Branding

Image via Wikipedia

While I don't always agree with Jarrett over at the Human Transit Blog one of the things he will often bring up that I 100% agree with is the importance of branding. It seems that many transit systems especially here in the United States does a poor job of branding its transit service. Here in Utah, UTA does have TRAX and MAX but overall has not done a good job of branding its service.

Even UTA's much talked about BRT project is not branded very well. Sure it has special bus stop shelters and buses but there is little to set it apart from regular bus service. Even the controversial Van Hool buses have the basic paint scheme with just some wrapping added to make it stand out. Not only do the buses not stand out but UTA is not keeping them to the MAX line exclusively. One of the ten Van Hools has been assigned to the 220 on a regular basis.

Now if it was a break down replacement I could somewhat see (but then again how many other non-Van Hool buses UTA has?) but this bus has been assigned for some time. I have seen it on the route for more than 3 weeks so clearly they are not keeping them exclusively to the MAX line.

For most transit agencies you cannot tell one bus route from another beyond the route number. After Metro in Los Angeles started up Metro Rapid they started painting Rapid buses in Red, Local buses in Orange and the few express routes they have left in Blue. This allows the Rapid buses to have their own identity and clearly set them apart from every other bus in the system. Metro does seem to do a pretty good job of keeping the buses to where they belong but when shortages do occur you may see a Rapid bus on a local line and local bus on Rapid.

So how could UTA do a better job of branding its service?

Since the investment has been made in BRT, the buses assigned to those routes need to have their own identity. The buses should have their own paint scheme and except in emergencies stay on their own route.

UTA also has a large number of MCI commuter cruisers now in the fleet. While Front Runner will reduce the need for these buses in some places, there is also opportunities to expand these service to new areas (such as the Park City proposal). Once again the commuter cruisers could be painted in its own scheme and create its own brand such as "Regional Connector" or something like that.

While UTA has done a somewhat adequate job when it comes to its 15-minute service with its system maps and bus stop signs, more can be done. To make those routes stand out even more from a marketing perspective you have a special paint scheme and special bus stop signs.

There is many opportunities for transit services across the country to better brand themselves and create brands within their identity.

My Comments about Weber/Davis County

Last week, I took a trip up to Weber/Davis counties. There was a couple of main reasons why I wanted to head up there: 1. To ride line 626 which I have not had a chance to ride since it was changed several years ago. 2. To ride one of the new Gillig buses that UTA claim are so wonderful and much better than a standard bus.

I will so glad when I can jump on FrontRunner and head up to Weber County but right now it was a trip on the 11 to the 72.

Riding the 72 is nice with the nice Commuter Cruiser MCI buses. However, the driver need some customer service training. While he wasn't unfriendly he was not friendly and when asked the question answered very Borg like and refused to give a straight answer.

On the 626 the driver was friendly to most customers including myself but on the other hand did yell at one elderly lady for standing up when he was stopping at a light and a Junior High student for taking to long to load up his bike on the rack.

All the other drivers through out the day where friendly which is not unusual as most of the drivers I encounter on UTA are good.

The next bus was the 610 and it was one of the new Gillig buses. I do not see much difference between this bus and the 1999 and 2001 Gillig buses UTA has except for seamless windows, new front and rear caps, and a more deluxe cloth on the seats. In addition two of the buses had problems. The first one on the 610 had very back breaks that squealed worst than any other bus I have every ridden. To top it off I got this same bus heading back later in the day. The other problem was the back door was broken on one of them on the 603. Not good for a bus that is only a few weeks old.

Overall ridership on all the routes I rode was good except for the 626. In the morning I was the only customer for more than half the route. Returning in the afternoon toward WSU Davis there was several customers on and off along the whole route so ridership is building.

Another observation was that there was construction on the 612 that is delaying the buses up to 10 minutes. Yet, there is nothing posted on any bus stop sign mentioning that there could be delays which since this will last through the summer. UTA needs to keep its customers better informed on what is happening. (Look for more on this when I talk about Utah County). Customers need to know if their buses are going to be delayed.

Overall, ridership was good on all the routes I rode, most of the drivers where friendly, and the system seems to do the basics of what needs to be done. However, there is plenty of room for improvement in the system and UTA needs to continue providing better service to its customers.