that the city gov- ernment was âanti-growth.â Another Boise resident expressed concern about sprawl and lack of planning. Several talked about quality of life, open space, and the importance of clean air and clean water. Poverty and cost of living complaints were noted by some. Respondents in Milwaukee, Albany (GA), Houston, and Halifax mentioned race relations. A few ex- pressed concern about corruption in politics. Homelessness and drugs were key to a single mother who reported that she had previously been homeless and had been addicted to drugs. Basically, unless the issue was personal, it probably was not high on any of these respondentsâ list of concerns. One respondent summarized this by saying âIf it doesnât affect me right now, I donât care.â The majority of these respondents have taken some action in support of issues that they considered importantâprimarily issues that affected them on a personal basis. For most, the actions taken were relatively modest: âI voted for light rail,â âI walk for cancer,â âattend Narcotics Anonymous meet- ings,â âI buy locally to support my community,â âI wrote my Congressman once . . . canât remember why,â âI demon- strated in college days and raise money for political candi- dates,â âI demonstrated about the US and Iraq.â Almost all of the respondents indicated that they voted in most or every election. A few were involved in local politicsâ serving on advisory committees or working on political cam- paignsâbut others avoided local politics altogether. A few at- tended public meetings, testified, spoke to their friends about issues, wrote letters to elected officials, or sent an email to a newspaper. Some researched a candidateâs positions on per- sonally relevant issues and made decisions to vote or con- tribute money accordingly. Reasons for taking positions varied. Some had a strong moral compass or religious convictions and felt compelled to take actions in support of those personal values. Others only took action when an issue affected them personally or others around them. Others reacted primarily to pocketbook issues like taxes. Some believed it was important to make their voices heard, even if they did not influence the outcome. Many respondents had found it difficult to identify situations where they might take action in the future. âIt would depend on what and when.â Others made it clear that they were not interested in taking public positions. A few believed that one voice did not make a difference or that âyou canât fight city hall.â Others consid- ered themselves apolitical or âlazyâ or said that they were at a stage in their lives when their priorities shifted from social issues to personal concerns like affording healthcare. âIt takes a lot to stir me upâ was a typical response among these individuals. Transportation was rarely mentioned as a concern, and only a small minority of respondents had ever taken a position on a transit-related issue. When asked what kinds of actions they had taken in support of transit, one respondent reported that she had written her Congressman about transit in connection with healthcare. Another reported that she used transit and thought that her patronage was support. One respondent attended a public hearing, but did not testify. Oth- ers voted for or against transit extensions or service expan- sions. The balance of the respondents indicated that they had never taken action in support of any transit issue. (âThere was a bus strike a couple of years ago, but I didnât do anything.â) Respondents were then asked specifically in what situa- tions they would take action to support transit. There were a number of comments along the lines of âI canât think of any- thing . . . maybe gas prices might get me involved.â A woman in Boise who used and liked public transportation when she was living in Chicago reported that she doesnât like the bus, which she defines as âthe worst of public transportation,â but would âquietlyâ support Boiseâs move to light rail. Some said they would get involved if someone asked them, and some said they might actively support a transit issue that affected them directly. One woman in Washington State would ap- preciate the opportunity to vote on regional transit issues, but she lived outside the service area and was not eligible. For one respondent in Houston, personal experience would make a difference. Although she voted against downtown rail service initially, she has subsequently used the service and now would 39
consider voting in favor of funding the next time the issue comes up on the ballot. Finally, respondents were asked what they would do if there was no more public transportation where they lived. This situation understandably had more traction with transit users than non-users. Among users, respondents reported that they might âgo to protest meetings,â âwrite my Con- gressmanâ and âgo to somebody for answers.â Most found the situation unbelievable and one respondent summed up her feelings by reporting that âIâm not going to worry about it until it affects me directly.â 4.1.7 Value Statements Throughout the interviews, respondents expressed opinions based on their personal values. Such personal values are believed to help move individuals from general support to taking action, and the quantitative research will test the strength of these and similar value statements. The values expressed throughout the qualitative interviews fell into several broad categories, includ- ing personal values, values guiding personal behavior, attitudes toward transit, and attitudes about the world. Personal Values Value statements that were extracted from interviews are listed below: ⢠I never tell a lie. I am offended when people lie to me. ⢠I was disappointed when my organization lied to me. ⢠People have a responsibility to help those who cannot afford their own transportation. ⢠If we canât help people help themselves, we are going to be taking care of everything for them. ⢠I believe we are turning away from what the lord teaches. ⢠I feel I have to stand up for other people when they are hurt by an organizationâs actions. Personal Behavior Statements describing personal behavior are listed here: ⢠I choose to enjoy what I have instead of letting worry shorten my life. ⢠I donât want to stand out. ⢠Itâs important to me to have my voice heard. ⢠I want to help bring about change. ⢠One person canât make a difference. ⢠If I want something done, Iâll complain and ask someone else to do it. Iâm lazy. ⢠Itâs important for me to have a voice in where my tax dol- lars go. ⢠Itâs not what you know; itâs who you know. ⢠Itâs up to us to pay for the next generation. ⢠We have to stop being conspicuous consumers. ⢠We have to adjust to changing times. ⢠I donât like to volunteer too much personal information. ⢠Iâm very cautious about complaining. ⢠You canât fight city hall. ⢠Thereâs no point in complaining. ⢠It doesnât pertain to me. Attitudes Toward Transit Participants expressed a range of opinions about public transportation: ⢠Itâs important to teach children about taking care of the environment. ⢠Government should run transit services, not private companies. ⢠Right now people will sacrifice anything to drive their cars. ⢠Investing in transit now will bring big benefits for future generations. ⢠I donât have a problem sharing a seat on the bus. ⢠Iâm not afraid of other people on the bus. ⢠Iâm at a point in my life where I prefer to drive. ⢠If you can get kids riding as teens maybe the stereotypes about riding transit wonât be there when they get their licenses. Beliefs about the World Participants expressed beliefs about social and political conditions: ⢠Itâs a scary world. ⢠The free-market capitalist system leaves three billion peo- ple in poverty around the world. ⢠If we didnât use so much oil we wouldnât be at war in Iraq. ⢠Autos are a major part of why the US is destroying the world. ⢠Society would benefit from less dependence on gas and oil. ⢠The gas crisis affects poor people and old people moreâ but they are the least likely to vote and have the least influ- ence. Nothing will change until it affects the people who make $85K or $100K and who have their two SUVs. 4.2 Preliminary Quantitative Interviews In this phase, the research team moved into the quantitative research phase. As an initial step, a preliminary quantitative survey was conducted to help refine the survey instrument. The team developed a comprehensive list of transit character- 40
istics, reasons to support transit, and value statements. This list was compiled from the various secondary sources and primary research conducted up until this pointâliterature review, case studies, and exploratory research. Survey participants were asked to respond to this list of value and attitudinal statements; answers were statistically analyzed to produce a comprehensive and unique list of items to test in the full survey. The process is described in more detail below. 4.2.1 Transit Characteristics and Reasons to Support Transit Four hundred respondents were asked to rate 41 transit characteristics based on how well they describe transit (using a 5-point verbal scale ranging from âexcellentâ to âpoorâ) and how important that characteristic is in deciding whether or not to support transit (using a 5-point verbal scale ranging from âextremely importantâ to ânot at all important.â) The two sets of ratings were analyzed in tandem to decide which of the 41 items should be included in the full survey. The âde- scriptiveâ ratings were examined to determine the variability of the ratings; items were considered for inclusion if there was not a too-strong consensus about them. The âimportanceâ ratings were evaluated using factor analysis techniques to identify independent themes of reasons for support. In each of these theme groups, one or two of the items were consid- ered as representative of the theme based on the strength of the association with the theme and thus recommended for in- clusion in the larger survey. A full discussion on factor analy- sis may be found in Appendix F. Table 13 presents the complete list of transit characteristics used in the research, grouped according to the factors that resulted from the factor analysis. Along with each item is the research teamâs recommendation regarding inclusion in the full survey. 4.2.2 Values Statements The respondents were asked to rate 39 values statements on a scale ranging from âdescribes me or my feelings com- pletelyâ to âdoes not describe me or my feelings at all.â As with the transit characteristics, factor analysis was the pri- mary tool used to examine the items and consider them for elimination. Again, a full discussion on factor analysis may be found in Appendix F. Table 14 presents the complete list of values statements used in the research, grouped according to the factors that resulted from the factor analysis, with the research teamâs rec- ommendation with regard to the full survey. Following the panelâs review of these recommendations, three more statements were added to the list for the final questionnaire: ⢠âBeing unable to get from one part of town to another makes life more difficult than it should beâ was added because the statement âThose who canât afford a car need help from others in the communityâ was seen as being too restrictive, measuring only an economic dimension. ⢠âCommunities need to help people become more self- sufficient and independentâ was added to assess beliefs in the need for independence. ⢠âItâs important for people to be able to improve their own lives and the lives of their childrenâ was added in order to assess beliefs in the need for providing opportunity. 4.3 Full Quantitative Survey After the survey instrument was finalized, the full-scale telephone survey was conducted with 1,800 adults in the United States and Canada. Only communities with fixed- route public transportation services were included in the sur- vey. To be eligible to participate in this survey, those living in the sampled transit markets had to indicate at least moderate support for transit. Specifically, they had to rate their favora- bility toward the importance of having public transit in their community as at least a 5 on a 0- to 10-point scale. The survey asked respondents about their use of transit, attitudes toward transit and competing modes of travel, the various ways they might have supported transit in the past, and their values. Extensive multivariate statistical analysis was performed on the results to identify characteristics, attitudes, behaviors, and values associated with support of public trans- portation. The results of the statistical analysis are presented in this section. 4.3.1 Awareness and Use of Local Public Transit and Transit Services Respondents were asked whether they were aware of local public transportation services. Because the survey only included markets with fixed-route public transit, virtually all respondents were aware of the existence of public transit in the area (98%), and awareness of specific modes generally coincided with actual availability. Fixed-route buses were most known to be available (89%), followed by on-demand service (84% for those with disabilities and 78% for senior citizens). Trains and ferries are far less known to be available (56% and 26%, respectively). These findings are summarized in Table 15. Most respondents (65%) had experience with public tran- sit in their area at some time, with fixed-route buses leading (49%) followed by trains (36%). However, regular use was far less evident, as noted by a low claimed past week use of 20%. Yet despite low regular use, half (52%) said they live within a 5-minute walk to the nearest stop or station; three quarters 41
42 Statement: Decision Reason 1 â 6 relate to the basic mobility/choice promise of public transit. 1 Allows people to be more independent Deleted Not as specific as 3 & 6 2 Gives people more choice in getting around Kept Overlaps with 3 & 6, but choice has long been part of (PT)2, and this will help the present research build on prior work. 3 Helps those who canât afford a car to get around Kept Also very important for support. 4 Helps some people cope with the needs of everyday life Deleted Very similar to 5, but seen as more limiting for marketing purposes 5 Improves the quality of life for a communityâs residents Kept Related to 2, 3, and 6, but may have additional marketing value because it translates transportation into a value, âquality of life.â 6 Provides mobility to those who canât drive, such as seniors, teens, and people with disabilities Kept Very important for support; functional inability to drive (6) significantly different from economic inability (3) Need to know whether 6 or 3 are stronger for communications. Much of 7-13 (as well as some other stray items) relates to cost of entry aspects of public transit. 7 Is well maintained Deleted Fairly redundant with 13 8 Gets people to their destinations on time Deleted Related to 13, but thereâs far greater skepticism about performance. 9 Is easy to get information on how to use Deleted Well-covered by retaining 10 and 13. 10 Is a safe way to get around Kept Important descriptor as a âcost of entry,â based on prior research. 11 Is convenient in bad weather Kept Related to 10, but brings a âshelterâ aspect to it. 12 Has helpful personnel Deleted Well-covered by retaining 10 and 13. 13 Is a dependable means of getting around Kept Related to 8, but encompasses more. High importance and moderate performance perceptions, meaning thereâs opportunity for persuasion. 14 â 22 represent a collection of disparate, positive feelings. They may not seem to relate well to each other so much as the people who respond to them recognize their importance (they may be riders). Many of them seem more important in generating ridership than in generating support, and their appeal for generating support may be limited to riders. 14 Lets you do something relaxing while traveling Deleted Relatively low importance, probably more important in promoting ridership than support 15 Is a relaxed way to get around Deleted Relatively low importance, probably more important in promoting ridership than support 16 Is for people like you Kept Describes the overall dimension well. 17 Is a âcoolâ way to travel Deleted Relatively low importance, probably more important in promoting ridership than support. Also too much skepticism â expensive persuasion with low pay-out for support? Table 13. Original list of transit characteristics used in the list reduction phase, and disposition.
43 Statement: Decision Reason 18 Has a direct, positive impact on your life or those of people you know Kept Kept because it brings in a personal dimension as does 16. But it may have additional value for its emphatic expression translating âmobilityâ into a broader benefit. 19 Is a pleasure to use Deleted Relatively low importance, probably more important in promoting ridership than support. Also too much skepticism â expensive persuasion with low pay-out for support? 20 Has passengers youâre comfortable to be with Deleted Relatively low importance, probably more important in promoting ridership than support. Also too much skepticism â expensive persuasion with low pay-out for support? 21 Is an acceptable way to travel Deleted Related to 16. 22 Is faster than driving Deleted Too few people believe it, and itâs not very important 23 â 27 describe an environmental-societal benefit to transit. While 23 through 26 tend to appeal to the same people, they are different enough that communication strategies will need to distinguish between their value for appeals and targeting. 23 Reduces pollution Kept 24 Reduces societyâs energy consumption Kept 25 Makes America/Canada more independent of foreign oil Kept 26 Reduces congestion on the roads Kept 27 Decreases the need to spend tax dollars on roads and highways Deleted Less related to societal benefits in 23-26, but 23-26 were more believable. 28 & 29 are certainly tied together thanks to âparkingâ; 30 is probably involved here because of saving money, as in 28. 28 Eliminates the need to pay for parking Merged with 29 28 & 29 merged for simplicity into âEliminates the need for parkingâ 29 Eliminates the need to find parking Merged with 28 See 28 30 Saves you money vs. driving Kept Also related to 37; kept over 37 because fares are only one component 31 Is comfortable to use Deleted Ambiguous meaning; it was related to too many other dimensions, and their meaning was generally better explained by other statements. 32 â 34 relate to widespread applicability (route coverage in the first two items, and diversity in the third). 32 Goes where you want to go Kept Related to 33, but it expresses route coverage more broadly 33 Is near your home or office Deleted 34 Meets the needs of a wide variety of people Deleted Overlaps with 3, 6, and 16 35 & 36 work together to describe how one communi ty can be seen more positively than another. Both are needed to adequately understand the dimension. 35 Makes communities more attractive to businesses Kept 36 Makes more people interested in living in the area Kept Table 13. (Continued). (continued on next page)
(75%) said they live within a 5-minute drive. These findings are summarized in Table 16. Use of official resources for public transit information was at an infancy stage. These findings are summarized in Table 17. Half (50%) reported that if they were deciding whether or not to use local public transit in their area, they would rely on what they already know. The Internet, assumed to be either transit agency or municipality websites, was cited most com- monly as an official resource by 27%, followed by informa- tion over the telephone (13%). Awareness and Usage by Country In Canada, more people were aware of the availability of each mode than those in the United States, except for on- demand service for senior citizens which was recognized more by Americans than Canadians. These findings are summa- rized in Table 18. Similarly, the proportion having actually used local public transit (ever and past week) was higher in Canada for all fixed-route services than in the United States. Canadians were more likely than Americans to report living near public transit. These findings are summarized in Table 19. Americans and Canadians were equally likely to turn to offi- cial information resources for travel information. These find- ings are summarized in Table 20. Awareness and Use by Population Density Awareness of fixed-route buses, trains, and ferries was greatest in the highest density population markets. Concur- rently, any experience with fixed-route transit, particularly past week use of fixed-route buses and trains, was also great- est in the highest population density markets. Those living in the highest population density markets were more likely to live close by public transit than those in the two lower density areas. However, even in the lowest density areas, 54% reported living within a 10-minute walk. These findings are summarized in Tables 21 and 22. Although people in the lowest density markets choose the Internet most often as the official information resource as in other markets, they were less likely to do so compared with individuals living in medium and higher density markets. These findings are summarized in Table 23. Awareness and Use among Seniors Use of local transit by senior citizens (defined as age 65â74) is not dramatically different from the use by others in their area, although some differences exist. (See Tables 24 and 25.) Fewer seniors are aware of transit in their area (93% versus 98% among total), especially fixed-route buses (80% versus 89% among total) and ferries (15% versus 26%). Yet they are equally aware of on-demand services designed especially for themâsenior citizens (79% versus 78%). Although they are just as likely ever to have experienced local public transit as others, their past-week use of local tran- sit is below average, especially for fixed-route buses. They are more likely to have used on-demand services for senior citi- zens (11% versus 2%), and their past use of local ferry service is lower than it is for other people (6% versus 12%). 44 Statement: Decision Reason 37 â 39 is an economics grouping, demonstrating that the same people are concerned with saving money. The economic aspects of 37 & 38 are well covered in item 30, but 39 is conceptually unique. 37 Has reasonable fares Deleted See 30 38 Is the least expensive way to get around Deleted Redundant with 30, and of lesser importance. 39 Is a good way to spend tax dollars Kept Although related to many aspects in the list, this âdollars and centsâ expression of transitâs value could be fundamental to persuading people to support. 40 and 41 are conceptually very different; it is difficult to speculate why the same people would respond to these items as drivers of support. 40 Is a good way to escape a natural or man-made disaster Kept Very unique item from the list, with potential value as a result of Hurricane Katrina. 41 Is clean Deleted Oddly ambiguous (loaded more with 40 than with the âcost of entryâ items â suggesting that those most concerned with cleanliness are concerned with comforts in a disaster). Table 13. (Continued).
45 Statement: Decision Reason Items 1 â 7 are all related to each other, with 1-5 describing the dimension best. We feel that environmental values (as expressed in 1 and 3) will be captured by a statement in another group, item 14, and that of those here in 1-5, â2â is the most valuable for this project. 1 Attention to the environment hurts the economy Deleted 2 Spending my tax dollars on upgrading community services like transportation is a waste of my money Kept Very relevant to transit and funding, and we need to know who disagrees with this the most. 3 We put too much emphasis on the environment Deleted 4 Undeveloped land should be used for new housing and businesses Deleted 5 I tend to vote the same way as my neighbors do Deleted 6 One vote doesnât matter Kept Included because this attitude represents a different hurdle than that in 2. 7 Itâs important to find the fastest way in everything I do Deleted 8 â 13 is somewhat the reverse of the group above, except that this group of values is more transit focused. The first four items describe this dimension best, and number 8 the best of them all. We recommend 8 over 9 â 11 for that reason, and recommend keeping 12 and 13 for the different flavor they bring. 8 Those who canât afford a car need help from others in the community Kept 9 We need to help people who canât help themselves Deleted 10 We need to think about others in society Deleted 11 People I care a lot about arenât able to drive Deleted To some extent this feeling is also captured in item 18 in the list of transit characteristics. 12 Iâm willing to make compromises to help society Kept 13 Government has a responsibility to improve the community Kept 14 â 16 express different ideas, but appeal to the same people. Conceptually 16 seems more redundant with 14 than 15 does, and so we recommend deleting 16. 14 We need to take care of the planet Kept 15 Itâs good to be around people from all walks of life Kept 16 We need to think about how our actions and decisions impact future generations Deleted 17 â 20 all speak to impersonal influences. However, far too few people admitted to these influences in the survey, it seems pointless to include these at the cost of excluding other items. 17 I believe what I read and hear in the media Deleted 18 I am influenced by well-known, prominent individuals Deleted 19 Iâm influenced by politicians Deleted 20 I believe celebrities when they get behind a cause Deleted 21 â 25 seem to relate to political activism, with 21 â 23 describing the dimension best. 21 My vote is important to me Deleted Practically universal agreement; it is difficult to justify including it at the expense of excluding other items in this group. 22 I get involved in political and social issues that donât impact me directly Kept 22 and 23 are strongly related, but agreement with 22 is rarer. In addition, since we know that support must be provoked beyond those who currently ride, this is more important strategically. 23 Every individual counts and can have an impact on political and social issues Deleted Also measured (in the reverse) in 6. Table 14. Original list of values statements used in the list reduction phase, and disposition. (continued on next page)
46 Statement: Decision Reason 24 I want a voice in where my tax dollars go Kept Recommended because it brings a different aspect (funding) 25 Making the wrong decisions about transit could cause severe problems for future generations Deleted This item is also captured in the dimension represented by items 8 â 13. 26 â 29, all deal with how to react to people youâ ve never met. As a group, we think the feeling is fairly well captured by item 15, and recommend deleting all four of these as a result. 26 Iâm generally trustful of new people Deleted 27 I would always help a stranger in need Deleted 28 Thereâs nothing wrong with being around strangers Deleted 29 I like talking to new people Deleted 30 â 31 both deal with the need for personal rele vance in order to lead one to an action or conclusion. 30 Personal experience is the best way to convince me to act Revised to: I have to try something for myself in order to support it. Kept in revised form, with greater relevance to past transit marketing Getting people to try transit is often used as a technique to promote ridership, and could conceivably be used to promote support, once people see where their taxes are going. 31 I fight for things only when they affect me personally Deleted Related to 30, as part of making connections through personal experience. 30, however, expresses the idea better. (To some extent this idea is also captured in 22.) Items 32 and 33 seem to relate to wanting to belong; the presence of 34 in this dimension seems to be a statistical anomaly. We recommend dropping all three because so few people identified with these statements, they apparently have little marketing value. 32 I donât like to stand out Deleted 33 I care about what other people think of me Deleted 34 Government already spends enough on community issues Deleted Items 35 & 36 are related as a personal fr eedom aspect and each expresses the dimension equally well. 35 resonates with more people though, and it could be more valuable to understand this hurdle than 36. 35 I like being able to come and go without worrying about timetables and schedules Kept 36 I need to have my personal space when Iâm around others Deleted 37 I want my tax dollars to help my community Deleted Too much of a truism. 38 and 39 seem to relate to moral direction. 38 Religion guides my actions Deleted Too difficult to build a broad communication campaign on this 39 A social conscience guides my actions Deleted The meaning of this was very ambiguous; it relates strongly to 38 or any other dimension, and thus would be difficult to build into a marketing campaign and fully understand its implications. It also relates to statements 8 â 13, although to a lesser degree. Other statements are more explicit. Table 14. (Continued).
47 Total Base: Total Respondents (1800) % Aw are of av ailabilit y of an y mode: 98 Fixed route buses 89 On-demand service: disabilities 84 On-demand service: senior citizens 78 Trains 56 Ferries 26 Ev er experienced an y mode: 65 Fixed route buses 49 On-demand service: disabilities 5 On-demand service: senior citizens 2 Trains 36 Ferries 12 Past w eek usage of an y mode: 20 Fixed route buses 15 On-demand service: disabilities 2 On-demand service: senior citizens 1 Trains 9 Ferries 1 Total Base: Total Respondents (1800) % Walking: 1-5 minutes 52 6-10 minutes 14 11 minutes or more 25 Donât know/refused 9 Average (minutes) 15.1 Driv ing: 1-5 minutes 75 6-10 minutes 9 11 minutes or more 10 Donât know/refused 6 Average (minutes) 5.1 Total Base: Total Respondents (1800) % Would try to get additional information 46 Internet/Online resources 27 Telephone information 13 Other people 5 Would rel y on wh at alread y know 50 Donât know 3 Table 15. Awareness and usage of local transit services, among total. Table 16. Proximity to nearest transit stop/station, among total. Table 17. Transit information resources, among total. Although senior citizens are almost as likely as others to look for additional information when deciding whether to use tran- sit, their choice of official resources is somewhat different. They are less likely to use the Internet (7% versus 27%) in these decisions and more likely to use the telephone instead (19% versus 13%). These findings are summarized in Table 26. 4.3.2 Perceptions and Attitudes Toward Transit As indicated earlier, to be eligible to participate in this sur- vey, those living in the sampled transit markets had to rate their favorability toward the importance of having public tran- sit in their community as at least a 5 on a 0- to 10-point scale. The sample was almost evenly split between those giving transit a very favorable rating of 8-10 (55%) versus a more moderate rating of 5â7 (45%). When compared with the importance of personal vehicles to the community, transit is rated considerably less favorably; 73% rate the car as at least an 8 on the 0â10 scale compared with 55% for transit. Carpooling had no attitudinal advantage over transit (49% versus 55%). These findings are summarized in Figure 1. The importance of transit to the community is one attitu- dinal dimension; performance is yet another. Overall, percep- tions of transit performance are not as positive as perceptions of the importance of transit; very favorable 8â10 ratings were given to the local transit system by only 41% and to transit in general around the state/province/country by only 40%. In fact, a sizeable minority gave poor overall ratings (0â4) to the local system (18%) and to transit in general elsewhere (11%). These findings are summarized in Figure 2. Unique Transit Performance Concepts Specific transit attitudes were examined in more detail to better understand how they influence support. Thus, the researcher team asked respondents to give their perceptions of public transitâs performance in general (not just based on local transit); the set of features is comprehensive and covers areas that may personally affect the individual as well as potential benefits to the larger community. Based on these performance ratings, features were factor-analyzed and grouped into broader, more tangible concepts; six unique performance concepts emerged and were given labels consistent with the transit features associated with them. The six concepts are ⢠GreenâFeatures that benefit the environment; ⢠For youâFeatures that benefit the individual; ⢠WorksâFeatures associated with basic transit services; ⢠For the disadvantagedâFeatures that provide mobility for those who are transportation-disadvantaged; ⢠For the communityâFeatures that improve quality of life; and ⢠For evacuationâFeatures that help people escape from disasters. These findings are summarized in Table 27. More infor- mation about the factor analysis process may be found in Appendix F.
48 Total US Canada Base: Total Respondents (1800) (1500) (300) % % % Aware of availability of any mode: 98 98 99 Fixed route buses 89 88 96U On-demand service: disabilities 84 83 92U On-demand service: senior citizens 78 79C 70 Trains 56 54 69U Ferries 26 25 35U Ever experienced any mode: 65 63 84U Fixed route buses 49 46 72U On-demand service: disabilities 5 5 5 On-demand service: senior citizens 2 2 1 Trains 36 35 49U Ferries 12 12 19U Past week usage of any mode: 20 17 41U Fixed route buses 15 12 34U On-demand service: disabilities 2 1 4U On-demand service: senior citizens 1 1 0 Trains 9 8 19U Ferries 1 <1 3 C Significantly greater than Canada. U Significantly greater than United States. Total US Canada Base: Total Respondents (1800) (1500) (300) % % % Walking: 1-5 minutes 52 48 77U 6-10 minutes 14 15 14 11 minutes or more 25 27C 7 Donât know/refused 9 10C 2 Average (minutes) 15.1 16.6 5.0 Driving: 1-5 minutes 75 73 88U 6-10 minutes 9 10C 4 11 minutes or more 10 11C 1 Donât know/refused 6 6 7 Average (minutes) 5.1 5.5 2.2 C Significantly greater than Canada. U Significantly greater than United States. Table 18. Awareness and usage of local transit services, by country. Table 19. Proximity to nearest transit stop/station, by country. Total US Canada Base: Total Respondents (1800) (1500) (300) % % % Would try to get additional information 46 47 42 Internet/Online resources 27 28 26 Telephone information 13 13 11 Other people 5 5 4 Would rely on what already know 50 50 53 Donât know 3 3 4 Table 20. Transit information resources, by country.
49 Total (1800) % High (658) % Medium (571) % Low (571) % Base: Total Respondents Aware of availability of any mode: 98 98L 98L 95 Fixed route buses 89 92 82 85 On-demand service: disabilities 84 84 85 85 On-demand service: senior citizens 78 78 79 78 Trains 56 69ML 37L 28 Ferries 26 30ML 22L 12 Ever experienced any mode: 65 73ML 53 49 Fixed route buses 49 54ML 39 40 On-demand service: disabilities 5 5 4 4 On-demand service: senior citizens 2 2 2 3 Trains 36 48ML 19 L 11 Ferries 12 15ML 9 6 Past week usage of any mode: 20 26ML 8 10 Fixed route buses 15 19ML 5 9M On-demand service: disabilities 2 2 1 1 On-demand service: senior citizens 1 1 1 1 Trains 9 14ML 2 <1 Ferries 1 1 1 <1 M Significantly greater than Medium. L Significantly greater than Low. Total (1800) % High (658) % Medium (571) % Low (571) % Base: Total Respondents Walking: 1-5 minutes 52 58ML 41 40 6-10 minutes 14 16 11 14 11 minutes or more 25 20 36HL 29H Donât know/refused 9 6 12 17 Average (minutes) 15.1 11.1 24.3 20.4 Driving: 1-5 minutes 75 79HM 68 66 6-10 minutes 9 9 9 10 11 minutes or more 10 7 18H 14H Donât know/refused 6 5 5 10 Average (minutes) 5.1 4.0 7.3 6.6 H Significantly greater than High. M Significantly greater than Medium. L Significantly greater than Low. Total (1800) % High (658) % Medium (571) % Low (571) % Base: Total Respondents Would try to get additional information 46 47 45 44 Internet/Online resources Telephone information Other people 27 30L 26L 19 13 13 14 12 5 4 6 7 Would rely on what already know 50 50 52 52 Donât know 3 3 2 4 L Significantly greater than Low. Table 21. Awareness and usage of local transit services, by population density. Table 22. Proximity to nearest transit stop/station, by population density. Table 23. Transit information resources, by population density.
Perceptions of Performance Based on perceptions of performance, the advantages of transit are connected to social rather than individual benefits; the two areas where transit is seen to best deliver are with respect to providing mobility for those who are disadvan- taged and environmental benefits. ⢠For the disadvantagedâTransit was rated âexcellentâ or âvery goodâ for the average item in this group by 52% of the respondents. Ratings were led by âhelping those who canât afford a car get aroundâ (60%) and âproviding mo- bility to those who canât drive, such as seniors, teens, and people with disabilitiesâ (56%). Somewhat less associated with this concept is the idea of transit âgiving people more choice in getting aroundâ (41%). 50 Total (1800) % Age 65-74 (251) % Base: Total Respondents Aware of availability of any mode: 98 93 Fixed route buses 89 80 On-demand service: disabilities 84 85 On-demand service: senior citizens 78 79 Trains 56 49 Ferries 26S 15 Ever experienced any mode: 65 62 Fixed route buses 49 45 On-demand service: disabilities 5 7 On-demand service: senior citizens 2 11T Trains 36 36 Ferries 12S 6 Past week usage of any mode: 20 14 Fixed route buses 15S 7 On-demand service: disabilities 2 2 On-demand service: senior citizens 1 3 Trains 9 6 Ferries 1 <1 S Significantly greater than Seniors. T Significantly greater than Total. Table 24. Awareness and usage of local transit services, among seniors. Total (1800) % Age 65-74 (251) % Base: Total Respondents Walking: 1-5 minutes 52 46 6-10 minutes 14 13 11 minutes or more 25 24 Donât know/refused 9 17T Average (minutes) 15.1 12.3 Driving: 1-5 minutes 75 68 6-10 minutes 9 11 11 minutes or more 10 10 Donât know/refused 6 11T Average (minutes) 5.1 5.5 T Significantly greater than Total. Table 25. Proximity to nearest transit stop/station, among seniors. 41% 40% 41% 49% 18% 11% In Area In General 0-4 5-7 8-10 11-point scale ranging from 0 to 10; 0 = âPoor;â 10 = âExcellent.â Percentages shown are among those answering. In area = 1715; in general =1724. Figure 2. Perceptions of local transit and transit in general among total. 55% 73% 49% 45% 19% 30% 8% 21% Transit Driving Own Car Carpooling 0-4 5-7 8-10 11-point scale ranging from 0 to 10; 0 = âNot at all Favorable;â 10 = âExtremely Favorable.â Percentages shown are among those answering. Transit = 1800; driving own car = 1762; carpooling = 1776. Figure 1. Favorability of importance of local transit and other modes among total. Total (1800) % Age 65-74 (251) % Base: Total Respondents Would try to get additional information 46 41 Internet/Online resources 27S 7 Telephone information 13 19T Other people 5 4 Would rely on what already know 50 52 Donât know 3 7 S Significantly greater than Seniors. T Significantly greater than Total. Table 26. Transit information resources, among seniors.
51 ⢠GreenâTransitâs average rating in this group was 44%, led by âeliminating the need for parkingâ (49%). Most other attributes were rated excellent/very good by 43 to 46%, including transitâs positive effect on congestion, pollution, and energy, and its appropriateness for tax dollars. However, of all the âGreenâ attributes, there is greater skepticism about transitâs effect on limiting dependence on foreign oil (37%). Transitâs performance in other areas was not viewed as positively. ⢠WorksâThe average item in this group was rated excellent/ very good by 38%. Transit received much higher ratings for âeliminating the need for parkingâ (49%) and âbeing a safe way to get aroundâ (47%) than it did for being de- pendable (37%), convenience in bad weather (30%) or âgoing where you want to goâ (29%). ⢠For the communityâRated 35% on average, there is little difference between its perceptions for improving the qual- ity of life for the residents (38%), making the community more attractive to business (36%), or to increasing othersâ interests in moving to the community (31%). ⢠For youâAlthough transit was rated 34% excellent/very good for the average attribute in this group, the economic benefit, âsaving you money vs. driving,â is rated much higher than other items in the group (45% versus a range of 29 to 32% for the others in the group). ⢠Very few (13%) consider public transit as excellent/very good for evacuating from a disaster. These findings are summarized in Figure 3 and Table 28. Transit Features as Determinants of Transit Support In addition to perceptions about what transit actually delivers, or the actual performance of transit, respondents were also asked to tell how important each of these same concepts are when deciding whether or not to support tran- Green: Reducing pollution Reducing societyâs energy consumption Reducing congestion on the roads Making your country more independent of foreign oil Eliminating the need for parking1 Being a good way to spend tax dollars For You: Being for people like you Having a direct, positive impact on your life or those of people you know Going where you want to go2 Saving you money vs. driving Works: Being a safe way to get around Being a dependable means of getting around Being convenient in bad weather Going where you want to go2 Eliminating the need for parking1 For The Disadvantaged: Providing mobility to those who canât drive, such as seniors, teens, and people with disabilities Helping those who canât afford a car to get around Giving people more choice in getting around For The Community: Making more people interested in living in the area Making communities more attractive to business Improving the quality of life for a communityâs residents Evacuation: Being a good way to escape a natural or man-made disaster 1 This attribute was associated with two concepts: Green and Works. 2 This attribute was associated with two concepts: For You and Works. Table 27. Transit performance concepts. 13% 34% 35% 38% 44% 52% 0% 10% 30% 50%20% 40% 60% Evacuation For you For the community Works Green For the disadvantaged N = 1800 Figure 3. Ratings of transit on performance concepts among total (% excellent/very good).
sit. By far, transitâs social benefits, the ability to deliver mo- bility to those in need, were the most important determi- nant of support. The average item in the For the disadvan- taged grouping was considered extremely or very important when considering whether or not to support transit by 83% of the respondents. Respondents did not consider any other grouping as important for driving their decisions on sup- porting transit. These findings are summarized in Figure 4 and Table 29. Perceptions and Attitudes by Country Americans and Canadians hold similar views regarding transit, with three exceptions. Compared with respondents in the United States, Canadians rated transit more highly for âbeing a safe way to get around,â âreducing pollution,â and âimproving the quality of life for a communityâs residents.â The latter two were also more important to Canadians in determining whether to support transit. These findings are summarized in Tables 30 through 32. Perceptions and Attitudes by Population Density Very few differences are apparent among people living in the three different population density areas; these differences are widely scattered with no common pattern, as follows: ⢠Those living in the lowest densities are less likely to view transit as an important asset to the community when com- pared with medium- and high-density areas. In contrast, those living in high-density areas think personal vehicles are less important. ⢠Those living in medium-density areas think carpooling affects their community more than those in the highest density areas. ⢠Those living in medium-density markets rate transit more highly than those in the highest densities for âbeing a dependable means of getting aroundâ; those living in low- est densities rate transit more highly than those in high- density areas for disaster evacuation. 52 Total (1800) % For the Disadvantaged (Average Rating): 52 Helping those who canât afford a car to get around 60 Providing mobility to those who canât drive, such as seniors, teens, and people with disabilities 56 Giving people more choice in getting around 41 Green (Average Rating): 44 Eliminating the need for parking 49 Reducing congestion on the roads 46 Reducing pollution 43 Reducing societyâs energy consumption 43 Being a good way to spend tax dollars 43 Making your country more independent of foreign oil 37 Works (Average Rating): 38 Eliminating the need for parking 49 Being a safe way to get around 47 Being a dependable means of getting around 37 Being convenient in bad weather 30 Going where you want to go 29 For the Community (Average Rating): 35 Improving the quality of life for a communityâs residents 38 Making communities more attractive to business 36 Making more people interested in living in the area 31 For You (Average Rating): 34 Saving you money vs. driving 45 Being for people like you 32 Having a direct, positive impact on your life or those of people you know 30 Going where you want to go 29 Evacuation (Average Rating): 13 Being a good way to escape a natural or man-made disaster 13 Table 28. Ratings of transit on performance concepts among total (% excellent/very good). 42% 55% 60% 67% 68% 83% 0% 20% 60%40% 80% 100% Evacuation For the community For you Green Works For the disadvantaged N = 1800 Figure 4. Ratings of transit performance concepts as determinants of transit support among total (% extremely/very important).
53 ⢠Those in lowest density areas are more likely than those in medium-density areas to emphasize âimproving the quality of life for a communityâs residentsâ; those in high-density areas are more likely than those in all other areas to empha- size personal relevance (âis for people like youâ). These findings are summarized in Tables 33 through 35. Perceptions and Attitudes Among Seniors Compared with others, seniors aged 65-74 feel more posi- tively about the general importance of transit as a local mode of transportation. However, they rate transit performance lower for the two of the most critical transit features: ⢠Providing mobility for the disadvantaged and ⢠Reducing pollution. When considering whether to support transit, they assign greater importance to many features: ⢠WorksâBeing a safe way to get around; eliminating the need for parking. ⢠GreenâMaking the country more independent of foreign oil; being a good way to spend tax dollars. ⢠For the CommunityâImproving the quality of life for residents; making the community more attractive to busi- ness; making more people interested in living in the area. ⢠EvacuationâBeing a good way to escape a disaster. These findings are summarized in Tables 36 through 38. Dividing Individuals into âImportance Segmentsâ Looking at what respondents consider important when deciding whether or not to support transit, the researchers were able to classify respondents into four different âimpor- tance segments.â The four importance segments are defined as ⢠Good For Us: EcologyâThose in the Good For Us: Ecology segment represent 29% of the participants. They empha- size environmental and community benefits as important reasons to support transit (reduces pollution, reduces con- gestion, reduces societyâs energy consumption, makes the country less dependent on foreign oil, improves quality of life, good use of tax dollars, and is for people like you). Their personal deep-rooted values, beyond just transit issues, place them high in the Society Do-Gooders values- based segment, which is focused considerably on the importance of societal benefits in all aspects of lifestyle (de- scribed in full later in this report). As such, these partici- pants are more likely than others to have used transit in their area. Many of them are also Influentials, a group of people identified in Report 63 as being publicly active through activities such as speaking at public meetings or writing letters to newspapers. Demographically, they are more socio-economically upscale than their counterparts. ⢠Good For Us: MobilityâThe Good For Us: Mobility segment represents 24% of respondents. This group is dis- tinguished by its emphasis on the mobility that transit pro- vides to those who cannot get around otherwise, albeit they also emphasize some environmental issues as reasons for transit support as the Ecology group described above. Total (1800) % For the Disadvantaged (Average Rating): 83 Providing mobility to those who canât drive, such as seniors, teens, and people with disabilities 89 Helping those who canât afford a car to get around 87 Giving people more choice in getting around 72 Works (Average Rating): 68 Being a safe way to get around 75 Being a dependable means of getting around 73 Going where you want to go 71 Eliminating the need for parking 62 Being convenient in bad weather 61 Green (Average Rating): 67 Reducing pollution 74 Reducing congestion on the roads 71 Reducing societyâs energy consumption 70 Being a good way to spend tax dollars 63 Eliminating the need for parking 62 Making your country more independent of foreign oil 61 For You (Average Rating): 60 Going where you want to go 71 Saving you money vs. driving 63 Having a direct, positive impact on your life or those of people you know 54 Being for people like you 51 For the Community (Average Rating): 55 Improving the quality of life for a communityâs residents 66 Making communities more attractive to business 55 Making more people interested in living in the area 43 Evacuation (Average Rating): 42 Being a good way to escape a natural or man-made disaster 42 Table 29. Ratings of transit performance concepts as determinants of transit support among total (% extremely/very important). Total US Canada (1800) (1500) (300) % % % Transit 55 55 57 Car pooling 48 49 42 Driving own car 71 71 64 Table 30. Favorability of importance of local transit and other modes by country (% 8â10 ratings).
Important to them is that the benefits are to others rather than themselves personally. They think of transit as having value more for others than themselves, since they are less likely to have used transit, more likely to give their personal vehicle a high favorability rating of 8-10, and more likely to have a car in their household. ⢠Good For MeâThe Good For Me segment represents 21% of the participants. People in the Good For Me segment tend to be concerned with what public transit does for them per- sonally. It is important to them that transit saves them money versus driving, that it is for people like themselves, and that it has a direct effect on their life or on the life of peo- ple they know. In fact, they have strong identification with the personal deep-rooted value âI have to try something for myself in order to support it,â reinforcing their need for per- sonal relevance. This group is somewhat socio-economically downscale; they show lower levels of education and are less likely than others to have a car in their household. ⢠WorksâThose in the Works segment represent 27% of the respondents. They appear to base their transit support on the simple functionality of the system for the everyday needs of themselves and others. They place high priorities on whether or not transit provides mobility to those who cannot afford cars, provides choice in getting around, and takes them where they want to go. That they tend to be young (age 18-24), college students, unemployed, and live in larger households suggest that there are economic rea- sons for their dependence on transit. These segments are summarized in Figure 5 and Tables 39 and 40. 4.3.3 Current Transit-Supporting Behaviors Respondents were asked to describe themselves regarding the strength of their support for transit as âvery strong supporters,â 54 Total (1800) % US (1500) % Canada (300) % For the Disadvantaged (Average Rating): 52 52 51 Helping those who canât afford a car to get around 60 60 57 Providing mobility to those who canât drive, such as seniors, teens, and people with disabilities 56 56 56 Giving people more choice in getting around 41 41 41 Green (Average Rating): 44 43 47 Eliminating the need for parking 49 48 54 Reducing congestion on the roads 46 46 50 Reducing pollution 43 42 55U Reducing societyâs energy consumption 43 42 48 Being a good way to spend tax dollars 43 43 43 Making your country more independent of foreign oil 37 37 32 Works (Average Rating): 38 37 44 Eliminating the need for parking 49 48 54 Being a safe way to get around 47 44 62U Being a dependable means of getting around 37 37 38 Being convenient in bad weather 30 30 30 Going where you want to go 29 28 34 For the Community (Average Rating): 35 35 39 Improving the quality of life for a communityâs residents 38 37 47U Making communities more attractive to business 36 36 36 Making more people interested in living in the area 31 31 34 For You (Average Rating): 34 34 36 Saving you money vs. driving 45 45 42 Being for people like you 32 32 32 Having a direct, positive impact on your life or those of people you know 30 30 34 Going where you want to go 29 28 34 Evacuation (Average Rating): 13 13 16 Being a good way to escape a natural or man-made disaster 13 13 16 U Significantly greater than United States. Table 31. Ratings of transit on performance concepts by country (% excellent/very good).
55 âsomewhat strong supporters,â âmild supporters,â or ânot really a supporter at all.â More than a third (40%) of the respondents considered themselves âvery strong supporters.â These findings are summarized in Figure 6. Then those respondents who considered themselves as at least âmild supportersâ were asked to indicate which specific support behaviors, of the 15 included in the survey, they might have undertaken or shown toward transit in the past few years. The average respondent claimed to have only engaged in four of them. The most common ways in which respondents supported public transit tended to be relatively passive, lim- ited to conversation and to the circles of their everyday life, specifically friends, co-workers, and associates. Although about two-thirds (61%-67%) of respondents recommend public transit to friends and co-workers, less than half that amount (30%) have voted for a bill or bond that raised money for transit, and even fewer (10%) attended a public meeting on transit. These findings are summarized in Table 41. Transit-Supporting Behaviors by Country Canadian and American respondents classify themselves similarly in their support for transit; roughly three out of four considered themselves as either a âvery strongâ or âsomewhat strongâ supporter in each country. Total (1800) % US (1500) % Canada (300) % For the Disadvantaged (Average Rating): 83 83 85 Providing mobility to those who canât drive, such as seniors, teens, and people with disabilities 89 89 93 Helping those who canât afford a car to get around 87 87 89 Giving people more choice in getting around 72 72 72 Works (Average Rating): 68 68 70 Being a safe way to get around 75 74 79 Being a dependable means of getting around 73 74 70 Going where you want to go 71 71 76 Eliminating the need for parking 62 62 63 Being convenient in bad weather 61 61 61 Green (Average Rating): 67 67 69 Reducing pollution 74 73 82U Reducing congestion on the roads 71 70 74 Reducing societyâs energy consumption 70 69 74 Being a good way to spend tax dollars 63 63 66 Eliminating the need for parking 62 62 63 Making your country more independent of foreign oil 61 62 57 For You (Average Rating): 60 59 64 Going where you want to go 71 71 76 Saving you money vs. driving 63 62 64 Having a direct, positive impact on your life or those of people you know 54 53 59 Being for people like you 51 50 56 For the Community (Average Rating): 55 54 61 Improving the quality of life for a communityâs residents 66 65 74U Making communities more attractive to business 55 54 62 Making more people interested in living in the area 43 42 47 Evacuation (Average Rating): 42 42 45 Being a good way to escape a natural or man-made disaster 42 42 45 U Significantly greater than United States. Table 32. Ratings of transit performance concepts as determinants of transit support by country (% extremely/very important). Total High Medium Low (1800) (658) (571) (571) % % % % Transit 55 56L 56L 47 Carpooling 48 46 53H 49 Driving own car 71 66 77H 80H H Significantly greater than High Density. L Significantly greater than Low Density. Table 33. Favorability of importance of local transit and other modes by population density (% 8â10 ratings).
They are also equivalent in terms of the number of transit- supporting behaviors in which they claim to have engaged (an average of 4.0), as well as regarding the actual specific behaviors. There is one difference, however: Americans were more likely than Canadians to have voted for a transit fund- ing bond or referendum (33% versus 8%). This difference is probably due more to governmental differences than to the dispositions of the respondents. Otherwise, Americans and Canadians engaged in the support behaviors at similar rates. These findings are summarized in Table 42. Transit-Supporting Behaviors by Population Density The self-classified transit supporter is about equal across density markets. However, those living in the high-density areas were more likely to have engaged in some support behaviors than those in medium- or low-density areas, basi- cally limited to the relatively less public behaviors of inter- personal recommendations and visiting websites. These find- ings are summarized in Table 43. Transit-Supporting Behaviors Among Seniors People who are age 65â74 were just as likely as others to consider themselves âvery strongâ or âsomewhat strongâ tran- sit supporters, but this attitude had yet to lead to the same level of action; they demonstrated fewer transit-support behaviors (3.0 on average versus 4.0 among total). In particular, they engaged in fewer support behaviors relating to social/work cir- cles, such as saying good things about transit to friends or coworkers (50% versus 64% among total) and encouraging others to use transit (52% versus 67% among total). They were also less likely to have visited websites to learn more about transit or to have signed up for email alerts. There were no support behaviors where they compensated for lack of activ- ity in these. These findings are summarized in Table 44.) 56 Total (1800) % High (658) % Medium (571) % Low (571) % For the Disadvantaged (Average Rating): 52 52 52 54 Helping those who canât afford a car to get around 60 59 59 63 Providing mobility to those who canât drive, such as seniors, teens, and people with disabilities 56 56 59 54 Giving people more choice in getting around 41 41 39 44 Green (Average Rating): 44 44 44 43 Eliminating the need for parking 49 49 50 49 Reducing congestion on the roads 46 46 48 47 Reducing pollution 43 44 43 42 Reducing societyâs energy consumption 43 42 45 42 Being a good way to spend tax dollars 43 44 40 43 Making your country more independent of foreign oil 37 36 38 36 Works (Average Rating): 38 38 39 39 Eliminating the need for parking 49 49 50 49 Being a safe way to get around 47 47 45 48 Being a dependable means of getting around 37 35 43H 38 Being convenient in bad weather 30 28 32 31 Going where you want to go 29 30 25 27 For the Community (Average Rating): 35 36 33 31 Improving the quality of life for a communityâs residents 38 37 40 39 Making communities more attractive to business 36 38 32 35 Making more people interested in living in the area 31 33 28 28 For You (Average Rating): 34 35 32 34 Saving you money vs. driving 45 45 43 48 Being for people like you 32 34 29 30 Having a direct, positive impact on your life or those of people you know 30 30 30 32 Going where you want to go 29 30 25 27 Evacuation (Average Rating): 13 12 13 17 Being a good way to escape a natural or man-made disaster 13 12 13 17H H Significantly greater than High Density. Table 34. Ratings of transit on performance concepts by population density (% excellent/very good).
57 Unique Transit-Supporting Behavior Typologies A factor analysis was conducted to determine the existence of unique transit-supporting behavior typologies. By typol- ogy, the researchers mean a sub-set of support behaviors that correlate highly with behaviors grouped within the same sub- set, but not with other support behaviors that belong to other subsets. The presence of unique typologies would suggest the need for different marketing strategies to address the differ- ent typologies of support behaviors. Instead, however, con- clusions from the factor analysis pointed to a set of highly correlated and intertwined set of support behaviors; this sug- gests that there is really only one, overarching notion of transit- supporting behaviors. The results of this research will be used to develop one set of marketing strategies to build this universal notion of transit-supporting behaviors, rather than different marketing tactics to motivate the different types of support behaviors. A full discussion of the procedure may be found in Appendix F. A Look Back at the Historical Support Classification from 1999 TCRP Report 63 (1), conducted in 1999, segmented the general public based on their feelings of favorability toward Total (1800) % High (658) % Medium (571) % Low (571) % For the Disadvantaged (Average Rating): 83 83 82 83 Providing mobility to those who canât drive, such as seniors, teens, and people with disabilities 89 89 88 89 Helping those who canât afford a car to get around 87 87 87 88 Giving people more choice in getting around 72 73 71 71 Works (Average Rating): 68 69 68 69 Being a safe way to get around 75 75 74 75 Being a dependable means of getting around 73 74 73 73 Going where you want to go 71 72 69 70 Eliminating the need for parking 62 63 61 61 Being convenient in bad weather 61 61 62 65 Green (Average Rating): 67 68 65 67 Reducing pollution 74 76 71 71 Reducing congestion on the roads 71 72 66 72 Reducing societyâs energy consumption 70 70 69 72 Being a good way to spend tax dollars 63 64 63 63 Eliminating the need for parking 62 63 61 61 Making your country more independent of foreign oil 61 61 62 65 For You (Average Rating): 60 62 55 57 Going where you want to go 71 72 69 70 Saving you money vs. driving 63 64 60 61 Having a direct, positive impact on your life or those of people you know 54 56 50 51 Being for people like you 51 55ML 42 44 For the Community (Average Rating): 55 56 52 53 Improving the quality of life for a communityâs residents 66 66 63 72M Making communities more attractive to business 55 57 52 46 Making more people interested in living in the area 43 45 40 40 Evacuation (Average Rating): 42 41 44 43 Being a good way to escape a natural or man-made disaster 42 41 44 43 M Significantly greater than Medium Density. L Significantly greater than Low Density. Table 35. Ratings of transit performance concepts as determinants of transit support by population density (% extremely/very important). Total (1800) % Age 65-74 (251) % Transit 55 68T Car pooling 48 48 Driving own car 71 73 T Significantly greater than Total. Table 36. Favorability of importance of local transit and other modes among seniors (% 8â10 ratings).
public transit (importance and impact in the area where you live) using an 11-point scale ranging from â0â to â10.â Those who rated public transit as an 8 or more were considered âSupportersâ of transit, an important group given that they are most likely to undertake support actions. Those whose rat- ings fell in the middle, between 5 and 7, were considered âSwingâ and were considered a primary target for future mar- keting given that they were possibly open to persuasion. Those who rated it below 5 were considered âNon-Supporters,â a group determined likely to be unresponsive to any possible marketing strategies. TCRP Report 63 found that, in the United States, 36% were Supporters, 33% were Swing, and 31% were Non-Supporters. In Canada, Supporters were more prevalent, at 52%; Swing constituted 30%, and Non-Supporters 18%. The current research builds on this premise; it incorpo- rated the favorability measure as a screening of eligibility, leaving out of the current survey those who fell in the Non- Supporter classification. Compared to 1999, the current research found a smaller proportion falling into the TCRP Report 63 definition of âSupportersâ and a larger proportion falling into âNon-Supporters.â However, it still found more âSupportersâ in Canada than in the United States. These find- ings are summarized in Figure 7. The current research may have included areas where support for transit is weaker; this could help explain the difference in proportions between 1999 and the current survey in 2006. TCRP Report 63 also classified individuals as âInfluentialsâ if they claimed to have engaged in at least four of eight gen- eral public activities not related exclusively to transit. Adopt- ing this classification, the current study found that the most common public activity was reading the editorial page in the daily paper (56%); no other activities were engaged in by more than half. About one in five (21%) engage in at least four of the eight behaviors, qualifying as âInfluentials.â (This percentage cannot be compared to TCRP Report 63, because TCRP Report 63 included âNon-Supporters.â) These findings are summarized in Table 45. 58 Total (1800) % Age 65-74 (251) % For the Disadvantaged (Average Rating): 52S 44 Helping those who canât afford a car to get around 60S 49 Providing mobility to those who canât drive, such as seniors, teens, and people with disabilities 56S 48 Giving people more choice in getting around 41 36 Green (Average Rating): 44 41 Eliminating the need for parking 49 46 Reducing congestion on the roads 46 44 Reducing pollution 43S 31 Reducing societyâs energy consumption 43 43 Being a good way to spend tax dollars 43 41 Making your country more independent of foreign oil 37 40 Works (Average Rating): 38 37 Eliminating the need for parking 49 46 Being a safe way to get around 47 48 Being a dependable means of getting around 37 35 Being convenient in bad weather 30 27 Going where you want to go 29 30 For the Community (Average Rating): 35 35 Improving the quality of life for a communityâs residents 38 39 Making communities more attractive to business 36 35 Making more people interested in living in the area 31 31 For You (Average Rating): 34 34 Saving you money vs. driving 45 42 Being for people like you 32 34 Having a direct, positive impact on your life or those of people you know 30 31 Going where you want to go 29 30 Evacuation (Average Rating): 13 15 Being a good way to escape a natural or man-made disaster 13 15 S Significantly greater than Seniors. Table 37. Ratings of transit on performance concepts among seniors (% excellent/very good).
59 4.3.4 Personal Deep-Rooted Values Marketing campaigns in other industries have successfully used personal deep-rooted values to effect change. In order to determine whether transit can do the same, respondents were asked to rate themselves on a series of values and beliefs. Agreement levels (âdescribes me completely or very wellâ) are highest for those values that express a desire for ideal living conditions rather than personal responsibility for improving the status quo. In this regard, the importance of transporta- tion, i.e., all forms of transportation, is universally central to respondentsâ value systems. ⢠The top tier of values, with ratings of 79% or higher, tend to reflect general humanitarian and/or environmental concerns. ⢠The values that fall in the second tier, with ratings in the range of 40 to 68%, suggest that it is not universal to think that the community or government is responsible for its citizensâ quality of life. ⢠Statements in the third tier indicate widespread general disinterest in personal involvement in public issues beyond the responsibility of voting. Getting involved without hav- ing been personally affected is extremely rare (23%). Total Age 65-74 (1800) (251) % % For the Disadvantaged (Average Rating): 83 85 Providing mobility to those who canât drive, such as seniors, teens, and people with disabilities 89 90 Helping those who canât afford a car to get around 87 90 Giving people more choice in getting around 72 76 Works (Average Rating): 68 76 Being a safe way to get around 75 85T Being a dependable means of getting around 73 79 Going where you want to go 71 74 Eliminating the need for parking 62 75T Being convenient in bad weather 61 68 Green (Average Rating): 67 74 Reducing pollution 74 77 Reducing congestion on the roads 71 77 Reducing societyâs energy consumption 70 71 Being a good way to spend tax dollars 63 71T Eliminating the need for parking 62 75T Making your country more independent of foreign oil 61 74T For You (Average Rating): 60 62 Going where you want to go 71 74 Saving you money vs. driving 63 64 Having a direct, positive impact on your life or those of people you know 54 54 Being for people like you 51 56 For the Community (Average Rating): 55 65T Improving the quality of life for a communityâs residents 66 73T Making communities more attractive to business 55 64T Making more people interested in living in the area 43 58T Evacuation (Average Rating): 42 51T Being a good way to escape a natural or man-made disaster 42 51T T Significantly greater than Total. Table 38. Ratings of transit performance concepts as determinants of transit support among seniors (% extremely/very important). 29% 24% 21% 27% Good For Us: Ecology Good For Us: Mobility Good For Me Works N = 1800 Figure 5. Importance segment percentages among total.
Good For Us: Ecology Good For Us: Mobility Good For Me Works Rating of Transit Features as Determinates of Transit Support: (% Extremely/ Very Important) Skews high on: Reduces pollution (90%) Reduces congestion on the roads (88%) Reduces societyâs energy consumption (87%) Makes your country more independent of foreign oil (78%) Eliminates the need for parking (74%) Improves the quality of life for a communityâs residents (72%) Is a good way to spend tax dollars (71%) Is for people like you (56%) Skews low on: Is convenient in bad weather (47%) Makes communities more attractive to businesses (47%) Makes more people interested in living in the area (37%) Is a good way to escape a natural or man-made disaster (14%) Skews high on: Provides mobility to those who canât drive (96%) Helps those who canât afford a car to get around (92%) Reduces pollution (85%) Reduces societyâs energy consumption (80%) Makes your country more independent of foreign oil (75%) Is a good way to escape a natural or man-made disaster (66%) Skews low on: Is a dependable means of getting around (68%) Gives people more choice in getting around (66%) Goes where you want (61%) Improves the quality of life for a communityâs residents (60%) Saves money vs. driving (50%) Makes communities more attractive to businesses (47%) Is a good way to spend tax dollars (47%) Has a direct, positive impact on your life or those of people you know (38%) Is for people like you (29%) Makes more people interested in living in the area (28%) Skews high on: Reduces congestion on the roads (77%) Saves you money vs. driving (76%) Improves the quality of life for a communityâs residents (76%) Is convenient in bad weather (75%) Is a good way to spend tax dollars (73%) Has a direct, positive impact on your life or those of people you know (73%) Makes communities more attractive to businesses (72%) For people like you (72%) Makes more people interested in living in the area (70%) Makes your country more independent of foreign oil (68%) Good way to escape a natural or man-made disaster (63%) Skews low on: Provides mobility to those who canât drive (78%) Helps those who canât afford a car to get around (74%) Skews high on: Helps those who canât afford a car to get around (93%) Gives people more choice in getting around (77%) Goes where you want to go (77%) Skews low on: Improves the quality of life for a communityâs residents (58%) Reduces congestion on the roads (50%) Eliminates the need for parking (48%) Reduces pollution (46%) Reduces societyâs energy consumption (42%) Is a good way to escape a natural or man-made disaster (34%) Makes your country more independent of foreign oil (26%) Table 39. Division of importance segments.
Geographic Location No skews Population Density No skews Demo- graphy Better educated (51% college graduate) More White (76%), fewer Hispanic (5%) Fewer large households, only 2% 6+ In the U.S., more upper income (22% $100k+) More likely to have a car in household (97%) In Canada fewer lower income (6% less than CN$25k) Fewer age 18-34 (27%) Less educated (41% high school or less) More likely to not have a car in household (14%) Younger: more age 18-24 (21%) Fewer White (62%) More college students (10%) and unemployed (10%) Larger households: 8% with 6+ members, and 27% with 3+ adults In the U.S., more lower income (27% less than $25k); however in Canada fewer lower income (6% less than CN$25k) Good For Us: Ecology Good For Us: Mobility Good For Me Works Local Transit Usage Skew high for ever experienced any mode (71%) Skew low for ever experienced any mode (58%) and ever experienced trains (29%) Past week usage skews low for any mode (12%), including fixed route buses (10%), and trains (5%) Skew high for on-demand service for disabled, both âeverâ (7%) and in the past week (3%) Favorability and Importance of Transit and Other Modes (% 8- 10) Low for driving own car (61%) High for driving own car (81%) Low for carpooling (41%) Overall Ratings Low for local transit (13% 0-2) Low for transit in general (32% 8-10) High for transit in general (46% 8-10) Ratings of Transit on Perfor- mance Concepts: (% Excellent /Very Good) Skews high on: Green (56%) Skews low on: Evacuation (6%) Skews high on: Evacuation (17%) Skews low on: For You (28%) Skews high on: Evacuation (23%) Skews low on nothing. Skews high on nothing. Skews low on: Green (32%) For the Community (29%) Evacuation (9%) Average # of Transit Support Behaviors: 4.5 3.6 4.0 3.9 Influentials Member- ship: Skews high, 26% Membership in Values Segments Skew high for Society Do-Gooders (34%), low for Self-Involved (19%) (See Section 4.3.4) Skew high for Talkers, Not Walkers (18%) (See Section 4.3.4) Table 40. Profiles of the four importance segments.
⢠However, the entire sample essentially agrees that trans- portation, all forms of transportation, is central to govern- ment responsibility; only 7% feel that spending tax dollars on community services such as transportation is a waste of resources. These findings are summarized in Figure 8. Dividing Individuals into Segments Based on Personal Deep-Rooted Values Respondents were grouped into five value segments based on the specific deep-rooted beliefs and values they hold. These findings are summarized in Figure 9 and Tables 46 and 47. Each segment contains individuals who share similar values with others in that same group, but who carry somewhat different values than individuals who are members of other segments. The five value segments are as follows: ⢠Society Do-GoodersâSociety Do-Gooders represent 25% of respondents. These individuals are the most socially con- cerned and personally active among the segments. They express environmental concerns and believe in the impor- tance of community and governmental action. They are also more open to action on issues that may not be person- ally relevant to them. They express a high level of interest in public transit and are above average in their transit- supporting behaviors. They also tend to be demographi- cally upscale; they are more likely than others to live in their own homes, have high incomes, and be highly educated. They are also more likely to be female and white. ⢠The World And MeâThe World And Me segment repre- sents 20% of the participants. These people express envi- ronmental concerns and espouse many of the community values that make transit an asset to communities and see a role for communities and government in making improve- ments. However, despite these altruistic concerns, they are unlikely to take action on anything that does not have a per- sonal reward. No particular demographic classifications stand out among this group. 62 40% 34% 19% 7% Very strong Somewhat strong Mild Not one at all N = 1800 Figure 6. Proportion of supporters, non-supporters, and âswing,â using Report 63 criterion. Total (1800) % Encouraged others to use transit 67 Said good things to your friends or co-workers about public transportation 64 Suggested public transportation to a group of friends going to a large public event 61 Visited a Web site to learn more about public transportation in your area 43 Urged others to be patient while construction projects related to public transportation were in progress 36 Voted for a bill or bond which raised money for transit 30 Voted for a candidate because he/she was in favor of public transportation 22 Contacted a public transit agency to recommend a change or improvement 16 Spoken to your employer about getting transit programs and rideshare programs for employees 14 Filled out a rider-comment card or participated in a prior survey for public transportation 14 Attended a public meeting or town hall because public transportation was being discussed 10 Bought a souvenir such as a t-shirt or button from a public transportation agency 9 Signed up for email alerts regarding public transportation 8 Written a letter or email to the local newspaper in support of public transportation 4 Arranged or helped organize a meeting about public transportation in your neighborhood 3 Not really a supporter at all (not asked) 7 Average number of behaviors 4.0 Table 41. Support behaviors engaged in among total.
63 Total US Canada (1800) (1500) (300) % % % RATING OF SELF AS A SUPPORTER: Very/strong supporter 74 73 80 Very strong supporter 40 40 40 Somewhat strong supporter 34 33 41 SUPPORT BEHAVIORS ENGAGED IN: Encouraged others to use transit 67 67 69 Said good things to your friends or co-workers about public transportation 64 63 67 Suggested public transportation to a group of friends going to a large public event 61 60 66 Visited a Web site to learn more about public transportation in your area 43 42 51 Urged others to be patient while construction projects related to public transportation were in progress 36 36 39 Voted for a bill or bond which raised money for transit 30 33C 8 Voted for a candidate because he/she was in favor of public transportation 22 22 24 Contacted a public transit agency to recommend a change or improvement 16 15 17 Spoken to your employer about getting transit programs and rideshare programs for employees 14 15 13 Filled out a rider-comment card or participated in a prior survey for public transportation 14 14 13 Attended a public meeting or town hall because public transportation was being discussed 10 10 14 Bought a souvenir such as a t-shirt or button from a public transportation agency 9 10 6 Signed up for email alerts regarding public transportation 8 9 5 Written a letter or email to the local newspaper in support of public transportation 4 3 5 Arranged or helped organize a meeting about public transportation in your neighborhood 3 4 1 Not really a supporter at all (not asked) 7 7 5 Average number of behaviors 4.0 4.0 4.0 C Significantly greater than Canada. Table 42. Support for transit by country. ⢠Talkers, Not WalkersâTalkers, Not Walkers represent 14% of respondents. Although this group claims they get involved in issues that do not affect them directly, they show little interest in governmental involvement in com- munity services such as public transit. Except for slightly more Hispanics than other segments, there are no demo- graphic differences. ⢠Self-InvolvedâSelf-Involved represent 25% of the respon- dents. This group is less willing to make compromises for the benefit of society and is less likely to recognize the dif- ficulties that occur when someone cannot get around town easily. They also see spending tax money on services such as transportation as a waste of money and believe in a min- imal role for government improving communities or help- ing people become more self-sufficient. This group is less educated than other segments and very favorable to the importance of a personal vehicle. ⢠ApatheticsâApathetics represent 17% of respondents. This group of people is most distinguished by their lack of political involvement. Most believe that their âvote doesnât matter.â Few see themselves as getting involved in issues that are not personally relevant. They tend to be younger and less educated than those in other segments, and eth- nicity skews away from white.
64 Total High Medium Low (1800) (658) (571) (571) % % % % RATING OF SELF AS A SUPPORTER: Very/strong supporter 74 75 73 70 Very strong supporter 40 41 38 37 Somewhat strong supporter 34 34 34 33 SUPPORT BEHAVIORS ENGAGED IN: Encouraged others to use transit 67 71ML 60 62 Said good things to your friends or co-workers about public transportation 64 66ML 59 59 Suggested public transportation to a group of friends going to a large public event 61 65ML 54 52 Visited a website to learn more about public transportation in your area 43 49ML 33 33 Urged others to be patient while construction projects related to public transportation were in progress 36 39ML 31 30 Voted for a bill or bond issue which raised money for transit 30 29 30 31 Voted for a candidate because he or she was in favor of public transportation 22 24L 20 17 Contacted a public transit agency to recommend a change or improvement 16 16 15 14 Spoken to your employer about getting transit programs and rideshare programs for employees 14 15 14 14 Filled out a rider-comment card or participated in a prior survey for public transportation 14 14 12 14 Attended a public meeting or town hall because you knew public transportation was being discussed 10 12L 8 6 Bought a souvenir such as a t-shirt or button from a public transportation agency 9 10 7 9 Signed up for email alerts regarding public transportation 8 10L 6 4 Written a letter or email to the local newspaper in support of public transportation 4 3 4 4 Arranged or helped organize a meeting about public transportation in your building or neighborhood 3 3 3 4 Not really a supporter at all (not asked) 7 7 7 7 Average number of behaviors 4.0 4.3 3.6 3.5 M Significantly greater than those in medium density areas. L Significantly greater than those in low density areas. Table 43. Support for transit by population density.
65 Total Age 65-74 (1800) (251) % % RATING OF SELF AS A SUPPORTER: Very/strong supporter 74 69 Very strong supporter 40 43 Somewhat strong supporter 34 25 SUPPORT BEHAVIORS ENGAGED IN: Encouraged others to use transit 67S 52 Said good things to your friends or co-workers about public transportation 64S 50 Suggested public transportation to a group of friends going to a large public event 61S 45 Visited a website to learn more about public transportation in your area 43S 12 Urged others to be patient while construction projects related to public transportation were in progress 36 36 Voted for a bill or bond issue which raised money for transit 30 34 Voted for a candidate because he or she was in favor of public transportation 22 19 Contacted a public transit agency to recommend a change or improvement 16 12 Spoken to your employer about getting transit programs and rideshare programs for employees 14S 5 Filled out a rider-comment card or participated in a prior survey for public transportation 14S 8 Attended a public meeting or town hall because you knew public transportation was being discussed 10 10 Bought a souvenir such as a t-shirt or button from a public transportation agency 9 7 Signed up for email alerts regarding public transportation 8S 4 Written a letter or email to the local newspaper in support of public transportation 4 4 Arranged or helped organize a meeting about public transportation in your building or neighborhood 3 4 Not really a supporter at all (not asked) 7 12 Average number of behaviors 4.0 3.0 S Significantly greater than Seniors. Table 44. Support for transit among seniors. 36% 52% 31% 41% 33% 30% 26% 31% 31% 18% 43% 28% Re por t 63 , U S Re por t 6 3, Ca na da Cu rre nt Re sea rch , US Cu rre nt Re se ar ch, Ca nad a Non-Supporters Swing Supporters N = 2,103; 600; 2,911; 474. Figure 7. Agreement with values statements among total (% describes me or my feelings completely/very well).
66 Total (1800) % Original list of Influential behaviors from Report 63:1 Read the editorial page in the daily paper 56 Taken an active part in some local civic issues 33 Written to or visited a public official about some matter of public business or to express your view on an issue 30 Addressed or spoken before a public meeting (such as a PTA or school board meeting) 22 Written or telephoned a radio or television station to express your opinion 18 Written or said something that has been published 13 Written to the editor of a magazine or newspaper 12 Actively worked for a political party or candidate 11 Additional items asked in this research: Read online Internet editorials or blogs 39 Written comments in Internet blogs to express your opinion 20 Percent answering âyesâ to four or more of the original eight 21 1 These figures cannot be compared to those for Report 63. Report 63 stopped asking about behaviors when the respondent had said âyesâ to four in the list. Table 45. âInfluentialsâ behaviors among total. 7% 14% 23% 40% 55% 56% 59% 66% 68% 68% 79% 80% 82% 88% Spending my tax dollars on upgrading community services like transportation is a waste of my money One vote doesnât matter I get involved in political and social issues that donât impact me directly I have to try something for myself in order to support it Being unable to get from one part of town to another makes life more difficult than it should be Those who canât afford a car need help from others in the community Iâm willing to make compromises to help society Government has a responsibility to improve the community Communities need to help people become more self- sufficient and independent I like being able to come and go without worrying about timetables and schedules I want a voice in where my tax dollars go It's good to be around people from all walks of life We need to take care of the planet It's important for people to improve their own lives and the lives of their children N = 1800 Figure 8. Agreement with values statements among total (% describes me or my feelings completely/very well).
67 17% 25% 20% 14% 25% Society Do-Gooders The World And Me Talkers, Not Walkers Self-Involved Apathetics N = 1800 Figure 9. Value segment percentages among total.
Society Do-Gooders The World And Me Talkers, Not Walkers Self-Involved Apathetics Personal Deep- rooted Value Ratings: (% Describes Completely/ Very Well) Skews high on: Itâs important for people to be able to improve their own lives and the lives of their children (96%) Itâs good to be around people from all walks of life (92%) I want a voice in where my tax dollars go (91%) We need to take care of the planet (90%) Government has a responsibility to improve the community (84%) Communities need to help people become more self-sufficient and independent (80%) Iâm willing to make compromises to help society (78%) Those who canât afford a car need help from others in the community (74%) Being unable to get from one part of town to another makes life more difficult than it should be (69%) I get involved in political and social issues that donât impact me directly (45%) Skews low on: Spending my tax dollars on upgrading community services like transit is a waste of my money (0%) One vote doesnât matter (0%) I have to try something for myself in order to support it (14%) I like being able to come and go without worrying about timetables and schedules (53%) Skews high on: Itâs good to be around people from all walks of life (91%) We need to take care of the planet (90%) I like being able to come and go without worrying about timetables and schedules (81%) Communities need to help people become more self- sufficient and independent (81%) Government has a responsibility to improve the community (76%) Those who canât afford a car need help from others in the community (71%) Being unable to get from one part of town to another makes life more difficult than it should be (69%) I have to try something for myself in order to support it (63%) Skews low on: Spending my tax dollars on upgrading community services like transit is a waste of my money (0%) One vote doesnât matter (<½%) I get involved in political and social issues that donât impact me directly (1%) Skews high on: I have to try something for myself in order to support it (55%) I get involved in political and social issues that donât impact me directly (39%) Skews low on: Spending my tax dollars on upgrading community services like transit is a waste of my money (0%) One vote doesnât matter (<½%) Being unable to get from one part of town to another makes life more difficult than it should be (24%) Those who canât afford a car need help from others in the community (29%) Government has a responsibility to improve the community (57%) Skews high on: Spending my tax dollars on upgrading community services like transit is a waste of my money (27%) Skews low on: I get involved in political and social issues that donât impact me directly (18%) Iâm willing to make compromises to help society (33%) Those who canât afford a car need help from others in the community (40%) Government has a responsibility to improve the community (45%) Communities need to help people become more self- sufficient and independent (48%) Being unable to get from one part of town to another makes life more difficult than it should be (49%) Itâs good to be around people from all walks of life (59%) We need to take care of the planet (65%) Itâs important for people to be able to improve their own lives and the lives of their children (78%) Skews high on: One vote doesnât matter (60%) Skews low on: Spending my tax dollars on upgrading community services like transit is a waste of my money (<½%) I get involved in political and social issues that donât impact me directly (13%) I want a voice in where my tax dollars go (62%) Table 46. Division of the value segments.
Society Do-Gooders The World And Me Talkers, Not Walkers Self-Involved Apathetics Local Transit Usage Skew high for ever experienced fixed route buses (57%) Skew low for ever experienced fixed route buses (43%) Favorability and Importance of Transit and Other Modes (% 8-10) High for transit (62%) High for carpooling (57%) Low for driving own car (56%) High for transit (63%) Low for transit (45%) High for driving own car (79%) Low for transit (48%) High for driving own car (81%) Overall Ratings Skews low for transit in general (29% 8-10) Skews high for transit in general (45% 8-10) Ratings of Transit on Perfor- mance Concepts: (% Excellent/ Very Good) Skews high on: For the disadvantaged (59%) Green (55%) For the community (44%) Skews low on nothing. Skews high on: For the disadvantaged (58%) Green (51%) Works (45%) For You (42%) For the community (41%) Skews low on nothing. Skews high on nothing. Skews low on everything. Skews high on nothing. Skews low on: Green (37%) Importance Segment Member- ship Skews high for Good For Us: Ecology (40%) Skews high for Good For Us: Mobility (30%) Skews low for Good For Us: Ecology (22%) Average # of Transit Support Behaviors: 5.0 4.1 4.2 3.0 3.8 Influentials Member- ship: Skews high (50%) Skews low (13%) Skews low (12%) Skews low (13%) Geographic Location No skews Population Density No skews Demo- graphy Gender skews female (58%) Fewer age 18-34 (29%) Live in houses (77%), few in apartments (18%) More with at least some college (81%), and holding a degree (54%) More are white (76%) In the US, more with HH incomes US$100k+ (22%) Apartment dwellers (28%) More Hispanics (14%) More with high school education or less (39%) More age 18-34 (45%) More with high school education or less (45%) Fewer white (60%), Table 47. Profiles of the five value segments.