USF Libraries
USF Digital Collections

The impact of Hurricane Andrew on Tri-Rail ridership

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
The impact of Hurricane Andrew on Tri-Rail ridership
Physical Description:
1 online resource (48, A-3, B-4 p.) : map, charts. ;
Language:
English
Creator:
University of South Florida -- Center for Urban Transportation Research
Publisher:
University of South Florida, Center for Urban Transportation Research
Place of Publication:
Tampa, Fla
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Railroads -- Commuting traffic -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Local transit -- Ridership -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Hurricanes -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Hurricane Andrew, 1992   ( lcsh )
Genre:
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

Statement of Responsibility:
by Center for Urban Transportation Research, College of Engineering, University of South Florida.
General Note:
"Prepared for: Tri-County Commuter Rail Authority."
General Note:
"June 1993."

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of South Florida Library
Holding Location:
University of South Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 029197452
oclc - 754241167
usfldc doi - C01-00027
usfldc handle - c1.27
System ID:
SFS0032150:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

THE IMPACT OF HURRICANE ANDREW ON TRI-RAIL RIDERSHIP Prepared for. Tri<:ounty Commuter Rail Authority By: Center for Urban Transportation Research College of Engineering University of South Florida Tampa, Florida June 1993

PAGE 2

II

PAGE 3

TABLE OF CONTEN T S . Table of Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vu Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 I. II. INTRODUCTION ..... .................. ..... . .. SURVEY ANALYSI S ....... . . . .................... ... 3 7 Hurr icane Andrew's Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Demographic Informa t ion . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Travel Behavior ..... ... , . . . 2 7 User Satisfaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Ill. SUMMARY & CONCLUSIONS ... ..... : . . . . . . . . 45 APPENDIX A Crosst abulat ions . . . . . . . . . . . A l APPENDIX B Survey I nstrument . . . . . . . . . . . B l i ii

PAGE 4

IV

PAGE 5

LIST OF TABLES ... Table 1 Response Rates for Days Surveyed . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Tab l e 2 Weighted Tota l Response Rates for Question 27 and Question 28 . . . 14 Table 3 Comparison of Impact ed and Non I mpacted Patro n Factors that Resul te d in Use of Tri-Rail Distrib u t ions . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 5 Tab le 4 Patron Use of Expan ded Service for Work Trips Distributions . . . . 16 Table 5 Patron Use of Expanded Service for Leisure Trips Distributions . . . . 17 Table 6 Comparison of Impacted and Non-Impacted Patron Age Profile Distr ibu t ions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Table 7 Comparison of Impacted and Non-Impacted Patron Gender Profile Distributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Table 8 Compar ison of Impacted and Non-lmpacted Patron Ethnic Origin Profile Distribu tions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Table 9 Comparison of Impacted and Nor.-lmpacted Patron Annual Household I ncome Profile Distr ibu tions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Table 10 Comparison of Impacted and Non-Impacted Patron Auto Ownership Profile Distribut ions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 4 Table 1 1 Comparison of I mpacted and Non-Impacted Patron Education Level Profile Distributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Table 12 Comparison of Impacted and Non-Impacted Patron Residency Statu s Profile Distributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 6 Table 13 Comparison of Impacted and Non-Impacted Patron Leng th of Use Prof i le Distributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Table 14 Comparison of Impacted and Nor.-lmpacted Patro n Frequency of Use Profile Distributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Table 15 Comparison of Im pacted and Non-Impacted Patron Trip Purpose Profile Distribut ions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 v

PAGE 6

Table 16 Comparison of I mpacted and NonI mpacted Patron Station Activity Profile Distributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Tabl e 17 Comparison of Impacted and Non-Impacted Patron Modes of Access/Egress Prof il e Distributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Table 18 Comparison of Im pacted and Non-Impacted Patron Fare Type Profile Distributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Table 19 Comparison of Impact ed and Non-Impacted Patron Transit Expe r ie nce Pro file Distributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Table 20 Comparison of Impacted and NonImpacted Patron Satisfaction with "Availa bility of Parking at Station" Prof i l e Distr ibutions . . . . . . . 37 Table 21 Comparison of Impacted and Non-Impacted Patron Satisfaction with "Av ailab ility of Buses to/from Station' Profile Distributions . . . . . 38 Table 22 Comparison of Impacted and Non-Impacted Patron Satisfaction with Hours of Service' Profile Distributions . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Table 23 Comparison of Impacted and Non-Impacted Patron Satisfaction with "Frequency of Service' Profile Distributions . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Table 24 Comparison of Impacted and Non-Impacted Patron Satisfaction with "Availab i l ity of Train Route Informat ion Profile Dist ribu tions . . . . . 41 Table 25 Comparison of Impacted and No n-Impacted Patron Satisfaction with "Tri-Rail service, i n general" Profile Distr ibu tions . . . . . . . . . 42 Table 26 User Satisfaction Ratings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Table 27 The area where improvements would be most helpful . . . . . . . 44 Table 28 Impacted and Non-Impacted Tri-Rail Patron Stat istical Profile . . . . . 45 VI

PAGE 7

LIST OF FIGURES ... Figur e 1 Brief History of Tri-Rail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Figure 2 Tri-Rai l System Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Figure 3 Tr i-Rai l Average Weekday Ridership . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Figure 4 Tri-Rail Average Saturday and Sunday Ridership . . . . . . . . . 6 Figure 5 Factors that Resulted in Use of TriRail . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 F igure 6 Use of Tri-Rail for Work Trips . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 F igure 7 Use of Tri-Rail for Leisure Trips . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 F igure 8 Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Figure 9 Gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Figure 1 0 E thnic Origin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 F i gur e 1 1 Annual House hold I ncome . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 F i gure 12 Auto Ownership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Figure 13 Education Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Figure 14 Residency S tatus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 F igure 15 L ength of Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Figure 16 F requency of Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Figure 17 Trip Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Figure 18 Station Activity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1 F i gure 19 Modes of Access/Egress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Figure 20 Fare Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 F igure 21 Transit Experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 VII

PAGE 8

Figure 22 Availab i lity of Parking at Station ................... . . . ... F i g ur e 23 Availabi lit y o f Buses tojfr om Station ....... ........ . . ..... Figur e 24 Hours of Service .......... ...................... ...... Figur e 2 5 Frequency of Service ................................ . . Figure 26 Availabi lity of Train Route Information ........................ Figure 27 TriRail Service, in General viii 37 38 39 40 41 42

PAGE 9

FOREWORD ... The Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR). under contract with the Tri -County Commuter Rail Authority, compiled and analyzed the results of speci fic questions included in the comprehensive on-board survey related to the impacts of Hurricane Andrew on T ri-Rail r ide rshi p The survey was administered by TriRai l staff on Thursday, January 7; Saturday, January 9; and Sunday, January 10, 1993. This report details results and provides in-depth analyses of the questions that relate to the impacts of Hurricane Andrew. A separate r eport prov ides this survey's overall results and contrasts these results with those from the survey conducted in 1991 by CUTR. The f offowing CUTR staff assisted in compiling and preparing this report: Project Director: Survey Analysis: Staff Support: Steve Polzin, P .E.. Ph.D., Deputy Director for Policy Analysis Michael R Baltes Research Associate Joel R. Rey. Research Associate William L. Ball, Researdl Associate Stacey Brid
PAGE 10

2

PAGE 11

I. INTRODUCTION ... An on-bo ard survey of Tri-Rai l patrons was performed i n part. to determine the impacts of Hurricane Andrew on Tri-Rail ridership. This rep ort, w ith attachments, r epresents the analysis and results of specific quest ions included in the comprehens iv e on-board survey that address the impacts of the storm on Tri-Rail ri de rship. A separate report will detail t h e overall r esults of the compre hensive survey. History of System Origina lly formed as a local organization, the Tri-County Commuter Rail Organization was superseded by t h e legislative l y created Tri County Commuter Rail Authority {Tri-Rail). Since the first day of operation in January 1989, commuter rail service has been provided under the direct aus pices of T r i-Rail. Tri-Rail was originally env is ioned by its creators as a means of offering relief from the congestion that was expected to result from the expansion of Interstate 95. Today, Tri-Rail has become an important component of the transportation system in Southeast Florida, consisting of 67 route miles that transect the counties of Palm Beach, Broward, and Dade A brief history of Tri-Rail is p ro vided on the following page in Figure 1. Overview of System Serving fifte en stations, Tri-Rail current l y runs thirty trains each weekday (fifteen northbound and fifteen southbound), e igh teen trains on Saturday (nine northbound and nine southbound), and ten trains on Sunday (five northbound and five southbound). S ix of the weekday trains and the ten Sunday trains were added as a direct result of Hurr icane Andrew, which struck Southeast Florida on August 24, 1992 This add iti o n a l service was added in September 1992 and funded by an emergency grant from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Including the additional service, Tri-Rail now provides 178 t rip s during a typical week of operation Add i t i onal trips are occasionally provided for spedal events. A map that graphica lly depicts the Tri-Rail system i s p ro vided in Figure 2 on page 5. 3

PAGE 12

Figure 1 Historical Overview of Tri-Rail 1985 "" Jan. 9, 1919 ...... .., Jtn. 1990 o.c. . 1990 Otc. ze. 1990 hln. 1991 March 1991 O
PAGE 13

Figure 2 Tri-Rall System Map IIOWAMt COIMI'Y .------West Palm Beach Station Palm Beach Airport Station Lake Worth Statio n Boynton Beach Station Delray Beach Station Boca Raton Station Deerfleld Beach Station Pompano Beach Station Ft. Lauderdale Station Ft. U.uderdale Airport Station Hollywood Station ---Golden Glades Station Metroroil Station Miami Airport Station 5

PAGE 14

13.000 11,000 10,000 7 000 6 000 5.000 Figure 3 Tri-Rail Average Weekday Ridership ---' -----l --... -... ---..... .. ........ ... .. ,. --.. ........................ _, ... .. ....... . ' ' ' f ; T .-.,., r .,. t ' I. .J.!.I..J .l --..1-t -' ' "'l"t "l"' -'-l.-1. -l o t I I o o o .. ,. -,-.,-r .--.1 -,. -.l.l. -'--'-! _,_ -'-J-\. ' -,. 'I ' ' r -;"'\r o,.: --1.' --'-, .. .. ......... ... .. ' .. .. .. "i.. ......... -.. .. .... -.. -... ' ._. _ ._,:. ;, ; j I I ,;, -' .. ' ..__, .. _ .. .. .. _I .. !. ' .. .... .... J .. !. --J ... :. .. .... .. J I ... : : .. .... .. J -!. -' I I o ............ _ .. ............. ..... .. ' 4,000 ....... ............. ............ .. -J .... -... - I :.: r I I I I I I I o I o I I r -,-, -.--, -;r -,, T-; , r ., : -,-,-,. .-,-, ; -,, .. I I I I I I I I I I I I l.00()1
PAGE 15

II. SURVEY ANALYSIS ... T he object ives for this the s econd on-board survey, are the same as those of the first on board survey effort performed i n October 199 t by CUT R with the exception of the ad ditional ana lysis to dete r mine t he i mpacts of Hur ricane Andrew on Tri-Rail ridership. The primary objective of this report is to present the analysis of the i mpacts of Hurri cane Andrew on Tri Rail r i dersh ip. The analysis presented i n thi s report is com p rised of four sections : Hurricane Andrew's i mpacts demographic information, travel behavior, and user sat i sfact i on. These sections review and present in detail the survey findings relating to the specific questions that focus on the i mpact s of Hurr i cane Andrew on Tri -Rail riders h i p These four topic areas provide the in fo r mat ion and data necessary to fulfill the above stated objective and will aid Tri-Rail in dete r mining how service can best meet the changing travel needs resulting from Hurrica ne Andrew. Demogra phic data analyzed for this r eport inclu de age, gender, ethnic ori g i n, an n ual household income auto ownership, education level, and residency status. Travel behavior i nformation incl udes stat ion activ i ty, modes of access/egress trip purpose, length of time respondent has used Tri -Rail, pub li c trans itexperience, frequency of use, far e type and seasonal resident/tourist use of the system. F rom the demographic and travel behavior characteristics, a r i dership profile of those indiv iduals whose use of Tri-Rail r esulted from the storm was estab li shed. Establishi ng such a profile will enable Tri -Rail to dis tinguish and identify specific market segments resulting from Hurricane Andrew. For this report, s i x of the thirteen user satisfa ction characteristics incl uded i n the comprehensive on-board survey were u sed Specifica lly, these questions ask respondents to rate their perception of Tri -Rail' s strengths and weaknesses. The identified weaknesses can potentially be addressed thr ough changes i n the system By dist ingui shing patron sensitivi ties toward specific performanc e characteristics of the system, is better able to set priorities for system im prove m ents for the special trave l needs of those individuals impact ed by the storm. Method The survey was adminis t ered by Tri-Rail staff on Thursday. January 7; Satur day, J anuary 9; a n d Sunday, January 10, 1993. The purpose of sched uling the adminis t ration of th e survey 7

PAGE 16

instrument in the early weeks of January was to capture seasonal residents/tour is ts in the samp l e, an important segment of TriRail's r ide rship Due to circumstances beyond the control of TriRail staff, adminis t ration of the survey instrument on train P641 on Saturday, January 9, had to be rescheduled for Saturday, January 16. As was the case in the firs t onboard survey performed by CUTR, Thursday was selected as a representat i ve weekday. The intent was to provide all patrons riding Tri-Rail on these three days amp l e opportun i ty to complete a written survey form. Fourte e n t rains (7 northbound and 7 southbound) were surveyed on Thursday for morning and mid-day trips; afternoon and even i ng trips were not surveyed. Logic dictates that the vast majority of afternoon and evening riders would h ave had an opportunity to complete a written survey form earlier i n t he day, thus negat ing the necessity of hav ing to survey these particular patrons Eight trains (3 northbound and 5 southbound) were surveyed on Saturday. Again, usi ng the same logic, onl y morning and mid-day Saturday patrons had an opportun ity to complete a written survey form. for Sunday four trains (2 northbound and 2 southbound) were surveyed. On l y morning tra ins were surveyed on Sunday; mid-day and evening tra ins were excluded. The survey resul ted in a total sample of 4 093 completed surveys for the three days o n which the survey was administered, as shown in T able 1 When the populat ion is assumed to be total boa r ders ( 1 8 ; 600), the calculated average response rate i s approximate l y 22 percent. However, the sampled response rate is 51 percent when the completed surveys a r e compared to the tota l number distributed (8,066) on the t r ains that were sampl ed. Moreover, the estimated percent of ind iv idual r i ders surveyed is 42 percent. T his estimated percent takes in to accoun t the fact that the number of boarders does not represent the number of actua l individual riders on the days surveyed due to ret urn trip-making The number of individua l r iders is calcu l ated by applying the percent of survey respondents who indicated that they woul d be making a return trip (92 percent) to the number of boa rd in gs for the days surveyed. Responses were wei ghted and factored to reflect total T ri-Rail ridership. 8

PAGE 17

The l arge sample of respondents (4,093) minimizes the potentia l for sample bias. Based on Tri-Rail staff observations made during the administrat ion of the survey i nstrument and the fact that a Spanish language version ident ical to the English language version of the on-board survey was made available, factors such as language and literacy were not believed to be a problem. As is always the case, however, some respondents have diff iculty understanding and/or answering certain questions. For the vast majority of questions, the specific phrasing has been refined based on experience gained i n numerous surveys. Thus, there were few problems with these questions. However, because of an extremely t ight p roject schedule that precluded a pre-test, and the uniqueness and complexity of the questions relating to the storm, it was necessary to carefully review the data for reasonableness and consistency. Some respondents did appear to have difficulty in answering these fair ly complex questions. As a result. the data compiled for the questions relating to the impacts of Hurricane Andrew on Tri-Rail use are interpreted with caution. 9

PAGE 18

10

PAGE 19

HURRICANE ANDREW'S IMPACTS ... Two que st ions were included in the comprehensive on-board survey that specifically relate to the impacts of Hurr icane Andrew on Tri-Rail ridership. These include questions relating to whether or not the impacts of Hurricane Andrew resulted in patro n use of Tri-Rail ( ques tion 27) and whether or no t the increas ed number of weekday and Sunday trains since the storm enable pat rons to utilize Tri-Rail for worl: and le isure trips (question 28). Following an overview of these questions, a br ief narrative js provided for eaclh question and accompanied by corollary data in graphical and tabular format. A summary of long-term impacts concludes the section. To reference the wording of a particular question(s), a sample survey instrume n t is provided in Appendix B 11

PAGE 20

Overview of Hurricane Andrew Questions The onboard survey included two questions that d i rectly asked patro n s to ind i cate wheth er the i r use of Tr i-Rail resul ted from the effects of Hurricane Andrew. Other quest i ons, such as l ength of t i me persons have been us i ng Tr i-Rail and the i r frequency of use, were also used to gain insight into the impact of Hurricane Andrew on T r i-Rail r i ders h ip Given the comp l ex and unique nature of the informat i on t hat was being asked of t h e survey respondents regard i ng the direct i mpacts of the storm, additional i nput was solicited from Tri-Rail staff and othe r s to properly word and structure the questions related to Hurricane Andrew s effects on ridership. The final survey design produced the following quest i ons : As conveyed by the possible answers for questions 27b and 28, the nature of the i mpacts of t he storm on riders can vary from fai r l y explidt direct impacts such as damaged vehicles, relocated places of residence or employment, or travel assodated with hurricane r elief; to more i nd i rect impacts such as increased congestion on Southeast F lori da roadways; to even more indirect impacts such as the expanded serv ice (the add i t i on of six weekday and ten Sunday trains) t hat resulted from TriRail' s response to the hurricane For purposes of discussion a n d clarif i cation, i t is informative to prese n t t h e l evels of impact as pri ma r y secondary, and tertiary. On t h e following page is a brief summat i on of the levels of impact. 12

PAGE 21

Primary Damaged vehicle Question 27b Relocated residence Question 27b Relocated employer Question 2 7b Travel for relief assistance Questi on 27b Secondary Increased congestion Questi on 27b Tertiary Expanded feeder bus Question 27b Expanded service Question 28 The specific in tent of Question 27 was to determine whether the survey respondents began using Tri-Rail as a result of any impacts inflicted upon them by Hurricane Andrew. If a respondent answered aff irmatively to the first part of this question, the respondent was then directed in the second part of the question to indicate the primary factor that resulted in their use of Tri-Rail. Despite the simple structure and wording of this question, respondents appeared to have some difficulty in understanding the nature of the in fo rmation that was being requested. Eighty-nine percent of the respondents who answered affirmatively to Question 27 followed instructions correctly by providing a response to the second part of this question. Eleven percent did not indicate which specific factor or factors may have contr ibuted to using However, 6 percent of the survey respondents who indicated that the hurricane's impacts d i d not result in their use of the system, nonetheless, proceeded to ched< one of the factors in part b of question 27. These responses may have resulted for a number of reasons. Some of the respondents may have simply overlooked the qualifying "If yes" prerequisite to question 27b and responded in the context of their overall trip-making. Others may not have perceived that the storm "resulted" in their use of Tri-Rai l but in examining the responses to 27b, decided that one of the factors applied to them. Thi s may have been particularly true for persons who had used T r i-Rail before the hurricane, but now were using the system more often or for additional trip purposes than was their practice before the storm. The intent of the second hurricane-related question, Question 28, was to gauge the effect of six additional weekday and ten Sunday trains on the leve l of patron use for work and leisure trips. The respondents did not appear to have any difficulties i n answering this question. The response rates for all components of Questions 27 and 28 are illustrated on the following page in Table 2. 13

PAGE 22

27a 27b roadway congestion to south County for rt'fief assistance 28a 28b In retrospect, some additional verbal or graphical modifications to the hurricane-related questions may have made them more understandable, however, travel behavior is complex and collecting data to determine what factor induced a given mode choice decision is very difficult. Factors such as cost, travel time, on-time performance, security, and parking costs may influence a person's choice of modes. Thus. an indiv idual would have to determine whether one of th e factors mentioned in questions 27b or 28 influenced their travel, given the numerous considerations involved in travel decision-making. Throughout the remainder of this report, the term impacted' is used to describe the particular Tri-Rail patrons who indicated that the effects of Hurricane Andrew resulted in their use of the system. Furthermore, the term 'non-impacted' refers to those Tri-Rail patrons who indicated that their use of the system was not caused by the storm. 14

PAGE 23

Factors that Resulted in Use of T ri-Rail ... Thirty-one percent of the hurricane-impacted survey respondents indicated that a change in place of residence was the primary factor that led to their use of Tri-Rail. O t her significant factors indi cated by the impacted patrons were a change i n place of employment and the addit ional roadway congesti on that resulted from the storm. The content i on of additiona l roadway congestion i s legitimate since the average daily traffic {ADT) at lves Dairy Road on Interstate 95 increased 28 per cent between 1991 and January 10, 1993.' I n addition to the increase in ADT, the peak hour direction changed from northbound to southb ound. The factors resu l t ing in the use of for the impacted and the non impacted p atrons are provided i n Figure 5. A lso, Table 3 prov ides the distr ibu tions for the impacted and t h e non impacted Tri-Rail patron s Figure S Factors that Resulted in Use of Tri-Rall Auto Expanded h!odor bus roadway corgelltionf Additional trovol for rwlioh .. istan:o+ 100% Table 3 Comparison of Impacted and NoJlolmpacted Patron Factors that Resulied in Use o f Distributions fa-lhai..-G b""' oiT !SII '""'""dhnnO--N K1ed P ann R ed 1,939 446 Emol"""'tnt chanoed 881 63 1 Auto daman-ed 388 352 &Mfw:ted feeder bus service 222 76 Additional roadw estlon 1465 392 T ravC!I to sOYth Dade fo r rel ief assistance 2 1 9 35 Other 383 632 No rMnnnse nro'iided 676 4 2.644 Total 6172 45201 'It s.t'QAd be nottd tNt theADTf01 1991 is an average b tnllrt)'Uf. Ac<'Uiate trafficcountdatawtrt not fortht montN prior to cht totOtm. ThetefOft. the reported 28 percent inause .n AOf be teptesenta tive of the adcitional congf'Stion Ql.lwd by Hurricint Andrtw. 15

PAGE 24

Use of Expanded Service for Work Trips .. The majority of patrons reported that Tri-Rail's expanded service enables them to utilize the system for their work t r ips. Forty-eight percent indicated that the expanded service did not enable their use of the system for this trip purpose. The work trip perce n tages are provided i n Figure 6. In addition, the work trip distributions are provided in Table 4 Figure 6, Use of Expanded Service for Work Trips Table 4 Patron Use of Ex ed Service for Work Tri s Distributions WOJt T t Ptron DistriMrtion Yts 19 ,180 No ,602 Tot.l 36782 16

PAGE 25

Use of Expanded Service for Leisure Trips ... Fifty percent of the patrons indicated that the system's expanded service permits them to utilize Tri-Rai l for their leisure trips. Despite the addition of service on Sunday, there was not an appreciable difference between those who cou l d and cou l d not use the system for this t rip pu rpose The leisure tri p percentages are pro v i ded in F igure 7 and the leisure trip d i stributions are provided i n Table 5. Figure 7, Use of Expanded Service for Leisure Trips Table 5 and n Use of Exn ed Service for Leisure Trios 0 Patro istributions L-T'"" Patron Didrltution Yes 1 5 109 Ho 15,298 Total 30407 1 7

PAGE 26

Long-Tenn Impacts of Hurricane Andrew The survey provides insight into the impacts that Hurricane Andrew had on Tri-Rail ridership as of January 1993, when the survey was administered. However, this is only one point in time and it is not easy to extrapolate what the long-term impacts of the hurricane will be on ridership. One would ant i cipate that at least some of the impacts, for example the loss of a vehicle due to the storm, would eventually be overcome and no longer provide an inducement for increased use of the system (however, many of the persons who suffered vehicle damage may not have had insurance and it may be a long time before they are financially able to replace a vehicle). Other impacts such as changes in place of residence and employment may or may not be reversed over time. There remains a great deal of speculation as to the duration of the temporary relocations caused by the hurricane. There i s also a great deal of speculation that a significant share of the re locat ion will result in permanent residential and employment location changes Similarly, the extent to which the additional traffic volumes and congestion in northern Dade County and into southern Broward County will continue remains uncertain. To the extent that the relocat ions are temporary, some share of this additional congestion may disappear over time. One would also expect travel patterns to adjust somewhat over time with additional investments in capacity to help reduce the i mpacts of the surge of demand that resulted from the hurricane relocations. Another consideration that will affect the extent to which TriRail will be able to retain or expand on the additional ridersh ip that resulted from the storm will be the system s ability to ma in tain the additional service provided as a result of the storm. This additional service is clearly responsible for a significant share of the additional ridership. Based on the results of this survey and other knowledge of specific changes in residential and employment patterns, Tri-Rai l may also be able to further i mprove service to specifically meet the needs of i mpacted patrons. Additional or refined feeder services, enhanced parking, and targeted marketing for relocated businesses may be potential avenues for taking advantage of the market opportunities presented by Hurricane Andrew. Continued monitoring of ridership, a small sample survey at a late r date, or focus groups of new TriRail riders will be useful to TriRail in understanding what it will take to retain existing ri dership and to continue providing transportation to a large r segment of the Southeast Florida market. 18

PAGE 27

DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION ... Seven questions were asked of patrons in order to establish a statistical characte ristics profile of Tri-Rail users impacted by Hurricane Andrew. These i nclude questions relating to patron age (question 18), gender (question 19), ethnic origin (question 20) annual househo ld income (question 21 ), auto ownership (quest ion 22), education level (question 23), and residency status (question 24). A brief narrative is provided for each question and accompanied by corollary data i n graphical and tabular format. To reference the wording of a particular question(s), a sample survey inst rument is provided in Appendix B. 19

PAGE 28

Age ... Eighty-one percent of the survey respondents who ind i cated that the impacts of Hurr ic ane Andrew led to their use of Tri-Rail are between the ages of 23 and 59. I n comparison, 76 percent of the non-impacted Tri-Rail patrons indicated a similar age profile. Additionally, a higher percentage of the non impacted patrons are over the age of 60 (9 percent) than a re t h e patrons who indi cated being impacted (5 percent). The age prof il e percentages for the impacted and the non-impacted consumers are provided in Figure 8 Also, the age profile dist ributi ons for the impacted and the non-impacted T r i -Rail patrons are prov ide d in Table 6 19 to 22 yaars+ 23to 34 Y'llr>t 35 to 45 vears+ 46 to 59 ...... t 60to64yoorst 65 to 74 years+ Figure 8, Age 75 years or -0% 20!1 40% -Table 6 Comparison of Impacted and Non-Impacted Patron A Profile o tributi \ge IS ons A .. c ......... lmDXted Pbon Au Oiserl)utlon acted Patron An O...,udon 18 Yeill1 or under: 462 2 908 19 t o 22 yews 155 3 339 23to34 ...... 1 ,812 14.501 35 to 45 yeatS 2.007 1,530 46 to S9 1 ,085 7549 60 tO 64 WMS ,.8 1.455 65 t o 74 years \0\ 2 339 75 Dt' o.tder 34 414 Tolll 6004 44.03S 20

PAGE 29

Gender . Analysis of the data related to gender revealed that a majority of the patrons who indicated that their use of Tri-Rail resulted from the i mpacts of Hurricane Andrew were male, appro x ima tely 56 percent; 44 percent were female In comparing the gender profiles, i t is evident that the gender perce ntages of the i mpacted and the non-impacted Tri-Rail pat rons are very similar, with the impacted patrons be ing slightly more male-dominated. Figure 9 illustrates the gender profile percentages of the i mpacted and the non-impacted segments of Tri Rail ridership, and Table 7 provide s the gender profile distri but i ons for the impacted and the non-impacted co nsumers. figure 9 Gender ' Table 7 Comparison of Impacted and N on-Impacted Patron Gender Profile Distributions Gftllkr c-.ones Pabon Gende r D'*"UI'Jon Non-lmpaded Piltron Cendet DitVI)ution Male 2975 ll 650 2 JS1 18.104 ,..., 5,326 39754 21

PAGE 30

Ethnic Origin ... F ifty-three percent of the survey responden ts who indicated that the impacts of Hurricane Andrew resulted in their use of Tri-Rail are White/Non-Hispanic. The data indicates that the impacted patrons included more Hispanic persons {20 percen t versus 1 6 percent) than did the non-impacted patrons I nterestingly, only 5 percent of the total respondents used the Spanish language version of the on-board survey instrument. Approximately 18 percent of both the impacted and the non-impacted Tri-Rail patrons indicated their ethni c origin to be African American. For comparative purposes. Figure 10 denotes the ethnic or i gin profi l e percentages for the impacted and the non-impacted segments of Tri-Rail ridership, while Table 8 provides the ethnic origin profile distributions for both groups of Tri-Rail users. Figure 10, Ethnic Origin 22

PAGE 31

Annu a l Househ old Incom e . For both impacted and non-impacted patrons. the majority o f respondents indicated annua l househ old inc omes of $30,000 to $39,999 However 2 4 percent of the impact ed patrons indicated an an nua l household in com e below $15,000 This is somewhat higher than the percentag e ( 2 1 percent} of those non-imp a cted patrons who in d icated a similar annual house h o l d i n c om e level. Moreo v e r the percentage of impacted r ide r s who indicated an annual income of $15,000 or less was great er than the percentage of im pacted riders who indica ted an annual in come of $30,000 to $39.999 as indicated in Figure 11. Table 9 shows the a nnu a l household income profil e distributions for the impacted and the non-impacted groups Figure 11, Annual H o u seho l d Income les: s thn $ 5, ,000-Tir-;;iiii $ 5.000 too 510, 000 t o 5 $15,000 t o 519.ml+ SlO,OOO t o SlS,OOO t o $30,000 t o 540 ,000 to S50,000 to uo.ooo to $70,000 to sso.ooo T able 9 C omparison of Impacted and N o n-Impacted Patron A Rual H hOld Inc me Profile Distributions n o use 0 Annual Houaehold Income tm,acted Patro n AMUal Howeho ld Catuoriet Income Distribution Nonbpomd hln>n A"'""' HOUH.hOid hcorM Diltrf)udon Less than S S 000 536 2 268 S SOO76 s 1 5 ,()()().119 ,999 510 362l S 20JlOO.S24.999 389 366l 125,000.12'9. 999 <90 3 .765 I 139.999 1109 4620 140 ()()().14 9 999 508 3.547 150.000.159.999 405 3568 160.000 169 999 219 2004 1 70.000.$79 999 215 1 621 S80 000 o r '54 6 3395 Total 5 3 5 4 3 7.812 23

PAGE 32

Auto Ownership ... Approximately 85 percent of the survey respondents who reported that the impacts of Hurricane Andrew on Southeast F l orida led to the i r use of TriRail own one or more vehicles, whereas 15 percent indicated not owning any vehicles. Interes t ing ly, the survey respondents who reported being impacted by the storm and owning one or more vehicles cited among their principal motivations for using the system t he destruction/damage of their autos and the additional roadway congestion following the storm In comparison, nearly 88 percent of the non-impacted Tri-Rail patrons own one or more vehicles. The auto ownersh i p profile percentages are prov ided for the impacted and the Tri-Rail patrons in Figure 12, and Table 10 presents the auto ownership profile distributions for the impacted and the non impacted Tri-Rail patrons. Figure 12, Auto Ownership Table 10 Comparison of Impacted and No!Hnpacted Patron h. file istrib Au1o Owners 1io Pro D utions Auto catesortet rm,..eted -AulD Own<""'"' Dls1rl>ullon Nor>ftp& Owno""'"' 0-UIIon None 860 4909 One 1 .811 15.705 Two 2 16$ 15 506 Three or mor e 742 5.844 Toto! 5.518 41%4 24

PAGE 33

Education level . Responde nts were asked t o indicat e th e ir hi ghest l evel of educati onal atta inmen t Analysis of the data revealed that non-impacted patrons are somewhat better educated than th e i r impacted counterparts. T o elaborate, 36 percent of th e respondents who indicated t hat the impacts of Hurricane Andr e w caused their use of T ri-R a il reported having attained a h i gh school dip l om a o r les s In comparison only 30 p e rcent o f the patrons who indicat e d that the i m pacts of the storm w e r e not factors related to th e ir use of Tri-Rail indicated h avin g a sim il a r educationa l backg r oun d The educ at ional level profile percentages are illustr a ted in Figur e 13 fo r the impacted and the TriRail consumers. Table 11 renders the educationa l leve l profil e distributions for the impacted and the noMmpacted TriRail patrons Figure 13, Education level Somo High High S
PAGE 34

Residency Status ... This quest io n was of particular in terest since it provided an indication o f the extent to whic h permanent and seasonal Flor id a residents were impacted by Hurr icane Andrew. Ninety-one percent of the survey respondents whose use of Tri-Rail was a di r ect result of the impacts of Hurricane Andrew indicated the nature of their residency status in F lorida to be permanent. Eighty-eight perc e nt of the patrons who indicated that their use of Tri -Rail was not a direct result of the storm recounted that they were also permanent Florida residents. The residency status profile percentages are provided in Figure 14 for the impacted and the non-impacted Tri -Rail consumers. Table 12 provides the residency status profile distributions fo r the impacted and the non-impacted T ri-Rail patrons. F ig ure 14, Residency Status Permanent Ro$;ide
PAGE 35

TRAVEL BEHAVIOR ... Information included in this section reports how long impacted and non i mpacted Tri-Rail patrons have been using the system (question 1 ), their station activity (questions 8 and 9), their frequency of use (question 15}, their tri p purposes (questions 3 and 10), their modes of accessjegress (questions 6 and 13}, their public transit experience (question 25} and the fare type they tender (question 14). A brief narrative is provided for each question and accompanied by corollary data in graphical and tabular format. To reference the wording of a particular question(s), a sample survey instrument is provided 1n Appendix B. 27

PAGE 36

Length of Use ... Sixty. nine percent of those patrons who said that they began using TriRail due to the impacts of Hurricane Andrew started riding within the past six months, while only 44 percent of the nonimpacted ridership began using the system during this time. This is a logical result since the hurricane struck South florida on August 24, 1992, almost five months before the survey was administered. From Figure 15, it is evident that the majority (50 percent) of non impacted riders began using the system during the two-and-one-half year period prior to the storm. It is interesting to note that 31 percent of the 'impacted patrons indicated that they began utilizing the TriRail system prior to the onset of Hurricane Andrew. It would appear that these patrons utilized the system before August 1992, but the impacts of the hurricane resulted in their using the system more often or for other purposes than was the i r practice prior to the storm. Alternatively, these persons may have not clearly understood the question. The length of use profile distributions for the impacted and nonimpacted segments of TriRail ridership are shown in Table 13. 7to 12 mo1nthst 13to 24 morrthst 25 to 36 morrttost 37 months or longer+ Figure 15, Length of Use 1J .Non-lmpactod and Non-Impacted Patron 28

PAGE 37

Frequency of Use .. The majority of the hurr i cane-impacted Tri-Rail users ( 70 percent) utilize the system four or more days per week, as dep i cted in Figure 16. For many of these patr ons, may have becom e their only viable means of transportation during the aftermath of the sto rm. Simila rly, 62 percent of the non-impacted patrons ride the system four or more days per week A notable differen ce in this trave l behavior category between the impacted and non impacted riders involves the number of less frequen t users of the system While 11 percent of the non-impacted riders utilize Tri-Rail about once every two or more weeks, only 4 percen t of the impacted riders use the system with similar infrequency Inte re st i ng ly, a higher percentage of no!Hmpacted patrons i ndicated that they were first time users of the system at the time that the survey was adm i nistered than did the i mpacted patrons. Table 14 shows the frequency of use profile distribution s for the impacted and non impacted Tri-Rail patrons Figure 16, Frequency of Use 4 or more per-tlrt 2 or 3 doys per -k+ Abolrt 1 doy t Once every 2-4 weob On< ,mote WHI
PAGE 38

Trip Purpose ... The predominant trip purposes for both hurricane-impacted and non impacted TriRail patrons are the home and work trips. Forty-eight percent of the non impacted riders' travel consisted of home trips and 31 percent of their trave l was for the commute to work, as shown in Figure 17. Similarly, 47 percent of the total travel by impacted patrons was for home trips; however, approximately 39 percent of their travel was for the commute to work It is expected that this higher percent distribution of work trips among the impacted patrons is a result of the residence and employment relocations that occurred because of the storm. Not surprisingly, the non-impacted patrons te nded to utilize Tri-Rail more frequently for p urposes such as school. shopping/errands, visiting/recreation, and others, tha n did the i mpacted patrons. Table 15 renders the trip purpose profile distributions for the impacted and non-impacted T r i Rail patrons. Figure 17, Trip Purpose Spedal E\leort+ Patron I l'uo!> ... 11\> P1opotc Caoqoriot PuoJ>ose Home 2.' WOok 2 308 I 33 82 248 ol Event 312 Other Tola) .. 30

PAGE 39

Station Activity ... For hurricane-impacted patrons, the M et rorail and Miami Airport st a tions a t the southernmost end of the T ri-Rail system hav e th e hig hest volumes of a ct i vity: 2 7 percent of th eir boar dingsfa lighti ng s t a k e p l ace at Metrora i l a n d 1 1 percent t ake plac e a t M iami Air port as de pi cted in F i gure 18 T h e hi gh levels of a cti vity a t these stat i ons is logical g iv en that southern Dade County was t h e area most impacted b y Hurr i c ane Andrew Oth e r stat i o n s that are heavil y util i zed by impacte d riders i ndude the H o ll ywoo d and Ft. Lau d er dale stations; thi s l atter stati on a lo n g with the Metror ail a n d west Palm Beach stations, a lso has a relatively high volum e o f non-impacted pat ron activity The rema i n i ng s ta tions all have relatively uniform volumes of activity for both g r oups of pa t rons. Table 16 presents the stat ion activity profile dist r i b utions for the im p acted and non impacted groups Figure 1 8. Station Activity Ft. Co mparison 'Patron !.'.!"'! .. Sla-Actl 177 ,,1 3< Bei>Cft 266 <;teet 264 Ft. .,.. Ft. 1.39< 2.806 2.112_ 1.4<4 6 2 77 MiaMi 616 2.726 31

PAGE 40

Modes of Acce s s / Egress .. The mode s o f access/eg ress mos t u ti l ized by the hurr icanei m p acted a n d the non i mpacted TriRai l ri ders are p r i m a r i l y au to-o r ie n ted : dri ving a n d parking at a stat i on a n d be i ng dropp ed off/pi c ked u p at a station Forty per cent of t h e i mpacted patrons and 45 percent o f the no n i mpacted patrons ind i cat e d u s i ng one of t hese two mod e s to ac cess/ egress a s tati on as illust rated in Fig u re 1 9. Of the transi t modes, noni mpacted patrons relied more on shuttles than did t h e i mpacted p atro n s I n a d d iti on t h e data indicate t hat i m p acted pat r ons a r e more l i k el y to use the expanded j itney s e rvice t han the non-impacte d pat rons Walking was the least utilized mode for access/egress to a station f o r both groups, especi ally for the wal k trips over four b l ocks i n l engt h Table 17 shows the modes of access/eg ress profile d i stribut i o n s for the i mpacted and non-impacted T r iRail consumers Figure 19 M o des of A c c es s / Egr ess W a l ked ().4 W a lked o ver 4 bloc ks + Tri-Roilshuttl o Other of lllloru l over 4 llloru Other bus j u o D rOYe an d Jitn ey ToW I ''""' 1 4 7 1 720 1* 702 502 1 .067 .552 S .93S I 32 of

PAGE 41

Fare Type ... Regular daily and monthly t ic kets were the fare types of choice for the hurricane-impacted patrons of Tri-Rail as well as for the non-impacted patrons. Twe nty-two percent of the impacted riders utilize regular daily tid-Way Faref"-p.;j Regulor Doily ndtet.Jl2!1 Rogulor Tkla
PAGE 42

Transit Experience ... Given that commuter rail is still a relatively new mode of public tran sit, particularly for longtime Southeast Florida residents, it was desirable to gather information on whether the system was attracting users other than those i ndividuals who have had experience using public transit prior to Tri-Rail. The wording of the question required respondents to make a judgment as to whether they consider themselves to be exper i enced public transit users. As illustrated in Figure 21. 48 percent of th e survey respondents who indicated that the storm in fluenced their use of Tri-Rail considered themselves to be experienced public transit riders prior to using TriRail. In comparison, only 40 percent of the non impacted patrons reported being experienced public transit users. Table 19 shows the public transit experience profile distributions for the impacted and the non.impacted Tri-Rail patrons. figure 21, Transit Experience Table 19 lmpocted ............... cted Comparison of Impacted and Non-Impacted Pa1ron T Ex P file Distnbutio ransit ro ns r..,.M &patence ca,.soriet Impacted l'alron T...,. Elq>trience 0-ulion NorHnpaded hb'on Transil Exborienced 2 803 17.518 I 3.090 26 \8\ Tolal 5 B'Jl 431i99 34

PAGE 43

USER SATISFACTION ... Information included in this section reports user satisfaction with the availability of parking at stations (question 30a), the avai lability of buses to/from the stat ions (question 30b), hours of service (question 30d), frequency of service (question 30e), the availability of tra in rout e informat io n (question 30j), and overall Tri-Rail service, in general (question 30n). Following an introduction, a brief narrative is provided for each question and accompanied by corollary data in graphical and tabular format. A summary of performance aspects concludes the section. To reference the wording of a part i cular question(s), a sample survey i nstrument is provided in Appendix B 35

PAGE 44

User Satisfaction with System Characteristics Respondents were asked on the survey form to rate Tri-Rail in thirteen different areas of performance and i n overall service. These rating s provide measures of user satisfaction with various characteristics of the system. The results indicate a reas of strengths and weaknesses in service delivery. Based on these observations, decisions on future improvements in the system can ta ke into account patron perceptions. The system characteristics shown in bold are those that are include d in this report for a comparative analysis between the T r i-Rail patrons who began using the system because of the impacts of Hurricane Andrew and those patrons whose use of the system was no t a result of the storm's effects. The following system characte ristics were rated by survey respo ndents : (a) Availability of padcing at station (b) Availability of buses to/from the station (c) Days on which tra ins run (d) Hours of service (e) Frequency of service (f) Travel time (g) On-time performance of the train (h) Ease of transferring (i) Cost of riding the train 0) Availability of train route information (k) Vehicle cleanliness and comfort (I) Employee courtesy (m) Security (on train and whil e waiting for the train) (n) How do you feel about service, in generall Overall 82 percent of the hurricane-impacted survey respondents and 84 percent of the non impacted responden ts are satisfied or very satisfied with Tri-Rail service, i n general. T hts posit ive rating indicates that the majority of the respondents have a generally favor able percep tion of each of the fiv e system characteristics analyzed in this report, as well as a positive outlook on the Tri-Rai l system as a whole. 36

PAGE 45

Availability of Parking at Station ... Sixty-six percent of the impacted Tri-Rail patrons that responded to this user sati sfaction question r e l a ted that they were eithe r v e ry satisfied or satisfied wi t h t h e availability of parking at each sta tion. In comparison, 65 percent of the non-impacted T r iRail patrons reported t h e same level s of satisfaction, as graph ically dep icted in F i g ur e 22. Despite the posi ti v e feedback f ro m both the i mpacted and th e non-impacted survey resp ondents regarding t h e availability of parking at each station 20 p e rcent of t h e impacted and t h e non-impacted patron s reported bein g either somewhat dissa ti sf ied or very dissatisfied with the availability of parking. Tabl e 20 shows the satisfaction with th e availability of parking profile distr i butions for the impacted and the Trj.Ra il r idershi p Figure 22, Availability of Parking at Stati on Somowhot S ot l:ofto
PAGE 46

Availability of Buses to/from Station .. Respondents were asked to indicate their satisfaction with the availabi lit y of buses to and from each stat ion. Ana lysis of the data revealed that 57 percent of the impa cted pat r ons are either very sat i sfied or sat i sfied with t h e availability of buses t o and from each station. Howeve r 2 5 percent of the impacted respondents reported being e ithe r somewhat di ssatisfied or very dissat i sfied with this particular p erformance characterist ic. I n compariso n 63 percent of the patro n s indica ted being very sat i sfied or satisfied with this performance characteristic. Twenty percent of the non -impa cted individuals report ed being somewhat dissat i sfied or very dissat is fi ed with the availa bility of buses to and from each station. The user satisfaction profi l e percentages for this character i stic are illu strated in F i gure 23 for the impacte d and the non-impacted Tri-Rail patrons. Table 21 r ende r s the user satisfact ion di stribu t ions for the impacte d and t he non i mpacted Tri-Rail patrons. Figure 23 Availability of Buses to/from Station Very Sot;isfio
PAGE 47

Hours of S e rvice .. Sixty-seven percent of the i mpacted Tri -Rai l patrons indicated that th ey were very satisfied or satisf i ed with Tri-Rai l's hours of operation In comparison, 71 pe rcent of the survey respondents indicated either being satisf i ed or very satisfied with the system s hours of operation Thi s illustrates that i mpacted patrons, whil e generally sat i sfied with Tri-Rail's hours of opera t ion, were less satisfied than non-impacted patrons. This might suggest that the individua l s who wer e i mpacted by the s torm may need additional ho urs of service to meet their transportat ion needs The satisfaction with hours of s erv ic e profile percentages are ill u strated in Figure 24 for the impa cted and the nonimpa cted respondents, a nd Table 22 shows t h e profile distributions for this que s tion for the impacted and the non imp acted segments of Tri-Rail rid ership. F igure 2 4 Hours of Service very satlsfi4Mit Somewhat 5atislllid f Somewh.t Dl:
PAGE 48

Frequency of Service Survey respondents were asked to indicate their satisfaction w i th the frequency of T r i Rail service. Analysis of the data revealed that despite the majority (49 percent) of impacted patrons being very satisfied or satisfied with the frequency of Tri-Rail service, as illus trated in Figure 25, a large percentage (31 percent ) indicated some sense of dissatisfaction with this particu l ar performance characteristic I n comparison, 5 4 percent of the patrons who indicated that the impacts of the storm were not factors related to their use of Tri-Rail indicated being very satisfied or satisfied w i th the frequency of TriRail service; 23 percent indicated being somewhat dissatisfied or very dissatisfied. Table 23 shows the profile distributions for this user sati sfaction question for the impacted and the non-impacted segments of Tri-Rail ridership. Figure 25, Frequency of Service Very satoofied t somew+.at ---Table 23 .lmpodod .......... poctod Comparison of Impacted and Non-Impacted Patron Satisfaction with "Fre f s P file o "butio uencv o eNK:e I'() ISiri ns U Jitt' Soa.dlfaction CatQoriet N PMron Dklri>UCion Verv Satisfied 1,414 9763 Satisfied 1.28S 12 896 Somewhat Satisfied 1.099 9,367 Somewhat O is satis f.ed 862 6,14 7 Ve
PAGE 49

Availability of Train Route Informat ion ... The data analysis reve aled t hat 83 percent of the survey respondents who i nd i cated that the storm influenced their use of Tri-Rail reported being very satisfied or somewhat satisfied with the a vail abi lity of tra i n route i nformat i on while 80 percent of the non i mpacted patrons reported the same levels o f satisfaction. Moreover, only 6 percent of the impacted survey responden ts were very dissatisfied or somewh a t dissat isfied with the availability of train route in form ation ; 6 percent o f the non-imp acte d survey respondents reported the same levels of dissat isfact i o n T h e a vailability of train route in formation pro file p erce ntages are illu strated i n Figure 26 for the impact ed and the non-imp acte d con s umers and Tabl e 24 presents th e a v ailabil ity of t r ain route i nforma tion profile distr ibu t ions fo r the i mpacted and th e patrons. Figure 26 Availability o f Train Route Informatio n somewhat Sa1lsllt.t f Somewhat Dissatiis!ie
PAGE 50

How do you feel about Tri-Rail service in general? Tri -Rail patrons were asked to in dica t e their sat i sfaction with T r i -Rail service, in general. This satisfaction question, in particular, prov i des a genera l overview of patron percept ion as i t re l ates to overall Tri-Rail service. Analysis of the data reveale d that respo ndents, whethe r impacted or non-impacted are generally satisf i ed with every aspect of the system Appro ximate ly 82 percent of the impacted survey respondents reported being very satisf i ed o r satisfied with Tri-Rail as a whole; 84 perce n t of the patrons in dicated similar l evels of satisfaction. The user satisfact i on prof ile perce n tages for the question, 'How do you feel about Tr i-Rail service, in gene r a l ? a r e illustrated in Figure 27 for the i mpacted and the non-impacted Tri-Rail consumers. Table 25 renders the user satisfaction dist ribu tions for this question for the im pacted a n d the non-impacted Tri -Rai l patrons. Figure 27, Tri-Rail service, in general Very Satl s114idf Somewhat Satls!Nid f Somewhat Dissati$11ed+ Table 2 5 l mpaaod .No,.mpacIm Ptron Oinrltution Vt
PAGE 51

Summary of User Satisfaction Ratings User satisfaction ratings were calculated for each of the system characteristics included in this report by applying numerical measures to each possible response. An average score was then calculated for each c haracteristic for both hurricane-impacted and non-impacted Tri-Rail patrons, the results of which are provided in Table 26 The numerical assignments are as follows: Very Satisfied S Somewhat Dissatisfied 2 Satisfied 4 Very Dissatisfied 1 Somewhat Satisfied 3 Table 26 User Satisfaction System Characttristlc 1.,;;:;---,::r.:;-d P.atrorw Avdaba.. of al ttat110n1 3.69 A..W.IItv or b...., loflrom slatlonf 3 48 H04.n of .el'\ike 3. 78 Avdaba.-of trah route How do YOU ftr:IMtout Triad Jr:t-neralf Oftral Av e RatiM: 4.14 4 14 3 .7S N ....... 3.65 3.61 3.89 3 .48 4.03 4 1S 3.80 The tabl e above clearly indicates that both impacted and non-impacted patrons are generally satisfied with these particula r aspects of the system since the scores range from a low of 3.28 (impacted patrons, frequency of service) to a high of 4.15 (non-impacted patrons, overall Tri Rail service). Of the individual system characteristics, the availability of train route information rated the highest for both groups of riders. The general perception of overall system performance and service was also commendatory: 4. 14 for impacted patrons and 4. 15 for the non-impacted patrons. In most instances, impacted patrons were slightly less satisfied with the identified service attributes. Although respondents rated Tri-Rail high in every category, patrons were questioned regarding which aspects of performance they would most lik e to see improved. Question 31 on the survey form asked respondents to review all of the listed aspects of Tri-Rail service prov ided in Question 30. They were then asked to list the three areas where improvements would be most helpful. Table 27 indicates all the system characteristics that were iden t ified by the hurricane-impacted and non-impacted respondents. The characteristics shown in bold are those that were analyzed in the context of Hurricane Andrew's impacts. The order of importance provided by the table assumes that every aspect listed received equal weighting. That is, when a respondent indicated three aspects in Question 31, all three aspects were included and weighted equally. If a respondent only provided one aspect, the n that aspect 43

PAGE 52

was included accordingly. As a result, thos e in dicat in g three aspects have s i gn ific antly more inpu t than those who ind icated none, one or two aspects. There was no part icular r eason to be l ieve that respondents would necessarily i ndicate the aspects i n order of i mportance since they were not asked to do so. e area w Table 27 Is ldbe h wou ere 1mprovemen most h I ful etpt dPatront Non-htt.acted Patrons 1. fft of ....X. 1. of ....X. 2. Houn ohervice 2 On.timo ctrfOM'Iance 3, Av ol""'"' 3 Av ol""'"' 4 On-time oerforf'f'\Cince 4. Av of 5. A of S. H01nof6 Travel time 6 Cost of tiding__ the trai n 7 Cost of ridina the train 1. Travel time 8. Secu ritv 8 Seo.rritv 9 Ease of transferrinG 9. Av of-10. Avdablily of Wonn1don 1 0 Ease of transferring 11. Da of 11. Vth ide cleanliness & con\fort 12. E molovee courteSY 12. E m clovte. ('()UfWW 1 3 Vehicle cleanlineu & comf ort 13. Om o f operation For both groups of survey respondents, frequency of service was identified as the perfo rma nce aspect where im p r ovements would be most helpfu l. Beyond th i s aspect, impacted and non-impacted respondents differed somewhat in their percept ion of the performance areas in which Tri-Rail needs to i mprove. The aspect in which the two groups differed the most was hours of service; hurricane-impacte d respondents were much mo r e concerned with this particular performance characteristic than the non impacted respondents. This concern may have stemmed from t h e im pacted patrons' dependence on the Tr i-Rail system to resume thei r normal daily activ itie s during the aftermath of a storm that forced many of these people to change places o f residence, places of employment, and, in many cases, destroyed/damaged their automobiles. Alternatively the respondents desired improvements in on-time performance more than those who were im pacted by the storm This finding is logical given that these patrons have been usin g the system by cho ice for a l onger period of t i me and for a w i der array of purposes, and as such, are more concerned with conven ienc e than would be the impacted riders who may be using t h e system out of necessi ty 44

PAGE 53

Ill. SU MMARY & CONC LUSIONS ... I n conclusion, a comp r e hensive onboard s u rv e y of Tri -Rail patrons was conducted on Thursday, January 7; Saturday, January 9; and Sunda y January 1 0, 199 3. i n part to dete r m in e t h e i mpacts of Hurrican e Andrew on Tri-Rail ridersh i p. This re port rep resents the compilation an d an alysi s of data r e l ated to speci f i c quest i ons i nclu d e d in th e on-boa r d survey that add ress the im p acts of the sto r m on Tri-Rail r id ership. Stati stic al Tri-Rail Patron Profiles Stat i stical ri dershi p profiles were developed for the typical Tr i R a il pat r o n s who i nd i cated being impacted and non-impacted by th e st o r m t hrough the compilation o f responses to demogra p hic and travel behav ior re l ate d q uestions. The stati stical riders hi p p rofiles for the impacted and the non-impacted segmen t s of Tri-Rail r i dership are p rovided i n T ab l e 28 I d d mpacte an S1allltfcal Chlnbl lmpacted Pnon 3 5 to 45 male lht.ite UO.OOO to S39 ,999 some collegt o to 6 months )nexperienced 4 o r mor e days pe r wetk 2 autos perme.n ent resldent homejwor k auto-oriented daiiv tic k et P atro n s . aJ taliStic file Pro r...lcaiN Patron 2 3 t o 3 4 male v.t.ite $30,000 to 139 .999 some college 0 t o 6 monthS 4 or m ore days per week 1 or 2 autos permanent resi dent homejwork auto-orie n ted reaulal t icket W ith respect to the que st i ons analyzed for th i s report, there ar e sever al differences and s i milar i t ies that are worth noting when the statistica l riders h ip profiles f o r the typical i mpacted and non impacted pa t rons a r e compare d Seventy -eight perc ent of th e patrons w h o i ndicated being impacted b y the hurr i cane r e ported tha t a chang e in p l ace of reside n c e and emp l oyment and t h e destruction / damage o f t hei r auto were the primary factors t hat res u lted i n t heir use of Tri-Rail. 45

PAGE 54

A maj or i ty (52 percent) of Tri-Rail patrons indicated that the additiona l six weekday and te n Sunday trains enabl e them to use T r i-Rail for work trips, whereas 48 percent of the patrons indicated not using the expanded service for work trips. An equal percentage of Tri-Rail patrons reported that the expanded weekday and Sunday service enable them to ut ilize Tri-Rail for leisure trips. F i ftee n percent of the impacted and 1 2 percent of the non-impacted Tri-Rail patrons indicated an annual household income between $30, 000 and $39,999. However, more impacted patrons {24 percent) indicated annual household incomes below $15,000 than d i d their non-impacted counterparts The typical impacted T r i-Rail patron i s between the ages of 35 and 45, whereas the typical hurricane non-impacted Tri-Rail consumer is between the ages of 23 and 34 The typ ical impacted Tri-Rail patron indicated own ing 2 autos, whereas the typical non-impacted patron indicated owning 1 or 2 autos This result is i n teresting since a signif icant share of the impacted patrons reported that their use .of the system resulted from the destruction/damage of their automobi les. Also, this provides clear indication that both groups of T ri-Rail users are typically c h oice riders and not "transit captives. The majority of impacted and non-impacted riders ind icated using Tri-Rail for the same length of time approximately 0 to 6 months Of i nterest ing note, 31 percent of the. impacted patrons indicated that they began utilizing Tri-Rail prior to Southeas t Florida being s truck by Hurricane Andrew. The reported frequency of Tri-Rai l use for th e typical impacted and the non impacted patrons are identical, 4 or more days per week. However, the hurr icane-impacted patrons utilize the system mo r e frequently than do the non impacted patrons. The higher frequency of use by the hurricane-impacted patrons is a l ogical outcome since a large number of these patrons may now require significant use of the system due to changes i n their places of residence and empl oyment, or due to the destruct i on/damage of the i r auto(s) by the storm For some of t h e severel y impacted patrons, Tri-Rail may have become their onl y v iable means of transportation following the storm. 4 6

PAGE 55

The overall fare type of choice for both groups was the regular daily ticket. H owever a higher percentage of non-impacted patrons utilize d i scounted tickets than do the impacted patrons. Interestingly, i mpacted patrons were more lik ely to use multi-trip tickets which suggests that they may have a higher degree of sensitivity to fare prices than non-impacted patrons. The typical mode of ac cess/egress for the i mpacted and the non-impact ed Tri Rail patrons is automobile-oriented i.e., they drive to a station and park or are picked up/dropped off. This result is consistent with the number of autos owned by both groups, 2 autos for the impacted and 1 or 2 autos for the non im pacted patrons. This further enforces the suggestion that Tri-Rail users are not transit captives; but are choice riders. Overall impacted patrons utilize other buses, walking, jitneys, and Metromoverjrail to accessjegress stations more freque ntly than non-impacted patrons. A m ajority of the impacted (82 percent) and the non -impacted (84 perc ent) Tri Rail patrons are very satisfied or satisfied with Tri-Rail service, in general. However, some of the impacted and the n onimpact ed patrons indicat ed being somewhat or very dissatisfied with the availability of parking at Tri-Rail stations, the frequency of the system's service. and the hours of Tri-Rail operation. This might suggest that a segment of Tri-Rail patrons would benefit from more frequent service I n conclusion, the results of this survey analysis effort suggest that Tri-Rail is offering a conven i ent, efficient, and a needed transportation alternative to those patrons who were impacted by Hurricane Andrew. It is anticipated that the information gathered as a result of this survey analysis will enable Tri-Rail to better set prior i ties for improvements in the system that will significantly benefit certain segments of th eir ridership. 47

PAGE 56

48

PAGE 57

APPENDIX A Crosstabulations A-1

PAGE 58

C ROS S T ABUIA liONS ... T wenty-seven separate crosstabulations were performed in the process of analyz i ng the data for this report. A list of t h e crosstabulations that were compiled are prov i ded below. Age (Q18) by Q27a, "Have the impacts of H urricane Andrew resulted in your using Tri -Rail?" Gender (Q19) by Q27a, 'Have the impacts of Hurr icane Andrew resul ted in your using Tr i-Rail?" Ethnic Origin (Q20) by Q27a, "Have the impacts of Hurricane Andrew resulted in your using Tri -Rail?" Annual Household Income (Q21) by Q27a, 'Have the impacts of Hurricane And rew resulted in your us i ng Tri -Rail?' Auto Ownership (Q22) by Q27a, 'Have the impacts of Hurricane Andrew resulted in yo u r using T r i Rail?' Educat ion Level (Q2-3) by Q27a, 'Have the i mpacts of Hur ric ane Andrew resulted in your using Tri -Rail?" Residen cy S t atus (Q24) by Q27a, 'Have the impacts of Hurricane Andrew resulted in you r using Tri Rail?' length of Use (Ql) by Q27a, 'Have the impacts of Hurricane Andrew resulted in your using Tri Rail?' O ri g i n Station (Q8} by Q27a, "Have t h e impacts of Hurricane Andrew resulted in your using Tri -Rail?' Destination Station (Q9} by Q27a, "Have the i mpacts of Hurricane Andrew resulted in your using Tri-Rail?' Frequency of Tri-Rail Use (Q15 and Q154} by Q27a, 'Have the impacts of Hurr i cane Andrew resulted in your using Tri-Rail?' Trip Origin (Q3) by Q27a, "Have the i mpacts of Hurricane Andrew resul ted in your using Tri -Rail?" T r i p Purpose (Q1 0) by Q27a, 'Have the impacts of Hurr i cane Andrew resulted in your us i ng Tri-Rail?" A 2

PAGE 59

Modes of Access/Egress (Q6 and Q10) by Q27a, "Have the impacts of Hurricane Andrew resulted in your using Tri-Rail?" Fare Typ e (014) by Q27a, "Have the impacts of Hurricane Andrew resulted in your using Tri-Rail?" Transit Experience (025) by Q27a, "Have the impacts of Hurricane Andrew resulted in your using Tri-Rail?" 'If yes, please indicate by placing a check (V) next to the appropriate factor that resulted in your using (Q27b) by Q27a, "Have the impacts of Hurricane Andrew resulted in your using Tri-Rail?" "Has the increased number of weekday and Sunday trains since the hurricane enabled you to take Tri-Rail for your work or leisure trips?" (Q28) by Q27a. 'Have the impacts of Hurricane Andrew resulted in your using Tri-Rail?" Availability of Parking at Station (Q30a) by Q27a, "Have the impacts of Hurricane Andrew resulted in your using Tri-Rail?' Availability of Buses to/from Station (Q30b) by Q27a, "Have the impacts of Hurricane Andrew resulted in your using TriRail ?" Hours of Service (Q30d) by Q27a, "Have the impacts of Hurricane Andrew resulted in your using Tri-Rail?' Frequency of Service (Q30e) by Q27a, 'Have the impacts of Hurricane Andrew resulted in your using Tri-Rail?" Availability of Train Route Information (Q30i} by Q27a, "Have the impacts of Hurricane Andrew resulted in your using Tri-Rail ? "How do you feel about Tri-Rail Service, in general?" (Q30n) by Q27a, "Have the impacts of Hurricane Andrew resulted in your using Tri-Rail ?" "In question 30, a through m listed above, list the 3 areas where improvements would be most helpful to you. (Q31) by Q27a, the impacts of Hurricane Andrew resulted in your using Tri-Rail?" A 3

PAGE 60

A-4

PAGE 61

APPENDIX 8 Sutvey Instrument B-1

PAGE 62

TRI-RAIL ON-BOARD RIDERSH IP SURVEY (EI encuestadot de T riRoU tlone ou oervtct o Ia version en espoi\o l de itto e ncu esla .) DEAR RIDER: TIH!al -'d ll ....,_.. kt -.r raJPIHM l"'* folowlng autWJtf. Chec:1c (I) "'-eotrlel bcc 01 Wille CUI )"'W .....wers. f\ettm the J\llvoy 10 lho 000-box .. you """ tho -01 htnd 10 IF YOU HAVE COMPLETED THIS SURVEY EAAl.WI TODAY, IT IS HOT NECESSARY TO COMPLETE AHOTiiER. RETURN THE SURVEY TO A REPRI!SEHTATIVE ON BOARD. t Kow man)' months have you bttn using trl-Ral ? 2 'filii you be rrdlng Trl-RII on your rttum ltlp? Ytt No 3. W'htrt did you comt flom you staned thlt tllp? Homt Doctor /Dtfllltt Work ,-, School VlstfnQ/Rtc:tMIIon --, Speellf Event Othtr __ W'htrt It this plae. loc:alld? p.,.....; 5. -long did 1-you IQ goiiO ll1o train-(1n ...... )7 ------& -.., you Oil to lht ltoln otop? [f.., ont) I Wtlqd t*x;b .-wllked Ol"'f bkdtl -By Trl-Ral th""t bus = By Olhor but --==-:-;-:,=-to-n. I '*"") By-/1111 Wet dropped oil 0...,. .... oncl pol1
of, __ ==-_., t I Whttl Is IN S foc:ated"? -------=.:o, .. ::=,.:.!;llf;;,..;;.,;;,;; .. ;;MI;;,I:-------12 How long wtl llOlce you 10 getlo jOU<-dooOOOIIon katn lht-II wl1loh you wt1 Oil olf 11>e .... (ln ...... )? _____ 5 154 1 3 .-,.. you 01110,... 1no1 d-. tf""" ontl t Walk 0-4 btodcl 8y ,Wt1k OYW 4 tllodta .Gel plcktd up ,8y T ri-Rellhutlll bul CWhot mlt.J .. By othtf bua -&y liMY' =Oihrtr'-------14. What type of rare you pay when you first bOarded tht traln7 'RtoiMI Ont-Way Fart -OntWay Ftrt RtQIHI Oily T lcktt Oftcoutud O&ly Ticket :J-RltQI.I&f Wt-'d)' Ticket = 01$000nted Wtttl l y 1lcktl 4 -AOQutat faM t:ZPalt (toupOC'I$) '-0'-oounltd Ftat Trac k C2P&k -Atgi.Ar M onlhly Ticket ' -Ohcotntd MoniNy Ticket 15. How often do you rlcSt lhe lnaln? 4 or mort days pw..,.k = 2 or 3 dlyt per wttk I AbOt.l \ dwf per '** =Once ffflrf_ ....... Fltst tlmt rider 16. wt.l b lht ,_ h>poi1IIW ,....., you rldt tho oaltO I! """ ont) I I CIOn' dttw'l Pattdng Is Othet _,.-,..,--,Oon, lkiiO dlt4 .T,. Is mere corN...,. N+citJt -Clr It -Tra!n kC'I'IOfleconon"*' 17.--you-.. ._,. nol by lrU>? om. Rldt ....n someone Tlld ,-BUI = WOIAdn'l make trfp ta Yr:u a g e l t ... es to 7 4 1B or undtf' 2S lo34 ,_ 46105$ = 16 or more 19 to 22 351045 -tl01o64 19. You a r t ... Malo -Ftmelt 20. YCNI ethnic ortgln l.t. .. (I only one) Whltt/Non-Hispark Hltpanie Alrlean-Amerieln O thtor ----(ll)e(ily) 21. Tho 10111 anroJtllnc:omo or ,_ hou-Is. t L ... t IMn $$,000 $ 1$,000 to $ 19. 999 r $30,.COO to $31 .0W .. 560 ,000 to $69 ,999 $5,000 10 $9, 809 ,-$20 ,000 lO $24 999 $40. 000 10 $49 .890 u-S?O,OOO 10 S19 .999 ,-11o,oooco S 14JIIil9 w,ooo ro m999 $$t ,OOO 10 w m -$80..000 atld 01t1 ---22 How many-Itt -.,., y
PAGE 63

SIDE 2; TRIRAIL DNBOARD RIDERSHIP SURVEY 23. What Is the hiQ.heatlevel or .clucatlon tNt you have attained? (I' only one) 'Some Hlgll School Baoht t ors o.gree OociOfal Oegrt t H IOf'l SchOOl D iploma Some o.r.dut1 e SchOOl c.t*'-.....,==--, = Some Colege = Dtgtet tt.IMdtr) 24 \\1\a.t do you consk1er yourHtn Permentrt resident SMaonal tttld..w a TOUfla:lfvl$11t.M" 2S. Wwe you an-.,.-tnntj)QI1aiJon rid .,._using Tl1-llall _v.. ._No ---------------26. How dklyou linl 1oom '"""' Trlolld? ( I only -> Adlo'ef'li:sfng Emproyw Oll'llt __ .FriM>d{WOcpandoc:l-but._Addklon.ll .. Addi10nat ll'r4 1o IOt.Ch Cede Coooty ror rElief assistance. 28. Het tn. increased number of w e tkday end Sunda y trains since the t.Jrrte&nt enabled you to take Tti-Ra l kw yout' wot$( or leisu re u lps? a) W01k ttlpa b) ltiSlWI trips v .. Yot No ._No n. 0-your lffli'IOYO< ponldpooo In Tri-Rd'o Elrj)loyor Olsoounl Program? Yes No -Don't Know tf )'tS. i.re you o.r:rtndy tnrcltd tht YH ,_No 30. In Qtntf11. how saU:sfled are you wllh tach d the lollowlng especc5 of TJt.AIttNIOt. Pl.a.se tnswtr the ques.tlons by pieci ng chtok (I) fn U'lt eppropria:le column. L Avaltbllly cl po.rlc>lg 01 tlallon b. .. _,., cl buoeo 10/from c. Deya on whk:h lrab 1\1"1 d. ...... how lite) 1tab ll.l'l frequency d s.ttVt:e (how Clittn lrtllol run) f, Tllvtlllma 0 ... K lakes IO moko a by ltaln) g. Onllmt pertonnanoe of thf ttaln h. Ease l Cost ol riding the train I Avoloblly cl-lnfonnollon ond chongos k. Vollldo d--. onc:t comfort L cc:uty m. Seony (0<1 .., ond -...lng "" tho liP>) n. Mow do YOU IHI"""" Tof./lal """"" In .. y_,., s..-.-"-"'"' y..,-............ ii6IW .......... @ 31. I n quesllons 30, a through m U$ltd tbovt, flat lhl 3 artu wherelmprO'Itmlfltt WOIAd most hOipW 10 yoo. Name Addreu _._ . nd_ Stall &Zip Code----------------THAN.K YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATfOH. PLEASE PLACE IN RETURN BOX Off TRAIN OR REnJRH TO THE SllfWE.Y TAKER. H you ha-. t ny tddl !onal commt!Ut ot que.ttlonli c ell 1 &00.


xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader nam 2200349Ia 4500
controlfield tag 001 029197452
005 20110923161754.0
006 m o d
007 cr bn|||||||||
008 110923s1993 flubd o 000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a C01-00027
035
(OCoLC)754241167
040
FHM
c FHM
043
n-us-fl
090
HE2771.F6 (ONLINE)
0 4 245
The impact of Hurricane Andrew on Tri-Rail ridership
h [electronic resource] /
by Center for Urban Transportation Research, College of Engineering, University of South Florida.
260
Tampa, Fla. :
b University of South Florida, Center for Urban Transportation Research,
[1993]
300
1 online resource (48, A-3, B-4 p.) :
map, charts.
500
"Prepared for: Tri-County Commuter Rail Authority."
5 FTS
"June 1993."
FTS
588
Description based on print version record.
650
Railroads
z Florida
x Commuting traffic.
Local transit
Ridership
Florida.
Hurricanes
Florida.
Hurricane Andrew, 1992.
2 710
University of South Florida.
Center for Urban Transportation Research.
1 776
i Print version:
t Impact of Hurricane Andrew on Tri-Rail ridership.
d Tampa, Fla. : University of South Florida, Center for Urban Transportation Research, [1993]
w (OCoLC)34353021
773
Center for Urban Transportation Research Publications [USF].
856
u http://digital.lib.usf.edu/?c1.27
FTS
y USF ONLINE ACCESS
951
10
SFU01:001969377;
FTS