USF Libraries
USF Digital Collections

Evaluation of Northeast Ohio "Way to Go" program

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Evaluation of Northeast Ohio "Way to Go" program
Physical Description:
ii, 16, 15 leaves : ill., forms ; 28 cm.
Language:
English
Creator:
Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency
University of South Florida -- Center for Urban Transportation Research
Publisher:
University of South Florida, Center for Urban Transportation Research
Place of Publication:
Tampa, Fla
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Ridesharing -- Ohio   ( lcsh )
Road work zones -- Social aspects -- Ohio   ( lcsh )
Genre:
local government publication   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

Additional Physical Form:
Also issued online.
Statement of Responsibility:
conducted by Center for Urban Transportation Research, College of Engineering, University of South Florida.
General Note:
"March 1998."
General Note:
"Prepared for Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency."

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of South Florida Library
Holding Location:
University of South Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 025500089
oclc - 664349852
usfldc doi - C01-00127
usfldc handle - c1.127
System ID:
SFS0032237:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

EVALUATION OF NORTHEAST OHIO "WAY TO GO" PROGRAM Conducted by: Center for Urban Transportation Research College of Engineering University of South Florida Prepared for: Northe
PAGE 2

Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency The Atrium Office Tower, 668 Euclid Ave Cleveland OH 44114-3000 Project Managers: John Hosek Andrea Mitchell Center for Urban Transportation Research Univers ity of South F l orida 420 2 E. Fowler Avenue, CUT 100 Tampa Flo rida 33620-5350 (813) 974-3120 Suncom 574-3 1 20 Fax (813) 974-5168 Princ i pal I nvestigator: F rancis Cleland The opin i ons. find i ngs and conclusio n s expressed in th i s publication are those of the autho r s and not necessa ri ly those of the Northeast Ohi o Areawide Coordinating Agency Prepa red in cooperation with the Northeast Ohio Areaw ide Coordinat i ng Agency

PAGE 3

T ABLE OF C O NTE NTS Ex ecut .ive Summary ..... .. .. .......... ........ . .. .. .. .. ......... .. .. .. ...... .. .. .. ...... .. .. ...... .............. ....... .......... ............ . I Introduction ... .... ............... ......... ........ ....................... .......... .... ...... ....... ....... .... .... .... .... .............. ......... .... 2 Background .... .... .. .... .. .......... .. .. .. ............. . ................. .. ....... .. .. ...... .. ... .. ...... .. .... ..... .... .. ... ............ ..... 2 Methodology . . .. ...... ....... .... .. ........ .... .. .. .. .. ............ .. .. .. ....... .... .. ....... ........ .. . .. . .... ..... ... ... .............. .. ...... 2 Results . .... .. ... .. ... ..... ... .. .. .. .. .... . .. .. ...... .. .... ..... ... . ............. ... . .. .. .... .. .. ................. . .. . .. . .. . .. .... .... 4 Respondent evaluation of t he i nformation provided .. .......... .. ....... .. . .. ...... ..... ...................... .. . 4 Respondents' methods of coping with construction . .. ......... .. .. .................... ...... .... .... ... ....... .. ...... 8 Synergies of Way To Go program with Rideshare! program ............. ........... ................. ............ 10 Program Awareness Trends .... .... .. .. .. .. .. ....................................... ...... .. ................... ..... ......... 13 Conclusions and Recommendations ....... .. .. .. .. .................................................... ......... .............. 15 App endix: Survey I nstruments ..... .. ........................ ............. .......... ......................................................... 16 LIST OF FIGURES Figure l: Inconvenienc e caused by highway construction ............................................................. 4 Figu r e 2: Ratings of quality of information .... ....................................................... ........... ...... .. .... 5 Figure 3: Knowledge about construction projects before t hey begin .............................................. 6 F igur e 4 : Knowledge of how long construct ion projects wi111ast ... .. .............................................. 6 Figure 5 : Awareness of messages a b out safety in construction zones .......... ....... ......................... .. 7 Figure 6: Coping with construction: trends ....................................................................... .............. 8 Figure 7 : Perc ent who would consider carpooling ........................................................................... 9 Figure 8: Co p ing with construction: Alternative users versus non-users ...................................... 10 Figure 9: Coping with construction: awareness of impacts ofRideshare! advertising ................. 11 Figure 10: Awarenes s of Way To Go: Impacts of awareness ofRideshare : ...................... .. .. ...... 12 Figure 11: Brand Name Awareness of"Way To Go" Program ........ .. ................ .................... ...... 1 3 Figure 12: Awarenes s of 1-800-FYI-ROAD number .......................................................... .. ....... 14 II

PAGE 4

Executive Summary This project was designed to be an evaluation of the Way To Go program administered by the Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency {NOACA). Way To Go is designed to disseminate information about roadway construction to the commuters. The current survey was designed t o reach commuters in order to simultaneously evaluate NOACA's Rideshare! commuter assistance program. A total of350 respondent s were interviewed. Of these 185 qualified for the survey on Way To Go. The results from the survey are sununarized below: The impact of information distributed about road construction projects is high. Knowledge of when projects start and how long the projects will last are at high levels. These fac tors have increased from prior surveys Quality ratings of the information are also high. The Way To Go program has important syne rgies with the Rideshare! Program. It is clear that Rideshare!'s activities have an important, positive impact on the usc of commute alternatives to reduce congestion caused by road construction. However, brand name awareness of the Way To Go program is low in the general public. Awareness has fallen since the initial awareness survey conducted in 1995. From these findings, CUTR makes the following recommendations: Dissemination of information about road construction should continue from all channels currently in place. The current strategy has resulted in improved awareness of construction projects and greater use of alternative commute modes to reduce the impacts of congestion caused by the construction. The relationship between Way To Go and Rideshare! should be maintained. Important synergies are gained from this relationship by the Way To Go program. Efficient, low-cost methods should be found to i ncrease the awareness of the Way To Go program However, high l evels of investment to increase awareness of the Way To Go name should be considered with great care. The general public may not gain much benefit from inc reased expenditures to promote the Way To Go name particularly i f this resulted in any decrease in the distribution of information about r oad construction. The program appears to be working effectively. Major changes in activities or structure would seem to be unwarranted at this time. I

PAGE 5

Introduction In January of 1998, the Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency (NOACA), based in Cleveland, Ohio, and serving Cuyahoga, Geauga, Lake, Lorain, and Medina counties, requested that the Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR) at the University of South Flodda conduct an evaluation ofNOACA's activities. This project was designed to conduct two separate evaluations: an evaluation of the effectiveness of the activities of the agency's Rideshare! commuter assistance program, and an evaluation of a separate program called Way To Go, which disseminates information about roadway construction to the general public In order to improve efficiency, the evaluation of the Way To Go program was combined with the general public portion of the evaluation of the Rideshare! program. The Way To Go evaluation was conducted entirely by means of survey questions directed to members of the general public. This report covers the process, fmdings, and recommendations from the evaluation of the Way To Go program. Background The Way T o Go program was initiated by NOACA, the Ohio Department of T ransportation (ODOT) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHW A) during the 1994 road construction season. The main goals of the program are to provide motorists with timely and relevant road construction information and to promote alternative forms of transportation (such as carpooling and transit) and safe driving habits within road construction zones. Two previous evaluations of the program were performed, in early 1994 and in late 1995. Both of the evaluations were centered around surveys of members of the general public. The current survey project was designed to mirror the previous efforts to a large degree. A few minor adjustments were made to the survey instrument to improve its usefulness. Also, the survey had to be adjusted to fit within the confines of the broader instrument being used to evaluate the Rideshare! program for the purpose of increased efficiency and budgetary concerns. Methodology The previous surveys were conducted by random-digit dialing within the five-county area served by NO A CA. Respondents were screened by whether they drove five miles one way at least five days per week, and whether they had been inconvenienced by roadway construction in the past year. This is the method that NOACA had sued to identify respondents in previous Way To Go evaluations. 2

PAGE 6

The current survey was designed to reach commuters in order to evaluate the Rideshare! program. For this reason the initial screen was for people that worked outside the home 3 5 or more hours per week. However, a follow-up screen allowed people who did not work outside the home but still made a 5-mile trip five days per week to participate in the survey The method of generating phone numbers remained a random-digit-dialing process within the five-county area. A total of350 respondents were interviewed This sample size results in a maximum 95% confidence interval of 4 .2%. Of these however, only 185 qualified for the survey on Way To Go, mainly because a large number said they had not been inconvenienced by roadway construction. This results in a 95% confidence interval of 5.8%. Due to budget limitations CUTR and NOACA initially decided not to conduct the Way To Go evaluation portion o f the interview people who did not qualify based on inconvenience. Late in the survey process, CUTR determined that people who had not been inconvenienced could be interviewed regarding the Way To Go program for comparison purposes to the group that had been inconvenienced. However only 32 suc h interviews were completed This sample size did not penni! a reliable analysis of differences. This report is based on the results of the 185 respondents who qualified for the Way To Go evaluation based on the initial screen of 5-mile commute and inconvenience caused by road construction The survey instrument used appears as an appendix to this report. Many of the questions were designed to evaluate the Rideshare! program and do not provide information on Way To Go. These sections are noted. 3

PAGE 7

Results The results of the evaluation are presented below in five seetions : Respondent evaluation of the information provided Respondents' methods of coping with construct ion (i.e., use of alternative forms of transportation) Synergies of the Way To Go program with the Rideshare! program Program awareness trends Conclusions and Recommendations Respondent Evaluation of information Provided One of the c learest ways of showing respodnent evaluation of information provided to them is by eaxmining the levels of inconvenience caused by highway construction. The following chart, which shows the deeline in the percentage of people reporting that they have been inconvenienced by highway construction Inconvenience caused by highway construction 60%1)-, ..... 50% 40o/o 30o/o 20Yo to;. Oo/o This finding has wide-ranging implication s The number of people who say they have been inconvenienced by road construction has been reduced dramatically. T h i s result was obtained using the same survey methodology at approximately the same time of year as the previous study, so that sources of confounding have been eliminated from the design. Also NOACA reports that the amo unt of construction is the same or higher than it was when the previous survey was conducted. The most likely cause of the reduction in inconven ience is the improvement in the delivery and accuracy of road construction 4

PAGE 8

information. From this standpoint, Way To Go and the other associated programs that deliver construction information have been a great success. As a follow-up to information from the prior surveys, respondents were also asked to rate the road construction information on a variety of dimensions, including whether they knew about construction projects in advance if they knew how long the projects would last and so forth. The first question was about the quality, accuracy and usefulness of the information provided. T his question was c h anged from prior surveys where people were asked to rate the amount of information provided. It was determined that the agency was better served by a quality rating than a quantity rating. This question is compared directly with prior quanriry ratings, so the comparisons should be assessed with caution. Ratings of quality of information on construction in NE Ohio r Go T he quality ratings are more positive than the previous quantity ratings. This does not necessarily signal an improvement in the information, but it does give a s ense of validation of the direction the program has taken. About 57% of respondents report being very or somewhat satisfied with the quality usefulness, and accuracy of the roadway information provided. 5

PAGE 9

Questions about the timeliness of the information are d ir ectly comparable to pri or informati o n. T hese charts are shown below: Knowledge about construction projects before they begin Figure 3: Knowledge about construction project s before they begin Knowledge of how long construction projects will last 6

PAGE 10

It should be noted that in the above charts a new response category seldom was used to balance the response scale. These charts show an improvement in the knowledge of when projects will begin but a slightly lower (and not statistically sigrtificantly lower) result for knowledge of how long the projects will last. The general public is clearly being better served by the information cun-ently provided than was the case three years ago. Whether this can be attributed to better i nformation, more channels of distribution, or just a learning process on the part of the general public as to where to find the information cannot be determine from this surve y but the finding is clear that the public has better i nformati on now than when the previous survey was conducted. A new category of messages was also evaluated in this survey, regarding the awareness of messages about using safe driving habits in construction zones. Awareness of these messages was quite high as demonstrated in the chart below: Awareness of messages about safety in construction zones Unaware 55% Aware 45% Figure 5: Awareness of messages about safety i n construction zones Overa ll, the Way To Go program and other associated inform ation dissem ination program s have done an e xc ellent job of getting information about roadway construction out to the general public. 7

PAGE 11

Respondents Methods of Coping with Road Construction A series of ftve questions were asked to determine how respondents cope with construction In order to optimize the results the questions were asked in a "scattered" pattern-that is, the position of each questio n in the series was randomized so that there would be a minimization of any effects of the order the q ue stions were asked in. These questions arc d irectly comparable to the prior surveys questions. The results are presented in the chart below: Coping with construction: Trends .... jlid Ca.,... SU)'IIO-Iattr r,.,.il otN yT Go Figure 6: Coping with construction: trends Us e of a lte rnate routes and making trips ear lier or later are the most common strategies, and their level of use has remained relatively constant over tbe survey periods. Use of Transportatio n Demand Management strategies, such as using transit or carpooling, have increased from the baseline 1994 survey and are essentially equal to levels during the 1995 survey. Staying at home and not making the trip is also up slightly since 19 94 and at about the same level as 1995 8

PAGE 12

Respondents were also asked if they had ever considered carpooling. In th e current survey, this statistic was detennined by the answer to two quest ions-if they had used a commu t e alternative to get to work since last moving or if they had con sidered carpooling or vanpoo ling after having see n an advertisement. This format is reasonab l y comparable to the prior surveys I n those surveys, all people who currently drove alone were asked if they had ever thought about carpooling. These results are shown below: Percent who would consider carpooling 20% These levels are equal to the 1995 and 1994 surveys On the who le, these trends s how a slight improveme nt from the baseline s urve y of use of commute alternatives, and intent to use an alternative has remained constant 9

PAGE 13

Synergies of Way To Go with Ride share! The objectives of the Way To Go program have a number of synergies with the Rideshare! program administered by NOACA. Rideshare!'s basic goal is to promote the use of commute alternatives to reduce peak hour congestion. Effective promotion of these alternatives to commuters affected by construction will help to ease traffic congestion around the construction sites. Achieving increased levels of use of commute alternatives is, in fact, one of the Way To Go program's stated goals. One of the signs of potentially usefu l synergies is the use of commute alternatives to cope with construction among people who currently usc or have at least tried using commute alternatives for their regular weekly commute. This data is shown in the chart below: Coping with construction: Alternative users versus non-users Use of commute alternatives to cope with construction is not surprisingly higher among regular users of commute a lternati v es. The point that should be drawn from these findings is that Rideshare! s activities in promoting the use of commute alternatives are equally important to reducing congestion in construction zones. Commut ers who have previously tried a commute alternative, and for whom use of an alterna tive therefore is not a completely new experience, are more likely to use an alternative as a strategy to reduce the impacts of road construction. 10

PAGE 14

This point is made more strongly by the following chart: Coping with construction: Impacts of awareness of RS! advertising Routt fllrtltror Rapid 13Aware or adnrtisieg S8-_,. 87% Again, those aware ofRideshare!'s promotional efforts are more likely to use a commute a lternative to cope w ith construction than those who are not aware of rideshare advertising. The importance ofRideshare!'s efforts in reducing congestion in construction zones i s made quite apparent by these charts. II

PAGE 15

Finally the importance of Rideshare! in raising awareness of the Way To Go Program is most clearly demonstrated in the following chart: Awa reness of Way To Go: Impacts of awareness of Rides hare! Aware n ess of the Way To Go program exists only among those members of the general public who are also aware of the Rideshare! Program. Some of this is no doubt due to Rideshare!'s infonnation distribution strategies-that the Way To Go and Rideshare! programs are jointly presented to interested groups. However it is also l i kely that the greatest interest in the Way T o Go program exists among those people who also benefit the most from Rideshare!'s information those who have long commutes and are most likely to be using major roadways to reach their work destinations From this standpoint it makes good sense that the programs are integrated and that Way To Go can benefit from being managed in cooperation with the Rideshare! program. 12

PAGE 16

Program Awareness Trends The first part of the evaluation is the level of name recognition of the Way T o Go program. T he trend in the aided awareness level i s shown in the chart below: Brand Name Awareness of "Way To Go" program 16% 14% 11% JOo/. 8o/ 6o/. 40J. 2o/ 0% 13

PAGE 17

There is clearly a lower level of awareness o f the program than there was in the 1995 study This low level is also reflected in the awareness level of the informa tion hotline for updates on road construction proje cts (1-800-FYI-ROAD): I 8& Awareness of 1-800-FYI-ROAD number Unaware 93/o Aware 7% Clearly there has been little success in achieving awareness of the Way To Go name as the source of the road construction information. This, however, is the only area where the information program has fal len short of what it has set out to do. It may seem from the awareness reductions reported above that Way To Go is likely not the source of this information However, attribution of information to particular sources bas often been problematic i n marketing research. Apparently, people do not regularly encode the source of the information they receive, and therefore may not be able to reproduce the source when queried about it. In any case the lack of a stated connection between the i nformation and th e Way To Go program does no t in any way exclude the possibility that Way To Go was in fact the source of some of this inform ation. Furthermore, the evaluation was never specifically designed to differentiate the source of the information about highway construction, on l y the effectiveness of such an information. An entirely diffe rent format would be required to even attempt to attribute the information to a particu lar source. 14

PAGE 18

Conclusions and Recommendations "!be conclusions drawn from these data are as follows: Brand name awareness of the Way To Go program is low in the general public. In fact awareness has actually fallen since the initial awareness survey conducted in 1995. However the impact of information distributed about road construction projects is high. Knowledge of when projects start and how long the projects will last are at high levels. These factors have increased from prior surveys. Quality ratings of the information are also higb. While this is the first time questions were asked about quality (as opposed to "amount of information"), it is likely that these ratings show a trend of improvement. The Way To Go program has important synergies with the Rideshare! Program. Awareness of Way To Go exists only among those also aware ofRideshare!, and it is clear that Rideshare!'s activities have an important, positive impact on the use of commute alternatives to reduce congestion caused by road construction From these findings, CUTR makes the following recommendations: Dissemination of information about road construction should continue from all channels currently in place. The current strategy has resulted in improved awareness of construction projects and greater use of alternative commute modes to reduce the impacts of congestion. The relationship between Way To Go and Rideshare! should be maintained Important synergies are gained from this relationship by the Way T o Go program Efficient, low-cost methods should be found to increase the awareness of the Way To Go program. However, high levels of investment to increase awareness of the Way To Go name should be considered with great care There is some doubt as to what benefit the general public would gain from increased expenditures to promote the Way To Go name, particularly if rhis resulted in any decrease in the activities of distributing information about road construction. The program appears to be working effectively. Major changes in activities or structure are unwarranted at this time. 15

PAGE 19

Appendix-Survey Instrument 16

PAGE 20

#08-08-7257 INTERSEARCH CORPORATION 410 Horsham Road Interview#. ____ _ Horsham, PA 19044 JD2-45.qes NOACA General Awareness Survey 1998 (Rideshare II) (10 1102-1031 04-105) ( 106-1 07-108-109) (ASK TO SPEAK TO AN ADULT IF RESPONDENT IS CLEARLY NOT AN ADULT) Good morning/afternoon/evening My name is and I am calling on behalf of the Center of Urban Transportation Research. We are conducting a short survey on driv i ng and roads in the Northeast Ohio area. We are not attempting to sell you anything we are only interested in your opinions. 1 a How many persons, 18 years o r older in your household, work outside the home, 35 or more hours per week? ------#persons who work fu ll time (IF 0, SKIP TO Q_24a IF MORE THAN 1 PERSON WORKS FULL-TIME OUTSIDE THE HOUSEHOLD, ASK:) 1 b. Of the persons working full t ime, I need to speak with the person who had the most recent birthday. Wou l d that person be you? 1 2 RECORD GENDER: Yes No 1c 1 Male CONTINUE ASK FOR THAT PERSON AND REPEAT INTRO 2 Female (QUOTA SO%) (QUOTA SO%) 2. Do you curr ently hold more than one job? 1 Yes (SAY: Please answer the questions in this survey with respect to you r primary job.) 2 No 3. How many days do you usually trave l to work in a week? _ (IF "0" THIS IS NOT A PERSON WORKING OUTSIDE OF THE HOME, SKIP TO Q_24a)

PAGE 21

INTERSEARCH CORPORATION JD2-45. qes -2-#DS-7257 4a. Please tell me the number of days in a typica l week that you d rive alone to get to work? (IF RESPONDENT USES MORE THAN ONE MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION IN A SINGLE TRIP, FOR EXAMPLE WALKING OR DRIVING TO THE BUS, ASK WHAT MODE IS USED FOR MOST OF THE TRIP. IF NOT DRIVING THEN THE FOLLOWING SHOULD BE 0.) 4b. When you drive to work, do you ever carpool that is go to work with someone else in the car, or not? ("CARPOOLING" IS DRIVING WITH SOMEONE ELSE TO THE WORKSITE. TAKING A CHILD TO SCHOOL DOES NOT COUNT AS CARPOOLING FOR THIS QUESTION.) CONTINUE WITH 4c 1 2 Yes No SKIP TO Q.4e IF APPLICABLE 4c. Please te ll me the number of days in a typical week that you carpool to get to work? ("CARPOOLING" IS DRIVING WITH SOMEONE ELSE TO THE WORKSITE. TAKING A CHILD TO SCHOOL DOES NOT COUNT AS CARPOOLING FOR THIS QUESTION.) 4d (IF 4a AND 4c ARE 2:1, VERIFY) "So you drive to work alone (Q.4a response) days per week and carpool (Q.4c response) days per week?' 4a. response should be ___ 1 4c. res ponse should be. ___ J IF TOTAL= 0 .3, SKIP TO Q.Sa. OTHERWISE, CONTINUE 4e. Please tell me the number of days in a typ ical week that you to get to work? (IF RESPONDENT USES MORE THAN ONE MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION IN A SINGLE TRIP, FOR EXAMPLE WALKING OR DRIVING TO THE BUS ENTER ONLY THE MODE USED FOR MOST OF THE TRIP.) 1. Vanpool __ (IF NEC: Going to work in a van with 8-15 people.) 2 R ide the bus 3. Ride a bicycle 4. Walk or jog 5. Do something e lse _ (SPECIFY: ______ ) (WHEN THE DAYS FOR ALL MODES ARE ADDED THE TOTAL SHOULD EQUAL THE ANSWER IN Q.3 AND DEFINITELY NOT EXCEED 7 DAYS. WHEN RESPONSES EQUAL THE TOTAL NUMBER OF DAYS WORKED, GO ON TO Q. Sa)

PAGE 22

INTERSEARCH CORPORATION JD2-4S.qes -3-#D8-72S7 Sa. Please tell me the number of days i n a typical week that you drive alone to get home from work? (IF RESPONDENT USES MORE THAN ONE MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION IN A SINGLE TRIP, FOR EXAMPLE WALKING OR DRIVING TO THE BUS, ASK WHAT MODE IS USED FOR MOST OF THE TRIP. IF NOT DRIVING THEN THE FOLLOWING SHOULD BE 0.) 5b. When you drive home from work do you ever carpool that is go home with someone else in the car, or not? ("CARPOOLING" IS DRIVING WITH SOMEONE ELSE TO THE WORKSITE. TAKING A CHILD TO SCHOOL DOES NOT COUNT AS CARPOOLING FOR THIS QUESTION.) CONTINUE WITH Sc 1 2 Yes No SKIP TO Q.Se IF APPLICABLE Sc. Please te ll me the number of days i n a typical week that you carpool to get home from work? ("CARPOOLING" IS DRIVING WITH SOMEONE ELSE TO THE WORKSITE OR HOME. TAKING A CHILD TO SCHOOL DOES NOT COUNT AS CARPOOLING FOR THIS QUESTION.) 5d. (IF Sa AND 5c ARE ;::1, VERIFY) "So you drive home alone (Q.Sa response) days per week and carpool (Q.5c response) days per week?' Sa. r esponse should be ___ 1 Sc. re sponse should be. ___ J IF TOTAL= Q.3, SKIP TO Q .S. OTHERWISE, CONTINUE Se. Please tell me the number of days in a typical week t hat you to get home from work? (IF RESPONDENT USES MORE THAN ONE MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION IN A SINGLE TRIP FOR EXAMPLE WALKING OR DRIVING TO THE BUS, ENTER ONLY THE MODE USED FOR MOST OF THE TRIP.) 1 Vanpool 2. Ride the bus 3. Ride a bicycle 4 Walk or jog 5. Do something else __ (SPECIFY: ______ ) (WHEN THE DAYS FOR ALL MODES ARE ADDED THE TOTAL SHOULD EQUAL THE ANSWER IN Q.3 AND DEFINITELY NOT EXCEED 7 DAYS. WHEN RESPONSES EQUAL THE TOTAL NUMBER OF DAYS WORKED, GO ON TO Q. 6)

PAGE 23

INTERSEARCH CORPORATION JD2-45 .qes (ASK Q.6.Q8 ONLY IF Q.4c>O OR Q.Sc>O) -46. How long have you been in your cur r ent carpool? __ Days __ Weeks __ Months #08-7257 __ Years 7. I ncluding yourself what i s the number of people usuall y in the car when you carpool? (PROBE IF "DON' T KNOW") 8. With whom do you regularly carpool? (MULTIPLE RESPONSES) 1 Househo l d members 2 Non-household relatives 3 Co-workers 4 Neighbors 5 People f rom a carpool/vanpool matchl i st 6 Other (SPECIFY: ) (ASK Q.9-Q11 O NLY IF Q.4e1>0 OR Q.5e1>0) 9. .How long have you been in your current va n pool? _ Days __ Weeks __ Months __ Years 10. Inc ludin g yourself, what is the number of people usually in the van when you vanpool? (PROBE IF "DON'T KNOW") 11. W ith whom do you regularly vanpool? (MULTIPLE RESPONSES) 1 House h o l d members 2 Non-household rela t ives 3 Co-workers 4 Neighbors 5 People from a carpoollvanpoo l ma t chlist 6 O ther (SPECIFY: ) (ASK Q.12 ONLY IF Q.4e2>0 OR Q.5e2>0) 1 2. In the past 12 months have you usually been riding the bus to or f rom work at least once per week, or not? 1 Yes 2 No 8 Don'tknow 9 Refused

PAGE 24

INTERSEARCH CORPORATION JD2-45.qes -5#06-7257 (ASK Q.13-Q.16 ONLY IF Q.4e3>0 OR Q.5e3>0) 13. In the past12 months have you usually been r iding your bike to or from work at least once per week or not? 1 Yes 2 No 8 Don't know 9 Refused 14 Are the re any months of the year that the weather or other reasons prevent you from biking to work or not? 1 2 8 9 Yes No Don'tknow } Refused CONTINUE SKIPTOQ.17 15. What are those reasons? (DO NOT READ LIST, CHECK ALL THAT APPLY) 1 Weather 2 School 3 Time change 4 Other (SPECIFY: ________________ ) 16. And what months are those? (ALL THAT APPLY) 1 January 2 February 3 March 4 April 5 May 6 June 7 July 8 August 9 September 10 October 11 November 12 December

PAGE 25

INTERSEA RCH CORPORATION JD2-45. qes (ASK Q.17-Q 20 ONLY IF Q.4e4>0 O R Q.5e4>0) -6#D8-7257 17 In t h e past 12 months have you usually been walk i ng or j ogg i ng to or from work at l east ONCE pe r week o r not ? 1 Yes 2 No 8 Don'tKnow 9 Refused 18. A r e the r e any months of the year that the weather or other r easons preven t you from walk in g o r j ogg in g t o work, or not? 1 2 8 9 Yes No Don t know } Refused CONTIN U E S K IP TOQ. 2 1 1 9 What are those reasons? (DO N O T READ, C HE C K ALL THA T APP L Y ) 1 Wea t her 2 Schoo l 3 Ti me c hange 4 O t her (SPEC I FY : ______ _____ ) 20 And wha t months are those? (ALL T HAT APPL Y ) 1 January 2 F ebruary 3 March 4 Apr i l 5 M a y 6 June 7 July 8 A u g u s t 9 Sep t embe r 10 October 11 November 12 December

PAGE 26

INTERSEARCH CORPORATION JD2-45.qes -7#08-7257 (ASK Q.21 ONLY IF Q .4b = 2, Q.5b = 2 AND Q.4e1, 4e2, 4e3, 4e4, Q .5 e1, 5e2, 5e3, AND 5e4 = 0) 21. S in ce the las t time either your residence or your job changed locations hav e you tried carpooling, vanpooling, riding the bus, or biking or walking to or from work at least once, or not? 1 Yes 2 No 8 Don t Know 9 Refused (ASK EVERYONE) 22. I f you were to drive direct ly from home to work without any side tr ip s about what distance wou ld your commute be, in miles? 23. And about how much time would d rivin g directly from home to work take? ___ Hours ___ M in utes (ASK Q.24a ONLY IF Q 22<5 OR Q.1a=O OR 0.3=0; OTHERWISE SKIP TO 0.25a) 24a Do you make a one-way trip of at least five miles, on five or more days of the week? 1 2 8 Yes No } IF 0 1 a = O OR 0.3=0 TERMINATE; OTHERWISE SKIP TO Q.27 Don't know 25a. During the past year have you been inconvenienced because of any roadway construction projects in the Greater Cleveland area? 1 2 3 8 Yes Somet imes No } IF Q.1a=O OR Q.3=0 TERMINATE ; OTHERWISE SKIP TO Q.27 Don't know 25b. I'd like you to think about the information that you are provided with about roadway construction projects f rom radio, newspaper, TV, and any other sources of informat io n. Overall how satisfied are you with the quality, usefulness, and accuracy of the information you have been receiving over the last 2 years concerning major roa dway construction projects in Northeast Ohio? Are you .. 5 Very satisfied 4 Somewha t satisfied 3 Nei ther satis fied nor dissatisfied 2 Somewhat dissatisfied, or 1 Very dissatisfied? NOTREAD) 6 NOT READ) 8 Haven't heard/gotten any informatio n Not sure

PAGE 27

I NTERSEARCH CORPORATIO N JD2 45 qes -8 -#D8 7257 25c Thin k ing about construct i on o n the h i ghways and o th er major roadways you usually t rav e l on, how often do yo u know abou t t he c o nst ruction projects before t hey actually start working on them? Wou l d you say : ( READ LIST ) 1 A lmost all of the time 2 Mos t o f the t ime 3 Some of the ti me 4 Se l dom, or 5 A l most never? 'JOT RE AD) 8 Don't know 25d And once cons truc tion sta rt s how often do you k n ow how l ong the roadway wil l be under c o nstruction ? Would you say : ( REA D L IST) 1 A l most a ll o f t he time 2 Most of t he time 3 Some o f the time 4 5 NOT READ) 8 Seldom or A l mo s t never No t sure 25e T here i s a p r og ram called "Way to Go", whi ch i s designed to g iv e peopl e help f u l infor m at i o n ab o ut majo r roadway construct i o n projec t s go i ng on in Northeast Ohio Have you heard o r see n anyth i n g abo u t t h e Way t o Go p r og r am? 1 Yes 2 No NOT READ ) 8 Don t know S K IP TO Q .25 g S K I P TO Q 25 g 25f W here did you see o r hea r abo u t the p rogram? (AL L T HAT A PPLY ) ( DO NOT READ LIST) 1 Newspaper 2 Rad i o 3 Telev i s i o n 4 At work (f r om emp l oyer) 5 I n the mai l 6 On billboards 7 R e ce i ved a pho ne call 8 At bus s t op/on a b ench 9 On t h e s i de o f buses/vans 10 Other (S P EC IFY: ) 11 R i deshare Week/Eart h Day 12 H i ghway r oad s igns b l ue s i gns 13 At wo r k (f rom co worker ) 1 4 F r i e n d o r ne i gh bo r 98 Do n't Know 99 R efused

PAGE 28

INT ERSE ARCH COR P ORATION JD24 5.qes -9-#D8-7257 2 5g. Have you ever seen or he ard about the number 1 800-FYI-ROAD or 1-800 394 7623 which provides i nformat i on and updates about road const r uc ti on? 1 Yes 2 No READ) 8 Don't know 25h I n the last 6 mon ths, h ave you hea r d o r seen any messages or reports about safety practices and safe drivi n g in construction zones? 1 Yes 2 No 'JOT R EAD) 8 Don't k now 26a. What changes do you make in your travel habits when a h i ghway you t rave l on is go i ng to be under co n structio n for a per i od of time? Do yo u (SCATTER) a Sometimes make your tr i p a l i ttle earlier or later than normal? 1 Yes 2 No B Don't Know b. Sometimes take a n alternate route? 1 Yes 2 No 8 Don't Know c. Somet i mes take a bus or rapid trans i t i nstead of driv i ng? 1 Yes 2 No 8 Do n 't Know d. Sometimes ride with someone e l se i n a carpoo l ? 1 Yes 2 No 8 Don t Know e Somet i mes not make the trip? 1 Yes 2 No B Don't Know

PAGE 29

INTERSEARCH CORPORATION JD2-45.qes -10-#087257 (IF Q.1 = 0 OR Q 3 = 0, SKIP TO Q.D1) 27. Have you heard, seen or read any advertis ing 01' other messages rel ated to carpool ing or vanpooling in the pas t 6 months 01' not? 1 2 8 9 Yes No Don't know } Refused CONTINUE SKIP TO 0.32 28. Where did you see or hear th is advertising ? (DO NOT READ LIST. ALL THAT APPLY. PROBE: Was there any other advertising thai you saw? Where?) 1 Newspaper 2 Radio Was this radio ad part of a traffic report? Yes No 3 Televis ion 4 At work (from employe r) 5 In the mail 6 On billboards 7 Received a phone call 8 At bus stop/on a bench 9 On the side of buses/vans 10 Other (SP ECIFY : 11 Rideshare Week/Earth Day 12 H i ghway road signs blue signs 13 At work ( from co-worker ) 14 Fri end or n eighbor 98 Don't Know 99 Refused )

PAGE 30

INTERSEARCH CORPORATION JD2-45 .qes 11 #08-7257 29. What message do you recall f rom this advertising? (DO NOT READ LIST. All that apply. PROBE: Any other messages you recall?) None 1 2 That one should rideshare (Probe for why and specify _____ ) 3 That you can call a number fo r car/vanpool i nfo/the RIDE phone number 4 Ridesharing saves time 5 Ridesharing is less stressful 6 Ridesharing is more enjoyable 7 Ridesharing saves money 8 Driving alone is a hassle 0 Other (SPECIFY: _____________ ) 9 Don't know/Refused 30. Did you !!Y carpooling or vanpooling after seeing or hearing advertising about it, or not? 1 2 8 9 Yes No Don't know } Refused SKIPTOQ.32 CONTINUE 31. D i d you consider Irving carpooling or vanpooling after seeing or hearing advertising about it, or not? 1 Yes 2 No 8 Don't know 9 Refused 32. Are you aware of any organizations that promote carpooling or vanpooling or make i t easier for commuters to carpool or vanpool, or not? 1 2 8 9 Yes No Don'tknow } Refused CONTINUE SKIPTOQ.34

PAGE 31

I N TERSEARCH CORPORATI O N 12-#08-7257 JD24 5 qes 33 W h ich organizat i ons have you hea r d of? (D O NOT READ LIST. ALL THAT APPLY.) 1 Rideshare 2 N OACA, or Nort h east Ohio A r eawide Coo r d in a tin g Age n cy 3 EDATA, o r Eastgat e De velopm e n t And T r ans p orta t ion Agency 4 SCA T S o r Stark Co u n t y Ar e a Tra n sportat i on Study 5 AMATS o r Akro n Me tr opolitan Area Transporta t ion S t udy 6 Tran s portat i on Ma n agement O rga niz a ti o ns ( non specific) 7 R i des h are! Number or rid e numbe r or 1 -800-825 RIDE 9 W a y to Go Prog r am 8 Othe r (S P ECIFY : ) (ASK Q.3 4 ONLY IF Q .33 -tc 1 ) 34. Have you ever heard of the Rideshar e Organization, or not ? 1 Y es 2 No 8 Don' t know 9 Refused (ASK Q 3 5 ONLY IF Q .3 3 -tc 7 ) 35. Have you eve r h eard o f the R i des h are nu mber 1 -800-825-RIDE o r no t ? 1 Yes 2 No 8 Do n 'tknow 9 Refu sed 36. Have you eve r cont a cted any loca l gro up, R i d eshar e l or t h e R i deshare number for carpoo l or vanpool infonnat i on, or not? 1 Yes 2 No 8 Don't know 9 Refused

PAGE 32

INTERSEARCH CORPORATION JD2-45.qes 13#08-7257 37. Since you ve been l iving in the local a rea, h ave y o u had your name registered with a carpooling or vanpoo li ng serv i ce or not? Yes CONTINUE No 1 2 8 9 Don 'tknow } Refused SKIP TO INSTRUCTIONS BEFORE Q.40 38. Have yo u ever asked to have your name removed from the database or not? 1 Yes had it r emoved CON TINU E 2 No, did not have i t removed } 8 Don't know SKIP TO I NSTR UCTIONS BEFOREQ.40 9 Refused 39 And what made you decide to stop having you r name registered with that serv ice? What reasons? (DO NOT READ LIST. ALL THAT APPLY. PROBE.) 1 D idn't get any use out of it 2 Already got s ta rted in a carpoo l /va np ool 3 Didn t l ike carpooling/vanpoo l ing 4 Other reasons (SPECIFY : _ _ _ _ _ _____ ) (ASK Q.40 IF Q.4c, 4e 1 4e 2 4e3, 4e4, 5c, 5e1 5e2, 5e3, OR 5e4 > 0 OR Q.30=1; OT HE RW ISE SKIP TO 01 ) 40. Did any of the local carpooVvanpoo l organizations have an i mpact on you r cho i ce of h o w you commute to or f r om work, th ro ugh messages incent ives, or advertising or was your c h o ic e un related to their act i vities? 1 G r o up s had some influence 2 Choice u nre lated 8 Don' t Know

PAGE 33

INTERSEARCH CORPORATION JD2-45.qes 14-#08-7257 01 Now I just have a f ew questions remaining that a r e for statist i ca l and classification purposes only Your answers will remain comp l etely anonymous and confidential. What is your marital status? Are you . 1 Single 2 Married 3 Divorced/Separated 4 Widowed 9 Refused 02. In your hou se h o ld, do you have any children unde r the age of 1 6? 1 Yes 2 No 9 Refused (Q.D3 Q.DS NOT IN THIS V E RSION) 06. P l ease stop me when I read the category that conta i ns your age? Are you : 1 18-24 years old 2 25-34 3 35 44 4 45-54 5 55 64 6 65 or o lder 'lOT READ) 9 Refused 07. Please s t op me when I read the range that contains your househo ld s tota l income, including yourse l f and anyone e l se in you r househo l d that worked for 1997? 1 Less than $10 000 2 $10,000 but l ess than $20 000 3 $20 000 but less t ha n $30,000 4 $30 000 but less t han $40,000 5 $40,000 but less t han $50 000 6 $50,000 b u t less t han $60,000 7 $60,000 but less than $70,000 8 $70,000 or more NOT READ) 9 Refused

PAGE 34

INTERSEARCH CORPORATION JD2-45 qes -15-Thank you very much. That condudes our survey Verify : Name : __________ _ Phone Number: _________ #08-7257


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 cam 2200253Ia 4500
controlfield tag 001 025500089
005 20110909173435.0
008 100917s1998 fluak l000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a C01-00127
035
(OCoLC)664349852
040
FHM
c FHM
d FHM
043
n-us-oh
090
HE5620.R53
b E885 1998
0 245
Evaluation of Northeast Ohio "Way to Go" program /
conducted by Center for Urban Transportation Research, College of Engineering, University of South Florida.
260
[Tampa, Fla. :
University of South Florida, Center for Urban Transportation Research,
1998].
300
ii, 16, 15 leaves :
ill., forms ;
28 cm.
500
"March 1998."
5 FTS
"Prepared for Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency."
FTS
530
Also issued online.
FTS
650
Ridesharing
z Ohio.
Road work zones
x Social aspects
Ohio.
2 710
Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency.
University of South Florida.
Center for Urban Transportation Research.
1 773
t Center for Urban Transportation Research Publications [USF].
4 856
u http://digital.lib.usf.edu/?c1.127
FTS
y USF ONLINE ACCESS
951
10
SFU01:002323026;
FTS