MARKET RESEARCH ON REAL TIME TRANSIT INFORMATION NEEDS AND USERS’ EXPECTATIONS Prepared for Arlington County, Virginia January 2019 • Full Report MARKET RESEARCH ON REAL-TIME TRANSIT INFORMATION NEEDS AND USERS’ EXPECTATIONS Publication Date: April 2019 Produced under a grant to Mobility Lab from the Arlington County (Va.) Transit Bureau, with guidance from Tom Scherer, Public Transit Technology Manager at the Arlington County Department of Environmental Services. Made possible from funding by the Virginia Department of Rail & Public Transportation. The project team at Mobility Lab consisted of Lois DeMeester, Paul Mackie, Dr. Lama Bou- Mjahed, Tasha Arreza, and Jenna Fortunati. Special thanks go to our present and past interns Dr. Sahar Esfandyari, Ana Little-Sana, and Natalie Covill. The project team at WBA Research consisted of Steve Markenson, Heather Hounkanrin, and Michelle Card. Find out more about this report at MobilityLab.org. Project Contact: Paul Mackie, Director of Research and Communications, Mobility Lab, [email protected] EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report explores the level of satisfaction of Arlington travelers with current real-time transit information (RTTI) and their expectations in terms of content, mode and frequency of real-time transit information delivery. This report is the result of the collaboration between the Mobility Lab Research Team, operated by DS&MG and a division of the Arlington County Commuter Services Bureau (ACCS), and the Arlington County Transit Bureau within the county’s Department of Environmental Services. RTTI, or the information available to riders about the current status of transit through signage or technology, is an increasingly central factor in a transit system’s level of customer satisfaction (Schweiger, 2003; Dziekan and Kottenhoff, 2007) and ridership (Tang and Thakuriah, 2012). RTTI has grown in importance as technology continues to improve and transit riders and would-be riders expect more advanced and efficient methods of accessing and monitoring customized travel information. In fact, a closer look at the literature pertaining to this topic reveals much interest from researchers in examining real-time transit information. Results indicate that RTTI, among other things, improves the perception of reliability and adaptation to unreliability (Carrel, Halvorsen, and Walker, 2013), changes perceived wait times (Watkins et al. 2011), and increases perception of personal security (Brakewood et al., 2015). Researchers have also suggested that the impact of RTTI on travelers differ according to users’ socio-economic demographics; for example, women and younger riders may benefit more from the availability of RTTI, and income level and age may influence the types of RTTI desired (Rahman et al., 2013; Harmony & Gayak, 2017). Thus, the study of RTTI in a geographical context, in this instance Arlington, VA, is all the more critical. Limited research has been done on capturing the wants and needs of Arlington users in a setting of abundance of information supply through a multitude of channels. This limitation provided impetus for the work in this report, which aims at answering the following main questions: (1) What real-time information delivery methods are riders aware of? And which ones do they use? Which methods are they satisfied with and find valuable? Are there winners and losers? (2) What are some of the visible impacts of real-time information in Arlington? How does it affect perceptions such as reliability and wait time? How can it make public transportation a more attractive alternative? (3) What are the main barriers to riders using the real-time information provided by Arlington County? What are some of the suggestions to remove those barriers? 1 (4) Where do riders and potential riders prefer to get their information? And what are the features that riders and potential riders value most in real-time information? Do they want multimodal information? To answer these research questions, a mixed method approach was used. Qualitative and quantitative inputs were solicited from fourteen focus groups held between July 11 and July 26, 2018, and 346 online panel respondents in September 2018, all traveling to, from or within Arlington (i.e. either living or working in Arlington). Mobility Lab’s research subcontractor, WBA Research, designed the survey, collected the data and analyzed the results. This was done under the supervision of Mobility Lab and using input from Arlington County. All survey material were approved by Arlington County. The main results indicate that while some travelers are aware of and use real-time transit information, the most-chosen barrier to using Arlington County’s real-time transit information technology in the online survey is awareness. Comparatively, in the focus groups, phone-call technologies have received the least positive feedback and dynamic message boards the most positive feedback from focus group participants. From the online survey, all technologies had a high percentage of respondents who were satisfied and found them valuable. More generally, riders prefer information before they start their trip and through one-stop-shop apps. They want information on cost, time and convenience. They value the ease of getting the information (e.g. not going through too many options to get information) and its accuracy. An exploration of the results also shows that travelers find real-time transit information valuable and they often use it before they make a trip. It affects their wait time, helps them relax, and impacts their mode choice. Overall, not much difference arose between segments with different socio-economic demographics. Some of these conclusions can be summarized through a set of recommendations given to Arlington County and outlined below. Recommendation 1: Focus on time, cost and convenience. Unsurprisingly, focus-group respondents made it clear that they seek out information on the factors that play into how they make mode choices. These include cost, time, and convenience (for example, distance to the nearest bus stop). From the general focus group findings, time was most important, followed by cost and then convenience, but this was not supported by quantitative evidence. Recommendation 2: Give solutions. Several focus-group participants mentioned that they would like the information to provide solutions or suggestions when delays occur. It is not enough just to know their bus has broken down; they would like to be given alternate routes. An action item the county could consider is providing recommendations with communications about major events, delays, and alternatives. 2 Recommendation 3: Prioritize providing information before the start of a trip. A recurring theme across the survey(s) regarding all technologies located at the physical stop or station is that this information is provided too late in the travel process. By the time a rider has access to that information, they’ve already committed to taking that mode of transportation, and are essentially “stuck.” Recommendation 4: Provide forward-looking information. The desire to use real-time information to plan trips creates the need to see not just the next-arriving bus or train, but the following two after that. This would allow a rider to choose which train or bus is most convenient for them based on their plans. For instance, are they running late? Do they have to stop to make errands? Will they be drinking later? This finding is a direct result from comments made by focus- group participants in response to the existing technologies available (BusFinder, Redmon Screen, and TransitScreen). Recommendation 5: Prioritize the accuracy of real-time information. Discussions held during the focus groups uncovered the following: First, misinformation leads people to make poor travel decisions, which creates frustration with public transportation. Second, unreliable information causes some travelers to leave a significant buffer when they travel and others to avoid taking public transportation at all. Third, inaccurate information causes people to stop seeking out real- time information. Recommendation 6: Cater to digital riders. All ages were found in the focus groups to do everything on their phone. Moreover, ART riders appeared to be more technologically inclined than others surveyed. Also, people turn to mobile phone applications first and foremost to look for the real-time information they need. Recommendation 7: Re-evaluate phone-call technology – go straight to the information. Feedback often pertained to the Arlington call center service taking too long, or being “outdated,” “cumbersome,” and “a hassle.” If ever, this is mostly used as a “last resort.” One of the most frequent reactions to this service is that it takes too long to get the information. A few participants explained that by the time they get through to a person or reach the correct option on the menu, the bus may have already arrived. Is a bar code scan at the bus stop a possible alternative? Based on the data, we would say that bypassing to operator might be an attractive option, but it was not specifically addressed/presented. Recommendation 8: Implement highly customizable or on-demand text message updates. Text messaging was an appreciated technology but users were worried it might result in too many unwanted and unnecessary text messages. Recommendation 9: Modernize BusFinder – add features and instructions. Some focus-group respondents appreciated the simplicity of BusFinder, but others