Using transit and walking more can help reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

The United States is in a vulnerable position with regard to our dependence on foreign oil. Currently, we im port around 60% of our oil. If current trends continue, the United States could be importing 70% of our oil from foreign sources by 2020. Many of us have only faint memo ries of the oil crises and gas lines in the 1970s, but we are now even mo re vulnerable than we were then.

While each citizen can’t solve the crisis alone, we can help. If we can substitute walking to work or taking transit to work on mo st days, we re duce our use of autom obiles and gasolin e. That helps each of us personally since we have to pum p and pay for less gas. Overall, with ma ny people joining in the effort to conserve, it helps our country .

Observations from the Phase 2 focus groups can be sum- marized as follows.

• All groups had some difficulty with the concept of re- sponding as if they were in an imaginary neighborhood. Instead, they mostly responded from their current experi- ence. Given this observation, the approach was changed for the Internet survey so that questions about mode choice were not based on an imaginary neighborhood.

• There were interesting differences between the older and younger groups. In particular, the older group in Portland loved the concept of a “neighborhood circulator bus,” while the younger group thought the concept was only for older people. Similar sentiments were expressed by the groups in Silver Spring.

• In Portland, several in the older group acknowledged that they were fairly dependent on their cars. They thought that the younger generation was more enthusiastic about using transit. Indeed, the younger generation did seem to be quite comfortable with using transit. The Portland groups expressed a high level of concern about environmental issues. • In Silver Spring, several in the older group were unsure

whether they would “fit in” in a compact community. They thought such a neighborhood would be more for a younger generation.

• There were mixed reactions to most of the transportation options. The shared-taxi concept was not, in general, viewed favorably, as participants had difficulty with the idea of sharing a taxi.

• Most of the groups thought that the smart card option should be a pay-as-you-go system. They did not like the idea of receiving a bill at the end of the month. Their con- cern was the need to keep costs under control.

• Most of the groups were negative about the concept of a phone-based customer information system. The older group in Portland thought the concept sounded too com- plicated, others didn’t want a second phone, and still others thought the system would be too expensive. Given this finding, it was decided to stress to the Internet panel that the system would be accessed from an individual’s own cell phone, to obviate concerns about needing to carry two phones.

• Car sharing was understood better by the younger groups than by the older groups.

• The groups had mixed reactions to most of the messages. While many thought the message about cost was com- pelling, they did not believe the AAA average car costs, which were included in the message about saving money. Many liked the message about helping the environment, but only the younger group in Portland was truly enthusi- astic; they suggested ways to improve the message. The health message offended those participants who were obese, while others thought it was an acceptable message. There

was a strong negative reaction to the foreign oil message. As a result of this observation, the foreign oil message was eliminated and the AAA statistic on yearly average car costs was removed from the follow-up Internet survey.

The participants also filled out a questionnaire that focused on the TPB questions about walking and using transit more and driving less. An analysis of the results of that question- naire yielded the responses shown in Table 5-3.

Phase 2 Internet Panel Survey Questionnaire Design

After the focus groups were conducted, the Phase 2 Internet panel questionnaire was constructed with three clearly definable parts, as shown in Figure 5-3. First, a “pre- intervention” application of the full TPB was undertaken to determine the participants’ intention to change their per- sonal transportation patterns. Second, an “intervention” was undertaken in which the respondents were exposed to different messages and then to seven separate potential strategies/services that might improve the marketability of the alternative transportation concepts. Finally, another application of the TPB was undertaken to allow the docu- mentation of any shift that might have occurred as a result of the messages or the alternatives. A copy of the question- naire is included in Appendix B.

The questionnaire was constructed of seven sections. Table 5-4 describes the sections and their relationship to the project objectives. The messages used in the survey are shown in Figure 5-4, and the alternatives are shown in Figure 5-5. The participants were randomly divided into three groups: two of the groups were exposed to one of two messages, and the third group (the control group) was not exposed to any message.

Sample Selection

The Phase 2 Internet survey took place in October 2005. The respondents to the first Internet survey were invited to participate. In all, 380 respondents from the Phase 1 survey answered the Phase 2 survey. Additional Survey Cafe respondents from the original set of metropolitan areas were then invited to participate, until the number of respondents reached 500. The final number of respondents to the Phase 2 survey was 501. In total, 44% of those who completed the Phase 1 survey also completed the Phase 2 survey. The attrition from Phase 1 to Phase 2 likely reflects the length of the survey, the amount of elapsed time between survey waves, and the fact that the population being sampled was, by design, mobile and likely to have moved over that period.

Topic/Model Consideration Responses (Number of Mentions) Exercise (30)

Environment (28) Money (26) Convenience (15) Advantages of making more

trips by walking and by public transportation, and fewer trips by private car. Sociability (8) Inconvenience (25) Time (24) Privacy (8) Destination (7) Disadvantages of making more

trips by walking and public transportation, and fewer trips by private car. Cargo (5) Proximity (24) Money (15) Convenience (13) Improvement (10) Factors or circumstances that

make it easier for you to make more trips by walking and public transportation, and

fewer trips by private car? _{Lifestyle (9)}

Time (21) Lifestyle (14) Destination (12) Factors or circumstances that

make it more difficult or impossible for you to change the way that you travel?

Automobile (6)

Table 5-3. Questionnaire responses from the Phase 2 focus groups. Behavior Initial inclination to change my modal behavior Initial intent to change my modal behavior Initial belief that

others would approve of my change in modal

behavior Initial belief that I could really change my modal behavior Revised inclination to change my modal behavior Revised intent to change my modal behavior Revised belief that

others would approve of my change in modal

behavior Revised belief that I

could really change my modal behavior Exposure to mobility services, products and messages First Application of the

Theory of Planned Behavior

Second Application of the Theory of Planned

Behavior The

“Intervention”

Figure 5-3. Structure of the Phase 2 Internet panel survey questionnaire.

Phase 2 Analysis Plan

The analysis plan for Phase 2 is similar to that for Phase 1, but it also includes a comparison of the results of the two Phase 2 TPB exercises, one that happened before the exposure to messages and alternatives, and one that happened after-

wards. The analysis plan for Phase 2 consisted of the follow- ing four steps:

1. Examine the raw results of the survey. Examine the results after exposure to messages by the groups divided by mes-

Questionnaire Section Project Objective Section 1: Key respondent demographic

variables. Verify variables that define the neighborhood and the demographics, such as type of residence, distance to transit, commercial districts and work, auto ownership, and number of children.

Provides inform ation that is used to explore the characteristics of ma rket sectors that are mo re likely to be favorable to an urban residential environm ent, particularly a compact neighborhood. It also provides data to recheck key information for comparison with Phase 1 results.

Section 2: Initial TPB ratings. Request rating information on statements designed to elicit respondents’ intentions toward walking and taking public transportation more and driving less.

Provides information that is used to explore the TPB as an approach to understanding intentions to use environmentally friendly modes, such as walking and transit, and to examine the power of the TPB to distinguish market sectors and provide insight into motivating factors.

Section 3: Follow-up questions about neighborhood preference. Ask again about respondent’s preferences for compact neighborhoods.

Provides information that is used to explore the characteristics of market sectors that are more likely to be favorable to an urban residential environment, particularly an environment characterized as a compact neighborhood.

Section 4: The messages. Present the pro-transit me ssages to the respondents and ask for their reactions. The messages stress that transit can save money and that transit helps improve the environment and public health. The third group was treated as a control and received no message. The messages are shown in Figure 5-4.

Section 5: Alternative transportation concepts.

Present seven alternative transportation concepts. Ask respondents if they currently have access to similar options and what their preferences are for them. The alternative transportation concepts are shown in Figure 5-5.

Provides information that is used to explore methods for encouraging more walking and transit use.

Section 6: TPB ratings, revised. Request TPB rating information on statements designed to elicit respondents’ intentions toward walking and taking public transportation more and driving less

given they have access to the seven alternative transportation concepts.

Provides information useful in exploring the TPB as an approach to understanding intentions to use environmentally friendly modes, such as walking and transit, and in examining the power of the TPB to distinguish market sectors and provide insight into motivating factors.

Section 7: Additional demographics. Provides information to explore the characteristics of market sectors that are more likely to be favorable to a compact neighborhood.

Table 5-4. Phase 2 Internet panel survey questionnaire and project objectives.