USF Libraries
USF Digital Collections

Factors related to transit use

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Factors related to transit use
Physical Description:
Book
Language:
English
Creator:
University of South Florida. Center for Urban Transportation Research
United States.Urban Mass Transportation Administration
Publisher:
Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR)
Place of Publication:
Tampa, Fla
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Local transit--Public opinion   ( lcsh )
Choice of transportation--United States--Statistics   ( lcsh )
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:
usfldc doi - C01-00042
usfldc handle - c1.42
System ID:
SFS0032165:00001


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 C01-00042
040
FHM
049
FHmm
2 110
University of South Florida. Center for Urban Transportation Research
0 245
Factors related to transit use
260
Tampa, Fla
b Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR)
c 1989 February
650
Local transit--Public opinion
Choice of transportation--United States--Statistics
710
United States.Urban Mass Transportation Administration
1 773
t Center for Urban Transportation Research Publications [USF].
4 856
u http://digital.lib.usf.edu/?c1.42



PAGE 1

Center for Urban Transportation Research FACTORS RELATED TO TRANSIT USE r C U T R \.. U S F University of South Florida Colege of Engineering Tampa, Florida

PAGE 2

FACfORS RELATED TO TRANSIT USE Prepared by: CENTER FOR URBAN TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH Prepared for: URBAN MASS TRANSPORTATION ADMINISTRATION February, 1989

PAGE 3

.l!Bl!:. C ENTER FOR URBAN TRANS PORTATION R E S EARCH COL LEGE OF ENGINEERING DEP ARTM E N T OF CIVIL E N G I NEERiN G AN D M ECHA NICS TAMPA, FlORIDA 33620.S3SO 813: 974 2581 Febr u ary 6, 1989 Mr. Ke n Bolton Urban Mass Transportation Administration Room 9310, UPB 10 400 seventh Street, s.w. Washington, D.C. 20590 Dea r Mr. Bolton: E n close d are t w o copies o f our revised Draft Final Report, entitled "Factors Related to Transit Use". W e have s i gnificantly revised this Draft to res p ond to the review comments on our earlie r version. In particular, the Executive Summary has been re-written to be more readabl e and to better highlight new findings, a s compared to confirmation of previous research. The discussion of previous research has been significantly expanded. Finally, the text has been rew ritten in some place s to produc e a mor e readable document. We believe that your earlier comments have resulted in a significantly strengthened report and are grateful for your constructive review. Please let me know if there are any further modifications needed, so that we can finalize the report and prepare it for fina l printing. Sincerely, Edwa r d A. Mierzejewski, P.E. Deputy Director for Engineering cc: Gary Brosch lHE 0 j: SOU'TW FLOA() A ., A N A&F1RMA TIVE ACTION EOUAl OP90AfUH I JY INS Tfn,JTIOM CUTR

PAGE 4

TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION LIST OF TABLES I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A. Summary . . B. Service Planning And Marketing Implications C. Research Findings II. BACKGROUND . A Research Objectives B. Previous Research C. Refe rences IV SURVEY PROCEDURES V. RESEARCH FINDINGS A Consumer Preferences Of Auto Users B. Consumer Preferences Of Public Transportation Users C. Comparisons Of Behavior And Attitudes In The Central City v s. Suburban Areas D. Transit Innovations E. Public Policy Issues F. Regional Comparisons VI. SERVICE PLANNING AND MARKETING IMPLIC ATIONS VII. APPENDICES A. Miscellaneous Find ings B. Future Research Opportu nities C. Survey Ins trument PAGE 11 1 1 1 2 6 6 7 15 17 18 18 25 31 36 41 47 50

PAGE 5

TABLE 1: T ABLE 2: TABLE 3: LIST OF TABLES NAME OF TABLE Major Advantage of Going to Work by Car, as Opposed to Using Public Transportation Major Disadvantage of Going to Work by Public Transportation . . . . . . The Singl e Greatest Advantage of Taking Public Transportation . . . . . . TABLE 4: Conditions Under Which Those That Drive to Work Indi cate They Would Switch to Public Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . TABLE 5: Amount Paid by Respondent to Park Auto at Work TABLE 6: Reasons Given for Not Taking Car to Work . TABLE 7: TABLE 8: Percent of Those Who Would T ake a Car to Work, i f They Owned a Car, for Selected Groups . Major Advantage of Going to Work by Car as Opposed to Public Transportation . TABLE 9: Reasons for Not Driving to Work . . . TABLE 10: The Sing l e Greatest Advantage of Taking Public Transportation . . . . . TABLE 11: Mode Which Respondents Feel Safest Using TABLE 12: Mode Respondents Feel the Least Safe Using TABLE 13: Frequency of Use of Various Modes (Days per Year) . . . . . . . TABLE 14: The Rate of Carpool Use as Related to Distance to Work . . . . . . TABLE 15: Characteristics of Work Trips as Related to Residence and Workplace . . . . . . . . . 0 TABLE 16: Likelihood of Using "Almost Door-to Door" Minivan S e rvice . . . . . . . . . ii PAGE 19 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 29 30 32 33 34 36

PAGE 6

TABLE 17: Percent Indicating They Would Use Minivan Service, as Related to Income . . TABLE 18: Reported Fair Price for Minivan Service, that Respondents Indicated They Would be Willing to Pay . . . . . . . . 0 TABLE 19: Response to Personal Valet Service at Transit Stops . . . . . . . TABLE 20: Price Respondents Would be Willing to Pay for Each Errand . . : . . TABLE 21: Public Opinion of Traffic Congestion TABLE 22: Opinion of Traffic Congestion in Major Cites . . . . . . . TABLE 23: Response to Proposed Parking Fees at Work and at Shopping Malls . . . . . . TABLE 24: Response to Requiring Developers to Make Projects More Accessible to Public Transportation . . TABLE 25: Response to a Proposed Twenty-five Cent Per Gallon Gas Tax, Substantially Increased Tolls, and Generally Making it Much More Expensive to Drive . . TABLE 26: Response to a Proposed Twenty-five Cent Per Gallon Gas Tax, etc, According to Location of Residence . TABLE 27: Response to How Transit Services Should be Delivered TABLE 28: Public Opinion of Competition in Providing Local Transportation Services . . TABLE 29: Classification of Areas Surveyed TABLE 30: TABLE 31: TABLE 32: Frequency of Use of Indicated Modes, mea n number of days per year . . . . . . Frequency of Use of Indicated Modes, as Related to Income, mean number of days per year . . Household Auto Ownership as Related to Household Income, mean auto ownership . . . . Ill . . 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 43 44 44 45 46 47 48 A A-1

PAGE 7

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report presents t he findings of a study undertaken by the Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR) under cooperative agreement with the Urban Mass Transportation Administration. The major objective is to identify factors rel ated to the use of public transportation. The project was directed by UMTA staff and p erfor med by CUTR at the University of South Florid a, with the subcontracting support of Diversified Research Inc. SUMMARY The project examined attitudinal factors and travel characteristics of persons with access to public transportation residing in seventeen metropolitan areas of the United States. A telephone interview survey, comprised of 86 q ue stions, was administered to a total of 4,000 persons in the seventeen metropolitan areas included in the study. The survey was principally designed to establish individual choice factors affecting the use of public transportation. The survey also perm its these fac to rs to be disaggregated for many submarkets, such as central city travel vs. suburban travel and others of interest. I t addressed perceptions toward several innovative types of transit service, as well as several public policy issues related to the role of the public sector in promoting or discouraging particular transportation actions SERVICE PLANNING AND MARKETING IMPLICATIONS Interpretation of the 4,000 survey responses suggests numerous transit service planning and marketing implications. These are summarized below A significant portion( approximately 50 percent) of auto users are open to the possibility of using transit services if it meets their service needs Factors identif ied as most important by po tentia l rider s include schedule flexibility, reduced travel time and lower money cost. Therefore, transit planners and marketers should concentrate their efforts on these factors in attempting to encourage greater ridership. In addition to these factors, transit route transfers were also cited as a major deterrent to the use of public transportation. Other changes that would encourage a switch to public transportation include express transit services and i ncreasing the price of parking. Transit innovations, consisting of a high frequency minivan service or a personal valet service at major transit stops, may also help contribute to increased ridership as approximately 50 percent of respondents indicate they would probably or definitely switch to public transportation if these services were provided. 1

PAGE 8

Those marketing the taxi mode will be interested to note that the taxi was indicated as the least safe of all transportation modes. This perception needs to be changed if taxi services are to attain their full potential as a modal alternative. An overwhelming majority of those that drive to work have free or low cost parking provided to them, while few choice transit riders( those owning cars) have this same benefit. Public policy makers need to address this issue of inexpensive and free parking if their intent is to promote transit services. Results of this survey challenge traditional def i nitions of transit dependents or transit captives, as comprised of those without an automobile. A large portion of transit riders are not transit dependent in the true sense because they indicate they would continue to use transit for their work trip even if they had an automobile. The rate of carpooling is much greater for suburb to central city trips than for any other category of work trip, including suburb to suburb. The influence of typical central city auto disincentives(parking cost and availability, traffic congestion, etc.), as well as the high employment concentration, is apparently greater than the influence of trip length. RESEARCH FINDINGS In addition to the results presented in the previous section, there were numerous survey findings that may be of interest to transportation researchers. Some of these findings are highlighted below. Those That Use the Auto to Drive to Work Several observations were made concerning those that use an auto to drive to work. Even though all survey respondents have access to public transportation, 22 percent reported that they cannot get to their workplace by public transportation. In a sense, these respondents are "auto captives", in terms of their trip from home to work. Those driving to work cite schedule flexibility and travel time savings as the major advantages of the auto as compared to public transportation. Alternatively, when asked the single greatest advantage of public transportation, the most frequent response was "no advantage". Other common responses were: costs less than driving, reduces congestion, and don't have to worry about parking. Despite, this initial negative response, approximately 50 percent of respondents indicated they would definitely or possibly switch to public transportation if various transit service improvements were implemented In particular, the elimination of transfers was cited as one transit improvement that would have significant influence in the consideration of transit use. Another interesting finding involved the cost of parking. 89.2 percent of respondents driving to work pay nothing out of their own pocket to park. Even of those working in the 2

PAGE 9

central city, 82.6 percent pay nothing to park. The average daily parking rates for those driving to work were $ 0.35 for all respondents and $ 0.54 for those working in the central city. The average daily parking charge for those that do pay to park was approximately $3.35. The overwhelming majority of those that drive to work have free or low cost parking provided to them. Those That Take Public Transportation to Work There are also some interesting findings concerning those respondents using public transporta tion in their trip to work. 82 percent of choice transit riders( those who have cars, but do not use them to drive to work) work in the central city. These transit ride rs cite cost and availability of parking as the most significant reasons for not driving t heir cars. Other significant reasons cited include traffic congestion and longer travel time. Approximately 30 percent of all transit riders do not own an automobile. These riders have historically been referred to as "transit dependent". Of those considered transit dependent, only 37 percent indicate they would drive an auto to work if one were available to them. This is particu la rly interesting s i nce it indicates that a significant portion of transit riders are autoless by choice. Those that would not drive to work if they had a car were asked their reasons. Their responses were nearly identical to those responses of choice transit riders. In fact, the four most significant responses are the same: cost of parking, ava ila bility of parking, travel time, and traffic congestion. In contrast, those that are truly transit dependent( do not own car, but would like to) cite travel time savings and schedule flexibility as the major reasons for their preference to drive to work. Of all respondents taking public transportation to work, the advantages cited most frequently were: don't have to worry about parking, takes less time than driving, and costs less than driving. Other observations were made concerning the perceived safety and security of various transportation modes. Almost 60 percent of the national survey res ponden ts feel the safest when using the private automobile. Conversely, 31.1 percent of respondents feel the taxi was the least safe, distantly followed by the bus, train, and car all at about 15 percent. A follow-up question determined that for the taxi mode, 83.3 percent of the respondents indicated the tax i driver to be the major reason for feeling unsafe or insecure. Suburban vs Central City Attitudes and Cbarac)eristics Suburban residents travel significantly further to work than central city residents(! 1.79 miles vs. 8.77 miles) but take slightly less time to get there(24.25 minutes vs. 25.04 minutes). Also, suburb to suburb work trips are much shorter(9.37 miles) than suburb to city(16.65 miles) or city to suburb(l5.07) work trips. It is apparent that one of the effects of suburbanization of the workplace is that workers live closer to their jobs. 3

PAGE 10

Those driving to work in the central city, both city to city and suburb to city, reported t ravel time as the most significant disadvantage of public transportation, with schedule inflexibility a distant second Conversely, those dri ving to work in the suburbs, indicated schedule inflexibility as being the greatest disadvantage of public transportation and travel time as being the second most significant. This is probably a reflection of the general CBD orientation of many public transportation services, resulting in schedules which are more designed for trips to and withi n the CBD as opposed to trips to and within the suburbs. An additional finding indicated that concern by auto dr ivers about crime on p ublic transportation is highly correlated with central city residence Those living and working in the centra l city were almost four times as likely to voice this concern as those living and working in the suburbs. To a l arge extent, the frequency of u se of v arious modes reflects their availability by locati on and their general operating characteristics For examp l e, it is not surprising that the use of all public transportation modes is greatest for work trips to the central city Transit Innovations Several questions were designed to determine whether specific transit innovations would be met with a positive response. Quest ion s were asked regarding the likelihood of using a high q ua lity minivan service with half-hour headways, operating within a single block of the respondents origin and destination. As described this service represents a good abstraction of a high quality convenient transit service. Of those that drive to work, there was approximately a 50-50 split between those who state they would use the minivan service and those who would not. This response corroborates those given in response to transit service improvements. It is apparent from these results that half of those driving to work can be considered potential transit riders if flexible and convenient service were provided. Willingness to use a minivan service was also highly correl ated with income of those who drive to work; those with household incomes less than $10,000 are 50 percent more likely to use a minivan service than those with household incomes greater than $50,000. It was also indicated that respondents are much more willing to consider using a minivan for work t rips than for other types of trips. The preponderance of potential minivan users would be willing to pay $2 00 or less for this service. Another transit innovation discussed was the provision of a personalized errand or valet service at major transit stops. Almost half of those driving to work, but who would take a train or a bus/streetca r if they used transit, reported that they would definitely or possibly switch to transit if such a service were offered. The mean willingness to pay for this service was $4.29 per errand, although a sig nifi cant portion of the market response was within the $2.00 and under category. 4

PAGE 11

Regional Comparisons Several regional comparisons are noted in the text some of which are highlighted below. Citi e s with rail systems are generally much more t r ansit oriented than non r ail c ities I n rail cities much greater use is also made of bus carpool, and taxi service than in non-rail cities Resu l ts also indicate that car ownersh i p rates are much lower for rai l cities than for no n -rail cities. Data reported for Atlanta is somewhat unusual. Use of auto/POV i s highe r than all other cities in the samp le; carpool use is very high; rail use i s lower than all othe r cit i es; bus use is very low. Public Policy Issues Nume r ous questions were asked to determine public opinion regarding vario u s public policy issues. These findings are listed below Traffic congestion was seen as being very serious by 35. 9 percent of respondents somewhat serious by 27.6 percent, and not very serious at all by 35.7 percent. Respondents were overwhelmingly opposed(71.6 percent vs. 20.0 percent) to imposing parking fees at workplaces and shopping malls as a means to discourage private auto use. Nearly three -f ourths of respondents favored requiri n g developers to make projects more accessible to public transportati on. There was strong opposition(81.1 percent) to imposing a twenty-five cent per gallon gas tax, increasing tolls and in general making it more expensive to drive However, central city residents were somewhat less opposed to s u ch a measure (76.0 percent). Public opinion regardi n g pub li c transportation service delivery ind i cated that 30.4 percent feel that the private sector should deliver service 33.5 percent prefer private/government competition a n d 19.4 percent prefer government service delivery T wo-thirds of all respondents believe that compet i tion in the provision of public transportation services is good. 5

PAGE 12

11. BACKGROUND This section provides an overview of the research objectives of the project, as well as a review of previous related research projects. RESEARCH OBJECITVES The principal research objectives of the project are enumerated below: To establish individual choice factors affecting the use of public transportation. More specifically, to establish attitudinal factors as to why current auto users use their autos and do not use public transportation; and to establish why current transit users use public transportation and do not use auto. The identification of these factors will assist in plann ing new services and in marketing public transportation services. To compare travel behavior and attitudes in the central city with the suburbs. With the increasing suburbanization of the United States, it is important to be aware of basic attitudinal differences between central city and suburban trip makers. To determine consumer perceptions on the utility of certain transit innovations, particularly high quality minivan service and personal valet service at transit stops. To identify public sentiment on several emerging policy issues, such as the seriousness of traff i c congestion, making developments more accessible to transit, increasing parking charges, increasing motor fuel taxes, and competition in the provision of transit services. To verify certain factors of interest to transportation planners, such as trip length and duration distributions, factors related to auto ownership, and the relationship between mode choice and inc ome. To highlight the service planning and marketing imp lica tion s of consumer attitudes. 6

PAGE 13

PREVIOUS RESEARCH Based on the stated research objectives, a review of previous related research was performed. This previous research provides background to which the current study can be compared. Previous research can be classified into two broad categories. Projects using survey or attitudinal research will be considered first, followed by theoretical and empirical models of modal choice. Survey Research Survey or attitudinal research can be very useful in determining the perceived advantages and disadvantages of public transportation. The results of such projects can be helpful in devising planning and marketing strategies which can improve the image of transit systems as well as increase ridership. Although survey research is very helpful in identifying the relative significance of various factors, it is important to not place too much emphasis on survey results as a means of estimating demand. When presented with a hypothetical set of choices, people may respond a certain way, whereas when those choices become rea l, they can respond quite differently. In 1964, 0. Perilla conducted a home interview of 700 persons to determine choice factors in travel selection by households.1 The major perceived attributes of public transit were less total cost(84%), higher degree of safety(75%), and periods of relaxation(70%). Respondents were also queried about the perceived attributes of the automobile and the most frequent responses were more privacy, more comfortable, and cleaner. G.A. Brunner of the University of Maryland surveyed 350 Baltimore households in June of 1966.2 The purpose of the survey was to determine the characteristics of the "ideal'" transportation system and then evaluate existing systems based on these characteristics. Once these characteristics were determined, they were quantified according to their perceived relative importance. According to the survey results, the "ideal" transportation system would have the following characteristics(listed in order of importance): (1) reliability of achieving destination, (2) convenience and comfort, (3) minimizing travel time, ( 4) minimizing cost. A national survey of transportation attitudes was undertaken by the National Cooperative Highway Research Program(NCHRP) in 1968-69.3 The majority of respondents indicated a negative attitude toward public transportation services. Despite this negative attitude, public transportation was recognized as an important part of life and worthy of continued emphasis. In fact, 46 percent of those surveyed believed that more money should be invested in public transportation. Those favoring greater public transit expenditures were most likely to live in the metropolitan areas of the East and West. Under the supervision of A.N. Sommers, Project DATA in Philadelphia analyzed "user perceptions" of relevant socioeconomic, downtown-related, planning parameters in May of 1969. The results indicate that ''users'' place different levels of significance on variables 7

PAGE 14

depending on the purpose of the particular trip. For example, the project found that travel time was very important in work journeys whereas convenience and comfort were most important in pleasure journeys. In July of 1973, the Tampa Bay Area Rapid Transit Authority(TBART) conducted a survey of public attitudes toward rapid transit in the Tampa Bay area.5 92 percent of the survey sample believed that the construction of a rapid transit system was needed with the most frequent reasons being "fastest way to travel"(68%) and "sa fer than driving an auto"(28%). Surprisingly, when compared to the automobile and bus, rapid transit was rated first in all characteristics except ''very convenien!" where it was rated second only to the auto. The respondents also indicated major concern about traffic congestion and danger of accidents which they associated with the automobile. This response is likely due to real experiences with the auto versus an abstract expectation of the services provided by a rapid transit system. "The National Transit Marketing Project" was prepared by the U.S. Department of Transportation in June of 1976.6 This project was a summary of consumer attitudes toward the Baltimore and Nashville Metro Transit Systems. Nashville respondents indicated "insufficient awareness of routes and fares" and "important destinations inadequately served" as being the major disadvantages o f public transportation. However, respondents in the Baltimore area indicated the major disadvantage to be an overall dissatisfaction with the existing service. Peter Hart directed a survey of American attitudes toward public transportation in a project completed in 1978.7 Of those surveyed, public transportation was rated positive by only 29 percent and negative by 58 percent. Only six percent of the respondents stated they use public transportation to travel to work while 55 percent indicated that they never use public transit for any type of journey. The University of Cincinnati conducted an economic impact study of Queen City Metro(QCM) on the Cincinnati area.8 This project was completed in March of 1985. Included in this impact study was an on-board bus survey which incorporated several public opinion questions. Over 90 percent of respondents indicated that they perceive QCM as being important or extremely important to the Cincinnati area. Major reasons given for this perceived importance were the following: transportation for those without autos, transportation for the elderly, and a means of getting to work. The survey also reported that over 90 percent believe that the Metro bus service is very dependable. Ma rket Opinion Research conducted a national survey i n No vember of 1986 in a report to the Urban Mass Transportation Administration(UMTA).9 This survey concentrated on public perception of competition in general as well as competition in the provision of public transportation. Results indicate that 69 percent of the respondents believe competition in general is beneficial to the consumer. 92 percent of those surveyed also indicate that competition in the provision of transit services should be encouraged if it can lower prices and produce improved transportatio n services. 8

PAGE 15

In May of 1988, West Marketing Research conducted a survey of non transit riders in the Phoenix Urban Area.'0 This project was undertake n at the request of the Phoenix Transit S ystem Non riders indicated the following reasons for not using public transit: insufficient awareness lack of bus stop shelters, lack of frequency, having to transfer, and long walks. These factors are important but the study concludes that the major reasons for not using transit are the utility derived from driving an auto and the necessity of the auto for their business. However, respondents do believe there are advantages to riding a bus as the following factors were cited : saf e(90% ), clean(82% ), and comfortable(75% ). Some important observations were made CO!lcerning carpoolsfvanpools. Of those surveyed, ten percent indicated they already use a carpool/vanpoo l and 33 percent stated they would consider carpooling if it were more available. Ilium Associates, Inc. prepared a market research study for Indianapolis Metro i n June of 1988 .11 Almost 90 percent of transit riders indicated they were satisfied with the transit service. Respondents were most satisfied with driver courtesy and bus stop locations; however, they were less satisfied w ith bus stop shelters, frequency of service and on-time performance. A significant proportion of non riders( 42 percent of former riders and 21 percent of no riders) stated they would likely begin using transit if improvements were made in the system especially if improvements were made i n routing and safety of waiting areas. The University of South Florida's Center for Urban Transpo rtation Research(CUTR) recently conducted a transit usage survey in Hillsborough County, Florida.12 Completed in August of 1988, the survey indicated that 87 percent of respondents believe there is a moderate or l arge problem with transportation Despite this general agreement, 93 percent of the sample indicated they s t ill u se an auto or small truck to travel to work. Respondents believe that the auto is safer, more convenient, and more dependable than the bus; however, they do indicate that the bus is slightly more economical. 9

PAGE 16

Models of Modal Choice In contrast with survey research models that directly determine public perceptions, models of modal choice are developed and calibrated on the basis of empirical data. In some cases, these models can be used to infer behavioral attitudes toward public t ra nsportation. Analysis of modal choice is an essential prerequisite to the investigation and understand i ng of urban transportation and policy. Faced with many alternative modes of transpo rtati on, all consumers must select among them on the basis of several variables such as money cost, time cost, comfort, reliability, convenience, and others. Empirical models have been developed to determine the relative significance of such variables in modal choice. These models may be relatively simple including as few as two variables or extremely complex including many variables. With the aid of these models, transportation demand forecasting can be attempted. The following paragraphs address some models of modal choice that have been developed. In 1972, Domencich, Kraft, and Valette published an urban travel demand model in Readin2s in Urban Economics.13 This model is relatively simple as it considers only two variabl es: money cost and time cost. The authors estimate money and time cost elasticities for journeys to work by auto and by public transportation in the Bosto n metropolitan area. The responsiveness of travel behavior to changes in one or more variables of trave l cost depends on the estimated elasticities of demand for transporta tion services. Elasticity in this context can be defined as th e ratio of the percentage change in the number of trips taken to the percentage change in trip cost that brings it about. By comparing these elasticities, it can be determined which variable is generally perceived as more significant. Some conclusions of the study are mentioned below. For public transportation, the estimated money cost elasticities were calculated to be -.09 for the lin e-haul cost and .10 for the access cost while the estimated time cost elasticities were calculated to be -.39 and -.709 res pectively. Because the time cost elasticities are significantly higher than the money cost elasticities, an x percent reductio n in time cost will have a much greater impact on total trip cost than a reduction of the same proportion in money cost. Therefore, faster and more frequent service would b e much more successful in encouraging ridership than any reduction in fares. It is also interesting to note that time elasticities are greater for access time than for line-haul time indicating that service improvements might better be targeted toward residential collection and downtown distribution then toward line-haul improvements. Peter Watson conducted a series of modal choice studies in 1974 in order to consider several different situations. 14 He reported tha t models using simple time and cost difference variables were not satisfactory for analyzing the choices of intercity, social and recreational travelers. The basic conclusion is that different situations require different modeling efforts and attempts to transfer results from one area to another can be very dangerous. For example, the results of one of the studies indicate that, for medium-range, intercity social and recr eational trips, the user is concerned more with comfort and convenience than with time and cost. Another major factor to consider is the effect of income. Each income group emphasizes a different set of variables which indicates that, in order to be accurate, a different model should be developed for each of the income groups. 10

PAGE 17

"Patronage Impacts of Changes in Transit Fares and Se rvices is a study produced by the U.S. Department of Transportation's Urban Mass Transportation Administration in Sep te mber of 1980." The purpos e of the study was to present the most reliable information available on the resu l ts of changes in fares and/or services on public transportation. The study concentrates on presenting major conclusions that can be der ived based on calculated transit demand e lasticities. The elasticity of demand in this contex t can b e defined to be t he ra t io of the percentage chang e in transit demand (ridership) to the percentage change in fare s o r se rv ices. Maj o r conclus ion s are expressed based o n the calculated effects of changes in fares, changes in service, and changes in both fares and service si mult aneously. Som e of the s e conclusions are li s ted below: Changes in Fa r es (1) Transit demand is in ela stic with respect to changes in fares. The fare elasticities r a nged from -0.04 to -0. 87 with a mean of -0.28, 0.16. This inelastic demand indicates that a proportional change i n transit ridership in re sponse to a change in fares is less than th e proportional change in fares. (2) Small citi es have larger fare elasticities than large cities. (3) Bus travel is m o r e elas tic than commuterand rapid-rail transi t. (4) Off -peak fare e lasticit ies are dou b le t he size of peak-fa r e elasticities. (5) Short-distance trips are more elas tic than long -d istance trips ( 6) lnt rasuburban t rips a re four times more e las tic than radial trips on arterials. (7) Fare elasticities rise with income and fall with age (8) Of all trip purposes, the work tr i p is the mos t inelastic. (9) Trave l by elde dy is slightly more elas tic than the average. Changes in Service (1) Transi t demand with respect to changes in service is also inelastic. (2) Off-peak ridershi p is more elastic than peak ridership. (3) Ridership response is similar in the various forms of mass transportation. (4) Ridership i s more elastic with respect to improvemen t s in headways than in in vehicle time 11

PAGE 18

(5) Elasticities derived from modal-choice models show transfer-time elasticities to be twice as large as first wait time elasticities. Joint Consideration of Changes in Fares and Service (1) Since transit demand is inelastic with respect to both fares and service, independent variatio ns in fares and services will not by themselves increase both revenues and ridership simultaneously. (2) However, the study suggests that there is a large degree of variation in the disaggregated elasticities which in turn suggests that significant shifts in ridership co ul d result without revenue deteriorating by manipulating fare and service levels. An extensive econometric analysis was published in 1985 in Research in Transportation Economics which considers the demand for intercity passenger t r a n sportation. The au t hors of t he st u dy are Morrison and W i nston. The following table illustrates the elastic i ties calculated for intercity business trips. Intercity Business Trip Elasticities Tune Between Mode Cost Travel Time Departu r es Auto -.6990 -2.1521 Bus -.3151 -1.504 1 -3.3713 Rail -5715 -1 6691 -4.0240 It i s important to realize that these elasticities are estimated only for intercity business t rips which have s i gnificantly different characteristics than urban travel. Since the calculated elasticities for the auto are significantly larger than those calculated for the bus and rail, the auto is projected to be the most sens it ive to any changes in cost or travel time. It is interes tin g to note the elasticity of travel time(relatively elastic) as compared to the elasticity of cost( relatively inelastic) These results indicate that changes in travel tim e will have a much greater influenc e in modal choice than will changes i n cost. N otice also that the elasticities for time betw een departures(bus and r a il only) are twice the elasticities for travel time. This r e su lt supports the earlier contention that, to encourage ridership, the co lle ction and distribution portions of the trip should be targeted for service improvements. In 1987, D. B Madan and R. Groenhout published a mod e l of modal choice in the Journal of Transport Economics and Policv." The study is based on the journey to work in Sydney, Australia_ I t is basically a two-way split model between private car travel to work and travel partly by public transport. The au t hors indicate that their approach, which includes 12

PAGE 19

a utility function allow i ng correlations and a non-linea r transform of the employment density variable res u lts in more significant t-value s and increases t h e overall explanatory valu e of the model. Previo u s conventional models do not tak e this approach. Results of the study indicate an overall inelasticity of travel behavior Elasticities calculated are in aggregate form and are arrived at th r ough probability weighted averages of individual elasticiti e s. The se val u es are consider e d in the table below. Demand Elasticities Explanatory Variable Mode Highway Transit # Of Ca rs/ Adult 0.148 -0 .267 I ncome 0.089 -0.161 Employment Density -0.065 0.118 Vehicle Operating Cost -0.038 0 .068 Transit Fare 0.056 0.102 Highway Time -0.171 0.307 Access O.o38 -0.068 Wait 0.042 -0.076 In-Vehicle 0.060 -0.108 # Of Trans f ers 0.061 -0.110 Elasticities calculated for both the auto and transit are significant l y inelastic with respect to all variables considered. Bo t h highway and transit travel demands are most sensitive to highway travel time followed by the n u mber of cars per adult, income, employmen t density, number of transfers, in-vehicle time transit fares wait and access times, and finally the vehicle operating cost. In all va r iables, the elas t icities with respec t to transit are g reater tban those with respect to highways. 13

PAGE 20

SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS RESEARCH Sutvey research helps to establish perceptions toward public transportation which enables further understanding of factors related to transit use. The majority of the sutveys reported a negative attitude toward public transportation in general. This negative attitude arises from a variety of reasons some of which are long trav e l time, inconvenience( inflexibility) and insufficient awareness. Some of the other studies report that individuals place different lev e ls of significance on variables depending on the purpose of the trip. An example was given which indicates that travel time was considered most important in work journeys whereas convenience and comfort were considered most important in pleasure journeys. The models of modal choice also contribute to further understanding of transit use factors. These empirical models estimate elasticities and/or probabilities indicating which variables are considered most significant in modal choice. Typically, money cost and travel time variab les are used most frequently in devising these models. However, it is reported that other variables such as comfort, convenience, and income play an important role as well. In fact, one of the models above concludes that, in intercity social and recreational trips, the user is more concerned with comfort and convenience than with time and cost. All of the previous research mentioned is very useful because it provides results which can be compared with the findings of the study at hand. 14

PAGE 21

REFERENCES 1. Edmund J. Cantilli, Programming Environmental Improvements in Public Transportation (Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath and Company, 1974), pp. 17,18. 2. IBID., pp. 14,15. 3. IBID., pp. 13, 14. 4. IBID., pp. 19-22. 5. Hilton Advertising Agency, "Report on a Benchmark Survey of the Public Attitude Toward Rapid Transit in the Tampa Bay Area," July 1973, Tampa, FL 6. Grey Advertising and Chase, Rosen & Wa llace and Smith and Locke Associates, ''The Transit Marketing Project--Summary of Consumer Research--Baltimore MTA and Nashville MT A," Prepared for tbe U.S. Department of Transportation, Urban Mass Transportation Administration, Washington, D.C., June 1976. 7. Peter D Hart Research Associates, "Survey of American Attitudes Toward Transportation," Prepared for the U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C., 1978. 8. University of Cincinnati Institute for Policy Research, "Assessing the Economic Impact of Queen City Metro on Greater Cincinnati," Prepared for the Southwest Ohio Regional Transit Authority, Cincinnati, March 1985. 9. Market Opinion Research, ''Transit Issues: National and the City of Philadelphia," Prepared for the Urban Mass T ransportation Administration, November 1986. 10. West Group Ma rketin g Research, "Phoenix Urban Area Non Transit Ridership Survey," Prepared for the Phoenix Transit System, Phoenix, AZ, May 1988. 15

PAGE 22

11. Ilium Associates, "Indianapolis Metro 1988 Market Research Study Results, Analysis, and Recommendations," Prepared for Indianapolis Metro, Bellevue, W A, June 1988. 12.Center for Urban Transportation Resea rch, "Hillsborough County Mass-Transit Corridor Alternatives Analysis Study--Transit Usage Survey," Prepared for the Tampa Urban Area Metropolitan Plan ning Organization, T ampa, FL, August 1988 13. James Heilbrun, Urban Economics and Public Policy (New York: St Martins Press, 1987), pp. 186,187 : 14. Peter L. Watson, The Value of Time: Behavioral Models of Modal Choice (Lexington, MA: D .C. Heath and Company, 1974), pp. 151-153. 15. Ecosometrics, Incor porated, "Patronage Impacts of Changes in Trans it Fares and Services," Prepared for the U.S. Department of Transportation, Urban Mass Transportation Administration, Washington, D.C., 1980 16 Steven A Morrison and Clifford Winston, "An Econometric Analysis of the Demand for Intercity Passenger Transportation," in Research jn Transportation ed. Theodore E. Keeler (Greenwich, CT: Jai Press, 1985), Volume 2, pp. 213-237. 17. D. B. Madan and R Groenhout, "Modelling Travel Mode Choices for the Sydney Work Trip," in Journal of Transport Economics and Policy. May 1987, pp. 135-149. 16

PAGE 23

III. SURVEY PROCEDURES A survey questionnaire, comprised of 86 questions, was developed to determine travel characteristics, attitudes toward public transportation, and socioeconomic characteristics of the respondent. A typed copy of the survey instrument is included as Appendix A. All interv iews were conducted from a central telephone facility, by professionally trained data collectors working directly on a CRT interviewing system. The in terviewer stations were equipped with computer terminals which are wired directly into a central processing unit. Using this technology, questionnaires were programmed into the system so that all branching from one question to the next is computer controlled. This means that when the answer to one question determines which question should be asked next, the computer automatically scrolls to the appropriate question on the screen. Using these procedu res there can be no inadvertent skipping of questions or asking of questions which should have been skipped. The sample consisted of individuals in 17 metropolitan areas across the country who have access (i.e. live within one-half mile) to public transportation. This latter poin t is very im po rtant; this js not a survey of the general population, it js a suzyey of those with access to public transportation. The areas surveyed were: New York, Boston, Philadelphia, Washington, Atlanta, Houston, Orlando, T ampa, Chicago, Kansas City, Madison Minneapolis/St.Paul, St. Louis, Phoenix, Denver, Los Angeles, and San Francisco Areas were defined by Metropolitan Statistical Areas, as defined by the U. S. Bureau of the Census, except for New York, where the Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area was used. Two hundred interviews were conducted in each area, except for New York, where eight hundred were conducted. Within each area, the number of randomly selected interviews within each county was proportional to population. For purposes of the national aggregation of data, responses from each area were weighted by the population of the MSA to arrive at weighted national response rates. The national sample of 4,000 respondents is accurate to within plus or minus 1.6 percent, at the 95 percent confidence level. Because the 17 areas surveyed are mainly representative of large and medium MSA's, the survey results are likely to be fairly representative of large and medium MSA's The survey results are not necessarily representative of the national population. 17

PAGE 24

IV. RESEARCH FINDINGS This section presents major observations and findings of the survey effort. Primary concern has been focused on the results as reported in the national aggregations. The research findings are categorized in the following major topical areas: Consumer Preferences of Those Using the Auto for Their Trip to Work --Why do they use their autos and not use public transportation? Consumer Preferences of Those Using Public Transportation for Their Trip to Work --Why do they use public transportation and not the automobile? Comparisons of Behavior and Attitudes in the Central City vs. Suburban Areas Perceptions on Transit Innovaiions -Attitudes toward high service level minivan service and toward an entrepreneuria l personal valet service at major transit stops. Public Opinion Issues --Attitudes toward a number of public policy questions involving traffic congestion, public transportation, parking fees, gasoline taxes, and competition in the public transportation business. Regional Comparisons --Differences in attitudes between urban areas. It is important that the survey resu lts be properly interpreted and that the reader have a clear understanding of the survey methodology, as presented previously. Notab ly, it should be recognized that the survey reports only responses fro m individuals that have access to public transportation in the selected survey cities. It is not a random sample of the entire population. Moreover, the survey can only report responses to the questionnaire; it cannot judge the reasonableness of the responses. Very importantly, the results of the survey should not be used for predictive purposes. Routinely in survey research it is fo und that responses to hypothetical situations are not born out by actual behavior. Nonetheless, the responses t o the survey can be used to identify the relative importance of various behavioral factors These findings can be very useful in transit marketing and service planning activities. This will be discussed in detail in Section V after the major factors related to transit use have been established CONSUMER PREFERENCES OF AUTO USERS Several of the questions in the survey can be used to identify attitudes and travel characteristics of those using the automobile as their mode of travel to work. The survey enables us to identify the features they like about using their autos, features they dislike about public transportation, and under what conditions they might switch to public transportation. 18

PAGE 25

One question asked of those who dr ive to work and do not use public transportation for any part of the trip was which mode they would take if for some reason they had t o take public transportation to work. Since the survey res ponses are limited to those reporting that they do have access to public transportation in some form, it is particularly interesting that 22 percent of the respondents cannot get to their worlq!lace by public transportation. This indicates that, even if this 22 percent desired to use public transit, they would be unable to do so as the service i s not available to them in their trip to work. What Do They Like About Using Their Autos? Some important insights can be gained by reviewing the responses cited as major advantages of going to work by car. These r esults are summarized in Table 1. Table 1 Major Advantage of Going to Work by Car, as Opposed to Using Public Transportation. (Reported by those who drive to work). Response Can leave when I want to-not tied t o schedule Takes less time Costs less Don't have to wait at station or stop/ no wasted time More enjoyable/relaxing Can't get there by public transit Don't have to walk to get to transportation Use it on the job Don't know /refused No threat of crime Privacy /less crowded 19 Percent(%) 42.0 32.2 9.8 7.1 6.7 6.7 5.3 3.1 2.7 1.9 1.2

PAGE 26

As indicated in the Table, the majo r advantages offered by those driving to work relate to service level, notably the flexibility provided by the automobile and the comparative travel time savings. The greatest single response iden tified schedule flexibility, which was indicated as the major advantage by 42.0 percent of respondents. An additional?.! percent cited not having to wait, which is similar to schedule flexibility. The second major response was time savings, which was indicated by 32.2 percent of respondents. These responses far outweighed all others. Cost savings was a distant third, cited as a major advantage by only 9.8 percent of respondents. The responses tend to confirm previous research findings related to the importance of various mode choice factors; much of the previous research also reported convenience, flexibility, and travel time as major advantages of the auto. The low rate of response for certain factors i s also of some inte res t. Only 3.1% of respondents cited the need to use their car on the job (whereas the May 1988 Phoenix survey reported necessity of using the auto for their business as a major factor); only 1.9% cited n o threat of crime; and only 1.2% cited privacy or lack of crowding. What Do They Dislike About Public Transportation? Another question asked of those who drive to work and do not use public transportation on any part of the trip inquired as to what they would dislike about going to work by public transportation. The responses are summarized in Table 2 As indicated, the results are consistent with reasons cited in the preceding section. The most frequent responses reflected a perceived lower level of service by public transportation than by the private automobile. Concern about schedule inflexibility was cited by 29.3 percent of respondents. A very close second was the response indicating travel time disadvantage, cited by 28.6 percent of respondents. Cost was a distant 5.9 percent. Generally these responses reinforce those of the preceding section. This inherent need for flexibility and limited travel time is confirmed by numerous modal split models in their calculation of time elasticities. The majority of modal choice models indicate that time cost elasticities a r e significantly greater than money cost elasticities. This indicates that a change in travel time, wait time, and/ or access time will have a much greater affect on public transportation demand than will a change in the fare structure A number of illustrations of these elasticities were reported in the previous research section 20

PAGE 27

Table 2 Major Disadvantage of Going to Work by Public Transportation. (Reported by those who drive to work). ReSJ)onse Can't leave when I want --tied to schedule Takes too long Have to wait at station or stop/wasted time Don't know/Refused Hate being on bus/train Costs too much Makes too many stops Have to go too far to get to stop/station Threat of crime Crowds What (if anything) Do They Like About Public Transportation? Percent(%) 29.3 28.6 13.4 11.2 7.4 5 9 5.6 5.0 4.4 4.3 All survey respondents were q u eried as to the sing l e greatest advantage of taking public transportation. The most frequent responses by those using private automobiles for their trip to work are summarized in Table 3. 21

PAGE 28

Table 3. The Single Greatest Advantage of Taking Public Transportation. (Based on responses of those using the private auto to go to work) Response No advantage Costs less than driving Reduces congestion Don t have to worry about parking Don't have to own a car Takes less time than driving Can read Less chance of getting into acc i dent Can sleep Better for the environment Percent(%) 19.0 14.4 11.3 11.2 6.8 5.2 3.7 3.4 3 2 2.8 The greatest response (19 0%) was that there is no advantage--not surprising considering that these are people who drive to work. Other significant responses included cost savings (14.4%), not having to deal with parking problems (11.2%), reducing congestion (11.3%), don't have to own a car (6.8%) takes less time than driving (5.2%), can read on transi t (3.7%), less chance of getting into accident (3. 4%) and can sleep (3.2%). These findings may be useful to transit service planners and marketers as they attempt to convert auto users to transiL By emphasizing those factors suggested as being the greatest adva n tages of public transportation perhaps planners and marketers will be more successful in attracting new transit riders. Under What Conditions Might They Switch to Public Transportation? Respondents w h o drive to work were asked if certain service improvements in public transportation would cause them to switch their trip to work mode The responses are summarized in Table 4 22

PAGE 29

Table 4. Conditions Under Which Those That Drive to Work Indicate They Would Switch to Public T ransportation. Situation P ercent Indicating They Would Definitely Possibly Not Switch Switch Switch If t rain was an exp r ess 1 15.1 32 1 47.9 Special bus/streetcar lane2 10.9 30.2 56.3 Express bus/streetcar2 16.6 32 3 48.9 B us stop on your comer2 18.0 28.4 50.8 If transfer, bus always 17 6 29 1 48.6 waiting3 No transfers3 25.4 2 6.0 44.0 Increased traffic congestion3 19.0 2 2 .0 51. 8 Double price of parkint 18.7 27.5 47 9 Persona l valet service at 8.8 14.4 56.5 transit stop3 1. Asked only if respondent said would use commute r rail or subway train if had to trav e l t o work by pub li c transportation 2. Asked only if responden t would u s e local b u s/streetcar. 3. Asked of all who drive to work In a ll cases, roughly 50 percent of respondents indicated the cit e d service improvemen t woul d definitely not cause them to switch to public transportation. Of all the p r opose d ac t ions, the most posit i ve response related t o the elimination of transfers . A tot al of 25.4 percent of respondents ind i cated they would definitely switch to transit if they did not have to t ransfer An additional 26.0 percent said they would possibly switch. This once again confirms previous research co n cerning the e mphasis on schedule flexibility and time savings. I n particular the Ecosometrics study r e ferred to in t he previous r es e arch i ndic a tes that transfer time elasticities are twice the size of first wait time elasticit i es This illustrates the extreme discontent associated with transfers and implies that, if transit systems were 23

PAGE 30

designed in such a way as to eliminate or minimize transfers, then ridership would perhaps increase considerably. In general, respondents indicated some sensitivity to service improvements, with 10 to 20 percent indicating they would definitely switch and an additiona125 to 30 percent indicating they would possibly switch in response to various service improvements. This indicates that a significant portion of auto drivers are open to the possibility of using transit service if it meets their commuting needs It must be recognized that act ual empirical response to service improvements may not measure up to the indicated switching, but there does appear to be a widespread willingness to consider modal alternatives. Parking Charges Pajd by Those Driving to Work Because it may have a bearing on the decision to drive to work, it is interesting to examine the parking charges paid by those using a private auto to get to work. One question asked in the survey related to the amount the respondent has to pay each day to park their car at work. This question was asked only of those using a private auto to get to work. Selected results are presented in Table 5. Table 5 Amount Paid by Respondent to Park Auto at Work. (Asked of those that drive to work). All Those Working In Respondents Central City Mean daily rate $ 0.35 $ 0.54 Percent paying nothing 89.2% 82.6% The responses are quite revealing. Of the total national sample, 89.2 percent of those going to work by private auto pay nothing for parking, and the mean for the entire survey is only $ 0.35 per day. Even for those that work in the central city, 82.6 percent pay nothing to park, and the reported mean is $ 0.54 per day. Of those who do pay to park, the mean rate is $ 3.35 daily. These findings are very important as most studies indicate that out-of-pocket expense is a significant factor in modal choice. The response above indicates that those driving to work generally have parking provided by their employers at little or no cost. As long as this process continues, parking problems will not be significant enough to encourage a large numbe r of auto to co n vert to the use of public transportation. 24

PAGE 31

Auto Ownership Rates It is of some interest that of the entire sample, 87.1 percent own or have access to a car whenever they need it, and 12. 9 percent do not. Of those that do not own cars, approximately half have no interest in becoming an owner. CONSUMER PREFERENCES OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION USERS There were several questions in the survey that can be used to derive att itudes and characteristics of those using public transportation for their trip to work. Choice Transit Riders One important question asked of choice transit riders (those who own autos but choose not to drive them to work) concerned the reasons for their decision. These findings can be very significant, as they offer insights in t o choice ridership which can be used in service planning and marketing to this segment These insights will be considered more closely in Sectio n V. In interpreting the information, it should be recognized that the survey re sults for choice transit riders are dominated by responses from New York. Of the total survey sample of 4000, a geographically weighted total of only 299 were in the category of choice transit riders. Of these, 141 are from the New York area. Table 6. Reasons Given for Not Taking Car to Work. (Reported by those who have cars but do not drive them to work). All New York Non New York Response Respondents Respondents Respondents Cost too much to park 27.5 27.6 27 .2 No place to park 23.9 33.7 15.8 Too much traffic 18.4 21.4 15.8 Takes longer by car 11.4 11.2 11.4 Walk to work 10. 9 6.1 152 Other household member uses car 52 6.1 4 4 Dislikes driving 1.5 1.0 1.9 More chance of getting into accident 1.3 2.0 0.6 25

PAGE 32

The table indicates that the national response is slightly biased due to the large number of respondents from New York. This bias can be seen most in the responses "no place to park" and "too much traffic". The inclusion of New York respondents results in proportions that are biased in an upward direction for these two responses. It is for this reason that the responses have been broken down between New York and non-New York respondents. The r esulting non-New York figures provide a better representation of the national tendency. As indicated, the preponderance of responses cited difficulties in using the private automobile, rather than the advantages of public transportation. The top four responses cited parking cost, lack of available parking, too much traffic, and poor tra vel t ime by car. These responses may possibly have been biased by the wording of the question, which asked "Why do you not take your car to work?" This wording may have encouraged negative observations on auto use rather than positive observations on transit use. Nonetheless, it is interesting that difficu lties associated with park ing were cited as major reasons. Not surprisingly, the overwhelming majority of. respondents in this category work in the central city. Of the weighted total of 299 responses which represent choice transit riders, 246 of them work in the central city, where the cost of parking is highest and the availability is the lowest. It is interesting to note that parking cost and availability were cited by th is group as the most sign ific a nt motives for not taking their cars to work, whi. le the parking charges paid by those who actually do take their cars to work is nominal or none. Apparently, there are few choice transit riders who would have the benefit of free or low cost parking if they were to drive their auto to work. Transit Dependent Riders Approximately 30 percent of all transit riders do not own c ars (transit dependent). Several questions relate specifically to the attitudes and transportation characteristics of these transit dependents. One question, asked of autoless workers, was "If you owned a car, do you think you would take it to work?" Again, the responses are dominated by the New York City area, which accounted for approximately half of autoless workers in the survey. Therefore, the results of this disaggregated sample should be considered with caution due to the high probability of sample bias. Respot)ses for various groups are summarized in the following table. Table 7. Percent of Those Who Would Take a Car to Work, if They Owned a Car, for Selected Groups (Asked of those who work but do not own cars). Group All Respondents New York Respondents Non New York Respondents 26 Percent(%) 37.1 24.1 50.4

PAGE 33

The responses to this question were somewhat unexpected, with only 37.1 percent of this group indicating a preference to drive to work. This finding challenges the common perception that autoless workers are "transit captives". Based on these data, it appears that nearly two-thirds of those without cars, who ride transit to work, choose to not own a car. Workplace and residence location were shown to be significant factors in the response to this question. Of those that reside in the central city, only 30.5 percent indicated that, if they had a car, they would use it to drive to work; only 28.1 percent of those working in the central city would drive if they had a car available. For suburbanites, the respon s es were quite different, with 77.6 percent of those living and working in the suburbs indicating they wou ld drive to work if they had a ca r Distance was also a factor with those commuting 3 to 5 miles to work indicating a 66.9 percent positive response, steadily decreasing to 17.7 percent for those commuting more than 20 miles An additional question was asked of autoless workers that inquired as to why they would or would not use an auto to drive to work, if they had an auto. Those that would drive to work if they had cars indicated the primary responses shown in Table 8. The response is consistent with that of previous questions by referring to schedule flexibility and time savings as the major advantages o f the auto. Table 8. Major Advantage of Going to Work by Car as Opposed to Public Transportation. (As reported by people without cars, wbo would drive to work if they had cars). Takes less time Can leave when I want--not tied to schedule Don't have to wait/no wasted time Costs less More enjoyable Percent(%) 51.3 37.2 13.2 7.6 5.8 Table 9 indicates the major responses of those who do not own cars, that even if they had them, would not take them to work. Again, the responses shown in Table 9 are dominated by responses from New York accounting for over half of the responses in the national survey. It is of some i nterest to compare the responses given by those who own cars but do not drive to work and those who do not own cars and would not drive to work, even if they had cars. For both categories of respondents, the top four responses were the same. Both 27

PAGE 34

groups see parking cost and availability, travel time and traffic congestion as major disadvantages to auto use. As noted in the discussion on choice transit riders, captive riders also would expect to pay parking charges out of their own pocket, if they had a car to drive to work The fact that these two groups answer this question similarly tends to confirm that these factors should be considered as priority items for improvements in the public transportation system. This would perhaps encourage even more auto users to convert to public transportation. Table 9. Reasons for Not Driving to Work. (As reported by those who do not own cars, but even if they did would not use them to drive to work). Response No place to park Cost too much to park Too much traffic Takes longer by car Too hectic/hates driving More chance of getting into accident Wal k to work Can't sleep in car Can't read/work in car Percent(%) 37.6 33.9 27.0 18.1 4.3 3.8 3 4 2.8 1.6 As noted previously, all survey respondents were queried as to the single greatest advantage of taking public transportation. The responses of those using public transportation for their trip to work are summarized in Table 10. 28

PAGE 35

Table 10. The Single Greatest Advantage of Taking Public Transportation. (As reported by those who use public transportation to get to work). Response Don't have to worry about parking Takes less time than driving Costs less than driving No advantage Don't have to own a car Can read while traveli n g Less chance of getting into accident Reduces congestion Can sleep Perce.ptions Reeardine Safety of Various Modes Percent(%) 19.7 19.1 16.1 8.1 5.7 3.9 3.7 3.7 3.4 Although safety considerations were not cited as principal factor s in why people do or do not use p ublic transportation, there were rwo separate questions which directly asked about persona l safety. Responses are summarized in the following tables. Table 11. Mode Which Respondents Feel Safest Using Mode Car Bus Train Don't know /refused Mini-van Taxi Streetcar 29 Percent(%) 58.9 16.1 12.9 5.6 3.5 2.1 0.9

PAGE 36

The overwhelming majority (58.9 percent) cited the car, followed by bus and train. These responses were fairly consistent for nearly all subgroups. A complementarY question asked which mode do you feel the least safe using. Results are shown in the following table. Table 12. Mode Respondents Feel the Least Safe Using Mode Percent(%) Taxi 31.1 Bus 15.9 Don't know /ref used 15.8 Train 15.0 Car 14.1 Mini-van 6.4 Streetcar 1.8 The response was verY surprising. For the national sample, as well as for almost all subgroups, the taxi was identified as the mode people feel the l east safe using. 31.1 percent of respondents indicated the taxi mode as being the transportation mode that people tend to feel the least safe using. This response was distantly followed by the bus, train, and car, all at about 15 percent of responses. This response likely arises from concern for safety due to perceived aggressive driving as well as concern for security due to the mistrust that passengers may have for taxi drivers. A follow-up q u estion asked wby the respondent fee l s the least safe using the indicated mode. For the taxi mode, the finding is dramatic 83.3 percent of the respondents cited the taxi driver as their major reason for feeling unsafe using taxicabs. This finding should be of major importance to those interested in promoting taxi services, be it traditional taxi service, or various forms of innovative taxi-based service. Although it is common to joke about the precarious taxi ride many of u s experience when we use taxis, there is a serious message here. There is strong evidence that the marketability and the competitive position of taxi services are currently being severely impacted by an overwhelming public concern about the safety and security of traveling by taxi. However, because of the ambiguity in the question, as to whether safety from accidents or safety in the sense of personal secu r ity is intended, there i s some uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of results. It is anticipated that, because of this ambiguity, this would be an excellent topic for additional research. 30

PAGE 37

COMPARISONS OF BEHAVIOR AND AmTUDES IN THE CENTRAL CITY VS. SUBURBAN AREAS In recent years there has been considerable interest in the issue of suburban mobility Increasingly, urban areas are becoming suburbanized, as the growth in commercial and residential development has been occurring in suburban areas, much more than in central cities. Because of this social and demographic phenomenon, comparisons between suburban and central city att itu des are of considerable interest. A review of all survey questions and responses was performed, with special attention given to differences between center city and suburban attitudes. This section does not attempt to comprehensively report on comparisons for all survey questions, only fo r those that appeared to be of particular significance. Frequency of Use of Various All survey r esponden ts were asked how often they use various forms of transportation. Reviewing the responses reveals marked differences between center city and suburban trips. A mean was calculated for each transportation mode, based on the following conversion of responses into frequency of use: Almost every weekday = 250 days per year; couple of times a week = 100 days per year; once a week = 50 days per year; once a month = 12 days per year; couple of times a year = 3; about once a year = 1; virtually never = 0. The means calculated on this basis are summarized i n Table 13 on the following page. To a large extent, the usage rates reflect the availability of various modes by location and the basic operating characteristics of each mode. Several of the modes, s uch as commuter railroad, subway train, local bus/streetcar, and commuter express bus, typically are configured as radial systems, feeding into the central city. As a result it is not surprising that use of these modes is substantially higher for central city work trips. The use of all public transportation modes is greatest for work trips to the central city. Aside from t hese generalizations which confirm expectations, there are several interesting findings based on these data. Unfortunately, the entire survey incl uded only 19 respondents who normally carpool to work. As a result rela t ionships derived from this e l ement do not have a high statistical confidence. However, there are some interesting observations to be made. It is interesting to note the relationship between carpool use and distance to work. It is e vident that some positive correlation exists between these two factors as results indicate that carpooling increases with distance to work. One excep tion is reported in the table for the 6 to 10 mile trip to work. This except ion is likely due to the small sample size for this particular disaggregation. The use of the carpool mode also shows a strong bias toward suburban residents, with a carpool rate of nearly twice that of central city residents. Even more significant is the carpool rate for work trips from the suburbs to the central city where results are three times the rate for central city to central city work trips and more than twice the rate for suburb to suburb work trips . 31

PAGE 38

Table 13. Freque ncy of Use of Various Modes (Days per year) MODE Total Central Sub Central Sub Ci t y City S u burb Suburt Sample City urban City urban to to to t o City Suburb City Suburl Carpool 12.20 7.52 14.21 15.55 11.13 8.63 9.05 25.64 11.74 Comm ut er Railroad 11.04 8.07 13.43 17.18 8.67 10.22 13.48 26.13 8.40 Subway Trai n 24.82 38.61 17.51 48.75 7.82 52.28 13.16 43.72 8.38 Commuter Expres s Bus 8.87 12.42 6.69 13.86 3.49 14.02 7.26 13.82 2.70 Local Bus/ Street Car 29.44 47.7 3 18.96 42.46 15.01 51.90 23.29 29.33 13.24 Commercial Min i -van 2.86 4.35 1.99 4.71 0.65 3.98 2.98 5.81 0.25 Taxicab 11.33 19.11 6.93 17.24 6.11 22.37 8 .20 10.15 5.58 Auto 201.60 172.18 220.06 189.53 229.46 173.16 216.11 213.63 230. 70 32

PAGE 39

Table 14. The Rate of Carpool Use as Related to Distance to Work. Distance to Work Less than 2 miles 3 to 5 miles 6 to 10 miles 11 to 20 miles More than 20 miles Rate (days/year) 11.54 15 62 7.96 17.13 19.42 Although there appears to be some correlation between trip distance a nd attractiveness of carpooling (the small number of responses in the carpool category give rise to the irregularity in the data in the 6 to 10 mile class), the rates are much less than the 25.64 reported for all suburb to central city trips Apparently the high rate for trips from the suburb to the central city reflects the high concentration of jobs in a small geographic area in the central city, more traffic congestion, and parking cost and availability. A strong lesson to be derived is the impact of typical auto use disincentives found in central cities on the relative attractiveness of carpooling. Commuter railroad also showed a strong bias toward s uburb to central city work trips. This is not surprising, since the service provided by most commuter rail systems is strongly oriented to connecting commuter suburbs with the central city. Not surprisingly, use of taxicab service for work trips was heavily oriented to the central city and particularly for work trips from central city residences to central city workplaces Again, this probably reflects the large taxi fleets operating in central cities, which oftentimes allow it to function as an immediate response demand responsive service. Frequency of auto use was significantly lower fo r central city to central city work trips, reflecting the better competit i ve position of other modes, while it was greatest for suburb to suburb work trips, which are the most difficult to serve by traditional public transportation modes. to Trip Distance. Duration. and Speed Survey respondents were asked the distance they travel to work and the length of time the trip takes. Subsequently, the average speed was derived. The results are displayed in Table 15. 33

PAGE 40

Distance (Miles) Time (Minutes) Speed (MPH) Table 15. Cha racteri stics of Work Trips as Related to Residence and Workplace. RESIDENCE WORK TRIP TO WORK Total Central SubCentral SubCity City Suburb Sample City urban City ur ban to to to City Suburb City 10.90 8.77 11.79 11.43 9.67 7.74 !5.o7 16.65 24.69 25.04 24.25 28.96 1 8.62 24.72 26.94 34.84 28.50 23.96 30.63 26.24 30.52 22.55 32.61 31.45 34 Suburb to Suburb 9.37 18. 05 31.01

PAGE 41

Several interesting observations can be made. First, examining characteristics by residence location, suburban residents travel significantly further than central city residents (11.79 miles vs. 8.77 miles) but take less time to get there. Similarly, those that work in the suburbs travel somewhat shorter distances and take significantly less time to get there Of some interest is the observation that suburb to suburb trips are generally shorter in distance and in duration than most other categories of trips. There is a positive aspect to this finding, in that it appears that suburb to suburb work trips will generate substantially Jess vehicle miles of travel, resulting in less air pollution, and possibly a lesser overall impact on the transportation system. On the other hand, due to their short length, they are less likely to be converted to various ridesharing alternatives. Perceptions of Auto Users on of Public Transportation Previously, in Table 2, aggregate data were presented on major disadvantages of going to work by public transportation, as reported by those who drive to work. In comparing attitudes of various types of work trips, there are a few differences worth noting. Those driving to work in the central city, both city to city and suburb to city reported travel time as the most significant disadvantage of public transportation, cited by 36.4 percent and 34.2 percent of the respondents, respectively. These groups cited schedule inflexibility 24.2 percent and 27.8 percent of the time, respectively. In co n trast, those driving to work in the suburbs reversed the significance of these factors. City to suburb and suburb to suburb commuters cited travel time as a major disadvantage only 23.4 percent and 22.9 percent of the time, respectively. These groups cited schedule inflexibility 30.0 percent and 32.9 percent of the time, respectively. These data show that those driving to work in the central city see the major disadvantage of public transportation as travel time, whereas those driving to work in the suburbs (where transit schedules tend to be more inconvenient and headways longer) see schedule inflexibility as the major negative feature : Another interesting observation is concern expressed by auto users concerning the threat of crime on public transportation. For city to city work trips, crime threat was cited by 9.7 percent of the respondents; for city to suburb work trips it was cited by 4.7 percent. In contrast, suburb to city and suburb to suburb respondents cited crime in only 2.7 percent and 2.5 percent of the cases. These data indicate that auto commuters residing in the center city have a greater concern about c,rime on public transportation than their suburban resident counterparts. 35

PAGE 42

TRANSIT INNOVATIONS There were several questions included in the survey that dealt with innovative transit services Use of" Almost Door-to-Door" Minivan Service One group of questions was targeted at those that drive to work and do not use transit for any part of their trip This group was asked, the following question: "If there was a mini -va n service which picked you up on your comer a n d drove you to withi n a bloc k of whe re you worked (shop, go for entertainment, go to visit friends), and it left every half hour, would you be likely to use this service or would you still take your car/ other privately owned vehicle?" The res po nses are indicated in Table 16 and are of considera b le interest, as the specified service might b e considered representative of a vety high quality transit service. Tab l e 16. Likelihood of Using "Almost Door-to -Door" Minivan Service, Percent.(Asked of those that drive to wo r k). Work Shop Entertain Visit mem Friends Would u se serv i ce 42.9 28.3 20.7 15.9 Would not use service 47.4 68.9 76 6 81. 7 Don't know /refused 9 7 2 7 2.7 2.4 36

PAGE 43

An inte r esting correlation was observed between the willingness to use minivan service and income. This relationship is illustrated in Table 17. Table 17. Percent Indicating They Would Use Minivan Service, as Related to Income. (Asked of those that drive to work). Trip Pu rpose Annual Household Income ($000) Work Shop Entert. Visit Less than 10 60.1 35.5 34.0 29 3 10 19.9 52.2 34.2 28.8 26.2 2029.9 48.2 31.9 22.8 16.9 3039.9 43.3 29.8 21. 0 13.6 4049.9 43.7 24.5 22.4 16.2 SO or more 40.3 26.6 16.6 11.9 In addition, those that indicated a willingness to use a minivan service were asked what they conside re d to be a fair price, that they would be willing to pay for the service. The responses are indicated in Table 18. 37

PAGE 44

Tabl e 18. Reported Fair Price for Minivan Service, that Respondents Indicated They Would be Willing to Pay. (As repo r ted by those that said they would use service) ner Trill Percent Willing to Pay Work Shon Enter!. .Yisi.t $1.00 33.0 45.8 36.4 39.6 $ 2.00 21.9 16.2 18 1 12.0 $ 3.00 7.9 4 5 5.0 4.4 $ 4.00 3.6 1.5 1.6 2.4 $ 5.00 6.6 5.3 7.2 7 2 $ 6.00 $ 9 00 3.3 2.5 2.1 1 3 $ 10. 00 1.0 0.7 1.7 1.5 $ 11.00 $ 19.00 1.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 $ 20.00 or more 1.5 0.3 0.6 0.8 Don' t know/re f used 20.2 22.9 272 30.9 Mean response $2.88 $2.08 $2.46 $2.41 Some interesting observations can be made about the responses to these questions Of those that drive to work, 42.9 per cent indicated they would use minivan service of the service quali ty specified, for their trip to work. The like lih ood of using the service decreases substantially for other trip purposes. A greater percentage, 47.4 percent indicated they would not use such a s ervice, even though the service specified would provide an extremely high quality of service. The response to this question indicates the magnitude of "hard-core" auto users who would not switch, even with a tra n sit option of extremely h i gh quality. This data would suggest that approximately half of all auto users are committed to thei r autos a n d are unlikely t o switch t o transit under any circumstances while half might be convinced to switch to a high quality service. Table 17 clearly indicates that willingness to use the minivan service declines sig n ifica n tly as income rises. Apparently, those in progressively higher income brackets would still prefe r the convenience associated with their autos than the idea of using the minivan service. Despite this relation s hip, there is s till a significant portion of all income groups that indicate a willingness to use a minivan service particularly in the journey to work trip 38

PAGE 45

This is likely due to the characteristics of the minivan service which are closely related to characteristics of a personal auto. Finally, the willingness to pay is of substantial interest. As indicated in the table, the preponderance of potentia l users would be willing to pay $1.00 or $2.00, with comparatively few willing to pay over $2.00. If the rate of responses were adjusted to r emove the "non responses", they would show 60 to 70 percent of the meaningful responses indicating a willingness to pay $2.00 or l ess Potential for Entrepreneurial Valet Service at Transit Stops A special question was asked of people who drive to work, but who would take either a train or a bus/streetcar to work if they had to travel by public t ransit. This particular group was asked "If there was a service located where you boarded the bus or train where you could place a shopping order or an errand order and when you came back the thing(s) were waiting for you in a locker, would this make you switch to public transit? This might include dry cleaning, movie rentals, regist ration renewals at motor vehicles, flowers wine, or just about any other kind of errands you needed done during the day." The responses are summarized in Table 19. Table 19. Response to Personal Valet Service at Transit Stops. Response Would definitely switch Would possibly switch Would definitely not switch Don't know/refused Percent(%) 18.4 26.4 48.6 6.5 Subsequently, those who indicated they would definitely or possibly switch were asked what they feel would be a fair price that they would be willing to pay, on average, for each errand like this The results are summarized below. 39

PAGE 46

T ab le 20. Price R espondents Would be Willing to Pay for Each Errand. Amoum Percent(%) $ 1.00 14 9 $ 2.00 13.3 $ 3.00 8.0 $ 4.00 2 1 $ 5.00 12.7 $ 6.00 -$ 9.00 1.8 $ 10 00 6. 1 $ 11. 00 $19.00 1.0 $ 20.00 or more 1.5 Don't know/refused 38.5 The responses to these q ue stions were somewhat surprising, particula rly the subs tant ial port i on of respondents who said they would possibly or definitely switch to pub l ic transportation if such a service were offered. The me a n willingness to pay for s uc h a service was $ 4 .29 per errand although a significant share of the market is in the $ 1.00 to $ 2.00 range. Interpretation of these data must be done carefully. In many locations, where there are sufficient transit passengers to warrant private investment, the marketplace has responded with personal service type establishments frequently locating near major transit boa rdin g places. For example, it is fairly commonplace at majo r t ransit points, to see a dry cleaning establishment, a florist, win e shops, and o ther personal services. However, the survey response i ndicates some interest in a highly personal ized vale t service, which may be wort h y of further exploration by UMT A. This may be a service which can be promoted through UMTA's Entrepreneuria l Servic e s Program. 40

PAGE 47

PUBLIC POLICY ISSUES Several questions were included in the survey to examine public sentim en t toward various policy issues. The subjects dealt with traffic congestion, increasing parking charges, making new developments more accessible to public transporta tion, increasing motor fuel taxes, and the role of public-private competition in the delivery of trans portation services. Seriousness of T raffic Congestion All survey respondents were queried as t o the perceived seriousness of traffic congestion in the area where they live. The responses are summarized in Table 21. Table 21. Public Opinion of Traffic Congestion Response Very serious Somewhat serious Not very serious at all Don't know /Refused (%) 35.9 27.6 35.7 0.8 The table indicates that 63.5 percent of those surveyed felt tha t the traffic congestion in their area was somewhat or very serious. This perception seems to be fairly consistent in all of the major cities surveyed. There are some interesting variations in the results when broken down into variou s cities. Table 22 illustrates a number of the major cities in various regions of the United States. 41

PAGE 48

Table 2 2 Public Opinion of T raffic Congestion in Major C i ties. (Figures g i ven indicate the percentage who bel i eve that congestion is somewhat or very serious ) Pmenl (%) Orlando 77.5 Wash ington D.C. 77.0 Los Angeles 74.5 Tampa 68. 0 New York 64. 0 Kansas City 45.3 These results are somewhat surprising as it was expected that New York would be a more significant proportion when compa r ed t o othe r cities. But, the survey indicates that Orlando, Wash i ngton, D C and Los Angeles are perceived as having the most serious problem wit h traffic congestion. The CUTR Transit Usag e Survey (r e f e rred to i n Secti on II) i ncluded a question which i nq ui re d abo ut t r ansportation prob l ems in the Tampa Bay area (Hillsborough County) Results indicated that 87 percen t of t hose s u rveyed believ ed that transponat ion was a moderate or large problem in the area whereas 68 percent of the respondents from Tampa in the UMT A survey indicated a somewhat or very serious problem with congestion H owever, it should be noted that the s e two questions are not directly comparable as the UMT A survey includes o nl y congestion as a problem while the CUTR survey considers all problems associated with transportation. Therefore, it is logical to expect the response to the C UTR survey to be greater than that of the UMT A survey. Imposing Widespread Parking Fees An interesting follow-up question was presented. Respondents were asked if, in order to reduce traffic congestion, they favor or oppose parking fees at work and at shopp i ng malls to encourage the use of othe r forms of transportation Table 23 presents the res u lts of this question. 42

PAGE 49

Table 23. Response to Proposed Parking Fees at Work and at Shopping Malls Response Favor Oppose Don't know /Refused Percent(%) 20.0 71.6 8.4 Therefore, despite general agreement about the seriousness of traffic congestion, 71.6 percent of those surveyed indicate they would oppose any action to bring about new or additional parking fees at work and at shopping malls. It is also interesting to compare the attitudes of different income groups with respect to proposed parking fees. The data indicate that only 56.9 percent of those in the lowest income group (less than SIO,OOO) would oppose such a measure; however, 75.3 percent of those in the highest income group ($50,000 or more) stated they would oppose that same measure. The income groups within these two extremes indicate that, as income rises, the likelihood of opposition to additional parking fees also rises. Other variations indicate that only 65.0 percent of central city residents would oppose such actions, compared to 75.8 percent of suburban residents. Similarly, 68.6 percent of central city workers are opposed, compared to 77.9 percent of suburban workers. This dissimilarity is likely due to the reasoning that central city residents and workers stand to benefit more from reduced congestion within the central city. Finally, as would be expected, those traveling to work by car are more opposed (77.0 percent) than those going by public transportation (percent varies for each mode, between 48.6 percent and 68.9 percent) Makin2 Developments More Accessible to Transit Public opinion was also sought r eg arding requiring develo pers to make their projects more accessible to public transportation. The results of this inquiry are summarized i n Table 24. Table 24. Response to Requiring Developers to Make Projects More Accessible to Public Transportation Response Favor Oppose Don't know /Refused 43 Percent(%} 73.9 13.6 125

PAGE 50

Of those surveyed, 73.9 percent indicated they would favor a meas u re s u ch as this. Evidently, there is a natural tendency to respond positively to an increase in the provision of public services when the cost is born by others I ncreased Gasoline Tax a n d Higher Tolls The survey a ls o proposed a possible solution to alleviate traffic congestion, conserve e nergy and reduce pollution. Opinions were surveyed on discouraging the use of privately-owned vehicles with a twenty -f ive cent per gallon tax on gasoline, substantially increasing tolls and generally mak ing it much more expensive to drive. The response to this proposal was negative for the most part as can be seen in Table 25. Table 25. Response to a Proposed Twenty-five Cent Per Gallon Gas Tax, Substantially Increased Tolls, and Generally Making it Much More Expensive to Drive. Favor Oppos e Don't know /Refused Percent(%) 13.2 81.1 5.7 The Table indicates that 81.1 percent of those surveyed are opposed to such actions These r e sults seem to i ndicate that the proposed actions are seen as inappropriate to be included in public policy actions. The response to this same question is also interesting when answers are categorized accord ing to l ocation of residence. Refer to Table 26 below Table 26. Response t o a Proposed Twenty-five Cent Per Gallon Gas Tax, etc, Acc ord ing to Location of Residence. (%2) Response Central City Subutila n Favor 16.7 11.3 Oppose 76.0 83.8 Don't kno w /Refused 7.3 4.9 44

PAGE 51

There is a definite variation in response among those residing in the different areas within and around the city. The perceived importance of the congestion, energy conservation and pollution problems and the reliance on public transportation is greatest for those in the central city and therefore, they are more willing to see such a disincentive imposed. Contract. Competitive or Public Transportation? The purpose of this line of questioning was to determine the public opinion regarding who shou ld deliver transit services. The respondents were given a choice among the following: contracting private companies to deliver transit agencies for the right to deliver transit services, or having government agencies deliver transit services. The opinion of those surveyed is depicted in Table 27 below. Table 27. Response to How Transit Services Should be Delivered. Response P rivate Private/Government Competition Government Don't know /Refused Percent(%) 30.4 33.5 19.4 16.7 It is poss ible that some of those surveyed did not actually comprehend the significance of their choices as the consequences resulting from these options are not expected to be common knowledge. Despite this consideration, it is still very useful to co n sider the response of those surveyed The res u lts above indicate that 33.5 percent of those surveyed believe that private enterprise shou l d compete with government agencies to deliver transit services. Another 30.4 percent regard the contracting of transit services to private companies as the most efficient method of allocation while 19.4 percent believe that the government alone should be responsible for providing these services. The respondents were also questioned about their views concerning competition in general. Specifically, the question was designed to determine whether respondents viewed competition as being good by r educing costs and increasing service or as being harmful by reducing services and threatening jobs. The response is recorded in Table 28 below. 45

PAGE 52

Table 28. Public Opinion of Competition in Providing Local Transportation Services. Response Competition Good Competitio n Harmful Don't know/Refused Percent(%) 66.6 19.0 14.4 It is evident from the table that the vast majority of respondents believe that competition in general is good. This response was chosen by 66.6% of the survey population. These respo nses are consistent with the results of the survey conducted by Market Opinion Research (under contract with UMTA) and is summarized in the section on previous research. This s urvey r epo rted that 92 percent of respondents felt that competition in the provision of transit services should be encouraged. 46

PAGE 53

REGIONAL COMPARISONS Among the crosstabs performed were several that present survey data by area (i.e. Metropolitan Statistical Area), by region of the country, and by whether or not the area has a rail transit system. These categorizations are shown below: Table 29. Classification of Areas Surveyed ReeionfArea NORTHEAST New York Boston Philadelphia Washington, D.C SOUTH Atlanta Houston Orlando Tampa MIDWEST Chicago Kansas Gty Madison Minneapolis/St. Paul St. Louis WEST Phoenix Denver Los Angeles San Francisco Rail Service Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes No No No No No No No Yes Because all survey questions are crosstabulated by these categories, there is a voluminous data set. The purpose of this section is t o highlight observations of particular interest not to comprehensively describe the data. It may be of interest to those in each city to compare their city to the national averages. This task is reserved for furure research 47

PAGE 54

Tabl e 3 0 presents some interesting data concerning frequency of use of various modes. Table 30 F requency of Use of Indicated Modes, mean numbe r of days per year. REGION/CITY MODE Auto/ Carpool/ Rail Express Local Minivan Taxi Other POV Vanpool Bus Bus NORTI-IEAST 208.9 13.8 65. 0 10.7 38.0 4.3 17 5 N ew York 201.5 15.6 77.0 1 2.8 39. 4 6.2 21.8 Bos ton 224 2 9 3 55.2 7.3 33.5 1.6 12.4 Philadelphia 211.5 10.6 30.3 6.3 33.1 1.5 8.0 Wash i ngton 232.2 12.8 57.8 8.4 40. 6 0.1 12 7 S O UTI-I 271.1 15.4 3 2 4.7 8.2 1.7 4.5 Atlanta 278 7 16 9 9.4 0.4 5.3 5.3 3.0 Houston 272.6 15 8 0.7 9.6 11.4 0.1 7.2 Orlando 264.9 12.5 1.3 1.4 7.1 0.2 3.0 Tampa 262.2 13. 9 0 1 3.8 7.4 0.4 2.9 MIDWEST 245 9 8 6 21.4 6.4 32.2 1.7 9 6 Chicago 226.0 6.9 41. 7 8.2 49 8 2.4 12.6 Kansas City 266.1 6.7 0 0 3 2 15.4 1.7 9 8 Madison 265.9 17.0 0 0 3.9 13.3 7 7 5.0 Minn./St. P. 270.5 11.2 5.1 7.3 21 2 0.0 5.1 St. Lo uis 258.6 10.6 0.0 3.3 9.2 0.6 6.6 WEST 260.5 10.0 6.2 9.8 21.6 1.6 3.7 Phoe nix 272.4 13.7 5.0 0.6 95 1 7 1.5 Den ve r 253.4 11.8 1.4 8.2 1 4.7 0.2 2.8 Los Angeles 267.0 9.8 1.8 9.7 19.9 0.5 2.4 San Fran. 219.7 4.4 35. 2 22.9 52.0 8.3 13.8 RAIL CITIES 216.5 12.6 56.6 10.1 38.2 4.2 15.7 NONRAIL 266.2 11.6 1.8 6.8 15.0 0 7 4 2 CITIES 48

PAGE 55

Cities with rail systems exhibit substantially different travel behavior than those without rail systems. Not only is frequency of auto use substantially less, but general reliance on all forms of public transportation is gre ater In rail cities, much greater use is made of express bus, local bus, minivan, and taxi than in non-rail cities. This characteristic very well may result from the tendency for cities with rail systems to have much more developed public tran s portation systems of all kinds, as well the tendency for these cities to have more severe congestion, more costly parking, and other auto disince ntives. The Atlanta area represents somewhat of an anomaly, as it reflects unusual travel characteristics, in comparison with other areas. Atlanta shows the highest use of auto or other privately owned vehicle of all c ities in the sample. Carpool use is high, second only to Madison. Rail use is extremely low, in comparison to other rail cities. Presumably, this may be due to the comparatively low coverage area of the system. The data for Atlanta also reflect extremely low usage rates for both express bus and for local bus, while the reported use of minivans is somewhat high. Taxi usage rates are also very low in Atlanta, in spite of the fact that the reported coverage of the taxi system is much greater than most areas. Atlantans also reported 27.5 percent residing in a rural area, compared to 7.5 percent of the national sample and 18.6 percent working in rural areas, compared to a national sample of 5.6 percent. Car ownership rates were reported to be much less for cities with rail service, where 83.7 percent of the respondents indicated they have access to a car, compared to 92.6 percent of those in cities without rail systems. There was considerable variability in the reported rates of those working outside the home, ranging from 55.5 percent of those surveyed in Tampa to 73.0 percent of those in Denver. Average trip characteristics showed considerable variation by city. The mean home to work travel distance reported in the national survey was 10.90 miles. Cities showing substantial differences were (on the short side) Boston, Philadelphia, Tampa, and Madison, at 8.48 miles, 8.82, 8.80, and 8.41, respectively; and (on the long side) Atlanta and St. Louis, at 14.63 and 13.46 miles, respectively. There was very little reported difference between mean trip lengths in rail vs. non-rail cities. Reported home to work trip durations averaged 24.69 minutes for the national sample, ranging to a hig h of 29.65 minutes for New York. On the low side were Mi nneapolis/St. Paul, at 1 8.49 minutes, Madison at 14.55, and Tampa at 17.26 minutes. Average trip durati ons reported for rail cities were significantly higher (27.0 vs. 20.7 minutes), probably reflecting general congestion levels in rail cities. I n on e of the previous sections, the concern with taxi safety was presented on an aggregate basis. By city it was found that respondents had the most concern with taxi safety in Washington and Bo ston, with much Jess concern expressed in Tampa, Atlanta, and Los Angeles. 49

PAGE 56

VI. SERVICE PLANNING AND MARKETING IMPLICATIONS Many transit use factors have been established through the comprehensive analysis of the national survey results From thes e factors can be derived many planning and marketing implications These implications were briefly discussed in the presentation of the research findings but will be reiterated in this section. Several questions were asked of respondents concerning the advantages and disadvantages of both the automobile and bus. The majority indicated either schedule flexibility or time savings as being the major advantages of the auto and the disadvantages of the bus. There was also some concern regarding money cost involved with both transportation modes. It i s obvious from this response that planners and marketers shou l d concentrate their efforts on these three characteristics in order to have any chance for success in increasing ridership on public transportation. This contention is supported empirically by the majority of modal choice models in their calculation of elasticities as well as by attitudinal survey results. These models report that time cost elasticities are significantly greater than money cost elasticities. Therefore, changes in travel time(line haul, wait time access time, etc ) will have a much grea ter influence on ridership than changes in the fare structure. Previous research also contends that even though schedule flexibility is all but impossible to quantify individuals highly value this factor in their modal choice. Based on these observations, it appears that the elimination of the indicated disadvantages of public transportation will be much more successfu l than attempting to improve on the perceived advantages of public transportation. Pla nners and marketers should also note the conditions under which those that drive to work would switch to public transportation. Those conditions that would most encourage such a change are the eliminatio n of all transfers, an express transit services and doubling the pri ce of parking. The first two conditions relate to impr oving service by reducing trave l time associated with transit. The third condition encourages a switch because of an increase in the money cost of auto use. Regardless of the condition offered, approximately 50 percent of respondents indicated they would still not switch. It does appear that a substantial increase in parking fees would contribute greatly to an increase in transit ridership. However, the findings indicate that this option has been seldom used in practice th r oughout the United States. This is supported by the finding that those driving to work generally have parking provided by their employers at little or no cost to themse lves. It is interesting to note that the majority of choice transit riders as well as transit dependent riders who would not use an auto even if they had one indicate the major reasons to be those that relate to parking problems (cost and unavailability). This provides strong evidence that this option would be very effective in converting auto users to public t r ansportation If, as a matter of public policy, additional transit use is to be encouraged, mech anisms should be investigated to cause auto drivers to bear the true cost of "free parking". Although the main scope of this paper was to consider national aggregations, several disaggregations were mentioned thro11ghout the analysis. Many of these disaggregations may be of interest to planners and marketers as well. This information suggests that, from a planning and marketing standpoint, different groups of people should be approached in a different manner. For example, those driving to work in the central city indicate travel time to be the major disadvantage of public transportation while those driving to work in 50

PAGE 57

the suburbs se e schedule inflexibility as the greatest negative characteristic. This response indicates that planning and marketing should b e approached with this dissimilarity in mind. Transit innovations such as door -to-door minivan service and perso nal valet service could also have success in encou raging additional transit ridership. Responses indicate that approximately 50 percent of auto users may be willing to switch a high quality minivan service. As suggested previously, this could perhaps be investigated through UMTA's Entrepreneurial Services Program. There are also some interesting implica tions concerning the use of the taxi mode. Survey results indicate that resp ondents feel the least safe using this mode with the major reason being the taxi driver. It is not clear whether respondents feel unsafe as a result of careless driving or distrust for the driver. It is likely that both of these feelings are reflected in the survey results. These results should be of great interest to those promoting any type of taxi service as the competitive position of taxi services is being greatly effected by this overwhelming public concern for t he safety and security of its riders. The implications discussed above are mean t only as suggestions for further investigation for, as stated before, responses t o hypothetical situations are not necessarily born out by actual behavior. Nevertheless, the information provided by the survey is very useful in helping to establish factors related to transit use. Although public opinion regard ing public transportation is shown to be negative for the most part, many factors have been suggested which may help contribute to increased transit ridership. 51

PAGE 58

VII. APPENDICES A. Miscellaneous Findings B. Future Research Opportunities C. Survey Instrument

PAGE 59

APPE NDIX A MISCELLANEOUS FINDINGS

PAGE 60

MISCELLANEOUS FINDINGS This sec t io n presents several data analyses which may be of interest to transporta t ion planners. Since they are of sec ondary interest to the purposes of this r esearch, they are presented here, in an Append ix Responses to this survey confirmed expectations that a direct relationship ex i sts between auto use and income and an inverse relationship exis t s between transit use and income. These findi n gs are illustra ted in Table 31. Table 31. Frequency of Use of Indicated Modes as Related to In come, mean number of days per year. HOUSEHOLD MODE INCOME Auto/ Carpool Rai l Express Local Minivan Taxi ($000) Other Van p ool Bus Bus p v < 10 139.5 12.7 26.3 1 8.1 60.5 7.5 10 2 10-19 .9 209.4 7.7 31.5 11.5 52.9 2.9 10.0 20-29.9 235.5 102 39.6 7.7 28.4 1.7 6.3 30-39.9 250.7 13.4 24.8 3.6 21.2 0.4 6.3 40-49.9 254 7 9.1 28.0 9 .3 16.2 1.2 9 3 50 + 260.1 12.0 45.7 9.6 18.4 2.7 15.6 As shown frequency of auto use is highly cor related with i n come On the other hand, use of local bus service has a strong inverse rel ationship to income. Taxi s h ows an interesting characteristic--it is used by the wealthy who can affo r d it, and by the low income, who may have no choice, but is avoided by the middle income person. As would also be e x pec te d, there was a high correlation between income and auto ownership, as indicated in Table 32. Table 32. Hous ehold Auto Ownership as R e lated to Household Income, mean auto ownership. Household lncome($000) < 1 0 10 19 9 20 29.9 3039 9 4049.9 50+ A-1 Mean Auto Ownership 0.79 1.29 1.69 1.99 2.18 2.50

PAGE 61

APPENDIX B FUTURE RESEARCH OPPORTUNITIES

PAGE 62

FUTURE RESEARCH OPPORTUNITIES This project ha s drawn numerous observations from a two-dimensional cross-classification of survey results. There are numerous three-dimensional cross-classifications that may be of interest. Further, it may be of interest to perform comprehensive statistical studies of the entire survey data set to identify c o rrelations and relationships that are not evident from inspection. Although the primary purposes of the survey were related to transportation preferences, there is also a w e alth of information on socio-economic characteristics of the population of seventeen urban areas. Although the sample is lim ited to those in the transit service areas of each of these areas, the data may be of considerable interest to social scientists. It is anticipated that there would be considerable interest in the results that could be compiled on the seventeen areas considered in the survey. This anticipation is based on the probability that those residing in each area are likely to be interested in how their area compares with national averages. It is recommended that area-specific reports be undertaken which compare and contrast each of the seventeen areas with tbe national sample. These reports could be prepared and made available to local planners and decision-makers. Response concerning the taxi mode indicated that it was perceiv ed as being the leas t safe of all transportation modes. Those interested in attaining full ridership potential may want to consider this finding further It was reported that, of the 30 percent of all transit riders who do not own an automobile, 63 percent indicate they would not use an auto in their trip to work even if one were available. Future research should consider this result in more detail in order to determine factors which cause transit riders to respond in this manner. This report was designed to establish nation al aggregational factors related to transit use. However, it has been mentioned that much information can also be derived from the survey regarding disaggregational factors. It is anticipated that these factors should be considered locally in order t o help design a transportation plan that is specifically designed to meet the needs of various groups in the community. In summary, a national data base of 4000 telephone i nterviews comprised of 86 questions is a resource of considerable value. A program to make this data set available to researchers representing a broad spectrum of social science interests should be undertaken. B-1

PAGE 63

APPENDIXC SURVEY I NSTRUME N T

PAGE 64

FINAL QUESTIONNAIRE 1. INTRODUCTION: Good evening. Hy name is and I'm calling from Diversified Research, a national marketing research company. This evening we're conducting a nationvide study on peop le's attititudes regarding, and experience with, public trans portati on. If you' r e of driving age or older, ve'd like to get your opinions. 2. Regardless of vhether you actually use public transportation o r not, is there any public transportation service vhich operates within a half mile of where you live. This could be train, bus streetcar, a taxi depot or stand, a commercial mini -van service, etc. 1. Yes (Continue) 2. No (Terminate) 3 O .K. (Terminate) 3. Vhich forms of publi c transportation operate vithin a half mile of your home or vhich forms of public transpor tation do you have ac cess to, that you could use if you wanted to or had to? (Hore than one answer allowed.) 1 Commuter railroad 2. Subway train 3. Commuter e xpress bus 4 Local bus/Streetcar S Taxicab 6. Commercial mini van service 7. Other (specify) __________________ __ Hov often vould you say you use each of the folloving kinds of trans portation almost every veekday a couple of times a veek, abou t once a veek, a couple of times a month, about once a month, a couple of time s a year, about once a year, or virtually never? Every 'oupl/ Once/ Onc e / couple; one/ weekday week week year yeac Never 4. P rivate automobile (not carpool) 5. Carpool or vanpool 6. Other privately ovned vehicle 7. Commuter railroad 8. Subvay train 9. Commuter express bus 10. Local bus/Streetcar 11. Commercial mini-van service 12. Taxica b (IF RESPONDENT ANSIIERS "COUPLE OF TIMES A YEAR," "ONCE A YEAR" OR 11N EVER" to #'s 7 THRU 12, RESPONDENT 1/ILL BE CLASSIFIED AS A NON-USER)

PAGE 65

13. Do you ovn or have use of an automobile that you can drive vhenever you need it? 1. Yes (SKIP TO #16) 2. No (ASK #14) 14. Do you not ovn a car because you don't want one, or because it is too expensive? 1. Don't vant one (SKIP TO #16) 2. Too expensive (ASK #15) 15. Do you expect to get a car in the near future, do you think you probably von't be getting a car for quite a while, or do you have no plans for ever getting an automobile? 1. Near future 2. Not for quit e a while 3 Not getting car 16. Vould you say that the a rea in which you live is central city, suburban or rural (country)? 1. Central city 2. Suburban 3. Rural 4. D.K. 17. Do you vork at a regular job outside the home? 1. Yes (Go to #18) 2. No (Skip to 144) ASK IF EMPLOYED OUTSIDE THE HOME 18. And the area in which you vork, is it central city, suburban or rural (country)? 1. Central city 2. Suburban 3. Rural 4. D.K. 19. How many miles would you estimate you travel from home to vork? l. Less than 2 5. 21-30 2. 3-5 6. More than 30 3. 6 10 7. D.K. 20. How many minutes does your tri p to vork usually take? 1. 10 or less 2. 11-20 4. 30 4. 11 20 5. 31-40 6. 41-59 7. 60 8. 61-89 3. 21-29 9. 90 10. More t han 90 21. Yhat time do you leave for vork each day? 11. D.K. 1 6:00 AM 8:59 AM 4. 3:00PM -5:59 PM 2. 9:00 AM 11:59 AM 5. 6:00 PH 8:59 PH 3. Noon 2:59 PH 6. 9:00 PH 11:59 PH 7. Hidn ight-5:59AM 8. Diferent times D.K./Ref.

PAGE 66

22. Which of the folloving modes of transportation do you usuall y take on your trip to vork? 1. Car (alone) I 2. Carpool or vanpool > IF JUST ONE OF THESE, ASK #23 3. Other privately owned vehicle I 4 Commuter railroad I 10. Hotor bike 5. Subway train I 11. Bicycle 6. Commuter express bus 1 2 llalk 7 Local bus/Streetcar > SKIP TO #38 s Commercial Hini-van service I 9. Taxicab I IF ANSWERED 1,2 OR 3 TO 422, ASK: 23. How much, if anything, do you personally have to pay each day to park your car (or the car you ride in) at work? 1. Don't have to pay 4 $2.50 $3.49 7. $10.00 or more 2. $1.49 or less 5. $3.50 -S4.99 3. $1.50 52.49 6. $5.00 -S9.99 24. If for some reason you had to travel to work by public transportation, which of the folloving means of transportation woul d you have to take? (All that apply) 1. Commuter railroad 2. Subway train 3 Commuter express bus 4. Local bus/Streetcar 5 Commercial Hini-van servfce 6. Taxicab 7 None, can't get there by public transportation 25. What is the major advan t age of your going to work by car/other privately owned vehicle, as opposed to using public transportation? (PROBE) (DO NOT READ CHOICES) (ACCEPT HORE THAN ONE ANSIIER) 1. Takes less time 2. Costs less 3 Can leave vhen I want to--not tied to schedule 4. Don't have to valk to get to transportation 5 Don't have to wait at station or stop/No wasted time 6 Less chance of getting into accident 7 No threat of crime 8 More enjoyable/relaxing 9 Other (specify) ____________________________ __

PAGE 67

38. If there was a m1n1 van service which picked you up on you r corner and drove you to within a block of where you worked, and it left every half hour, would you be likely to use this service or would you still take your car/other privately owned vehicle? 1. Use it (ASK #39) 2. Still use car/other privately owned vehicle (SKIP TO #40) 39. Vhat do you think would be a fair price that you would be willing to pay for this service? IF OliN A CAR AND DO NOT TAKE IT TO 1/0RK, ASK: 40. Vhy do you not take your ear to vork? (MORE THAN ONE ANSVER ALLOYED) 1 No place to park 2. Cost too much t o park 3. Takes longer by car 4. Too much traffic 5. Can't sleep in ear 6 Can' t read/work in car 7. Hore chance of getting into accident 8 Bad for the environment 9. Other (specify) __________________ __ ASK IF EMPLOYED OUTSIDE THE HOME, AND DO NOT OliN A CAR: 41. If you owned a car, do you think you would take it to work? 1. Yes (ASK # 42) 2. No (SKI P TO # 43) 42. 1/hat do you think would be the major advantage of your going to work oy car as oppose d t o how you're going now? ( IF RESPONDENT SAYS "CONVENIENT," ASK "IN \/HAT \lAY IS IT CONVENIENT?") (PROBE) (DO NOT READ C HOICES) (ACCEPT MORE THAN ONE ANSIIER) 1. Takes less time 2. Costs less 3. Can leave when I want to--not tied to schedule 4 Don't have to vait at station or sto p/No vasted time 5 Don't have to valk to get to transportation 6. Less chance of getting into accident 7. No threat of crime 8. More enjoyable 9. Othe r (specify) ____________________________ ___ IF NO, ASK 43. 1/hy do you think you vould not take it to vork? (DO NOT READ CHOICES) (ALL THAT APPLY) 1 No place to park 2. Cost too much to park 3 Takes longer by car 4 Too much traffic 5. Can't sleep in car 6. Can't read/vork 7. More chance of getting into accident 8 Bad for the environment 9. Other (specify) ____ ____

PAGE 68

ASK EVERYONE 44. Yhat do you consider to be the single greatest advantage of taking public transportation? 1. Takes less time than driving 2. Costs less than driving 3. C a n read 4. Can sleep S. Can talk to people 6. Don' t have to vo rry a bout parking 7. Don't have to own a car 8 Less cha nce of getting into accident 9. Better for the environment 10. Uses less energy 11. Reduces congestion 12. Onl y way for low income pe rsons to get a round 13. Other (specify), ______ 14. No advantage 45. Vhen you go shopping at the department store you shop a t most, do do you usually go from home or from vork? 1. Home 2. York 46. Vhen you go shopping at your favorite departme n t store, vhich means of transportation do you usually use to get there? 1. Car (alone) I 2. Carpool or vanpool > IF JUST ONE OF THESE, ASK 147 3 Other privately ovned vehicl e I 4. Commuter railroad I 10. Motor bike s Subvay train I 11. Bicycle 6. Commuter express bus I 12. Valk 7. Local bus/Streetcar > SKIP TO #49 a. Commercial Mini-van service I 9 Tax icab I 47. If there vas a mini-van service vhich picked you up on your corner and drove you to within a block o f the depa rtm en t store, and it left eve r y half hour, vould you be likely to use this service or vould you still probably take your car/other privatel y owned vehicle? 1 Use it (ASK #48) 2 Still use car/other p rivately ovned vehicle (SKIP TO J49) 48. Vhat do you think would be a fair price that you would be villing to pay for this service? 49. Do you usually just go to one store, do you go to mor e than one store at the same location or do you usually go to more than one location vhen you shop? 1 One store 2. More than 1/Same location 3. More than 1 location

PAGE 69

50. Do you usually go out just to shop, or do you generally try to combine your shopping vith other errands or trips you have to take? 1. Just to shop 2 Combine trips 51. Vhen you go out for entertainment, like to the movies, or to a restaurant, do you usually go from home or from vork? 1. Home 2. llork 52. Vhen you go out for entertainment, like to the movies, or to a restaurant, vhich means of transportation do yo u usually use to get there? 1. Car (alone) 2. Carpool or vanpool 3. Other privately ovned 4. Commuter railroad 5. Subvay train 6. Commuter express bus 7. Local bus/Streetcar I > vehicle I I 1 1 IF JUST ONE OF THESE, ASK J53 10. Motor bike 11. Bicycle 12. llalk > SKIP TO 155 8. Commercial Mini-van service I 9. Taxicab 53. If there was a mini-van service which picked you up on your cor ner and drove you to vithin a block of the theater or restaurant, and it left every half hour, would you be likely to use this service or vould you still probably take your car/other privately owned vehicle? 1. Use it (ASK #54) 2. Still use car/other privately owned vehicle (SKIP TO #55) 54. 1/hat do you think would be a fair price that you would be villing to pay for this service? 55. 1/hen you visit friends or relatives, do you usually go from home or from work? 1. Home 2. llork 56. llhen you visit friends or relatives, which means of transportation do you usually use to get there? 1. Car (alone) 2. Carpool or vanpool 3. Other privately Q vned 4. Commuter railroad 5. Subvay train 6. Commuter express bus 7. Locai bus/Streetcar 1 > vehicle I I I I IF JUST ONE OF THESE, ASK J57 10. Motor bike 11. Bicycle 12. llalk 8. Commercial Hini-van service > SKIP TO 159 I 9. Taxicab 1

PAGE 70

57. If there was a mini van service which picked you up on your corner and drove you to v ithin a block of Vhere you were visiting, and it left every half hour, vould you be likely to use this service or would you still probabl y take your car/other privately owned vehiCle? 1. Use it (ASK #58) 2. Still use car/other privately ovned vehicle (SKIP TO # 5 9) 58. Uhat do you thi nk would be a fair price that you would be willing to pay for this service? ASK TO ALL THOSE UHO USE COMMUTER OR SUBWAY TRAINS A COUPLE OF TIMES A MONTH, OR MORE OFTEN: 59. uhat places do you go to uhen you use the train? (AL L THAT APPLY) 1. \lork 2. Shopping 3. Movies/Theater/Restaurants/Museums, etc. 4. Friends/relatives 5. School 6. Other __________________ __ ASK TO ALL THOSE UHO USE BUSES OR STREETCARS A COUPLE OF TIMES MONTH, OR MORE OFTEN: 60. \/hat places do you go to vhen you use the bus/streetcar? (ALL THAT APPLY) l. \lork 2. Shopping 3. Movies/Theater/Restaurants/Museums, etc. 4. Friends/relatives 5. School 6. Other _________ ASK TO ALL THOSE uHO HAVE COMMUTER OR SUB\IAY TRAINS AVAILABLE FOR THEM TO USE (FROM #3) 61. Vhat one or tvo things could be done to make you use the train more often? ASK TO ALL THOSE \IHO HAVE BUSES OR STREETCARS AVAILABLE FOR THEM TO USE (FROM #3) 62. \/hat one or two things could be done to make you use the bus/streetcar more often? ASK ALL RESPONDENTS 63. Hov serious a problem would you say traffic congestion is, in the area where you live? 1-:-very serious 2. Somevhat serious 3. Not very serious at all 64. \lould you favor or oppose requiring developers to make their projects mor. e accessible by public transportation? 1. Favor 2. Oppose 3. Don't Know

PAGE 71

65. In order to help reduce traffic congestion in suburban areas, would you favor or oppose making people pay for parking at work and at shopping malls in order to encourage more people to use public transportation, carpools and vanpools? 1. Pavor 2. Oppose 3. Don t Know 66. In order to alleviate traffic congestion, conserve energy and re-duce pollution by trying to get fewer people to drive, would you favor imposing a 25 cent per gallon tax on gasoline, substantially increasing tolls and generally making it much more expensive to drive? 1. Pavor 2. Oppose 3.. Don' t Know 67. In general, do you think mass transportation services can be best provided by contracting private companies to deliver the services, by having private companies compete with government agencies for the right to deliver transit services, or by just having govetnment agencies deliver transit services. 1 Private 2. P rivate/Gover ment competition 3. Government 68. Vhich of the following comes closest to your point of view: 69. 1. Competition to provide local transportation service i s good because it would reduce costs and result in increased services and jobs; or 2. Competition would be harmful because it might result in reduced services and would undercut wages and threaten existing transit union jobs. 11hich using of the following modes of transportation private car, t axiCab, bus, streetcar, 1. Car 2. Taxi 3. Bus 4 Streetcar do you feel safest train or mini-van? 5. Train 6. Mini-van 70. And which do you feel least safe using? 1. Car 2. Taxi 3. Bus 4. Streetcar 5. Train 6. Mini-van 71. Vhy do you feel least safe using (mode named in 72. Vould you say that the county in vhic h you live is rapidly increasing in population, slowly increasing in population, is basically stable or is losing population? 1. Rapidly increasing 2. Slowly increasing 3. Stable 4. Losing population 5. Don't know

PAGE 72

73. How many people, including yourself, reside in your household? IF KORE THAN 1 Vhat is your current marital status? 1. Single, never married 2. Married 3. Separated 4. Divorced s. llidoved 75. Hov many children under 18 years of age, currently reside in your household? IF EMPLOYED: 76. Hov vould you classify your current job? (READ CHOICES) l. Professional 2. Exec utive/Manager 3. Salesperson 4. Other office vork 5. Technical worker (computers, machines, equipment) 6. Government or Municipal (Police, Fire) 7. Blue collar (Machine operator, Construction, Trades) 8. Other ________ IF NOT EMPLOYED: 77. Into vhich of the folloving categories do you fall? 1. Student 2. Homemaker 3. Retired 4. Unemployed and looking for vork 78. How many incomes contribute to your total household income? 79. Hov many automobiles all together are owned by you and other members of your household? IF AT LEAST ONE CAR 80. Hov many miles all together Yould you estimate you and other household members drive in a year? 81. Do you own or rent your residence? t. Ovn 2. Rent

PAGE 73

82. Uhat is the last grade of formal education you completed? 1. Less than H.S. graduate 2. High School graduate 3. Some college 4. College graduate 5. Post graduate 83. Vhat is your national ancestry, other than American? 84. Vhat is your total annual household income? (READ CHOICES) 1. Less than $10,000 2. $10,000 $19,999 3. $20,000$29,999 4. $30,000$39,999 5. $40,000 $49,999 6. $50,000 or more 85. Into vhich of the folloving age categories do you fall? 1. Less than 30 2. 30 39 3. 40 -49 4. 50 59 5. 60 69 86. Gender: 1. Male 6. 70 or older 2.' Female