Understanding How Individuals Make Travel and Location Decisions: Implications for 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.

91 This chapter discusses the overall results of the Phase 2 sur- vey, which had the following research objectives: • Explore methods for encouraging more walking and tran- sit use. • Explore the TPB as an approach to understanding how in- dividuals make travel and location decisions. In particular, explore TPB in the context of a decision to move to a CN and to use environmentally friendly modes, such as walk- ing and transit. • Examine the power of the TPB to distinguish these market sectors and provide insight into motivating factors. This chapter provides overall results for the Phase 2 Inter- net survey. Appendix B provides a copy of the survey ques- tionnaire. For those readers curious about the detailed results of the TPB-related responses in the survey, the SPSS files of responses for all of the Internet panel surveys are included in Appendix C. This chapter is broken into six sections, as follows: • Background information on respondents • TPB questions regarding the respondents’ willingness to walk and use transit more • Follow-up questions about neighborhood preferences – Direct TPB questions about a CN – The value of alternative transportation services in pro- moting alternative transportation use in a CN • Messages about transit: saving money and improving the environment and health • Alternative services – Services the respondent has available – Ranking the services – Respondents’ willingness to use alternative transporta- tion services • Follow-up TPB analysis – Comparison between the first TPB (willingness to walk and use transit more) and the second TPB (willingness to use alternative transportation services) Background Information on the Respondents As specified in the research plan, the second survey was to include 500 respondents. First, respondents to the Phase 1 survey were asked to complete the Phase 2 survey. Three hun- dred eighty responded (44%). Others were then invited to take the Phase 2 survey until the number of respondents reached 500. In all, 501 respondents completed the Phase 2 survey. The 44% response rate is lower than would have been expected, but may have been the result of the long time (10 months) between the Phase 1 and Phase 2 surveys. Table 10-1 shows some comparative statistics for the vari- ous survey groups. Where a question was repeated in both surveys, the fourth column in the table shows the different results. Note that some change in value may be due to changes in age or living situation between the dates of the two surveys (December of 2004 and October of 2005). The 121 respondents who did not participate in the Phase 1 survey (shown in the last column) were selected from the same metropolitan statistical areas as the first group; how- ever, there was no oversampling by the young and old age- groups, nor was there the requirement to have moved in the prior 2 years or to be contemplating moving in the next 2 years. These respondents were not part of the NJ Transit e-panel. The combined effect of not oversampling the 21 to 31 age-group and not screening on moving was that the sam- ple has only one-third as many young people. The percentage in the age 55-plus group is about the same as in the Phase 1 survey. It is likely that the effect of oversampling of this older group in the Phase 1 survey was offset by the requirement that C H A P T E R 1 0 Results from the Phase 2 Survey

the respondents have moved recently or were planning to move. A higher percentage of the 121 respondents own single-family homes and fewer take green modes to work than those in the original survey. However, these respondents have the same median income, a similar ratio of cars to adults in the household, and similar education levels as the Phase 1 survey respondents. Note that in all of the presentations of results in this chap- ter, the total number of respondents is 501. Of the 501 respondents, 51% said they had transit service within one-third of a mile, and 70% said that transit was within walking distance of their homes. Figure 10-1 shows the distance to the nearest public transit stop and the number who said it was within walking distance. 92 Characteristic Phase 1 Survey Phase 2 Survey Total Respondents Taking Both Surveys (1st survey, 2d survey) Added Respondents for Phase 2 Respondents 865 501 380 121 Female 67% 71% 70%, 70% 74% Male 33% 29% 30%, 30% 26% Age 21-30 40% 30% 39%, 35% 13% Age 31 to 44 31% 34% 28%, 31% 42% Age 45 to 54 18% 24% 21%, 21% 34% Age 55-plus 10% 13% 12%, 13% 11% Live in Single- Family Home 48% 54% 46%, 53% 60% Take Transit to Work (of those commuting) 34% 27% 31%, 28% 23% Take Green Modes to Work (of those commuting) 41% 32% 38%, 34% 26% Prefer Urban Townhouse 44% n/a 44% n/a Prefer to Live in a Big City 23% n/a 22% n/a Average Cars per Adult in Household 0.88 0.86 0.87, 0.86 0.87 Households with No Children under 18 62% 61% 62% 63% Single 35% 31% 33%, 33% 31% Median Income $70,000 $70,000- $79,999 $70,000-$79,999 $70,000- $79,999 College Degree 69% 68% 68%, 68% 69% Asian/Asian American/Pacific Islander 5% 3% 4%, 4% 2% Black/African American 6% 8% 7%, 7% 11% Caucasian/White (non-Hispanic) 81% 79% 81%, 81% 81% Hispanic/Latino 4% 4% 4%, 4% 3% Table 10-1. Basic characteristics of the sample.

Figure 10-2 shows the number of respondents by distance to the nearest commercial area and the number considering it within walking distance. Figure 10-3 shows the same thing by distance to place of employment. Twenty-seven percent lived within one-third mile of a commercial area, and overall 60% said the nearest commercial area was within walking distance. Five percent said their work was within one-third mile, and overall 16% said that their work was within walking distance. Considering all destinations (transit stop, commercial area, and work), between 76% and 83% of those between one-third mile and 1 mile from their destinations thought the destina- tions were within walking distance. As can be seen, most of the respondents in this sample do not consider their place of work to be within walking distance of their home. 93 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Respondents 1/3 or less >1/3 to 1 >1 to 2 >2 to 5 >5 to 10 > 10 Distance to Transit Stop (Miles) Non-Walkers Walkers Figure 10-1. Distance to nearest transit stop and whether the stop was within walking distance. 0 50 100 150 200 250 Respondents 1/3 or less >1/3 to 1 >1 to 2 >2 to 5 > 5 to 10 > 10 Miles Non-Walkers Walkers Figure 10-3. Distance to work and whether work was within walking distance. 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 Respondents Miles Non-Walkers Walkers 1/3 or less >1/3 to 1 >1 to 2 >2 to 5 >5 to 10 > 10 Figure 10-2. Distance to nearest commercial area and whether it was within walking distance.

Respondents’ Willingness to Walk and Use Transit More As shown in Figure 5-3 in Chapter 5, there were two sets of questions asked in the Phase 2 survey for the purpose of gath- ering information for the TPB. There was an initial set of questions that asked about respondents’ intentions to walk and to take public transportation more. Then, following an “intervention” in which respondents were asked to read mes- sages and to consider new services and technologies, respon- dents were asked to provide a second set of TPB responses. Table 10-2 shows the measures that were gathered in the initial and final TPB exercises. Following is a discussion of the results for the initial set of TPB questions. Attitude—Outcome Evaluations and Behavioral Beliefs In the TPB, the outcome evaluations and behavioral beliefs combine to provide an indirect measure of attitude. The outcome evaluation questions gathered information on the importance or desirability of travel characteristics to respondents. Table 10-3 shows the mean score and standard deviation for the initial set of outcome evaluations. As can be seen, the top scoring items involved (a) having reliable transportation, (b) reducing the cost of daily transportation, and (c) reduc- ing pollution. The poorest ratings were given to the items that involved spending more time getting to the destination, followed by being dependent on someone else. Table 10-4 shows the mean ratings and the standard devia- tion of those ratings for the initial behavioral beliefs. Behav- ioral beliefs indicate how strongly the respondent feels that a certain action will affect an outcome. In this case, the respon- dent was asked about behavioral beliefs in response to the potential action, “If I were to increase the number of trips I take by public transportation and walking and drive less. . . .” As can be see from Table 10-4, the top two highest scoring beliefs were the ones rated most negatively in Table 10-3— i.e., “if I were to walk and take public transportation more and drive less, it would take more time to get to my destina- tion,” and “I would be dependent upon someone else to get me to my destination on time.” This indicates little willing- ness on the part of respondents to walk and take public trans- portation more and drive less. The lowest scoring beliefs related to being able to get by with fewer cars and meeting more neighbors. Subjective Norm—Motivation to Comply and Normative Beliefs Table 10-5 and Table 10-6 show the results for the set of TPB variables called motivation to comply and normative beliefs. These make up the components of the indirect measure of SN. Clearly, family has the most influence, with friends second, co-workers third, and neighbors last. All of the components of normative beliefs scored on the low end of the rating scale. On average, there was not much normative support for more walking and more use of public transit. Self-Confidence—Control Beliefs and Initial Power of Control The final set of ratings for the initial TPB were for the components of the respondents’ indirectly measured SCF. The first set is the control beliefs, which could affect re- spondents’ confidence to walk and use public transit more. Table 10-7 shows the control belief ratings. The highest scor- ing items were “I need to make local trips” and “I need access to a car to make spur of the moment trips.” Also scoring on the high side was “I need access to a car to carry heavy things” and “I find waiting for the bus or train and 94 Direct Measures Indirect Measures Belief Measures Relevance Measures Attitude (initial and final measures) Behavioral Beliefs (initial and final measures) Outcome Evaluations (measured only once) Subjective Norm (initial and final measures) Normative Beliefs (initial and final measures) Motivation to Comply (measured only once) Self-Confidence (initial and final measures) Control Beliefs (measured only once) Power of Control Intent (initial and final measures) Table 10-2. Measures for the Phase 2 TPB models.

95 Outcome Evaluations, Rated on a Seven-Point Scale Mean (SD) For me to have a reliable type of transportation to take to my destination would be: (extremely unimportant to extremely important) 6.5 (1.0) For me to reduce the cost of my daily transportation would be: (extremely undesirable to extremely desirable) 5.9 (1.4) For me to improve my health by walking more would be: (extremely unimportant to extremely important) 5.8 (1.3) For me to reduce pollution by using my car less would be: (extremely unimportant to extremely important) 5.3 (1.7) For me to reduce the time I spend driving would be: (extremely unimportant to extremely important) 5.3 (1.7) For me to meet my neighbors while walking is: (extremely undesirable to extremely desirable) 5.0 (1.5) For me to be able to leave the driving to someone else would be: (extremely undesirable to extremely desirable) 4.6 (1.8) For my household to own fewer cars would be: (extremely undesirable to extremely desirable) 3.1 (1.9) For me to ride with people I don’t know while traveling would be: (extremely undesirable to extremely desirable) 3.0 (1.5) For me to be dependent on someone else to get me to my destination on time would be: (extremely undesirable to extremely desirable) 2.8 (1.8) For me to spend more time getting to my destination would be: (extremely undesirable to extremely desirable) 1.9 (1.6) Behavioral Beliefs : If I were to increase the number of trips I take by public transportation and walking and drive less… (1= extremely unlikely, 7=extremely likely) Mean (SD) It would take mo re tim e for me to get to my destination 6.0 (1.5) I would be dependent upon som eone else to get me to my destination on time 5.7 (1.6) I would im prove my health by walking mo re 5.6 (1.6) I would be leaving the driving to som eone else 5.6 (1.7) I would reduce pollution 5.6 (1.5) I would ride mo re with people I don’t know 5.5 (1.8) I would reduce the am ount of tim e I spend driving 5.3 (1.8) I would im prove my health by walking mo re to public transportation 5.1 (1.8) I would rely on public transportation and walking to get me to my destination in a timely way 4.7 (1.8) I’d save m oney 4.6 (1.8) I would m eet mo re of my neighbors 3.8 (1.8) My household could get by with fewer cars (asked only of those who have a car, n = 460) 3.1 (1.8) Table 10-3. Outcome evaluations from the Phase 2 survey. Table 10-4. Behavioral beliefs for initial TPB Phase 2.

96 Motivation to Comply (1 = Not at All, 7 = Very Much) Mean (SD) Generally speaking, how much do you care what your family thinks you should do? 5.1 (2.0) Generally speaking, how much do you care what your friends think you should do? 4.2 (1.9) Generally speaking, how much do you care what your co-workers think you should do? 2.8 (1.7) Generally speaking, how much do you care what your neighbors think you should do? 2.5 (1.6) Normative Beliefs (1 = Strongly Disagree to 7 = Strongly Agree) Mean (SD) My family thinks that I should walk or take public transportation more. 2.5 (1.7) My friends think that I should walk or take public transportation more 2.4 (1.7) My coworkers think that I should walk or take public transportation more 2.2 (1.5) My neighbors think that I should walk or take public transportation more 2.2 (1.6) Control Beliefs , Rated on a Scale from 1 to 7 Mean (SD) I need to ma ke local trips (to reach destinations such as the library, post office, restaurant, or coffee shop). (not very often to very often) 5.5 (1.6) I need access to a car to make spur of the moment trips. (not very often to very often) 5.1 (1.9) I need access to a car to carry heavy things. (not very often to very often) 5.1 (1.8) I find waiting for the bus or train and not knowing when it is com ing is a bother. (strongly disagree to strongly agree) 5.1 (1.9) I worry about being stranded if I rely on public transportation and mi ss the bus or train. (strongly disagree to strongly agree) 4.7 (2.0) I worry about cri me or other disturbing behavior on public transportation. (strongly disagree to strongly agree) 4.1 (2.0) I need to travel to other parts of the region. (not very often to very often) 4.1 (2.1) I find dealing with the fare for public transportation is a bother. (strongly disagree to strongly agree) 3.9 (2.0) I worry encountering cri me or other disturbing behavior when walking. (strongly disagree to strongly agree) 3.8 (2.0) I need to travel downtown (not very often to very often) 3.4 (2.3) Table 10-5. Motivation to comply, from the Phase 2 survey. Table 10-6. Normative beliefs, from the initial TPB Phase 2. Table 10-7. Control beliefs for the TPB Phase 2.

not knowing when it is coming a bother.” Note that in Table 10-7 different descriptions are used for the seven- point scales (i.e., strongly disagree to strongly agree, and not very often to very often). Table 10-8 shows the power of control ratings for the dif- ficulty in walking or taking transit more, or alternatively, how various obstacles affect the difficulty of walking or taking transit more. Note that the last rating, “I need a car to get where I need to go,” is different from the other ratings (it is not a conditional statement, but rather a meas- ure of the respondents’ inability to substitute other modes for a car). The item receiving the highest overall rating was “harder for me to carry heavy things,” followed by “I need a car to get where I need to go” and by “harder for me to make spur of the moment trips.” The lowest rated items were “easier to take public transportation more if it were easier to pay the fare” and “difficult for me to get downtown if I were to walk and take public transportation more.” So for those respon- dents, getting downtown was seen as less of a problem than other things if they were to walk and take transit more, and easier means of fare payment was not seen as making it any easier to walk or take transit more. Direct Measures Another important part of developing the TPB model is to establish direct measures of ATT, SN, SCF, and intent. For each of these direct measures, three rating questions were asked, and the responses were averaged. Cronbach’s alpha is a test of the reliability of each set of the measures. In general, an alpha value of 0.7 is considered 97 Power of Control: (1 = Strongly Disagree, 7 = Strongly Agree) Mean (SD) If I were to walk or take public transportation more, it would be harder for me to carry heavy things. 6.2 (1.3) I need a car to get where I need to go. 5.5 (1.9) If I were to walk or take public transportation more, it would be harder for me to make spur of the moment trips. 5.4 (1.8) If I were to walk and take public transportation more, it would be difficult for me to get to other parts of the region. 5.4 (1.9) If I were to walk or take public transportation more, it would be difficult to make local trips to reach destinations such as the library, post office, restaurant, or coffee shop). 4.7 (2.2) It would be easier for me to walk or take public transportation more if I was sure of not being lost or stranded by missing the bus or train. 4.4 (1.9) It would be easier to take public transportation more if I knew when the bus or train would arrive. 4.3 (2.0) It would be easier for me to take public transportation more if it were safe from crime and other disturbing behavior. 4.1 (1.9) It would be easier for me to walk more if it were safe from crime and other disturbing behavior. 4.1 (2.0) It would be difficult for me to get downtown if I were to walk and take public transportation more. 4.0 (2.3) It would be easier to take public transportation more if it were simple to pay the fare. 3.3 (1.9) Table 10-8. Power of control ratings for the initial TPB Phase 2.

acceptable and indicates that the set of measures is in fact measuring the same construct. In this case, all of the direct measures behaved appropriately. The three measures of intent had a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.93. The three measures of attitude had an alpha of 0.84. The alpha for SN was 0.71, slightly above the 0.7 cutoff for acceptable. The alpha for SCF was 0.88. In some analyses involving SN, an average value of the four normative beliefs was used (Table 10-6), which correlated highly with the measure “it is expected of me.” The normative beliefs had an alpha value of 0.95. Table 10-9 shows the mean value for each of the direct measures, the combined value for each direct measure, and the combined value for the four nor- mative beliefs. 98 Direct Measure Source (rated on seven-point scale) Mean (SD) I plan to walk and take public transportation more (strongly disagree to strongly agree) 3.5 (2.0) I will make an effort to walk and take public transportation more (I definitely will not to I definitely will) 3.7 (1.9) I intend to walk and take public transportation more (strongly disagree to strongly agree) 3.5 (2.0) Intent Average of three Intent statements 3.6 (1.8) For me to walk and take public transportation more would be (extremely undesirable to extremely desirable) 4.3 (2.0) For me to walk and use public transportation more would be (extremely unpleasant to extremely pleasant) 3.9 (1.8) For me to walk and take public transportation more would be (boring to interesting) 4.4 (1.7) Attitude towards the Behavior Average of three attitudinal statements 4.2 (1.6) Most people who are important to me would like to walk and take public transit more (definitely false to definitely true) 3.3 (1.9) Most people whose opinions I value would approve of my walking or taking public transportation more (definitely false to definitely true). 4.6 (1.8) It is expected of me that I will walk and take public transportation more (strongly disagree to strongly agree) 2.8 (1.9) Average of three Subjective Norm statements 3.6 (1.5) Subjective Norm Average of four Normative Belief statements 2.3 (1.5) For me to walk and take public transportation more would be (extremely difficult to extremely easy) 3.3 (2.0) Self-confidence I am confident that if I wanted to I could walk and take public transportation more (definitely false to definitely true) 3.8 (2.1) For me to walk and take public transportation more would be (impossible to possible) 3.7 (2.1) Average of three SCF statements 3.6 (1.8) Table 10-9. Direct measures for the initial TPB Phase 2.

Follow-Up Questions on Neighborhood Preferences Following the TPB questions, a series of questions were asked about the respondents’ opinions of an idealized CN. These questions can be used to confirm the TPB responses about neighborhood preferences in the Phase 1 survey. The idealized neighborhood had sidewalks and bikeways through- out, as well as transit service to downtown, with connections to the rest of the region operating at least every 15 min. The neigh- borhood association provided a private shuttle bus to the town center, which came every 15 min. Car sharing was available. Respondents were told to assume that their employers allowed them to work at home at least 1 day a week. Finally, respon- dents were told to assume that they owned fewer cars than they did when they took the survey. Table 10-10 shows the responses to the questions about the idealized CN. As can be seen, the mean response to each item is near 5 (which is 1 point above the average). Respondents gave the highest ratings to their own interests; the approval of their friends and family was rated slightly lower, and their own ability to live in such a community was rated slightly lower still. Table 10-10 also shows a comparison between the respon- dents’ existing neighborhood and the imaginary CN. Com- pared with their current neighborhood, the imaginary neigh- borhood rated slightly lower than a neutral score of 4. The table also indicates the respondents’ opinion of their ability to live with fewer cars, which received a rating slightly above neutral. Table 10-11 shows how the participants rate different options that might allow them to live in the imaginary CN. The ability 99 Living in a neighborhood like this would be… (1 = Strongly Disagree to 7 = Strongly Agree): Mean (SD) Something I would like to do. 5.4 (1.7) Something people I care about would like to do. 5.1 (1.8) Som ething that would be easy for me to do. 4.9 (1.9) I could live with fewer cars in my household. (only asked of those with cars, n=460) 4.2 (2.1) How do you compare the imaginary neighborhood to your current neighborhood? (1 = strongly prefer my neighborhood and 7 = strongly prefer the imaginary neighborhood) 3.8 (2.0) Table 10-10. Ratings of an idealized compact neighborhood. Thinking about this imaginary neighborhood, which transportation options would you need to live with fewer cars in your household? (1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree) Mean (SD) I would want to know exactly when the bus or train would arrive. 6.0 (1.4) I would want a transit pass so that I never had to worry about having cash. 6.0 (1.5) I would want to be able to walk to a nearby store or coffee shop. 6.0 (1.5) I would want a transit service that connects me with the rest of the region. 5.9 (1.5) I would want a shuttle service to take me to the community center and other activities within the neighborhood. 5.4 (1.8) I would want to be sure that a taxi would com e at any hour. 5.4 (1.7) I would want frequent transit service (rail or express bus) to the downtown. 5.3 (1.9) I would want a car on my block that I could rent by the hour (car sharing). 4.4 (2.1) Table 10-11. Options to allow living with fewer cars.

to know when a transit vehicle would arrive is most highly rated. Being able to walk to a nearby store is also highly appealing, as is having transit service to the rest of the region. The average re- spondent would need to have generally available transit service in order to live in a CN. Car sharing has the lowest score— closest to a neutral value of 4. This ranking may be because the respondents did not understand the concept of car sharing. The Messages After the questions about an imaginary and idealized CN, the respondents were asked to read a message about pub- lic transportation. The sample was divided randomly into three groups, with approximately one third receiving a message about cost, another third about helping the envi- ronment and one’s health, and the last third receiving no message (the control group). (The messages are shown in Figure 5-4.) Respondents were asked their opinions about the mes- sages. Table 10-12 shows the results; significant differences between groups are shown in bold and indicated with an asterisk. The respondents seemed to understand the mes- sages, as those who received the message that transit can save money rated the statement about saving money significantly higher than did those who received the health and environ- ment message. Participants who received the health and environment message rated the appropriate statements higher than those who received the “save money” message. Nonetheless, the respondents rated the messages only slightly above neutral in terms of being convincing and only neutral in terms of making them want to use transit more. Those who received the health and environmental message indicated they had heard it before, which is likely a reference to the extensive media coverage being given to obesity. Alternative Transportation Services The final set of information gathered from the Phase 2 Internet survey concerned a set of services that might allow a respondent to increase his or her use of public transporta- tion. Who had access to such services in the first place? The results are summarized in Table 10-13. 100 Message This message made me think about… (1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree): Save Money Mean (SD) Environment and Health Mean (SD) Why everyone should use transit 4.6 (1.7) 4.6 (1.7) Why everyone should walk* 4.0 (1.7) 5.1 (1.6) The value of transit to me 4.7 (1.7) 4.6 (1.7) Why I should live close to transit 4.4 (1.7) 4.4 (1.7) Why my using transit is good for the environment* 4.4 (1.7) 5.4 (1.6) Why my using transit is good for public health* 4.3 (1.8) 5.2 (1.6) How I can save money using transit* 5.4 (1.6) 4.4 (1.6) I found this message understandable 5.6 (1.5) 5.8 (1.3) I found this message convincing 4.7 (1.7) 4.8 (1.7) I already knew everything stated in this message* 4.4 (2.0) 5.1 (1.6) This message makes me want to use transit more. 4.0 (1.7) 4.0 (1.8) This message makes me want to walk more* 3.8 (1.7) 4.8 (1.8) For me, the disadvantages of using transit still outweigh the advantages of using it. 4.4 (2.0) 4.5 (2.0) Number of respondents (n) 175 166 * Indicates significant difference between groups at p < .05 Table 10-12. Opinions of the transit messages.

While half of the sample had either downtown or regional transit available, many fewer had access to other services. Although the community shuttle service had been highly pop- ular with the older adults in the focus groups, three-quarters of the Internet respondents did not have such service avail- able, and even fewer had some kind of shared-ride door-to- door service available. Ninety percent did not have any kind of car sharing available (although this concept may not have been well understood). Smart cards or similar payment systems were options available to 45% of the sample, but the high-tech cell phone was generally not available, with 87% not having this option. Finally, 78% did not have the option of telecommuting, which, as will be seen, is also the most popular option. Table 10-14 shows the utility values assigned to different alternatives based on a MaxDiff analysis. MaxDiff (maxi- mum difference scaling) is an approach that can be used to measure the relative importance of different product or serv- ice features. The method uses a survey instrument that con- tains a set of structured exercises in which respondents are asked to choose the most important and least important from among sets of three to six features. Standard discrete choice model estimation techniques are used to measure the relative importance (“utility”) of each of the features using 101 Description of Transportation Alternative Have Option (%) Have Similar (%) Don’t Have (%) Fast transit service (rail or express bus) to the downtown. This service is available every 15 minutes or better, and a station is located less than a mile away. 24 24 52 Good connections by transit to the rest of the region (other than to the downtown). This service may involve a transfer from one transit vehicle to another. 24 29 46 A small community shuttle bus that connects your street with the local community center, and other activities within your neighborhood. 8 16 76 A community door-to-door service that you can take at about half the price of taxi service, that you share with others traveling at the same time. This service is obtained by calling a special number and is immediately available. 4 9 86 Cars are available on your block or near your workplace to be rented by the hour (car sharing) when you need to make a trip that is difficult to make on transit. 4 6 90 You have a “smart card” which you use to purchase service on any of the buses or trains. 22 23 55 You have a cell phone which will tell you exactly when the bus or train will arrive, show you where you are, and provide instructions on getting to your destination by public transportation. 5 9 87 Your employer allows you to work from home at least one day a week. You are provided a computer, a separate phone line, and high- speed Internet connection. 10 12 78 Table 10-13. Experience with alternative transportation services.

the data from these exercises (51). The resulting utilities re- flect differences in preference between the alternatives on an interval scale. In this exercise, correspondents indicated their top choice and their bottom choice out of a subset of four alternatives. They indicated which of the subset of alternatives was the most likely, and which was the least likely, to get them to reduce their travel by automobile. By constructing different sets of alternatives, all of the relative utility values can be computed for each individual respondent. Figure 10-4 shows the average utilities arranged linearly, so that the top preference—telecommuting—is on the right and the lowest preference—car sharing—is on the left. The preferences are arrayed along an interval scale for all respondents. Table 10-14 provides the mean and standard deviation of utility values for respondents who have the transportation alternative or something similar to it, as well as for respon- dents who do not have the alternative. In Table 10-14, a value of zero is arbitrarily assigned to the telecommuting option. The values in the table reflect the utility of other alternatives relative to telecommuting. Because all of the values are nega- tive, this indicates that telecommuting was the favorite option, on average. Table 10-14 also shows the number of respon- dents who indicated they had access to a particular alternative, or at least an alternative similar to the one described. The values in Table 10-14 indicate that the order of preference for the alternatives did not change much as a result of respondents having or not having a particular transportation alternative or something similar. The only significant differences between the groups were for the smart card and car-sharing alternatives. Those with car sharing as an option preferred it significantly more than those without it, but it was still ranked lowest of the alternatives. Those respondents with a smart card option preferred it significantly more than did those without it. Ironically, although respondents indicated that they wanted to know exactly when a bus or train would arrive (see Table 10-11), they did not rate the smart phone highly. Per- haps they were not convinced that the smart phone would re- ally perform as promised. Some evidence of this is shown in Table 10-14, where those that had a smart phone rated it lower than those that did not. While such smart phone tech- nology may be common in Europe and Japan, it did not appear to be convincing to the respondents in our survey. The Influence of Scale The rankings may have been somewhat influenced by differ- ences in scale (cost) of the options presented. In the MaxDiff ex- ercise, the respondents were asked to choose between four kinds of transit service and between three products that do not pro- vide transit services. Thus, for example, when confronted with a trade-off between better service to downtown and a cell phone, most chose the better service to downtown. It is inter- esting that the smart card was still more popular than certain service concepts, in spite of the issue of scale. Table 10-15 pres- ents the same rankings as Table 10-14, but divided into two cat- egories that reflect the scale of investment assumed. 102 Alternative Number with Option or Similar Mean Utility (SD) Number without Option Mean Utility (SD) Telecommuting 109 0 392 0 Transit to Downtown 241 -0.73 (0.82) 260 -0.79 (0.99) Regional Transit 270 -0.84 (0.95) 231 -0.78 (1.03) Smart Card* 226 -0.84 (0.56) 275 -0.98 (0.63) Community Shuttle 120 -1.07 (0.67) 381 -1.16 (0.81) Community Door-to-Door Service 68 -1.44 (0.91) 433 -1.51 (1.06) Smart Phone 67 -1.71 (1.06) 434 -1.59 (1.03) Car Sharing* 50 -2.04 (1.51) 451 -2.74 (1.73) * Significant difference at p < .05 between groups with the option and those without Table 10-14. Utility values for transportation alternatives. Lowest Preference Car Sha rin g Sm art Ph one Co mm un ity Do or to Do or Co mm un ity Shu ttle Sm art Ca rd Re gio nal Tr an sit Tra ns it to Do wn tow n Tel ec om mu ting Highest Preference Figure 10-4. Preferences for alternative transportation services.

Observations on the Rankings of the Alternatives The respondents in the Phase 2 survey were given the opportunity to reveal a preference for local services, with locally managed shuttle buses augmented by community shared-ride taxis. The respondents as a whole, however, rated good transit service to downtown or in the region higher than the local options. In the modal behavior pattern of many in the sample, tran- sit gets a high share for the work trip, but is not the mode of choice for getting to the community center, the doctor, or the neighborhood shopping center. However, the oldest group in the sample (55-plus) ranked a community shuttle and door- to-door service significantly higher than the younger groups did, indicating that these options may be of more interest as individuals age. The implications for both transit to downtown and the smart phone may merit further examination. With the appli- cation of the MaxDiff method, people are forced to pay at- tention to the issues of trade-off and prioritization; under this method, good service to downtown jumped to first place. Why it was ranked second to last in the “imaginary neigh- borhood” exercise may be associated with the context of the question, which encourages respondents to think about things they do not presently have—things that would need to change to accommodate the hypothesized conditions. Finally, it seems clear that the concept of getting information about when the next bus would arrive was better understood than the details of the products presented. Table 10-11 showed the value of knowing when a bus or train would arrive. Inter- est in this feature does not seem to have been reflected in the respondents’ reaction to the smart phone product. Similarly, the lack of any evident correlation between con- cerns about needing a car to carry heavy things and to make spur-of-the-moment trips and the respondents’ support for car sharing suggests that there is a general lack of knowledge about car sharing in our sample of respondents. Table 10-13 implies that the advocates of this strategy face a major task in bringing the public up to date. Follow-Up Analysis: Comparing Phase 2 TPB Results Two sets of rating questions provided data for the TPB in the Phase 2 Internet panel survey. In the initial set, discussed earlier in this chapter, respondents were asked to give their opinions about making more trips by walking and public transportation and about reducing trips by private automobile. In the final set, they were asked for opinions about how a series of transporta- tion options might allow them to change their trip making. In the time between these two sets of questions, respon- dents were exposed to messages that communicated the value of public transportation. Approximately one-third of the respondents received a message about saving money, another third received a message about reducing pollution and improving public health, and the last third received no mes- sage. The objective in this final set of TPB questions was to test whether intent to change mode would change given the messages and service options, and also to see if the causes of the change could be isolated. The final set of Phase 2 survey questions obtained TPB rat- ings where the respondent was to assume that he or she had all seven transportation options available. A similar and less extensive set of questions was asked for the initial TPB exercise (where there were no alternatives and prior to the messages being provided). The seven transportation alternatives were: 1. Fast transit service (rail or express bus) to the downtown. This service is available every 15 minutes or better, and a station is located less than a mile away. 2. Good connections by transit to the rest of the region (other than the downtown). This service may involve a transfer from one transit vehicle to another. Service is available every 15 minutes or better throughout the day. 3. A shuttle bus connects your street with the local commu- nity center and other activities within your neighborhood. Service is available every 15 minutes throughout the day. 4. A community door-to-door service that you can take at about half the price of taxi service and that you share with others traveling at the same time. This service can be obtained by calling a special number and is immediately available. 5. Cars are available on your block or near your workplace to be rented by the hour (car sharing) when you need to make a trip that is difficult to make on transit. Cars should be reserved a day in advance, but may also be available immediately. 6. You have a “smart card” that you can use to purchase serv- ice on any of the buses, shuttles, trains, or taxis. Just wave the card near the fare reader or meter, and the fare will be debited from your card. 7. You have a new kind of cell phone, which will tell you exactly when the bus or train will arrive, show you where 103 Ranking of Transit Services Only Ranking of Other Products (Original ranking shown in parentheses) To downtown (1) Smart Card (3) To region (2) Cell Phone (6) Community shuttle bus (4) Car Sharing (7) Community door to door (5) Table 10-15. Transit services vs. other products.

you are, and provide instructions on getting to your des- tination by public transportation. It would also have a “911” button that would instantly send your location to police or emergency services. This cell phone can serve as your normal cell phone, or your own phone can be pro- grammed to have this capability. The exact wording of the Internet panel questionnaire was as follows: Please answer each of the following questions by choosing the number that best describes your opinion about using any or all of the improved transportation services described above for your trips. Think about how you might use any and all of these ser- vices to get to work or other trips—there might be more than one way to do so, and your choice of services could vary by your changing daily needs. Behavioral Beliefs Table 10-16 shows average ratings for the behavioral beliefs with the transportation alternatives, broken out by message. Table 10-17 shows the changes from the initial ratings of behavioral beliefs shown in Table 10-4. There are some sig- nificant changes in the behavioral beliefs between the initial and final TPB exercises. Overall, the respondents significantly increased their ratings of the following statements: • I would save money. • I would rely on alternative transportation and walking to get me to my destination in a timely way. • My household could get by with fewer cars. The respondents significantly decreased their rating of the statement “I would improve my health by walking more.” As can be seen in Table 10-17, both the group that received the “save money” message and the group that received the “health and environment” message signifi- cantly increased their rating of the behavioral belief “I would save money.” The change in the control group was not significant. None of the transportation options sug- gested that money could be saved, so it is unclear why the rating increased for the group that received the health and environment message. Another mystery is why all groups decreased their rating of “I would improve my health by walking more.” One theory is that the respondents thought they would walk less with options such as door-to-door service or car sharing. The other two groups also decreased their rating of “I would reduce pollution,” but this change was not significant. None of the groups rated “reduce driving” significantly dif- ferently than before. In fact, all except the health and environ- ment group rated this statement lower than previously. How- ever, all groups rated “get by with fewer cars” significantly 104 Mean (SD)Behavioral Belief Statement: With these seven alternative transportation services available to me… (1 = extremely unlikely to 7 = extremely likely) All Respondents Save Money Message Env. & Health Message No Message (Control) I would save money 5.0 (1.7) 5.2 (1.7) 4.9 (1.7) 4.9 (1.8) I would be dependent upon someone else to get me to my destination on time 5.5 (1.5) 5.6 (1.4) 5.5 (1.5) 5.5 (1.8) I would improve my health by walking more 5.3 (1.6) 5.1 (1.6) 5.2 (1.6) 5.6 (1.5) I would improve my health by walking more to public transportation 5.1 (1.7) 5.0 (1.7) 5.2 (1.6) 5.3 (1.6) I would reduce pollution 5.5 (1.5) 5.4 (1.5) 5.4 (1.5) 5.6 (1.4) I would rely on alternative transportation and walking to get me to my destination in a timely way 5.1 (1.7) 5.2 (1.7) 5.1 (1.6) 5.1 (1.8) I would reduce the amount of time I spend driving 5.2 (1.7) 5.2 (1.8) 5.2 (1.7) 5.4 (1.8) My household could get by with fewer cars (asked only to those who have a car) 3.8 (2.1) 3.9 (2.2) 3.8 (2.1) 3.7 (2.2) Number of respondents (n)= 501 175 166 160 Table 10-16. Behavioral beliefs for the final TPB Phase 2.

higher than previously. This might indicate that they thought they would use car sharing, even though it was rated the low- est of all the alternatives. More research would certainly be re- quired to interpret these results, however. Overall, the re- spondents significantly increased their ratings of “I would rely on (alternative/public) transportation and walking to get me to my destination in a timely way,” perhaps indicating that the smart phone along with enhanced transit services would provide more reliability. The bottom line is that the messages did not appear to have been very effective. While the respondents getting the “save money” message significantly increased their behavioral belief that they would save money with the transportation alternatives, respondents getting the “health and environ- ment” message also significantly increased their behavioral belief about saving money. Those getting the health and environment message did not significantly change their behavioral belief that they would improve their health by walking more, although those not getting the message signif- icantly decreased their belief that they would improve their health by walking more. Power of Control Whereas the changes in behavioral beliefs were modest, the changes in power of control were more significant. Table 10-18 shows the respondents’ ratings of power of control statements given the availability of transportation alternatives. Table 10-19 shows the rating changes from the initial TPB exercise in cases where the statements were rea- sonably similar. Most of the comparable ratings for power of control changed significantly from the initial to the final survey. Respondents agreed that it would be easier to get downtown, to travel regionally, and to travel locally with the new services. They thought it would be easier to make spur-of-the-moment trips and to carry heavy things with the alternative transporta- tion options. However, slight wording changes make the state- ments about paying fares, understanding the schedules, feeling safer from crime, and being stranded harder to compare with the initial power of control statements. Table 10-18 indicates that respondents are still concerned about crime—that is, the ratings are slightly below neutral for that statement. Note that those who received no message changed their power of control rankings more than the groups who received the messages. Normative Beliefs The largest consistent change between the first set of TPB questions, which focused on using more public transit and walking, and the second set, which focused on using alterna- tive transportation and walking, comes in the normative 105 Change in Mean Value With these seven alternative transportation services available to me…(1 = extremely unlikely to 7 = extremely likely) All Respondents Save Money Message Env. & Health Message No Message (Control) I’d save money 0.42* 0.61* 0.43* 0.18 I would be dependent upon someone else to get me to my destination on time -0.20 -0.11 -0.25 -0.26 I would improve my health by walking more -0.33* -0.44* -0.22 -0.33* I would improve my health by walking more to public transportation -0.01 -0.02 0.05 -0.06 I would reduce pollution -0.11 -0.19 0.02 -0.16 I would rely on alternative transportation and walking to get me to my destination in a timely way 0.45* 0.56* 0.69* 0.08 I would reduce the amount of time I spend driving -0.05 -0.07 0.20 -0.30 My household could get by with fewer cars (asked only to those who have a car) 0.70* 0.76* 0.68* 0.65* Number of respondents (n)= 501 175 166 160 *Indicates significant change from earlier TPB exercise at p <.05 Table 10-17. Change in behavioral beliefs between initial and final TPB.

106 Mean (SD) Power of Control Statement: If I were to use the new services… (1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree) All Respondents Save Money Message Env. & Health Message No Message (Control) It would be more difficult for me to get to downtown. 3.2 (1.9) 3.1 (1.8) 3.3 (1.8) 3.1 (2.0) It would be more difficult for me to get to other parts of the region. 3.8 (2.0) 3.9 (1.9) 3.8 (2.0) 3.7 (2.1) It would be more difficult to make local trips to reach destinations such as the library, post office, restaurant, or coffee shop. 3.6 (1.9) 3.5 (1.9) 3.8 (1.9) 3.4 (2.0) It would be harder for me to make spur of the moment trips. 4.6 (1.9) 4.7 (1.9) 4.5 (1.8) 4.5 (1.9) It would be harder for me when I have to carry heavy things. 5.3 (1.8) 5.4 (1.8) 5.2 (1.8) 5.3 (1.8) Paying the fare would be simple. 5.3 (1.5) 5.6 (1.3) 5.1 (1.5) 5.4 (1.7) It would be easy to know when the bus or train would arrive. 5.1 (1.6) 5.3 (1.5) 4.9 (1.6) 5.0 (1.7) I would feel safer from crime and other disturbing behavior. 3.9 (1.6) 3.9 (1.6) 3.9 (1.5) 3.8 (1.7) I would have less concern about being lost or stranded by missing the bus or train. 4.3 (1.7) 4.3 (1.7) 4.2 (1.6) 4.3 (1.8) Number of respondents (n) 501 175 166 160 Table 10-18. Power of control for final TPB Phase 2. Change in Mean Power of Control Statement: If I were to (walk or use transit more/ use the new services)… (1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree) All Respondents Save Money Message Env. & Health Message No Message (Control) It would be more difficult for me to get to downtown. -0.80* -0.78* -0.80* -0.83* It would be more difficult for me to get to other parts of the region. -1.56* -1.52* -1.35* -1.84* It would be more difficult to make local trips to reach destinations such as the library, post office, restaurant, or coffee shop. -1.10* -1.07* -0.98* -1.25* It would be harder for me to make spur of the moment trips. -0.84* -0.71* -0.83* -1.00* It would be harder for me when I have to carry heavy things. -0.90* -0.75* -0.91* -1.04* Number of respondents (n) 501 175 166 160 *Indicates significant change from earlier TPB exercise at p < .05 Table 10-19. Change in power of control between initial and final TPB.

beliefs. Table 10-20 shows the ratings for normative beliefs, and Table 10-21 shows the changes from earlier ratings. The change in normative beliefs would seem to be due to the alternatives available, not to the messages. There was no significant difference between the ratings given by the groups receiving different messages. Direct Measures for the TPB As in the first set of TPB ratings, a series of rating questions was asked to obtain direct measures of respondents’ ATT, SN, SCF, and intent. Table 10-22 shows the results averaged for the relevant questions. Table 10-23 shows the change from 107 Mean (SD) Normative Belief Statement: With the new services available… (1 = extremely unlikely to 7 = extremely likely) All Respondents Save Money Message Env. & Health Message No Message (Control) My family would be more supportive of my walking more and taking public transportation more. 4.2 (1.9) 4.2 (2.0) 4.1 (1.8) 4.2 (1.9) My friends would be more supportive of my walking more and taking public transportation more 4.1 (1.9) 4.2 (1.9) 4.1 (1.8) 4.1 (1.9) My neighbors would be more supportive of my walking more and taking public transportation more. 3.9 (1.8) 3.9 (1.8) 3.8 (1.8) 3.8 (1.9) My coworkers would be more supportive of my walking more and taking public transportation more. 3.8 (1.8) 3.9 (1.9) 3.8 (1.7) 3.8 (1.9) Number of Respondents (n) 501 175 166 160 Table 10-20. Normative beliefs for the final TPB Phase 2. Change in Mean Normative Belief Statement: With the new services available… (1= extremely unlikely to 7= extremely likely) All Respondents Save Money Message Env. & Health Message No Message (Control) My family would be more supportive of my walking more and taking public transportation more. 1.69* 1.71* 1.60* 1.77* My friends would be more supportive of my walking more and taking public transportation more 1.73* 1.72* 1.78* 1.69* My neighbors would be more supportive of my walking more and taking public transportation more. 1.65* 1.65* 1.69* 1.60* My coworkers would be more supportive of my walking more and taking public transportation more. 1.63* 1.65* 1.62* 1.61* Number of respondents (n) 501 175 166 160 *Indicates significant change from earlier TPB exercise at p < .05 Table10-21. Change in normative beliefs between the initial and final TPB.

the initial set of ratings. In the final TPB exercise there was but one direct measure of SN: “It is expected of me.” This meas- ure, as well as the average of the normative beliefs, is shown in the table. The correlation of the normative beliefs was strongest with the “it is expected of me” measure of SN in the initial TPB exercise, so the average of the normative beliefs serves as another indicator of the SN. As can be seen, the largest change in the direct measures is in subjective norm. The self-confidence rating changes signif- icantly as well, but not as much as subjective norm. The attitude rating does not change significantly. There appears to be little difference in these ratings for the groups receiving different messages. Summary This chapter has provided the detailed results of the Phase 2 Internet panel survey. The results provide information on the respondents’ opinions regarding walking and taking transit. The results provide measures based on the TPB that allow us to explore how the use of transit and walking might change given different transportation services and marketing messages. From an overall look at the results, it does not appear that the marketing messages had much effect on respondents’ rat- ings concerning their use of public transportation and walk- ing. Further exploration of the impact of marketing messages on different market segments will take place in Chapter 11. 108 Mean (SD) Measure (rated on a seven-point scale) All Respondents Save Money Message Env. & Health Message No Message (Control) Attitude (average of three ratings) 4.3 (1.7) 4.3 (1.6) 4.3 (1.7) 4.5 (1.9) Subjective Norm (one measure, “it is expected of me”) 3.7 (2.1) 3.6 (2.0) 3.8 (2.0) 3.7 (2.3) Subjective Norm Alternative Measure (average of four normative beliefs) 4.0 (1.8) 4.0 (1.8) 4.0 (1.7) 4.0 (1.8) Self-Confidence (average of three ratings) 4.1 (1.9) 4.0 (1.9) 4.1 (1.9) 4.2 (2.0) Intent (average of three ratings) 4.4 (1.9) 4.3 (1.8) 4.4 (1.8) 4.4 (2.0) Number of respondents (n) 501 175 166 160 Table 10-22. Direct measures for the final TPB Phase 2. Change in Mean Measure (rated on a seven point scale) All Respondents Save Money Message Env. & Health Message No Message (Control) Attitude (average of three ratings) 0.16 0.18 0.15 0.13 Subjective Norm (one measure, “it is expected of me”) 0.88* 0.78* 0.91* 0.96* Subjective Norm Alternative Measure (average of four normative beliefs) 1.67* 1.68* 1.67* 1.67* Self-Confidence (average of three ratings) 0.53* 0.58* 0.43* 0.58* Intent (average of three ratings) 0.80* 0.87* 0.72* 0.80* Number of respondents (n) 501 175 166 160 * Indicates significant change from earlier TPB exercise at p < .05 Table 10-23. Change in direct measures between the initial and final TPB.

The results indicate that respondents did improve their scores on the measures of intent to change mode following the mes- sages and with the assumption that there would be new and bet- ter alternative services available. However, their attitude did not change much, even when they were offered a comprehensive array of alternative services. They did not find walking and tak- ing alternative transportation services significantly more desir- able, pleasant, or interesting than walking and taking transit. What did improve was their self-confidence in being able to take transit and their judgment that those important to them would approve, as measured by the SN. Nearly all of the problems re- spondents found walking and taking public transportation im- proved with the alternative services available. With improved transportation alternatives, they said their family, friends, neigh- bors, and coworkers would be more supportive of their decision to walk and take alternative transportation services. These results imply that a transit agency wishing to increase ridership should focus on alternatives that make transit easier to understand and use and on ways to increase the social acceptance of transit. 109