Regional Transitw ay Guidelines Identity and Branding Update - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Regional Transitw ay Guidelines

Identity and Branding Update Advisory Committee September 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 Transitw ays

• 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 Characteristics

Local Bus LRT/BRT All‐Day Service Commuter Express Service Local Bus Arterial BRT Highway BRT Station‐to‐ Station Light Rail Express Bus Highway BRT Express 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

Medium Medium‐ 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

Transitw ay System Schemes – Other Regions

• Not many regions have LRT and BRT in
• peration 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 – Transitw ay Systems

Region LRT/Rail BRT/Busway Portland “MAX”

• Pittsburgh

“T” Busway Los Angeles “Metro Rail” “Metro Rapid” “Metro Transitway” 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 Branding

Kansas City – “MAX” BRT

Service Branding

Community Transit – “Swift” BRT

Service Branding

Kansas City – “MAX” BRT

Service Branding

Community 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 w ith 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 Branding

Regional 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

• ther 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 Branding

Twin Cites - LRT and BRT Station to Station Vehicles

The Ride

The Ride The Ride

Vehicle Branding

Twin Cities – Commuter Rail

Vehicle Branding

Twin 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