mopdf.com

Valley Metro Annual Market Study 2007I.IntroductionA.Background and MethodologyPage 1Valley Metro commissioned WestGroup Research of Phoenix to conduct a telephone survey ofresidents in Maricopa County. The purpose of the survey was to measure awareness andattitudes residents have regarding the various transportation options offered by Valley Metro.This study also provides tracking data for comparison to the Regional Market Studies conductedin 2003, 2005, and 2006.A total of 502, 12-minute surveys were completed with Maricopa County residents duringNovember 2007. Residents interviewed were at least 18 years old, however, the overallpercentage of residents age 55 or older was “capped” at 25% (un-weighted data) to allow ValleyMetro to primarily focus on the opinions of its target market. The margin of error for the totalsample is 4.4 at a 95% confidence level.Quotas were set for five regions within the county to provide statistically meaningful samplesizes for all areas of the Valley. However, in reporting the study results, data for the total samplewill be weighted according to the actual population distribution in each region. Data from theindividual regions will be reported as un-weighted data. Descriptions of the regions and theassociated quotas and weighting percentages are listed in the table below.QuotaWeightingPercentageNorthwest Valley (Wickenburg, Surprise, El Mirage,Youngtown, Litchfield Park, Peoria and Glendale)7515%Northeast Valley (Cave Creek, Carefree, Scottsdale,Fountain Hills, Paradise Valley, Salt River IndianCommunity)7512%Central Valley (Phoenix)16038%Southwest Valley (Buckeye, Goodyear, Avondale,Tolleson)502%Southeast Valley (Mesa, Queen Creek, Gilbert, Chandler,Tempe, Guadalupe, Apache Junction, Higley)14033%500100%Region DescriptionTOTAL

Valley Metro Annual Market Study 2007Page 2The following report summarizes the results of the cross-tabulated results of the survey.Differences by market segment, region and other demographics variables will be noted whenmeaningful. The cross-tabulated results for this study are available under separate cover.B.Personal DemographicsSlightly more women than men were surveyed in 2007 (54% compared to 46%), with themajority reporting being 25 to 54 years of age (63%; per study design noted earlier). Four out offive indicated they were Caucasian (82%). Three quarters (76%) said they have at least somecollege education, with approximately half reporting that they have graduated from college (46%of total sample). More than half indicated they work full-time (55%), with 8% reporting parttime employment. The average household income for the total sample was 72,400.Other interesting personal demographics include:¾ Average household size was 2.9 people.¾ Seven out of eight indicated they have access to the Internet (88%).¾ Almost one in six (15%) speak a language in addition to or other than English in theirhome.¾ Almost nine out of ten residents consider themselves to be self-reliant when it comes togetting around the Valley (88%).Tables 1a and 1b on the following pages show all demographic attributes of the studyrespondents.

Valley Metro Annual Market Study 2007Page 3Table 1a: Respondent DemographicsCharacteristicTotalSample(n 502)*NW(n 76)2007 RegionsSWNESE(n 50) (n 75) (n 141)Central(n 46%54%Age18 to 2425 to 3435 to 4445 to 5455 to 6465 Average Age7%17%20%26%11%19%48 yrs.7%17%12%20%20%25%51 yrs.8%18%30%22%14%8%44 yrs.7%13%17%32%11%20%49 yrs.5%15%21%23%15%21%49 yrs.10%20%21%29%5%14%45 %EducationSome HS or lessHS graduateSome collegeCollege graduateGraduate r 30,000 30K to 49,999 50K to 69,999 70K to 99,999 100,000 or moreAverage (000)12%14%19%15%23% 72.49%13%16%18%29% 78.36%20%24%16%16% 68.811%12%11%13%36% 82.110%16%21%16%20% 70.716%12%20%13%21% 68.4* Weighted data

Valley Metro Annual Market Study 2007Page 4Table 1b: Respondent DemographicsCharacteristicTotalSample(n 502)*2007 RegionsNWSWNESE(n 76) (n 50) (n 75) (n 141)Central(n 160)EthnicityCaucasianHispanicAfrican AmericanAsian AmericanAmerican ge in HomeEnglish onlyEnglish & SpanishSpanish onlyEnglish & other languageOnly other %8%1%2%1%78%13%5%4%-Average # in Household2.92.73.32.63.22.9Internet Access88%91%84%91%92%82%Transportation MobilitySelf reliantOccasional needDependent on 87%8%1%1%1%85%9%1%1%4%74%19%2%1%2%

Valley Metro Annual Market Study 2007II.System Awareness and ImageA.Awareness of “Valley Metro” NamePage 5When asked, unaided, to recall the name of the Valley’s transit system, almost one in sixresidents (17%) were able to do so correctly (i.e., specifically said “Valley Metro –16% or“Rapid” – 1%). This continues to be lower than awareness levels reported in 2003 and 2005(in 2005 34% were aware of the agency). It should be noted, however, that the drop in unaidedmentions for “Valley Metro” in 2006 corresponded to a wording change in the question. Inprevious years, residents had been asked to name the transit system in the “valley.” Starting in2006, residents were asked to name the transit system “in the area.” It is likely the removal ofthe reference to “valley” in the question was at least partially responsible for the decline inspecific unaided mentions for “Valley Metro” in 2006 and 2007.Other names mentioned for the transit system were Metro (12%; 9% in 2006), PhoenixTransit (5%; 3% in 2006), Phoenix bus/City of Phoenix (3%; 2% in 2006), city bus/bus(3%; 3% in 2006), and Valley Transit (1%).In addition to measuring unaided awareness of the Valley Metro name, aided awareness was alsoassessed. Aided awareness experienced a significant increase this year (57% up from 48%in 2006). The combined unaided and aided awareness results (total awareness) reflect thisincrease with overall awareness increasing to almost three out of four residents (74%, upfrom 67% in 2006).Awareness of Valley Metro 0%2007 n 50220%40%60%80%100%

Valley Metro Annual Market Study 2007Page 6Unaided awareness was highest in the Central (20%), Southeast (15%), and Northwest (15%)areas of the Valley. In addition, younger residents had higher recall of the Valley Metro namethan older residents (22% of those ages 34 and under vs. 9% of those ages 55 and older), as didthose who are employed (19% vs. 11% of unemployed), and residents with a college degree(19% vs. 13% for those with less).Total awareness was highest among those between the ages of 35 and 54 and residents with acollege degree (both 77%). Residents living in the Northeast (79%) and Northwest (78%)regions reported the highest levels of awareness overall.Table 2a: Awareness of Valley Metro Name2007Total(n 502)AwarenessUnaided*Aided17%57%Total (Unaided aided)74%2006Total(n 504)19%48%67%2005Total(n 507)34%54%87%2003Total(n 1044)23%55%78%Q1: What is the name of the transit system in the area? Q2: Valley Metro isthe name of the transit system in the Valley. Have you heard that namebefore I just mentioned it now? (Among those not aware unaided.) *includesmentions of “Valley Metro” and “Rapid”Table 2b: Awareness of Valley Metro Name - By RegionAwarenessUnaided*AidedTotal (Unaided aided)2007TotalNW(n 502) (n 76)17%57%74%2007 RegionsSWNESE(n 50) (n 75) (n 141)Central(n 160)14%64%10%62%13%66%15%58%20%52%78%72%79%73%72%

Valley Metro Annual Market Study 2007Page 7B.Perceived Image of Valley Metro System1.Favorability RatingsResidents aware of Valley Metro were asked to rate their overall perception of the system andthe services it offers to the area. Almost three out of five of residents indicated theirimpressions of Valley Metro were “somewhat” or “very” favorable (58%), this is up fivepoints from 2006 (53%). The most positive impressions of the system were reported byresidents living in the central region of the county (67%) and the least favorable coming fromresidents in the southwest region (45%). It is important to note that one in five residents (21%)indicated they were not familiar enough with Valley Metro to offer an opinion regarding itsservices. This percentage of “don’t know” responses increased to more than a third of residents(36%) in the southwest region of the Valley.Favorability ratings were highest among younger residents (67% of those under age 35 vs. 55%of those age 35 and older) and lower income residents (70% of those with incomes under 50,000 vs. 54% of those with incomes over 50,000).Favorability Toward Valley Metro ServicesOverall, would you say your perception of Valley Metroand the services it provides to the area 0%Very favorable40%50%60%Somewhat favorableAmong those aware of Valley Metro (n 428 weighted data); % Don’t know 21%70%80%

Valley Metro Annual Market Study 2007Page 8Table 3: Favorability Towards Valley MetroAmong Those Aware of Valley MetroAwarenessVery SomewhatFavorableVeryfavorableSomewhatfavorableNot veryfavorableNot at allfavorableDon’t know2007Total*(n 428)58%2006Total(n 379)53%NW(n 66)51%2007 RegionsSWNESE(n 42)(n 68)(n 123)45%51%Central(n %24%20%18%Q3: Overall, would you say your perception of Valley Metro and the services it provides to thearea is * Weighted data

Valley Metro Annual Market Study 20072.Page 9Overall ImageThose aware of Valley Metro were asked to provide two words describing the local transitsystem. Overall, the percentage of residents giving words that reflect a positive image ofValley Metro held steady in 2007 (37% vs. 36% in 2006). The most frequently mentionedpositive images are that is service is “good” (9%), “on time/reliable” (8%), “adequate” (7%),convenient (6%), and available/accessible (3%). The most common negative images of thetransit system were that it is “unavailable” or “unreachable” (10%) and “doesn’t runenough/need more/too limited (9%).Overall Impressions of Valley Metro16%20%NET Positive36%37%40%29%NET Negative35%34%10%20%19%22%Net Neutral200332%200529%Don't know200614%13%0%10%200720%30%40%50%2007 n 502Overall, residents living in the southwest and central regions were more likely than those livingin the other regions of the Valley to have positive impressions of the transit system (41% and44% positive mentions, respectively vs. 25% to 37% from residents in other regions). NortheastValley residents were more likely than others to give a “don’t know” response (22% vs. 9% to17% of other residents). Those with lower education levels were also more likely than those witha college degree to offer favorable images of the transit system (43% positive vs. 31%), as werelower income residents (48% of those who make less than 50,000 per year vs. 31% for thosewho make more).Southwest area residents were significantly more likely than others to offer impressions of“good” or “satisfactory” (21%). Residents living on the northwest region were most likely tooffer responses of “unavailable” and “unreachable” (14% vs. 7% to 11% for other regions). Morethan one in five central region residents also felt the system is too limiting and does not run oftenenough (11%).

Valley Metro Annual Market Study 2007Page 10Table 4a: Impressions of Valley Metro SystemAmong Those Aware of Valley MetroImpressionNET PositiveGood/satisfactoryOn-time/ endly driversClean/good ronmentally friendlyNET NegativeUnavailable/ unreachableNeed more/limitedInadequate/ inefficientSlowInconvenientNot enough selessBuses block trafficMessy/dirty/trashExpensive2007Total(n 428)2006Total(n 11%4%3%1%3%1%5%2%-2005Total(n n 407)16%6%6%1%40%4%19%4%7%9%3%-NET NeutralNever used itOK/fairBus/trans. systemMentioned Don’t know/NA10%13%7%14%8%29%6%32%Q4: What words would you use to describe the Valley Metro public transitsystem?*Includes all responses with a consensus of 1% or less.

Valley Metro Annual Market Study 2007Page 11Table 4b: Impressions of Valley Metro System – By RegionAmong Those Aware of Valley Metro2007Total*(n 428)NW(n 66)NET PositiveGood/satisfactoryOn-time/ endly alEnvironmentally %3%2%3%2%2%2%-NET NegativeUnavailable/ unreachableNeed more/limitedInadequate/ inefficientSlowInconvenientNot enough uses block 5%2%2%2%-2007 RegionsSWNESE(n 42)(n 68) (n l(n 3%2%2%1%1%1%1%NET NeutralNever used itOK/fairBus/trans. systemColors 5%2%24%20%3%7%1%15%11%3%1%1%Other**Don’t know/NA10%13%3%17%5%10%18%22%8%11%12%11%* Weighted data. **Includes all responses with a consensus of 1% or less.

Valley Metro Annual Market Study 2007Page 12C.Awareness of Valley Metro Services1.Unaided Awareness of ServicesResidents are most likely to be aware that Valley Metro provides local bus service (75%),the future light rail service (15%), and Dial-a-ride services (14%). With the exception oflight rail service, awareness of the services provided by Valley Metro among those aware of thesystem overall remained essentially the same as last year. With light rail currently underconstruction throughout the Valley and targeted for completion in 2008, it is unsurprising thatawareness of the service continues to increase (from 1% in 2003 to 15% in 2007). Awareness ofValley Metro providing local bus service is highest in the northeast and central regions of thecounty (82% and 81% respectively) and lowest in the northwest (62%).Employed residents were significantly more likely to be aware that Valley Metro offers busservice (81% vs. 64%), future light rail service (17% vs. 10%), and vanpool and carpoolassistance (6% and 5% vs. 2% of those not employed).Table 5a: Unaided Awareness of Valley Metro Services – Total MentionsAmong Those Aware of Valley Metro/MetroServicesLocal/City bus svc.Future light rail systemDial-a-RideHandicapped assistanceTransportation (general)Rapid/ Express bus svc.VanpoolsNeighborhood circulator*Carpool assistanceOtherDon’t know2007Total(n 428)75%15%14%7%6%5%5%4%4%3%17%2006Total(n 379)2005Total(n 441)2003Total(n %4%2%1%6%23%5%18%Q5: What services does Valley Metro provide? What others?*(i.e., RAPID, DASH, Dial-A-Ride etc.)6%15%

Valley Metro Annual Market Study 2007Page 13Table 5b: Unaided Awareness of Valley Metro ServicesTotal Mentions By RegionAmong Those Aware of Valley Metro/MetroServicesLocal/City bus svc.Future light rail systemDial-a-RideHandicapped assistanceTransportation (general)Rapid/ Express bus svc.VanpoolsNeighborhoodcirculator**Carpool assistanceOtherDon’t know2007Total*(n 428)75%15%14%7%6%5%5%4%4%3%17%NW(n 66)62%9%8%8%2%2%3%2%30%*Weighted data. **(i.e., RAPID, DASH, Dial-A-Ride etc.)2007 RegionsSWNESE(n 42) (n 68) (n 123)Central(n 15%3%15%

Valley Metro Annual Market Study 20072.Page 14Awareness of Specific Services (Net Unaided Aided Awareness)In addition to measuring unaided awareness of the Valley Metro services, aided awareness ofeach service was also assessed. As seen in previous years, awareness is highest for local busservice (91%), light rail service (80%), dial-a-ride service (71%), and RAPID/express busservice (65%).This year some services experienced a resurgence in awareness compared to 2006 whenawareness of all services had dropped across the board – specifically local bus service (up 8points), RAPID/express bus service (up 7 points), light rail (up 6 points) and van pools (up 4points). While Dial-a-ride is one the top three services in overall awareness, little change wasreported this year (1 point drop), as was the case with neighborhood circulators (up 2 points),carpool assistance (down 3 points) and telecommuting (down 2 points).Total Awareness VM Services88%93%Local buses83%91%67%85%Light tor40%40%42%40%42%38%35%Carpool l Sample n 50220%200740%60%80%100%

Valley Metro Annual Market Study 2007Page 15As expected, based on awareness of services overall, residents in the central region of the countywere most likely to be aware of the specific services offered by Valley Metro. Generalawareness of services is also higher among employed residents than among those who are notemployed.Total Awareness VM ServicesEmployed vs. Unemployed94%Bus service84%80%79%Light rail ols40%44%39%NeighborhoodCirculator35%35%Carpool 0%60%80%100%Employed n 315; Unemployed n 187Awareness of local bus service was highest among men (94% vs. 88%) and those younger thanage 55 (93% vs. 84%), while awareness of light rail service was highest among those betweenthe ages of 35 and 54 (85% vs. 75% for those younger and 76% for those older), residents with atleast some college education (83% vs. 69%) and

alternate mode usage. Inconvenience and the preference for driving are the two reasons most likely to stand in the way of alternate mode usage, particularly transit usage. Although the reasons for non-usage have remained essentially the same, there appear to be small indications that r