USF Libraries
USF Digital Collections

1993 Tri-Rail on-board survey analysis : final report

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
1993 Tri-Rail on-board survey analysis : final report
Physical Description:
Book
Language:
English
Creator:
University of South Florida. Center for Urban Transportation Research
Publisher:
Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR)
Place of Publication:
Tampa, Fla
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Commuters--Florida--Miami Metropolitan Area--Attitudes   ( lcsh )
Railroads--Florida--Passenger traffic   ( lcsh )
Railroads--Florida--Miami Metropolitan Area--Commuting traffic   ( lcsh )
Travel behavior (TRIS)   ( trt )
Genre:
letter   ( marcgt )

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:
oclc - 29639444
usfldc doi - C01-00040
usfldc handle - c1.40
System ID:
SFS0032163:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text
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 ntm 22 Ka 4500
controlfield tag 008 s flunnn| ||||ineng
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a C01-00040
035
(OCoLC) 29639444
040
FHM
049
FHmm
2 110
University of South Florida. Center for Urban Transportation Research
0 245
1993 Tri-Rail on-board survey analysis : final report
260
Tampa, Fla
b Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR)
c 1993 July
650
Commuters--Florida--Miami Metropolitan Area--Attitudes
Railroads--Florida--Passenger traffic.
Railroads--Florida--Miami Metropolitan Area--Commuting traffic.
7
Travel behavior (TRIS)
TRT
1 773
t Center for Urban Transportation Research Publications [USF].
4 856
u http://digital.lib.usf.edu/?c1.40



PAGE 1

Tri-Rail On-Board Survey Analysis Final R eport July 1 993 Prepared by Center for Urba n Transportil1;on Research Coll ege of Engi neering University of South Florida

PAGE 2

1993 TRI-RAIL ON-BOARD SURVEY ANALYSIS FINAL REPORT Prepared for Tri-County Commuter Rail Authority by Center for Urban Transportation Research College of Engineering University of South Florida CUIR July 1993

PAGE 3

II This is a blank page

PAGE 4

TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IX Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 I. II. Ill. IV INTRODUCTION ........................................ OVERVIEW OF SYSTEM SURVEY OBJECTIVES ........................... ........ SURVEY METHODOLOGY 3 4 7 8 V. SURVEY ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 5 Demographic Info r mation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Travel Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 User Satisfact i on . . . . . . . 81 VI. SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS . . . . 101 APPENDI X A Survey Instru ment . . . . . . . . . . A APPENDIX B -Summary of Survey Results . . . . . . . . . . . . B 1 APPENDIX C Crosstabulat ions . . . . . . . . . . C-1 iii

PAGE 5

LIST OF TABLES Table 1 System Total Response Rates ............ ........ ...... 8 Table 2 Thursday, 01/07/93, Response Rate By Direction, Time, and Train ... 9 Table 3 Saturday, 01/09/93, Response Rate By Direction and Train ....... 10 Table 4 Sunday, 01/10/93 Response Rate By Direction and Train ... ... 11 Table 5 Response Rates By Question . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Table 6 Satisfaction With Fare Structure .. .. ... ................ . 46 Table 7 Weighted Total Response Percents, Origin/Destination Stations ..... 48 Table 8 Thursday Response Percents, Origin/Destination Stations ......... 49 Table 9 Saturday Response Percents, Origin/Destination Stations ......... 50 Table 10 Sunday Response Percents, Origin/Destination Stations ........ . 51 Table 11 Trip Length Frequencies by Weekday and Weekend ........ ... 57 Table 12 Satisfaction With the Availability of Parking by Station (Weighted Total Response) ..................... . .... 63 Table 13 Satisfaction With the Availability of Buses by Station (Weighted Total Response) ........................ . . 65 Table 14 Weighted Total Response Percents, Trip Purpose 0 .. /D . ng1n est1nat1on ................................ . . 66 Table 15 Thursday Response Percents, Trip Purpose Origin/Destination ..... 67 Table 16 Saturday Response Percents, Trip Purpose Origin/Destination ..... 67 Table 17 Sunday Response Percents, Trip Purpose Origin/Destination ...... 67 IV

PAGE 6

Table 18 How did you first learn about Tri-Rail? (W e i ght e d Total Response) ... 70 Table 19 F requency o f Use and Residency Status (W e ight e d Total Respo nse) 7 1 Table 20 Alternative Transportatio n and Automob i l e Ownership (We i g h ted Total Response) .......... ............. .............. 72 Tabl e 2 1 Ridership Profiles . . . . . ................ 73 Table 22 User Sati sfact ion Ratings .............. ....... . ..... 97 Table 23 The a rea w h e r e i m provements would be most hel pful ......... . 9 8 Tabl e 24 Comparison of P e r cent of Users "Very Satisfi ed" and User Sati sfactio n Ratings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 00 Table 25 R i dership P rofiles .... .... . . .... . . .... ....... ... 101 Tabl e B 1 Question 1. How many mont h s have you been using Tri-R a il? ..... 8 2 Table 8-2 Question 2 W ill you be r i d ing Tri-Rail on your r eturn trip? ....... 8 2 Table 8 3 Q uesti on 3. Wher e d i d you come from b efore you started t hi s trip? 8 2 Tabl e 8-4 Questi on 4 W here i s this p lace located (nearest street . )? 1 nte rsect1on . ....... ............. ............ . . B-3 Tabl e 8-5 Q uesti o n 5 H ow long d i d i t tak e you to get to t h e tra i n station (in )' m mutes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3 Table 8-6 Question 6. How did you get to the tra i n sto p ? ....... . .... B-3 Tabl e 8-7 Questi on 7 H o w long did you wait at the s t a tion f o r the trai n to arnve 1 n m1nutes . ..................... . . ..... . . (' )? B-4 Table B 8 Question 8. You got on this tra i n at which station? ....... ... B-4 Table B-9 Question 9. Y ou will get off the train at wh ich stat ion? .. ...... . B 5 v

PAGE 7

Table B-1 0 Que stion 10. Whe r e are you going to now? ...... ..... . B-5 Table 8-11 Question 11. Wher e is this desti nat ion loeated (nearest s treet intersection)? .......................... .......... .. B-6 Table 8-12 Quest ion 1 2 How long w i ll it take you to get to your final destin ation from the station at which you will ge t off the ( )' t ram 1n m1nutes . .......... ...................... .. B-6 Table B-13 Question 13. How w i ll you get to y our final destination? ........ B-6 Table B-14 Quest ion 14. What type of fare d i d you pay when you first boarded the train? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-7 Table 8-15 Question 15. How ofte n do you ride t h e train? . . . . . . B-7 Table B-16 Quest ion 16. W hat i s the most i mportant reason you r ide the t rain? B 8 Tab le B-17 Question 17. How wou l d you make th i s trip if not by train? . . . B 8 Table B-18 Question 18. You r age is... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-9 Table B-19 Question 19. Gender... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-9 Table B-20 Question 20. Your ethnic or igin is... . . . . . . . . . . B-9 Table B -21 Question 21 The total annual income of your household is... . . . B 1 0 Table B-22 Question 22. How many vehicles are owned by your household? B-1 0 Table B-23 Question 23. What is the highest level of education that you have attained? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-11 Tabl e 8-24 Question 24. W h a t do you consider yourself? . . . . . . . B-11 Tabl e B-25 Question 25. Were you an experienced public t r ansportation rider befo r e using T ri-Rail? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-11 Table B-26 Question 26 How did you first learn about Tri-Rail? . . . . . . 8 12 vi

PAGE 8

Table B-27 Quest ion 27a. H a v e the impacts of Hurricane And rew resul ted in T R "I? your usmg n-a1 . ............................. ... . 8-12 Tab le B-28 Question 27b. If yes. please indica t e by placing a chec k (v) next t o the a pp ropr i a t e factor that resul ted i n yo u r using Tri-Rai l. ...... B-1 2 Table B-29 Question 28 Has the i n c reased n umber of wee kday and Sunday trains since the hurr icane e n a bled you to tak e Tri-Rail for your rk I . ? wo or e1sure tnps. .............................. . B 13 Tabl e 8-30 Quest i on 29a. Does your emp l oyer partic i pate i n Tri-Rail' s Empl oy e r Discoun t P r ogram? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 Tabl e B -31 Quest ion 2 9 b If yes, a r e you cur r e n tly enrolled in the program? . B 13 Tab l e B-32 Quest ion 30a Availability of parking at stat ion . . . . . . . B-14 T able B-33 Question 30b Availability of buses to/from the station . . . . . B-1 4 Table B-34 Quest i on 30c. Days on which t rains run . . . . . . . . B-14 Table B-35 Quest i on 30d. Hours of service . . . . . . . . . . B-15 Tab le B-36 Quest ion 30 e Frequency of service . . . . . . . . . . . . B-15 Tab le B 37 Question 30f Trave l t i me . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-15 Table B-38 Quest i on 30g On t i me performanc e of t he tra i n . . . . . . . B-16 T able B-39 Quest i on 30h Ease of transferring . . . . . . . . . . B 16 Table B-40 Quest ion 30i Cost o f r i di n g the train . . . . . . . . . . B-16 T able 8-4 1 Question 30j Availability of train route in f ormation and changes . B-17 Table B-42 Quest i o n 30k. Vehicle cleanliness and comfort . . . . . . B-1 7 Tab le B-43 Que st i on 301. Employee courtesy . . . . . . . . . . B-17 VII

PAGE 9

Table B-44 Question 30m Security (on train and while waiting for train) . . . B-18 Table 845 Question 30n How do YOU feel about Tri-Rail service, i n general? B-18 Table B46 Question 31. I n question 30, a th r ough m, list the 3 areas where improvements would be most helpful to you? . . . . . . . . B-19 v iii

PAGE 10

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Figur e 7 Figure 8 Figure 9 F i gure 10 Figure 11 Figure 12 Figure 13 F i gure 14 Figure 15 Figure 1 6 Figure 1 7 F i gure 18 Historical Overvi ew of Tri-Rail Tri-Rai l System Map ................. .... . ... .. ... . Tri-Rail Average Weekday (M -F), Saturday, and Sunday Ridership . . Age ............. .... . .... . . ...... .. ... . Gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ethnic Origin .......... . ......... ..... . . ..... Annual Household Income . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . Auto Ownership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Residency Stat u s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Len gth of Use ..... ......... . ......... ... Public Transit Experience ...................... ........ Frequency of Use ........................ . ..... . Trip Purpose .... . .... ........... . . . ......... . Reason for R i d ing Train ......... ............. .... . A l ternative Mode of T r a n sportat i on ... . ....... . ...... Round Trip or One-Way ..... . . . .... . .. ...... . Tri-Rail Average Fare Per Passenger . . ...... . ..... ..... Fare Type .... ........ . .... ....... .... .... .... ... 4 5 6 19 2 1 23 25 27 29 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 46 47 IX

PAGE 11

Figure 19 Figure 20 Figure 21 Figure 22 Figure 23 Figure 24 Figure 25 Figure 26 Figure 27 Figure 28 Figure 29 Figure 30 Figure 31 Figure 32 Figure 33 F i gure 34 Figure 35 F i gure 36 Figure 37 Figure 38 X Stati on Activity ........ . ............ . ..... ... Thursday, Northbound Line Segment Thursday, Southbound Line Segment Saturday, Northbound Line Segment Saturday, Southbound Line Segment . . . . . . . . . . . Sunday, Northbound Line Segment Sunday, Southbound Line Segment . . . . . . . . . . . . Average Tri p Length ....... . .... ........ ...... . Modes of Access/Egress by Station .............. ...... Driving Distance for Automobile Access ...... ... ....... Trip Purpose by Station .... ..... ............ .... . . Availabili ty of Parking ........ . ...... .... . . . Availability of Buses to/from Station ..... ........ . ..... Days on Which Trains Run .. .. . . ... .. ..... ... Hours of Service .... . ........................ Frequency of Service ... ............ ...... . Travel Time ......... .... .......... . . ........ ... On-Time Performance ...... ........ ........ ..... Ease of Transferring .............. . . . .............. Cost of Riding Train . . ..... . ... . . .... . . .... . 53 54 54 55 55 55 55 57 59 61 69 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91

PAGE 12

Figure 39 F i gure 40 Figure 4 1 Figure 42 Figure 43 Avai lability of Train Route I nformat ion ............ . . . Vehicle Cleanliness and Comfort Employee Courtesy ........ . ........ . ....... . Security On and While Waiting for Trai n ... . ......... . TriRail Service, in General ... .. . ... ........ 92 93 94 95 96 X I

PAGE 13

xii This is a blank page

PAGE 14

FOREWORD Under contract with the Tri-County Commuter Rail Authority, the Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR) conducted an on-board survey of Tri-Rai l patrons on Thursday, January 7; Saturday, January 9; and Sunday, January 10, 1993. Detailed results and analysis of the 1993 On-Board Survey are provided in this report. The following CUTR staff assisted in the compilation and preparation of this report: CUTR Director: Project Director: Survey Analysis: Staff Support: Gary Brosch Steve Polzin, P.E., Pd. D., Deputy Director for Policy Analysis Michael R. Baltes, Research Associate Joel R Rey, Research Associate William L. Ball, Research Associate Stacey Bricka, Research Associate Fadhely Valoria, Graduate Research Assistant Terry Agee, Undergraduate Research Assistant 1

PAGE 15

2 This is a blank page

PAGE 16

1993 TRI-RAIL ON-BOARD SURVEY ANALYSIS I. INTRODUCTION This report details the results of a second onboard survey of TriRail patrons, w hic h was conducted to determine demographic characteristics, travel behavior, and user satisfaction; the first version of this survey was conducted by CUTR in March 1991. This second survey was administered by T r i R a il staff on Thursday, January 7; Saturday, January 9; and Sunday, January 10, 1993. This report represents the results and analysis of this second survey. A separate report that explores the impacts of Hurricane Andrew on T r i Rail ridership was compile d using the results from specific questions included in the second onboard survey instrument. The report begins with a brief overview of the system including a system map. The overview is followed by a l i st of the survey objectives. Survey methodology is reviewed along w ith response rates for Thursday, Saturday, and Sunday by direction (northbound and southbound) and by train. Sample response rates are also provided for each question on t he survey. The preliminary discussion of the survey is then followed by the survey analysis. Analysis of the survey results are discussed in three major sections: demographic characteristics, travel behavior, and user satisfaction. These sections review and discuss i n detail the findings of th e survey analysis in relation to the survey objectives. In addition, comparisons are made, when applicable, between the results from the 1991 onboard survey and the 1993 on-boa r d survey. Comments related to these comparisons are also included in the discussions th a t accompany the graphics. The report concludes with a brief summary and a discussion of the findings A survey instrument is furnished in Appendi x A. Detailed results by question are provided in tabular format in Appendix B. Appendix C includes a listing of th e crosstabulations that were completed as part of the analysis of the survey data. 3

PAGE 17

II. OVERVIEW OF SYSTEM The Tri.County Commuter Rail Organization, originally created l ocally, was superseded by the Tri.County Commuter Rail Autho r ity (Tri-Rail). Since its initia l day of operation in January 1989, commute r rail service has been provided by Tri-Rail. They contract for operat ions and maintenance and provide administration, finance, marketing, and other services directly Originally conceived as a means of offer i ng temporary relief from the congest i on that was expected to resul t from the construction on I nterstate 95, Tri-Rail has now become an important component of the transportation system in Southeast Florida. The system consists of 67 route miles that transect the counties of Palm Seach, B ro ward, and Dade A brief chronological history of T r i-Rail is provided below i n Figure 1. Figure 1 Historical Overview of Tri-Rail .... Mn.t, "" ---en. 1.1110 OK. I 11t0 o.c.:ze. 1910 Jan.',,., ....... ,.., """""'"'' '*" 1.1ttZ -. .... o.c. J1. 19tl IM. 1tn Trieouoly ... - -TrMiil fill I CON!Wttf tal f)"StHn in S Fkritl. Trt-R.III betJN WMii:c&Q ...... ..,. ............... .,......, tht rwpoNibilltles ol TOO. ---s.turct.y ,.,..begiN. Of'ltoday ridHship 11.169 Trt.blts Am C)n.board S..rwy four tr'tlinJ to 'II'Mkdty MN'k" Tri-RIII'I tho .. ,..., e tlllivtnNy. Hunic.lfte AtMhw ... $. floricle. ............................. .,. towttdly MNke. ridlntlip twconl (new): 12..6JJ. Second On-botrd s.urw.y. Servi ng fifteen stat i ons, T r i-Rail current l y runs thirty trains each weekday (fifteen northbound and f i fteen southbound), eighteen trains on Saturday (n ine northbound and nine southbound), and ten trains on Sunday (five northbound and f i ve southbound) This results in 178 trips offered during a normal week of operation. Additional trips are occasionally prov i ded for spedal events. A map that graphically depicts the Tri-Rail system is provided i n F igure 2 4

PAGE 18

Figure 2 Tri-Rail System Map IIIOWAIO CCM.Iflm' ......... """"' ---West Palm Beac:h Station Palm Beach Airport Station Lake Worth Statio n Boynton Beach St.ltlon Delray Beach Station Boca Raton Station Deerfield Boach Station Pompano Beach Station Cypress Creek Station Ft. Lauderdale Station Ft. Lauderdale Airport Station Hollywood Station ---Golden GladH Station Matrorail Station Miam i Airport Station 5

PAGE 19

Since commuter rail service began in January 1989, Tri-Rail rider5hi p has increased steadily. During the first year of operation, the system consistently carried approximately 3,000 passengers each weekday I n 1991, at the time of the first on-board survey, the system consistently carried nearly 8,000 passengers per weekday. In addition, Saturday r ide rship was nearly 6,000 passengers per day. By January 1993, average weekday system ridership increased to almost 9 700 passengers. Additionally average Saturday ridership dedined slightly to approximately 5,300 passengers per day. This dedine in Saturday ridership may be attribute d to fluctuations in seasonal patron use of the system or the fare increase instituted in July 1992. Sunday rider5hip during January 1993 averaged 3,100 passengers per day; T ri-Rail added Sunday service in September 199 2. For further illustration, Fig ure 3 shows the average weekday and weekend ridership for each month since the system began operat ion. Figure 3 Tri-Rail Average Weekday (M-f), Saturday, and Sunday Ridership 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 111 II I I 10,000 9,000 8,000 .......... ......., ..... .-, .. w ..... ., I I I I 0 0 t 0 t t 0 I I I I 11111110100 It II ........... ....., ..... ......, ..... e-..-............. ""' .................. ...... ----I o o I I I 1 -r ., .. ,._, .. ., -o-., .. ,.. .. ... ,. ..... IIIOIIOtlllllll 11110111 ................. ___,_ 0 0 0 o t I t I t o + o I o , , , , , , A,_..._ .. ..,,,,. '-J .&.. .& '-' .. 1. J.t.. .. . L I I I I I I I I I I I I t .......... ,.... ........... .._ ....... 14,lt1L t I I I o o o o I I I I I I I I I I I I I 7 000 ,....,._..,.. .... l ... ,.,.... ............... I I I f I I I t I I I I I I I ,-,,,-,-; -,-, .. .. r -, r T .. 0 0 t : o ,, \o I I t I I I I I 0 I I 6.000 5,000 2,000 1,000 1001 ,,,,,, , , .,.,,,,,, , ,.,,.,, I 0 I I o I I I I I I I 0 I I I I I I I I I 0 I 0 I 0 0.. o \ I t 0 o I I I I I 0 o I o t 0 ., rr .. ... .. .. r-., -r.., .. ,... .., .. r T -,-, -,-.,-,. .,;+---.._ ... ,. ... .. 'I' .. ,...., r-1 r-.tr I"., .. ,... ., r ., .. T r -"J -0 0 0 I I 0 I 0 0 I I I I I I I I 0 0 I 0 I 1\ I I I I I I t 0 'f 0 I 0 'l I o I I I I I I I 0 '). I t I I o I 0 I I I I I I I I I 0 I 0 \ o I I 0 0 o1o I I o 0 0 r, I I I I f 0 0 I I I I I I I I I 0 I ... .: .. : .. .... ..: ... .. : .. .. :..: .. .. .. .... : .. .. 1111111101 IIIIOooOIIIIIIIOOO\ I .. OIIIOOOO\ IIJ1'IOIOII I I I f I I I I t 0 I 0 I I I 0 I I I I I 0 I f 0 I I .. 0 I f I 0 I I I I \ I I I I I I I 0 0 0 I I I I 0 I 0 I I I I I o I 0 I t I 0 I 0 I 0 0 I I I I I I I I I I I o I I 0 0 .. I 0 I I 0 I ..J .. I. .J .. I. ..J .. J. .. t.. .& ....... -" \. ..... I. ..... J. -'-J. .. \.. .J .. \.. .J .. \. -'-'" _._' ...... ..... .J .. t. .J-t. ..J .. I. _._ J. J. --t.. .... I. ... .t.-100111 lllllllllllllltlltlllltiiOIIOOI 111000 I I I I I o I o I o I o I I I I I I I I I I I I I o I I o o I I I 0 I o Jl\ o IOIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIOIIIIIIIIIII J .. t. ... .. !. .. .. -1 -. .. J ... .... .. L ... .. 1 .. .. 1-'J .. .. -!. -!. -J. -.:. ... .. .:. 'r "" .... .'-. 1 ,1 I I I I I o 0 0 I I I o o I o I I I I I I I I I 0 0 I I t I I I I I o J I o t 0 I 111011 0 0 1 111111011101 0 1 0 10011 1 1 1 0 0 0 000 001001111 1 1 I I I J o o l o J I I 0 I 0 0 I 0 I I I I 0 I I 0 o 0 I I 0 I o I I I I I I I I 1 I t I o o o -.r .., .. 1 -,, , r r "'Ir "'''" r .. 1 , -,., r r -.,r .. .. 1 .. , .. r r -.-r .. r .. .. 1 .. r r r -,; , I.IIOIOIOIOI O I I O I I I I f i i O O I OOOOII O , , , ,,,,,, OOOI O I O I I I I I O OOOIO OOOII O IIIOOOII ,,,,,,, ' ,,,, '''''I O I O I O O O I OIIOOIIIII O O OOO OOO ,,, ,,,, , "I _, o T o T o-"I r '"0 .. I t 1 .. o T o-_, "I r -o T "'I T '"O"' o-1 I"" ., .. o j I "' I'" "I I" .. "' r -.. .. r t .. ' '''' 1000 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0100000 100100 0 0 ,,, ' ' I I I I I I I I I I I 0 I I I I 0 I 0 0 I 0 10 0101 I I I I I I I 1111 1111 O i l I I O < JFMAMJJASONDJFMAMJJASONDJFMAMJJASONDJFMAMJJASONDJFMA I "" I '"" I '"' I 'm I "" I WEEKDAY .. .. ,.., '"' '"' I l;;!; I ::.-;: I ..... ..., usc S,OI7 '" t.6\S t0,1l7 ... ),224 U20 .. ... 10.131 M .. ).056 ,,171 ._,, ,_.., N{A '"' S,I U ..... ,.., N{A 3,591 USI t.-S1t 1.SM N{A ... 2,959 6.010 Ul\ ,.,. N{A .. 2.947 \,071 '-"" .. N{A ... 2.915 ... ... ..710 N{A :::-9 ,1Jl IM 1 :un I M "" ... Uo> uw ... .. ,. .... '"' -''" .. ,. J,IOO ... un ..... S,743 .,. .., 1.t10 ..... ... S.f ... ..... .,. "'' ,_ .... u ..... ... ,,. "'' ... '"' S,IH 4.103 ... '" .. ,. N{A .... S.JIS OJ>U ... .... MIA :t: ... ,_ .... ... ... 1 04 7 ... ..,. ...... ... ... l.IM "'' uu ..... ... l,tllll "'' 6

PAGE 20

Ill. SURVEY OBJECTIVES Prior to the first on-board survey performed in 1991, there had not been a comprehensive survey of Tri-Rail ridership. Recognizing the benefits derived from the first on-board survey effort Tri-Rail contracted with CUTR to perform the second comprehensive survey of r idership. The second on-board survey was undertaken in order to achieve a number of objectives similar to those stated in the first survey effort. The main objectives for the second on-board survey include the following: to determine the relationship of tourism and seasonal travel on Tri-Rail ridership. to collect data useful in planning. to identify perceptions and attitudes toward parking availability at stations. to provide information for feeder bus service planning. to identify consumer preferences toward specific characteristics of Tri-Rail. to establish demographic information on users. to define travel characteristics and information on patrons. to gather relevant information necessary to better serve the market in general. to establish demographic and travel behavior-related trends for Tri-Rail patrons. to assess the impacts of Hurricane Andrew on T ri-Rail ridership The ability to monitor the demographic and travel behavior-related trends is permitted by the comparative analyses of 1991 and 1993 survey data included i n this report. These comparisons are provided in graphical format throughout the ensuing sections of the report. In addition, a separate report was compiled that addresses the impacts of the hurricane on Tri-Rail ridership. 7

PAGE 21

IV. SURVEY METHODOLOGY The se
PAGE 22

Table 2 Thursday, 01/07/93, Response Rate By Direction, Time, and Train NOIOlfBOUND (NB) SOCJJHBOUND (58) Tin< Train Riden --11me Train Rld ... Respondents Rnpon&t: ow. .... P600 144 89 61 .8% P601 318 243 76.4% P602 612 314 50.5% P603 721 580 80.4% AM P604 476 341 71.6% AM P605 650 4 29 66.0% P606 250 140 56.0% P607 479 204 42.6% P608 358 103 28 .8% P609 224 112 50.0% MD P610 248 72 29.0% MD P611 239 53 22.2% P612 166 4 2 25 .3% P613 165 108 65.5% P614 2 1 3 N/A N/A P6 1 5 20 4 N/A N/A P616 382 N/A N/A P617 429 N/A N/A P618 640 N/A N/A P619 639 N/A N/A PM P620 815 N/A N/A PM P621 360 N/A N/A P622 358 N/A N/A P623 121 N/A N/A P624 179 N/A N/A P625 55 N/A N/A P626 69 N/A N/A P627 42 N/A N/A P628 85 N/A N/A P62 9 2 8 N/A N/A NB Total 5,005 N/A N/A sa Total 4.674 N/A N/A Sampled 2.264 1 101 48.6% Sampled 2.796 1,729 61.8% NB TolD sa Totals AITralno Rld
PAGE 23

Table 3 Saturday, 01/09/93, Response Rate By Direction and Train NoantBOUNV (NB) SOUIH80UND (SB) T.U. Rld ... -T.U. Rldn Rsponcf
PAGE 24

Table 4 Sunday. 01/10/93, Response Rate By Direction and Train NOJmiBOONO {NB) SOUJ>iBOONO (SB) ..... ...... Respondents Rnpo.,. 1M Riders Respondents R
PAGE 25

As in the previous survey analysis, a complete questionnaire was not a require ment to be included in the survey results. All completed questions were included in the analysis regardless of whether the entire questionnaire was filled out. As a result, response rates differ by question. The question response rate refers to the number of survey respondents answering a particular question as a percentage of the total number of questionnaires received. The sample response rates for Thursday are systematically higher than those observed for Saturday and Sunday. The average sample response rate for Thursday was 88 percent, while the average response rate for both Saturday and Sunday was 81 percent. Sample response rates by question are provided in Table 5. Responses were subjected to weighting and factoring to reflect overall system ridership. Thursday responses were factored up and weighted to adjust for directional response rate variations and afternoon/evening ridership. Saturday and Sunday responses were also factored to adjust for directional response rate variations and afternoon/evening ridership. In addition, in order to calculate a weighted total response, Thursday, Saturday, and Sunday responses were factored-up to actual total ridership for each day. Thursday was factored further to account for five weekdays. As a result, the weighted total response is adjusted to account for five weekdays, a single Saturday, and a single Sunday. For this reason, the reader will observe that the weighted total response puts a much greater weight on the weekday (Thursday) than on either Saturday or Sunday. Given the large sample of 4,093 respondents, the potential for sample bias is minimal. Based on observations made during survey imp lementation by Tri-Rail staff and the fact that a Spanish language version of the English language survey instrument was made available, factors such as language and literacy were not believed to be a problem. However, after careful review of the data, respondents appeared to have some trouble understanding two of the questions. Many respondents misunderstood Questions 9 and 10 relating to final destination. As is often the case in this type of survey, many respondents interpreted these questions to be referring to the final destination at the end of the day as opposed to the fina l destination at the end of the trip. As a result, some of the data compiled for these questions should be interpreted with caution. Generally, the response rate was excellent, with the vast majority of respondents taking the time to provide useful and meaningful data. It was not surprising that the regular weekday riders had a higher response rate than the weekend riders nor that the questions with lower response rates involved those about which patrons are typically more sensitive, i.e., annual household income and gender. The response rate by question remained relatively stable throughout the questionnaire indicating that respondents had a sufficient amount of time to complete a written survey form. 12

PAGE 26

Tab l e S Res p o nse Rates B y Q u estio n Perant Anlwe t'l On: QVESTION THURSDAY SARIRDAY S U N D A Y .. How many months h ave yo u betn u'ing Tri-R;,il ? 91 .6% 75. 6 % 80 .6% 2 Will you be riding T ri-Rail on your ttlum trip 1 96.7% 95.2% 97 .9% ) dd you from blfofe you SQtted tJis trip? 97.9% 95.9% 98.8% ttis l)loce lo<.oltd ( ......... inllntion)? -98 .9% 5 How long di d it talt you to 9ft tO the train Ntion minllte:s)? 9 4 .0% 89.Mio 89 5% 6 How d id you get to h train s:top? 96.Mio 95.5% 95 5% 7 How long did y o u Wiit at the station f o r tht trai n t o arrive (in miou t H ) l 8 9.2% 56.7% 91. 0 % 8 You got o n this train at station. 90 2 % 81.0% 82 .9% 9 You will gt1 off 1ht train 1t Ntion. 91.2% 85.9% 82 .4% 10. Where .. e )'OU 9(ling f'ft1W 1 97.4"' 94.8% 94.8% 11. Where is this destinttion toc.ted (nu r est intersection)? 95.9% 92..",. 96.0'J' 2 How tong will it t a b you to get to your fin.al desti nation (in minutes}? 90 5 % 77 .4% 77.1% 13. H ow will you ge t t o your final desdnatlon ? 95 .4% 90.7% 90. 1 % 1 4 W hich type of fa t e did you P'Y when yOu first boarded the tra i n 1 9 1.8% 93.0% 90. 8 % 1 5 How often do you ride tht train 1 95 .0% 92 .4 % 88.4% 16. Wha t is the most imponanc ruson you ride the train? 9 5 .3% 93.8% 92 .0% 17. How would you malo ttis 1rip H 1101 by 11ainl 95.ol' 93.0% 91.9% 1& "90 95 .9'11> 93 .9% 94.1% 19 Gender 86.4% 82. 4 83 .2% 20 E thn i c origin ... 92.0% 9 1.9% U2% 21. Ann u a l ho u s ehold incomt ... 82.1% 77.4% 76.7% 22. H ow many vehicles a r t owned by your household? 90.4% 8 9.0% 85 .9% 23. Whit is the Nghest leYtl of education tha t you ha-te attained1 9 2 .7% 90 .1% 87 .6'!0 2<. Residency Status. . -89.8% 2 5. Were you an public riOef btfOte usfn9 Tri-Aii ? 91.8% 86.7% 84.1% 26 How did you first learn about Tri.Rill? 9 3 3 % 90.0% 86.7% 27. Have t h e i mpacts of H urricene Andr e w res u l ted i n your u sing T r i Riil? 92.6% 8 7 .6% 85 .4% 28 Has the i ncre ased n um b e r o f we6day a n d Sunday trains since 1he hurrican e 69. 1 % 4 6 3 % enabled you to ta k e T ri.RaU for your work. o r ieisuze trips? 48 .2% 13

PAGE 27

Percent Q UfSTIO N lliU1WlAY SATURDAY S UNDA Y 29. Ooes you empiO')'er patticil)ate in Tri-Aail'$ Employer Discoun t Program? 84.3% 67.9% 67.3% 30a Availability of parki n g a t station 84.0% 75.7% 71 .9% 30b Avail ability of buses to/from station 77. 0% 67.9% 62.7% 30c. Days on w h ich trains run 8 8.1% 7 6 .3% 73.4% 30d Hou rs of service 87.8% 77.4% 75 .4% 30e. Frequency o f service 8 9.0% 77.5% 74.6% 301. l ra...eJ time 89.5% 77.7% 76.9% .lOg O n-t ime performa nce of the train 89.1 % 7 8 .8% 77.6% 30h. Ease of transferring 8 3.4% 7 3 .5% 73.9% 30i. C ost of riding the train 8 9 2 % 78. 3 % 78.0% 30j of train rOute i n formation a n d changes 86.7% 75 .3% 74.9% 30k. Vehicle cleanliness and comfort 89.9% 81 0% 82. 0% 301. Employee courtesy 89. 2% 79 1 % 80.8% 30M. Su rity (o n train and while wa itin g f o r train } 87.1% 78.0% 75 .8% 30n. HOW" do you feel about Tri.flail service. in gel\otfa.l? 89.5% 80.6% 82.7% 3 1. In question 30. a thr ough m, li st the thtet 8feM 1m;prcwements wo u kt be most helpf u l to you? 71 .4% 46.3% 53.4% AVftOSe S .....,IoR..,_ow. 87.9% 80.9% 80.7% 1 4

PAGE 28

V. SURVEY ANALYSIS The second onboard survey analysis is comprised of three major sections: demographic informat ion, trave l behavior, and user satisfact ion Each of the sections provides information that will be useful in i mproving the performance and service of the TriRail system. As in the prev ious on-board survey, demographic data collected in this survey in clude age, gender, ethnic ori gin, household income, auto ownership, and residency status. This demographic information will enable TriRail to become more knowledgeable regarding the current market character i stics in their Southeast Flor ida area of operation and how their market segment has changed over time as it relates to ridership The info rma tion can also assi st in determining the need fo r patron facilit ies such as parking and feeder bus service requirements. Travel behavior is established through the collection of informat ion such as station origins/destinations, frequency of boardings and alightings, r id ership volume by line segment, trip length frequencies, average trip length, modes of access/egress, trip purpose, marketing media, seasonal/tourist use, and transit dependency Other information reviewe d includes length of time respondent has used TriRail, public transi t experience, frequency of use, reason for riding, alternative transportation, return trip transit use, and fare type. This information contributes to effective scheduling, station planning, feeder bus service planning and service levels, and general policy decisions From the demographics and travel behavior characteristics, a statistical ridership prof i le can be determined for weekday, Saturday, and Sunday patrons. Establishing such a statistica l demographic profile will enable TriRail to pinpoint specific market characteristics and segments which are useful for the implementation of marketing strategies. User satisfaction is determined in Question 30. Question 30 lists thirteen characteristics as well as overall TriRail service and asks the respondents to rate Tri-Rail's performance in each of these characteristics. Strengths and weaknesses are id ent ified as perce ived by the patrons. The identified weaknesses can potentially be addressed thro ugh changes in the system. By distinguishing patron sensitivities regard ing specific characteristics of the system, Tri-Rail is better able to p rioritize system improvements. 15

PAGE 29

16 This is a blank page

PAGE 30

DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION Demographic-related questions were asked in order to establish a statistical characteristics pro file of the typical Tri-Rail patron. These incl ud e questions relating to patron age (question 18), gender (question 19), ethnic origin (ques t ion 20), annual househo ld income (question 21), auto ownership (question 22), and residency status (question 24). Each of these ques tion s is briefly discussed and accompanied by data in graphical and tabular format for the weighted total response, Thursday response, Saturday response, and Sunday response. To reference the wording of a particular question(s), a sample survey is provided in Appendix A. 17

PAGE 31

Age Seventy-six percent of the survey respondents are between the ages of 23 and 59, indicating that most Tri-Rail patrons are middle-aged However, while a majority of the respondents are between the ages of 23 and 59, Saturday ridership is characterized by younger riders under the age of 22 as well as elderly riders over the age of 65. Approximately 21 percent of the respondents are under the age of 22 on Saturday. Thirteen percent are in the same age group on Thursday. Likewise, over 12 percent of Saturday respondents are over the age of 65, while only 6 percent are in this age group on Thursday Sunday patrons are similar to Saturday patrons in age distribution; 16 percent are under the age of 22 and 11 percent are over the age of 65. T he comparative percent age profile distributions for the weighted total response, Thursday response, Saturday response, and Sunday response are provided in Figure 4. The age percent distributions from the previous on-board survey are nearly ident ical to those from the current on-board survey. Seventy-six percent of the 1993 survey respondents and 78 percent of the 1991 survey respondents are between the ages of 23 and 59. Further comparison illustrates that Saturday r idership for both 1991 and 1993 is characterized by patrons under the age of 22 as well as riders over the age of 65. 18

PAGE 32

Figure 4. Age . WEIGHTED TOTAL RESPONSE 19to 23to 3Sto 46to 60to 65to (B 1991 On-Board Survey. 1993 On-Board Survey J 19to 23to 35 to 46to 60to 65to __ __J 1910 23to 3S1o 4610 601o 6510 18 or uncler 19to 23to 35to4S 46to 60to 6Sto 7S ormore Thursday Response Saturday Response Sunday Response 19

PAGE 33

Gender Fifty-five percent of those using Tri-Rail in their trip to work on Thursday are men while only 45 percent are female This result stems from a greater l abor force participation rate for men than for women in the three county area (55 percent male and 45 percent female}, according to the 1992 Florida Statistical Abstract (based on 1990 U.S. Census data}. The onboard survey data indicate that women use the system slightly more on Saturday and Sunday than men primarily for shopping trips/errands. No other significant differences in trip purposes by gender are apparent for Saturday and Sunday ridership. Of all the shopping trips made on Saturday 65 percen t are made by females, while only 35 percent are by men Figure 5 i llustrates the comparative gender distr i bution percentages Comparisons of the 1991 and 1993 on-board survey results reveal that more men use the system on a typical weekday, while women utilize the system more on Saturday. Shopping trips/errands remain the trip purpose of choice for women on Saturday, while men still dominate work-oriented trips during a typica l weekday. 20

PAGE 34

Figure 5. Gender ... WEIGHTED TOTAL RESPONSE ( 1991 On-Board Survey. 1993 On-Board Survey J Thursday Response -10% "" 10% Saturday Response ----"" Sunday Response 21

PAGE 35

Ethnic Origin Approximately 57 percent of the survey respondents are White/Non-Hispanic, while 18 percent are African -American. In addition, approximately 17 percent indicate their ethnic origin to be Hispanic. The data revealed that Hispanics tend to u tilize the system more on Saturday and Sunday than during a typical weekday. Conversely, White/Non-His panics tend to utilize the system less on Saturday and Sunday and more during a typical weekday. Beyond this observation, there are no clear differences regarding day of travel. Figure 6 represents the comparative ethn i c origin distributions for the patrons surveyed. The 1991 on-board survey evidenced that 66 percent of the survey respondents were White/Non Hispanic, while the 1993 on-board survey evidences that 57 percent of the respondents are of the same ethnic origin; a decline of 9 percent. Also, for Thursday, Saturday, and the weighted total response, there is a significant inc rease in African-American use of the system in 1993 when compared to 1991. Moreover, there is a notable increase in Hispanic ridershi p on Saturday in 1993. 22

PAGE 36

Figure 6. Ethnic Origin ... WEIGHTED TOTAL RESPONSE ( liiJ 1991 On-Board Survey 1993 On-Board Survey J Thursday Response Saturday Response Sunday Response i3

PAGE 37

Total Annual Household Income Approximately 67 percent of th e survey respondents indicate a total annual household income of greater than $20,000, while 27 percent reported an income greater than $50,000. This is consistent, particularly when one considers that, according to the 1990 U.S. Census, the median household income is $26,909 in Dade County, $30,571 in Broward County, and $32,525 in Palm Beach County. Saturday and Sunday ridership evidenced lower income levels than typical weekday ridership Unlike the typical public transportation system which is characterized by predominantly l ower income ridership, Tri-Rail patrons are characterized by a wide range of annual household incomes. The comparative percentages by t otal annual household income category are provided in Figure 7. By comparing the reported tota l annual household incomes from the two on-board surveys f o r the weighted total response, Thursday response, and Saturday response, there is an average increase of approximately 8 percent in respondents who indicate a total annual household income of less than $15,000 in 1993. This may be due, in part, to a shift in Tri-Rail ridership to a more traditional market, i.e., ridership that is characterized by lowe r incomes, zero-auto ownership, and a greater proportion of minorities {see Figures 4, 7, and 8). In fact, this presumpti on is further supported by the decline in the percen t of respondents who indicate earning incomes of $50,000 or greater from 33 percent in 1991 to 27 percent in 1993 {weighted total response). 24

PAGE 38

Figure 7. Annual Household Income .. WEIGHTED TOTAL RESPONSE ( 1991 On-Board Survey. 1993 On-Board Survey J ..... $10,000to S15,000to SJ'S,OOOto S30.000to $10,000to SSO.OOOto SIO,OOOto S70.000to ::: ::riji $10.000 to''::!:!+ S1S.OOOtoS1! UO.OOOtoS2..,,.T szs.ooo to S2U"T S>O.OOOtoS3t,,.,T S40,oootosu"T SSO.OOO to"::::+ HO.OOO to $6! $70.000to Lou ss.ooo S10 ,000to S1S,OOOto SZO,OOOto SlS.OOOto SJO.OOOto ......... SSO.OOOto ......... S70.000to 5% Thursday Response 20% Saturday Response Sunday Response 15% 20% 25

PAGE 39

Auto Ownership Nearly 88 percent of the survey respondents indicate owning one or more vehicles, while only 12 percent report not owning a single vehicle. This reinforces the finding that a vast majority of Tri Rail patrons are choice riders and not 'transit captives.' This differs greatly from the conventional bus transit system where a majority of riders typically are transit dependents and, therefore, have no choice but to use public transportation. However, the data for Saturday and Sunday indicate a significantly larger portion of patrons not owning an auto, 20 and 22 percent, respectively Figure 8 illustrates the comparative auto ownership results for the days surveyed and the weighted total response. A comparison of the results from the two on-board surveys indicates that 8 percent mor e of the 1991 survey respondents indicated owning one or more autos (weighted total response). This is s ignifican t since this indicates that a greater percentage of 1993 p atrons own zero autos. This provides additional evidence that more 1993 survey respondents are dependent on transit. 26

PAGE 40

Figure 8. Auto Ownership WEIGHTED TOTAL RESPONSE ( 1991 On-Board Survey. 1993 On-Board Survey J Thursday Response Saturday Response Sunday Response 27

PAGE 41

Residency Status Eighty-eight percent of the survey respondents indicate being permanent Florida residents. This question was of particu lar interest as it provided an indication of the extent of ridership by non residents and, correspondingly, the extent to which ridership may fluctuate seasonally. This finding is consistent with the work trip dominance of r idership. It i s believed that the timi ng of the survey (January 7-10, 1993) may have captured the peak winter visitor/seasonal resident in the sample. As was expected, seasonal Florida reside nts and tourists/visitors re present a muc h greater proportion of ridership on Saturday and Sunday T he comparative percent distributions for residency status are provided in Figur e 9. By comparing the reported residency status from the two on-board surveys, a similar trend emerges. The percent of permanent Florida residents is nearly identical for the weighted total response, Thursday response, and Saturday response However, t he re is a slight increase in seasonal residents/tourists in 1993 for Thursday and Saturday. 28

PAGE 42

Figure 9. Residency Status Permanent Res,lderlt TOTAL Seasonal Res,idertt (1111 1991 On-Board Survey. 1993 On-Board Survey J Pennanent Reslder1t Seasonal Resider1t Thursday Response Pennanent Resider1t Seasonal Res1ide1nt Saturday Response Pennanent Res,idert Seasonal Res,ider1t Sunday Response 29

PAGE 43

30 This is a blank page

PAGE 44

TRAVEL BEHAVIOR A number of quest ions were asked in order to estab lish travel behavior characteristics of the typica l Tri-Rail patron Information gathered includes how long patrons have been using the system (question 1), public transit exper i ence (question 25), frequency of use (question 15 ), tri p purpose (question 10 ), reason for r iding (question 16 ), alternative means of transportation (question 17), round trip or one-way (question 2), and fare type (question 14). To reference the wording of a particular question(s), a sample survey is provided in Appendix A. Other travel behav ior characteristics ident ifi ed in the survey include stat ion origins/dest i nat i ons, stat ion activity, ridership volumes by line segment, trip le ngt h frequencies, average trip le ngt h, modes of access/egress, access time/egress time, driving distance for automobile access, park in g issues, feeder bus services, trip purpose, marketing media, seasonal/tourist use, and transit dependency. 31

PAGE 45

How Long Have They Been Using the System? Forty-eight percent of patrons began riding Tri-Rail within the past seven months or less, while nearly 67 percent of the users have been riding Tri-Rail for 15 months or less. The increase in new riders on Tri-Rail appears to be growing proportionally to the maturation of the system, as individuals become more aware of the availability of the commuter rail system and as more riders are a commute alternative by the additional service. Sunday respondents who indicate using Tri-Rail for longer than four months presumably were weekday or Saturday riders prior to the beginning of Sunday service (Sunday service began in September 1992). Figure 10 illustrates the comparative results for how long patrons have been using the Tri-Rail system. To have attained the ridership growth that Tri-Rail has experienced requires that there be substantial increases in new riders. However, the data cannot definitively answer questions about rider retention. Comparisons of the 1991 and 1993 on-board survey results reveal that 65 percent of the prior survey's respondents and 55 percent of the second survey's respondents have been using the system for less than one year (weighted total response). While Tri-Rail has been successful at attracting new ridership, as evidenced by the large percentage of first time riders (see Figure 12), the data regarding length of use indicate that Tri-Rail may be experiencing difficulty in retaining riders. 32

PAGE 46

Figure 10. Length of Use ... WEIGHTED TOTAL RESPONSE .. -!thst 12to1SnoontiO.t 16 to 19 niOmiO.f 20to23noontiO.f :Uto27noontiO.t (. 1991 On-8oard Survey 1993 On-Board Survey J o .. 3 --r-p.;; 4to7morl0hs + ... -+ 12 to IS rnoriOhs + 16 .. 19 -+ 20 .. 23 --t 24to27morl0hs t 28 months or Otol 4to7morl0hst ltollmoriOhs t 12 to 15 rnoriOhst , .. 19 -t 20to 23 --t :Uto 27 moriOhs t 21 OtolmoriOhs 4to7morl0hs 8 to 11 mor11N 12 to IS mori1N to 19 .......... 20 to 23 mor11N :u to 27 .......... Thursday Response Saturday Response Sunday Response 33

PAGE 47

Public Transit Experience Given that Tri-Rail is a relatively new mode of transportation to many in Southeast F lorida, i t was desirable to collect information on whether Tri-Rail is attracting users other tha n persons who have had experience using public transit prior to Tri-Rail (Le., Metro-Dade Transit, Broward County Transit, Palm Beach County Transit, or systems in other states). The wording of Question 25 required the survey respondents to make a judgement as to whethe r they consider themselves to be an experienced public transit user. The weighted t ota l response reveals that only 41 percent of the survey respondents consider themselves experienced public transit riders p rior to using TriRail, while 59 percent consider themselves to be inexperienced. This result is consisten t for Thursday and Saturday. In spite of this finding, a majority of Sunday patrons indic ate being experienced public transit riders pr ior to using Tri-Rail. These findings may be explained by the higher percentage of seasonal resident and tourist/visitor {31 percent) use of the system on Sunday. Figure 11 illustrates the comparative publi c transit experience distributions. A comparison of the results from both of the on-board surveys exhibit s that five percent more of the 1993 survey respondents consider themselves experienced public transit users p rio r to u t ilizing Tri-Ra il (weighted tota l response). The data are consistent for both the Thursday and Saturday response. 34

PAGE 48

Figure 11. Public Transit Experience .. WEIGHTED TOTAL RESPONSE ( 1991 OM!oard Survey 1993 On-Board Survey J Thursday Response Saturday Respon s e Sunday Response 35

PAGE 49

Frequency of Use Seventy percent of users on Thursday ride four or more days per week. In contrast, no single frequency of use category stands out for those patrons riding Tri-Rail on Saturday and Sunday except the first time rider category. For both the Saturday and Sunday response, first time riders represent the largest proportion of riders for these days, approximately 27 percent and 25 percent, respectively. Seven percent of the Thursday patrons indicate being first time riders. Of this 7 percent, 51 percent are permanent residents and 49 percent are seasonal residents or tourists/visitors. A crosstabulation of Question 24 (residency status) and Question 15 (frequency of use) reveal that over 60 percent of the first time riders on both Saturday and Sunday are tourists/visitors. F igure 12 represents the comparative results for frequency of system use. Comparisons of the 1991 and 1993 on-board survey results reveal that 69 percent of the prior survey's respondents and 62 percent of the second survey's respondents use the system 4 or more days per week; a difference of 7 percent. Further comparison illustrates that 36 percent of the first on-board survey's respondents indicated riding the train about once every 2 to 8 weeks, whereas 22 percent of the second on-board survey's respondents use the system with the same frequency. 36

PAGE 50

Figure 12. Frequency of Use 4 or mo,. deys 2 or 3 days perwe
PAGE 51

Trip Purpose It would be expected th at most patrons using Tri-Rail for the ir t rip to work would ride the system four or more days per week. Given the large proportion of Thursday respondents r i ding four or more days per week, it is expected that a majority of the weekday riders are commuting to work. I n contrast, patrons use the system on Saturday for more varied purposes. These purposes in dude home, visiting/recreation, shopping/errands, and special event trips. This informa tio n is supported by the comparative data in Figure 13, which represent trip purpose for the Thursday response, Saturday response, Sunday response, and weighted total response. A comparison of the results from the two on-board surveys. indicates that the percent distributions for the weighted total response are nearly identical. Moreover, the similarity between the tri p purpose distributions is also evident for the Thursday response. The only significant difference i n trip purpose distribution between the two surveys occurs on Saturday, where 12 percent more respondents utilize Tri-Rail for visiting/recreation trips in 1993. 38

PAGE 52

Figure 13. Trip Purpose . WEIGHTED TOTAL RESPONSE Spedal Eve1rrtt ____ Ol' ___ ( 1991 On-Board Survey. 1993 On-Board Survey J Thursday Response Special Evo1nt+ ____ <)% ___ Saturday Response ----0% .. __ Sunday Response Special Event 39

PAGE 53

Most Important Reason for Riding the Train The reasons indicated most for using the Tri-Rail system include: parking is difficuiVexpensive (29 percent), more convenient (19 percent), and more economical (19 pe rcent) (weighted total response). The Thursday response distr ibution is nearly identical to that of the weighted total response; however, a significantly higher percentage of Saturday respondents indicate "I don't drive" as their primary reason for using Tri-Rail. Nevertheless, given the overall lower percentages for such reasons as "car is not available" and "I don't drive, it is clearly evident that Tri-Rail patrons are generally choice r iders. Figure 14 illustrates the comparative res ults for Thursday, Saturday, and Sunday respondents as well as the weighted total response. A comparison of the results from both of the on-board surveys displays that the predominant reason for utilizing the system has changed In 199 1, the majority of patrons used the system because of its convenience; i n 1993, the majority of patrons use the system because of parking difficu lties and cost. This shift in most ind icated reason for using Tri-Rail is character ized by a significant decrease in the reasons "train is more economical" and 'train i s more convenient" for 199 1 patrons, to a significant increase in the reason "parking is difficuiVexpensive" for 1993 patrons. It is poss ible that the July 1992 fare increase may have contributed to this shift in reason for utilizing the system, as may have other factors such as changes in parking cost and availability. 40

PAGE 54

Figure 14. Reason for Riding Train ... WEIGHTED TOTAL RESPONSE Troin is more"""'"""'"'+ Car Is av>lliabiof Parting Is dlffk:uOJ-Mlw t T r.in is more aconomk:oif (1111991 On-Board Survey 1993 On-Board Survey J I donllib to drivt+ Train is more com.-.ient+ Car lsnc avallatllaf Parting is diffia</..,.,...mv.,t Train Is"''" ,....,,o mkoal+ I don't like to drivo>t Train Is more com'Onient + Car lo "'" avdal>laf Pa.t.ing is difllcult/..,.,...,sivo,f Train Is n>ore .....,omkool+ Tra in is more conNnlant Car is .,. avo i loble Pa.tdng is dif!l<:uO/_ ....... Thursday Response Saturday Response Sunday Response 4 1

PAGE 55

Alternative Mode of Transportation Respondents were asked how they would have made the i r trip if Tri-Rail were not available. A significant majority of Thursday patrons (64 percent), Saturday patrons (45 percent) Sunday patrons (51 percent), as well as the weighted total response (64 percent), indicate that they would have driven a vehicle had Tri-Rail not been at their disposa l. This suggests tha t Tri-Rail is successful at getting people to g i ve up their automobiles in favor of using the commuter rail system. I n additio n, on Saturda y and Sunday, more so than during the week, patrons cite 'ride w ith someone' and 'wouldn't make trip' as their alternat ives to using Tri-Rail. F igure 15 provides the comparative percent distributions for alternative mode of transportat io n Comparisons of the 1991 and 1993 on-board survey results reveal that 75 percent of the prior survey' s respondents and 64 percent of the second survey's respondents indicate that they would drive if Tri-Rail were not available, a difference of 11 percent. Further comparison ill ustrates that, fo r all comparable days, more o f the 1993 respondents in dicate that they wou ld "r ide with someo ne or 'wouldn' t make t rip if Tri-Rail were not at their disposal than did the 1991 respondents. This further evidences the larger share of riders who are transit dependent in the 1993 survey. 42

PAGE 56

Figure 15. Alternative Mode of Transportation WEIGHTED TOTAL RESPONSE Ride with soJTteonl8 Wouldn't nNlke 20% -80% 100% ( liiilt991 On-Board Survey 1993 On-Board Survey J Ride with somoeonoe Wouldn't make Ride with soJTteonoe Wouldn't make Ride with som1eone Wou ldn't make -100% Thursday Response Saturday Response Sunday Response 43

PAGE 57

Round Trip or One-Way Approximately 92 percent of Tri-Rail patrons indicate plans to use the system on their return trip (weighted total response}. An extremely small proportion of respondents indicate that other transportation arrangements had been made for the return trip. This trend remains consistent for all of the days surveyed. Figure 16 represents the comparative return trip distributions for the weighted total, Thursday, Saturday, and Sunday responses. Comparisons of the 1991 and 1993 onboard surveys reveal that the percent distributions for both possible responses ('return trip' and "no return trip"} are nearly identical Beyond this observation, no other differences between the 1991 and 1993 surveys are evident. 44

PAGE 58

Figure 16. Round Trip or One-Way .. Return WEIGHTED TOTAL RESPONSE No return ( RJ 1991 On-Board Survey 1993 On-Board Survey J Thursday Response No return Return Saturday Response No return Return Sunday Response No return 45

PAGE 59

Far e Type The wei ghted total response indicates that 20 percent of the respo n dents were us ing a regular daily ticket w h en surveyed; 17 percent were using a regu lar monthly ticke t Regular monthly, regular daily, a n d regu lar one-way tickets are almost exclus ively used on weekdays, while regular daily t i ckets and regular o ne-way fares are routin e l y used on Sat u rday and Sunday. Comparative responses regarding the use of the indiv i dual fare types are provided in Figur e 18 Table 6 in the inset at r ight i nd icates current fare types, their cost, and the percent of respo n dents sat i sfied or very sat i sfied with the respective fare types The vast major ity of respondents indicate that they are satisfied or very sati sfied w i t h the fare type that t hey use. Not surprisingly, a significant p ortion (28 percent) of the most frequent Tri-Rail users (four or more days per wee k } utilize the r egu lar monthly ticket This i s a logical outcome since t h e greatest cost savings can be realized by the system' s frequent users by purchasi n g this type of fare. Further, first time r i ders s how a propensity to u t ilize e i ther regular daily ticke t s or regular o ne-way fares Due to t he dissim i larities in t h e far e structures, it is difficu l t to make comparisons between the 1991 and 1993 surveys In 1993, additional fare types were provided as choices that were no t i ncluded on the 1991 on-boa r d survey. For examp le, the fare type 'Fast Track 12-Palc' did not exi st at the time of the prev i ous survey. Table 6 Sa t i sfa ctio n with F are Structure ... -.s..... Of v...,. s-.... -"" n" '""" ss.oo '"' SIUO '"' .. 12ht ill.SO "" -""'" ...... "" O...W.-r Fare SI.SO '"' -suo ""' """""" ..... S9.2S "" Oi$COu11CtcHtR 1 2$-tt: SIUS '"' T 6 .tt sn.so "" F igure 1 7 TrHtail A verag e F are Per Passenger Additionally, the survey's fa r e typ e choices wer e ,.., ,... '"' ,,.. '"' mod i f i ed somewhat between the first and second surveys. The 1991 'round trip fare" was changed in 1993 to "regula r daily ticket." Mor eover, only one discount f are option was provided as a response on the 1991 survey; on the 1993 survey, five d i scounted fare choices were p r ovided. In Figure 17, t h e average far es per passenger trip fo r fiscal years 1989 t h rough 1993 are prov i ded. The average fare for 1993 is not representative of a complete fiscal year I n add i t i on, o nl y s i x months of system da t a are included in 1 989 (for five of these s i x months service was p r ovided at no cost) and fares were increased in J u l y 1992. 46

PAGE 60

Figure 18. Fare Type .. Regular Fast Track WEIGHTED TOTAL RESPONSE RoiJularMorrthlyTkket+ Dlscounwd One-Way Faro+ Discounted Daily n::t Discounted WHkly Ti Discounted Fast Track 12.Pak+ Discounted Monthly Tod
PAGE 61

Station Origins/Destinations According to the weighted total response, the busiest stations are West Pal m Beach and Metrorail, while the Thursday, Saturday, and Sunday responses indicate similar stations as being the busiest. For the weighted total response, approximately 1 7 percent of all trips originate and end at the Metrorail station, while approximatel y 11 percent or igin ate and end at the West Palm Beach station The percent of all trips originating or ending at all other stations for the weighted total response ranges from 3 to 9 percent. While this indicated station activity suggests that the most common tri p pair would be West Palm Beach/Metrorail, in actuality, the most common trip pai r is Ft. Lauderdale/M etrorai l where 2.8 percent of trips begin and end. The results for the Thursday response indicate similar travel patterns to thos e described for the weighted tota l response. However, the results for the Saturday response indicate even greater station activity at the West Palm Beach and Metrorail stations; approximatel y 19 percent of all trips originate/end at t h e Metrorail station and approximately 16 percent of all trips origin ate/end at the West Palm Beach station. In addition, the most common tri p pair for Saturday is West Palm Beach/Metrorai l where more than four percent of trips begin or end. T h e stat ion activity and most common tri p pair f o r Sunday are similar to those evidenced on Saturday. Tables 7 through 10 identify the percent of trips ta ken for each stat ion or igin/desti nation pair. S t ation abbreviations used i n the tables are defined in the box on the facing page. = WN ... lW> 0.1 ... 0 .4'JI. ... 0.1'4 .... .... O.l'JI. lOY 0 .6'4 0. 2 ..... oa .... O .I'J' 0.1" IOC .. ,. 0 .1 '4 ..... ""' .... o. "' ..,. ""' o.6'4 0 .3" ..,. Cl1' .... o .l" .... rn 0.)" O .S"4 ... 0.1" 0.1"4 HOI. 1.0.,., .... o .S" .... O.l'lto O.l'lto ..... 0.3 ... 0.3'4 0 1'4 0>1l ..... 0.1 ... "' 0.2 ... 0.4'4 1 1'4 O.J'X. .... 0.1 ... O l ... "' .... 0 1'4 M'4 .. ,. 0.)'11. 0.2'4 0.1'4 0 2'4 "' 0.1'4 0 3'4 0>% 0 .)'11. 0 3'4 0 .3" 0.4'4 0.1'4 0 1 '4 0 1 ... l l'l6 o.6"4 "'" 0 .1'l6 ..... (1, l '16. o.2"4 0 0.3'J6 O ,l'J6 U% ... .... (1,0'16, 0.3"4 0.2" .... M'J6 "'" ..... 0.1'J6 (I,(I'J6 0 ,1.,., 0 4 .. .. ,,. ... ,. ... ,. ..... .. ,. 0.1"4 0 2 .. O.S'J6 .,. 1.J" 1 .1" " . ,.. ,.,. 1.2"4 ..... 0.4'l6 0 ,4'J6 "' .. .,. "' .... 0.7Y. "" o.s.,., ._.. ....,. .. ,. "" 4 .6Y. UY. ..... ) 3 .. $J'J6 GO< MIT -0 1'4 2.4'4 ,.,. 0 3'4 0 .6'4 OS% l.S'Xo 0.3'4 1,2'4 ..... .. 0.1% O .S'4 ..... "' 0 3 ... 0.1'4 o .S'4 ) ,4'4 0.1'llo U'4 "' .,. 0.5'4 1.2'4 .... .... 0 .3'4 1>% 0 1'4 4 .6'4 (1.7'lfo "' (1.4'J6 .... 0.8'16. ... 0. 1'16 1 1 .. <1.3,., 3.2"4 0 2 % .... 0.5'16 7.0Y. '"' 0 .2'J6 S .2'16. 0.2" 0 1 6 .8'J6 O l'J6 0 .0"4 1 .0'JI. -"' l6.8'J6 7 ,4,.

PAGE 62

= .... O.l ... -O.l'l!. '"' 0.5'4 0. 1 ... toY o.1'4 U1to OIL 0.4'.1(, 0 1 .. ooc 1,4,. .. .,, on ... 0 1 ... .. .... CYP .. ,.. 0.)'4 m ..... O.l'A "" .... (1 11'HOl ...,. 0 .2'tt ""' 0.& ... 0.2 ... MET l.O'Jo ... ... 0 .9'4 0.)1' ll.O" ) l .. Wl'l PBA LWS BOY DEL BOC OFB POM CYP FTL flA HOL GOL MET M IA Table 8 r1g1n estination tations Thursday Relponse Percents otos 0... rth 1 $lllloa .... 110'1 .... IOC ... -CYP "' .... 0.4 ... M" ..... ... u" 0.7.,. '"' .... 0.1 ... .,,. 0 1 ... .... '" .... 0 3 ... 0.1'4 0 1'.4 .,, ..... 0.2 .. 0 2 ... 0.4 ... O.l ... 0 1 .. 0 1 ... ..... ,.,. ..... .,,. 0 4 ... o s ... O ,l.,_ 0 .1" .... 0.1" 0 1 ... ... .. .. 0 1 ... I.O'llo (1,2')1. (1, 1'4 -o.o ... "" .... ,.,. .... 0.2 ... 0.1 ... O .I'Jio O .O'Jfo .... 0.1 ... "' .... 0 .2 ... 0 .2'.'4 0 .1 ... 0.1'4 0.0'4 0 2 ... 0.3'4 0.2'4 ,. .. o .... o.J ... U'4 0 1'4 O .l'JI. 0.111. (1.1"4 0.3'4 0 .5'.'4 0 3'4 1 3 ... U'4 u ... 0 .1.,. 0.0% o ..... O.l ... 0. 1 0.3. 0 2 ... 0.2 ... 0.1 ... 0 0 ... 0 4 ... U'4 0 .2'.4 ... 1).4" .... 0 1 ... O l'l!. 0.0% u" .... 0 ) ... U16 O.S'4 0.4'4 .... 0.4'Jo O I'Jo ..... "% .. ,.. '"" u .. "' "' 2 .7'!{, u" 0 .... ,. ..... ... ..... 0.4,. .... ..% .... .,.,. .... ..... '"" L7'A "" West Palm Bach Stadon Palm INch Airport Station Lake Worth Station Boynton S..ch Stltion Deby Buch Station Boca Raton Station O.OrfloldiiN
PAGE 63

Table 9 Sat urday Response Percents Origin/Destination Stations O t i -= -.... .... 001' .... -... ""' "" "' ... HOt ..,. -'l' .,,. U'Jt. u 0.2" 0.4" .... "' ..... ,..,. "' .... u ... ...... ... ..... ... ..,. 0 1 .. o.>S .... .... ._... Cl.1" -0 5 .. ..,. , ,,. ..,. l WS Gil" .... . ... ..... u s u s oss .... '"" ... ..... .... '-"' ..... ,,.. -..... ..... .... -..... -..,. .... ..,. .. ... "' ..... ..... .... ... ... .. ... ..... ... .... .... ..,. .... .... ..... ..... ...,. u s .... ..... .. -.... 0.1 .. 0,,, .... .... ..... ..... ..... ..,. .... '"" .,,. .,. .... ..... ... ..... ,. .... .... ..,,. .... ..... .... 0 1 .. u .. .... ..,. ... J.l'l--...,. 0 1 .. .u .. O l"l ... ,. .... ..... 0 ,111. ..... o.;J'Jt. o z .. ..,. "' .. ,, '"' "" ""' 0 .4,. ... ,. .... .... 0 .1"4 0 1 .. -o.o .. 0.1 .. 0. 1 .. ,, .. .. 0 .... U'A> m ,..,. 0 ,2'Jt. u"' -..... .... .... ... .... 0.1 .. 0."' ..... U lo .... ... ... .,. O.l'!f. .... ..... .... ..,. 0 1'4 u .. . ... 0 1 .. ..... ..... O.S'Jt. ..... . ... ""' "' (M" ..... .. ,. o sw. .... 0 1'4 .,,. t,l,. o .... ..... ..... ..... u .. .... ""' ""' .... ..... ..... O.S"l ..... 0,1'4 , ,,.. G 2,._ u ... .... ..... ..... ..... ... -..... ..... ..... ,.,. .... . ... l A '"" ' ..... o.ss ..... ..... ..... .... ,..,. .m. ..... .... .... ..... ..... ..... .... .. ... ..... -..... -..... O d:f T o ,..,,. .... ..,,. .,,. .... " ,_,,. ... ,. ln ..... .... 11-$'"4 ..,. ....... 50

PAGE 64

=. --'"' lOY ..... 0.1'11. ..... ... ..... .... lW$ .... ..... lOY .... .... .... "" ..... .... 0.0'.\ IOC O .J" ..... 0.3'11. .... .... ..,. O .l"-O .C'Jfo ..,.. 0 1 ... ..... .... .,. 0 .011. O t11. .... ..... '"" 0 .6,.. 1.5"' 1.1" .... ..... 0 .011. o s ... HOl .... 0 .8'4 ..... ... OOl ..... .... -. .... 3.2" .... .... 1.2'4 ,..,. ..,. "'t.::"" 4 6 ... ?.9''4 ,.,. T a bl e 10 S u n day Response P ercents Origin/ Desti nation Stat ions Oet+$!Qibl "" ooc ... -.,. ..... "" 0.1% 0.1% U'l!. I.S'l!. .... .... O .l'ft O O'ft O.l'ft 0.1'4 O.C'ft 0 .0'4 ..... 0.0'11. ..... 0.1'4 1 .5'4 0 .5'4 ,.,. .... ..... ..... ..... 0 .9'4 0.0'.\ 0.1'4 o o .. Q ,'S'.\ .... .... o.3'ft . .... O C'ft O l'ft 0.3"-'"' .... 0 .0,.. 0 .0,.. 0. ,,.. 0 .0,.. ,,. .... .... .... -. ,,. .... ..... .... ..... O t ..... 0 1 .. .... 0.3" .... .... .... 0 6'1' .... .... ..,. .... ..... .... 0 6 ... .... O .l" .. ... .... .. .. u .. ..... OA .. M" ..... .. .... ..... .. ,. ..... ..... ..... ... "' .... ..... 11.0'11. '-"' HOl ""'--... '=' '"' ,..,. .... ll.Ctl. o.e,; 0 $.,. 0 .4'Wo 1.2'4 "" O.l" u" 1 .6'4 u" 0 .0'.\ .... l fl.l' ( 1.1'.\ ...,. 0 .6'Jfo o .a .. ,. ,.,. .... "' .... O .l'Jfo .... ..... 0 1'fo 4 1'4 .... ..... ..... O .l'ft B"' ,. ..... o.6'4 0 .1'4 "" .... ..... U'ft 1).4" II.OS .... .... 0 (1'4 0 .4'4 U'4 . ,. .. .. .... 5.2,.. ..... 0 .0,.. O.l" $ ,$,.. 0.31< 0 0% .,, 19.0%-0.1"4 0 .3'4 0 1'!10 5.0'4 S S'.i l&.S" ..... No!e: If\ the mtiorlto be tl>e Wl'1 wfficir:nt 11o Ag h dt!;rte o! v.il.h 1M esvtJ., 51

PAGE 65

Station Activity On Thursday, the Metrorail and West Palm Beach stations have the greatest volume of system activity; 16 prcent of all hoardings and alightings take place at the Metrorail station and 11 percent take place at the West Palm Beach station. In addition, these two stations have even greater activity on Saturday, as 18 percent on all hoardings and alightings take place at the Metrorail station and 17 percent take place at the West Palm Beach station. These station activity volumes are similar for Sunday. These data provide useful information concerning the utilization by patrons of each individual station throughout the entire system. Figure 19 represents the volume of activity at each station for the weighted total. Thursday, Saturday, and Sunday responses measured in terms of the proportion of hoardings and alightings at each station. Comparisons of the 1991 and 1993 on-board survey results reveal that the Metrorail and West Palm Beach stations still have the greatest proportion of all hoardings and alightings. However, the prcent of station activity in 1993 has decreased at these two stations, especially on Saturday. This decline indicates that a greater distribution of patron activity is occurring among the stations in the middle of the system as opposed to being concentrated at the ends of the system. 52

PAGE 66

Figure 19. Station Activity ... WEIGHTED TOTAL RESPONSE (1111 1991 On-Board Survey. 1993 On-Board Survey J ... .... .... """' --.... Thursday Response Saturday Response """ -20!1 '"" "" '"" .. ,. Sunday Response 53

PAGE 67

Ridership Volume by Une Segment The ridership volumes observed between stations on Thursday, Saturday, and Sunday are provided by direction (northbound and southbound) in Figures 20 throug h 25. The shaded areas in the graphs indicate the ail-day seated capacity of Tri-Rail trains on Thursday (1 5 trips multiplied by 645 seats per trip 9,675 total seats), on Saturday (9 trips multiplied by 645 seats per trip = 5,805 total seats), and on Sunday (5 trips multiplied by 645 seats per trip 3,225 total seats). For the northbound segments on Thursday and Saturday, the distribution of utilized capacities are r elatively smooth in that their volumes gradually slope upward to a maximum at the Deerfield Beach station and then begin to slope downward, while the utilized capacities for the southbound Thursday and Saturday segments are also uniformly disbursed in that their volumes gradually slope upward to a peak at the Cypress Creek station and then begin to dedine steadily. The utilized capacity for the northbound Sunday segment reaches its maximum volume at the Pompano Beach station; in the southbound direction the peak volume is also attained at the Pompano Beach station. This divergence in peak volume s tat ion on Sunday may be explained by patrons utilizing Tri-Rail for recreational activities. The figures illustrate that ample capacity remains for significant increases in ridership during the week and the weekend. At peak load points, the figures indicate an average available capacity of approximately 71 percent on Thursday, 70 Percent on Saturday, and 50 percent on Sunday. However, available capacity may vary by tra in Station abbreviations used in the figures are defined in the box below. 54 WPI w.c ,.IMI:h "" ,....., ._,. AMI*t Sladon LWS .a. Word! Sllldon .OY a.dl SUtiOfl DO. ._.. Ndon IOC toG .._ Stllt)ofl DB o..fklld IMdl SiWI:Ioa "'* ,.,.._ ... $UtiOf'l CYP C)p.a cn.tSU!don m Ft. 1 Ml f .... Stnltift fLA ft. .......... Alrpt blot MOl Mot, ... Figure 20 Thursday, Northbound Line Segment Figure 21 Thursday, Southbound Line Segment

PAGE 68

figure 22 Saturday, Northbound Une Segment Figure 23 Satllrday, Southbound Une Segment Figure 24 Sunday, Northbound Une Segment 12,000 1,000 e,ooo,+-----------1 :1,000 --O WPS LWS DtL DFI CYP fi.A GOL MIA ,.., 10'1' aoc JOM m NOL Mn Figure 25 Sunday, Southbound Une Segment 1:1,000 I C S.WbOl'lldVW.. 1.000 6,0001-l-------------l 4,000 :z.ooo ---O WN LWS DEL 01'8 C'f1' AA GOL MIA 'lA IOV 10C f'OM m. HOL Mtr 55

PAGE 69

Trip Length Frequencies and Average Trip Length Tabl e 11 identifies the frequency of trips that fall w ithin disc r ete t r i p l ength intervals. Trips of 0.0 to 19 .9 miles are more prevalent on Thursday, while saturday and Sunday trips have a tendency to be 40 to 67 miles in length. Fifty percent of all Saturday trips are 40 miles in length or greater, while 49 percent of all Sunday trips are 40 miles in length or greater, as well Conversely, only 26 percent of all Thursday trips are 40 miles in length or greater. As a result, the average t rip lengths are notably different for each day surveyed. The average t rip length is 30 mi les on Thursday, 40 miles on Saturday, and 40 miles on Sunday. The disparity in average trip len gth can be attributed to the l arge proportion of work-oriented trips taken on t h e weekdays which are typically shorter in distance. Likewise, Saturday and Sunday trips are generally longer i n length as people are t r avell i ng further to spend the day in pursuit of recreational activit ies. Comparisons of average trip length results from both onboard surveys indicate that the 199 1 survey respondents had longe r average tri p l engths for both Thursd ay and Sat u rday Thi s resul t may further support the intima t ion that there i s a greater distr ibu t ion of patron activity among the stations in the m i ddle of the system in 1993 as opposed to being more concentrated at the ends of the system as in 1991. For comparative purposes, Figure 26 illustrates the average trip for 1991 and 1993 survey respondents. 56

PAGE 70

T a b l e 1 1 Trip L ength Freque nci e s by W e ekday and W eekend Tffp kllf6. Triplt: ..... -,.,, .. ,,., ,,., .... 0 to 9 .9 miles 6% 2% S% 2% 6% 1 0 to 1 9 9 m iles 22% 18% 1 0% 4% S% 20 t o 29. 9 30% 30% 18% 1 2% 21% 30 t o 39. 9 miles 1 6% 1 7% 17% 15% 19% 40 to 49. 9 m ile$ 12% 1 4% 19% 1 9% 15 % SO t o S9. 9 mi&H 6% 9% 14% 23% 1 8% 60 t o 67 miles 8% 9 % 17% 26% 16% Tool --'""' W.;gh1ed TOU11ttiti10<"14+ 1010402002040 M ilts "" N/A N/A NJA N/A N/A N/A N / A Wtrpwd Totlll "" "" 6% 2% 20% 1 6% 29% 2 8% 16% 17% 13% 1 5 % 1% 11% 9'lY 12% .... 57

PAGE 71

Modes of Access/Egress By Station and System Total The access/egress modes have been grouped into three primary categories: walk, transit, and automobile. A pie chart that indicates the proportion of access and egress trip modes is provided for each station that comprises the TriRail system. The walk category includes walking 0-4 blocks and walking over 4 blocks. The transit category includes the use of Metromoverjrail, TriRail s hut tle, other buses, and jitneys. The automobile category includes driving and parking at a station and/or being dropped off/picked up at a station. For the system as a whole, 46 percent of accessfegress trips are made by automobile, 38 percent by transit, and 16 percent by walking, as indicated in Figure 27. This information is particularly useful since it provides an indicatio n of the modes of access/egress that are typically used at each station. A review of the station access/egress mode distributions indicates that all but three stations are accessed/egressed primarily by the automobile. The majority of trips to or from the Boca Raton, Metrorail, and Miami Airport stations are by walking and the numerous forms of transit available in the vicinity of these stations. Interest ingly, the Metrorail station has the greatest percentage of patrons that access/egress the station by walking (26 percent). Comparisons of the 1991 and 1993 on-board survey results reveal that the aut o mode is still the patron mode of choice to access/egress Tri-Rail stations. However, as a proportion of the system total, t h e auto mode has actually declined since 1991 from 53 percent to 46 percent. This is a clear indic ation that Tri-Rail patrons are placing less emphasis on the auto and more emphasis on walking and the various forms of available transit to access/egress Tri-Rail s tations. 58

PAGE 72

Figure 27 Modes of Access/Egress by Station IIIQWAIID COUin'Y "" -mL tK ., W
PAGE 73

Driving Distance for Access by Automobile The primary mode of access in the trip to work is driving to a station and parking. Respondents who accessed a Tri-Rail station through this mode were asked how far they drove to get to the station Figure 28 presents the comparative driving distance distributions for the weighted total, Thursday, Saturday, and Sunday responses. The data indicate that most of the Tri-Rail patrons who access stations by driving and parking have to drive only 5 miles or less (57 percent, weighted total response). Approximately 96 percent of the tota l respondents indicate driving 20 miles or less. Thursday respondents indicate a nearly identical driving distance distribution to that of the weighted total response. Similarly, 96 percent of Saturday patrons who drive and park indicate driving 20 miles or less to access Tri-Rail stations; however, a greater share of these respondents indicate driving 5 miles or less (62 percent vs. 56 percent for Thursday). Conversely, only 91 percent of Sunday patrons who drive and park indicate driving 20 miles or less. This is primarily due to the larger share of Sunday patrons who indicate driving 21 to 30 miles (6 percent). Comparisons of the driving distance results from both on-board surveys indicate that the 1991 survey respondents drove longer distances to access Tri-Rail than did 1993 survey respondents. Interesti ngly however, a greater percentage of 1991 respondents also drove 5 miles or less to access Tri-Rail. Moreover, 1993 Saturday patrons indicate driving shorter distances to access Tri Rai l than did 1991 Saturday patrons. 60

PAGE 74

Figure 28. Driving Distance for Automobile Access . WEIGHTED TOTAL RESPONSE 51.f0 mllos+ ( 1991 On-Board Survey. 1993 On-Board Survey J Thursday Response 5 1.f0 mir..o+ Saturday Response Sunday Response 7$% 100!1 6 1

PAGE 75

Parking One of the identified objectives of the second o!HJoard survey is to evaluate the availability of parking at each indivi dual Tri -Rail station. Table 12 provides the crosstabulation of the origin station (question 8) by satisfaction with the availability of parking (question 30a) Although 80 percent of the respondents indicate being somewhat satisfied to very satisf i ed with the availability of parking at Tri -Rail stations (see Figure 30, weighted total response) closer scrutiny of Table 12 denotes stations where the availability of parking should be re-evaluated and, perhaps, improved The r esponse to the avail ability of park i ng question for those who accessed the Tri -Rail system at the Palm Beach Airport, Boca Raton, Ft. Lauderdale, and Hollywood stations indicate being somewhat to very dissatisfied with respect to parking avai labi lity. Of those parking at the Pal m Beach Airport station, 35 perce n t in dicate that they are somewhat or very dissatisf i ed with the avai lability of parking. At the Boca Raton station, 42 percent are somewhat or very dissatisfied with parking availability. At the Ft. Lauderdale station, 30 percent are somewhat or very dissatisfied with the avail ability of parking, while 39 percent are somewhat or very dissatisf i ed with parking availability at the Hollywood station. Other stations with a relatively high perception of dissat isfact ion with availability of parking incl ude the Boynton Beach Pompano Beach, Cypress Creek, and Metr orail stations. Concern for parking availability is much more prevalent during the wee k when most patrons take work-or i ented trips and drive and park at a stat ion However, Sunday patrons did express dissatisfaction with parking avai lability at the Lake Worth, Pompano Beach, Cypress Creek, and Metrorail stations. I n general, those persons arriv ing for an ear l y train may be very satisfied with the availab ility of parking even though those patrons using the stations for l ater tra i ns may face a shortage of availab l e parking. Park in g lot occupancy studies can verify the schedule for parking lot f ill -up by each i nd ividual station. Comparisons of the 1991 and 1 993 on-board survey results reveal that the prior survey's respo nde nts were more satisfied, in general. with the availability of parking at each station. Overall, 72 percent of the 1991 survey respo ndents indicated t hat they were sat i sfied or very sat i sfied w i th the availabi lity of parking, while 65 percent of the 1993 survey respondents i ndicate the same levels of satisfaction (see Figure 30). In addition, only 8 p ercent of the 1993 Saturday respo nden ts indicate being somewhat to very dissatisfied with the ava il ability of parki ng versus 11 percent for the 1991 survey respondents. This 3 percent decrease in dissatisfaction may be due to the addition of Sunday servi ce which may ha ve l essened the Saturday parking deman d. 62

PAGE 76

Table 12 Satisfaction With the Availability of Parking by Station {We ighted Tota l Response) SftWactonWllh ....... s.n-t. """' ...... ............ -....... Vef'f O...ditod "" "" "" ,.,, "" ,.., "" ,,., ,,., ,,., wmPa.... ,.,, '"' '"' ..,. 11% " "' '" .,, "' .......... "" '"' "" "" "" '"' "" ''" "" '"' ..... w .... )2% "" " "" "" ''" ... "' "" .,, ..... "" '"' '"' "" "" ''" 1)% "" "'' "'' ............ "" " "'' "" ... ""' "' ,, "' ,, ---"" "" ''" 12% "" "" "" "" "" ............ ... '"' .... -"' ,.,. "' "' '" --"" "" ,.,, "" "' ,.,. '" "'" '" "" """" .,.. "" "" '"' "" "' .... "' ,.,. "" ,.,. f\lwtllll* .... "" ,.,. JS% '"' "" ... "" "" "" "--SS% "" ,. .. <2% '" "" "' ... "' '" -"" '"' ,. "" '"' "" '"' "" "" ColdooCW.. "" ""' "" '"' "' S% '" "' "' "' ......... ... '"' '"' "' "" " "' '" ll'* ,,. ...... '"' "" "" "" "' "" "' '" "' ,. 63

PAGE 77

Feeder Service An important objective of the second on-board survey, as in the first on-board survey, is to determine whether Tri-Rail patrons are satisfied with the feeder bus service that i s being offered during the time of survey administrat ion Overall, the results evidence that Tri-Rail patrons are satisfied with the availability of feeder buses to and from stations for the entire system. However, it is useful to consider satisfaction with the availability of feeder buses by individual station in order to ascertain which stations are being served b etter or worse along the Tri-Rail system, as perceived by survey respondents. Since feeder bus services are more frequently used in the egress portion of the trip, Table 13 represents satisfaction with the availability of buses by destination station. Fifty-one to 73 percent of the respondents indicate being satisfied or very satisfied with the availability of buses, while 9 to 27 percent of survey respondents indicate being somewhat satisfied with feeder bus service at each destination station. As a result, it appears that the feeder services currently provided t o and from each station are effective in serving their purpose. However, persons who are not satisfied and subsequently have not chosen to utilize Tri-Rail (and be surveyed) are not represented in the sample. Several stations can be ide n t i fied where a relatively high percentage of respondents indicate being somewhat or very dissatisfied with feeder service relative to the other stations. Approximately 25 percent of respondents completing their trip at the Ft. Lauderdale Airport station, 30 percent at the Delray Beach station, 23 percent at the Pompano Beach station, 24 percent at the Hollywoo d station, 26 percent at the Metrorail station. and 21 percent at the Miami Airport station indicate being somewhat or very dissatisfied with feeder bus services. The feeder services for these stations should be re-evaluated to determine how improvements in service can be achieved. Recognize that this does not mean that the feeder services to these stations are poor. As stated previously, the majority of respondents reacted positively to feeder bus service at all Tri-Rail destination stations. The 1991 on-board survey results revealed that, overall, patrons were s i gnificantly more satisfied with the availability of feeder bus services at each station than the 1993 survey respondents, 77 percent versus 63 percent, respectively (see Figure 31, weighted tota l response). In addit i on, the stations that had the highest levels of dissatisfaction as perceived by patrons have changed somewhat. The 1991 survey evidenced that the Ft. Lauderdale Airport and Hollywood stations had the greatest degrees of d issatisfaction. Currently, the stations having the greatest degrees of dissatisfact ion are Delray Beach and Metrorail. Most surprising is the increase i n patron dissatisfaction w i th the availability of feeder bus service at Delray Beach, which increased from 16 percent to 30 percent somewhat or very dissatisfied. 64

PAGE 78

Tabl e 1 3 Sa tisfa ction W ith the Availability of Buses by Statio n (Weighted Total Res ponse) .. ......... ,., ll_ol ... ...... Solllll.tllt 5omtlllit v.,_ -Y"'J D l D e t 1 --.,... "' '"' "" "" "' ,,., '"' ,,., '"' ,,., Wcwt,.fud! '"' ''"' l'2" "" "" '"' "' .,. '"' ....... "" "" "" "" ' '"' "' .,. "" .... w ... "" "'' "" "" " -' '" .,. --"" "'' '"' .... "" '"' "" "" ... .......... ,.,. "'' "" ,.,. "" "" '" "" "' ---"'' ''" .... "" "" ""' "' ""' "' ............. ""' "" "" ""' '"' '"' ... '" ,,. --""' ,.,. "" 2)" ,. t6't. "' "' '"" c,.-c..l '"' "" ""' "" "' ""' ... ... .. .............. ""' .... ""' "" "" "' "' "" "' f1. Alrpott "" "" .... ""' "" " '"' "" '" Molr-ood .. "" ""' '"' .... '"' "" '"' '"' """"'"""" "" "" "" "" "" "'' ... ... "" -"" "" "" "" .... . ,. '" "" ,,. --,.,. "" -" '"' "' " "' U elt '"' .,, .,, " ... "" "' "' "" ... "' '"" '"' '" '"' '"' 65

PAGE 79

Trip Purpose Weekday responses are dominated by homefwork trip pairs. Approximately 34 pe rce n t of all trips taken on Thursday originate at home and are completed at the work s it e. Likewise, more than 32 percent of all trips originate at work and are completed at home The Saturday and Sunday responses differ from the weekday response in that trip purposes are distributed more evenly among the many alternatives. Approximate l y 21 percent of all Saturday trips and 20 percent of all Sunday trips originate at home and end in some form of visit or recreationa l activity. An additional 19 percent and 2 0 percent of the Saturday and Sunday trips involve the return trip from visiting or a recreational activity back to the home. Other common origin/destination pairs on Saturday and Sunday indude: home to shopping/errands (6 percent for both days), shopping/errands to home (6 percent for both days), home to work (8 percent for both days), and work to home (7 percent for both days). In the cases where respondents i ndicate the origin to be the same as the destination, there is apparently a misunderstanding regarding the quest i on's intent. I n most cases, this percentage is very small. However, n early 5 percent of the Saturday and Sunday respondents and 3 percent of the Thursd ay respondents indic a te their origin and destination to be the home. It is lik e ly that these respondents interpreted the question to mean the destination at the end of the day as opposed to the e nd of the trip. Despite the misunderstandings, the sample size is still suffident to maintain a high degree of confidence with the survey results. Tables 14 through 17 illustrate trip purposes (origins/destinations) for the weighted total, Thursday, Saturday, and Sunday responses. Overall, the trip pair results from both surveys are similar; however, the 1993 results indicate significant increases in the home to visiting/recreation pair (from 12 percent to 21 percent) and the home to work pair (from 4 percent to 8 percent) for Saturday patrons -...... "'" w ... ,..,. ...... """"""""' ..... ... .....,..,... u" S .I'JI. --0.5"4 """ 2.1"4 '"" .. 6.1% 66 Table 14 Weighted Total Response Percents Trip Purpose Origin/Destination Tlfp,.,..Otllli don w ... """' = =:t.. l9.S% S>" OJ" t .J'JII. Ull. ...... 0 .1'11. ..... O.I'Jt. 0 .1'4 '""' .... .,. o.o-. 0.1"4 ..... ..... '"' '"' O.l'llo ..... .... O t'Jf. O.I'Jf. 0 .2"4 ..,. ..,. '"' ..... ..... ..... '"' '"' 0.1'4 0.1'4 ..... 0 1 ... O.l ... 32.S'Jf. S.6'll. 1.1'4 L l% ,..,. '=t ,._ .... OS'Jio .... ... ,. 0.1"4 ) 1 .1'4 -..... ..,. ..... 0.0'11. "' O .l'llo ,..,. -0.3'4 '"' 0 .1% O.O'llo '"' O.O'JII. O.S'Jf. 3.1'4 0.1'4 ].4'JI,

PAGE 80

, .. ,.,_ OwtPio -l l ... w ... ll.l" ...... .. ,. -..... ... __.. 0 ..... v-2.4'4 _.. ..... .,, ,..... 1.5" "'" T!fp Ol1lill -,..,. w ... ,..,. ....... .... .,_.,.,.... o .s,; ... .....,..,.... "' ...... --. .... .,_ S.1'4 '"" 45.2% -s. "' w ... "" """'' 1.1'% .,__ ..... ........,..,... s .no 19.6% ........... .... .,.... S.1'llo .... <66.1'4 Table 15 Thursday Response Percents Trip Purpose Origin/Destination w .. ll.7" 2 7 ... .,,. 0.1 ... "'" 0.1" .,. 0 1'4 ....... """' = "' 0 ,11,. ..... 0. 1 ... 0.1'4 ..... IU'l' 0.0'4 .,. ..... 0.2'4 .,. .. .,. O.O'llo "" ..... '"' 0.1 ... .,. o.o ... ..... 0.1'4 0.0'4 ..,. ..,. \ ,\'4 U % Table 16 Response Percents 1 .=:. 0 1'4 .... .,. 0.1'4 t.$'4 "' 0 .2 ... 4 ,4,. Trip Purpose Origin/Destination T ... w ... ....... = -..... ,..,. "" 0 ,,,.. .... '""' 1 .1'1(, .,,. ..... '"" .,,. .. .. .. .. ..... 0.1'4 .., .. M" '""' "" ..... .... 0 1% ..... .... .... OJ" "' ..... 0 1 '!(, ..... ..... ...,. 0 1 ... .... 0 .0'4 .,. 0.1'4 0 .1'4 .,, 0 .1'11. ... ,. 9.5'4 .... 0 1 ... 7 .0'11. ,...,. Table 17 Sunday Response Percents Trip Purpose Origin/Destination w .. """' = "==f .=:. u" u o.s ... 10.1'4 ..... ""' '"' 0.1'1' O.l ... 0 1% ... .... .... .,,. ..,. ..... "" '"' 0 1% 0.1"4 ..... ..... ..... .,.. .... '" 0 .)" .... ..... 0 1% "' 0.0% 0 !% 0.1'llo '"' .... 0 .1"4 ..... 9.2"4 ,.,, .. ,. .... "' 't::t """ T .... ..... .. ... ....,. ..... O .l'll> ,..,. ..... ..... .,,. "' 0.0% 1 .1% .... 0.0'4 1 1 ... o.l'4 "' "' 0.1'4 ., .. 0.1 ... O .S'4 l.S ... ..... ,.,. ,. .,. '= """ Tool 2.1'll> S.l'4 ...... O.O'Jto 0.2'4 .,. 0.1 ... 0.0'4 '-"' 0 0'4 0 1'4 .. ,. ..... 0.1% .... 0.2'4 O.S'll> .. .... (1,)'4 ..... 0.0'4 0.6'4 6 .S'4 2.6 ... ti.7'J(, 100.0'4 'f::!: ,..... Tool ,..,. 5.1% 4U" ..... 0.1"4 8.4 ... 0 1"4 ..... u" 0.0"4 0 1"4 . ,.. O.O'JI> 0.1" .... 0.2'4 O.S'llo 46.1 ... 0 .4'4 "" 2..6"4 0.0"4 0.2" .... 2.6'4 6.2% 100 .0'4 67

PAGE 81

Trip Purpose by Station The trip purposes are provided for the system total as well as for each individual station in Figure 29. The trip purposes have been grouped into three major categories: home-based trips, work based trips, and other trips. A pie chart is provided for each station that indicates the percentage distribution of the various trip purposes in each of the three categories. The home-based t rip category refers to that proportion of trip s that use the station going to/from home, while the work-based trip refers to that proportion of trips that use the station go ing to/from work. The combined total for all other trip purposes is relatively small. As a result, an "other" category is provided which includes school, doctor/dentist, shopping/errands, visiting/recreation, spedal event, and other. For the system as a whole, 47 percent of all boardings and alightings are home-based, 32 percent are work-based, and 20 percent are other types of trip purposes. The trip purpose by station is particularly useful in the determination of which stations are used primar il y by residential areas and which are used primarily by employment centers. For example, the Golden Glades station clearly serves a residential area since 74 percent of the trips are home-based. In contrast, the Metrorail station clearly serves an employment location directly or via transfer since over 46 percent of all trips are work-based. The 1993 on-board survey results reveal that patrons are more apt to utilize the system for 'other" trips and less for work-based trips than their 1991 counterparts, while the percent distribution for home-based trips remains unchanged for the total system. Of particular interest, a significant shift has occurred at some stations regarding the percen t distribution of home-based and 'other trips between the two surveys. For instance, the 1991 survey evidenced that 80 percent of the trips at the Lake Worth station were home-based, while the 1993 survey indicates that only 60 percent of the trips are currently home-based. At the same station, trips for 'other' purposes increased from 11 percent to 28 percent between the 1991 and 1993 surveys. However, it is interesting to note th a t a few of the stations exhibited an increase in home-based trips. One of the most dramatic increases occurred at the Metrorail station where 27 percent of the 1993 trips are home based; only 14 percent of this s tation's trips were home-based in 1991. 68

PAGE 82

Figure 29 Trip Purpose by Station POW'AII.D
PAGE 83

M a rketing Media Respondents were asked to indicate how they first learned about Tri-Rail. Approximately 26 percent of the respon de nts learned about T r i -Rail through some form of advertising such as radio, television, newspaper or some ot her type of mass-mark eting media. These results indicate that marketing efforts have been successful in attracting current users. In addition, approx imately 17 percent of the survey respondents indicate t h at they learne d about Tri-Rail from simply observing the syste m i n op e rat ion. Forty-three percent of the respondents indicate learning about Tri-Rail t h ro ugh a friend/word-o f-mouth or through a famil y memb er as shown i n Table 18 below. Table 18 How did you first lea rn about T ri-Rail? (Weighte d Tot a l R e s p onse) RQioyer 7 5% 7 1 % O bse!Vtd system optt"ating 16.6% 6 0% O.ambtr of Comme r ct/CMc Organization 1 0% N/A Other 5.7% 9.5% %CJMns 46.9% 47.3% 65.0% 5.6% 176.7% N/A 40.0% Results from the 1993 on-boar d s urvey indicate a significant change i n the methods th at current p atrons are usi ng to gain knowledge o f Tri-Rail. The percent distr i bution of patrons who learned about Tri-Rail via advertising has decreased significantly, while the percent distribution o f patrons that have learned a b out Tri-Rail f rom frie nds, by worcklf-mou t h o r by simpl y observing the system in operation has increased. This supp orts the results of the user sati sfaction questions since patrons th at ar e satisfied with Tri-Rail service, i n ge neral, are mor e likely to recommend the use of the system to t heir fr iends and relatives. 70

PAGE 84

Seasonal Resident/Tourist Use Of partic ula r r e l evance is the impact that seasonal residents, tourists, and vis i tors have on Tri -Rail r id ership. As indica ted in Figure 9, approximate l y 12 percent of the survey respondents indica te that they are either a tourist, a v i sitor, or a seasonal Southeast Florida resident. Fewer visitors and seasonal residents i n the off-season may res ul t in a p rop ortional decline i n ridership. In orde r to determine if the effects are s ig n ific ant, i t is useful to conside r the frequency of ridership on T ri-Rail for these groups of patrons Table 19 yields the crosstabu l ation of frequency of use (question 15) and re sidency stat u s (question 24) It is apparent from the data that perma nent residents dominate every frequency of use category since they comprise 88 percent of the survey respondents (see F igur e 9, weigh ted total r esponse). Also, the table indicates that the majority of seasonal residents and tourists/visitors are f i rst time riders or limit thei r use of Tri-Rail to once every few weeks Table 19 Frequency of Use and Residency Status (Weighted Total Response) RHiclcnc:y saws fftquency of Use 'r.:l:' Seuonal Resident 1993 1991 1993 1991 4 Of more days/week 60% 48% 1% 2% lO
PAGE 85

Transit Dependents and Choice Riders One of Tri-Rail's major goals is to encourage individuals to abandon the single-occupant vehicle and begin to use the commuter rail system. Data collected i n th e survey can be analyzed to determine how successful Tri-Rail is in attaining this objective. Table 20 provides two items of informatio n : (1) alternative mode of transportation that would have been used had they not made their trip on Tri-Rail, and (2) the number of automobiles owned by each individual according to the alternative mode categories. Approximately 63 percent of th e respondents would have driven had they not ridden Tri-Rail on this trip, while another 15 percent would have ridden with someone else to make the trip. It is clear that the vast majority of Tri-Rail users are c hoice transit riders and clearly do not depend on transit as the ir exclusive source of transportation. Only 12 percent of the respondents indicate not owning an automobile. As a result, it appears that Tri-Rail is doing an excellent job of getting people out of their cars and o nto the trains. Table 20 Alternative Transportation and Automobile Ownership {Weighted Total Response) ............. AJtemadYe Transport:a.don None One ...... Thuormore 1993 199 1 1993 199 1 1993 1991 1993 199 1 Dn.e 2% 1% 23% 24% 28% 34% 10% 11% ... 4% 2% 3% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% Rkle wlith tofMOM 3% 2% 6% 5% 4% 3% 2% 2% Would not......,.., 3% 2% 4% 5% 3% 4% 1% 2% Tad 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% The results from the 1993 and 1991 on-board surveys are very similar for thi s crosstabulation. The only notable differences from the previous survey and the current survey are the percentage change i n patrons who would utilize an auto or transit as an alternative to using Tri-Rail and the percentage change in the respondents who indicate not owning an auto. In 1991, 70 percent of the respondents indicated that they would have driven had they not utilized Tri-Rail for their trip, while 63 percent of the 1993 respondents indicate the same. Moreover, in 1991, 6 percent of the respondents indicated that they would have ridden the bus to make their trip had they not ridden Tri-Rail, whereas 10 percent of the 1993 respondents indicate likevvise. The change in percentage of patrons owning zero autos increased from 7 percent in 199 1 to 12 percent in 1993. This is further evidence that T ri-Rail's ridership i s shifting to a more traditional transit market. 72

PAGE 86

Ridership Profil e The characteristics provided in Table 2 1 describe a typ ical patron of T ri-Rail on weekdays, Saturday, and Sunday. Age G endl' r E thnic Origin Hovsehol d lnc:ome Educ-&tDon Level L e ngth of use Transi t ExPerience Frequency of Use Reason f o r Riding Alternative T ransportation A u to Ownership Statu s Trip Purpose R ound Trip o r Oof!l>Way Fare Type Table 21 Ridership Profiles Typial w .. ,....., Typical Sauday Patron 23 to 34 23to 34 M a l e ........ WhitefNOI\-Hispanic White/Non-Hisp anic 5 3 0,000 t o 5 3 9,000 L ess than ss.ooo Some college somt 0 to 3 month s 0 to 3 months Inexperienced 4 or more days per week F i r s t time rider Parking is d ifficult/ex p ensive is difficult/eJCPen siV'e OrNe DIN< 2 autos 1 auto Ptfm&nent resident Ptn-n.aneot HOmt/WOtk. Homt/visitin9-recrtation Round trip Round tri p monthtf ticket Regui&t one-way fare Typical Sundoy ,._ 2 3 t o 34 F emale White/NOf"'
PAGE 87

74 Typical weekday, Saturday, and Sunday respondents choose to ride Tri-Rail because parking is difficult/expensive. The typical weekday rider is more likely to own two autos, while the typical Saturday and Sunday rider is more likely to own one auto. Weekday riders are more likely to use the regular monthly ticket, whereas weekend patrons tend to use the regular one-way fare.

PAGE 88

Comments/Suggestions At the conclusion of the 1991 on-board survey, respondents were given the opportunity to provide comments and/or suggestions regarding Tri-Rail. Due to the addition of several new questions and the questions related to the impacts of Hurricane Andrew on Tri-Rail ridership, sufficient space was not available for respondents to provide comments andjor suggestions in the second on board survey. However, numerous respondents expended effort and time and found space in the margin to provide comments or suggestions regarding Tri-Rail. Selected comments for Thursday, Saturday, and Sunday response are provided below. Some of the comments have been edited for clarification Comments From Thursday Patrons: 'More polite ticket sellers and drivers." 'Security on train and while waiting for the train. "Better schedules for the drivers (eliminate stops for meals, breaks, etc.)." "Open restrooms in evenings and keep them clean. "Need more parking spaces." "More employees that speak Spanish.' 'Ticket patrol.' More service and advertisement for commuters.' 'More bicycle parking." "Designate smoking areas in the station waiting areas. "Smoking alarms in restrooms. 'Run more frequently (every 30 minutes i n peak hours)." 'Run trains more frequently and earlier on weekends and holidays. 'Trains should be punctual to connect with Metrorail and vice-versa." "Express buses to Miami i n peak hours.' 75

PAGE 89

'Buses shou ld have l uggage compartment baggage should be limited.' 'More buses and trains. 'Stations protected by weather . 'Add lighti ng at bus stations.' 'Provide a 5 or 7 day discount ticket.' 'Military and student discount fare.' 'Introduce an advance ticketing po licy.' 'Parking should be free at Metrorail station for train riders.' 'Lower fares.' 'Discount ticket for United Airlines workers.' 'Improv e Metrorail station at 79th Street.' 'Improve the crossover bridge at Golden Glades station.' "Parking dose r to stations (Cypress Creek station).' "Hollywood stat ion needs a parking lot.' 'Ft Lauderdale Airport bus service is very poor.' 'Sell parking tic kets in conjunction with Metro r a il.' 'Security at Browar d station park in g lo t.' 'Security at night at Golden Glades station.' 'Miami Airport station needs lighting.' "Improve drainage at all parking lots.' "Free shuttle bus for all areas.' 'Change the 5 :01 a m train back to 5 : 15 a m at Boynton Beach.' 'Do not move H ollywood station.' 'A 4 :00 p .m. Metrora il northb ound ro ute.' 76

PAGE 90

'Feeder bus from West-Univers ity.' 'Extend service to Stuart, Port St. Lucie, and Ft. P ierce." 'Bus servi ce on Davis B l vd. eastbound (Ft. L auderda l e).' "Bus stops i n Palm Beach, Punta Gorda, and Golden Glades.' "New stations i n Palm Beach Gardens, the new VA Hosp i t al, a n d Pratt & Whitney "Connection from Delray station to Delray Community Hospi tal: linton/Military." 'Parking statio n at 79t h Street.' 'Exte n d T r i -Rail into South Kendall." 'B uild parking structure (with levels).' 'Open a new stat ion at 27th Ave. in Opa Locka.' 'E xtend services north to Jupiter and west to Mart inMar i etta. 'E xtend the service for hospital workers who work all shifts." B us s h uttle t o Boca Raton." Comments From Saturday Patrons: "Mo r e polite ticket sellers "Security on train and while waiting for the train.' 'Need more parking spaces.' 'Better telephone service.' "Add tracks.' "M i dday servi ce should be more frequent." "I vvish this train woul d go t o Tampa and Orlando. 'Would like late train from Ft. Lauderdale Ai rport or Palm Beach A irport ; p l ane arrives 11:30 p.m.' I am a rail enthusiast. 1 love rail travel. Service should be extende d to Homest e ad (south) and Orlando (north)." 77

PAGE 91

'Better sign directories and in formation center for stat ions.' 'An area where r i ders can buy food.' 'Run t rains more frequently 'Run more frequent l y durin g midday and earlier on weekends.' 'La ter runs Run tra ins at night.' 'Announce w h e n the train is l a te 'Have the same weekly schedule on holidays and weekends.' 'Passenger amenities (i.e., air conditioning) 'More bus shelters with benches protected from the weather.' "General ma in tenance (carpets and restrooms).' 'Ai r condi t ioning!' 'A luggage area in the t rain.' 'Miami Airport needs bette r signalization.' Hollywood stat ion is too dangerous to cross." More buses to flea market in Ft. Lauderdale.' 'Need Miam i Beach Tri-Rail station.' 'New stations further north.' 'New stations further south.' 'Extended service to Jupiter.' 'Add more parking at Yamato.' Comme nts From S unday Patrons : "If parking were better, I would ride more often.' 'Why can't the trains start running earlier, li k e 5 : 30 a.m.' 'Please dean the carpet. 78

PAGE 92

'More trains on Saturday and Sunday and the extension of night service. 'More courtesy from Tri-Rail emp l oyees." 'Overnight parki n g and security. "Can't h ear ticket sellers in soundproof booth." "Se<:urity is very rude. "Discount for airline employees." "Bigger buses at Miami International Airport, extended to Pal m Beach Airport." "Poor parking at Palm Beach station.' "Have to wait three hours for tra i n when I m iss it by five m i nutes 'Co n tinue with Sunday schedu l e.' "Toilets at statio n s are d i rty.' "You need a covered station at M i ami Airport. When i t ra ins you cannot buy a ticket w ithout getti ng wet." Bathrooms should be deaned throughout the day. Just nasty!!" "The bat h room i s disgusting." 79

PAGE 93

80 This is a blank page

PAGE 94

USER SATISFACTION Information induded in this section reports user satisfaction with various system performance character i stics and Tri-Rail service, in generaL User satisfaction-related questions focus on such areas as patron sat i sfaction with the ava i lab i lity of parking at Tri-Rail stations (question 30a), the cost of r i d i ng the tra ins (question 30i) Tri-Rail's hours of service (question 30d), and on-time performance of the trains (question 30g). The results of each performance characteristic are p r ovided in Figures 30 through 43 i n grap hical format. To reference the wording of a part i cular question(s), a sample survey i s p r ovided in Append i x A. 8 1

PAGE 95

Patron Perception of System Characteristics Respond ents were asked to rate Tri-Rail in thirteen different areas of performance and in overall Tri-Rail service. These ratings provide measures of user satisfaction with various character i stics of the system. The results indicate areas of strengths and weaknesses in service delivery as perceived by Tri-Rail patrons. Based on these observations, decisions can be made to prioritize impro veme nts in the system. The following system characteristics were rated by survey respondents: (a) Availability of parking at station (b) Availability of buses to/from the station (c) Days on which trains 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 infor matio n and changes (k} Vehi cle cleanlines s and comfort (I) Employee courtesy (m} Security (on train and while waiting for the train} (n) How do You feel about Tri-Rail service, in general? Overall, 83 percent of the survey respondents in dicate being satisfied or very satisfied with Tri-Rail service, in general. While this favorable assessment indicates that the vast majority of Tri-Rail patrons feel very positive about each of the thirteen characteristics listed in the survey, this percentage of satisfied patrons is somewhat lowe r than that in di cate d in the 1991 on -board survey. Ninety-one percent of the previous survey's respondents in dicated being satisfied or very sat i sfied with Tri-Rail service, in general. For further relat ional purposes, Figures 30 through 43 indicate user satisfaction ratings for the thirteen listed system c haracteristics and overall Tri-Rail service for t he 1991 on-board survey and the 199 3 on-board survey. 82

PAGE 96

Figure 30. Availability of Parking ... WEIGHTED TOTAL RESPONSE Very sati sfi
PAGE 97

Figure 31. Availability of Buses to/from Station .. V ery Satl i sfled WEIGHTED TOTAL RESPONSE somewhat Satisfied Somewhat DissatiJiAed Very DissatiJiAed ( 1991 Survey. 1993 Survey J 84 Very Safu:fied Somewhat Satiisfle
PAGE 98

Figure 32 Days on Which Trains Run .. WEIGH TED TOTAL RESPONSE Somewtwot Very OlssetlsiAed ( 1991 On-Board Survey 1993 On-Board Survey J Somewhat Satimed Somewhat DlssatisiAed Very Olss:atlsfied i Very Satisfied Somewhat Satd:lled Somewhat Olss.lltisfM!d Very Dissatisfied Very Sati lme :d Somewhat Setimo.t Somewhat Very Oiuatisfied-jK Thursday Response Saturday Response Sunday Respons e 85

PAGE 99

Figure 33. Hours of Service . WEIGHTED TOTAL RESPONSE V.ry Satisfied Somewhat Satisfied Somewhat Diss
PAGE 100

Figure 34. Frequency of Service .. WEIGHTED TOTAL RESPONSE VHY Satisfied Somewhat Satisfied' Somewhat DissatisiRI!d Very DissatisiRI!d -(. 1991 On-Board Survey 1993 On-Board Survey J Very Satiisfied Somewhat Satiisfied Somewhat Very Diu:atisfil!d Very Satis:fied Somewhat Satlsfiecli Somewhat Diss:atisfil!d Very D I S!..tisfil!d Very Satisfied Somewhat Sati t sfied Somewhat DissatiSified Very Dissatisoftl!di" Thursday Response Saturday Response Sunday Response 87

PAGE 101

Figure 35. Travel Time .. WEIGHTED TOTAL RESPONSE Very Satlt:fied Somewhat Satlt:fied Somewhat Very Dlsso1tlsfloid ( 1991 On-Board Survey. 1993 On-Board Survey J 88 Very Satisfltid Somewhat Sati sfitid Somewhat Very Di5l:atisfied Very Satisfloid Somewhat Satisflold Somewhat D l 5l:atlsfied Very D l ss:atisfied -Very Satlsfloid Somewhat Satisfloid Somewhat Dlss:atlsfied Very -Thursday Response Saturday Response Sunday Response

PAGE 102

Figure 36. On-Time Performance ... WEIGHTED TOTAL RESPONSE Very Satisfie.t Somewhat Satisfied Somewhat OIS$atis1Ned Very Dlss..tlsfled-1 (. 1991 OM!oard Survey 1993 On-Board Survey J Very Satisfied Somewhat Satisfied Somewhat Dlssatisfted Very Dissatisfted Very Satil;fied Somewhat Satisfie.t Somewhat Dlss
PAGE 103

Figure 37. Ease of Transferring WEIGHTED TOTAL RESPONSE Very Satilsfiid Somewiult Satl;fiotd Somewhat or .. ;atJsfioid Very Dl.,Hith;fieclli ( 1991 On-Board Survey. 1993 On-Board Survey J 90 Very S.tls;fled Somewhat Satis;fieid Somewhat Di.,:atisfioid Very Di.,:atisfieid Very Satisfitid Somewhat S.til
PAGE 104

Figure 38. Cost of Rid ing Train ... Very Satlisfted WEIGHTED TOTAL RESPONSE Very DlssatiS1Red ( 1991 On-Board Survey. 1993 On-Board Survey J Somewhat Satiisfled Somewhat D ls:Miti51Red Very D is:...ti51Red Very 5atii51Red Somewhat Satilsfiod Somewhat -Very Very Satilsfiod Somewhat Sat1isfiod Somewhat DlsMitiS1Red Very Thursday Response Saturday Response Sunday Response 9 1

PAGE 105

Figure 39. Availability of Train Route Information . WE I GHTED TOTAL RESPONSE Very Satisfied Somewhllt Satisfied Somewhllt Olss;lltlsfleid Very Olss;ltisfio!d ( 1991 On-Board Survey. 1993 On-Board Survey J 92 Very Satl isfied Somewhat Satllsfied Somewhat Very Very Sllt,lsiHed -Somewhat Satlsfio!d Sornewhllt Olsllatlsfled Very Very Slltl!lfieid Somewhllt Satisfied Somewh
PAGE 106

Figure 40. Vehicle Cleanliness and Comfort ... Very s.tllstle d WEIGHTED TOTAL RESPONSE Somewhllt sat i isfled somewttllt Dlu:etlsfted Very (. 1991 On-Board Survey 1993 On-Board Survey J Very s.tlsfle!d Somewhat DIS!iatisfied Very Somewhat Sathfied Somewhllt D l ss:etlsfted Very Dissetifio!d Very Satisfte!d Somewhat Satlsfl.t Somewhllt Di.,..tisfied Very Thursda y Resp o nse Saturday Response Sunday Response 93

PAGE 107

Figure 41. Employee Courtesy ... Very Satiisfied WEIGHTED TOTAL RESPONSE Somewhat Satiried 94 Somewhat Disurtimotd Very DiSHitim
ry Diss;stisfi
PAGE 108

Figure 42. Security On and While Waiting for Train .. WEIGHTED TOTAL RESPONSE Very Sati sfied Somewhat Satilsfled Somewhat Diss:atisfied Very Diss:atisfied ( 1991 On-Board Survey. 1993 On-Board Survey J Very Satisfied Somewhat S atisfied Somewhat D issatisRed Very DissatisiRed Very Satisfied Somewhat Satllsfied Somewhat Diss;atisfted Very Dlssatisfted Very Satisfied Somewhat Satisfied Somewhat Very Dls.atisfiecll10!1 Thursday Response Saturday Response Sunday Response 9 5

PAGE 109

Figure 43. Tri-Rail Service, in General WEIGHTED TOTA.L RESPONSE Very Satilsfit
PAGE 110

Summary of Performance Aspects User satisfaction ratings were calculated for each of the thirteen listed system performance characteri st ics and overall Tri-Rail servic e by applying a numerical value to each possible patron response. An average score was calculated utilizing the numerical values assigned to the characteristics for Thursday, Saturday, Sunday, and the weighted total response, all of which a r e provided be l ow in Table 22. The numerical value assignments for determining the averages a r e as fo llows: Very Satisf.ed 5 Somewhat D issatisfied 2 S a tisfied 4 Very Dissati sfied 1 Somewhat Sati sfied 3 Ta bl e 22 User Satisfaction Ratings System Charuter&tic 11urtdoy Sa1>1rday Sunday 19'.13 "" 1993 1991 ,,3 19'.11 1993 1991 Av.a.biity of 3.58 3 .85 4 1 6 4.10 4 ,21 N/A 3 .66 3.88 Avdabllitr of butet 3.S6 3.70 3 .91 3 .93 3 .88 N/A 3 .60 3 .73 o.,.. .......... 4.36 4.20 4.4S 3.99 4.40 N/A 4 .37 4 .17 Holft of sefVQ 3.86 3.65 4 .06 3 .89 3 .90 N/A 3 .88 3.68 frequency of sel\'ice 3.40 3 30 3.94 3.77 3 .84 N/A 3.47 3 .36 Travt'l time 3 .88 4 .00 4.34 4 28 4 .22 N/A 3.93 4 .03 On
PAGE 111

Although respondents graded Tri-Rail high in every category (ranging from a low of 3.47 to a high of 4.37, weighted total response), patrons were questioned regarding which aspects of system performance they would most like to see improved. Question 31 asked respondents to review all of the listed aspects of Tri-Rail service provided in Question 30. They were then asked to list the three areas where they felt improvements would be most helpful. Table 23 indicates the characteristics identified by respondents for Thursday, Saturday, Sunday, and the system, as a whole. The order of importance provided by the table assumes that every aspect listed receive equal weighting. That is, when a respondent indicates three aspects in Question 31, all three aspects are included and weighted equally. If a respondent only provides a single performance aspect. then it is included accordingly. As a result, those indicating three performance aspects have significantly more input than those who indicate none, one, or two. There is no particular reason to believe that respondents would necessarily indicate the performance aspects in order of importance since they were not required to do so. Table 23 The area where improvements would be most helpful System Total """""' 1. Frequency of sei'Yice 1. Frequmcy of 5ftWb 2. On-time performance 2. On-time performance 3 Availability of bustS 3. Availability of buses 4 Hovrs of service 4. Avaitabmty of parking S Availability of parking 5 Hours of service 6. Cost of riding train 6. Cost o f riding train 7 T ravel time 7. Travel time 8 Surity 8. Security 9. Availability of route information 9. Availability of route inlotmation 10 of 10. Ease of 11. Vehicle cleanlin comfort 11. Vehicle dtanline comfort 12. Oavs trains run 12. courtesy 13. Empi'Jee courtesy 13. 01-ys tt1ills lVII Saturday -.... 1. ITtquency of .. .2, Hours of service 1. ITtqutncy of O
PAGE 112

For the days surveyed and for overall Tri-Rail performance, frequency of service was ident i fie d as the aspect of system performance where improvem ent would be most beneficial to patrons Beyond this most problematic performance aspect, Thursday, Saturday, and Sunday respondents differ somewhat in their perception of where TriRail service requires improveme nts. The ital i cized performance aspects represent significant differences between the responses on Thursday, Saturday, and Sunday. Thursday respondents are more sensitive to on-time performance than either Saturday or Sunday respon dents. This find ing is consistent given that the trip to work dominates trip p urpose for weekday r id ers and, subsequently these patrons are more dependent on the t rains not being late so that they arrive to work promptly. I nter estingly, Saturday and Sunday r espondents are more sensitive to days on which trains operate than their Thursday counterparts despite service being offered seven days a week. By comparing the aspects of perfo rmance that patrons would most like to see improved for the two surveys, several similarities and differences are noteworthy. For insta nce frequency of service and hours of service are perceived by both surveys' respondents to be critica l areas requiring improvement. These performance aspects, in ligh t of the similarities between both surveys' respondent perceptions, express a continued desire for more service. In 1991, on-time performance was ranked number six of the 13 listed areas of improveme nt; now it is the second most indica ted area needing imp rovement. Regarding the days on which trains operate, this performance aspect was ranked fourth by 1991 survey respondents ; however, the 199 3 survey respondents rank it 12 out of t he 13 li sted performance aspects needing improvement. The change in importance of this particular performance aspect is no doubt due to the addition of Sunday service. Table 24 indicates t he changes in percent of patrons 'very satisfied' and the calculated user satisfaction ratings between the 1991 and 1993 surveys regarding patron sat i sfaction with specific aspects of system performance. As the table makes clear, 1993 survey respondents are more satisfied with three aspects of service the days trains run, the hours of service, and the frequency of servicethan were the 199 1 survey respondents. The increase in patron satisfact ion with these specific aspects of system performance is consi stent, given the addition of Sunday service, the addition of six weekday trains, and the extension of service l ater into the eveni ng. However, several aspects of system performance received lower levels of sat i sfaction from 1 993 survey respondents than from their 1991 counterparts. The most significant decline in patron satisfaction is for the 'cost of riding train performance criteria This finding is logical due to fares being increased (July 1992) between the two surveys. Several other performance aspects including the availability of parking and the cleanliness and on-time performance of the trains are also marked by declines in Tri-Rail patron satisfaction. The lower level of satisfaction concern ing the availabi lity of parking at stations can be explained by the fact that the level of available 99

PAGE 113

parking has remained relative l y static s ince the system began operation in 1989 with the exception of the Hollywood stat i on {rest r iping in November 1992 at the Ho ll ywood statio n i ncreased available parking from 130 spaces to 200 spaces). wh ile Tr i Rail ridersh i p has steadily i ncreased during this t i me {see Figure 3 on page 6). Further inspection of Tab le 24 a lso s h ows that patron satis f action with the system's on-time performance has decreased somewhat between the two surveys. This performance aspect has the second largest decline in patron satisfaction rat i ng. This performance aspect is very i mportant to discretionary passengers, particularly for work trips; hence improvemen t s in on-t i me performance are i mportant to support continued passenger growth. These findings should be con trasted with actual data relating to on-time performance and appropriate plans shou l d be imp lemented. Declines i n other factors shoul d also be rev i ewed to determi n e if the causes can be i dentif ied. For e x amp l e, it i s reasonab le to expect a somewhat lower rating on vehicle cleanliness given the increases i n vehicle use and ridership, and the impact on percep t ions, given t h a t the trai n s are no l onger new. Similarly, patron expectat i ons and percept i ons m a y be i nfluenced by the length of time t h a t has bee n in service. For example, expectations concern i ng parking and feeder bus service may be higher now due to the fact that some time has e lapsed since the Start-up of service. 100 Table 2 4 Comparison of P erce n t o f Users "Very Satisfie d an d User Satisfaction Rat ings Wdlf'MdT* ...._... ol "' "" SMIIAiot IJMrf :If rtvlalnp "" '"' .,_, '"' '"' O..,.iltbllllt: A.......,_ fill_...... '"' '"' _,,. .... ... 0 .22 ...._ ....... '"' "" _,,. ... ).1) o u ---''" ...,. "' ., 4.11 ....,..or.mce "" ,.,. '" ... ... 0.20 F o tqu:b I t t4 lilf"b ''" ,.,. '" "' '" O .tl T-.1-"" -_,,. U3 .... -0.10 ,.,, U!l ,,. l U ... -o.J &o..ol ,.,. '"' _,,. .os .t .lS 0 20 CoA of 11611 .,.... ,.,, .... -15'4 ... 4.JZ u a ... ........,ef""*Woi h ,.,. "" _,,. ,. 4.U o .ce Vdi:ltdt ......... .... "" t3" .,. 4 .51 -0.23 --.... "' _,,. 4 3 2 4 4 S -0.\3 .... _,,. 12 4 .lt -0.11 How do )'OU 'rd ... T ...... ,.,, " _, .,. .,, . 0 1 1

PAGE 114

VI. SUMMARY & CONCLUSIONS I n condusion. a comprehensive on-board survey of Tri-Rail patrons was conducted on Thursday. January 7 ; Saturday, January 9; and Sunday, January 10, 1993. The objective of the survey was to collect demographic in f ormat ion and travel behavi or characteristics. and to assess user satisfaction with Tri-Rail service. In addition, this collected i nformation was compared. wher e applicable, t o the results obtained from the on-board survey admi n istered in March 1991. Ridership profi les were developed through the compilation of responses to demographic and travel behavi or-related questions. The ridership profiles for typica l weekday, Saturday, and Sunday patrons are reite r ated in Table 25. c,.,__ Age Gender Ethnic Origin Household Income Edvcation 'evel l ength of Use Transit Experience Frequency of Use Reason for Riding Alternative Transportation Auto Ownership Residency Status Trip Purpose Round Trip or One-Way Fart Type Table 2S Ridership Profiles typical W
PAGE 115

102 The most active stations in the system are the West Palm Beach station and the Metrorail station for weekdays, Saturday, and Sunday. However the most common trip pair invo lves the Ft. lauderdale and Metrorail stations in both the northbound and southbound directions. Results from the 1991 on-board survey also indicated that the West Palm Beach and Metrorail stations had the most activity. Also, in 1991 these two stations accounted for the most recurrent trip pair. The average trip length for all trips taken on Tri-Rail is approximately 32 miles. However. the average trip length during the week (30 miles) is shorter than on Saturday and Sunday (40 miles for both) This dissimilarity is likely due to the fact that visiting/recreationa l trips tend to be longer in length since users are often traveling to Miami for the weekend. The results from the 1991 on-board survey denote that the average trip length was 36 miles. This is some 4 miles longer in length than that evidenced from the results of the 1993 on-board survey. Also, in 1991, the average trip length for Saturday was seven miles longer in length than that evidenced in 1993 (47 miles versus 40 miles). Modes of access and egress were also analyzed. The most common mode o f access for TriRail users is auto-oriented. A majority of weekday users drive to a station and park. Other frequent modes of access include being dropped off at the station, Tri-Rail shuttle bus, and Metromoverjrail. The primary modes of egress during the week include being picked up at the station or using Metromoverjrail. The mode of access and egress results from the 1991 on-board survey are nearly identical to those of the 1993 on-board survey. A majority of TriRail respondents are satisfied with the availability of parking at Tri-Rail stations. However, four stations identified by patrons as having unsatisfactory parking availability include the Palm Beach Airport, Boca Raton, Hollywood, and Ft. lauderdale stations. These four stations have the highest proportion of respondents indicating that they were somewhat or very dissatisfied with parking availability. I n 1991, survey respondents indicated the greatest dissatisfaction with the availability of parking at the Palm Beach Airport, Boca Raton, and Hollywood stations. While these three stations were again ident ified by the 1993 survey respondents as having unsatisfactory parking availability, the Ft. lauderdale station showed a significant increase in patron dissatisfaction with parking availability. In 1991, only 4 percent of patrons were somewhat or very dissatisfied with parking availability; in 1993, this level of dissatisfaction was indicated by 30 percent of the patrons.

PAGE 116

A significant proportion of TriRail respondents are satisfied or very satisfied with the availability of feeder bus service to and from the stations. The data indicate that the feeder bus services currently provided by Tri-Rail are effective in the provision of service to the commuter rail line. However, stations with more than 20 percent contrary responses are identified. The feede r bus services to the Ft. Lauderdale Airport, Delray Beach, Hollywood. Metrorail, Miami Airport, and Pompano Beach stations should be monitored closely. These stations have the highest proportion of respondents indicat i ng that t hey were somewhat or very dissatisfied vvith feeder bus service. In 199 1 the stations with more than 20 percent contrary responses were the Ft. Laude rdale Airport, Hollywood Palm Beach Airport, and Lake Worth stations. The Delray Beach station showed the largest percent increase in patron dissat i sfaction from 16 p ercent in 1991 to 30 percent in 1993. Conversely, improvement was shown at the Palm Beach Airport station where the percent of patron dissatisfaction decreased from 21 percent in 1991 to 16 percent in 1993. A majority of trips dur ing the week are oriented between home and work, while trip purposes on Saturday and Sunday are spread among several different p urposes includ ing recreational activities, shopping/errands, and special events. The results of the 1991 orr board survey demonstrated ident ical trip purposes for weekdays and Saturday. A majority of Tri-Rail users found out about the system from a friend/word-of-mouth. This result suggests that Tri-Rail patrons are satisfied with the system in general and have recommended the system to their friends or relatives. The second most common response is learning about Tri-Rail via advertising (radio, television. newspaper, other). These resul ts are the reverse of those found in the 1991 on-board survey. Advertising was denoted as the p rimary method for learning about Tri-Rail and fr i end/word-of-mouth was listed as second. Approximately 12 percent of the respondents are seasonal residents tourists, or visitors. Similarly, in 1991, 10 percent of the respondents ind icated being seasonal reside nts, tourists, or visitors. A significant majority of Tri-Rail users are choice transit r ider s and not "transit captives." That is, most r iders indicate owning one or more automobiles and would have made the trip by automobile i f the train were not available. This provides clear evidence that few transit dependent individuals use Tri-Rail. The 1991 on-board survey evidenced identical r esults. 103

PAGE 117

Overall, Tri-Rail patrons are satisfied with the thirtee n performance aspects inquired about i n the survey. Approximate ly 83 percent of the respondents indicate being satisfied or very satisfied with Tri-Rail service, in general. While this favorable assessment indicates that the vast majority of 1993 Tri-Rail patrons feel very positive about overall Tri-Rail service, this percentage of satisfied patrons is somewhat lower than that indicated in the 1991 on board survey. Ninety.<>ne percent of the previous survey's respondents indicated being satisfied or very satisfied with Tri-Rail service, in general. For both 1991 and 1993 survey respondents, frequency of service was indicated as the performance aspect in which improvements would be most helpful. However, there were changes in the relative levels of concern for particular performance aspects that patrons perceived as requiring improvement. For example, the data indicate that 1993 patrons are less satisfied with the cost of r iding the train than the 199 1 survey respondents. This is a logical result since there was a fare increase in July 1992. Moreover, the increase in satisfaction between 1991 and 1993 with the days trains run may be attributable to the additional service provided on Sunday. One additional performance aspect that may be an issue for Tri-Rail because of a decline in satisfaction between 1991 and 1993 is on-time performance. The survey results indicate that weekday patrons are especially sensitive to on-time performance; more so than either Saturday and Sunday patrons who are more concerned with the cost of riding the train. It is expected that this concern exhibited by weekday patrons results from their use of the system for their trip to work With scheduled start times for work, it is understandable that weekday patrons would have high expectations for the system's on-time performance. In conclusion, the survey results suggest that Tri-Rail is contmu1ng to offer a convenient, economical, and efficient transportation alternative to persons in Southeast Florida. However, information gathered as a result of this effort will undoubtedly contribute to further improvement s in the system. 104

PAGE 118

APPENDIX A Survey Instrument A-1

PAGE 119

TRIRAIL ONBOARD RIDERSHIP SURVEY (EI encu.,.tadOr de TriRall IIane e eu aervtclo Ia ve,_lon en eapal\ol de 6ata encuaata.) DEAR TR,RAIL AIDER: TrlRol wWd opinion 10 help lmplo_ -lnd porl

PAGE 120

)> w SIDE 2: TRIRAIL ON-BOARD RIDERSHIP SURVEY 23. Whal Is the hlghe$1: level ol tducatlon thai you have anlned? (I only on.e) 'Some High School 'Bachelors Oegr.. '-00C(ortl Degree tUQh School Otploma Some Gtaduate SChad Other __ -:::=::---Some Colleoe .Degree 24. Whit do you conskler yourseln PttmaMnl resident ,_ S..SOf'lllll resldenl ,_ Tourbtf'MIIor 25. Wttt you an experienced public trtt\IJ)Ott.aUon rider belOtt usblg T"-Aal? Yes a_ No Please 26. How dkl )'04.1 flrslleam about Trl-Ral? (/ only one) ,_Advertising ,_ Employer a Fri&ndjWonS4-Moul:h Olefved Sya.t.em Operallng Other __ ;;;;;:;a;;,IJ.Ki'Y' ,_Family .Chambtr ol Commerce/Civic 27. Have thtlmput.a ol Hurr1cant Arw:Jrew resulted 1r1 Y' using fti.Rat? Yas a_No If yes, please Indicat e by placfng a chtek (J} nt.ld 10 the appropriate fadOr lhal resullecf lrl your using Trf-Ral. ,_Pfaoe o1 ruad6nee chanQtd Place of emJ)Ioymenl changed. _Auto dotloyodfctomagtd. Expanded letd&r bus a.&Mce. ._Additional roadway ,_Additional navel to to4JJt Dade County 101 relief assistance. __ 28. Hat the increased number of wetkdav and Sunday batnt sktet IN enebled you to take Trf.Ral for your WOik or leisure tripS? a) Wo.k 1r1po b) Leisure lrlpt ,_v .. ._v. ._No _ND 29. Does yOUt employer participate In Trf.RII'a Employer Discount Program? Yes ._No ._oon'IKnow It y6t. are you eunenuy enrolled In !ht ptogram? v .. ,_No 30. In general, how ealtsfttd wtth each ot ti'Mt klllowfng aapoell of .,Met. Pltase ........, 1ht queallone by placing a chock (/) In lha -Ofll1a column. L AYalabllly of pcrlcklg l1 l1t1lOn b. Ava.labllly of busH lo/frorn l1llfon c Days on Which trUts run d. Hourt cl aeMce (how tatty & how lara} traJnt run o frequency ol aervfce (how Dilen tralna run) f. Tt11vef limo Qlme l1ll
PAGE 121

A-4 This is a blank page

PAGE 122

APPENDIX 8 Summary of Survey Results B-1

PAGE 123

Table B-1 Question 1 How many months have you been using TriRail? Number of Monlht T1oncloy% Salloday% SundriP> l!Knday% Satunlay% Sl.ftday% % Wdgllled Total Home 88.9% 78. 4% 69.3% 86. 6% Wool< 4 6% 4.9% 8 .8% 4.9% Sd!ool O.S% 1.4% 2 .0% 0.9% Do
PAGE 124

Table 11-4 Question 4. Where is this place located (nearest street intersection)? RThuooday% Su.lay % Sund.y% .......... d 91.2%. 74.5% 77.0% 86.8% Loft Blank 8 .8% 35.5% 23 .0% 11.2% Table B-5 Question 5. How long did it take you to get to the train station (in minutes)? Retp..,.. Thuooday% S!Unlay % suncfr" % Wdlhood To1al .......... d 94.0% 89.8% 89.5% 93.3% Loft BlaNc 6 .0% 1 0 2% 10.5% 6.7% Table Jl.6 Question 6 How did you get to the train stop7 Mode of A<;cess Thuooday "" Satl.rd.ly% Sunday% %Weighted Total WalcRd hutllt bU5 7. 1 % 7 .8% 7.6% 7 2% By other bus 4 ,3% lOA% 9 .6% 5.2% Wa. dropped off 26.3% 31.3% 34.3% 27.3% Drove and patbd 42. 6% 30.8% 26 .4 % 40.4% 8y jitney 0.6% 0 .9% 0.5% 0 .6% Other 4.2% 6.3% 3.9% 4.4% B-3

PAGE 125

Table 8 Question 7. How long did you wait at the station for the train to arrive (in minutes)? ._ "llusday% S.lurdoy% s-lay% % WdsJICod Tolal 89.2% 86.7% 91 .0% 89.2% loft-1M% 13.3% 9.0% tO.B% Table 11-8 Question 8. You got on this train at which station? QriP>Sta-n.uo.day% s.lurdoy% s-lay% % Weilf11od Tolal WettrUnBtach 8.8% 13.5% 12.3% 9A% PahBtach ......... 3.2% 3.7% 2.5% 3.2 % Lake WoM 6.7% 8.1% 14.6% 7 .3% lloyntonBe.m 4.3% 5.0% 3.9% 4.4% Oehy Bead> 4.0% 4.4% 3.6% 4.0% Boca Raton 5 .8% 3.4% 2.7% SA% o.-lda.adt 55% 5.1% 4.2% 5.4% Pompano kach 6.6% 3.6% 3.2:% 6 1% 6A% 4.8% 3.6% 6.1% ................ 1 2 .1% 6.7% 7 .8% 11.4% fi. ............. A;,po.t 4.5% 1.5% 4.0% 4 .3% Hollywood 11.5% IU% 5 .9% 10.9% Coldtn Cladtf 7.6'% 6 .2% 9.0% 7 .6% Melrora.l 8.5% 17.5% 1 6 .2% 9 .7% ....... Airport 4.4% 8 .3% 6.3% 4.9%

PAGE 126

Table B 9 Question 9. You will get off the train a t which station? Dottinalion Station n...day% Sllhoday % Sunday % % Wilhfed Total w ... PUnBeach 1 2.9% 20.3% 1 3.2% 1 3 .6% Palm Beach A ....... 3A% 4 .8% 5 .8% 3.6% lab worth 4.2% 6.5% 5 .5% 4 5% Boynton Beach 2.9% 2.8% 2.4% 2 8 % o.hyBeach 2.5% 4 .3% 5 .2% 2 .9% Boca Raton 12.3% 4.0% 6.7% 11.3% Deerfield Buch 4.7% 1.2 % 41% 4 ,3% Pompano Beach 3 1% 3.S% 2.3% 3.0% Cyprns Creek 8.1% 2.9% 2 .5% 1 3% Fl lr/l>e-1 .8% 0 .9% 0.4% 1.7% Shopplns/tmn
PAGE 127

R-Anowtftd Left Blanlc Table 11-11 Question 11. Where is this destination located (nearest street intersection)? n...clay"" -.y"" $......,."" 89.8% 61.2% 66.2% 10. 2% 38.8% 33.8% Table 11-12 % Wefshltd Total 85.7% 14.3% Question 12. How long will it take you to get to your final destination from the station at which you will get off the train (in minutes)? .......... n...clay"" sa...lay "" Sundoy"" % Welsi*d Total .-- ...t 90.5% 17A% 77.1% 88.4% Wllllri 9.5% 22.6% 22.9% 11.6% Table 11-13 Question 13 How will you get to your final destination? Mode of Earns n...clay"" Sao.oday "" Sundoy% % Wefshoed Total waed 0-4 blocb 1 8.3% 6 .9% 7 .6% 16.7% 6.5% 7 .5% 6.5% 6 .6% By Mno.Moverjltd 33 .6% 15 .6% 13.8% 30.7% By Tolalshulde bus 10.8% 8.6% 10.6% 10.6% ByoU...b"' 12. 0% 9.S% 8.8% 11.6'4 G
PAGE 128

Table 8-14 Question 14. What type of fare did you pay when you first boarded the train? Fare Type Th
PAGE 129

Table 8-16 Question 16 What is the most important reason you ride the train?(-./ only one) ....... Fot RldJos lllunday. ,. Sablrday % SUnday,. 'Ito Welsflled Total I don't drft*e 8 3% 15.2% 10.3% 9.0% I don't kt drive SA% 10 1 % 14,0% TrUI it more COfiV'tflilnt 18.1% 20.1% 21.0% 18.5% ,....., lo dWIIcul!,/--2. 1% 2.3% 3.4% 2 .2% Car it noc avalable 28.6% 33.4% 30. 1% 29. 1 % Train is more economk:aJ 20.3% 13.9 % 17 1% 19.5 % 0-7.7% 6.7'% 8.1% 7.7% Table 8-17 Question 17. How would you make thi s trip if not by train? AltomallveT......,.rtatlon 1llunday 'Yo Soluod;ay 'Ito s-lay% -. 64.5% 45.4% 51.2% 61.9% ... 8.6% 1 0 .4% 7 .3% 8 .7% Ride with tomeOM 14. 7% 23.8% 22. 4 % 1 6 .0% WO
PAGE 130

At 18 or l.ftder 19 to 22 2.3 to 34 3S to 45 46 to S9 6 0 to 64 65 to 74 75 or more C.nde MaJ. female Table 11-18 Question 18. Your age is . n....doy% ........... SWMb.y% 6.4% 10.1% 7.2% 7.1% 1 1 .3% 9 .2% 31.6% 27.0% 31.3% 27 .7% 2 1 .8% 22 .7 % 17 .8% 1 4 .9% 14. 7 % 3 3% 3 1 % 4.0% 4 .5% 9 .0% 7 2% 0.6% 2.9% 3 6% Table 11-19 Question 19. Gender Thoosday% Satunloy % s...,.,,., 55.1% 48.5% 49.4% .... 9% 5 1.5% 50.6% Table 8 '4 Weishkd T otal 6 .7% 7 .6% 3 2 .0% 26.9% 1 7 3% 3.3% 5 1 % 1 .0% % w .,._d Total 54.2% 45.8% Question 20. Your ethnic origin is ... (-./ only one) atw>k:O.;gln Thoosday % s.-.. .,. Sunday% % WeJsh>td Total WhitejNorHiispanic 58 .2% 48 0% 50.1% 56.8% Hispomic 1 5 .9% 2 3.1% 23 .8% 1 7 .1% Afric:an.American 18.0% 19.2% 1 9 .0% Od>er 7 .9% 9 .8% 7.1% 8 .0% B-9

PAGE 131

Table B-21 Question 21. The total annual income of your household is . Ho.-boldhcomo Thuroday% s.-lay,.. %WdsJ*dTotal less 1han ss,ooo 5 2% 14.9% 1$.3% 6.7% ss,ooo to $9,999 6.9% 8 .8% 1.4% 7.1 % $10;000 to 8.5% 11.7% 5.6% 8.6% $15,000 to $19,999 9 3% 10.0% 1o.6% 9.5% $20,000 to $24_,999 9 0% 10.7% 11.2% 9.3% $2$,000 to $29,999 10.1% 6.5% 10.2% 9.8% $30,000 to 539,999 12.7% 11.9% 8.5% 12.3% 540.000 10 549,9" 9.6% 7.8% 7.0% 9.3% $50,000 .. $59.-9 7% 4 .9% 6 9% 9. 1 % $60,000 to $69,999 5.5% 3.1% 4 .2% 5.2% 570,000 10 519.-......... 2.4% 2.1% 4. t % $80,000 OWl' 9 1% 7 2% 11.0% 9.1% Table B-22 Question 22. How many vehicles are owned by your household? Au1o Own
PAGE 132

Table B-23 Question 23. What is the highest level of education that you have attained? ('I only one) ducatiooal Led Tllunday% $alurdoy .,. Sunday% % Weiplled Total Some HJsh S
PAGE 133

Table B-26 Question 26. How did you first learn about Tri-Rail7 ._ ... 'lbonday% SaUday% S-'ay% 25.5% 27. 5% 30.1% Friond,/W..-clof.Moud> 33.2% 32.3% 35.4% Famiy 8.3% 20.1% 17.7% Employer 8.5% 2.4% 1.6% ob .. ..,ed-.,.....,. 17.5% 12.6% 10.1% Chambtr of CornmercejCMc ortanlration 0.8% 3.2% 1.0% 01her 6.2% 2.0% 4.2'% Table B-27 Question 27a. Have the impacts of Hurricane Andrew resulted in your using Tri-Rail7 %Wdshl/d-ytd ....... td 8.8% 8.6% 1 1.9% 9.0% EXpwKitd fder bus 3 .8% 2.7% 5.5% 3 .8% AdditiofW roadway consntion 23 .5% 21.6% 17.4% 22 .8% Additional to south Dade CoWif'( for 2.4% 3.3% 9.2% 3.1% rtltf aa#tanc:e Otner 12.5% 17.4% 10.3% 1 2 7% B-12

PAGE 134

Table B-29 Question 28. Has the Increased number of weekday and Sunday trains since the hurricane enabled you to take Tri-Rail for your work or leisure trips? --llanday% Salunlay% s...day% % WeighkdTol>l Yes 52. 9% 4 1 .4% 52.3% 52.1% Wotll: Trips No 47.1% 58. 6% 47.7% 47.9% Yes 46.3% 63. 7% 71.1% 49 .7% leill.n T-1t No 53.7% 36.3% 28.9% 50.3 % Table 8-30 Question 29a. Does your employer participate in Tri-Rail's Employer Discount Program? -llanday% s.o..uy% Suoday% %We;,hledTol>l y .. 18.8% 6. 2 % 5.3% 17 .1% No 54.1% 57. 7% 52.3% 54. 3% Don't Know 27 .1% 36. 1 % 42 .4% 28 7% Table B-31 Question 29b. If yes, are you currently enrolled in the program 7 --Thuosdoy% Saudoy% s-lay% % we-,httd Toto.! Yes )6,8% 15. 1 % 1 6 9% 34. 6% No 63 .2% 84. 9% 83. 1 % 65.4% B -13

PAGE 135

Table 11-32 Question 30a. Availability of parking at station S.-cl -Vety DioN-d -11M.ncfay% 29.7% 32.4% 1 5.6% 10.3% 11.9% Sa11.111ay % 48.5% 31.6% 12.0% 3 .6% 4 .3% Sund.oy% 50.7% 30.4"' 10.6% 5.3% 2 .9% % Welshted Total 32.5% 32 2% 15.0% 9 .5% 10.8'4 Table 11-33 Question 30b. Availability of buses to/from the station Very Satllfitd S.-cl -Somewhat Vety DioN-d .......,..,,. 26.4% 34.7'% 17.8% 10.3% 10.1% S-ay% 31.1% 34.6% 15.7% 5 .2% 6.8% Sunday,., 31.1% 34.0% 13.5% 7 .7'% 7 1% % Total 28.0% 34.7% 17.4 % 9 .8% 10.2% Table 11-34 Question 30c. Days on which trains run Vety--Somewhat Very Dilsltiriied Satiditd DIAalilfted .......,.,% 49.7% 4 1.3% 5.7% 1.8% 1.5% S....S.y% 60 .1% 28.2% 7.8% 2.3% 1.1% Sunday% 54.9% 34.9% 5.5% 4.5% 0.3% %Weighted Total 50.9% 39.9% 5.9% 2.0% 1.4% B-14

PAGE 136

Thund.>y "' Satlwday% s...doy% % W
PAGE 137

Table B -38 Question 30g. On-time performance of the train v...,-s.-.s Somewhu -hat Very Dislatilfitd S.-.! .,..._d lh&nd.ay% 22.6% 34. 7% 23.5% 12.4% 6 .8% S.OUnloy % 51.8% 37 6% 8 .0% 1 2 % 1.4% S...day% 35.7% 33.4% 2 1.4% 7.1% 2.3% % Weilfrtecl Total 25.7% 34.9% 22.1% 11.2% 6. 1 % Table 11-39 Question 30h. Ease of transferring Vtrt Satlditd Sa-.! -Very Oisla.tiditd -Dloaa-.t 1'hrtday% 32.4% 46.1% 14.5% 4.6% 2.5% Salllnloy % 48.3% 38.7% 10.6% 1 .7% 0.7% SWMfay% 45. 6% 41.9% 9.7% 2 .4% 0.5% % WeiJhted Total 34.5% 45.2% 13.8% 4.2% 2.2% Table 11-40 Question 30i. Cost of riding the train V..-,Sa-d s.-.. --hat v..-,Dim-.! Sa-.t -.-.. 1'hrtday% 31. 1 % 4 1 .0% 1 7.3% 6 .8% 3.1% Salllnlay% 48.5% 34.4% 1 2 .3% 3.4% 1 .3% Sunday% 45.7% J7.9% 9.3% 5.2% 1.9% % Weia;hted Total 33.4% 40.3% 16.4% 6.5% 3.4% B

PAGE 138

Table B-41 Question 30j. Availability of train route Information and changes Somewhat Somewtaat S.-.t o-..-lh.ncby'% 31.0% 49. 2% 13.3% 4.3% 2 .3% Savday% 46. 1 % 40.2% 9.0% 3.5% 1 .2% Sund;1y ,o 40.9% 42.2% 11 6% 3 .6% 1 .6% '4 Weisfrttd Total 32 .7% 48.0% 1 2 .9% 4.2% 2 1% Table B-42 Question 301<. Vehicle cleanliness and comfort Very Satis:firtd -Somewhat Somewha1 Vtr(D-Sallofied o;,.llofied n....doy% 43.9% 42. 3% 9 .3% 3 .1% 1.5% SUwday% 61. 4 % 32. 1% 4 1 % 1 .8% 0 .7% Sunday ,.o 59.8% 34.3% 3.3 % 2.5% 0.2% 'Yo T otal 46. 3% 40.9% 8.5% 2 .9% U% Table B-43 Questi o n 301. Employee courtesy Ve.y Sallofled Sallofied Somewhat Somewhat Ve.yD!mllofled Sallofled Dlmllofled Tht.wsday % 46.8% 41.5% 8 .1% 1.9% 1.7% Sa1>Jnlay% 59.4% 31.9% 6.5% 1.3% 0 .8% Sunday% 58.0% 3 3 .7% 6 .8% 1 .0% 0 .5% % Wefshted Total 48.5% 4 0 .2% 7 .9% 1.8 % 1.6% B-17

PAGE 139

Table B-44 Question 30m. Security (on train and while waiting for the train) v.., Satiofied Satiofied -v.., Diosa-d -Dluatiofied lbunday% 38 .5% 41.6% 1 3 .1% 4 ,0% 2 .8% Sao..day% 5 1 .2% 3 4 .3 % 10.1% 2.7% 1.1% Suncl&y% 47.9% 35.9% t1.7% 3 .8% 0 .8% ,.., WtChted Total 40. 1% 40.6% 1 2 .8% 3 .9% 2.5% Table B-45 Question 30n. How do YOU feel about Tri-Rail service, in general? -SomewM v..,Satiofied -Satiofied Oiltatilfied V'f Dioratiofied t!Knday% 32. 9 % 49 .3 % 13.8% 3 .0% 1.0% S. ...... y% 55.6% 37.6% 6 1% 0 1 % 0 .1% Suncl&y% 50 .5% 4 1,5% 7.5% O.S% 0 .0% ,.., Wfishted Total 35 .9% 47.8% 1 2 .8% 2.6% 0.9% 8-18

PAGE 140

Table B-46 Question 31. In question 30, a through m, list the 3 areas where improvements would be most helpful to you? {table represents first choice only} n.nday% uday Sund.ly% %Wdghl
PAGE 141

B-20 This is a blank page

PAGE 142

APPENDIX C Crosstabulations C-1

PAGE 143

Crosstabulations A myriad of crosstabulations were performed in the process of analyzi ng data for compilat ion of th i s report This includes many of the same crosstabulations being performed for the weighted total, Thursday, Saturday, and Sun day responses. Many of the crosstabulations were revi ewed and determined to not be worthwhi l e enough to include i n the report. Nevertheless, a l ist of the crosstabulations that were compiled for th i s report are provided below 1. Mode of access (06) by orig i n station {08)Total, Thursday, Saturday, Sunday. 2. Mode of egress (013) by destination station (09)-Total, Thursday Saturday, Sunday. 3 Trip purpose (010) by gender (019) Total, Thursday, Saturday, Sunday. 4. Trip purpose (Q10) by frequency of use (Q15)Total, Thursday, Saturday, Sunday. 5. Mode of egress (013) by satisfaction with availability of buses to/from stations (030b) Total Thursday, Saturday, Sunday. 6. Mode of access (Q6) by sat i sfact i on with availability of buses to/from stations (030b) Tota l 7 Orig i n station (QS) by satisfact i on with avail ability of parking at stations (030a)-T otal, Thursday, Saturday, Sunday. 8. Frequency of use (Q15) by residency status (Q24) T otal, T h u rsday. 9. A l terna t ive transportation (Q17) by auto ownership (022) Tota l Thursday, Saturday, Sunday. 10. F r equency of use (015) by fare type (014) Total, Thursday, Saturday, Sunday. 11. Fare type (014) by satisfaction with cost of r i d i ng the train (Q30i) Total. Thursday, Saturday, Sunday. 12. Frequency of use (015) by dest i nation station (09) Tota l Thursday, Saturday, Sunday. 13. Frequency of use (015) by origin stat i on (Q8) Total, Thursday, Saturday, Sunday. 14. Reason for riding train (Q16) by satisfaction with availability of parking at stations (Q30a)Total, Thursday, Saturday, Sunday. 15 Mode of access (06) by satisfaction with avai lability of parking at stations (Q30a)Tot al. 16. Mode of egress (Q13) by satisfaction with availability of parking at stations (030a) Total. 1 7 Satisfaction with availability of buses to/from stations (030b) by destination stat ion (09) Total. 18. Sat isfact i on with availability of buses to/from stations {Q30b) by or i gin station (08)-Total. 19. Reason for riding train (016) by auto ownership (022) Total, Thursday, Saturday, Sunday. 20. Satisfact i on with security (Q30m) by gender (019) Total, Thursday, Saturday, Sunday. 21. Income (Q21) by all satisfaction questions (030a Q30n) Total, Thursday, Saturday Sunday. 22. Reason for riding train (016) by ethnic orig i n (020) Total, Thursday, Saturday, Sunday. 23. Mode of access (Q6) by auto owne r ship (022) Total, Thursday, Saturday, Sunday. C-2

PAGE 144

24. Mode of access (Q6) by gender (Q19) by auto ownership (Q22}Total. 25. Mode of access (Q6) by gender (Q19) -Total. 26. How l ong using TriRail {Ql} by all satisfaction questions {Q30a Q30n}Total. 27. Income {Q21) by origin station (Q8) Total. 28. Reason for riding train (Q16) by satisfaction with availability of parking at stations (Q30a}Total. 29. Origin purpose (Q3) by origin stat i on (QB) Total. 30. Trip purpose (Q9) by destination station (Q9) Total. 31. Origin purpose {Q3} by trip purpose {Q10) by origin stat ion (QB)Total. 32. Mode of access (Q6) by mode of egress (Q13) by orig i n station (QB}Total. C-.3

PAGE 145

C4 This is a blank page