The Smarttrips Program - A Review

(1)

post implementation review

jan 2013

prepared by: Cynthia Thomas

Kate Bergen

(2)

Executive Summary

The Regional Services Department works with municipal partners on numerous programs, including Air Quality and Transportation Demand Management, two issues that are important throughout the Central Okanagan. The Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program aims to reduce single occupancy vehicle use by promoting active or alternative methods of transportation. The Air Quality Program works on behalf of all partners in the Regional District to protect and improve air quality. As vehicle emissions have become increasingly important, the Air Quality program has begun working more closely with TDM in program planning and

implementation.

For several years these programs have relied heavily on community events and the distribution of general information to engage the public. This model was not largely effective in changing

behaviour, and a more targeted approach was required to reach a broader audience. Research into TDM and Air Quality best practices revealed the need to shift focus from onetime events and general information campaigns to a Community-Based Social Marketing (CBSM) approach. CBSM focuses on long-term behaviour change through uncovering barriers and benefits to a new behaviour and then moving participants to the new behaviour through the use of commitments, prompts, norms, and incentives.

To address this need for a new program delivery model, the Pandosy smartTRIPS pilot program was developed using CBSM best practices. Preliminary research including population

segmentation, surveys and focus groups were conducted in the Pandosy area to develop a profile of the community and identify barriers to active transportation, as well as current travel

behaviours. Based on the unique community identity and the barriers identified in the area, marketing materials and program elements were developed to address the specific barriers in a targeted manner.

By obtaining a commitment from residents, enabling personal contact and encouraging residents to track their behaviour change in a creative way, the program successfully incorporated CBSM best practices that are proven to create long term behaviour change. Follow-up surveys, transit data collection and traffic counts will be completed in the fall (one year after preliminary surveys and data collection). This data will be compared with baseline information and will identify the long term impact of the program.

The Pandosy smartTRIPS neighbourhood program reached out to 1500 households, with 106 signing up in the program (7.1%). The area runs from Cadder to KLO, and west of Ethel. The hospital and the large business district along Pandosy are included in this neighbourhood. The pilot program was successful in engaging residents and addressing barriers to active

transportation. Participants reported an overall satisfaction rate of 4.38 out of 5 for the program. More than fifty percent of program participants reported that they used active transportation more than they did prior to the program, and more than ninety percent reported that they would continue to use active transportation. Participants tracked an average of 75 active trips per family during the 10 week period and collectively travelled more than 13,000 kilometers. Respondents to the follow-up survey (sent to all area residents), reported that their behaviours had positively changed. For the entire neighbourhood, 40% reported using car less than a year ago, 42% reported walking more, and 39% reported cycling more. Those that participated in the smartTRIPS program had even more significant behaviour changes with 62% reporting lower car use, and 50% using their bike more.

(5)

The smartTRIPS program development and initial pilot had a total budget of $62,800, and the final cost was $67,486 ($5000 over budget). Excluding the onetime cost of smartTRIPS overall brand development, Pandosy specific costs were only $49,611 or $33 per household. Compared with similar programs ranging from $12 to nearly $200, Pandosy smartTRIPS was delivered for a very reasonable cost. In addition, two full-time staff were dedicated to the program for

approximately eight months, and half-time for the remainder of the year. In subsequent years, the cost per household and staff time required will be reduced due to economies of scale, proven processes and reduced resource requirements. The amount of research for each neighbourhood would also be reduced once the program becomes established.

The Pandosy smartTRIPS pilot had some great results, as well as some areas that need further development. It is recommended that a second pilot program be conducted to further fine tune the program and implement the recommendations that came from the Pandosy pilot.

Specific recommendations to improve the program, reduce program costs and increase the reach of the smartTRIPS program include:

Run a second pilot program in a neighbourhood with a different demographic and geographic makeup and a less concentrated business district.

Continue to test and learn from components of the program in the second pilot, so that we understand the most effective channels to engage the neighbourhood.

Continue to expand on-the-street initiatives to build a true CBSM program, through door-to-door outreach, community events and school engagement.

Build on the smartTRIPS brand throughout the region, and utilize the tools and resources from the program to benefit the entire community.

Regional Services will also develop a five year smartTRIPS strategy that will enable us to prioritize target neighbourhoods. This strategy will also formalize processes to enable partner communities and contractors to rollout the program.

(6)

Background

The City of Kelowna is committed to reducing single occupancy vehicle use and reducing air pollution by encouraging active transportation and ensuring that residents can conveniently and safely travel by active or alternative methods of transportation. The City‟s Transportation Demand Management policies focus on transit, cycling, walking and carpooling as ways to reduce peak traffic and demand for costly motor vehicle infrastructure, while increasing community health and reducing GHG emissions.

There are many alternative transportation options available to residents interested in reducing single occupancy vehicle use, but currently personal vehicles are used for more than two thirds of all trips under 5km, a distance ideal for travel by active modes. Different barriers exist that prevent people from adopting alternative transportation choices, and many communities across North America have adopted Community-Based Social Marketing programs to address these barriers.

To address neighbourhood specific barriers, Regional Services developed the smartTRIPS neighbourhood program based on the principles of Community-Based Social Marketing (CBSM), and modelled after other successful programs. Unlike traditional marketing campaigns, CBSM programs involve research to identify barriers to behaviour change and tailors individualized marketing materials to help overcome those specific barriers. Programs are piloted, evaluated and adjusted as needed to ensure they have the desired impact on behavioural change.

Program Goals

The goal of the smartTRIPS neighbourhood program is to reduce the number of single occupancy vehicle trips and increase the number of trips taken by active and alternative transportation modes (e.g. cycling, walking and transit). The program seeks to influence registered program participants and the broader community in which it is being implemented through brand

penetration and promotion of the program and its various tools and resources. The program aims to influence travel habits during the program period and to sustain the behavioural change. As smartTRIPS matures, brand awareness builds and a variety of neighbourhoods participate, new travel behaviours become the norm.

CBSM programs have an impact on attitudes as well as behaviour. The King County In Motion program, the model in the development of smartTRIPS, found that there was a significant impact on public perception of active transportation. Residents that were simply aware of program (not necessarily participants) reported:

Transportation alternatives could be used most of the time (50% compared to 30% of those not aware).

Hills were not a barrier to use of alternatives (66% compared to 26% of those not aware of the program)

Personal safety concerns were not a barrier for walking compared to those not aware of the program (95% compared to 81% for those not aware).

Availability of local stores was less likely to be a perceived barrier to active travel options (2% compared to 11% for those not aware).

(7)

In addition to these changes in perception of active transportation, those aware of the program were more likely than those not aware of the program to agree to the following statements:

Driving children to their activities was bad for childrens‟ health (95% compared to 20%). Walking and taking the bus is a good way to connect with their neighbourhood (82% compared to 61%).

Traffic and parking in their neighbourhood would improve if they and their neighbours drove less to local businesses (98% compared to 79%).

Participation rates for similar programs in other communities are largely varied. In Motion participation ranged from 6.9-10.5% for the first four communities. The average cost per household for In Motion ranged from $12.82 - $56.77, while other programs had costs of $100-$200 per household.

Costs of program are expected to decrease over time, as design, research and production costs will go down. Costs are also expected to be lower per household for programs targeting larger areas or multiple communities per year as a result of economies of scale.

Program Neighbourhood Total budget Number of Households targeted

Participation

rate Cost per household in program area

InMotion,

King County Madison-Miller $155,553 2,740 10.47% $56.77* Lake Forest Park $92,000 5,015 6.90% $18.34 Columbia City $58,157 2,983 9.92% $19.50

Crossroads $44,380 3,462 8.38% $12.82

Smart Trips

Portland Eastside Hub $570,000 ($134,870 + 4.35 FTE) 20,656 22% (35%** involvement rate) $29 (reported $10 per person) Winnipeg $250,000 2,200*** (further segmented to 750) 17% (reported 50%, or 370 out of 750****) $113.64 LocalMotion, Edmonton Parkallen $439,838 2,256 11.8% by individuals, 7.8% by hhld (268 residents, representing 94 households) $194.96 $91.62 (without staff time) (reported $20) smartTRIPS Central Okanagan Pandosy $49,611 1497 hhld 3554 ppl 106 hhld =7.1% 201 ppl=5.7% $33

*Does not include evaluation (surveys, bus counts, etc).

** 22% was the average order form response rate for households in the area; 35% involvement rate represents individuals ordering resources or attending an event and includes tabling events *** Following an initial survey, the neighbourhood was further segmented into respondents that were interested or regular users or active transportation, thus eliminating those residents not interested in changing behaviour.

****50% represents the number of households requesting resources, based on the segmented population not entire target area used for preliminary surveys.

(8)

smartTRIPS objectives and results:

Goal statement Measurement Goal Actual

Inspire the neighbourhood to participate

in smartTRIPS Program registration 10% of neighbourhood population

5.7% of population, and 7.1% of hhlds Decrease vehicle kilometres travelled

(VKT) in the targeted neighbourhood Pre/post survey and travel logs 10-20% reduction in VKT 47%* Decrease use of vehicle as primary mode Pre/post survey 10-20% 5-13%** Increase the use of active transportation. Post survey 50% of program

participants 53% walk more 50% bike more To develop a neighbourhood program

and deliver one pilot program on budget (brand development + 1 neighbourhood)

Payment/invoice

tracking $62,800 $67,486 8% over budget*** * The only way we were able to calculate this was combining answers from a few questions, therefore this data is interpolated! Driving distance to work reduced from 12.1km to 7.1km, people driving to work decreased form 55% to 49%, this calculates to a 47% reduction in VKT for driving to work purposes.

** When looking at individual use of vehicle as primary mode there was a decrease from 55% to 49%, vehicle users (13%). When asking family results, there was only a decrease from 67% to 64% (5%).

*** Pandosy specific costs were $49,611.

Goals and Objective Recommendations

The goals of the smartTRIPS program were very broadly defined as reduce vehicle kilometres travelled and increase the use of active transportation. Although some specific targets were set for the program (participation rate, reductions in VKT, etc), after further research into CBSM programs, these targets should be more specific. CBSM is an effective tool in changing behaviour because it identifies specific barriers to behaviour change. It is recommended that more discrete targets are set for future programs to prevent the message from being diluted, a pitfall of

traditional marketing campaigns.

Neighbourhood Selection

A literature review was conducted on CBSM programs that focused on individualized marketing of active transportation. A number of program examples were relevant, and programs from King County Washington, Portland Oregon and Winnipeg Manitoba were primarily used in guiding the development of smartTRIPS. Based on recommendations from these other programs, the Pandosy area was selected as the pilot area.

(9)

Criteria

Neighbourhood attributes that were recommended to use in selecting the area included: An established sense of neighbourhood identity

A residential density of over six dwelling units per acre Households of mixed demographics

Services within walking and cycling distance

Access to transit with excess capacity and minimum 30 minute frequency

Existing infrastructure to support active transportation with relatively flat topography Area with an appropriate size to fit budget, staff resources and time restrictions

Demographic Mix - consult Environics data and ensure an appropriate demographic mix Preliminary staff discussions, community survey results and census data narrowed the

neighbourhood options down to the Rutland and Pandosy areas for the pilot options. A strong sense of neighbourhood identity was identified in both areas. 2006 Census data showed that Rutland had the highest percentage of public transit use (between Hwy 33 and Leathead, tract 7) at 7.4 per cent, followed by those living in the KLO/Pandosy areas (5.5 per cent). Pandosy has a well established business district that is central and easily accessible by walking and cycling. This allowed for the neighbourhood to be easily divided into a small pilot area with mixed

demographics, sufficient density, and easily accessible services.

Neighbourhood Selection Recommendations

The pilot size was limited to 1500 households in the Pandosy neighbourhood, based on

recommendations from other programs and budget and staff limitations. This size turned out to be optimal for the pilot. A small increase in the number of households targeted could be

absorbed by current staffing now that processes have been tested. However, if participation rates increased substantially, additional staff may be required for the initial month of the

implementation phase to manage registration and fulfillment.

The recommended criteria are important in selecting a neighbourhood; however, it is not essential that the area conforms to all attributes, as the program must still be tailored to fit the needs of each unique community. While Pandosy fits many of these criteria, it is important to conduct a pilot in a second neighbourhood that is less urban without a business district, but still located in a convenient area (access to transit, easily walkable and only a short distance to businesses).

(10)

Research

Extensive research was conducted in the Pandosy area to help design the program and gauge its success. An initial baseline survey was sent to all residents, focus groups were held, and

interviews with business owners helped to shape the program. Travel counts were also conducted for vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians, as well as some transit data.

Survey

A pre-program survey was mailed to all households in Pandosy on September 10, 2011 gathering current travel patterns and desire to participate in the program. A follow-up survey was mailed on September 12, 2012 to attain travel patterns following the program.

There was very little shift or improvement in any of the barriers preventing use of any mode; however, lack of information was noticeably reduced in 2012 as a barrier to using all sustainable modes.

There was a positive change in the perception of benefits for most benefits and active modes; however, generally the order of benefits stayed the same.

Walking had the least perceived barriers, but the highest number of benefits. Cyclists continue to be the most satisfied commuters

Respondents to the 2012 survey reported that their behaviours had positively changed: o 40% reported using car less than a year ago

o 42% reported walking more o 39% reported cycling more

o However, those that participated in the smartTRIPS program had even more significant behaviour changes with 62% reporting lower car use, and 50% using their bike more.

Families with children overall had the best response the program and change in behaviour, despite their being no school engagement and no direct family programming.

Interest & Participation - In 2011, respondents were very interested in the program – 66% were interested in learning about the program, and 53% said they would be interested in participating. In 2012, 48% of respondents were aware of the smartTRIPS program, and 63% of those did register for the program.

The following table provides a snapshot of some of the comparable responses:

2011 2012

Total responses 282 (18.9%) 248 (16.4%)

Margin of Error 5.3%, 19 times out of 20 5.7%, 19 times out of 20

How many one-way trips PER WEEK for each mode of transportation (to work):

Own vehicle 55% 49%

Bike 14% 20%

How frequently do you travel by:

Daily car use 64% 57%

Daily/weekly bike use 49% 54%

What is your household’s primary mode of transportation day-to-day?

Own vehicle 67% 64%

Walk 17% 20%

(11)

Note: Due to the small target population, a strong response rate is imperative. For this survey, the margin of error was 5.3% (2011) and 5.7% (2012), 19 times out of 20 (95% confidence). Increasing the size of the survey area, would require a lower response rate to receive the same margin of error. For example by surveying the whole city we would only need about 350 responses, a 0.35% response rate, in order to get the same error and confidence levels.

Focus groups

Two focus groups were held at Okanagan College in October 2011. 33 individuals registered, and 31 showed up to participate.

Recruitment was a challenge due to the extremely small size of the target community. Most participants were passionate about cycling and therefore very biased and even came with

agendas. As a result very few people attended that were part of our target audience – those who rarely use active transportation, but have the physical ability and person drive to give it a chance. To attract participants, we posted flyers in the neighbourhood, distributed flyers in the capital news, advertised on social media and made personal invites. Targeted email invitations were also sent through City of Kelowna email lists (separated by postal code) and through community groups in the area; the majority of participants were recruited through personal contacts and the Kelowna and Area Cycling coalition.

The focus groups solicited input on barriers to adopting active forms of transportation more often, motivators to using active transportation and possible incentives for participation. Since

participants were primarily made up of avid cyclists, the most relevant information was regarding what motivates them to cycle. We heard many cyclists find it convenient, fun, gives them time back for themselves (de-stress and enjoy the ride), and an opportunity to get to know their community at the ground level. Participants felt that incentives/prizes were best as gift certificates and should be relevant prizing from local business, vs „cheap crap from china‟. Participants felt the marketing messages should include local „celebrities‟ or role models to show real people as the face of the program.

Business interviews

A contactor was hired to conduct 15 interviews with a range of businesses that could be potential sponsors or participants in the smartTRIPS program. These interviews were conducted in

November 2011. 80 businesses were contacted, and only 15 participated. Of the 15 that

participated in the interviews 10 became sponsors - three were not retail based companies, and therefore were unlikely to become sponsors. Although there was no mechanism built in to follow-up on the interview process, the businesses that did become sponsors and completed the sponsor survey had positive feedback about the contractor.

The consultant performing the interviews did not follow our direction in terms of areas of feedback that we were looking for. Instead they focused on factors unrelated to the program – specifically infrastructure such as parking and bike lanes, as well as initiatives that should be led by the business community.

The contractor‟s recommendations were:

The City‟s role should extend beyond delivery of a social marketing campaign to include the eventual development of appropriate infrastructure such as bike lanes, adequate parking, and more frequent and timely transit.

The City should partner with South Pandosy businesses to design and deliver a pilot that benefits all stakeholders and can be effectively replicated in other areas.

(12)

The City should provide innovative program incentives such as customer passports or the use of tokens to reward participating businesses and customers.

Area entrepreneurs should participate in the program by contributing coupons, discounts, and other business‐specific, value‐added services.

The City should work with area businesses to enable and encourage special events such as sidewalk sales, neighbourhood picnics, and seasonal celebrations.

The South Pandosy Neighbourhood Program should include information about cycling safety and the true costs of owning and operating a vehicle.

Travel counts

As part of the City of Kelowna‟s annual traffic counts, pedestrians and cyclists were counted in key intersections within and bordering our target neighbourhood. Counts were done in early November 2011, and were to be completed again one year later. The smartTRIPS program utilized the existing City of Kelowna traffic count program for 2011. In 2012 the counts were unable to be completed due to additional demand on the limited resources.

After discussions with the Infrastructure Planning Department it was also decided that these traffic counts are unable to provide accurate information on the travel patterns of residents in this community, due to travel originating outside of the target area. To account for this, intensive, screen line counts would have to be completed to account for movement into and out of the target area, and this was beyond the capacity of the program.

It is also recognized that long-term measurements of active transportation mode share are required to quantify the shift in mode share for the entire community. Investing in technology, such as automatic counters that sense pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles, could help address this need.

Transit ridership counts

Transit Automated Passenger Counter (APC) data was collected by BC Transit between September and December 2011 and again in 2012. Data was collected for on and off boarding at all stops within the Pandosy program area, as well as a few key stop locations just outside of the target area.

The transit ridership data provides a snapshot of overall transit use in the community. The ridership levels from 2012 are not significantly different from 2011, and the importance of this data is that the area has a high level of sustained transit use.

Sum of Total Activity - Avg. Per Wkd

Period Q-Stop

No. Stop Name

Avg Per Wkd Fall 2011 Avg Per Wkd Fall 2012 102910 NB_PANDOSY_FS_CADDER 25 19 102914 SB_PANDOSY_FS_CADDER 20 20 102928 SB_PANDOSY_NS_ROSE 64 50 102929 EB_970_BLOCK_SPRINGFIELD 23 26 102930 NB_PANDOSY_FS_ROSE 53 67 102940 NB_ETHEL_FS_GUISACHAN 35 36

(13)

102943 SB_PANDOSY_FS_CHRISTLETON 11 12 102946 NB_ETHEL_FS_GRENFELL 14 15 102952 SB_PANDOSY_NS_MORRISON 12 16 102956 NB_PANDOSY_FS_PATTERSON 33 30 102961 SB_PANDOSY_FS_PATTERSON 13 12 102967 NB_ETHEL_NS_MORRISON 41 39 102976 SB_PANDOSY_NS_RAYMER 30 29 102980 NB_ETHEL_FS_GRENFELL 22 35 102981 EB_RAYMER_FS_CURTS 8 11 102982 SB_PANDOSY_FS_WEST 23 18 102983 NB_RICHTER_FS_COOPLAND 37 47 102984 NB_PANDOSY_FS_GROVES 45 50 102997 EB_KLO_NS_TUTT 189 200 102999 SB_LAKESHORE_FS_CEDAR 24 23 103016 NB_3180_BLOCK_LAKESHORE 338 279 103025 SB_3190_BLOCK_LAKESHORE 61 56 103039 WB_LANFRANCO_NS_LAKESHORE 79 90 103044 NB_LAKESHORE_NS_LANFRANCO 24 9 Total 1,226 1,188

Research Recommendations

Assuming similar response rates for future surveys, the margin of error will be reduced when the size of the program is increased. This will provide a more accurate view of the current use of alternative transportation and shifts in mode share following the program.

A control group may also be important for future surveys. The control group will receive the preliminary and follow up survey, but will not be part of the program area. It is recommended that the control group will be similar to the program area in terms of demographic and geographic area. However, this will significantly impact the program budget.

Recruitment of focus group participants was a challenge. In the future, random participant selection should be used by way of telephone recruitment without fully explaining the purpose of the focus group. A financial incentive should also be offered.

In the second phase of the pilot, focus groups and preliminary surveys should be used to identify more specific barriers to be addressed through the program, and the impact on these specific barriers will be evaluated through follow up surveys. For example, if the focus groups identify time and safety as barrier to walking or cycling with children to school, one goal of the program could be reducing the number of vehicle trips to schools by 20%. Preliminary surveys will collect data on the number of people driving children to school. The smartTRIPS program will focus on education, awareness and training programs to address these specific concerns, and follow-up surveys will evaluate the success of the program on reducing vehicle trips to schools.

Given the pilot phase of this program, full research efforts were taken. In the future, budget may restrict performing Pre and post surveys in every neighbourhood. While surveys might not be conducted in every neighbourhood, it is important to do period surveying throughout the life of

(14)

Program Overview

1497 households were targeted in the Pandosy Area (approx 3554 residents) The program ran from April 14 to June 22, 2012 (10 weeks).

Segmented direct mail was received by residents March 30 – April 2, inviting them to participate in the program and attend the open house.

An open house was held on Saturday, April 14 at Raymer Elementary School.

Additional program promotion was done at weekly kiosks in Pandosy and through flyers delivered to residents‟ mailboxes.

A bike delivery team (Scootch) was

contracted to deliver registration packages and prizes. They also made follow-up calls to select participants.

Weekly e-newsletters were sent to participants.

A paper newsletter update was sent to those participants not registered online.

A website, smartTRIPS.ca, was developed with resources for the Pandosy smartTRIPS neighbourhood program.

An online trip tracker specifically developed for smartTRIPS was very popular among participants.

Cycling, walking and transit courses were offered but attendance was low.

To wrap up Pandosy smartTRIPS, a community celebration was held in conjunction with Park & Play. The celebration offered pizza and veggies, and kid‟s activities such as the bouncy castle.

(15)

Implementation Results & Analysis

Participant Profile

106 households (7.1% of households in target area)

201 participants (estimate based on our post program survey, that 1.9 people participated per household) = 5.7% of residents participated

Demographic details

Participants are slightly younger than the area demographics (more likely to be 35-54), however, the under 25 group is also under-represented. This is logical given seniors are less likely to be motivated to change behaviours or don‟t have the ability to do so. More likely to be larger households with older children.

Income levels of participants are similar to the overall area, but slightly lower than the City of Kelowna. Employment status is consistent with the area and higher than Kelowna overall.

Map analysis – where the participants live

The high penetration of Startups & Seniors (129) and Money & Brains (158) is due to the high participation rates in the area between Patterson & Cedar, West of Pandosy, where these two groups live.

The lowest participation levels were on the northern and eastern boundaries of the program area – north of Rose and east of Pandosy.

Those registered who lived outside of the program area were primarily within two blocks of the area boundary – a handful of these participants lived in the area north-east of

(16)

Environics and segmentation analysis

Two target segments were created, and the initial mailer was tailored to the two groups. Segment % of Target area % of registrants Details

Mobility Blues 46 41 Penetration rate of 89 Conscious

Community 54 59 Startups & Seniors and Money & Brains had the best penetration rates at 129 and 158 respectively. While Solo Scramble had the lowest penetration rate at 70.

Participant engagement

Trip tracker data

A trip tracker was custom built for smartTRIPS, so that participants could track their active trips online. 42% of smartTRIPS registrants used the online trip tracker, however, in our post-program survey, 67% of respondents reported using the tool.

Users rated the trip tracking tool a 3.8 out of 5, in the post-program survey.

A total of 3,700 trips were tracked over the 10 week period. An average of 75 trips were tracked for each registrant who tracked trips. 49% of trips were by bike, and 40% walking.

(17)

Over 13,000 kms were tracked by Pandosy smartTRIPS

participants. An average of 3,631 kms were travelled by each user. 56% of the total kilometres were by bike, and 30% by carpooling, and 11% by walking.

Attendance at events

Open House launch event

Approximately 55 people attended the event.

12 people registered for the program - six registered on paper (we had problems with the internet connecting), and six online.

Workshops

Unfortunately our workshops were poorly attended. From the post participation survey, most respondents noted that they did not attend simply because they are so busy. However, there were many suggestions for cycling workshops/programs for kids. Cycling, April 14 - 4 people attended the cycling workshop after then open house. Cycling, May 5 – 3 participants.

Cycling, May 12 – 9 participants (free tickets were given to BTWW team leaders, so not all attendees were from Pandosy).

Transit, June 9 – 5 participants, however 2 seniors also registered and went to the incorrect location. The residents were contacted following the mix-up and received assistance with their transit questions.

(18)

Kiosks

Eight kiosks were set up in Pandosy, with five set up outside of Kelowna Cycle/Good Earth Coffee, one outside Blendz and two outside of Raymer

Elementary.

Approximately 200 people visited the kiosks, 20 registrations were done onsite and another (approx) 20 people said they would register online. On street presence proved valuable in building

brand/program awareness and visibility.

Wrap up party

Partnered with Recreation and Culture‟s Park and Play event at Kinsmen Park on July 5. Approximately 80 smartTRIPS participants attended the event, including three business sponsors (staff and families).

Regular engagement

Weekly email newsletters were sent to all participants who provided a valid email address. Newsletters contained upcoming events, stories and other program information and were an important communication tool.

Half way through the program, follow-up phone calls were made to see if any support was required and/or to let them know about upcoming activities. This was also used to test the impact of personal contact and making a commitment on participation rates.

18 participants were randomly contacted, and although there was a small sample size and the calls were made late in the program, it appears this might have had an impact. Those that received any sort of contact during the program, were more likely to track their trips, and tracked more trips that those that were not contacted.

Participants that completed the survey online were more engaged than those completing the paper survey. This can be attributed in part to the fact that they were already

engaged, and therefore more likely to complete the survey, but can also be attributed to the medium. The website, web tool and weekly e-newsletters were the most important components of the program and therefore the strongest communication tool. Those participants that chose to register online have already shown their preference for this medium, and therefore were likely to be more engaged in the program due to the high reliance on online communication strategies.

(19)

Action Tracked Trips Avg # of trips tracked

All participants (118) 42% 75

Completed survey (43) 72% 86

Received follow-up call (18) 56% 82

Personal Contact, ie delivery (65) 46% 78

Won prize (71) 63% 77

Personal contact & prize (43) 63% 81

Participant follow up survey

65 surveys were completed.

Overall, respondents were very happy with the program. 83% reported they were satisfied or very satisfied (4 or 5), and the average rating was 4.38 out of 5.

The program impacted over 50% to use active transportation more, and most participants plan to keep up their active transportation all or most of the time.

Generally respondents were happy with the materials provided in the program (average score of 3.9 out 5), such as the maps, information pieces and branded giveaways. There was overwhelming support for our bicycle delivery team Scootch, and found them

extremely helpful and friendly.

“The team members were great, and offered a lot of great advice to questions that I

had!” Participant

While the introductory letter was the most common way people heard about the program (41%), most people registered online (79%).

88% of respondents have visited smartTRIPS.ca. Over half of the respondents recall visiting the website 6 or more times. The trip tracker gave visitors a reason to regularly return, with 77% visiting for that purpose.

The prizing was very well received, it scored 4.4 out of 5 from those that received a prize and felt that it helped recognize them for their efforts to reduce their vehicle usage. The coupon book was well received by participants and scored a 3.76 out of 5 in terms of usefulness. 53% reported the coupon book impacted their decision to shop at local businesses and 92% would recommend including it in the future.

“The coupons were the extra little nudge I needed to keep my business in my local area.

I am walking much more to my favourite shops. South Pandosy is my new down town!”

(20)

Business partnerships

In an area that contains a large business hub, partnerships with local businesses are essential. In Pandosy, there are over 150 businesses, while approximately 65 of those being retail. Businesses can provide prizing, but it is also important to show the easy access to the range of products and services in the neighbourhood – why would you need to drive somewhere to shop.

Engaging the businesses

Sustainability Support Services was contracted to perform business interviews in November 2011 to understand business needs and gauge interest in the program.

In January, a letter was sent to all retail based businesses in the target area introducing the program and inviting them to participate.

Businesses were contacted by phone in January and an initial appointment was setup to discuss sponsorship opportunities.

Once a commitment was obtained the businesses were required to submit their coupon information for the coupon book. Final proof was provided with approximately 5 days given to businesses to respond with any errors.

Window clings, posters, and post cards for the Open House were delivered to the businesses by our bicycle delivery team (Scootch) one week prior to the launch. Update emails were sent on a bi-weekly basis to businesses with updates and information about the program.

At the conclusion of the program, businesses were visited by Scootch to deliver an invitation to the wrap up party, and a survey. Redeemed coupons were also picked up from businesses.

(21)

Sponsorship packages

The sponsorship package offered advertising and promotional

opportunities in exchange for prizing with four different sponsor levels ($75-1300 of in-kind prizing). Note, only one business chose the Bronze level ($75). Only one business provided cash, the remainder was provided in prizing.

28 businesses participated, including 4 platinum level sponsors – 43% of retail businesses in the area.

The platinum level sponsors acted as role-models in the community, and were incorporated in the photography for use on program collateral. While only three platinum opportunities were original built into the program, we had overwhelming desire to be a platinum sponsor and role model, that a forth platinum spot was created. Businesses provided an offer for the coupon book, and we contracted an agency to design and develop the coupons and coupon book.

Coupon evaluation

A sponsorship strategy will also be developed in the fall of 2012. This strategy will evaluate options and determine recommendations for the 2013 program and future years. Final coupon results from the pilot will be completed once all businesses have reported their final coupon counts. Most coupons did not expire until July 31, 2012 and will be collected in August.

(22)

Business feedback

Following the completion of the program, a survey was emailed to all participating businesses. A follow-up visit was made and paper surveys were also offered.

14 surveys were submitted (50%), two of the online surveys were not completed (only 1 questions answered). Five surveys were mailed back in paper form.

Four respondents said they attended the business interviews (28%). However, we know that 10 of the 28 sponsors actually attended one of the interviews (36%). All respondents that attended the interviews rated the facilitator a 5 out 5 (note only three out of four answered these questions).

Business were very happy with the sponsorship opportunities (4.08 out of 5), with only respondent unhappy and rating the opportunities a 2.

Businesses were happy with the sponsorship coordinator (Darrell), 4.42 out of 5. Most businesses participated because they were interested in gaining more customers from the neighbourhood (83%), and the opportunity to be involved in a community initiative (75), with only 50% selecting they were interested in the promotional opportunities.

Unfortunately the business sponsors did not find the smartTRIPS program had much of an impact on their business, rating it a 2.08 out of 5. They also felt it did not help them reach new customers, although the responses greatly varied averaging at 2.25 out of 5 (five businesses scored it 1, and two businesses scored it a 5).

The number of coupons redeemed at each store greatly varied. While many reported zero to few, one reported 50. This likely ties to the type of business and offer (ie coffee shops probably had many coupons redeemed, while stores selling more expensive goods for a small discount, likely did not receive any (ie save 10% when you spend $100 more on regular priced merchandise). Overall, businesses would recommend the coupon book for future programs. (75%).

Overall, businesses were satisfied with their participation in the smartTRIPS program, scoring 3.45 out of 5

A few businesses felt that mass advertising would have benefited the program (ie radio ad), and therefore did not have a good understanding of the program‟s design.

“I really like the program, and look forward to being part of it in future! I don't feel as a

business sponsor that it had an obvious reward in terms of connecting with new

customers, but our main motivation for participation was simply to be part of something

that we wholeheartedly support, and we would like to continue to be involved for this

reason. One thing I would like to see in future is fewer mailouts and paper resources.

And finally...what about using block parties to promote the program? Sponsors could be

invited to provide goodies or prizes for block parties, and individual participants could be

invited to host block parties that smartTRIPS support staff could attend to share info,

etc. I think that connecting neighbours' efforts would be a great way to build intrinsic

motivation and perhaps even logistical connections between neighbours (carpooling,

sharing a bike trailer, etc.), and would contribute to community-building at the same

time.” Business Owner

(23)

Partnership Recommendations

Many of the businesses did not seem to fully understand the programs intention, or even the components of the program. Many suggestions received by participating businesses either go against the program design as a CBSM program, or were actually done as part of the program. This is primarily a result of recruiting sponsors before the branding, website and final details of the program had been complete. In future years, this will likely not be a factor given the

experience and materials we have established. In future years it may also be important to provide more information about CBSM and how this form of marketing is designed to reach a smaller target audience, and focuses on behaviour change.

Business partnerships are vital to the success of this program, helping to better promote and build excitement around the program; however, it is very labour intensive and detail oriented. While over $11,000 in sponsorship prizing was obtained, Global Affinity spent 100 hours obtaining the sponsorships at a cost of $4300, plus over 15 hours of Scootch‟s time delivering and picking up info to businesses at a cost of $300. A sponsorship strategy for all smartTRIPS programs will be developed in the fall of 2012 and will provide recommendations to guide future programs. Although numerous prizes were provided through sponsorships with local businesses, and prizes were well received by program participants, the prizing could be significantly improved. Rather than seeking sponsorships from a wide array of business, it is recommended that we focus on strategic partnerships to ensure that the prizes are of high value and relevant to participants. It is also recommended that future sponsorships only accept gift certificates, as this is brings

customers into the store, making it preferable to businesses. Gift certificates will also reduce the need for storing prizes. Depending on the recommendations from the sponsorship strategy, sponsorship coordination may include purchasing gift certificates as well as soliciting donations, and coordination may be completed by City staff or a contractor.

Marketing

smartTRIPS is a CBSM program. Therefore, there was no mass marketing incorporated into this program. All marketing was direct and community-based, and based on research on the

population segments in the target area.

Marketing components

Introductory letter – an invitation to participate in the program was mailed to all households in the target area. The letter was segmented and images and tone was adjusted for each group.

Business collateral

o Invitations – invitation postcards to the launch event were displayed at most of the participating businesses, as well as enclosed in the introductory letter.

o Posters - all participating businesses, plus some other visible areas of the community, received posters to display. The posters featured our platinum

sponsors as role models. An initial poster was displayed prior to the launch event, and then was changed to a new poster 2 weeks later.

o Window clings – all businesses were offered window clings announcing “We support active transportation”.

Coupon Book

o The coupon book was developed to encourage residents to shop in their neighbourhood to reduce driving trips to other major stores outside of feasible walking/biking distances. This strategy also helped gain business sponsorship. The

(24)

coupon book included a map of the area highlighting the business sponsors, as well as additional information on the smartTRIPS program.

o Overall the coupon book cost $7200 to design and print (for 300 pieces, or $24 per book). This cost ran significantly over budget, and therefore would have to be re-evaluated to find a less expensive alternative for future neighbourhoods.

Results

Website smartTRIPS.ca

A new website was launched on March 29, 2012. The smartTRIPS.ca website is the main source of information for all regional active transportation programs including the

neighbourhood program and Bike to Work Week. In addition to an enhanced visual appeal, the site offers a customized trip tracking tool, social media integration and a regularly updated news feed.

Unfortunately Google analytics was not setup on smartTRIPS.ca until June 1, 2012, missing the main activity time for the smartTRIPS neighbourhood program. Therefore the visitors recorded were primarily from Bike to Work Week (May 28 to June 3), to view the activities and results.

From June 1 to June 29, 2012, 805 unique visitors came to smartTRIPS.ca, with an average time spent on the site of 2.18 minutes.

Top ten pages visited:

1. Bike to Work Week Results 2. smartTRIPS homepage

3. Pandosy neighbourhood homepage 4. Bike to Work Week homepage 5. smartTRIPS events page 6. Trip tracking tool about page

(25)

7. Photo gallery page

8. „Learn More‟ Pandosy smartTRIPS page 9. Resources page

10. Bike to Work Week – team leaders page

Note, the trip tracking tool is actually a separately hosted page, and therefore is not included in these results.

Social Media, April 1 to June 29, 2012 (see Social Media analysis for further details) Twitter and Facebook scheduled postings (30+ posts)

#smartTRIPS Twitter posts by others (10+) Live event tweets (3 posts)

Re-tweets/ #smartTRIPS tags (27 retweets) e-subscribe newsletters

A weekly email was sent to e-subscribe smartTRIPS list members (approx 150) 44% of smartTRIPS e-subscribe members opened the newsletter. This is significantly higher than the 34% average open rate for all e-subscribe bulletins.

18% of recipients clicked on a link in the email, compared to 16% overall on all e-subscribe topics.

Marketing Recommendations

The printing and postage for the initial mailer was coordinated by the Queens printer and posed some challenges in determining the timing of delivery. Canada Post provides a two week delivery window, and our mailing was delivered two days into that delivery period. The early delivery caught us off guard and must be better planned. The mailer needed to be delivered after the website and web tool were finalized, but with sufficient time to promote the Open House. The Open House postcard promotion was sent with the mailer, due to time restrictions. In future years, the timing of the initial mail must be more accurately timed and the postcard or similar information should be used as a follow-up to the initial mailer to provide an additional

promotional opportunity.

The subscribers to the smartTRIPS email newsletter included all participants that registered with a valid email address as well as other Gov Delivery subscribers that chose to subscribe to the topic. In the future it will be important to have a separate subscription list exclusive to program

participants, as well as a general smartTRIPS list. This will allow for targeted promotions to reach participants, and allow general updates to be sent to the broader community. Utilizing a separate system/list outside of the City of Kelowna‟s Gov Delivery, would also enable our partners and contractors to send the e-updates.

A proposal for social media involvement requested a facebook page and twitter profile. Because the Neighbourhood program was a pilot and the smartTRIPS website was still in the process of being developed, this application was not approved for 2012, but we hope it will be considered for 2013. As the smartTRIPS brand develops, a larger social media presence will become an even more important piece of the communications strategy and should be reconsidered in 2013. Two of the most important pieces of a successful CBSM strategy are obtaining a commitment and personal communication. The personal commitment was made through the mailer and online registration which featured a pledge to reduce personal vehicle use by increasing walking, cycling, transit and/or carpooling. Personal contact was made with participants through the delivery, email contact and phone calls, as well as to residents that were not yet registered through community events, kiosks and discussions with residents on the street (during deliveries). Although these were important pieces of the program, in the future the commitment and personal communication strategies could be further developed through on the ground outreach in the community. It is recommended that some form of door-to-door delivery be included in future years for a portion of

(26)

the neighbourhood to test the effectiveness. This will enable us to introduce the program, and allow residents to ask questions and register on the spot. Public commitments should be considered as part of future smartTRIPS programs, as a way to ensure long lasting engaging. The coupon book was considered an important component of the Neighbourhood program, as promoting local businesses provides opportunities for residents to easily replace short vehicle trips with walking or biking. The production of the coupon book required a great deal of staff time to coordinate with businesses, the sponsorship contractor and the design and printing contractor. The printing costs were also higher than initially anticipated. Although the program participants overwhelmingly recommend that the coupon book be a part of future programs, there are

alternative models that would still drive residents to local businesses while reducing staff time and other costs.

To replace a formal printed coupon book, the program could feature weekly specials for different businesses, with specials promoted in the weekly e-newsletters. The weekly specials could also be provided to all participants on the printed neighbourhood map featuring all business sponsors. Weekly specials would not require additional printed coupons, as offers will be for a limited time only, and a smartTRIPS membership card could be provided to participants to show at

participating businesses to claim the special offer.

In general, it is important that all major components of the smartTRIPS program have the ability to be evaluated. Control groups and other evaluation mechanisms should be put in place at the planning stage.

(27)

Investment

Overall program development:

Category Budget Actual Notes

Research 5,000 4,500

Branding 7,400 3,800 Full branding research not

conducted, did not use any of the recommended names provided by agency

Marketing & Materials 750 1,300

Website 5,000 8,275

Subtotal 18,150 17,875 Pandosy specific costs:

Category Budget Actual

Research 20,885 23,743

Branding 8,160 1,400 Most collateral designed in house

Marketing & Materials 7,462 11,292

Contractors 4,000 8,846 Did not budget for sponsorship

coordinator contractor Giveaways (purchased

branded items) 2,850 2,500

Events 1,300 1,830 Open house & wrap up event

Subtotal 44,657 49,611 Cost per participant (201) $222.17 $246.82 Cost per household (1497) $30 $33

Total cost 62,807 67,486 Including smartTRIPS overall brand development

Staffing costs

In addition to hiring a contractor for sponsorship coordination and another contractor for delivery and on the street activities, Pulse Group was hired to design the brand and materials templates. Contractors are included in the program budget, however, staff time is not.

City staff contributed a significant amount of time to the program. One FTE from Regional

Services and one FTE from Communications were dedicated to the program from October 2011 to May 2012 (eight months). For the remainder of the year, approximately half of one FTE was dedicated to the program from each group. This includes development of the strategy, program, brand and overall materials, as well as creating and running the Pandosy Pilot.

For the second year, staff time may be reduced; however, significant planning is still required to implement the recommendations for year two and to develop long term strategies for future neighbourhoods, as well as template it for the partnering communities.

Following year two, staff time to develop and run a neighbourhood program should be reduced to almost half of the initial year one requirements. Should more than one neighbourhood program be run each year, the staff time would likely increase by approximately 60%.

(28)

Estimated staff commitments

Year 1 (2011/12) Year 2 (2012/13) Future years (per neighbourhood) Regional Services 1 person for 8 mo

0.5 person for 4 mo

1 FTE for 6-8 mo 0.5 FTE for 4-6 mo

0.6 for 6 mo 0.4 for 6 mo Communications 1 FTE for 8 mo

0.5 FTE for 4 mo 0.75 FTE for 6-8 mo 0.4 FTE for 4-6 mo 0.5 for 6 mo 0.25 for 6 mo

Approx time cost $85,000 $70,000-85,000 $45,000

Future budget implications

The first year of any program has unique costs, as well as learning costs. smartTRIPS

neighbourhood costs are expected to decrease over time, as proven by mature programs such as InMotion. Costs are also expected to be lower per household for programs targeting larger areas or multiple communities per year as a result of economies of scale.

In future years, contractors will likely be used to support the majority of the implementation stage of smartTRIPS. Therefore staff time will decrease, but contractor costs will increase. Staff time requirements are also expected to decrease with improvements to the online

registration process. The web tool has the potential to be used to help coordinate activities with contractors by allowing all information for each participant to be stored in one location. This will also help to streamline the results and analysis of future programs.

Cost-Benefit

When looking at the cost of the smartTRIPS program it is important to note the cost-benefit ratio. The TravelSmart program, a Community-Based Social

Marketing program in the UK has an average cost per household of approximately $40 CND. The benefit to cost ratio of TravelSmart is nearly 7.6:1. This is a significant gain over infrastructural projects, like road expansion, which are estimated to have a benefit to cost ratio of 2:1 or less.

For every $1 spent, it is estimated

to save $7.60 on running cars,

maintaining roads, providing

health services and other costs of

unsustainable travel.

TravelSmart Australia, delivered to more than 400,000 residents calculated the financial benefits of the program based decrease in pollution, traffic, and vehicle accidents, as well as

socio-economic benefits such as increases in health and fitness. It was determined that program had a benefit to cost ratio of 77:1 over 25 years (44:1 over 10 years) for each dollar invested by the government. When considering only the direct costs to government in terms of road construction and traffic costs, the benefit to cost ratio was still found to be 3.1-4.7:1 over 25 years.

By taking advantage of capacity on existing cycle, walking and transit networks, the smartTRIPS program is able to reduce demand on much higher cost motor vehicle infrastructure (roadways, parking, etc) while improving the efficiency and return on investment on these networks. Increased shift to active modes also has a direct impact on other costly public services such as health care. According to a 2005 Environment Canada report for the Central Okanagan, a 10% reduction in 2 air pollutants (PM 2.5 and ozone) would result in annual benefits of $18.5 million. In Kelowna, single occupancy vehicles are the most common mode of travel, even for short trips (under 5km). Shifting travel to active transportation for short trips has an even greater benefit to reducing air pollution, as trips less than 5km produce greater levels of air pollution (due to cold starts). For each 1% shift of mileage from automobile to non-motorized modes there is potential

(29)

to reduce energy consumption and pollution emissions by 2-4%. The smartTRIPS program promotes alternative transportation for all trips, with short vehicle trips being the most likely to be substituted with walking and cycling.

Overall the result of gradual mode shift to active modes results in a more liveable, healthy and competitive city.

(30)

Recommendations

The smartTRIPS program was piloted in the Neighbourhood of Pandosy in 2012. Pandosy provided some great results, as well as areas we would like to improve on. After the first pilot, there is still a lot to learn, and a second pilot is recommended. Pandosy was a unique neighbourhood, and very few areas of the Central Okanagan have a similar make up of single family homes in a central business area. A second pilot should be run in a very different neighbourhood than Pandosy in terms of demographics, geographic location and business proximity/involvement. As such, the recommendation is to run a phase two pilot in a more suburban setting that still has good access to business and transit, so that we can gain better insight into all types of neighbourhoods within the Central Okanagan.

In continuing to test and learn, it is important to have appropriate measures added to test different components of the program. This would involve randomly assigning the neighbourhood into different groups that received different types of support. For instance some participants would receive regular phone calls or visits to sign up for the program and check on their progress, while others would receive less personal support – i.e. only mail, email and signage inviting them to participate in the various elements of the program. This will ensure we provide only useful elements within future programs to make the program as cost-effective as possible.

Research methodologies must be fine tuned. Focus groups are important and random

participant selection is imperative. Focus groups must be used to identify more specific barriers to be addressed through the program. Results of the focus group will shape the preliminary survey and the program development. Follow-up survey will evaluate the impacts on the specific, targeted barriers. Ideally a control group would be added to our pre and post surveys to better measure the direct impacts of the smartTRIPS program on behaviour; however, a cost-effective manner to measure is needed.

Engaging our neighbourhood is the most important aspect to gaining behaviour change.

Continuing to expand upon our on-the-street initiatives through door-to-door outreach and other strategies to ensure personal contact are essential to becoming a true

Community-Based Social Marketing program. The kiosks were successful in gaining exposure and

sign-ups, and must continue to be integrated into future communities with proper promotional

displays. In suburban neighbourhoods, engaging schools will increase participation from the whole family. Seeking out community events/activities to attend or partner with, and engaging the community in highly visible fun activities like bike brigades and walking groups, will be important strategies for brand building and neighbourhood engagement.

Technology is an important aspect to ensure that participants have the tools and motivation to

continue new behaviours after the program is complete. Our trip tracking tool and website provide a means for us to track involvement levels and further engage participants. We need to continue to improve the usability for both the participant and the administrators. These tools can benefit the greater community and a further rollout of smartTRIPS tools can benefit other

programs like Bike to Work Week.

The smartTRIPS neighbourhood program is an integral part of Regional Services initiatives to shift transportation behaviour in our community. In addition to implementing a second neighbourhood pilot, it is recommended to develop a five year smartTRIPS strategy. This strategy would identify neighbourhood boundaries for the purpose of this program and prioritize target

neighbourhoods to ensure that the program continues to grow, while costs remain low.

Likewise, formal processes must be documented and tools developed so that the City of

(31)

Kelowna‟s partner communities and contractors can rollout the program with little support from Kelowna staff. Additionally, a Regional Programs sponsorship strategy will be developed to help guide business involvement and prizing requirements for both the neighbourhood program and Bike to Work Week.

As the neighbourhood program matures, the program must become more cost-effective. One specific recommendation from the Pandosy pilot that will reduce costs is to change from a formal coupon book to weekly offers in the e-newsletters, and recognizing business sponsors on the neighbourhood map. CBSM programs initially have high costs due to the need for extensive research and development to ensure that specific barriers are addressed correctly. As the

program matures, costs will be reduced in several ways. As formal processes are documented and tools are refined, less research will be required to adapt the program for different communities. As the program increases in size, costs will also be reduced due to economies of scale. Based on similar programs, costs per participant are expected to be significantly reduced in subsequent years.