Bus Rapid Transit Identity: An Overview of Current “Branding” Practice

The emergence of new bus rapid transit (BRT) systems in recent years has prompted transit agencies across North America to establish new and unique identity programs that communicate various benefits of improved bus service. These identities and brands, however, rely largely on perception and emotional reaction, which are difficult to quantify. This lack of “hard data” makes the efficacy of identity systems and expenditures on them difficult to assess. This evaluation of 22 BRT identity programs examines the typical constructs used to establish BRT identity: visual identifiers, nominal identifiers, and color palette. Through analysis of these constructs, we find that when deployed consistently across a range of media, BRT identity may help to further build and reinforce a positive perception of BRT service and, by extension, a positive public image for public transit in general. We conclude that BRT identity must be flexible in design to accommodate future needs, plans for expansion, and technological evolution. Introduction Public transit is experiencing a renaissance of sorts in the United States, fueled by interest in and mandates for curbing urban sprawl, reducing traffic congestion, lessening automobile dependency, and a desire to better protect the natural enviJournal of Public Transportation, Vol. 11, No. 2, 2008 20 ronment from automobile pollution (Pucher 2001). Transit officials are working to capitalize on these changes in public consciousness, and many hope to increase the demand for public transit by improving the quality and quantity of service and, in particular, by implementing new bus rapid transit (BRT) systems, which offer passengers faster, more convenient, and more comfortable travel through service enhancements. BRT emulates service quality offered by light rail transit (LRT) at a fraction of the infrastructural cost (Levinson 2003), and can later be useful as a means to phase in fixed transit infrastructure, such as light rail or heavy rail. Some distinguish BRT as “an incremental investment that may be the precursor to eventual implementation of rail” (Polzin and Baltes 2002, p. 60). Published research speculates that BRT, as a “new” mode of public transportation, has the potential to reduce travel times, attract new riders, and encourage transit-oriented development (Levinson et al. 2002). A Transit Cooperative Research Program report (TCRP 2003, p. 1) defines BRT in the following manner: BRT is a flexible, rubber-tired rapid-transit mode that combines stations, vehicles, services, running ways, and intelligent transportation system (ITS) elements into an integrated system with a strong positive identity that evokes a unique image. BRT applications are designed to be appropriate to the market they serve and their physical surroundings, and they can be incrementally implemented in a variety of environments. We believe that the term “flexible” in the preceding definition is nonspecific, and as such would substitute the term “scalar” to better underscore the incremental and progressive nature of BRT system implementation. Perhaps more important than the exactitude of the definition, however, is the inclusion of the words “strong positive image” and “unique identity.” These phrases underscore the significance of and the demand for transit planners to devise a well-conceived and consistently deployed BRT identity program to shape public perception and acceptance of BRT as a viable mode of transport that can be distinguished from existing bus service. While the mention of identity in this report is noteworthy, of equal importance is our observation that the TCRP report offers no references to other studies about BRT identity. The report cites no exemplars of BRT identity as precedents, offers little guidance as to what constitutes a BRT identity program, nor does it define the constructs of a BRT identity program. We argue that the success of any new or improved transit service, such as BRT, is dependent on the creation of an effective identity program that captures public attention and effectively conveys informaBus Rapid Transit Identity 21 tion about the service to its current users and potential users. In the following section we develop a clearly articulated definition of BRT identity. Because BRT is a relatively new mode of public transit, there is a pronounced lack of qualitative and evaluative research about this service. Instead, much research has focused on quantifiable measures, such as how investments in infrastructure, vehicles and facilities, operational improvements, and technology can provide the framework for BRT service that upgrades the performance of traditional bus systems (Hess, Taylor, and Yoh 2005; Levinson et al. 2002; Polzin and Baltes 2002). Other research projects have compared the capital costs of BRT versus light and heavy rail projects and concluded that operating flexibility and lower infrastructure and equipment costs make BRT an attractive option for the expansion of public transit in mid-sized cities (U.S. General Accounting Office 2001; Sislak 2000; Wilbur Smith 1999; Euclid Consultants 1995). Additionally, qualitative evaluation and critical assessment of both transit identity programs and BRT identity programs are conspicuously absent from the literature. Previous public transit research has investigated marketing (Bond 1984; Price Waterhouse 1998; Rosenbloom 1998), market segmentation (Elmore-Yalch 1988; Kemp 1993; Reinke 1988) and consumer perception of transit (Wachs 1976). However, while such elements of public transit marketing programs have been studied separately, comprehensive investigation of how these components interrelate with consumer perception to formulate a comprehensive transit identity program has yet to be addressed. Despite a gap in the literature and a lack of documented case studies of transit identity, the emergence of BRT provides a unique opportunity to change negative perceptions regarding public transit in North America. However, this task is challenging without reliable, quantifiable methods that measure perception of transit-related identity. Therefore, while the approach outlined in this research is appropriate for the current stage of maturity of BRT identity, we offer this method with the caveat that as BRT service evolves and as the modes of identity communication become more complex, more pervasive, and less overt, quantifiable assessment methods and measures specific to transit should be pursued. Despite this, our evaluation examines the current practice and effectiveness of BRT identity systems using metrics previously used to assess the perception of public transit in general, along with widely accepted models used to assess the perception of corporate identities. Throughout this evaluation, we examine the practical and perceptual constructs of identity programs specific to BRT systems. Journal of Public Transportation, Vol. 11, No. 2, 2008 22 Our assessment includes a clearly articulated definition of BRT identity through an examination of its derivative, corporate identity (which is both colloquially and erroneously referred to as its “brand”1); an examination of corporate identity as a precedent to BRT identity programs; and an evaluation of commonalities and trends among the representative BRT programs. Our findings lead us to argue that the desired increase in public transit ridership and the ultimate success of BRT systems depend on practical considerations of consumer perception of BRT identity. Bus Rapid Transit Identity BRT Identity Defined A clear definition of our use of the term “BRT identity” requires differentiation between the concepts of identity, branding, marketing, and advertising. Identity is a construct of recognition prescribed to an entity—a corporation, a system, an organization, and its component parts. Olins (1978) argues that corporate identity in objective terms is passive; identity is simply a mechanism to broadcast “being” or existence to a public, which helps to guide and shape public perception of that entity. Identity and the elements that constitute identity—logotypes, slogans, jingles, signature colors, marketing plans, advertising spots, and so forth—simply remind the public of the existence of a particular entity. The goal is to prompt recognition at a later date or in a different context (Olins 1990). Branding is the application of similar constructs to a particular product or range of products. Branding is the junior cousin of corporate identity but is arguably the more pervasive and outstanding of the two. Brands and identities both provide a degree of recognition to an inanimate entity, commodity, or object. Branding generates allegiance and commonality between purveyors and consumers who are spatially removed from one another or who do not otherwise have a personal relationship (Olins 1990). Marketing is the science of forming a strategy to create, advertise, and sustain a brand or identity. Marketing is a long-term and synergistic endeavor based on quantifiable data that aims to target specific market groups and to serve these groups as market forces demand. Market research identifies the wants and needs of the consumer and, as a result, brands and identities are often shaped with these wants and needs in mind. Bus Rapid Transit Identity 23 Advertising is the systematic practice of convincing a consumer. Advertising activities are clearly defined by a strategic marketing plan and draw from the resources of a clearly articulated corporate identity and product brand. Increasingly, consumers react to advertising and subscribe to brands and identities because these modes of communication represent a desired way of life or a set of ideals (Bierut, Drenttel, and Heller 2002). The constructs, definitions, and perceptual issues related to branding, identity programs, marketing, and advertising are well documented in the literature and the popular press, and research indicates that contemporary consumers do indeed react to these seemingly ephemeral prompts. We believe that much in the same manner that brands help to underscore a broader parental identity and incite trust in inanimate consumer commodities (Balmer and Wilson 1998), BRT identity programs can help to create a distinct and positive public perception of BRT while cultivating trust and reinvigorating a positive reputation for bus service. We formulate a working definition of BRT identity that encompasses visually communicated elements (that signal consumer wants, needs, and other behaviors), strategy, and impact on industrywide identity. Though measurable, BRT identity programs (herein BRT IdP) are perceptual constructs substantiated by the strategic deployment, placement, and management of communication design elements that allow people to distinguish and remember the unique qualities of a specific BRT service from other services offered by a parent transit agency, similar services from competing agencies, and other modes of transportation altogether. In our analysis, we evaluate BRT identity programs that feature a distinct combination of communicative visual and perceptual elements that follow in the tradition of broader identity programs as they are used to delineate a BRT line from other bus services and that highlight desirable service characteristics of BRT (see Table 1). Because of this complex interrelated nature of identity, branding, advertising, and marketing, and the potential far-reaching effects of these activities on broader transportation trends (both public and private), we opt to refer to our investigation as “BRT identity,” rather than simply “BRT branding.” Visual design elements usually form the collective cornerstone of any identity program, and for BRT the principal visual element is typically the BRT name represented by a logo. The logo serves as a visual prompt signifying an identity (English 1998) and supports or is supported by other design elements such as typography, unique color palettes, illustrations, and icons. Well-managed identity programs ensure proper and consistent use of visual design elements across a broad range Journal of Public Transportation, Vol. 11, No. 2, 2008 24 of outputs, media, and scale and characteristically define specific rules for use of color palette as well as the use of type, photographic images, and proper placement and management of a logo. The visual design components of a BRT IdP are usually deployed across a broad array of media at various scales; this approach can help to fully articulate an identity for a BRT system (and delineate BRT service from other services of a parent transit agency). BRT IdP can range from large-scale constructed design elements (shelter furniture and kiosk-based system maps) and large-scale environmental graphic design installations (shelter or stop signage and way-finding indicators) to smaller scale print publications (timetables and advertisements) and virtual applications (websites and television or video productions). The BRT IdP also may incorporate signature identifiers such as acronyms, formal or informal names, or graphic renditions of unique design features of BRT vehicles, iconic landscape features, or architectural landmarks. Figure 1 shows how components of a BRT IdP are communicated on a vehicle, the most common medium for communication of the BRT IdP. Overview of Transit Identity While BRT is relatively new, the creation of transit identity programs, and more broadly advertising, marketing, and branding public transit, is not a new endeavor. Early examples of transit identity usually served to reinforce the perceptions of a public enamored with the novelty and technological marvels of mechanized transport. Between 1910 and the late 1920s, London Transport expanded its bus and rail system and established an identity campaign that included “carefully designed lettering everywhere, and publicity, especially by posters, conveyed the message Table 1. Corporate Identity, Brand, Marketing and Advertising Analogs for BRT Bus Rapid Transit Identity 25 Fi gu re 1 . C om po ne nt s of B R T Id P as D ep lo ye d on a V eh ic le Journal of Public Transportation, Vol. 11, No. 2, 2008 26 whenever the undertaking was addressing the public” (Baker and Robbins 1974, p. 250). Other notable achievements in the evolution of comprehensive transit identity programs include the 1890 colloquial adoption of the identifier “T” to signify the subway in Boston (General Drafting Company and Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority 1977), the iconic London Routemaster double-decked buses introduced in the late 1950s, Henry Beck’s 1930 London Underground map, as well as more recent examples such as Massimo Vignelli’s 1970 New York City Subway map (Heller and Pomeroy 1997) and signage system, and Vignelli’s 1965 Washington Metro signage (Schrag 2001). Contemporary transit officials perhaps seek to follow the successes of previous identity efforts, and in addition, many believe that BRT holds great potential because of its lower development and implementation costs (compared to rail transit), expandability, and operating scalability.2 Undoubtedly, this new service offering is ripe for a new marketing and consumer communication approach. An attraction of BRT is the promise that it can provide lower cost, high-quality service that retains current riders, attracts new riders (with speedier service), and gains political and taxpayer support for public transit (Polzin and Baltes 2002), and this support can be enhanced and extended through a thoughtfully developed and well-maintained BRT IdP. The physical features of BRT vary but typically include some of the following: exclusive rights-of-way and direct routing, intersection and signal priority, improved passenger boarding, coordination with land-use planning, limited stations, frequent all-day service, prepaid fares, level boarding, unique vehicles, and the use of ITS (Levinson et al. 2002). For passengers, these features make a bus ride faster and more convenient. Typical service characteristics are highlighted in a variety of printed materials on the subject of BRT—published research, press releases, informational brochures, Internet websites—using terminology that identifies BRT as fast and convenient service that is distinct from traditional fixed-route transit. The efficacy of these physical manifestations of BRT service are discrete and are therefore easy to identify, clear to monitor, and straightforward to evaluate. Other constructs, such as visual identity elements, are more subjective, harder to monitor, and difficult to assess, but can equally influence ridership. We describe these constructs as “perceptual.” The perceptual image of public transit—that is, transit identity—can be defined as a function of vehicles, shelters, and identity. We expand on this relationship of elements to include a factor of identity deployment that is achieved through the diffusion of collateral materials—elements that Bus Rapid Transit Identity 27 communicate identity such as way-finding and directional signage, printed maps and schedules, corporate communications, advertisements, posters, flyers, and driver and transit police uniforms—as well as ephemeral materials, such as website design and television and radio advertisements. Consequently, we define transit identity in this manner: Transit Identity = ƒ (vehicles, shelters and stations, collateral materials)