Upload
others
View
4
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Regional Transitway Guidelines
Identity and Branding UpdateAdvisory CommitteeSeptember 27, 2010
Committee Purpose
• Provide guidance for branding, imaging and marketing transitway services in the Twin Cities region
• Review and make recommends related to:- Identifying target audiences- Determining the “brand promise”- Developing branding approaches
Definitions• Identity – A mechanism to broadcast
“being” or existence to the public• Brand – The sum of all images,
perceptions, experiences that creates a consistent impression in the mind of the consumer
• Branding – A planned effort to identify, present, and differentiate a product or service
Benefits of Branding Transitways• Clearly differentiates transit service types• Enhances marketing and outreach efforts• Increases ease of use for customers• Creates loyal customers with consistent
delivery of a brand promise
Branding Hierarchy Consideration
• Regional System (not addressing here)– All transit services and all providers
• Transitway System– 2030 Transitway system plan
• Service Type– Local bus, express bus, LRT, BRT, commuter rail
• Corridor or Line– Cedar Ave., I-35W, Hiawatha, Northstar, Red Rock
• Provider– Metro Transit, MVTA, SouthWest, etc.
Identity: Service CharacteristicsLocal Bus LRT/BRT All‐Day Service Commuter Express Service
Local Bus Arterial BRT
Highway BRTStation‐to‐Station Light Rail Express Bus
Highway BRTExpress
Commuter Rail
Speed Low Medium Medium Medium High High High
Access High Medium Medium Medium Low Low Low
Frequency Availability
High High High High Low Low Low
Reliability MediumMedium‐High
High High Medium High High
Recommendation 1:Brand LRT and BRT Station-to-Station service as one system• LRT and Station-to-Station Hwy BRT
services in the region will operate similarly and should be positioned, branded and identified as one system to maximize effectiveness
• Some industry studies suggest that branding and imaging alone can contribute to 10 to 20 percent ridership increases
Technical Committee Considerations for LRT/BRT Station-to-Station line naming scheme
• What others do around the country?• How will the service operate?• Can it accommodate service expansion?• Must be easy to use, remember, identify• Compatibility with other Transitway
components to be branded
Transitway System Schemes – Other Regions• Not many regions have LRT and BRT in
operation today• Bus-only systems clearly distinguish BRT
from regular service• Rail and bus systems can link the two
together, but the message has to be supported by practice
Boston• Red Line• Orange Line• Green Line• Blue Line• Silver Line
(BRT)
• Commuter Rail Separate
Cleveland• Red Line (Airport –
Windermere)• Green Line (Shaker)• Blue Line (Van Aken)• Waterfront Line• HealthLine (Euclid) –
Originally “Silver Line”
Charlotte
• Lynx System• Blue Line (LRT)• Red Line
(Commuter Rail)• Silver Line (BRT)• Green = streetcar
Dallas• Red Line• Blue Line• Green Line• Trinity Railway
Express (TRE, Commuter Rail)
Recommendation 2: LRT and BRT Station-to-Station lines should be named using a color-coded scheme
• Name LRT/BRT Station-to-Station lines not corridors– Operational considerations now and future– Universal customer understanding– Visually distinct and easily connectable
• Arterial BRT branded as a system, but not using color-coded named lines
• Commuter rail would use individual names separate from LRT/BRT system naming
Should the LRT/BRT Station-to-Station color-coded lines have a system name?• Desire for system name to unify the
LRT/BRT station-to-station transitways . . . brand BRT on the same level as LRT
• Consistent message to the public• Common practice to brand a system of
transitways something unique
Brand/Name – Transitway SystemsRegion LRT/Rail BRT/BuswayPortland “MAX” -
Pittsburgh “T” Busway
Los Angeles “Metro Rail” “Metro Rapid” “MetroTransitway”
Salt Lake City “TRAX” “MAX”
Kansas City - “MAX”
Denver “The Ride” -
St. Louis “Metrolink” -
Boston “T”
Cleveland Rapid transit system
San Diego Trolley “Super Loop”
Seattle “Link” “RapidRide”
Service BrandingKansas City – “MAX” BRT
Service BrandingCommunity Transit – “Swift” BRT
Service BrandingKansas City – “MAX” BRT
Service BrandingCommunity Transit – “Swift” BRT
Regional Transit Denver – “TheRide” LRT
Service Branding
Recommendation 3:LRT and BRT Station to Station service should be branded using a distinct system name
• LRT and BRT are premium services• Similar attributes from service operations
perspective…consistent brand promise• Value in branding them as a system
– System connectivity emphasized– The brand should differentiate from other
regional services– Important that the brand doesn’t over promise
Integrating the system and line branding strategies with the other components
1. Brand LRT and BRT Station to Station service as one system with a distinct system name
2. LRT and BRT Station to Station lines should be named using a color-coded scheme
3. Application to other Transitway components- Stations & Signage- Customer Information- Vehicles- Other
Station & Signage Branding• What elements are important at stations?• Branding hierarchy should be considered • Both local and regional interests considered
Station Name
Line Identity
Provider(s)
System Brand
Provider name(s) can be important at transfer locations
Service BrandingRegional Transit Denver – “TheRide” LRT
Recommendation 4: Stations & Signage Branding Guidelines
• LRT and BRT stations branding should:– …be consistent and very visible in display of the
station name, line identity and system brand– …include provider brands for connectivity but at a
secondary level of visibility – …provide customer information including system
maps and timetables of consistent design and high quality
– …give consideration to the appropriate blend of other regional and system branding needs and local distinctions
Other Customer Information Elements for branding consideration
• Signage• Kiosk schedules and maps• Printed schedules and maps• Brochures/publications• Web site info• Advertising• Public Relations
Vehicle Branding Considerations• LRT and BRT station-to-station vehicles will need
to operate on any transitway of their respective service type, regardless of provider area
• Brand hierarchy on the vehicle
Line Identity
Provider(s)
System Brand
Recommendation 5:LRT and BRT station-to-station vehicles should reflect a consistent system brand
• A new system brand for LRT/BRT station-to-station vehicles should be created and be the most prominent brand on vehicles
• BRT Station to Station vehicles should be branded similar to LRT but different enough to differentiate from other bus service types
• Connectivity to the regional system still important– Do transitways connect with other services – Can I use my passes and transfers?
Vehicle BrandingTwin Cites - LRT and BRT Station to Station Vehicles
The Ride
The RideThe Ride
Vehicle BrandingTwin Cities – Commuter Rail
Vehicle BrandingTwin Cities – TransitLink, Metro Mobility, Bus
Next Steps (not part of guidelines process)• Selection of service brand name (public
involvement process)• Color selections for lines• Concept designs
– Vehicles– Signs– Maps and other customer information
• Metro Transit Arterial BRT study