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

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.

The previous chapter presented overall survey findings and offered insight into the values, attitudes, and use of transit services associated with support for public trans- portation. To better craft a communications strategy, it is important to look at the relationship of these variables in relation to one another and in association with transit- supportive behaviors. This section shows how these char- acteristics motivate transit-supporting behaviors. Specifi- cally, this section will present the association between the following: • Personal values and support for public transportation, • Attitudes toward and perceptions of transit and support for public transportation, and • Awareness/use of local transit services and support for public transportation. This analysis will identify the variables that have the great- est influence on support for transit. 5.1 The Path Model The analytic technique used to model how values, atti- tudes, behaviors, and other variables contribute to support is called Path Analysis. Path Analysis determines the effect of all variables on each other and ultimately on the overall goal of demonstrating transit support. The variables examined as determinants of support include • Involvement with public transit, both usage and informa- tion seeking; • Overall opinions of public transit and competing modes; • Perceptions of specific transit characteristics based on six performance concepts; • Transit importance segments (four groups of individuals with unique opinions of which transit features play a role in determining transit support); • Values segments (five groups of individuals with unique deep-rooted beliefs and values); • Geographic location, specifically country and population density, and • Demographics and related respondent profile variables. The power of each variable in leading to support is ex- pressed in a number, called a “beta coefficient.” Differences in their magnitude are an indication of their relative power, and the sign of the value (positive or negative) indicates if the variable has a positive relationship with support behav- iors or a negative relationship. Four Path models were cre- ated—one for the total sample and one for each population density market.The basic structure of the relationships be- tween the variables is hypothesized in Figure 10. The direc- tion of hypothesized causality is indicated by the points of the arrows between the variables in the diagram. Most of the variables can have both a direct effect on support for transit as well as an indirect effect (going through other variables). Across the three population density groupings, there are more similarities than differences. Therefore, the drivers of support in all markets with transit are discussed before dis- cussing drivers in the three individual population density groupings. More information about the Path modeling technique may be found in Appendix F. 5.2 Main Drivers of Support Personal involvement is, far and away, the strongest deter- minant of transit support. This includes current use of transit and related behavior—those who are willing to seek informa- tion to learn more about their community’s transit services; the perception concept of For You, the notion that transit is personally relevant, and the negative opinions of the impor- tance of personal vehicle on a community. C H A P T E R 5 Motivating Support For Transit 70

71 Nevertheless, there appear to be indications that both users and non-users can be targeted to be transit supporters, depending on the deep-rooted values people hold and the perceptions and attitudes they have toward transit. In par- ticular, we need to look closely at two values segments—Self- Involved and Society Do-Gooders. The profile and attributes identified with the value segment of Society Do-Gooders appear to have an important direct effect on support behav- ior. This includes being personally involved in social issues, being environmentally concerned, holding a belief in com- munity and government action, and being demographically upscale. The Self-Involved, the converse of Society Do- Gooders, are practically at opposite poles with respect to transit-support behaviors. Thus the segment of Society Do- Gooders is an important target to understand for communi- cation themes. Other aspects associated with support are related to these. For example, perceptions that transit has environmental benefits, Green, confirm the values of the Society Do-Gooders who recognize a need to “take care of the planet.” Higher income and more education are seen as demographic characteristics that are closely associated with support, and these two items also relate to people being in the Society Do-Gooders segment, who are classified as more upscale. In Figures 11 and 12, variables that have significant associ- ations with support are shown as bars. If the association is positive, the bar points to the right, and its length is a meas- ure of its relative power. If the variable has a negative effect, the bar points to the left. Bars are grouped according to their power; variables with solid bars are seen as more powerful than those with cross hatching, which are in turn seen as more powerful than those that are dotted. There is a chart for the direct effect, and one for the net effect, which is a combi- nation of both direct and indirect effects. 5.3 Main Drivers of Support by Population Density The analysis did not reveal large differences among the dif- ferent population density segments. 5.3.1 Drivers of Support in Low-Population Density Markets In low-density markets, support is essentially driven by the same set of values, attitudes, and behaviors. Findings are dis- played in Figures 13 and 14. Bus use is a significant driver of support (just as transit use is in markets in general), as is seeking information about tran- sit and other personal involvement with transit characteristics. In addition, consistent with the grand total, the values of the Self-Involved should be avoided whereas the values of SUPPORT OVERALL RATING OF TRANSIT MODES ATTRIBUTE RATINGS OF TRANSIT MODES TRANSIT NEEDS PERSONAL VALUES BACKGROUND BEHAVIORS Figure 10. Structure of the path models.

Society Do-Gooders have a significant effect on creating sup- port. Along those lines is the finding that support is also driven by the perception that transit is important for the eco- nomic viability of the community (making the area more attractive to businesses and potential residents). Being male also has a very positive correlation. However, because Society Do-Gooders skew female, a conflicting find- ing, gender should not be considered an important driver. There is one demographic difference in these low-density markets—support is also likely to come from households that have more children. 5.3.2 Drivers of Support in Medium- Population Density Markets Transit supporters living in medium densities again believe and behave similarly to those in other markets. Elements that influence transit support are shown in Figures 15 and 16. Tran- sit use and involvement (information seeking and other per- sonal relevance variables) are again very positively related to supporting transit. The values segment Society Do-Gooders and related perceived environmental benefits of transit are also of critical importance. Those who care that transit provides mobility to those with disadvantages seem less likely to support transit than others are in these markets. However, this coun- ters the profile of the Society Do-Gooders and notions of tran- sit as being personally relevant, reducing its real importance as a path to transit support. 5.3.3 Drivers of Support in High-Population Density Markets High-density markets follow the findings of the grand total with virtually no divergence. Transit involvement, use, and other personal relevance variables top the list. In addition, Society Do-Gooders and related socially conscious profiles stand out as being important. These findings are summarized in Figures 17 and 18. 72 4 4 4 4 -4 -5 -5 6 -6 6 6 8 10 10 -11 -12 16 17 24 # Kids Hispanic High Density Transit Attribute Ratings: Works High School Graduate Overall Rating Of Local Public Canadian # Adults Age Transit Attribute Ratings: For Community Employed Income Transit Attribute Ratings: Green Values Segment: Society Do-Gooders Favorability Rating of Driving Own Car Values Segment: Self-Involved Transit Information Seeking Transit Attribute Ratings: For You Transit Usage Relative power in driving support, positively or negatively. Figure 11. Drivers of support: direct impact on support among total.

73 3 3 -3 -3 3 -4 4 4 -5 5 -5 6 -6 6 9 -9 10 11 -11 11 14 17 -17 17 29 Student # Kids Canada Importance Segment: Good For Us - Mobility Hispanic Male Importance Segment: Good For Us - Ecology Live in Apartment High School Graduate College Graduate Rating of transit in area Employed Full Time Age Transit Attribute Ratings: For Community # Adults # Cars High Density Transit Attribute Ratings: Green Favorability Rating of Driving Own Car Income Values Segment: Society Do-Gooders Transit Attribute Ratings: For You Values Segment: Self-Involved Transit Information Seeking Transit Usage Relative power in driving support, positively or negatively. Figure 12. Drivers of support: net impact on support among total.

74 8 -8 10 11 13 14 16 -21 22 Favorability Rating of Public Transportation Favorability Rating of Driving Own Car Male Transit Attribute Ratings: For Community Values Segment: Society Do-Gooders Transit Information Seeking # Kids Values Segment: Self-Involved Bus Usage Relative power in driving support, positively or negatively. -1 -1 -1 -1 2 2 -2 -2 2 3 -4 -4 5 -5 7 7 8 -8 11 11 14 15 19 -22 23 Transit Attribute Ratings: Evacuation Importance Segment: Works Importance Segment: Good For Us - Ecology Live in a House Home Maker College Graduate # Minutes walk to stop Importance Segment: Good For Us - Mobility Transit Attribute Ratings: Green Transit Attribute Ratings: For You # Cars # Minutes by car to stop Transit Usage Age Live in a Apartment Education Favorability Rating of Public Transportation Favorability Rating of Driving Own Car Male Transit Attribute Ratings: For Community Values Segment: Society Do-Gooders # Kids Transit Information Seeking Values Segment: Self-Involved Bus Usage Relative power in driving support, positively or negatively. Figure 14. Drivers of support: net impact on support in low density markets. Figure 13. Drivers of support: direct impact on support in low density markets.

75 8 -8 14 -16 17 19 19 19 24 # Adults Black Income Importance Segment: Good For Us - Mobility Values Segment: Society Do-Gooders Transit Attribute Ratings: For You Transit Attribute Ratings: Green Transit Information Seeking Transit Usage Score Relative power in driving support, positively or negatively. -1 2 -2 -3 -3 3 3 -3 -3 -3 4 -4 4 5 -7 -7 -9 14 15 19 19 -19 20 21 28 Employed Full Time Bus Usage Score Male # Kids Values Segment: Self-Involved Live in an Apartment Education Importance Segment: Works High School Graduate Hispanic Home Maker # Minutes by car to stop Values Segment: The World And Me Importance Segment: Good For Us - Ecology # Minutes walk to stop # Cars Black Income # Adults Transit Attribute Ratings: For You Transit Attribute Ratings: Green Importance Segment: Good For Us - Mobility Transit Information Seeking Values Segment: Society Do-Gooders Transit Usage Score Relative power in driving support, positively or negatively. Figure 15. Drivers of support: direct impact on support in medium density markets. Figure 16. Drivers of support: net impact on support in medium density markets.

76 -7 8 9 9 10 -12 -15 16 16 24 Age # Cars Employed Transit Attribute Ratings: Green Values Segment: Society Do-Gooders Favorability Rating of Driving Own Car Values Segment: Self-Involved Transit Information Seeking Transit Attribute Ratings: For You Transit Usage Score Relative power in driving support, positively or negatively. 1 1 -2 2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 3 3 -3 4 -5 6 6 -7 9 9 -12 13 16 18 -19 30 Values Segment: Apathetics Student Importance Segment: Works Income White # Cars Values Segment: Walkers, Not Talkers Train Usage Score Importance Segment: Good For Us - Mobility Importance Segment: Good For Us - Ecology College Graduate Male # Adults # Minutes walk to stop Education Live in an Apartment Age Employed Transit Attribute Ratings: Green Favorability Rating of Driving Own Car Values Segment: Society Do-Gooders Transit Information Seeking Transit Attribute Ratings: For You Values Segment: Self-Involved Transit Usage Score Relative power in driving support, positively or negatively. Figure 17. Drivers of support: direct impact on support in high density markets. Figure 18. Drivers of support: net impact on support in high density markets.