Consumer Research Methodology Approach

In order to positively change commute behavior in California that has been stagnant at the mid 20% range for ridesharing and transit, transportation products or services must be developed based upon consumer wants and needs rather than political and bureaucratic planning processes that are void of consumer input..

Consumer Research Methodology Approach (continued)

In Fall 1992, Pacific/West completed a segmentation study of California commuters that definitively segments commuters based on their attitudes, perceptions and likely behavior about commuting.

This study found that approximately 40% of California motorists are inclined to get out of their cars only if alternative transportation modes were convenient, flexible, reliable, safe and efficient.

This consumer segmentation specifically identifies those most likely to try alternative commute modes and thus provides a viable target audience for development of new transportation products and product enhancements to increase ridesharing/transit market share up to 40%..

Consumer Research Methodology Approach (continued)

However, new or enhanced transportation services must appeal to these targeted commuters, based on their wants and needs.

This research project was undertaken as a pilot study to illustrate a viable, quantifiable method for developing new/enhanced alternative mode products for the California commuter and the options for privatization of those services.

For this project, the concept of a "Transportation Hub" was developed and tested.

Consumer Research Methodology Approach (continued)

This consumer research approach, CTDM, was tested in the Los Angeles region in the 1st/2nd quarters of 1996.

The research methodology is based upon traditional private sector consumer product research.

"Conjoint Analysis" research allows consumers to respond to several variables such as price, location/distribution, frequency, value added services and other attributes.

CTDM Research Objective

To create and test a research program for developing new and/or enhanced alternative mode transportation products for the California commuter.

Criteria for the program are . . .

Consumer based

Can be replicated in any corridor

Projectable to the population measured

CTDM Los Angeles Test Research Methodology

Two step program

Step One: Qualitative Research

To expose commuters to new transportation product ideas and gain qualitative feedback for product development.

Step Two: Quantitative Research

To measure purchase interest in transportation products that is based on "real world" consumer decisions and provides results that are projectable to the targeted population as a whole.

Step One: Qualitative Research

Eight focus groups were conducted, two groups each with

West L.A. residents (10 E to downtown)

West Valley residents (101 E, 30 minute commute)

North Valley residents (405 S, 101 E, 30 minute commute)

Ontario residents (10 W, 30 minute commute)

Respondent criteria for research selection was based upon:

Drive alone commuters

Men and women

All "Easy Goers" or "Bold Beginners"

These segments were predetermined in the Segmentation Research as most likely to try alternative modes

Step One: Qualitative Research (continued)

Transportation Hub concept was presented:

In a few minutes you can drive to a new center near your home where you can join with other commuters to travel to the area where you work.

This contemporary center has plenty of parking and is built with the needs of the commuter in mind by offering a variety of stores and services that usually require extra stops on the way to or from work.

A variety of transportation options are available at the center, depending on your area. When you reach your work area, no more than a few minutes walking or riding a shuttle will bring you to your destination.

Step One: Qualitative Research (continued)

Overall positive reaction to hub idea:

Commuters feel they currently have no options -- must drive

Most commuters do not enjoy the drive, but make the most of it

The idea of a nearby transportation hub is appealing

Step One: Qualitative Research (continued)

Strongest appeal of the hub is the idea of rapid transit that works (not buses)

Most people have experienced rail systems in other cities and praise them

For transit to work, must meet their schedule -- transit available when they need it

Trains every 7 minutes

Multiple modes: If I miss the train, I'll catch the express bus

Step One: Qualitative Research (continued)

Hub facilities would be "gravy" if rail system worked

Commuters like idea of "streamlining" their life

Less commuting/errand time = more personal time

Step Two: Quantitative Research

Conjoint (or "trade off") analysis with focus group respondents (69 interviews) determined and refined options at the Transportation Hub.

Interviews with targeted consumers were conducted using laptops (at facility) or home computers (responses mailed back).

Commuters were presented with "real world" decisions in the form of a "trade-off."

Step Two: Quantitative Research (continued)

Examples:

You will be presented with some transit center options that differ in certain ways. Decide on which one you prefer and how strong your preference is assuming everything else is equal.

Cost 10% more than a car Commute time 20% less than car ATM machine at hub

or

Cost 50% less than a car Commute time 10% more than car Child care service at hub

Prefer Strongly				Neither		Prefer Strongly
1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10

Light rail Work space available during commute Hub to work 15 minute walk

or

Vanpool Phone/modem hook-up available Hub to work 5 - 7 minute walk

Prefer Strongly				Neither		Prefer Strongly
1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10

Step Two: Quantitative Research (continued)

Home to hub less than 5 minutes Free parking Coach seating

or

Home to hub 10 - 15 minutes Secure parking ($2-$3/day) First class seating

Prefer Strongly				Neither		Prefer Strongly
1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10

Train Commute time 30% less 5 stops

or

Bus Commute time same as car Express

Prefer Strongly				Neither		Prefer Strongly
1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10

Step Two: Quantitative Research (continued)

Carpool Video rental store at hub Secured parking ($2-$3/day)

or

Bus Mini-mart at hub Free parking

Prefer Strongly				Neither		Prefer Strongly
1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10

Cost 10% less than car No services at hub 4 stops

or

Cost 10% more than car Health club at hub 1 stop

Prefer Strongly				Neither		Prefer Strongly
1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10

Step Two: Quantitative Research (continued)

Home to hub less than 5 minutes Pharmacy at hub Hub to work 15 minute walk

or

Home to hub 10 - 15 minutes Car wash at hub Hub to work 5 minute walk

Prefer Strongly				Neither		Prefer Strongly
1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10

Dry cleaner at center Commute time same as car First class seating

or

Newsstand at center Commute time 20% more than car Food available during commute

Prefer Strongly				Neither		Prefer Strongly
1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10

Step Two: Quantitative Research (continued)

The results from this pilot study which follows are not statistically projectable statewide or regionally since they are based on a small sample of focus group respondents.

Pacific/West strongly recommends that based upon the success of the pilot CTDM Conjoint Analysis, the consumer based be expanded for statistical validity.

However, these results are indicative of the type and complexity of information that can be gathered from a sample population using standard sampling techniques and larger sample sizes.

Step Two: Quantitative Research (continued)

55 variables analyzed for the pilot study . . .

Type of Transpor-tation	Cost vs. SOV	Commute Time vs. SOV	Time from Home to Hub	Retail at Hub	Services at Hub	Type of Parking	Time from Hub to Work	Number of Stops During Trip	Transpor-tation Amenities
Carpool	50% less	30% less	< 5 min.	Newsstand	Child care	Free self parking	5-7 min walk	Express (none)	Power supply
Vanpool	25% less	20% less	5-10 min	Mini-mart	Health club	Secured ($2-3/day)	10 min walk	1 stop	Work space
Bus	10% less	10% less	10-15 min	Pharmacy	ATM	Valet ($4-6/day)	15 min walk	2 stops	1st class seats
Light Rail	Same	Same		Dry cleaner	Telework center			3 stops	Coach seats
Train	10% more	10% more		Food to go	None			4 stops	Phone/ modem
	25% more	20% more		Video rental				5 stops	Food available
	50% more	30% more		Gas station					None
				Car wash
				None

Step Two: Quantitative Research (continued)

Based on respondents' trade-off choices, three types of commuter segments emerge:

Segment	Percent of Total	Most Important	Other Important Factors
Express Oriented	45%	Express routes (door to door)	Free parking Full service gas station
Rail Enthusiasts	30%	Prefer light train or rail	Want newsstand at hub
Low Cost Commuters	25%	Transportation cost 50% less than car	Carpool/vanpool oriented

Step Two: Quantitative Research (continued)

55 variables were analyzed to determine most important to least important.

Most Important	Extremely Important	Very Important
Costs 50% less than car	Free parking	Secured parking ($2-3/day)
Commute time 30% less than car	Train	Light rail
Bank ATM at hub	Express route
	Costs 25% less than car
	Commute time 20% less than car

Step Two: Quantitative Research (continued)

Not Important	Less Important	Least Important
Computer/electronics power supply in transportation	Dry cleaner	Costs 10% - 50% more than car
Pharmacy at hub	Video rental store	Commute time 20% - 30% more than car
No seating amenities on transportation	Drive through car wash	4 - 5 stop route
		Home to center in 10 - 15 minutes
		No retail stores at hub
		Center to work 15 minute walk
		Valet parking ($5/day)

Step Two: Quantitative Research (continued)

Using responses to trade-off questions, computer simulations of products can be tested and analyzed.

Simulation #1: Base Case (Current Park & Ride lots)

Type of Transpor-tation	Cost vs. SOV	Commute Time vs. SOV	Time from Home to Hub	Retail at Hub	Services at Hub	Type of Parking	Time from Hub to Work	Number of Stops During Trip	Transpor-tation Amenities
Carpool	Same	Same	5 - 10 minutes	None	None	Free self parking	5 - 7 minute walk	1 stop	None

Step Two: Quantitative Research (continued)

Simulation #2: Add secured parking at $2-$3/day cost to current Park & Ride lot

Type of Transpor-tation	Cost vs. SOV	Commute Time vs. SOV	Time from Home to Hub	Retail at Hub	Services at Hub	Type of Parking	Time from Hub to Work	Number of Stops During Trip	Transpor-tation Amenities
Carpool	Same	Same	5 - 10 minutes	None	None	Secured ($2-$3/day)	5 - 7 minute walk	1 stop	None

Step Two: Quantitative Research (continued)

Simulation #3: Add most important hub facilities to current Park & Ride lot

Type of Transpor-tation	Cost vs. SOV	Commute Time vs. SOV	Time from Home to Hub	Retail at Hub	Services at Hub	Type of Parking	Time from Hub to Work	Number of Stops During Trip	Transpor-tation Amenities
Carpool	Same	Same	5 - 10 minutes	Mini-mart	Bank ATM	Free self parking	5 - 7 minute walk	1 stop	None

Step Two: Quantitative Research (continued)

Simulation #4: Add one type of alternative transportation mode to current Park & Ride lot

Step Two: Quantitative Research (continued)

Simulation #4: Add one type of alternative transportation mode to current Park & Ride lot

Step Two: Quantitative Research (continued)

Simulation #4: Add one type of alternative transportation mode to current Park & Ride lot

Step Two: Quantitative Research (continued)

Simulation #4: Add one type of alternative transportation mode to current Park & Ride lot

Step Two: Quantitative Research (continued)

Simulation #4: Add one type of alternative transportation mode to current Park & Ride lot

Step Two: Quantitative Research (continued)

Simulation #5: Add one type of alternative transportation mode and the most important hub facilities to current Park & Ride lot.

Step Two: Quantitative Research (continued)

Simulation #5: Add one type of alternative transportation mode and the most important hub facilities to current Park & Ride lot.

Step Two: Quantitative Research (continued)

Simulation #5: Add one type of alternative transportation mode and the most important hub facilities to current Park & Ride lot.

Step Two: Quantitative Research (continued)

Simulation #5: Add one type of alternative transportation mode and the most important hub facilities to current Park & Ride lot.

Step Two: Quantitative Research (continued)

Simulation #5: Add one type of alternative transportation mode and the most important hub facilities to current Park & Ride lot.

Step Two: Quantitative Research (continued)

Simulation #6: Add one type of alternative transportation mode with most important amenity and add most important hub facilities to current Park & Ride lot.

Step Two: Quantitative Research (continued)

Simulation #6: Add one type of alternative transportation mode with most important amenity and add most important hub facilities to current Park & Ride lot.

Step Two: Quantitative Research (continued)

Simulation #6: Add one type of alternative transportation mode with most important amenity and add most important hub facilities to current Park & Ride lot.

Step Two: Quantitative Research (continued)

Simulation #6: Add one type of alternative transportation mode with most important amenity and add most important hub facilities to current Park & Ride lot.

Step Two: Quantitative Research (continued)

Simulation #6: Add one type of alternative transportation mode with most important amenity and add most important hub facilities to current Park & Ride lot.

Step Two: Quantitative Research (continued)

Summary: Percentage increase/decrease in purchase likelihood compared to current Park & Ride lots.

Current Park & Ride Lots (Base Case)	Add Best Hub Features Only		Add Transportation Only		Add Hub + Transportation		Add Hub + Upscale Transportation
60% Purchase Likelihood	Mini-mart, ATM and . .				Mini-mart, ATM and . . .		Mini-mart, ATM, 1st Class Seating and . . .
	(Basic Hub)	+ 15%	Vanpool	+ 3%	Vanpool	+ 17%	Vanpool	+ 23%
	Secure Parking	+ 13%	Bus	- 1%	Bus	+ 17%	Bus	+ 19%
			Express Bus	+ 3%	Express Bus	+ 18%	Express Bus	+ 22%
			Light Rail	+ 15	Light Rail	+ 28%	Light Rail	+ 32%
			Train	+ 3%	Train	+ 18%	Train	+ 23%

Step Two: Quantitative Research (continued)

Simulation #7: Ideal Product

Type of Transpor-tation	Cost vs. SOV	Commute Time vs. SOV	Time from Home to Hub	Retail at Hub	Services at Hub	Type of Parking	Time from Hub to Work	Number of Stops During Trip	Transpor-tation Amenities
Train	50% less	30% less	< 5 minutes	Mini-mart	ATM	Free	5 - 7 minute walk	Express	1st class seating

Conclusions

The pilot CTDM Conjoint Analysis in Los Angeles provided invaluable insight into why California's rideshare market share has remained stagnant for over a decade.

Although statistically under-represented due to reduction of contractor funds to conduct statistically valid interviews in Los Angeles, San Francisco, Sacramento and San Diego, the pilot test results strongly suggest:

Commuters will utilize alternative modes of transportation other than single occupancy cars only if alternative transportation options provide convenience, reliability, multi-modal options and value-added services and conveniences such as ATM machines, secured parking and certain retail services at the Hub to reduce other personal commute trips.

Recommendations

ONE Caltrans and other transportation agencies should implement, on an on-going basis, consumer research and testing of alternatives modes by specific congested corridors.

TWO The CTDM Conjoint Analysis consumer research methodology should be expanded for statistical validity and accuracy on a corridor basis within each region of the State to determine regional transportation options to reach a 40% market share.

THREE Caltrans and all regional transportation agencies should be required to conduct consumer CTDM research prior to planning, funding, construction and implementation of new transportation services.

Recommendations (continued)

FOUR Caltrans and all regional transportation agencies should be required to develop corridor specific marketing and transportation plans and eliminate the current system of disjointed and separate transportation plans.

FIVE Caltrans and all regional transportation agencies should be required to develop partnerships and business opportunities for private sector companies; such as banks, developers, parking management firms, retailers, and other businesses that can provide the financial capital, property and services; to meet commuter needs and wants within a corridor in order to achieve a 40% market share and leverage taxpayer funds.