1997 TRAFFIX
BENCHMARK MARKETING
RESEARCH FINDINGS
Presented by
THE MARKETING SOURCE, INC
Research Objectives

Identify benchmark measurements among
commuters that can be used to track:
– awareness and familiarity of TRAFFIX
– support for ridesharing
– willingness to rideshare

Profile the target audience

Identify the role of employers
Two Research Components
1. Commuter Study among residents in
the TRAFFIX service area.
2. Employer Case Studies among
targeted employers.
Commuter Study
Methodology
 Commuter
Study
– Phone surveys
» 825 Southeastern Virginia commuters
» 18-65 years old
» worked at least 3 days per week outside their
home
– Interview dates: July 1-15, 1997
– Margin of error : +/- 3.5 percentage points.
TRAFFIX Service Area
Peninsula:
Southside:
Eastern Shore
Newport News
Hampton
York Co.
James City Co.
Gloucester Co.
King William Co.
Williamsburg
Poquoson
Essex Co.
Middlesex Co.
Mathews Co.
King & Queen Co.
West Point
Tappahannock
Urbanna
Virginia Beach
Norfolk
Chesapeake
Portsmouth
Suffolk
Isle of Wight Co.
Southampton Co.
Franklin
Accomack Co.
Northampton Co.
Whom did we interview?
Place of Residence
Norfolk
15%
Virginia
Beach
25%
Chesapeake/
Portsmouth
18%
Sample Characteristics




Other
23%
Newport
News/
Hampton
19%


Average length of residency: 17
years.
48% male / 52% female
88% employed full-time;
12% employed part-time
Average distance to work:
13 miles (one-way)
Average commute time:
21 minutes (one-way)
22% are personally responsible for
dropping off/picking up children
from child care.
The Commute to Work
What are the commuting patterns?
How are residents commuting to work?
Do they believe traffic congestion is a problem?
The majority of commuters work
in the area where they live.
Commute Patterns:
(Work)
(Home)
(Base)
VA Beach
Norfolk
Chesapeake
Newport News
Hampton
VA Beach
(207)
60%
9
11
4
Norfolk Chesapeake N. News Hampton
(121)
(91)
(88)
(69)
Other
Total
26%
74
30
8
6
6%
7
9
15
3
100%
100
100
100
100
5%
3
50
1
0
2%
5
61
17
1%
2
15
70
Nearly 9 out of 10 (88%) residents drive
alone for their work commute.
Drive Alone (SOV*) 88%
Ride in a carpool
8
Take a bus
2
Ride a bike
1
Ride in a vanpool
<1
Walk
<1
SOV : Single Occupant Driver
Over half of commuters agree that traffic congestion
is a problem during their work commute.
“A problem”
(6-10 ratings)
57%
“Not a problem”
(1-5 ratings)
43%
About 4 in 10 commuters believe there is a “big” traffic
congestion problem during their work commute.
39% of residents agree that traffic
congestion is a big problem.
Commuters in metropolitan areas are more likely
to rate traffic congestion as a “big problem”.
Traffic is a “Big
Residence
(Base)
Problem”
Norfolk
(121)
53%
VA Beach
(207)
47
Newport News
(88)
40
Hampton
(69)
39
Chesapeake
(91)
35
Other Peninsula (113)
33
Other Southside (113)
19
Eastern Shore
(23)*
13
The Commute to Work: Findings
 Most
commuters travel to work in the areas where
they live. However, Norfolk pulls from numerous
areas; likely due to the draw of the military and
downtown district.
 Compared
to other markets, there is a high
proportion of SOV commuters.

A majority of commuters recognize that traffic is a
problem.

Commuters in metropolitan areas are more likely
to rate traffic congestion as a “big problem.”
Attitudes about Ridesharing
What factors are important in mode choice?
What are the perceived barriers and benefits of ridesharing?
What’s important and believable to SOV commuters about the
benefits of ridesharing?
Among commuters, travel time and flexibility
are key factors in determining mode choice.
66%
Travel time
Flexibility to arrive/leave when
I want
64%
Transportation costs
46%
Ability to run midday
errands/lunch
46%
Ability to use car for workrelated trips
47%
0%
18%
10%
20%
82%
18%
71%
25%
68%
22%
61%
14%
30%
40%
50%
Very important
84%
60%
70%
80%
Somewhat important
90%
100%
SOV drivers “believe” they need their car during
the work day.
-------% Important-----Factors that play a role
Alternate
in mode choice
SOV drivers mode users Difference
(Base)
(730)
(95)
Travel time to work
84%
87%
-3
Commuting costs
72%
74%
-2
Flexibility to arrive/leave
work when you want
84%
71%
+13
Ability to leave work to
run personal errands/lunch
68%
56%
+12
Use car for work-related trips
64%
43%
+21
Most commuters agree that ridesharing helps the
environment and lowers transportation costs.
Residents who share a ride to work...
73%
help the environment
59%
lower their transportation
costs
14%
58%
73%
15%
41%
are more likely to arrive
at work on time
27%
14%
41%
are less stressed at work
23%
18%
27%
get to work faster
18%
9%
22%
are more productive
at work
13%
0%
10%
"5" (Strongly Agree)
"4" Ratings
9%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Drive-alone commuters need to be educated
about the benefits of ridesharing.
-------% who agree-----Those who share a ride
Alternate
to work…
SOV drivers mode users Difference
(Base)
(730)
(95)
have lower transportation
costs
help the environment
73%
73%
0
72
78
-6
are less stressed at work
39
48
-9
get to work faster
are more productive
at work
are more likely to arrive
at work on time
26
19
39
35
-13
-16
39
55
-16
What’s important AND believable to SOV
drivers?


Among SOV drivers,
saving money is both
important and a believable
benefit of ridesharing.
Yet, while a majority
(84%) of SOV commuters
say that commute time is
also important in their
mode choice, only 26%
believe that ridesharing
saves time.
72%
Save
money
73%
84%
Save time
26%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Importance
Believability
The number one barrier to
ridesharing among SOV drivers is not
knowing anyone to share a ride with.
Why do you not share a ride to work?
(SOV drivers)
Don’t know anyone to
43
%
share a ride with
Inconvenient
21
%
Inflexible schedule
20
%
Need my vehicle during
12
%
Attitudes about Ridesharing: Findings

SOV commuters want the flexibility to arrive and leave
work when they want.

A number of commuters believe that they need their car for
mid-day and work-related trips.

SOV drivers believe that ridesharing saves money and helps
the environment, but they are not convinced of the other
benefits of sharing a ride to work.

Reducing transportation costs is both an important factor
and a “believable” benefit of ridesharing.

The number one reason for not ridesharing is “ not knowing
anyone to share a ride with”.
Identifying the Target Audience
Who is already using alternate modes?
Who are the SOV commuters who are most likely to try ridesharing?
What is the alternate mode preferred?
How do incentives affect willingness to use alternate modes?
One in ten (12%) commuters are already
using alternate modes.
Current alternate mode
users tend to ...
• be more likely to rate traffic
congestion as a “big”
problem (50% vs. 37%)
• have longer commute times
and distances.
• have lower annual household
incomes.
• be less likely to hold
managerial/administrative
occupations.
Drive
alone
88%
Alternate
mode
users
12%
Among alternate mode users, the primary
motive to rideshare is saving money.
Why do you share a ride to
work? (alternate mode users)
Save money
38%
Do not have a car
19%
Enjoy the company of others 17%
Saves time
13%
Avoid traffic congestion
6%
Reduce wear/tear on car
5%
Use HOV lanes
4%
About one-fifth (19%) of SOV commuters are at least
somewhat likely to occasionally use an alternate mode.
SOV Commuters
Those who are likely to
occasionally use an alternate
Not very likely
Not at all likely
mode tend to …
33%
49%
• be more likely to live or work
in Norfolk.
• have lived in the area a shorter
period of time.
• believe that ridesharing
reduces stress and travel costs
and increases job productivity.
Somewhat likely
Very likely
13%
• be more likely to have seen
6%
advertising promoting
ridesharing.
Incentives significantly heighten interest in
ridesharing among many SOV commuters.
Percent SOV drivers willing to occasionally use alternate modes
Base SOV interest
6%
13%
30%
Employer subsidies
Guaranteed Ride
Reserved parking
Ridematching
0%
19%
15%
21%
32%
10%
19%
10%
34%
13%
22%
13%
20%
"5" (Very willing)
45%
32%
30%
"4" Ratings
40%
50%
Incentives will likely increase the frequency of
ridesharing among current alternate mode users.
Percent alternate mode users willing to rideshare more frequently
Employer subsidies
53%
41%
Reserved parking
14%
35%
Ridematching
0%
12%
39%
Guaranteed Ride
10%
20%
40%
"5" (Very willing)
53%
53%
50%
15%
30%
69%
16%
50%
60%
"4" Ratings
70%
80%
Employer-sponsored programs significantly
boost willingness to try alternate modes.
When asked if they would rideshare
occasionally/more often if their employer
sponsored and supported rideshare programs,
a majority (67%) of commuters indicated
they would do so.
Carpools are the most attractive form of
ridesharing for these SOV commuters.
Most likely
to use
50%
Least likely
to use
10%
Take a bus
16
50
Bike
16
3
Ride in a vanpool
7
7
Walk
7
22
Other
4
8
Ride in a carpool
Identifying the Target Audience:
Findings

Alternate mode users tend to have longer commutes and
most often say they rideshare to save money.

SOV commuters who express interest in ridesharing are
more “in tune” with the benefits of sharing a ride and are
more likely to report seeing advertising. They also tend to
be newer to the area and more likely to live or work in the
Norfolk area.

Incentives boost willingness to try ridesharing among
SOV drivers, particularly those with lower incomes.

Incentives are likely to increase frequency and ultimately
retention among alternate mode users.

Carpools are overwhelmingly the preferred alternate mode
of choice among SOV drivers.
How do we reach the target audience?
What is the current awareness level?
What is the most successful source?
What should the key messages be?
One-half (54%) of commuters have seen or heard
information about ridesharing or commuter services.
Source of information
(among those aware)
41%
Road sign
37%
Television
30%
Radio
14%
Newspaper
4%
Brochures
6%
Other
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
Unaided awareness of TRAFFIX is low; most
likely due to the newness of the organization.
Organizations mentioned (unaided)
TRT
15%
VDOT
6%
PENTRAN
3%
TRAFFIX
2%
Others
6%
Could not recall 34%
Unaware of any 36%
Only a few (5%) commuters can recall any phone numbers of these organizations.
Overall, fifteen percent (15%) of commuters say
they have heard of TRAFFIX.
2% unaided awareness
13% aided awareness
Locality
VA Beach
Hampton
Norfolk
Newport News
Chesapeake
(Base)
(207)
(69)
(121)
(88)
(91)
Aware of
Ridesharing Aware of
Info.
TRAFFIX
61%
18%
61
17
58
13
58
21
47
15
Media Expenditures for TRAFFIX
Newspaper
16%
Radio
26%
Other
9%
Television
37%
A/V
8%
Source: Hambright, Calcagno & Downing
P.R.
4%
How did commuters learn about TRAFFIX?
Those who are aware of
TRAFFIX most often
report they learned
about the organization
on the radio (39%) or
television (24%).
 Very few commuters
are learning about
TRAFFIX through their
employer.

39%
Radio
24%
Television
20%
Road sign
12%
Newspaper
7%
Family/friends
Brochures
Employer
0%
3%
2%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Among those who are aware of TRAFFIX, many
are unfamiliar with the programs available.
% aware
46%
Ridematching
42%
Park & Ride lots
41%
Guaranteed Ride
39%
Express Bus service
39%
Bus routes/schedules
27%
Employer programs
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Reaching the Target Audience:
Findings
 While
over half of commuters have seen or heard
promotion for ridesharing, awareness levels for
specific organizations are low.
 Awareness
levels of TRAFFIX are low; most
likely due to the short time in the market and lack
of a recent promotional effort.
 Most
of those aware of TRAFFIX identify the
radio or television as the media source. This is
consistent with the media plan.
 Of
those aware of TRAFFIX, most are unfamiliar
with the services offered.
Commuter Study
Conclusions
Conclusions: Commuter Study
The groundwork is there….
 Commuters perceive a real problem with traffic in
metropolitan areas.
 Commuters believe that those who rideshare help
the environment and lower their transportation
costs.
 There are signs of some willingness to change the
mode of travel; however…
Conversion of SOV drivers will be difficult.
Conclusions: Commuter Study (continued)
Obstacles to SOV conversion are strong:
 Flexibility is very important to SOV drivers.
 Drive alone commuters also believe that they need their
car during the day. This may be a real or perceived need.
 Time is the most important factor that SOV drivers
consider in mode choice. However, they are not
convinced that ridesharing saves time.
 The number 1 barrier to ridesharing is, “I don’t know
anyone to rideshare with.”
 Commuters are not sure where to turn for help.
Employer Case Studies
Methodology

Employer Case Studies
– In-depth telephone interviews
– 45 targeted employers for TRAFFIX
– Qualitative, not quantitative interpretation
– Interviewed policy makers
– Interview dates: July 22 - August 7, 1997
Sample for Employer Case Studies

A total of 98 employer contacts were supplied by
TRAFFIX. Of these...
–
–
–
–
–
–
45 completed the survey.
21 declined to participate.
19 were unavailable.
9 said company policy was set elsewhere.
3 businesses could not be found.
1 company was out of business.
Among those who completed the survey, nearly a
quarter have 50 or less employees.
Number of employees
50 or less
51-100
101-200
201-500
501 or more

%
24
13
11
22
29
Most had been approached by TRAFFIX.
Employer Findings
Are employees receptive to employer-sponsored programs?
How do employers view ridesharing?
How do employers feel about offering commuter programs?
What programs are being offered?
Corporate philosophy
 Most
employers agree with the following:
– The company always considers how decisions will
impact employee morale.
– Employee productivity is the company’s primary focus
when making decisions.
– The company’s public image is strongly considered
when determining corporate policies.
– The company believes a business that offers good
benefits to its employees will maintain a more
productive workforce.
Perceptions about traffic congestion

The majority say that traffic congestion is a
problem around their worksite.

Most agree that their business has some impact
on traffic congestion in the area.
Perceived benefits of ridesharing
Like commuters, employers feel that ridesharing
helps the environment and lowers transportation
costs.
 They are not convinced that employees who use
alternate modes get to work faster, are more
productive at work, or make better employees.

Awareness of Rideshare Organizations
 A majority
of businesses have seen or heard
information promoting ridesharing.
Like commuters, employers cited radio and
television most often as sources of this
information.
 As with commuters, few employers could identify
any phone numbers associated with rideshare
organizations.

Awareness of TRAFFIX

Recognition of TRAFFIX was high among the targeted
employers.

Employers most often cited a TRAFFIX representative as the
source for learning about the organization.

Businesses interviewed believe that the primary functions of
TRAFFIX are to reduce traffic congestion and facilitate
ridesharing.

The majority of companies were aware that TRAFFIX:
– conducts an employee survey.
– establishes a ridematching database.
– assists in the formation of carpool/vanpool programs.
– does not charge for its services.
Willingness to offer employer-sponsored
commuter programs
 Generally,
employers are willing to help with their
employees’ commute, but few are willing to pay
for such programs.
 Employers
are most willing to offer:
– reserved parking spaces for carpools/vanpools
– ridematching
– a guaranteed ride program
– flexible work hours
Conclusions: Employer Study

Targeted employers seem to agree that traffic
congestion is a problem and that their business has
impact on the problem.
 Employers
appear to share many of the same
attitudes about ridesharing as commuters.

Most of the targeted employers had been
approached by TRAFFIX and were familiar with
the organization.

Intent to offer commuter programs to employees
is moderate.
Recommendations
The goal is TRIAL.
Educate commuters.

Educate commuters about...
– the benefits of ridesharing (saves time, less
stress, arrive at work on time, etc.).
– incentives programs that are already available
(guaranteed ride program and ridematching).
Reach the target customer.
 Blanket
promotional efforts to the service
area to increase overall awareness of
TRAFFIX.
 Pay
special attention to commuters who…
– have lower household incomes.
– commute longer distances to work.
– live or work in Norfolk.
– are new residents (New Movers programs,
utility hook-ups, new military transfers).
Advertising Recommendations
 Promote…
– the cost savings from ridesharing.
– the Guaranteed Ride program and the use of
fleet cars among large companies to address
flexibility barriers.
– time savings (i.e. testimonials/HOV lanes).
– carpooling as the major alternate mode.
– ridematching to confront the issue of “no one
to rideshare with”.
– the TRAFFIX name and not the phone number.
Employer Outreach Recommendations

Reconsider the way employers are targeted.
Contact largest employers first and consider
special targeted efforts in Norfolk.
 Thorough
research should be conducted on
potential employers prior to approaching them.

A market plan should be developed.
 Encourage
companies who are resistant to offer
commuter programs to “start small” in their
efforts.
Future Research
 Repeat
the benchmark study after a promotional
campaign to see the impact of advertising.
 Interview
the remaining large employers,
particularly those that have not yet been
approached.
 Conduct
focus groups among employers.
 Omnibus
study to monitor results.