Quantifying the Importance of Image and Perception to Bus Rapid Transit

This study was designed to quantify the importance of image and perception to Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), by identifying the different underlying tangible and intangible factors that drive any perceived differences between BRT and other forms of rapid transit. “Tangible” 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 “intangible.” Los Angeles was chosen as the study location because it features a wide range of rapid transit modes, including “BRT-Lite” (Metro Rapid), “Full-Service” BRT (Metro Orange Line), Light Rail Transit (Gold Line and Blue Line) and Heavy Rail Transit (Red Line). A series of focus groups was conducted in late 2007, followed in 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 alternative transit 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 HRT. These overall ratings were compared against the level of investment associated with each mode, defined in terms of capital cost per mile. Given that the investment level associated with the Metro Rapid is much closer to that of the local bus than to any of the other 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 overall rating 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 and Orange Line BRT both achieved higher overall ratings than the Blue Line LRT due to higher ratings on key intangible attributes like safety while riding, safety while at the station, and other riders that use the service. It was hypothesized that these differences in intangible attribute ratings were related to the issue of urban context, and it appears that the urban area through which a rapid transit service 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 in the perception of the general public) in return for lower capital cost investments. The question of whether these perceptions translate into similar levels of ridership attraction is a topic for further research.

• Record URL:
  http://www.nbrti.org/docs/pdf/NBRTI%20-%20BRT%20Image%20Study%20-%20March%202009_Final%20Draft.pdf
• 
• Corporate Authors:

  National Bus Rapid Transit Institute

  Center for Urban Transportation Research
  University of South Florida, CUT100, 4202 East Fowler Avenue
  Tampa, FL  United States  33620

  Redhill Group, Incorporated

  18008 Skypark Circle, Suite 145
  Irvine, CA  United States  92614

  Federal Transit Administration

  Office of Research, Demonstration and Innovation
  1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE
  Washington, DC  United States  20590
• Authors:
  • Cain, Alasdair
  • Flynn, Jennifer
  • McCourt, Mark
  • Reyes, Taylor
• Publication Date: 2009-3

Language

• English

Media Info

• Media Type: Print
• Features: Appendices; Figures; Maps; Photos; References; Tables;
• Pagination: 103p

Subject/Index Terms

• TRT Terms: Attitudes; Bus rapid transit; Focus groups; Market research; Surveys; Transit riders
• Uncontrolled Terms: Public image; Traveler perception
• Geographic Terms: Los Angeles (California)
• Subject Areas: Planning and Forecasting; Public Transportation; I72: Traffic and Transport Planning;

Filing Info

• Accession Number: 01129297
• Record Type: Publication
• Report/Paper Numbers: FTA-FL-26-7109.2009.3, Report No. FL-26-7109-03
• Contract Numbers: FL-26-7109
• Files: TRIS, ATRI, USDOT
• Created Date: May 21 2009 4:16PM