Quantifying the importance of image and perception to bus rapid transit : March 2009.

PDFTech ReportFTA-FL-26-7109.2009.3FL-26-7109-03FL-26-7109Bus rapid transitMarket researchPublic opinionRapid transitTravel by modeRidershipLos Angeles Metropolitan AreaUnited States. Dept. of TransportationCain, AlasdairFlynn, JenniferMcCourt, MarkReyes, TaylorNational BRT InstituteRedhill Group, Inc.United States. Federal Transit Administration. Office of Research, Demonstration, and InnovationNTL-PLANNING AND POLICY-Public Participation and OutreachNTL-PLANNING AND POLICY-Transit Planning and PolicyNTL-PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION-Transit Planning and PolicyNTL-PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION-Social ImpactsNTL-PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION-PUBLIC TRANSPORTATIONNTL-PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION-Advanced Public Transit SystemsNTL-PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION-Bus TransportationNTL-PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION-Rail TransitUS Transportation CollectionThis study was designed to quantify the importance of image and perception to Bus Rapid Transit, by identifying the different underlyingtangible and intangible factors that drive any perceived differences between BRT and other forms of rapid transit. \ue2\u20ac\u153Tangible\ue2\u20ac?service attributes refer to those that are functional and objectively quantifiable, whereas attributes that are abstract, subjective,and more difficult to measure and quantify are termed \ue2\u20ac\u153intangible.\ue2\u20ac? Los Angeles was chosen as the study location because it featuresa wide range of rapid transit modes, including \ue2\u20ac\u153BRT-Lite\ue2\u20ac? (Metro Rapid), \ue2\u20ac\u153Full-Service\ue2\u20ac? BRT (Metro Orange Line), Light RailTransit (Gold Line and Blue Line) and Heavy Rail Transit (Red Line). A series of focus groups were conducted in late 2007, followedin 2008 with an attitudinal survey of 2,400 transit users and non-users in the Los Angeles area.Survey data analysis showed that statistically significant differences existed in the overall ratings achieved by the alternativetransit modes, which were separated into four different tiers (ordered in terms of lowest to highest overall rating):Tier 1: Local bus service; Tier 2: Metro Rapid and Blue Line LRT; Tier 3: Orange Line and the Gold Line; Tier 4: Red Line HRTThese overall ratings were compared against the level of investment associated with each mode, defined in terms of capital costper mile. Given that the investment level associated with the Metro Rapid is much closer to that of the local bus than to any of theother modes, it was concluded that the Metro Rapid performs remarkably well in terms of overall rating achieved per dollar of investment,and therefore represents a very cost effective form of BRT. The Orange Line BRT also performed well in terms of overallrating achieved per dollar of investment, though not to the dramatic level associated with the Metro Rapid.It was found that intangible service attributes have a significant influence on modal perceptions - the Gold Line LRT andOrange Line BRT both achieved higher overall ratings than the Blue Line LRT due to higher ratings on key intangible attributes likesafety while riding, safety while at the station, and other riders that use the service. It was hypothesized that these differences inintangible attribute ratings were related to the issue of urban context, and it appears that the urban area through which a rapid transitservice runs has a larger impact on overall perceptions than whether it is based on bus or rail technology.Overall, these findings showed that BRT (even in its lower investment forms) can compete with rail-based transit (at least inthe perception of the general public) in return for lower capital cost investments. The question of whether these perceptionstranslate into similar levels of ridership attraction is a topic for further research