Executive Summary
The Canada Border Services Agency commissioned Phoenix SPI to conduct a set of 12 focus groups to explore perceptions of the NEXUS Highway and NEXUS Air programs among Canadian residents that travel frequently to the United States. Focus groups were held in five locations September 19 to October 3, with two groups in each of Montreal (French), Toronto, Windsor, and Niagara Falls, and four groups in Vancouver.
This research was qualitative in nature, not quantitative. As such, the results provide an indication of participants' views about the issues explored, but cannot be generalized to the full population of Canadian residents who travel frequently to the United States, whether by car or plane.
Context: Border Crossing Patterns & Experience
- Consistent with the research specifications, participants had travelled frequently by car or air into the U.S. during the previous 12 months, with most having done so 10 times or more. While air travellers tended to travel for business purposes, most land travellers visited the U.S. for a variety of personal reasons. Shopping topped the list by a wide margin, followed by a host of leisure activities, such as watching sporting events, taking part in sports tournaments, going to concerts, skiing, golfing and hiking, camping and vacations, and visiting family or friends.
- Participants had mixed experiences when entering the U.S. by land or air. While many characterised their experiences as quick and trouble-free, many others travelling by land said their experiences varied considerably (i.e. some crossings were quick and easy, others were not). It appeared, however, that most were able to cross the border relatively quickly and trouble-free most, if not all, of the time. Quick land crossings (very common) were generally 15 minutes or less, with longer ones usually 30-45 minutes; "bad" experiences, relatively uncommon, were one hour or more. For air travellers, experiences with customs/security were generally much longer, with some reporting that this could take two or more hours; that said, times of about one hour appeared to be the norm.
- Most participants think it is more difficult to enter the U.S. than it was five years ago, particularly air travellers. Air travellers pointed to many changes they have seen at airports, viewing security as far stricter compared to pre-9/11. This includes detailed checking/swabbing of electronic items, more extreme body searches, including having to remove shoes, greater restrictions on carry-on items (e.g. confiscation of tweezers, lighters or razors), more extensive customs questioning, and more scrutiny of personal identification. Many land travellers find border crossings to be less predicable in terms of wait times and customs treatment, including increased volume/variety of questions (with children questioned sometimes). There is also a requirement to show I.D. more consistently and to have "better" I.D. (e.g. birth certificate, passport).
- In terms of returning to Canada from the U.S., most participants felt that this is easier, with the exception of the tax/duties issue. Numerous people described Canadian officials as more laid back, friendlier and more polite.
- Looking ahead 2-3 years, most think that cross-border travel to the U.S. will become more difficult. There was a pervasive impression that the state of the world has changed substantially in the past few years, resulting in increased importance placed on border security. There was a strong sense that this would continue. As such, most think the challenges they now face in terms of cross-border travel will only escalate, with greater use of enhanced security techniques, including biometrics (fingerprint/iris scans), greater levels of security screening, and increased use of racial profiling. Many think that new technologies will be used, both for land and air travel, and that while over the longer term this has the potential to speed up border crossings, it would likely slow them down before the technologies are perfected. Some pointed to an increased volume in cross-border travel, for a variety of reasons (tourism, business, etc.), suggesting that this alone could result in more congestion and delays.
- Relatively few participants have ever looked for or obtained information on programs or measures designed to facilitate border crossing between Canada and the U.S. Those that have (typically very frequent cross-border travellers) pointed to a number of motivators, principally facilitating quicker, more convenient crossings, satisfying their curiosity (e.g. seeing others using the NEXUS lanes), and general interest.
Awareness of NEXUS Programs
- Awareness of the NEXUS programs was decidedly uneven. It was quite limited in Toronto and Montreal (e.g. a minority in every group had heard of it), but was higher in Vancouver, Windsor and Niagara Falls. In terms of Vancouver and the two border cities, higher awareness did not translate into familiarity with program details – the vast majority knew little beyond surface-level details, much of which was either incomplete or even incorrect.
- In terms of overall perceptions, many, perhaps most, of those aware of NEXUS thought it was for daily (i.e. commuter) or business travellers. They tended to learn about the programs through various means: NEXUS signs at the airport or border crossings, customs officials, friends, colleagues or family members, and the media. Among those previously aware of NEXUS, only a relatively small number had considered joining, although this was higher in Niagara Falls (where some participants had been CANPASS members). Reasons for not joining included the lengthy application/screening process (seen to be onerous), the cost, a "low likelihood" of being accepted, and that it did not seem worthwhile for those who often had purchases to declare at customs.
Perceptions of NEXUS Programs
Participants were asked to read a short description of the NEXUS Highway/Air program, which provided a good overview of the program (e.g. how to apply, how it works, etc.).
- In terms of overall impressions, most participants reacted favourably to NEXUS. While many questioned the utility of it for them personally, they nevertheless offered positive assessments of NEXUS overall. People attributed their positive impressions to the increased efficiency, convenience and ease of border crossing the programs might offer members, the reasonable cost, and perceptions that NEXUS might address congestion by streamlining cross-border travel, and that safety/security were not compromised.
- Some participants offered neutral-to-negative assessments of NEXUS in terms of overall impressions. The reasons identified most often included the application process (seen to be onerous), the use of biometrics (both fingerprint or retinal), the fact that everyone in the vehicle must be a member, the inclusion of children, the cost, and the limited hours of operation at some border crossings.
- Most participants thought the programs would provide an effective means to reduce border crossing delays while maintaining safety and security. That said, most of these people offered one or more caveats – that is, the programs should theoretically improve the speed of border crossings; however, the extent to which they ultimately do achieve this target would depend on a number of factors. This includes the number of people enrolled in the program and various operational aspects of the programs (e.g. speed of processing by border officials, speed of kiosk process for air travel, number of officials available for NEXUS lanes, etc.). In short, most participants felt that NEXUS has the potential to reduce congestion while maintaining security, but were not sure if this were actually the case or whether this would be the case in future.
- In general, NEXUS does not tend to address the issues/concerns that participants have as frequent travellers between Canada and the U.S. Most people did not have a personal need for the program, particularly land travellers. That is, they simply had no significant issues or concerns as frequent travellers that needed to be addressed. As well, the need for all passengers to be NEXUS members, the physical layout of border crossings (e.g. NEXUS lane only available for last 500 feet), and a few other factors limited the utility or value that NEXUS might otherwise have for some participants.
- Participants identified a variety of advantages or benefits that might flow from joining NEXUS. They were most likely to draw attention to the ease of cross-border travel that might result (e.g. faster, less waiting time, increased convenience, greater efficiency, reduced stress). Such benefits were seen to be most valuable to business travellers (i.e. time is money, so these programs might present a good return on investment).
- Participants also identified numerous drawbacks to joining NEXUS. These included the application process, program availability, personal security/privacy (the sharing of personal information, risk of identity theft, etc.), use of biometrics (both fingerprinting and iris scan; some wondered whether the latter was safe), the need for everyone in the vehicle to be enrolled, and perceptions that NEXUS Highway does not solve traffic congestion problems due to various limitations (e.g. access roads, number of crossings, number of booths open, lack of personnel, etc.).
Motivations to Join/Not Join NEXUS
- The large majority of participants in the NEXUS Highway focus groups – more than three-quarters – said they were unlikely to join the program. Not only were relatively few likely to join, most of those who did express interest tended to be moderately not strongly interested. Those who said they were at least somewhat likely to join the program pointed to time savings/speed, efficiency, convenience and cost. Participants who were not likely to join the program pointed most often to a lack of need (i.e. not inconvenienced enough to need to join). The lack of need was articulated particularly strongly in Toronto, Montreal and Niagara Falls, but was evident in all locations.
- There was considerably more interest expressed in NEXUS Air – approximately half of the participants said they might be likely to join. Potential enrolees focused on similar issues to those expressed for NEXUS Highway – speed, convenience, efficiency, less hassle, better time management, less interaction with customs officials, and less stress. Those who were not likely to join the program pointed a general lack of need, the costs ($80 for one year), and the fingerprint/iris scan. Few participants would be interested in joining the program until after the pilot stage was over. The enrolment process struck them as too onerous to undertake for a program that might end in April 2006.
- A range of different aspects or features of the NEXUS programs were reviewed with participants – one at a time – to get a better reading of each. For those who were unlikely to join the program, participants were asked whether each issue was a factor in their decision-making. Those who think they might join the program were asked whether the issue represented an irritant or an area of concern about the program. Many issues emerged as negative factors or concerns, at least among some participants:
- Two-thirds or more said they had no need for the program, while similar numbers expressed concern about the location of the enrolment centres.
- Approximately half expressed concern about the application/screening process (seen to be onerous), the hours of operation of NEXUS lanes (particularly in Montreal, Vancouver), and the need for all passengers to be NEXUS members (many routinely go with different shopping partners, friends, family members, etc.).
- Between one-quarter to one-third expressed privacy concerns (for some this was a big issue, for others a non-issue), concerns about the sharing of personal information with the U.S. (e.g. how they would use the information, how long they would keep it), doubts about the effectiveness of NEXUS (both for facilitating crossings and dealing with congestion), concerns about the fingerprint/iris biometrics, and concerns about the potential for decreased security.
- Relatively few expressed concern about the cost of the programs or the border crossings (or airport) where they are offered.
- Many participants volunteered that enrolling in NEXUS was like obtaining a second passport, and questioned the need for both. There were numerous calls for combining the processes so that people would only need to apply once – they would like to see harmonization of the different requirements to reduce both the cost and hassles.
Promoting NEXUS Programs
- Participants offered numerous suggestions on how to increase awareness of NEXUS at the border points where it is available. Moreover, the suggestions that were identified were raised with considerable frequency across the various focus groups. Most of the ideas focused on increasing the visibility of NEXUS at border points, such as having customs officials hand out information pamphlets, using billboards or other signage, placing pamphlets/posters in duty free stores, and putting ads on special-purpose radio stations that broadcast information about the conditions at local border crossings.
- Suggestions identified with some frequency for the promotion of NEXUS Air at the Vancouver airport included placing signage/pamphlets at appropriate locations at the airport (particularly where it will be seen by travellers to the U.S.), placing posters in the washroom in the international travel section, having ticket agents hand out pamphlets at the check-in desk to people destined to the U.S., and having an information kiosk or roving "ambassadors" hand out information/answer questions.
- There was also considerable frequency in the places where participants would expect to find information about NEXUS beyond the actual border points. Heading the list is passport offices and travel agents (including the CAA), hotels/motels (particularly those at/near airports/border crossings), car rental offices, leisure and travel magazines, outlet/shopping malls near border crossings, business publications, and information with the renewal of drivers licenses (including kiosks).
Conclusions and Implications
The research findings suggest that the NEXUS programs are generally well regarded by participants, but are not seen to be personally useful to most of them for various reasons. While participants do have mixed experiences when "crossing the border", this is generally not a problem, particularly for land crossings, less so for air travel. Despite the fact that most participants think that travel delays/border scrutiny have gotten worse compared to pre-9/11, particularly for air travel, the general perception is that things worsened for a period and then essentially returned to how they were before, at least for land crossings. Average wait times for land border crossings are often less than 15 minutes, and travellers have developed strategies to keep the border crossing times low (e.g. cross at non-peak hours/ locations, avoid holidays, dress well, etc.). While wait times are longer for air travel, this is expected by air travellers, and much of it has to do with security screening, which remains essentially unchanged with or without NEXUS.
As a result, the main reason offered to explain the lack of interest in NEXUS is a lack of need – most participants have not been inconvenienced enough to want to explore/adopt new solutions. This may change in future, since most participants do expect land/air border crossings to become more difficult, primarily due to geopolitical considerations. However, at this point in time, there is limited demand for the programs. In summary, the context in which NEXUS operates is one of a general absence of problems, or at least of significant problems. Consequently, NEXUS is a solution to a problem that does not really exist for many participants, most especially land travellers.
Interestingly, many, even most, participants viewed NEXUS as being useful for commuters or business travellers, which was seen to mean people who cross the border very frequently – for land, seen to be almost daily or at least weekly. Significantly, those participants who were most interested in NEXUS tended to be really frequently travellers (by land, almost weekly; by air, frequent business trips).
In addition to the general lack of interest in joining NEXUS, there were numerous irritants or areas of concern with the programs articulated by participants. Principal among them are the location of the enrolment centres (most think these should be in downtown areas, such as passport offices), the application process (widely seen to be burdensome), the hours of operation of some NEXUS lanes (particularly near Montreal, Vancouver), and the need for all passengers to be NEXUS members. Each of these factors had a significant impact on some participants. There were also significant doubts about the effectiveness of NEXUS Highway for facilitating crossings due mainly to delayed access to the NEXUS lanes (i.e. only in the last 500 feet or so, after people may have been waiting in long line-ups). Fewer expressed concerns about privacy, the sharing of personal information with the U.S., and the fingerprint/iris biometrics. That said, these were still factors that led to some discomfort with the programs among some participants.
It was clear that awareness of NEXUS was mixed, with relatively good awareness in border locations and much lower in cities, particularly Montreal and Toronto. This points to the need to raise awareness, something that is likely best done at the border-crossing locations themselves (which was the focus of most suggestions).
Despite the list of potential negative factors, "fixing" such irritants or raising awareness cannot be expected to have much impact on the take-up rate for NEXUS. While some aspects of the NEXUS programs do warrant consideration and potential modification, each potential change on its own would likely have limited impact, and a more broad set of program changes would still not address the lack-of-demand issue. Ironically, the biggest factor that would impact on enrolment rates is for the cross-border situation to get worse (i.e. more delays, etc.). Combining the application processes for the NEXUS programs and passports might also have a positive impact on membership. In the absence of worsening cross border circumstances, and without harmonizing the enrolment process with passports, one should expect limited impact on enrolment rates even if other measures are taken.
It is worth noting that the feedback provided by participants was quite consistent, regardless of location or language. It was also largely consistent across the two programs (i.e. NEXUS Air and NEXUS Highway), although interest in the air program was greater than in the land program. This is undoubtedly due, in part, to the time and effort it takes to be approved to enter the U.S., which is proportionately greater when travelling by air.