NBSIR 73-265

The Shirley Highway Express-Bus-On

-Freeway Demonstration Project-Users'

Reactions to Innovative Bus Features

Theodore H. Saks

Richard F. Yates

Keith M. Goodman

Technical Analysis Division

Institute for Applied Technology

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, D. C. 20234

June 1973

Interim Report 3

Prepared for Urban Mass Transportation Administration

Department of Transportation

Washington, D. C. 20591

Program Manager, Ronald J. Fisher (UMTA)

NBSIR 73-265

THE SHIRLEY HIGHWAY EXPRESS- BUS- ON

-FREEWAY DEMONSTRATION PROJECT- USERS'

REACTIONS TO INNOVATIVE BUS FEATURES

Theodore H. Saks

Richard F. Yates

Keith M. Goodman

Technical Analysis Division

Institute for Applied Technology

National Bureau of Standards Washington, D. C. 20234

June 1973

Interim Report 3

Prepared for Urban Mass Transportation Administration

Department of Transportation

Washington, D. C. 20591 Program Manager, Ronald J. Fisher (UMTA)

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, Frederick B. Dent, Secretary

IMATIOIVIAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS, Richard W. Roberts. Director

Acknowledgment

The authors wish to acknowledge the contribution of Gerald K. Miller

who helped to direct these analyses and edit rhis report. Appreciation

is also expressed to Br. James J. Filliben of the Applied Mathematics

Division for his statistical advice c Gratitude is extended to Mrs. Carol

Harrison who helped prepare and adrrdnister the survey and who prepared

the graphics, and to Mrs. Terry Schultz and Mrs. Janet Stamper who were

responsible for typing the final £:'_d earlier versions of this report.
Abstract

The Shirley Highway Express Bus -on-Freeway Project demonstrates the

application of a new mass transit technology. The elements tested in this

demonstration project include: an exclusive bus lane in the median of a

freeway and bus priority lanes in the downtown distribution area; fringe

parking facilities which are coordinated with the bus service; new- look/

new- feature buses; and extension of service to additional residential areas

in an overall systems approach to the improvement of mass transit. As part

of the evaluation of this deii»nstration project 5 a survey of commuters on

board these buses was undertaken in order to obtain users attitudes concerning the special interior bus features as well as transit service features .

The results obtained from this study should be of interest to persons

considering how to allocate expenditures for new bus vehicles and transit

service improvements. -

Bus commuters perceptions of the relative importance of various bus

interior features (i.e., carpeting, special lighting, etc.) and transit

service features (i.e., reliable schedules, assurance of a seat, etc.) are

analyzed in this report, along with their relative satisfaction assessments

of the special bus interior features. Analyses were conducted to determine

if marginal in^Drovements in interior comfort and aesthetic features proved

significantly more appealing to bus commuters. The relative impact of

various project marketing and prom.otional techniques is also presented.

ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

1.0 INTRODUCTION "l

1.1 Background 1

1.2 Purpose 3

1 . 3 Scope „ 3

1 . 4 Content 4

1.5 Survey Methodology 4

1.5.1 Survey Sample and Collection Method 4

1.5.2 Summary of the Survey Questions 5 1.5.3 Tabulation 6

2.0 MAJOR FINDINGS 8

2.1 Summary o£ Major Findings 8

2.2 Thoughts on Future Research 9

3.0 USER REACTION TO INNOVATIVE INTERIOR BUS FEATURES - TOTAL

SAMPLES POPULATION (BOTH BUS TYPES) 10

3.1 Introduction 10

3.2 Demographic Characteristics and Sample Size 10

3.3 Satisfaction and Importance Responses 10

3.3.1 Satisfaction 12

3.3.2 Importance 12

3.4 Satisfaction Versus Importance 18

3. 5 Bus Commuters' Comments 22

3.6 Summary of Users Reactions to Innovative Bus Features .. 23

4.0 COMPARISON OF REACTIONS FOR TWO BUS TYPES 24

4.1 Introduction 24

4.2 Methodology 24

4.3 Satisfaction Responses 26

4.3.1 Males 26

4.3.2 Females 26

4.4 Importance Ratings 29

4.5 Summary of the Comparison of Reactions to the

Two Bus Types 29

5.0 MARKETING AND PROMOTION 31

5 . 1 Introduction 31

5.2 Relative Effectiveness of Advertising Techniques 31

5.3 Who Bus Riders Would Contact For Information About

Other AB§W Bus Service , 33

5.4 Summary of Marketing and Promotion 33

iii
Page

APPENDICES 35

A Description of the Bus Types 36

B Copy of the Survey Questionnaire 37

C Importance and Satisfaction Responses for

Total Population 41

D Marketing and Promotion of the Express Bus Service

to Attract Present Auto Users 43

iv
LIST OF TABLES

Page

Table 1: Project Bus User Demographic Characteristics 11

Table 2: Relative Satisfaction With Interior Features

-Total Sampled Population 13

Table 3: Relative Importance for Interior § Service Related

Features - Total Sampled Population 15

Table 4: Features Grouped By The Results Of Statistical

Comparisons Of The Satisfaction Responses By

Males On The Two Bus Types 27

Table 5: How Respondents First Learned Of the "Shirley

Express" Service . . , « 32

Table 6: Who Bus Riders Would Contact If They Had Questions

About Other AB§W Bus Service 34

LIST OF FIGURES

Page

Figure 1: Feature Satisfaction Responses For the

Total Population 14

Figure 2: Feature Importance Responses For the

Total Population , . . . 17

Figure 3: Percent Not Willing to Exchange a Feature For a Fare

Reduction Versus Pranking By Percent Rating The

Features "Extremely" or "Quite" Important 19

Figure 4: Conparison of Inportance And Satisfaction Responses .... 21

Figure 5: Statistically Different Feature Satisfaction

Responses For Males on Bus Types I and II 28

Figure 6: Statistically Different Feature Importance

Responses For Group A and Group B 45

V

1.0 INTRDDUCTION

1.1 Background

One major objective of the Shirley Highway Express Bus -On- Freeway

Demonstration Project''' is to test the hypothesis that the provision of

rapid and inproved bus service over an exclusive busway will attract significant numbers of passengers who formerly commuted by automobile. Such

a diversion from autos to buses should increase the people -moving productivity of the presently congested highway system and enable all rush-hour

commuters to travel more quickly and conveniently. Coordinated with the

development of the exclusive busway, bus service is being enlarged and

improved with new bus vehicles, expanded routes and schedules, and the

construction and incorporation of additional park-and-ride facilities.

All of the Demonstration Project buses are air-conditioned, free of

interior advertising, and have special interior design features such as

contour vinyl seats and floors covered with tile or carpeting. Some of

the special buses differ in that they are six inches wider than the standard urban bus and are powered by eight-cylinder engines. These larger

buses are outfitted with wider red vinyl bucket seats, interior wall and

ceiling carpeting to reduce noise levels, and indirect interior lighting

broadcast through translucent panels embellished with historic scenes of

Virginia.

"Sponsored by the Urban Mass Transportation Administration of the Department of Transportation, with the Northern Virginia Transportation Commission (NVTC) and AB^W (now the Alexandria Division of the Washington

Metropolitan Area Transit Authority) as participants. The Technical

Analysis Division (TAD) , National Bureau of Standards is performing the

evaluation of the project.

1
In August 1971, two months after the initiation of the project service, an on-board survey found that service features such as schedule

reliability and seat assurance were more important to bus riders than

2 special interior features such as floor covering and vinyl seats. The

new bus users also said that in their decision to switch from auto to bus

(mode choice), service features were more inportant than comfort and aesthetic considerations. Surveys and studies by others have produced sim3

liar conclusions. For an interesting development of a mode choice model

using auto and bus commuters' assessments of various service and interior

features, refer to Hartgen and Tanner's work dealing with a University of

4 Maryland study.

A second on-board survey was administered in July 1972 to anplify

these earlier results. Assessments were solicited from the bus users

concerning their satisfaction with the new interior bus features. In

addition they were asked to indicate the relative importance of these and

other bus features. Since the contingent of wider buses had recently

been put into service and since the two bus types offered somewhat different features,^ the survey also provided an opportunity to

2 "

Chapter 5, The Shirley Highway Bus -On- Freeway Demonstration ProjectFirst Year Results, Interim Report 2 (Report DOT/UMTA 2), November 1972.

3

Golob, Canty, Gustafson; "An Analysis of Consumer Preferences for a Public Transportation System"; Transportation Research Department, Research Laboratories, General Motors Corporation, GMR-1037, October 1970.

%artgen and Tanner, "Investigations of the Effect of Traveler Attitudes

in a Model of Mode- Choice Behavior." Highway Research Record No. 369,

1971.

^See Appendix A for a description of the different bus types.

2
conpare user reactions to the features on the two bus types. The results

of the 1972 survey are presented in this report.

1.2 Purpose

The objectives of this study are threefold:

(1) Examine commuters' relative satisfaction with the special

interior bus features; examine the inportance they place on

these interior features compared to service related features

and compare the importance they place on the features with

their satisfaction (Section 3.0}.

(2) Determine if marginal inprovements in interior comfort and

aesthetic features (as in the wider buses) are significantly

more appealing to bus commuters, by comparing commuter re- actions to the features of the two bus types (Section 4.0).

(3) Gain insight for marketing and promotion of the bus service

(Section 5.0).

The results obtained from this study should be of interest to persons considering how^ to allocate expenditures for new bus vehicles and

transit service improvements.

1.3 Scope

- This study is based upon an on-board survey of bus users taken

during the peak commute period on a representative sample of bus routes

during the week of July 5, 1972. Excellent response^ produced 551 complete and usable questionnaires. At the time there were two different

series of buses in use. Each series is equipped with a different package

of special interior features. The focal points of the questionnaire are

questions concerning the special interior bus features, as well as certain aspects of bus service. The special interior features include:

vinyl padded contour seats which are color coordinated with carpeting or

^Response rate for the questionnaire was better than 95%.

3
textured vinyl floor coverings, special covered side walls and ceilings,

and indirect lighting with no interior advertising. All of the buses are

equipped with air pollution control devices. In addition the buses in the

second series are 6 inches wider and have decorative interior lighting

panels.

1.4 Content

This report consists of five sections including this introduction.

Section 2.0 contains a summary of the major findings while Sections 3.0

through 5.0 present the survey data and their analyses. Sections 3.0, 4.0,

and 5.0 address the study's objectives as outlined in paragraph 1.2

(Purpose). In Section 3.0 the responses for all those surveyed are analysed and presented, and Section 4.0 compares the responses to the two different bus types. The effectiveness of past advertising methods is

briefly reviewed in the last section.

The appendices contain a description of the features of the various

bus types, and a copy of the questionnaire. It also contains an inclusive

analysis to determine if a special promotional orientation is needed to

attract present auto commuters to use the special project buses.

1.5 Survey Methodology

1.5.1 Survey Sample and Collection Method

During the week of July 5, 1972, a survey was conducted on a

7 sample of the twelve project peak period bus routes. One bus on each

route was selected, and the first 47 boarding passengers were given a

The project routes are designated 2G, 3G, 4G, 4H, 6G, 7G, 8G, 17G, 17M,

18G, 18M, and 19G.

4
o questionnaire by a survey distributor. The riders were asked to complete

and return the form before departing from the bus. A copy of the ques9 tionnaire is in Appendix B.

1.5.2 Summary of the Survey Questions

The form consisted of a brief introductory segment which was

followed by three main sections. In the introductory segment the respondents were asked which types of buses they had used in the past.

Section one solicited users perceived satisfaction with the various

special interior bus features. This was acconplished by asking the bus

patron to conplete the following for each of 12 innovative interior comfort and aesthetic bus features listed:

CONSIDERING EACH FEATURE BY ITSELF, PLEASE RATE THE FOLLOWING

FEATURES OF THIS BUS BY PLACING AN "X"

IN THE APPROPRIATE BOX

Very Very

Poor Poor Fair Good Good

FEATURES

'The seating capacity of the buses is 47; in some cases standees volunteered to coiiplete the questionnaires and were allowed to do so, up to a limit of 3 per bus. Very few passengers refused to complete the questionnaire.

'two versions of the form were distributed; the order of the questions, on

the 2nd and 3rd page of the forms, were reversed in order to minimize

ordering biases, (i.e., the tendency to give higher ratings to those

items at the beginning of the list because they are considered first.)

One version inadvertently omitted the "No Interior Advertising" feature

from the list of satisfaction items.

5
The second section of the survey form (^on the page opposite

the above question) requested bus users to consider 15 bus interior and

service related features and assign each of them an importance rating:

PLEASE RATE

THE IMPORTANCE OF EACH OF THE FOLLOWING

FEATURES OF BUS TRANSIT BY PLACING AN "X"

IN THE APPROPRIATE BOX

FEATURE

Would You Be Willing To

Do Without This Feature

Not For A 5 Cent Reduction

At Only In Fare?

All Slightly Somewhat Quite Extremely Yes No

The "Yes -No" questions, asking the respondent if he would do without th^

feature for a reduction in fare, were designed to provide another measure

of importance to check for consistency. While the second section of the

survey requested inportance ratings for 15 service and interior features,

section one asked for satisfaction ratings for only interior features.

The third part of the questionnaire solicited age, sex, and

household income level. Riders were also asked how they first learned of

the bus service and who they would contact for bus information. General

comments were also requested.

1.5.3 Tabulation

10

The survey responses were conputer tabulated. The number of

responses and accompanying percentages were calculated for each of the

possible responses to each question on the questionnaire. These response

551 of the 590 returned forms were complete and usable.

6
distributions for the features are presented graphically or in tables

throughout the report. The nature of the five categories for each features' satisfaction and importance response precludes the use of one numerical value (such as an average) that would provide a sinple means for

comparison of the features. This is because the categories have ordinal

values, and the true intervals between them are not known (i.e., ordinal

11

scaling exists but interval scaling does not)

For the questions requesting satisfaction appraisals the

features were ranked by the percent of responses in the highest satisfaction level ("Very Good")- However, to rank the features in terms of

inportance two responses that are believed to reflect high importance

assessments were combined. The percent responding to the highest satisfaction category ("Extremely" important) , and the percentage of the responses who answered "that they would not be willing to do without the

feature for a 5 cent reduction in fare," were summed. The rankings are

intended to provide an estimate of relative order of the features. The

actual response distributions should be examined for insight into feature

differences

Seigel, "Non- Parametric Statistics," McGraw-Hill, 1956.

7
2.0 MAJOR FINDINGS

2.1 Summary of Major Findings

1. The bus commuters were highly satisfied with the special

interior features on the project buses (i.e., "No Interior Advertising,"

"Seat Comfort," "Floor Covering," etc.) but, with the exception of "Air

Conditioning/Heating," they did not consider them particularly important.

2. The service related features (i.e., "Constant, Reliable Schedules," "Assurance of Getting a Seat," and "Less Time Between Buses") were

considered most important. In addition, "Air Conditioning/Heating" (a

comfort related interior feature) and "Reduction in Exhaust Emissions"

were deemed to be very inportant. (Satisfaction ratings were not solicited for service related features)

3. Reactions to the two bus types revealed that slight differences

were perceived by males for some of the interior features ("Seat Width,"

"Seat Comfort," "Aisle Width," and "Air Conditioning/Heating"). None of

the differences in the interior features on two bus types were perceived

by females. All riders on both bus types were highly satisfied with the

interior features.

These three findings suggest that alterations in bus design which

upgrade already adequate interior comfort and aesthetic features are less

attractive to the commuter than service improvements.

4. "Word of mouth" promotion was the irost frequently identified

means of informing commuters about the service. This means that while

formal advertising methods may be useful in attracting patrons as well as

informing the public, a canpaign urging regular satisfied patrons to

8
encourage others to use the service would seem to be potentiaXXy very

effective.

2.2 Thoughts on Future Research

If similar research in this area is undertaken in the future, consideration should be given to obtaining satisfaction as well as importance

ratings for both interior and service related features. To more conpletely understand the potential market for new bus service, the auto commuters should be surveyed directly to obtain their perceptions of the interior and service related features of buses.

9
3.0 USER REACTION TO INNOVATIVE INTERIOR BUS FEATURES - TOTAL SAMPLED

POPULATION (BOTH BUS TYPES)

3.1 Introduction

In order to provide an overall picture of how commuters using the

specially equipped buses view these features and other aspects of bus

service, this section presents the analysis and results of the responses

for all the individuals surveyed. The demographic characteristics of the

persons sampled are presented and the relative satisfaction and inportance

assessments of the various features are discussed. The satisfaction responses are then conpared to the inportance assessments and bus riders

comments are summarized.

3.2 Demographic Characteristics and Sample Size

A total of 551 complete and usable questionnaires were returned. The

demographic characteristics of the bus users sampled are summarized in

Table 1. Bus user profiles are presented, stratifying respondents by sex,

age, and income level. For the survey population, most are male (57%),

most are between 21 and 39 years of age (591 of all respondents) , and most

have household incomes over $15,000 a year (58% of all respondents).

Chapter 4.0 further stratifies the male and female bus users by bus type.

3.3 Satisfaction and Inportance Responses

Analysis of the satisfaction and inportance assessments reveals that

generally bus users consider the special interior features satisfactory

although less inportant than service oriented features. A complete tabulation of the satisfaction and inportance questions is presented in

Appendix C.

10
Table 1

Project Bus User Demographic Characteristics

CHARACTERISTIC NUMBER

1 PERCENT

SEX

Male s 314 57

Female s 237 43

No Response 0 _ Total 551 100

AGE

Under 21 50 9

21 - 39 325 59

40 - 65 175 32

Over 65 1 0

No Response 0 _ Total 551 100

INCOME

0 - $5000 17 3

$5001-$15000 207 39

$15001-$30000 248 47

Over $30000 60 11

No response 19

Total 551 100

11
3.3.1 Satisfaction

' Bus commuters are generally satisfied with the innovative

features. Table 2 presents the features ordered with respect to satis

12

faction responses (using the "Very Good" category) . As can be seen in

the next column, the overwhelming majority of the features (10 out of 12)

were rated as "Very Good" or "Good" by 771 or more of those responding.

In fact, no feature received less than 60% of the responses in one of

these two categories. - . ;

The relative satisfaction for each feature is best illustrated

by the overall response patterns as shown in Figure 1. The great majority

of responses were highly favorable while there were relatively few responses in the dissatisfied categories of "Poor" or "Very Poor."

5.3.2 Inportance

In contrast to the satisfaction response, bus riders' assessments of importance for the interior bus features do not all cluster in a

single high rated group, but are stratified along several levels of perceived importance. Table 3 presents three general levels into which the

13 importance responses are grouped. All of the service oriented features

("Constant, Reliable Schedules," "Assurance of Getting a Seat"; and "Less

-''^It is not surprising that "No Interior Advertising" received a very high

rating since there is no advertising inside the bus. In Addition, re- sponses for the "Air Conditioning/Heating" feature may have been negatively biased by the fact that the drivers on some of the 6 cylinder

buses will turn the air conditioning off when going up a steep hill.

^^Based on a comparison of the overall response patterns, as well as the

rankings and other data presented in Table 3 (particularly the sums of

the percentages) , three groupings of features were defined and labeled

Levels I, II and III. These groupings are intended to provide a general

classification and means for discussion.

12
Table 2

Relative Satisfaction With Interior Features - Total Sampled Population

FEATURES PERCENT RANK PERCENT

RATING RATING

FEATURE FEATURE

"Very Good" "Very Good"

or "Good"

No Interior Advertising 64 1 90

Seat Comfort 49 2 92

Floor Covering 43 3 92

Total Interior Design 41 4_5.;. 90

Seat Width 41 4-5* 83

Leg Room 38 6 82

Artificial Light Level 33 7-8* 92

Air Conditioning/Heating 33 7-8* 80

Interior Sound Level 25 9 77

Riding Stability- 23 10 80

Aisle Width 2 1 11 71

Acceleration Ability 17 12 60

*Tie in ranking.

13
TOTAL

INTERIOR

DESIGN

K

lEATINGj — u» z

<

AIR

CONDITION

/H

•

•

z

o

<

ee. LU

Eli <

— CM — ^

FLOOR

COVERING

ARTIFICIAL

LIGHT

LEVEL

AISLE

WIDTH

—

MFORT

>-

WO

b:< — eo — «N — t—

<

SEAT

CO

LEG

RO

RIDING

ST

So

fist i . >

12! <

O

Z

—

r

1

SEAT

WIDTH

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

IinTEMGr

Sdl

1

LEVEL

«M^

S3SNOdS3)l/iN3D»d S3SNOdS3]|/iN331l3d S3SNOdS3a/lN332l3d

14
o

r—

s

1—1

-)-> o

-4->

0)

0) Pi

(Uu

>

^1

0) CO

=3

O

0)

O

0)u

c

oa

a

(—1

_>%,—

0)

2 -w S o "i

CO ^1 D - 0

U J-> -rH H X 3

E ,—1 ni O

3 o

CO u

(D j-> CO U

C O

o a

CO G

0) ^

Pi >s o

'5

U +-> u X

a. r

c- CO rC LO ^ 5

0) o ^ Q

o

nj It ^ VL/ lU W

fl^ H h U

CO

(U

(M -"t —< 00

CT^ 00 CDO ^ vD

00

•—I (Ni ro Lfl

(M I oj I 00 00

I I (M (M in

^ —t ^ —I 00 ^ fM -H OoooOLOrO'-iLnLni—loo

r- ro 00

r- iTi LT) -"ti rO o^oo Osor^r^LOO'*

Ln r<~i 00 o

00 00 o^o-sOr^-^ooo^"^rOrJ< rorororvjmrsjoo

x:u

CO

PC\ 4-) on (u

o o

•rH CO

(0 ^1

CO CO rH

0) a CO w =) CQ

us

en ha tu XW (L) CQ

rHC

0 s

1—

1—

O 1—*

;3 CD

CO >

<D (U Pi

COa

o

CO

CO

CQ

o

o

>

o

CO

tio; dth

(Ti •rH

^1<u

.—

<v 1—1 o CO u< <

XI X}

(D >

CO o c;i dJ a, u

s

1—

iH

UO

•r-4 ^ o

^1 o

^•5 o

u

(1)

IDu

•iH>

OJ

*lH CO H

15
Time Between Buses") fall into the highest level (I) . Also included in

the high inportance level are "Air Conditioning/Heating" and "Reduction

in Exhaust Emissions."''"'^ It should be noted that even within Level I

"Constant, Reliable Schedules" was rated somewhat higher than the other

features

The large interval between the one feature in Level II and

the lowest ranked feature in Level I indicates that those features which

fall into Level I were rated considerably above the rest. Similarly,

there exists an interval, though smaller, between the feature in Level II

and the first feature in the third inportance level.

The relative importance of each feature and the overall response patterns are depicted in Figure 2, which shows the importance response distribution for each feature. For the features in the highest

level (first five, top row) the responses are considerably grouped to the

right with the heaviest density of importance response in the "Quite" and

"Extremely" classes. The Level II importance feature ("Shelters at Bus

Stops") presents a distribution where the "Extremely" and "Quite" categories are about equal and the amount of response in the remaining categories

slowly decreases. The lowest level features (last 9) present distributions which are grouped to the left and received the greatest concentration

of response in the "Not At All," "Only Slightly," and "Somewhat" categories. As reflected earlier, the response pattern for the feature in

'^The high inportance placed on air conditioning is very understandable

since the survey was conducted during the summer in the Washington area

where the weather is very hot and humid. The concern for a reduction in

exhaust emissions is consistent with the public awareness of pollution

problems

16
17
Level II (£a.T left, middle roiAf) differs dramatically from the response

pattern for the higher rated features in Level I. Aside from this instance there is a fairly gradual transition between the response distribution for any feature to the response distribution for the next highest

(or lowest) rated feature.

The consistency of inportance -related responses is confirmed

by con^aring two indicators of importance: the percent of people "unwilling to do without a particular feature in lieu of a five cent reduction in

fare" to the percent rating the feature "Extremely" or "Quite" important

(Table 3, page 14) . Figure 3 graphically presents the percent of respondents "not willing to do without a particular feature for a 5 cent

fare reduction" versus the features ordered according to the percent of

responses rating them "Extremely" or "Quite" important. The parallelism

between these indicators of importance suggests consistency by those

interviewed; for the features that were highly rated in terms of importance, the respondents would not be willing to do without them for a 5

cent fare reduction,

3.4 Satisfaction Versus Importance

In addition to exaiTiining user reactions to the interior features, this

study attenpts to identify those interior features which might enhance auto

commuters motivation to ride the bus. Since it can be assumed that most

15 riders on the sanpled routes formerly commuted by auto, the satisfaction

and importance responses can be interpreted in the following ways:

^It was established triat most of the users of the peak period sem/ice

switched from auto to bus comiiTaters. See Chapter 4.0 The Shirley Highway

Bus -On- Freeway Demonstration Project-First Year Results, Interim Report 2 (Report DOT/UMTA 2) , November 1972

18
J9
I£ bus commuters are satisfied with a special interior feature but

do not indicate it is relatively important, then that feature may

not be as desirable an investment as features rated more important.

If the commuters express dissatisfaction with a special feature and

place relatively high inportance on it, then a situation which may

not be conducive to retaining the present patrons or attracting new

riders is represented.

If the reported importance and satisfaction of bus commuters is

high for a special feature, this would imply a favorable condition

for retaining and attracting bus patrons.

Finally, if the special feature receives low values for both satisfaction and importance, this represents a marginal condition.

(There was no attempt to determine the relative in^ortance and satisfaction of different combinations of features, for exanple, to

determine if special floor coverings might be more inportant without special seats and wall coverings. In addition, no attempt was

made to incorporate into the analysis the costs for the various

features .

)

Figure 4 plots, for the special interior bus features, the percent

of respondents rating the features as "Very Good" or "Good" versus the

percent of respondents that rated the feature as "Extremely" or "Quite"

important. 1^ The concentration of points in the upper left comer represents a general positive assessment of satisfaction, with the special

1^ . . The main purpose of this survey was to obtain consumer attitudes toward interior features. Since the costs of the special comfort and

aesthetic features vary greatly depending on the circumstances of

purchase, it would be difficult to use feature cost experience to

generate any investment guidelines for use by other bus systems. The users reactions to the new features provide an information framework.

Given a specific set of feature costs, the "tradeoffs" between the

costs and the relative satisfaction and/or inportance assessments

could then be examined.

17

Since satisfaction ratings for service features were not asked, they

could not be included in this comparison. Similarly, "Riding

Stability" and "Seat Comfort" were not compared as they do not appear

among the importance questions.

20
100

Floor COTering. .Artificial Light Level

No Interior Axlvertislng. .Total Interior Design

Seat Width. .Leg Room

.Interior Sound Level

.Aisle Width

JVooeleration Ability

is-

.Air Conditioning / Heating

-7B— n Tir 51 SB n fa w

PEHCENT RATING THE FEATURES "EXTREBCELY"or "QUITE" IMPORTANT

IMPORTANCE

Figure 4. Comparison Of Importance And Satisfaction Responses

100

21
qualities of the project buses, coupled with the belief that these

features are of low relative importance. The isolated point in the

upper right comer ("Air Conditioning/Heating") demonstrates that air

conditioning is regarded as both satisfactory and important. Therefore,

of those interior features for which satisfaction and inportance ratings can be compared, "Air Conditioning/Heating" appears to be a useful

incentive to attract new riders and to retain present patrons.

3.5 Bus Commuters' CoiMients

Response to the additional comments area of the questionnaire was

abundant and informative. Most of the riders embellished the survey

forms with general praise of the new express bus service. However,

some requests for better service accompanied these compiiments. Specifically, riders highlighted the absence of sufficient seating, an

inadequate number of buses and infrequent service as the main points to

be inproved. A few comments suggested that bus shelters and more dependable schedules are necessary. Some respondents mentioned the desirability of extending or modifying certain routes.

The positive response reflects a general appreciation for the new

service. Commuters are enthusiastic about the bus denranstration project. As indicated earlier and reaffirmed by their comments, service

related considerations generate the predominate concern.

22
Summary of User Reactions to Innovative Bus Features

1. The bus commuters are highly satisfied with the new interior

features of the buses. However with the exception of "Air

Conditioning/Heating," they do not consider them particularly

important

2. The most irportant aspects of the bus transit, according to the

riders, are generally service related (i.e., "Constant, Reliable Schedules"; "Assurance of Getting a Seat," and "Less

Time Between Buses") . "Air Conditioning/Heating" and "Reduction in Exhaust Emissions" also were considered as highly important. (Satisfaction assessments were not asked for the

service features.)

23
4.0 COMPARISON OF REACTIONS TO THE TWO BUS TYPES

4.1 Introduction

In this section reactions to each of the two bus types are compared.

A comparison is made between the user satisfaction levels for the two bus

1

8

types to discover if the more luxurious Type II buses stimulate a different response pattern than the Type I buses. A similar comparison is

performed for the importance items. An attempt is made to determine if

slight improvements in comfort and aesthetic features that are already

satisfactory are significantly more appealing to commuters.

4.2 Methodology

In order to compare two populations, such as the user of Type I 19

(green-yellow seats) buses with the users of Type II buses (red seats),

it is necessary that the two comparison groups be as homogeneous as

20

possible. Homogeneity will help to ensure that any response differences

observed between the two groups are related to the different buses and not

different demographic conpositions of the groups.

To test the homogeneity of the groups, Chi-Square statistical tests

were performed on the age, household income, and sex distributions of the

riders using the two bus types. The Chi-Square statistical test was used

to determine if differences in responses to one measuring (classification)

•^^See Appendix A for detailed descriptions of the two bus types.

19Of the 551 respondents from both bus types, 217 were from Type I buses,

(standard 96" width with green-yellow seats) and 334 were from the

Type II buses (102" width with red seats)

.

^Operfectly homogeneous groupings are difficult to achieve in a survey of

this nature because of the lack of detailed socio-economic data.

24
scheme (e.g., income $0-5,000/yr., $5, 001-15, 000/yr., $15, 001-30, 000/yr.,

over $30,000/)T.) for two different groins ^.g., riders on Type I buses,

riders on Type II buses) may be attributed to random (chance) fluctu21

ation in the sample or are due to underlying differences in the two

groi:5)S

.

22

The results of the Chi-Square tests showed that the respondents on

the two types of buses differed significantly on all three areas of comparison (age , income , sex) . This means that the riders on the two types

of buses were not homogeneous. Therefore, it was necessary to stratify

each of the two groups in order to find groupings that would allow comparisons between homogeneous groups of bus users.

Acceptable homogeneous groupings were achieved by separating the different respondents by sex. Male respondents on Type II buses were contrasted with male respondents on Type I, and similar comparisons were

made with the female populations. These statistical comparisons indicated that there was no significant difference between these like -sex

group compositions. Grouping the respondents by sex provided reasonably

homogeneous groups of sufficient size to allow meaningful comparisons of

23 their responses. (This was also verified when the inportance questions

were analyzed, see page 29)

.

21Random fluctuations - unpredictable variability in the data which cause differences to exist between an estimate derived from a sanple survey

and that which would have been obtained from a conplete enumeration.

^^k .025 level of significance was used.

23

The sample sizes are. Males: Type I bus 104 and Type II bus 210;

Females: Type I bus 113 and Type II bus 124.

25
4.3 Satisfaction Responses

Each of the groups for the two bus types (males: Type I and II;

females: Type I and II) reported a high level of satisfaction with the

special bus features.

Chi-Square tests for the two male groups comparing satisfaction responses revealed significant differences for some items. A similar comparison of responses from the female group demonstrated that significant

differences did not exist (See Table 4)

,

4.3.1 Males

The two male groups showed significantly different response

patterns for only the following features: *'Seat Width," "Seat Comfort,"

"Aisle Width," and "Air Conditioning/Heating." Figure 5 shows that for

all these items a greater percent of the males on Type II buses rated the

features "Very Good" than did the males riding Type I buses. In addition,

a greater percent of the males on the Type I buses rated the features

"Very Poor" or "Poor/' Apparently, the males on the Type II buses were

more satisfied with these items than were their counterparts on Type I

buses. This result inplies that some of the differences between bus

Type I and bus Type II are being perceived in terms of satisfaction.

4.3.2 Females

Analysis of the response showed no significant differences in

satisfaction response pattems among female bus riders for any of the

interior bus features. This result implies that the females, in general

do not perceive a significant difference between the two bus types in

terms of satisfaction for their respective features.

26
Table 4

Features Grouped By The Results of Statistical Comparisons Of The

Satisfaction Responses By Males'*' On The Two Bus Types

2

votatiscicaiiy^ oigniiicantiy

Different Responses

2 LNOt ^otati o Lica iiy ^ oigniiicanLiy

Different Responses

oeau v^orniori. IN o xnLc r 1 o i /\ Qv g r ci o i rig

OCCLL VV ±ULX1 T^^ 1 o o T* r^\/' vin or Air Conditioning/Heating Total Interior Desi^fn o Aisle Width Leg Room

Artificial Light Level

Interior Sound Level

Riding Stability

Acceleration Ability

No statistically significant differences existed for females.

A . 02 5 level of significance -was used in the Chi -Square tests.

27
mm rimiw—Lo

z o

2 S5

o

w

Q

GQ

HI

g

O

u

GQ

EhQ

QQ

llllllllllll

••ff—CM

nrnvvimmiimiiuiuiiiiiiiiviiiiiiiii

-tn

„..iiivniiuiiiiiii^ CO

I fi—-P*>J

m

I B 8 1 B a sfl

I

T3O

• III!

0

in Ch

OS CO

n n

^1

CO

LT) «^

28
These results may be partially explained by the fact that

males generally have a larger build than females and might therefore be

more appreciative of the slightly wider seats on the Type II buses. The

more favorable responses to "Air Conditioning/Heating" or to the "Aisle

Widths" given by males on these buses could be due to an influence not

accounted for when trying to achieve hom.ogeneous groupings. However, all

satisfaction items were rated high for both bus types regardless of sex

groupings. For all the groups every satisfaction item had the majority of

ratings in the "Very Good" or "Good" category.

4.4 Importance Ratings

When male riders on Type I buses were compared with males on Type II

buses no significant differences in their response patterns to the in^Dortance questions was found. The same results were observed for females on

bus Types I and II. (See Table 4). This is reasonable since homogeneous

groups should exhibit the same perceived importance values. Therefore,

this outcome gives more credence that the stratification by sex created

the desired homogeneous groupings.

The absence of any statistically significant differences in the

importance response patterns for the male -female groupings establishes

the applicability of the earlier importance results, contained in

Section 3.0 of this report (total population), for all segments of the

bus user population.

4.5 Summary of the Comparison of Reactions to the Two Bus Types

Based on the comparison responses for male-female groupings for the

different bus types the following results were obtained:

29
The two male groups exhibited significantly different satisfaction responses for "Seat Width," "Seat Comfort," "Aisle

Width," and "Air Conditioning/Heating," though the reasons

for the differences in satisfaction are not clear. These

features were rated slightly higher on Type II buses. The two

female groups showed no disparity of satisfaction responses.

Both males and females demonstrated a high degree of satisfaction for all the interior bus features.

There were no significant differences in the importance responses for any of the groups on the two bus types.

30
5.0 MARKETING AND PROMOTION

5.1 Introduction

One of the principal aims of the demonstration project involves

attracting new patrons to an inproved bus service. Complementing the

innovative transit developments was a conpr'^Kensive marketing and promotion campaign intended to apprise the public of the experiment. This

survey was taken one year after the inauguration of service, and the

attendant initial publicity.

The key elements of the publicity effort were special displays located at shopping centers, flyers containing promotional facts mailed to

Virginia residents, and limited newspaper and radio advertisements.

Other components included news coverage, public service announcements,

and a few favorable newspaper, radio and television editorials. In evaluating the various advertising techniques emphasis will be placed on their

relative effectiveness for future planning.

By examining the responses of a group of bus riders who resemble auto

commuters, an attempt was made to determine if certain features would

warrant a special marketing and promotion approach for attracting present

auto users to the express bus service. The rather indecisive results of

this investigation are presented in Appendix D.

5.2 Relative Effectiveness of Advertising Techniques

Analysis of the response for the survey question "How did you first

learn of the 'Shirley Express' service?" is presented in Table 5. Remarkably, only one person of the 551 interviewed reported that shopping

center advertisements first notified him of the bus service; 1% of all

31
Table 5

How Respondents First Learned of The "Shirley Express " Service

T\T T T "N /f XT' TD IN U JVlJDil,K PIlKCIlN 1

Newspaper or Radio Advertisements 55 10

Mail "flyers" from NVTC 36 7

Word of Mouth Z25 41

Seeing Buses on Busway 82 15

Ads at Shopping Center 1 0

Other- 63 12

Multiple Responses 84 15

No Response 5

Total 551 100

*The responses included some word of mouth through methods such as

friends or relatives and other sources like apartment information

services, T.V., called the bus company, etc.

32
respondents indicated that the Northern Virginia Transportation Commission

(NVTC) "flyer" was their source of information; 10% gave credit to

newspaper and radio promotions; while 15^ believed that seeing buses on

the busway was responsible. In vivid contrast to these advertising

modes, "word of mouth," which garnered 41% of the replies, was demonstrated the most effective news mechanism. This suggests that one promotional method that might prove to be effective would be to encourage

24 . . 25

regular satisfied patrons to inform others of the service.

5.3 Who Bus Riders Would Contact For Information About Other AB^W

Bus Service

Seventy-seven percent of those responding testified that they would

contact the AB^W Bus Conpany (now part of WMATA - Regional Bus System)

if they had any questions about other service (See Table 6) . The number

of "vague" responses (14% of those who replied) may suggest that some

people do not know how to get information, implying a potential need for

better announcement of the information services.

5.4 Summary of Marketing and Promotion

Word of mouth promotion was the most frequent means of informing commuters about the service. This implies that while formal advertising methods are required for initial publicity, it is highly desirable to augment

patronage by encouraging regular, satisfied patrons to attract others.

'"^This inplies that riders are satisfied with those aspects of bus commuting

they consider important.

Word of mouth advertising has been found to be one of the most powerful

tools in promotion. Some of the psychological and methodological

aspects of this process are discussed in the article, "How Word of Mouth

Advertising Works" by Ernest Dichter, Harvard Business Review, Volume 44,

Number 6, page 147, November/December 1966,

33
Table 6

Who Bus Riders Would Contact If ThcY, Had

Onestions Ahont Other AR^W^ BuS Service

SOURCE OF INFORMATION TV T T T "K r -I—* -I ^ » NUMBER PERCENT

AB&W Company* 338 77

NVTC 3 1 Ask Driver 33 7

Ask Friend 6 1 Vague Response 62 14

No Response 109

Total 551 100

*AB^W is now the Alexandria Division of the Washington

Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA)

34
APPENDICES

A Description of the Bus Types

B Copy of the Survey Questionnaire

CI Importance Responses for Total Population

C2 Satisfaction Responses for Total Population .

D Marketing and Promotion of the Express Bus Service

to Attract Present Auto Users

35
WO

CPHUwo

Oho1—

w oO

0)

•rHdW

00> >o

ID>

03

?-( Ou

CD Q

J

-!-> u

CP

CO (D XI Xi

X)

03 ^: >

CO

CO rH

n1\\) ;>

d

•rH o U -H 0o

I—

d1—

XI XI

(D <u

+-> -i-> OJ

?-<

uU

COdU

XI

(D

4-> (UOh

f-l u

1^da>o

Dhdado

•rH>dW

U 0) O Xl

•rH -rH

!-l CO

(ud

-U 1—1 d V-o

CO

0) to

d0 rH r3 d

Cfi d

oi

^1 ^ (ti a; x3 Ph ^

+j bC CO

01d -tf

u ^ o^ .^-^

XIo

QJ X3

d

•rHbJO d

fx:!

!-i 0) XId

rH

1—1>^ U

bJO d

•iH

)-> rd

•rH

a.

C/3dU

X3m -rH

i-j-l

_ > r

(U >^

XIdd (U

d

•rH >X

0)

fH=5

+->

0) OjO H a u u O <D ^ o

ro <—f

X!

CDU>oUo

•1-H +-> CQ

1—4 Ph

CDdU

XJ

(Uu

CO>oUu

•rH

J-> m

!1

!4d

0)s>o

Phad

0)d

f-H do

•i-H

d>

X5<

XIdOo

0) X!

•rHCOdo

CD

'P

pq

ID<u1—

Oh>^H

XIo«

a; xi

d

•rHbJO d

XId

•rH 1—1 u

d

•rH

-4->

rH

rH

l->

0)

-l-> d

0) U

0) Xi 7^

X3

r

•S ^

CO 05

bX) d

•rHfHOO

1—1

?HCD rQrP

X3>oUo

•iH -M

ca

oi

r-H

fHO

CObCd0U

X3

0)u

CD>Ouu

•rH

J-S COOi

r-l Oho

oi 1—

-t-J 1—

<V oi

14

CJ

0)>0 CD U (U ex CD £ CQ ' 01 >

CO ^ a§ a o O

•::^ <^ > d

5^

O

bfl d

^H>

xi<

XIo

XId

oi

<u

•rHCDd

36
APPENDIX 3

Copy of The Survey Questionnaire

Form Approved

0MB No. 41-S- 72026

HELLO!

New buses are being tested in the Shirley Express Bus System.

We would like your reaction.

Three types of buses are in service now.

Have you used:

an A B & W bus with green and yellow vinyl seats?

an A B & bus with red vinyl seats?

a standard bus?

Yes

n

No

When did you begin regularly riding this bus? month ^ear

Sponsored by the

Northern Virgrlnia Transportation Commission

and the

U. S. Department of Transportation

Please Open

1 /'

/

37
APPENDIX B

CONSIDERING EACH FEATURE BY ITSELF, PLEASE RATE THE FOLLOWING

FEATURES OF THIS BUS BY PLACING AN "X"

IN THE APPROPRIATE BOX

Very

Poor Poor Fair Good

Artificial Light Level 3

No Interior Advertising [ n

Riding Stability

Acceleration Ability J - n LJ

Total Interior Design

Seat Width

Seat Comfort J 1]

Leg Room i

i L_J

Aisle Width

Air Conditioning/Heating

Floor Covering

Interior Sound Level

(continue)

3.8
APPENDIX B

PLEASE RATE

THE IMPORTANCE OF EACH OF THE FOLLOWING

FEATURES OF BUS TRANSIT BY PLACING AN "X"

IN THE APPROPRIATE BOX

How Important?

Not

At Only

All Slightly Somewhat Quite Extremely

Shelters at Bus Stops

Increased Aisle Width

No Interior Advertising

Improved Acceleration Ability

The "Total Interior Design"

Air Conditioning/Heating

Constant, Reliable Schedules

Reduction in Exhaust Emissions

Reduced Interior Sound Level

Less Time Between Buses

Special Floor Covering

Assurance of Getting a Seat

Additional Leg Room

Improved Interior Lighting

Wider Seats

lJ

iJ

J

!

I

L

]

!—

I

i _]

—-j

!

!

(turn page)

39
APPENDIX B

Considering all of the i'.nterior features of this bus, please assign the

trip a grade from 0 to 100 (where 60 equals passing)

.

grade

How did you first learn of "Shirley Express" service;

Newspaper or Radio Advertisement

Mail "flyer" from NVTC Word of Mouth

Seeing buses on busway Ads at shopping center

Other

If you have a question about other A B & W bus service who do you contact?

FOR OUR STATISTICAL SUMMARIES

Are You: Male |

• Female!

Your Age: Under 21^^ ^"""""^^ (ZD ^"^"^^l J

^^^^ 65^

]

The combined annual income of all members of your household:

0-$5 , 000: 1$5 , 001-15 ,000| |$15 , 001-30 ,000! jover $30 ,000| \

K.-. ^ -J 1!

i ! 1 !

ANY COMMENTS?

THANK YOU, WE HOPE YOU

ENJOY OUR SERVICE

40
LTN OH

EH

PhO

EHo

EHKO

PmCOo«O

EHKOaXHn o <c Q j 1 PC LPv

O CO CO rH

H CM CO CM

C\J LTN cn LTN on LTN on CO

Eh CQ O S pi w H b CQ

£9

[in

W

1-1 <i: CQ 1—1 [ CO CO f' t O o Cm C7\ H o o o o H H o H o CM o o rH

Ph LTN ir\ 1^ LA LTN LTN LA LA

w cu CQ

FP

MO1—1

r=) EH EH O - u

>H Eh

Q

Eh

O C\J CO LTN CO VD

O CO

H

W C\J CVl CO CO oO CO CVJ t"

cn OO o CO

O

H

H h4 CO CVJ CTs vo CO CVJ VD 1—1 O

O

IS LTN Ph >H LTN c~

VD vu

J

—1 I—1

Cm VD Cm CM VD [>- VD

1—1

Mh

C\J Cm LP\ o CO CO CjO CO Cm o\ LP\ CM

CVI C\j C\J oo C\J

H iH OJ CVJ CVJ CVI rH CM CM CM

EH CO O

CQCQ Ca CO VD rH cn CO Cm Cm CO CM r— VD Ov o CVI CM CVJ H cn cn on CVJ OJ OJ CM on CM CM CVI

P-i LTA LTN LCN Lr\ LTV Lr\ ir\ ir\ ir\ LTN ir\ Lr\ LA

RES

>HH

H o !>- VD VD !r— cn ON CO OO C7\ LA CO

>H P^ OJ

H LTN i^- on LTN

1^

dr-T-T MH

W

lj

W

<; EH o M LTN rH CTVJ (H 00 LTV LTV CVJ VD rH CO on CM ^ CVJ iH fH CVI CVl CVJ 1—1

CVJ CVJ CVJ iH CM CM iH CM o

EH<

CO ^-O t~- 0- t>- LTN rH t>- on -Id- OO LA o CM CM CVI CVJ CO r—1

cn CVI CVJ rH CM CM CM

O

I—1CQ

tt:;

— o 1—t — >H Eh vo L/\

rVD 1—1 on CVI 0\ o VD CM CVJ

O 1—1

OJ r—1CVl CVJ rH fH CVJ CM CM CM o i—1 1—I

CO

r. 1 —

EH< o 1—

J

—J" VD CVI CO CO VD CVI CO LPs CVJ CM CM OO LA

EH rH CVI >H

H OO CM 00 CM

O

CM

CO

?>i -P o iH •H CO •H CD -P

1—i

CD CO > qD •H H CO CD fi! •B tlO qD 7^ *H CO •H H £ll B CO 4-^

s={ CO •H (D QU CD

C/3 •H CD -P CO

W

ft -P CO o Q cd o -p P •rH qD •H O •H •rH CD CO CO O Sh -P •H -P P CO CD •H O

CO ?-i o CD > P"

O

H

CU ^ •H I—1CD

O 4^O

w (D ?^

X o CD o CD •H

iH (—1(D •H u3 t5 C!? qO ?H

CO <ll CD -P •H ?H -p

M Q) CD •H O S=I O iH CD (D O S-l 1-^ 4^

H <d

M o 1—1•H CD •H PQ o O CO

CO

O -P Ph rH iH

M 4-> 0 •H H •H d I—I CD CD cd Uj CO QJ ?H 4^ o O TlS CD

CO QJ CD -P •H Tj •H iH

O CD CO

K (D rri CD -P t> o O CD -P CD Eh oj •H r* 1—.

J—> -P Q) o Eh o -P

O

O •H 4-^

O 1—1

?H 1—1

CO ^ CO o ^ •H ?H (D

0)

O

u c: CO CO ^ ft t:J

s:l

O •H o 0) 0) CD ft CO •H

COMH Eh o K CO < < M 3:

41
C5M

00 CM 00 LTN VD

H

EH CO O

CO

CO *

OJ VD ir- 00 CO VD o -d- J- on JLA CVJ Lr\ COK

K >H O K o 00

H rH 00

H 00 00 LTN

O o VD CMH 00 CVJ 00 CM >

EH

<;o n o o VD D— 00 CM 00 0 t— On CU H o U~\ CM LP, _=r UA -3- E^ ci> o

<;

COH

EH

H tr- OD CO VD 0 t- LTN 00 VD ^- 0 < < O O H C\J H rH 0 H CM H 0 CM o KO H H rH H 0 00 H 00 Lr\ 00 H 00 . O O O H 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 H PL, EHo >H K K o O H rH 00 0 0 0 0 1—{ H 0 0 W o O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Ph > PLI

iaO ng

H •H

•H El! > W 1^

H

•H -P •H 0) OJ

i-q -P

H

M > ^ H OJ (U -P >5 •H Q bO

!> -P

bO •H < •H

M

•H •< 0

•H •H P> 0 •H

rQ ^ •rH 0

al

O •H 0 P' -P CU CO

•H P> P P' PI •H > m •H CO 05 S •H 0 Ih O dJ M •H 0 0 is a 0

•H P> bO cu 0 0 0 •H

I^H Ci !5 rH rH P5 (U 0 ^ ?H •H M •H (P cd p" p> H 0 (D -P Tli 0 P' 03 W tn u 0 P>

g

U

O •H 0 0 <D 0) 0) •H •H

H

a < P:^ < EH CO CO <i; Ph

42
Appendix D

Marketing and Promotion of the Express Bus

Service to Attract Present Auto Users

D.l Introduction

When marketing a project or service, useful advice can be obtained

by polling the opinions of those individuals who are already customers

Where the greatest potential market for the product or service consists

of an identifiable group of individuals, valuable information might

derive from an examination of the attitudes of similar individuals who

have used it.

For the Shirley Highway Express bus service, the main source of

potential demand is the group of individuals who presently commute by

auto. Hence, this analysis focused on the attitudes of that segment of

current bus users which most closely resemble auto commuters as a group.

If the opinions registered by this subset of all bus users are not the

same as those for the remaining bus population (with regard to importance

and satisfaction items) this could suggest special attention in terms of

2 marketing and promotion of the service.

It would have been desirable to directly survey auto commuters who presently commute on the Shirley Highway, but such an effort was beyond the

scope of this study. A survey of both bus and auto commuters was made

in 1971. The analysis of that survey will be incorporated into a modechoice study that will be presented in the Second Year Results, Interim

Report 4 to be published late in 1973.

Sections 3.0, 4.0 and 5.0 of this report present results which are useful

for marketing and promotion. However, these analyses are based on interviews of present bus commuters and may not reflect the opinions of

present auto commuters. In this section the responses of a subset of

bus users chosen to closely represent auto users are examined for

attitudes differing from those of all other bus users. If differences

do exist the earlier findings of this report may not pertain to auto users.

43

i
Thie Shirley Highway Corridor Auto Commuter survey of October 1971

revealed that males with annual household incomes over $15,000 constitute the majority of auto comomuters using the Shirley Highway corridor.

A subgroup of those surveyed with these characteristics was therefore

designated for further analysis. The results obtained for all male bus

users with household incomes greater than $15,000 (Group A) were compared

with those of all other bus users interviewed (Group B) . From the total

survey population of 551, there were 212 individuals who qualified for

Group A, with the remainder comprising Group B.

The analysis of responses given by the two groups focuses on the

relative importance ratings of the bus features: If Group A considered

certain items more inportant than did Group B it might be wise to stress

these in promotional efforts.

D. 2 IiT^ortance Responses

Figure 6 presents the distributions for importance responses. A

statistical comparison"^ of response patterns for Group A and Group B

showed significant differences in inportance ratings for only three of

the bus features: "Additional Leg Room," "Shelters at Bus Stops," and

"Less Time Between Buses." Reviewing these responses with enphasis on

the two highest importance categories ("Extremely" and "Quite" important)

it appears that Group A considers "Additional Leg Room" slightly more

important than Group B did. In contrast Group A seems to consider

•^The Shirley Highway Bus -on- Freeway Demonstration Project-First Year

Results, Interim Report 2 (Report DOT/UMTA 2), November 1972.

4

Chi-Square tests used with a .025 degree of significance.

44
QQ

PhO

EhQQ

a

QQ

8

o

QQ

inn

mnnr

1 1 iffl^nn —^1

I I I I I ^ 0) CO^ 10

....vimmmnnninw-

—

iiffl^^nnw—^1

iiiiesiiaBi mmmrm

liiiyi ii iiii ii i

< m

p o r

e> ee

45
"Less Time Between Buses" not as important as does Groi^ B. To a lesser

extent, the same can be said about "Shelters at Bus Stops."

D. 3 Summary of Appendix D

Only one feature, "Additional Leg Room," appears to be considered

more inportant by Group A (those bus users surveyed selected to be representative of auto users) than by Group B [the remainder of bus users

surveyed) . This feature was considered only slightly more important by

Group A. If indeed Group A is representative of auto commuters on the

Shirley Highway then, on the overall it would seem that no special

orientation, with respect to the surveyed features, is necessary in

terms of marketing and promotion for the auto commuters. Therefore, the

findings of the main body of this report, describing present bus user

preferences, would seem to also be applicable toward attracting auto

commuters.

46
FORM NBS-114A (;.7i) U.S. DEPT. OF COMM. 1. I'^U B LIC .AT ION OR Rlil'OUT NO. 2. Gov't Ac ccr.i.iori BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA mrctd 7"^ 0 A =; SHEET NBSIR 73-265

3. !'.( oipi c:n;' s .'icccssion No.

4. TITLE AND SLB'I lTLi;

Tlie Shirley Higliway Exprcss-Bus-Qn-Frecv,'ay Demonstration

Project - Users' Reactions to Imioviative Bus Features

5. Publication l^atc June 1973

6. Pf rl'onning Organization Code

7. AUTHOR(s) Tlieodoro H. Saks, Richard F. Yates, Keith M. Goodman G. pel i oriniiu; Orgitp, izHtion NBSIR 73-265

9. PERFORMLNG ORGANIZATION NAM1-; AND ADDRESS

j NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

: WASHINGTON, D.C. 20234

10. Project/Task/ Work Unit No. 4314552

11. Contract/Grant No.

DOT AT 10005

12. Sponsoring Organization N.imc and Address Urban Mass Transportation Administration

Department of Transportation

Washington, D.C. 20591

13. Type of Report & Period Covered

Interim Report 3

_— ^ _

l4. Sponsoring Agency Code

'15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

16. ABSTRACT (A jQO-word or less factual summary of most significant information. If document includes a significant

bibliography or literature survey, mention it here.) Tlie Shirley Highway I'xpress Bus-on-Frec\\'ay Project demonstrates the application of a new

mass trajisii. tecbioJogy. The elements rested in this demonstration project include: an exclusive bus lane in the median of a freeway and bus priority lanes in the dountov.n

distribution area; fringe parking facilities which are coordinated with the bus service;

new- look/nev;- feature buses; and extension of service to additional residential areas in' an overall systems approach to the improvement of mass transit. As part of the evaluation of this demonstration project, a survey of commuters on board tJicse buses was undertaken in order to obtain users attitudes concerning the special interior bus

features as \vell as transit service features.

The results obtained from this study should be of interest to persons considering how

to allocate expenditures for new bus vehicles and transit service improvements.

Bus commuters perceptions of the relative importance of various bus interior features

(i.e., carpeting, special lighting, etc.) and transit service features (i.e., reliable

schedules, assurance of a seat, etc.) are analyzed in this report, along with their

relative satisfaction assessments of the special bus interior features. Analyses were conducted to determine if marginal improvements in interior comfort and aestlietic

features proved significantly more appealing to bus commuters. The relative inipact of

various project maiketing and promotional techniques is also presented.

17. KI-;Y words (Alphabetic al order, separated by semicolons)

Atr;i,udina] survey; bus -on- freeway; exclusive bus lanes; importance assessmc?nts ; interioi

bus leatures; mass transi t tec]inol o;ay ; sa t isfaction as sessments: ti'ansi.t servi c_e_ feature.-

18. wAii.AiMiTTY si ati;mi;nt ~r~r

K" 'i L'Nl.lMi ri-D.

J l-OU Ol- ITCI AL !\s| lUr.i ,'\0\. DO NOT Ria.hlASE

TO NTIS.

19. Sl^CURITY CLASS

(THIS REPORT)

UNCL ASSM-IED

20. ^^'a"R^^^ class

( I '.ilS PAGE)

L'.NJCI, ASSIFll-n

21. Nu. OF PAGES

46

22.