For those of you who think good bus service can do everything a light-rail line can, only cheaper – you’ll like this article:
To Save Money on Building Rail, Spend Money on Marketing Buses
.
“Riding the bus carries a ‘shame factor,’ ” the researchers found. “Most of the choice riders would not consider using it, or if they did, they would feel ashamed and keep it a secret.”
But what the local transit agency marketed as the “Orange Line” — really just a bus route in the San Fernando Valley with high frequencies on a dedicated right of way — managed to gain acceptance among “choice riders.”
Focus group participants “used terms like the ‘train-bus’ or the ‘bourgeois bus’ to describe the Orange Line service,” the researchers said. The Orange Line has repeatedly beaten its ridership estimates, and nearly half its riders have access to a car, compared with just a quarter on regular local bus routes in Los Angeles. That performance shows it is possible to overcome anti-bus bias with the right amenities and marketing.
Full story here in the New York Times.
I take the Greyhound a lot, and one thing you notice immediately when you get on one of their new buses is that it looks… nice. Not amazing or anything, but like somebody actually paid attention to the kinds of colors and materials people would consider for their own vehicle or home. It goes a long way toward making it not feel like a second class option.
http://www.americanseating.com/transportation/images/installations/FHG_09-085__00036re.jpg
I think that Translink could use some work in this department. I know they want to stick with their signature colors, but I can’t remember ever thinking “those blue seats look great in your car” or “I love the fluorescent yellow.”
In my opinion – and maybe it’s just me – they don’t pass a “would I buy something if it looked like this” test. I don’t mean it needs to be dramatically different like the inside of a luxury limo, but could you take the same basic elements and tweak them to give it a little more class? If you could, it might go a long way toward improving the image for users.
As someone who rarely uses buses, and would only do so as a last resort, I would say that seating is one of the main issues for me. I understand the logic of minimising the number of seats, that standing people take up less space, but it really detracts from the comfort and pleasure aspect. In a seat you have a modicum of reserved personal space, and can read a book (etc.) Standing, you’re jammed against others, and have to hang onto a strap instead of a book. I like trains, generally, because they have more seats.
In general, I see this as an example of an efficient technology being pushed too hard, as if it has to be super-efficient. An all-seater bus would be (let’s say) 10 times as efficient as SOV transport, but apparently that’s not enough. They have to make it 20 times as efficient, by packing people in like cattle. I see the same problem with bike parking. Convenient bike parking fits maybe 8-10 bikes in one parking space, but often racks are designed for 15 bikes per space. This results in the bikes catching against each other, or not even fitting it at all. The more efficient technology should be allowed to be convenient, not pushed to become super-efficient.
Indeed, but are people willing to pay for it ?
That is why trains usually have first and second class compartments, planes have first, business, premium economy and economy, hotels have various room standards.
Why is public transit (or for that matter, education, healthcare or roads) only catering to lowest class / price ? Why not offer first class lanes on highways or bridges, for a fee ? Or on buses ? Or in healthcare ? Or in schools ?
Seems odd to focus on marketing in the headline and lede, when it’s the frequency and dedicated ROW that matter, as the article plainly states.
Millenials don’t want cars. Soon.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-02-19/apple-said-to-be-targeting-car-production-as-soon-as-2020