Evaluation Methodology

The Commuter Monitor is a standardized monitoring and evaluation system that tracks the effectiveness of marketing activities at the regional and sub-regional level. This consumer research methodology measures and assesses changes in commuter awareness and attitudes of -- and behaviors in -- all transportation modes within a geographic region so transportation agencies and policymakers can plan and develop products and services that consumers desire and will use.

The Commuter Monitor's standard research methodology compares timely survey research and transportation data by mode within a specific region, examining variances and trends in each set of data. The Commuter Monitor is designed to operate three times a year within each region in order to continuously track and evaluate the effectiveness of marketing and consumers' attitudes, perceptions and behaviors.

The Commuter Monitor focuses on collecting and evaluating data in five major areas:

Mode: Awareness and perceptions of specific modes available in the region or corridor.

Marketing Promotion: Awareness and perceptions of marketing activities, which speak to the marketing ability to communicate effectively with target audiences.

Stated Effect: Assessment of the effect of marketing activities on commuters, as stated by the consumers themselves.

Stated Behavior: Commuters' behavior at the corridor level, again, as stated by consumers. Subsequent waves of research will panel back to previous respondents in order to examine their commute behavior over the course of various marketing activities taking place in their region or corridor.

Real World Transportation Data: Transportation data collected at the local and regional levels simultaneous with the survey research.

California Bike Commute Promotion Commuter Monitor

This Commuter Monitor was conducted by telephone among 1062 randomly selected participants in the California Bike Commute promotion statewide. This evaluation research was conducted June 21-27, 1995.

All respondents participated in the California Bike Commute promotion on May 4, 1995, and were selected randomly from 8,630 registration cards from four regions statewide: Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco and Sacramento.

Three hundred interviews were conducted in the Los Angeles, San Diego (301) and San Francisco regions. 161 interviews were completed in the Sacramento region. Reasons for this low completion rate in Sacramento include: the small number of registration cards (654) from which to draw a sample, a high number (196) of answering machines and no answers, 91 refused to be interviewed, 44 were "not in or not available" and 56 wrong or disconnected numbers.

The margin of error for this data is + 3.0 % in 95 out of 100 cases. That is, if we conducted 100 identical surveys, the results in 95 of them would be identical to this survey within the margin of error. Readers are cautioned that the margin of error for sub-groups is significantly higher. In addition to theoretical sampling error, administration of the survey elements and questionnaire design may bias some responses, although precautions have been implemented to minimize any bias.

The participation rate, or incidence, of the survey was 34.5%. The incidence is calculated as the total number of completed interviews divided by the total number of contacts made.

Key Findings

Awareness of Modes

Participants who registered to participate in the California Bike Commute promotion are aware of multiple alternative modes:

• 65% are aware of buses
• 43% are aware of bike lanes on streets
• 29% say that Park-n-Ride lots are available along their commute
• 20% are aware of both bike lanes on the street and separate bike paths
• 14% are aware of carpool lanes
• 7% are aware of carpool on-ramp lanes
• 7% are aware of both carpool on-ramp lanes and freeway carpool lanes
• 6% are aware of separate bike paths along their commute route

Awareness of Bike Lanes and Separate Bike Paths

Commuters in San Diego are slightly more aware of bike lanes on streets than other regions across the state, while cyclists in Sacramento are more aware of both lanes on streets and separate bike paths. San Francisco Bike to Work participants are aware of neither lanes nor separate paths. There are no other statistically significant distinctions by region.

Sample LA SD SF SAC

Lane on Street 43% 40% 52% 36% 41%

Separate Path 6 7 5 7 4

Both 20 18 19 13 39

Not Aware 31 35 24 43 16

Awareness of Alternatives Among Drive Alone Commuters and Cyclists

Not surprisingly, drive alone commuters are aware of alternatives aimed at reducing driving alone -- such as park-n-ride lots and carpool lanes. Similarly, commuters who bike to work are aware of buses and bike lanes and paths -- modes and amenities aimed at cyclists.

Analysis and Conclusions

Because many participants in this promotion currently use alternative modes -- many bike to work regularly -- awareness of alternative modes is inherently high. Since bicycling is a mode that is used in conjunction with other modes -- awareness of multiple alternative modes is also high.

Because participants currently use alternatives, the first crucial step of purchase intent of alternative modes, which is the awareness of modes, is already in place. Although awareness of biking, and the benefits associated with it, are known to the participants in California Bike Commute 1995, future promotions must continue to stress positive attributes of biking to reinforce commute behavior and to educate potential cyclists.

Key Findings

Four primary measures are the keys to understanding commuters' mode choice and their likelihood to sample alternatives: reliability, flexibility, convenience and safety. Commuters perceived driving alone more positively on each of those measures, with the exception of reliability, which is perceived equally as positive as biking.

Commuters perceive biking far more positively on four "quality of life" measures: stressful, fun, relaxing and enjoyable.

Commuters perceive to share a commonality with others who also commute by using a bicycle or driving alone. Driving alone and biking are the only two modes commuters believe are taken by people like themselves. This demonstrates the effectiveness of the promotion in linking the product, message and target audiences.

Commuters also consider biking less expensive than other products. Yet, previous Commuter Monitor studies, as well as Caltrans' Market Segmentation Research, have shown that cost is not a strong determinant of mode choice.

Tables based on a scale of 1 to 7, where 7 represents a "perfect" description of the mode and 1 "does not" describe the mode. Scores from 5 to 7 were combined, as were scores from 1 to 3. Those who responded "don't know" or attributed the mode a score of 4 were excluded.

Although many of the commuters surveyed here are predisposed to using alternatives -- many bike to work regularly -- they do not perceive other alternative modes, such as carpooling and public buses, favorably.

Attributes of buses and carpools are not perceived positively in terms of four key measures: reliability, flexibility, safety and convenience. Nor are they perceived favorably in terms of "quality of life" measures such as fun, relaxing and enjoyable.

Tables based on a scale of 1 to 7, where 7 represents a "perfect" description of the mode and 1 "does not" describe the mode. Scores from 5 to 7 were combined, as were scores from 1 to 3. Those who responded "don't know" or attributed the mode a score of 4 were excluded.

Analysis and Conclusions

Clearly, the two most positively perceived modes are biking and driving alone. CBC participants utilize each mode, within constraints placed upon them through employment. Commuters drive alone when their commute is slightly more complicated than just getting to and from work: they must attend a business meeting, their commute is "too far" or they have to carry items to work.

Cyclists said they ride their bike primarily for health reasons. Yet, they also consider biking to be more fun, enjoyable and relaxing than driving alone. They also perceived biking as reliable as driving alone -- one of four key determinants of mode choice.

Given the positively perceived nature of biking attributes -- as well as the predisposition toward the mode -- there are opportunities for increasing mode frequency, and possibly a mode shift. Audiences that are likely candidates for increased mode frequency and mode shift are recreational and part-time cyclists, and should be among future promotions' target audiences.

Positioning the product (mode), target audience and promotion is a core objective in marketing. This Monitor evaluation provides a number of ways with which to measure the positioning of the product and the promotion with the target markets. One key measure -- that underscores the effective positioning of CBC and bicycling -- is participants' perception that "people like me" also bike. Unlike other alternative modes, such as carpools and buses, biking compares favorably (and equally) with driving alone on this measure.

Key Findings

Aided Awareness of California Bike Commute Promotion

97% of all California Bike Commute participants who submitted a registration card recall the promotion specifically. Three percent (3%) do not recall their participation, although to be surveyed they must have submitted a promotion registration card.

Promotion Recall by Region

There are no statistically significant distinctions between regions with regard to promotion recall:

LA SD SF SAC

Yes, Recall 97% 99% 96% 95%

Do Not Recall 2 1 4 4

• 24% of commuters who say they recall specifically the California Bike Commute promotion drive alone daily (n=251/1030).

Aided versus Unaided Awareness of Promotion

More commuters are aware of the California Bike Commute promotional messages specifically than are of general messages about commute alternatives. A very specific message reached a highly targeted -- and very responsive -- audience effectively.

• 97% of those who have biked since the day of the event are aware of the California Bike Commute promotion specifically (n=781/805).
• 87% are aware of general messages (n=711/805)
• 13% are unaware of any communications in general about transportation alternatives.

The California Bike Commute promotion effectively targeted commuters' who would be receptive to the specific message about biking to work, therefore, recollection of the promotion was high and perceptions accurate.

Employers were responsible for delivering bike to work information to more participants than any other source.

• San Diego area participants are less likely to say their employer provided information and more likely to say they received information through the mail. No other statistically significant differences between regions are relevant to these findings.

Source of Information Among Students:

• 11% of students heard about the promotion through their college newspaper
• 11% saw a store display
• 4% heard about it on their college radio station

Analysis and Conclusions

97% recall of the promotion underscores several positive attributes about commuting by bike, as well as perceptions of the promotion itself.

For example: Some promotions for alternative modes have little or nothing to do with actually using an alternative. Previous promotions' call-to-action was to merely enter a contest, and very little attention was directed toward providing an incentive for commuters to sample an alternative mode. California Bike Commute was a promotion of the mode as well as the direct and indirect benefits of biking to work. Those benefits ranged from direct personal tangibles associated with biking (health, relaxation, reliability, etc.) to the broader, external benefits of biking.

The integration of the promotion and the product greatly enhance the success of both.

Key Findings

Recall of the California Bike Commute promotion was high across all regions. Overall, participants' recollections of the promotion were accurate. Responses varied with regard to the promotions' call-to-action versus executional elements.

Responses were varied in terms of participants' perceptions of the California Bike Commute promotion. Some responses were solely executional in nature, such as:

• It involved a contest/drawing 10%
• The promotion was well advertised 10%
• Gave bike to work information 9%
• Filled out registration card 5%
• Flyers 4%

• Some perceptions were general comments about the event:

• It was fun 9%
• I participated 6%
• Routes had pit stops 5%
• Not a lot of participation 4%
• Event was not well prepared 4%
• Bad weather 3%

As in any promotion, some participants were in it for the "freebies:"

• Free food, breakfast or doughnuts 11%
• Free T-shirt 9%
• Promoted incentives to ride 6%

• Also, some responses reflected respondents' motivations for participating:

• Cut down on pollution 5%
• Sounded fun 5%
• Meet people 2%
• Good for health 2%
• Encouraged by friends 2%

Perceptions of Promotion by Region

Los Angeles:

Participants in the Los Angeles region recited executional elements of the California Bike Commute promotion more than "call-to-action" elements like pledging to bike to work.

• Contest / prizes 14%
• Provided bike to work information 13%
• Lots of participation 11%
• Bad weather 4%

Fewer Los Angeles area participants recalled pit stops (1%) than the overall sample (4%).

Slightly fewer (8% -- yet not statistically significant) participants said the promotion was "well advertised" compared to the entire sample (10%). This finding correlates with qualitative reporting which states that promotional materials (including press kits and registration cards) were distributed either too late or not at all.

San Diego:

Participants in San Diego recall extensive California Bike Commute (also known as Bike to Work Day) promotions, but not the content of the advertising.

• Well advertised 12%
• Pit stops 10%
• Cut down on pollution 6%
• Promoted incentives to participate 3%

Five percent of San Diego area participants (versus 9% overall) recall the distribution of bike to work information such as safety tips and suggested routes.

San Francisco:

Responses in the San Francisco area mirror that of the entire sample. One small exception is that 4% of cyclists participated to meet new people (twice as much as the entire sample at 2%).

• Promoted incentives to bike to work 9%

Sacramento:

As in San Diego, participants in the Sacramento area recall a quantity of advertising -- yet not the quality of advertising or content of the advertisements.

• Promotion was well advertised 13%
• Bike to Work Parade 7%
• Sounded fun 7%
• Not a lot of participation 7%

5% of Sacramento area participants say the weather was poor the day of the promotion, which also explains why turnout for the event was perceived low by area participants.

Analysis and Conclusions

Participants' perceptions of California Bike Commute are right on the mark. Although many cited executional aspects of the promotion -- like filling out a registration card and prizes -- the 85% participation rate (cyclists that actually biked to work the day of the event) demonstrate correct comprehension and retention of the promotions' call-to-action.

Call-to-action messages are not the only valuable perceptions of California Bike Commute. Recall of executional elements should not be dismissed, as they serve as a valuable tool to better plan future promotions. Perceptions that refer to participants' motivations also help identify key promotional messages that resonate with the target audiences. Health, environment, relaxation and fun are specific reasons why commuters participated in California Bike Commute 1995 and would try alternative modes of transportation in the future.

Key Findings

Alternative Mode Trial (Participation in Promotion)

85% of all California Bike Commute participants who submitted a pledge card actually biked to work on that day. Another 14% submitted a registration card but did not ride that day.

• 21% of participants who biked to work that day say they drive alone every day (n=187/904), and
• 19% drive alone 2 to 5 days per week (n=174/904)

98% of cyclists who biked to work on California Bike Commute day recall the promotion specifically while 90% recall general messages about commuting alternatives.

Actual Commute (Participation) by Region

Overall LA SD SF SAC

Biked 85% 83% 87% 85% 85%

No 14 16 13 14 15

Why Not Bike to Work That Day?

14% of all commuters who returned a completed registration card did not bike to work on California Bike Commute day -- yet since the promotion -- 44% stated they have biked to work (n=67/153). Of commuters' reasons for not participating -- most refer to constraints associated with employment:

• 11% commute is too far
• 11% business meetings
• 10% rain
• 8% did not go to work
• 7% out of town
• 6% other commitments
• 6% home sick
• 5% had to take things to work
• 5% needed car for work

Reasons for Not Participating by Region

Again, there are more similarities than differences between regions with regard to specific reasons for not participating in the promotion. Some notable exceptions include:

• 33% in Sacramento said they did not bike to work that day because of "bad weather"
• 18% in San Francisco said they had "too far" a commute that day
• 15% in San Diego "forgot" about the promotion
• 14% in Los Angeles "did not work" the day of the event

Participants in the California Bike Commute promotion are "die-hard" cyclists. Their reasons for not biking to work that day (with the exception of those in San Diego that "forgot") reflect a commitment to work, not an indifference to cycling or the promotion.

Repeat Sample (Continued Cycling) and Regional Differences

76% of all Bike to Work participants have biked to work since the day of the promotion. 24% said they had not commuted by bike since that day.

There are no statistically significant differences in continued cycling between regions:

LA SD SF SAC

Yes, biked since 74% 73% 77% 81%

No, have not 26 27 23 19

Likelihood to Sample Alternatives Based on Commute Behavior

Cyclists are just as likely as commuters who use other alternatives to sample alternatives in the future. Drive alone commuters are less likely than cyclists and other alternative mode users to sample -- yet almost two-thirds of drive alone commuters still say they are likely to sample. This demonstrates the promotions' appeal to target audiences with the propensity to sample alternative modes.

Sample Cyclists Drive Alternative

Alones Mode Users

Likely 72% 78% 62% 80%

Might 7 3 12 3

Unlikely 20 19 25 17

Likelihood to Sample Alternatives Based on Commute Length

Participants with longer commute times are no less likely to sample alternatives than participants with shorter commutes.

• 30% of commuters who travel less than ten minutes each way are likely to sample
• 43% of commuters who travel 11 to 29 minutes are also likely to sample, and
• 27% of commuters who travel 30 or more minutes each way say they are likely to sample alternative modes

Likelihood to Sample Alternative Modes by Region

Participants in San Francisco are slightly more likely (but not significantly more likely given the statistical margin of error) than other California Bike Commute participants to sample alternative modes, especially given the array of alternatives available in the region.

Sample LA SD SF SAC

Likely 72% 70% 72% 76% 71%

Might 7 8 8 4 9

Unlikely 20 21 20 20 19

Reasons to Try Alternatives

Health concerns are by far the strongest reason to sample an alternative mode (not just biking) among participants in the California Bike Commute promotion. Environmental and "social" reasons are also important to participants.

• 28% cite exercise as a reason to sample alternatives
• 17% good for health
• 15% good for the environment
• 13% would try an alternative if it sounded fun
• 18% would do it to save money / less expensive
• 11% to reduce emissions / less pollution
• 7% to save gas
• 5% to avoid traffic
• 5% would sample alternatives because they have "always done it"

Reasons to Try Alternatives by Region

Comparatively, participants from the San Francisco area are less concerned with "health" and more concerned about the "environment." There are no other statistically significant distinctions -- the other three regions mirror the overall sample.

Change in Commute Behavior Since California Bike Commute?

52% of all California Bike Commute participants who submitted a registration card said their commute behavior did not change as a result of the Bike to Work promotion. However, 41% of commuters who participated say they usually bike to work. The promotion did have a stated effect on some participants:

• 4% tried biking
• 1% bike weekly

Likelihood to Bike to Work in Future

83% of all California Bike Commute participants say they are "very" or "extremely likely" to bike to work in the future. Eight percent (8%) said they "might" and 10% said they are "not likely" to bike to work in the future.

87% of those who actually biked to work on the day of the promotion say they are likely to bike to work in the future (n=786/904).

Likelihood to Bike in the Future by Region

Again, there are no noteworthy differences in the likelihood to bike to work in the future between regions.

LA SD SF SAC

Extremely/Very 80% 83% 82% 86%

Might 11 6 8 6

Not Likely 10 9 11 9

Likelihood to Bike in the Future by Commute Length

Longer commute times do not necessarily negatively impact the likelihood to bike to work in the future.

• 24% of those who commute 10 minutes or less say they are likely, as are
• 36% of those 11 to 29 minutes, and
• 22% of those who commute 30 minutes or more

Likelihood to Bike in the Future and Sample Alternatives

81% of commuters who are likely to bike to work in the future also say they are likely to sample other alternative modes (n=708/875). Fifteen percent (15%) say they are unlikely to try alternatives other than biking:

• 74% are aware of public transportation like buses, trains and trolleys (n=647/875)
• 28% are aware of carpool lanes (n=241/875)
• 29% are aware of Park-n-Ride lots (n=250/875)

Specific Stated Effect Among Drive Alone Commuters

40% of commuters who actually biked to work on California Bike Commute day drive alone (n=362/904). Thirty-three percent (33%) have biked to work since the promotion (repeat sample), and 37% say they are likely to do so again.

• 21% of participants who actually commuted by bike drive alone daily (n=187/904)
  • 19% drive alone less than five times a week (n=174/904)

The mode-frequency among this target audience in response to this promotion is encouraging, and underscores the importance of continued targeting in future marketing promotions.

Analysis and Conclusions

Targeting a known base of support (i.e. current bicycle commuters and recreational cyclists) was an effective way to stimulate turnout, and hence, generate publicity for a first-time statewide event. Yet, by targeting current cyclists, the CBC promotion was, in effect, "preaching to the choir":

• 41% of all CBC participants usually commute to work by bike.
• 52% of all CBC participants said CBC did not change the way they commute on a regular basis.

The continued success of CBC is contingent upon its' ability to accomplish two goals:

1. Increase participation beyond the current core support to include more first time bike commuters, specifically, to increase the first-time participation rate above the 4% in 1995.
2. Increase the frequency of bike commute trips and stimulate mode shift among part-time cyclists: 1% of current cyclists said they now bike to work on a weekly basis and 9% bike "more often."

Key Findings

44% of all California Bike Commute participants who submitted a registration card Drive Alone

• 24% drive alone "daily"
• 20% drive alone one to four times per week

41% bike to work or school

• 17% everyday
• 11% 3 - 4 times a week
• 8% less than once a week
• 3% two times a week
• 1% about once a week

56% say they commute using alternative modes of transportation

• 3% walk
• 2% take the public bus
• 1% carpool

Stated Behavior by Region

LA SD SF SAC

Drive Alone 46% 56% 34% 38%

Bike 41 33 43 52

Carpool 7 4 4 4

Public Bus * 1 4 3

Walk 4 1 3 1