Transcript A framework for BRT in the United States – Characteristics

Alasdair Cain & Jennifer Flynn
National Bus Rapid Transit Institute
Center for Urban Transportation Research
University of South Florida
Mark McCourt & Taylor Reyes
Redhill Group
The Conventional View of Ridership
Attraction across Different Transit Modes
Ridership attraction
Heavy
rail
LRT
‘Full Service’ BRT
Ridership
attraction due to
“intangible” service
attributes
“Full service” BRT
“BRT-lite”
‘BRT Lite’
conventional
bus
System performance
Ridership
attraction due to
“tangible” service
attributes
Study Objectives
• Do people perceive alternative
rapid transit modes differently?
• If differences exist, where do
they originate?
• Can ridership attraction be
attributed to specific tangible
and intangible service
attributes?
• What variations exist with regard
to socio-economic / geographic
factors?
Study Methodology
• Literature Review
• Los Angeles selected
as case study location
• Focus groups in 2007
• Attitudinal survey in
2008
Focus Groups
• Group composition:
– Mostly choice users with some potential users
– Users of local bus, Metro Rapid, Orange Line, Gold/Blue Line,
Red Line
• Objectives:
– Identify different tangible and intangible factors
– Understand the issues that influence the relative attractiveness of
different rapid transit modes vs private auto
– Inform survey design process
Identification of Tangible and
Intangible Service Attributes
• Tangible service attributes:
–
–
–
–
–
–
Travel Cost – transit fares, plus related costs like parking
Door-to-door travel time
Frequency of service – how often the service runs
Hours of service – how early or late service runs, and/or weekend hours
Convenience of service – goes where you need to go/parking availability
Reliability of service – does the service run on time?
• Intangible service attributes:
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Safety while riding – safety form accidents and/or crime
Comfort while riding – seats available, temperature, smooth ride, cleanliness, etc.
Safety at the station/stop – safety from accidents and/or crime
Comfort at the station/stop – shelter from weather, amenities, etc.
Customer service – provided by drivers and other transit service staff
Ease of service use – clear service info, routes easy to figure out, etc.
Other riders – feeling secure/at ease/compatible with others using the service
Avoid stress/cost of car use – traffic, parking, accidents, tickets, etc.
Attitudinal Survey
• Survey objectives:
– Quantify the relative importance of each tangible and intangible factor
– Compare average overall ratings across each mode
– Assess impact of socio-economic / geographic factors
• Local LA market research company, Redhill Group, hired to collect
and analyze data
• Survey instrument and sampling plan developed in Spring 2008
– RDD Telephone survey used to sample potential (non-transit) users
– Hybrid On-Board Survey / Telephone Survey used to sample users of
different rapid transit modes
• Samples collected of users of the following modes:
– Regular bus
– Orange Line (“Full BRT”)
– Gold Line (LRT)
- Metro Rapid (“BRT Lite”)
- Blue Line (LRT)
- Red Line (HRT)
• Data collection conducted August – October 2008
• Report submitted in February 2009
Do people perceive alternative
transit modes differently?
4.4
Average Overall Modal Ratings
4.2
Tier 4
Tier 3
4
Tier 2
Tier 1
3.8
3.6
3.4
Local bus
Metro Rapid “BRT Lite”
Orange Line Blue Line (LRT)
“Full service” BRT
Total Sample
Gold Line (LRT)
Non-Transit Users
Red Line (HRT)
Overall Rating versus Capital Cost per Mile
4.3
4.2
Red Line HRT
Tier 4
Overall Rating
4.1
Orange Line BRT
Gold Line LRT
Tier 3
Metro Rapid 'BRT Lite'
Blue Line LRT
4
Tier 2
3.9
Tier 1
3.8
Local bus
3.7
3.6
0
50
100
150
200
250
Capital Cost per Mile ($M, 2005 dollars)
300
350
Where do the Modal Differences Originate?
Modal Comparisons
Summary Analysis
Gold Line LRT
vs. Blue Line LRT
Higher overall ratings achieved by Gold Line compared to Blue
Line were primarily due to intangible attributes:
- safety at station, safety while riding, and other riders
Orange Line BRT
vs. Blue Line LRT
Higher overall ratings achieved by Orange Line compared to
Blue Line were primarily due to intangible attributes:
- safety at station, safety while riding, and other riders
Orange Line BRT
vs. Gold Line LRT
Similar overall ratings were due to comparable tangible and
intangible attribute ratings
Orange Line BRT
vs.
Metro Rapid BRT
Higher overall ratings achieved by Orange Line compared to
Metro Rapid resulted from higher tangible and intangible
attribute ratings:
- Most significant difference related to station/stop comfort
Metro Rapid BRT
vs. Local Bus
Higher overall ratings achieved by Metro Rapid compared to
Local Bus were due primarily to higher tangible attribute
ratings like travel time, frequency, and reliability
g
oi
di
n
Av
ic
Total Sample
co
Non-Transit Users
St
at
io
of
C
fo
rt
Ti
m
e
s
rid
er
m
fo
rt
er
vi
ce
co
th
er
O
p
se
os
t
C
ru
us
e
om
el
er
S
to
n/
s
to
m
id
e
Tr
av
el
ca
fe
ty
an
en
ce
sa
en
i
Tr
av
st
R
/c
o
p
nv
to
cy
fe
ty
sp
er
vi
ce
of
s
e
us
C
re
ss
st
Ea
se
Se
rv
n/
s
sa
e
ic
Se
rv
id
e
R
qu
en
lit
y
re
li a
bi
fre
e
e
ic
at
io
St
Se
rv
ic
Se
rv
Average Attribute Ratings
Can Ridership Attraction be Linked to Specific
Tangible and Intangible Service Attributes?
5
4.8
4.6
4.4
4.2
4
3.8
3.6
3.4
Index Regression Models
Avoiding
stress/cost
of car use/
R Square
Constant
Travel Time/
Span/
Frequency
Ease of Use
Safety/
Comfort
Customer
Service/
Other Riders
Local
59.9%
-.011
.321
.437
.145
.097
Rapid
55.3%
.474
.250
.434
.130
.090
Orange
56.9%
.425
.274
.401
.179
.067
Gold
57.3%
.478
.211
.411
.226
.059
Blue
57.5%
.310
.201
.364
.292
.082
Red
56.7%
.473
.212
.344
.276
.086
Convenience/
Variation Across Socio-Economic /
Geographic Factors
• Overall average rating of each transit service was generally consistent
across socio-economic / geographic variables
• Overall average rating of each transit service was positively correlated
with level of familiarity with that service
• Travel cost more important for transit captive users
• Travel time more important to transit choice users
• Transit users (choice and captive) put more weight on service frequency,
travel cost, station comfort, and other riders)
• Non-transit users (potential
and auto captive) put more
weight on reliability, safety
while riding, safety at
station/stop, convenience,
and customer service
Conclusions
• Public do perceive alternative rapid transit modes differently
• Perceived differences linked to level of investment and urban context
• Overall perceptions of the different transit modes driven by a mixture of
both tangible and intangible service attributes:
– Reliability and service frequency are most important tangible attributes
– Safety (while riding and at station/stop) is the most important intangible
attribute, particularly for non-transit users
• Tangible attributes (functionality) more important in determining
attractiveness of lower-investment bus-based modes,
• Intangible attributes more important in determining attractiveness of
higher investment BRT and rail modes
• BRT capable of competing with rail-based transit (at least in the
perception of the general public) in return for lower capital cost
investments
• How these ratings translate into ridership attraction potential is a topic
for further research………….
Full report can be download at www.nbrti.org/research
Alasdair Cain
(813) 974-5036
[email protected]