USF Libraries
USF Digital Collections

2000 evaluation

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
2000 evaluation South Florida Commuter Services results from surveys of local area residents, businesses and Rideshare database members
Portion of title:
South Florida Commuter Services results from surveys of local area residents, businesses and Rideshare database members
Physical Description:
1 online resource (93 p.) : charts. ;
Language:
English
Creator:
Florida -- Dept. of Transportation
South Florida Commuter Services
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:
Urban transportation -- Evaluation -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Local transit -- Evaluation -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Commuting -- Public opinion -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Genre:
technical report   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

General Note:
Title from cover of e-book (viewed Aug. 3, 2011).

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 - 029016929
oclc - 744641924
usfldc doi - C01-00129
usfldc handle - c1.129
System ID:
SFS0032239:00001


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 nam 2200349Ia 4500
controlfield tag 001 029016929
005 20110803142842.0
006 m d
007 cr bn|||||||||
008 110803s2001 flud ot 000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a C01-00129
035
(OCoLC)744641924
040
FHM
c FHM
043
n-us-fl
090
HE309.F6 (ONLINE)
0 245
2000 evaluation
h [electronic resource] :
b South Florida Commuter Services results from surveys of local area residents, businesses and Rideshare database members.
3 246
South Florida Commuter Services results from surveys of local area residents, businesses and Rideshare database members
260
Tampa, Fla. :
University of South Florida, Center for Urban Transportation Research,
[2001?]
300
1 online resource (93 p.) :
charts.
500
Title from cover of e-book (viewed Aug. 3, 2011).
5 FTS
650
Urban transportation
z Florida
x Evaluation.
Local transit
Florida
Evaluation.
Commuting
Florida
Public opinion.
2 610
South Florida Commuter Services
Evaluation.
1 710
Florida.
Dept. of Transportation.
South Florida Commuter Services.
University of South Florida.
Center for Urban Transportation Research.
776
i Print version:
t 2000 evaluation.
d Tampa, Fla. : University of South Florida, Center for Urban Transportation Research, [2001?]
w (OCoLC)46370994
773
Center for Urban Transportation Research Publications [USF].
4 856
u http://digital.lib.usf.edu/?c1.129
FTS
y USF ONLINE ACCESS
951
10
SFU01:001952432;
FTS



PAGE 1

2000 EVALUATION: SOUTH FLORIDA COMMUTER SERVICES RESULTS FROM SURVEYS OF LOCAL AREA RESIDENTS, BUSINESSES AND RIDESHARE DATABASE MEMBERS Prepared by: Center for Urban Transportation Research University of South Florida College of Engineering 42 02 E. Fowler Avenue, CUT 100 Tampa Flori d a 33620-5375

PAGE 2

2000 EVALUATION: SOUTH FLORIDA COMMUTER SERVICES RESULT S FROM SURVEYS OF LOCAL AREA RESI DENTS, BUS I NESS E S AND RIDESHARE D ATABASE MEl\mERS TABLE OF CONTENTS E x ecutive Sununary .... .... .. .... .... ............. ..... ....... ... . .... ................ . .... . . ... .... ...... ......... ............. I I BackgroWld .. ... ..... ..... ... ...... .. ....... ....... .... ...... ...... .... ... ........... .. ... .... .. ........... ...... ............. ... 9 II Methodology ......... ....... ...... ... .... .... ...... ... .... .... ............. ........... .......... .... ............ ....... ... 9 a. Survey of Members of Genera l Public ...... ............. . : .... .... ..... .... ... .... ... ... .. ... ... .............. 9 b. Survey of m embers of Commuter Services Database . . ...... ...... ..... .... ...... ... ......... ... 10 c. Survey of Local Businesses ..... ...... ..... ........ . .... ..... ... ........ .................. .... ................... 10 d. Analytical Approach ............... .... .... ........ .... .... . . ...... ........ ... .. ..... ... . . ...... .......... ...... I I III Current Commuting Habits .......... .... . . ... ...... .... ....... . .......... . . ...... .. ..... ... .... . .... . . ........ . 1 3 a General Public ..... . ... ......... ........ ......... ..... .... ........ ... . .... ... ... . ..... ..... .... ........ ........ 1 3 b. Commu ter Services Database Members ...................... ... ... . . . . . . .... ..... . ... ............ .... 22 c. Types of Employers b y SIC Codes .... .... .. . . ............. . .... . ....... ....... . ... ..... ....... ..... 30 d. P hysi cal Characteristics o f Local Businesses that Affect Commuting Patterns ..... ..... 31 IV Awareness of Commuter Services and Commuter Services Activitie s .. .. ... ... .... . .... ........ 34 a. Advertising Awareness ..... ............ ...... ....... ..... ....... .... . .... .... ...... . ............... .......... . 35 b. Awareness of Commuter Services and the Ride numbers .... . ...... . ...... ......... ........ .... 38 c. Stated Mode C h oice E ffects of Advertisi n g .......... ............ ... ..... ........ ... ...... ................. 45 d. Ana lysis of Provision ofincentives by Emp l oyers .... ....... .. .... ...... ........ ............ ...... 47 e. Stated Effect of Assistance Provided by Commuter Serv i ces on Mode Choice .... ....... 49 Page i

PAGE 3

V Analysis of Commute Patterns and Awareness of Commute r Services by County .... ... .. 51 a. Commu t e Patterns by County ................... ... ..... . . ... . ........ . ... ........ . ........ ......... ... .... ... 51 b. Awareness of Commuter Services and Commuter Service s Advertising ............ ......... 57 VI Telecommuting . . . . . . ........ .. ............ .... ..... ........ ........... ... . . . .... .................... ... . ........... 60 VII Evaluation of Commuter Services by Database Members and Local Businesses . ..... .... 6 1 a Commuter Services Database Members Evaluation ... ..... .. ...... ....... ...... .......... . ....... 61 b Local Business Evaluation ....... .... ........ ...... ... ....... ........... ........... . .... ....... ... . ... .... ....... 66 Vill Park and Rid e analysis . ......... .... .... ...... ........... .... . ....... ... ... .... . ............ ..... .... ......... .. 69 IX Analysis ofHOV Lane Perception .... .. ....... . . ........ . .......................... ... ... ... ..... ......... . 76 X Characteristics of Commuter Services Database Members and General Public .. ............ 80 XI Recommendatio ns .......... ...... ....... ...... ....................... ....... . ........ ... ... . . . ... . ... ........ ........ 85 Appendices .. . . ...... ... ........ .... ..... .. ......... .... .... ...... ........................ : ............ ............................ 89 Business reporting congestion worse than a year ago Business reporting more employees than parking sp a ces Commuter Survey Database Member Survey Employer Survey Page ii

PAGE 4

List of Figures Figure I Commute Distances for South Florida Commuters 13 Figure2 % of South Florida Commuters Using Alternative Conunute Modes o n ce per week or more 14 F i gure 3 % of trips made by South F l orida Conunuters Using Alternative Commute Modes 15 Figure4 % of South Florida conunuters that are regular l y using a commute alternative at least twice per week for the l ast 1 2 months 16 Figure 5 %of Sou th Florida commuters w ho are using or have used a l ternative commute modes 18 Figure6 % of Commuter Services da ta base members using alternative commute m o des once or more per week 22 Figure 7 % of trips made by Commute r Services database members using alternative commute modes 23 F i gure8 % of Commuter Services database members who are using or have used alternative commute modes 24 F i gure9 Types of Employer Organizations in South Florida 30 Figure 10 Parking available in relation to number of employees 31 Figure 11 Empl oyer ratings of how much of a prob l e m traffic congestion is for employees 32 F i gure 12 Employer ratings of change in traffic congestion in the l ast year 33 Figure 13 % of South Florida commuters that are aware of carpool/vanpool related advertising or other mes sages 35 Figure 14 %of South Florida commuters tha t are aware of Commu ter Services and/or the Ride Number 36 Figure 15 Message recalled from carpoollvanpool advertising by Sou th Florida commuters 37 Figure 16 % of South Florida commuters that are aware of Commuter Services and/or th e Ride Number 39 Page iii

PAGE 5

Figure 17 Unaided awareness of Commuter Services and Ride Number 41 Figure 18 Aided awareness of Commuter Services and Ride Number 42 Figure 19 Where database members heard about Commuter Services 43 Figure 20 South Florida businesses' familiarity with Commuter Services 44 Figure 21 Impact of advertising on South Florida Commuters 46 Figure 22 % of organizations with employees participating in Commute Programs 47 Figure 23 Average % of employees participating in Commute Programs 48 Figure 24 Effect of infonnation on mode choice by database members 49 Figure 25 Effect ofERH on mode choice by database members 50 Figure26 Commute distances for Broward County commuters 51 Figure27 Commute distances for Miami-Dade County commuters 52 Figure28 Commute distances for Palm Beach County commuters 52 Figure29 % of Broward County commuters using alternative commute modes once per week or more 53 F i gure30 % of Miami-Dade County commuters using alternative commute modes once per week or more 53 F i gure 31 %of Palm Beach County commuters using alternative commute modes once per week or more 54 Figure 32 %of trips made by Broward County commuters using alternative commute modes 55 Figure 33 %of trips made by Miami-Dade County commuters using alternative commute modes 55 Figure 34 %of trips made by Palm Beach County commuters using alternative commute modes 56 Figure 35 % of South Florida commuters aware of carpooVvanpool related advertising by County 57 Figure 36 % ofBroward County commuters that are aware of Commuter Services and/or the Ride Number 58 Figure 37 %of Miami-Dade County commuters that are aware of Commuter Services and/or the Ride Number 58 Pageiv

PAGE 6

Figure38 % of Palm Beach C o unty conunuters th a t are aware of Conunuter Services and/or the Ride Nwnber 59 Figure 39 Assistance provided by Commuter Services when contacted by database members 61 F i gure40 Receptio n and use of mat ch information by database members 62 Figure41 Ratings of Commuter Services by database members 64 Figure 42 How database members wou l d recommend Commuter Services to others 65 Figure43 South Florida businesses interaction with Commuter Services 66 Figure 44 E m ployer ratings of Commuter Services effectiveness 67 Figure 45 E m ployer ratings of usefulness of Commuter Services' information 68 Figure46 Awareness ofPark and Ride Lots among S outh Florida Commuters 69 Figure47 Awareness ofPark and Ride Lots among Broward County Commuters 70 Figure48 Awarenes s of Park and Ride L ots among Miami-Dade County Conun u ters 71 Figure49 Awareness of Park and Ride Lots among Palm Beach County Commuters 71 Figure 50 South Florida Commuters likelihood of using "ideal" P ark and Ride Lots 73 Figure 51 Broward County Commuters likelihood of using ideal" Park and Ride Lots 74 Figure 52 Miami-Dade County Conun u ters likelihoo d of usin g "ideal" Park and Ride Lots 74 Figure 53 Palm Beach County Commuters likelihood of using "ideal" Park and Ride Lots 75 Figure 54 South F l orida commuters perceptio n of travel sp e ed improvement when using HOY lanes 76 Pagev

PAGE 7

Figure 55 Figure 56 Figure 57 Broward County commuters perception of travel speed improvement when using HOY lanes Miami-Dade County commuters perception of travel speed improvement when using HOY lanes Palm Beach County commuters perception of travel speed improvement when using HOY lanes List of Tables 77 78 78 I. Total annual trip and VMT statistics per commuter Entire Population 21 2. Total annual trip and VMT statistics per commuter Commuter Services database Without respect to prior mode 27 3. Total annual trip and VMT statistics per commuter-Commuter Services database With respect to prior mode 28 4. Demographic characteristics of Commuter Services Database 81 5. General Public: Users versus non-users of alternative modes 83 Page vi

PAGE 8

Executive Summary The survey results presented in this report are the fourth set presented to Commuter Services (Commuter Services) starting with baseline report of 1997. The current evaluation is based on changes from the 1999 figures. Other information collected includes commuter traveling behavior and advertising awareness, Commuter Services database member evaluations as well as awareness, provision of programs, and evaluation of Commuter Services activities by businesses. This evaluation has been conducted in accordance 'vith the procedures set forth in the Commuter Assistance Program Evaluation Manual published by the Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR) under the sponsorship of the Florida Department ofTransportation (FDOT). Survey information was collected on the commuting habits ofboth the general public and members of the Commuter Services database, as well as awareness of advertising among members of the general public. Businesses were asked about their awareness of Commuter Services and whether they provided incentives for use of commute alternatives by employees. The surveys were developed, conducted and analyzed b y CUTR. The major recommendations are divided into three sections: General Public Advertising efforts should focus on increasing the awareness of Commuter Services programs and the Ride Number among the lower-income populations. Awareness among individuals with income levels below $20,000 continues to be lower compared to individuals of higher income levels. From the surveys, correlations indicate a substantially higher incidence of use of carpooling and transit among lower income households. Commuter Services should continue their efforts to reach the Hispanic population within their service . area until Hispanic awareness levels reach equality with non-Hispanic awareness levels. There was a 12% increase in awareness among Hispanics since 1999, but non-Hispanic levels continue to be higher. Efforts should also aim on reaching lower-income Hispanics and focus in Miami-Dade County, where the majority of the Hispanics reside. (See Pages 49-50 ) Pl\ge I

PAGE 9

o Commuter Services shou l d consider the following tactics, related to the "4 P's" of marketing to better target low-inco m e commuters: Target place by distributing information to places likely to be frequented by low-income commuters, such as discount grocery stores or government assistance offices Also, use Spanish AM radio in drive time Target promotion by communicating benefits to more closely tie in to the interests oflow-income commuters. For instance, focus on money saving as opposed to reducing commuter stress Also, focus communicat i ons on the fact that this is a free service, i.e a low price service Make sure the product is delivered i n a way that fits the needs oflow-income commuters. Is li teracy a problem? Perhaps redesign materials to use more pictures and simpler language. Commuter Services should investigate the use of social marketing techniques to better target these segments of the population and discover innovative means of disseminating the information to these hard-to-reach populations (SeePages 39-40) Commuter Services should continue to hold Emergency Ride Home (ERH) registration days at rail and bus stations. In 2000 53% of bus/train users reported that the ERH program i nfluenced their mode choice. This suggests that many might have stopped using bus or rail had the ERH program not been available The ERH program is not only an incentive to use an alternative mode, but it also provides a reward for those who already use an alternative mode, such as the bus or train Also ERH provides a good way to r e tain alternative mode users. It is a l ways cheaper to retain an existing customer (or alternative mode user) than to use promotions to get a new one. The increased use of bus and train by database members suggests that ERH registration days at bus and train stations are a good way to increase the va l ue ofERH to South Florida commuters. (See pages 49 50) Page2

PAGE 10

Commuter Services Database Members It is recommended that Commuter Services conduct qualitative research with current database members (e.g. focus groups) to identify: o How and why commuters use the matchlists o Factors that inhibit use of the matchlist to form carpools. M, in 1999, 40% of database members received a matchlist but failed to take any action Furthermore, the quality of the list has received the lowest rating for the third year in a row (1998 average rating: 6.5; 2000 average rating: 6.0). (See pages 61-65) 9% of database members heard about Commuter Services from friends, second only toTDays (49%). Additionally, 47% of all database members said they would 'definitely' recommend Commuter Services to a friend. In order to take more advantage of this avenue of distribution, Commuter Services should regularly provide database members with information and marketing materials to give to friends or neig)lbors. Commuter Services could also develop incentives for database members to register friends. For example, transit passes or additional emergency rides could be used as rewards. 1bis approach may help to provide Commuter Services with more 'Origin end' marketing of commute alternatives, to compliment the 'Destination end' tactics of using T -Days at employer locations. (See pages 41-43) South Florida Businesses Commuter Services should continue to organize Transportation Days (T-Days) at South Florida businesses to increase awareness of alternative commute modes. Almost half of database members learn of Commuter Services tbroug)l T -Day events. T-Days are useful because they concentrate recruitment at a common destination end of the work trip and target those commuters most interested in commute alternatives. (See pages 41-43) Commuter Services should continue to seek increases in participation rates and the percent of businesses offering flextime, compressed workweeks, and telecommuting. These alternatives are those most desired by commuters, as determined in the CUTR report A Market based Approach to Effective TDM Program Design, an FDOT research idea project. Page3

PAGE 11

These alternatives are particularly helpful to businesses in managing parking needs, as they reduce parking and office space requirements. In order to implement this program, Commuter service should: o Assess current staff knowledge of these programs o Keep abreast of developments in CUTR's TDM Marketing project for FOOT, where toolkits for te l ecommuting implementation are being developed (See pages 4 7 -48) Commuter Services s hould continue to wor k closely with local bus i nesses to increase awareness of Commuter Services and alternative commute programs. Presentations at businesses should emphasize the Commuter Choice program. Commuter Services could also establish workshops on Commuter Choice to teach employers how implement and maintain a program at their workplace. Commuter choice provides tax benefits under IRS Code section 132(1). Telecommuting, flextime, and compressed work weeks could also be instructional seminar topics Commuter Services should focus on businesses that report parking shortages and increased traffic congestion While businesses may not perce i ve the abse nce of commute alternative programs as a problem, parking shortages and traffic congestion are tangib l e and have a direct effect on the "bottom line." Commuter Services' programs should be marketed as potential solutions to these tangible problems. A list of businesses that reported parking shortages or increased traffic congestion is listed in the Appendix. (See pages 31-33 and Appendix) The purpose of collecting this information was primarily to measure the changes from the 1999 levels of performance, and to assist in the appropriate setting of goals for future evaluation periods. With the information provided in this report, and particularly in the performance measures report that accompanies this document, Commuter Services should be able to set meaningful, measurabl e goals for performance in 2001 and future years. Page4

PAGE 12

This process should follow the guidelines set forth in CUTR's Strategic Marlreting for Mobility Managers seminar. In brief, the goal setting process should take the following form: I. FOOT and Commuter Services should review program direction and determine which of the goals listed in the performance measures report are most relevant to Commuter Services' current direction. 2. FOOT and Commuter Services should select the perfonnance measures within those goals that are most appropriate 3 Commuter Services should select target levels for those performance measures that reflect a reasonable level of performance improvement, to be approved by FDOT. For those performance measures where the data is derived from survey results, target levels should be set in one of two ways: minimum perfonnance levels which, when measurements are taken will have a 95% probability of having been met i.e., there will be a 95% probability that the true measure is at or above the target level, or statistically significant increases from baseline levels. CUTR will be available to assist in the goal selection and target level setting processes. PageS

PAGE 13

The key results from the surveys are summarized below: The commute distances for South Florida commuters shifted significantly between the 1999 and 2000 evaluations. There was 5% increase in commuters who travel four miles or less and a 5% decrease in commuters who travel between five and nine miles to work. As a result of this shift, there were proportional decreases in total miles traveled and total miles reduced. (See page 13 and Table I on page 21) When comparing the three counties in the Commuter Services' service area, Miami Dade, Broward and Palm Beach, commute distances increased for Miami-Dade commuters. Palm Beach County commuters continue to enjoy the highest percentage of short commutes under 10 miles and the lowest percentage of long commutes over 20 miles. Miami-Dade commuters continue to demonstrate the highest use of alternative modes. (See pages 51-52) The percentage of South Florida commuters using alternative commute modes once per week or more remained the same at I 8%. However, there was a significant decrease in the percent of trips made on either bus or train, and increases in the percentage of trips made by vanpool, bicycling, walking and telecommuting. This suggests that South Florida commuters are not switching to alternatives modes, but rather alternative mode users are switching between alternative modes. (See pages 14-18) The percentage of South Florida commuters who regularly use a commute alternative also remained the same at 10%. The percentage of commuters that have never used an alternative commute mode continues to decline, as occasional use and occasional use including telecommuting incr eased. (See pages 14-18) The percentage of Commuter Services database members using alternative commute modes increased to 44%, returning to 1998 levels after a 7% decline in 1999. This increase is primarily due to significantly increased bus and train use by database members. These increases are also reflected in a 9% increase in the percentage of trips using alternative commute modes made by database members. The percentage of database members that have never used an allemative mode decreased significantly by I 8%, almost all of which is accounted for in increased regular use. (See Pages 22-24) Page6

PAGE 14

In 2000 37% of businesses reported a parking shortage up 5% from 1999. Businesses also reported that traffic congestion is perceived as more of a problem then in 1999. In 2000, 52% of businesses reported that traffic congestion was worse than in 1999, while only 6% stated it was better. (See pages 31-33) Awareness of advertising (i.e of any message related to carpooling or vanpooling) among the general public grew from 33% to 46% between 1999 and 2000, and has increased by 20% since 1998. In spite of this increase, there is not a corresponding increase in awareness of the Ride Number. Additionally, the percentage of people who beard an advertisement but could not recall a specific message increased from I 0-16%. (See pages 35-37) In 2000, awareness of either Commuter Services or the Ride Num ber among Hispanics increased to 42%, up from 30% in 1999. However, despite increases in 2000, awareness among those with lower income levels still remain the lower compared to higher income lev els (28% among those with income levels below $20,000 and 51% for those with incomes about $20,000). (See pages 39-40) Aided awareness increased substantially with 19% more recalling Commuter Services and 91% of database members recalling either Commuter Services or the Ride Number. (See page42) Almost half of new database members heard of Commuter Services at work or from T -days an II% increase. Knowledge of Commuter Services from billboards increased significantly by 5%. Three new categories, knowledge of Commuter Services from friends, the yellow pages and Tri-rail, also appeared in this year's evaluation. The percentage of new database members that do not know where they heard about or were not aware of Commuter Services decreased significantly from 51-21%. (See page 43) Page7

PAGE 15

Overall business awareness of Commuter Services remained consistent with the 1999 evaluation Although, the level of familiarity with Commuter Services among businesses has increased from 16-22%. (See page 44) The influence of Commuter Services information on database members mode choices shifted between 1999 and 2000. In 2000, 27% of database members reported that Commuter Services' information had influenced their mode shift, up from 19% in 1999. There was a 17% decrease in th e percentage of database members that never did rideshare after receiving information from Commuter Services. (See pages 49-50) Specifically in terms of ERH Program, 29% of database members reported that the ERH Program influenced their mode choice, up from IS% in 1999 II% more indicated that the ERH Program was of"great influence" on their mode choice. (See page SO) In all counties, awareness of carpooVvanpool advertis ing continues to increase significantly. Palm Beach and Broward Counties each reported an II% increase, while Miami-Dade's figure increased by 17%. (See pages 58-59) A significantly higherpercentageofdatabaseme mbers (8%) reported that they attempted to contact a person on their matchlist, out the percentage that fo rmed carpools remained the same at 3%. For the third straight year, the quality of the rnatcblist has received the lowest rating (See pages 62-63) Evaluations of Commuter Services by database members were not significantly different than 1999 figures. Overall, 75% would probably or definitely recommend Commuter Services to others seeking carpooVvanpool assistance, down from 78% in 1999. (See pages 64-65) 8% fewer businesses reported being contacted by Commuter Services. (See page 60) Page 8

PAGE 16

I Background The purpose of this report, and the companion report on performance measures baselines, is to provide an update to the 1999 evaluation of the effects of activities of the South Florida Commuter Services (Commuter Services) program in the Miami/Fort Lauderdale area. The report also provides Commuter Services with an updated travel behavior profile of commuters in the area and within the Commuter Services database. An additional objective was to use the information from the surveys to provide some operational recommendations for the Commuter Services program. The report is based on the results of surveys conducted in the area with the general public, with members of the Commuter Services database, and with local employers. Commuter Services area of responsibility includes Broward, Miami-Dade, and Palm Beach colUities in South Florida. The data collected in this survey serves as an evaluation of Commuter Services activ i ties during the August 1999 -July 2000 period, and provides a baseline for the next evaluation of Commuter Service s Future surveys of the public and Commuter Services database members \vill determine improvement in the effectiveness and q u ality of t h e services provided by the organization. 0 Method o logy CUTR cond u cted three surveys in the Commuter Services Service area: a. Survey of Members of Gener al Public. Seven hundred and fifty (750) commuters in the Commuter Services service area were interviewed by t e lephone and asked about their current commuting habits and their aware n ess of Commuter Services. Sample for this survey was developed using a Random-Digit-Dialing technique, and should, therefore, beadequatelyrepresentativeoftheregion's commuter population Western WATS ofOrem, Utah conducted the interviews. The cooperation rate (analogous to a response rate) was approximately 76% of eligible respondents, up from 41% a year ago. Page 9

PAGE 17

b. Survey of Members of Commuter Services Database. The Rideshare Database survey was perfonned using sample provided by Commuter Services. The interviewing firm attempted contact with 5,131 households. Of those interviewed, however, 216 indicated that they had never heard of Commuter Services nor had they ever signed up with a commuter assistance program. A further 70 indicated they did not commute to work or school. Each of the respondents was verified as being the person named as the database member in the Commuter Services database list. Another 717 telephone numbers had no person with the name indicated in the database listing living there. Either of these conditions was sufficient to tenninate the interviews, as further questions regarding interaction with Commuter Services would have been pointless. These changes result in an effective database size increase for 2000 of3,407 members. Seven hundred and fifty (750) database members (who either had heard of Commuter Services or recalled registering with a Commuter Assistance group) were asked about their current commuting ha bits, interaction with the commuter assistance program, and a number of questions to determine their satisfaction with the services provided by Commuter Services For the purposes of calculating confidence intervals, this is equivalent to a sample size of825 because of the small total size of the database (1 0,160 total members, excluding FDOT and Commuter Services employees), adjusting the total number of database entries by the incidence of people unaware of Commuter Services who also had not signed up with a commuter service agency, or did not commute, or had non-working telephone numbers and whose participation could thus not be verified). The overall cooperation rate among database members was 81%. httersearch Corporation of Horsham, Pennsylvania conducted these interviews. c. Survey of Local Businesses 800 surveys were mailed to Human Resource Directors (HRDs) of randomly selected employers in the Commuter Services service area. The employers selected were located within the three-county area of Palm Beach, Broward, and Miami-Dade counties. Employers were asked to provide infonnation on the characteristics of their worksites, programs that they offered to encourage use of commute alternatives, and interest in developing new programs. They were also asked about their awareness of and interaction with the Commuter Services organization. Sample for this survey was obtained commercially from American Business Lists (ABL) of Omaha, Nebraska. The sample was Page 10

PAGE 18

drawn to maximi z e the number of companies in the samp l e with 100 or more employees No surveys were sent to companies identified in the ABL database as having fewer than 50 employees. The responses should therefore repres e nt the op i nions, attitudes, and knowl edge oflarger employers in th e area. The surveys were sent out first-class mail with a business reply envelope Those companies that did not respond within two weeks were re-contacted by telephone to encourage their response. The maHout resu l ted in 147 returns. The response rate was approximately 18%. A further 61 0 surveys were sent to employers identified by Commuter Serv i ces as target employers that had been contacted in the past. Companies in this group returned 120 surveys, a response rate of 200/o. Results from these surveys were re-weighted to represent these companie s a ppropriately in terms of their presence i n the service area. The s urveys for the targeted employers were also s ent out first-class mail with a b usiness reply envel ope In total 267 surveys were r eturned. The overall response rate was approximately 19%. The Business surveys were re-weighted to account for d i fferentia l respo nse rates between the targeted and nont argeted samp l es. d. Anal yt i ca l Approach C o mmuter Services efforts are aimed in large part at reducing peak hour congestion on area roadways Commuters have a number of choices on how to reach their worksites, including driving alone, carpoo l ing vanpooling using p u b l ic tran s portation and, for some commuters, walking and riding a bicycle. Arranging altern a tive work schedules (working at home, compressed work weeks and so forth) is another option that can reduce traffic co n gestion. Hi s torically, Commuter Services has concentrated mos t of its efforts on increasing the number of car and vanpoolers through direct contacts with l arge employers (to public i ze and coordinateridesharing programs and incentives) and through mass-market advertising (radio, TV, highway signs etc.) Page 11

PAGE 19

The effectiveness of Commuter Services efforts, from the perspective of the public and the business community, should be evaluated on several levels: Current commuting habits and/or past trial of carpooling and vanpooling for the general public and the Commuter Services database Trips and Vehicle Miles reduced (based on survey responses) Awareness of Commuter Services messages Awareness of Commuter Services, including business community awareness and understanding Number of commuters contacting Commuter Services and joining the Commuter Services database Alternative commuting arrangements _Provided by the business community Database members' and business community evaluation of Commuter Services Each of these areas was covered in the surveys conducted by CUTR. The results are summarized below. Page 12

PAGE 20

III Current Commuting Habits a. General Public While most of the impact ofCommutec Services' activities is expected to be seen in the cesponse of the rideshare database, some of the mass media promotion and other activities in the public forum may impact the commute behavior of area residents. In order to measure these "indirect" effects, it is important to investigate the changes in commute patterns within the general public during the evaluation period. The first figure shows the distribution of commute distances for area residents: Commute Distances for South Florida Commuters Figure 1: Commute Distances for Sooth Florida Commuters There were two notable changes in commute distances foe 2000. There was a 5% increase in the 0-4 mile category and a 5% decrease in the 5-9 mile category Both of these increases are statistically Page 13

PAGE 21

significant. This shift in commuter distances resulted in proportional decreases in total miles traveled and total miles reduced (See Table I). The next chart shows the comparison of the incidence of use of alternative commute modes (i.e., any form of commute that is not a single occupant vehicle or SOY). The results show little change in commute patterns during the evaluation period. Percent of South Florida Commuters Using Alternative Commute Modes Once per week or more Fignre 2: Percent of South Florida Commuters Using Alternative Commute Modes Once per week or more Sufficient sample was drawn from each county to perform a county-by-county analysis. This data is also handled in a separate section of the report. Page 14

PAGE 22

In tenns of total commute trips, the percent of trips made by commuters using alternative modes in general, the 2000 figures are virtually indistinguishable from the previous year, except for a statisticaJly significant decrease of2% in bus/train use. Percent of Trips made by South Florida CQmmuters Using Alternative Commute Modes 10% 5% 0% eomm Olht r Figure 3: Percent of Trips made by South Florida Commuters Using Alternative Commute Modes The percentage of South Florida commuters using alternative commute modes once per week or more remained the same at 18%. However, there was a significant decrease in the percent of trips made on either bus or train, and increases i n the percentage o f trips made by vanpool, bicycling, walking and telecommuting. This suggests that South Florida commuters are not switching to alternatives modes, but rather alternative mode users are switching between alte .mative modes Page IS

PAGE 23

Commuters were also asked if they had been regularly using their commute alternative for the past 12 months. This helps to distinguish between occasional users and true regular users of commute alternatives. The only statistically significant increase appears in the bike/walk category. Percent of South Florida commuters that are regularly using a commute alternative at least twice per week for the last 12 months 20%...-------------------, 10% 5% 0% Figure 4: Percent of South Florida commuters that are regularly using a commute alternative Page 16

PAGE 24

Since one of Commuter Services' primary objectives is to maximize the number of people using non-SOV commuting modes, it should follow the same process to market its services and the benefits of those services as classic product and service marketingnamely: I. Create/Increase awareness 2 Provide information about options 3 Facilitate arrangement 4. Induce trial use 5. Maximize use/Increase frequency of use among those who try product and continue to use it The level of awareness of Commuter Services and related issues are analyzed in section IV of this report. Commuter Services must increase the number of people who try commute alternatives, increase the frequency of use, and/or the duration of use of the alternatives to show continual improvement in reducing vehicle miles of travel and vehicle trip This data is also measured in the surveys, in terms of the percentage of people who have tried ridesharing since their job or home last changed locations. The chart below gives an evaluation of trial use and regular use within the general public "Regular use" is defined as use of an altemati ve at least twice per week. Occasional use is defined as less than twice per week and U sed in the past" means that commuters have not used an alternative commute mode for the past year The 2000 data indicates a significant increase of 4% in occasional use and a 3%, although not significant, increase in occasional use including telecommuting. Page 17

PAGE 25

100% Percent of South Florida Commuters who are using or have used Alternative Commute Modes Ntvu Uttd U.e oJI .. IIy lu.1 V.t41o IIIII P'll ttltot-ri& Figure 5: Percent of South Florida Commuters wbo are using or bave used Alternative Commute Modes The survey is not precise enougb to measure increments of one percentage point However, tbis trend sbould be monitored carefully. It is particularly important to watch related statistics, such as those presented in the following trip reduction tables, to determine if there is a significant im pac t on total levels of traffic. Page 18

PAGE 26

Using a battery of questions t o determine commuting patterns, CUTR developed estimates of total trips reduced by mode and total vehic le miles reduced by mode for the past year, using the following assumptions : I. Commuters w ork 4 9 weeks per year 2 For all commuters who have not used an alternative mode for the entirety of the prior year, it is conservatively assumed that they have been using the alternat ive mode for 4 months (For carpoolers and vanpoolers, the question was asked directly) 3 The number of trips reduced is I, except for carpoolers and vanpoolers, where the number of trips reduced is ( numb er of passengers less I ) divided by the number of passengers. There were 750 valid r esponses in the survey of South Florida residents for this analysis. The results of the analysis are shown in the table below on the next page. The total empl oyed labor force for 1997 is 2,132 ,06 3 (1998 F lorida Statistical Abstracts) The census lists the figure for the total labor force over 16 not working at home (1990 CensusJourney to Work) is 1,856,345; by county: Broward 588,089; MiamiDade 887,9967; Palm Beach 380,260. An updated figure for the total labor force over 16 not working at home is not available. However, it can be estimated by assuming the ratio of the labor force over 16 not working at home to the total labor force has remained constant The 1990 figure for the total employed labor force in the three county area is 1,918,319 1llis yields a 1997 estimate for total labor force over 16 not working at home of2,063,184. It s hould be noted that all of these figures are on a per commuter basis. So, to find the total number of trips reduced by carpools per year, for instance, one would multiply 13.9 by the total number of commuters, or 2,063, 184. These data can also be used in the development of several performance measures, using other information such as the Commuter Services budgets to determine costs per trip provided Those performance measures are presented in a separate report, the "2000 Performance Measures Report for South Florida Commuter Services." Page 19

PAGE 27

The number of annual trips reduced by alternative mode use has decreased, but not significantly, from 1999-2000. Carpooling, biking, walking and telecommut ing showed increased trip reduction, while vanpool ing, bus and train use decreased. The increase in biking and the decrease in bus use were statistically significant changes. Page20

PAGE 28

Table 1 Total annual trip and VMT s tati stics per commuterEntire P opu l ation Mode Mean Trips 95% Mean Miles 95% Mean Trips 95% Reduced c. I. Reduced c. I. Provided C. I. 1999 2000 2000 1 999 2000 2000 1999 2000 2000 Carpool 13.4 13.9 3.7 149 1 162.6 57.0 25.1 24.0 6.3 Vanpool 0 5 0 2 0.7 2.5 5.8 8.4 0.7 0.25 1.0 Bus 8.7 3.6 3.9 73.2 62. 9 55. 6 8 7 3.6 3.9 Train 3.4 0.0 2.6 80.3 0.1 0 1 3 4 0.0 2.6 Bik i ng 0 9 4 1 1.4 6.5 23 0 22 9 0 9 4.1 1. 4 ..., -Walking 2 1 2.4 2.1 2.7 3 6 2 7 2 1 2.4 2 1 Telecommuting 0 9 1.9 0.5 34.6 25 8 30. 6 0 9 1.9 0 5 All Other 1.6 1.8 1.2 1.6 1.7 1.4 1.6 1.8 1.2 CP&VP 14.0 14.1 3.7 151.6 168.4 61.3 25.9 24.3 6.3 Total reduced 31.5 28.0 6.1 350.5 285.6 117 7 43.4 38.2 7.8 provided Total sample 503 486 5.3 8055 6733 454 503 total 486 total 5.3 total total total total trips trips trips trips miles miles --------

PAGE 29

b. Commuter Service$ Database Members Part of Commuter Services mission is to increase the number of commuters in the database. For this evaluation period, Commuter Services added 4,083 commuters in total to the database. However, about 20% of new database members contacted either said they had not signed up for Commuter Services or did not commute to either work or school. Therefore the estimate of effective active members added in the evaluation period was revised to 3,407, and the total database size from 10,160 to 8,243. In addition, Commuter Services is attempting to maximize the use of commute alternatives by members of the database Increasing both the size of the database and the rate of use of commuter alternatives by members of the database would be a formidable accomplishment. The comparison of alternative mode utilization rates is shown in the chart below: Percent of Commuter Services Database Members using alternative commute modes once or more per week Figure 6: Percent of Commuter Service$ Database Members using alternative commute modes once o r more per week 22

PAGE 30

Total alternative mode use increased significantly and returned to 1998 levels following a 7% percent decline in 1999. This increase is primarily due to significantly increased bus and train use by database members. The trend of increasing vanpool use has also continued. The same results hold true for the percentage of trips conducted using alternative modes. The total percent of trips made by database members using alternative modes returned to the 1998 level. The percen t of trips made by bus and train each incr eased by 4% and the percent of trips by vanpools continued its upward trend. Percent of trips made by Commuter Services Database Members using alternative commute modes Figure 7: Perceot of trips made by Commuter Services Database Members usiog alternative commute modes The fact that bus and trai n use among the general public is down, while it has increased significantly among database members can be attributed to Commuter Services efforts to registernew members at bus and train stations. According to Commuter Services staff, registering commuters for the ERH 23

PAGE 31

Program was the primary goal of the efforts at bus and train stations. The comparison from 1999 to 2000 indicates tha t there has been a significan t decrease (18%) in the percentage of database members tbat have never Used alternative commute modes. There was a s i gnificant i ncrease (16% ) i n the per centage o f database m embers w h o regularly use alternative commute modes. Percent of Commuter Services Database Members who are using or have used Alternative Commute Modes 50% 40% 30% Figure 8: Percent of Commuter Services Database Members who are using or have used Alternative Commute Modes 24

PAGE 32

Estimates of total trips reduced by mode and total vehicle miles reduced by mode for the past year were obtained by makin g the following assumptions: I. Commuters work 49 weeks per year 2. For all commuters who have not used an alternative mode for the last year, it is conservatively assumed that they have been using that mode for 4 months. (For carpoolers and vanpoolers the question was asked directly) 3. The number ofbips reduced is 1, except for carpoolers and vanpoolers, where the number of trips reduced is (number of passengers less 1) divided by the number of passengers There were 750 valid responses in the survey of Commuter Services Database Members. This information is analyzed in two ways. The first is without respect to the mode that the commuters were using before they joined the Commute r Services database. This calculates the total difference between current commutin g modes and what vehicle bips and miles would have been if everyone used an SOV commute mode. This is the method that FOOT applies in evaluating CAP performance. The first table (p. 20) shows the statistics per commuter without reference to prior mode. For the figures in this table, there is a 95% probability that the true total number of trips reduced of the Commuter Services Database population lies between 178.3 (195-16.7) trips annually and 211.7 (195+ 16. 7) bips annually per commuter without respe ct to prior mode. In 2000, Commuter Services and FDOT can be 95% confident that the Commuter Services database popu lation's true average reduction in vehicle miles of travel (VMT) ranges from 3248 miles to 4150 miles. Furthennore, there is a 95% probabili ty that the true mean number of bips in an alternative to the SOY ranges from 210.9 bips to 243.1 trips per year per commuter The second (p. 21) takes into account the mode that commuters were using before they contacted Commuter Services and thus shows only the difference between that mode and how database members commuted after contacting Commuter Services In this table, only those commuters who joined Commuter Services in the last year are included. There is a 95% probability that the true total numberoftrips reduced of the Commuter Services Database population lies between 93.6 and 115.2 trips annually per commuter with respect to prior mode. In 2000, Commuter Services and FDOT can be 95% confident that the Commuter Services database population's true average reduction in 25

PAGE 33

vehicle miles of travel (VMT) ranges from 1,679 and 2,147 miles. There is a 95% probability that the true mean number of trips in an alternative to the SOV ranges from I 02.8 to 125. 6 trips per year per commuter. 26

PAGE 34

"' -..) ............. Total annual trips and VMT reduced per commuter-Commuter Services Database Without re s pect to prior mode Mode Mean Trips 95% Mean Miles 95% Mean Trips I Reduced C. I. Reducoo c. I. Provided I 1999 2000 2000 1999 2000 2000 1999 2000 Carpool 47.3 51.4 7.4 1010 923.1 175 75.5 80.9 Vanpool 7.7 11.8 4.4 291.5 293.0 126.8 8.8 13.6 Transit 71.5 119 5 13 .8 1576 2324 370.0 71. 5 119 5 All Oth e r 2 1 12.3 4.9 23.8 158 7 98.3 2.1 12.3 Total reduced 128.6 195 .0 1 6.7 2901 3699 451 158 227 pro v i ded provided Total reduced-Commuter 66. 8 1 24.0 15.4 1518 2386 392 81.1 141.7 S ervices had Provided Provided influence Total s ample 485 486 4.0 8548 8278 4 5 6 485 486 total total total total total total tri ps trips miles miles trips trips 95% C I. 1999 11.2 5.1 13 .8 4 9 16 1 17.4 4.0

PAGE 35

"' 00 Tab leJ Total annua l trips and VMT redu ce d per commuter-Com muter Services Datab ase With respect to prior mode Mode Mean Trips 95% Mean Miles 95% Mean Trips Reduced c. I. Reduced C.!. Prov ided 1999 2000 2000 1999 2000 2000 1999 2000 Carpoo l 14.1 16.1 3.4 241.8 294.0 71.6 21.7 25.0 Vanpool 9 0 8.1 2.6 308.3 184 2 31.2 10.4 9. 1 Transit 17.7 74.4 8.9 283.8 1372 201 17. 7 74.4 All Other 1.1 5.7 2.5 9.3 63.2 27. 1 1.1 5.7 Total reduced 41.8 104.4 10.8 843.2 1913 2 3 4 50.8 114 2 provided provided Total reduced Commuter 25.1 74.4 9 6 53 4.9 1343 201 30. 3 80.3 S e rvices h a d provided prov i ded i n fluence Total sample 485 486 4.0 8 548 8278 456 485 486 total total total t ota l tot a l total trips trips miles miles trips trips 95% C. I 2000 4.9 2.9 8.9 2.5 11.4 10 1 4.0

PAGE 36

These measures are on a per commuter basis. To figure the total number of carpool trips provided for database members, one would multiply the to tal number of people in the database by 14.1 (if prior mode were taken into account) or 47.3 if prior mode were not taken into account. Several FDOT -required performance measures, as detailed in the accompanying performance measures report, can be developed using this method. 29

PAGE 37

c. Types of Employers by SIC Codes Despite the relatively low response rates, results from the business survey were re l atively consistent with the prior year's survey. Companies were asked to identify themselves by type, accordi n g to a generic SIC classification. The respondents had a distribution of types very similar to the prior two years' surveys Types of Employer Organizations in South Florida SOo/o 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Figure 9: Types of Employer Organizations in Soutb Florida The distribution of SIC classifications of businesses should not be considered to reflect the actual distribution of businesses in the region. 30

PAGE 38

d. Physical Characteristics of Local Businesses that Affect Commuting Patterns The survey of employers, which was addressed to the Human Resources Director (HRD) at each business, included a measurement relating to the amount of parking available in the area. These data are summarized in the charts below. The approximate amount of parking that businesses have available for employees was compared to the approximate number of employees in the organization to determine the extent to which there were shortages of parking. In comparing 1999 to 2000, 5% more businesses reported a parking shortage, and 9% fewer businesses reported that the number of available parking equaled the number of employees. However, there was a slight increase (3%) in the number of businesses with excess parking. 60% SO% 20% 10% Parking Available in relation to Number of Employees 52% 17% Figure 10: Parking Available in relation to number of employees 31

PAGE 39

For the first time in 1999, businesses were asked to evaluate the extent to which traffic congestion was a problem for employees on a 1-10 scale and the extent to which congestion had gotten worse, better, or stayed the same compared to a year ago. The ratings of congestion are divided into categories of no problem (12 rating), slight problem (3-4 rating), moderate problem (5-7) and serious problem (8-1 0). Employer ratings of how much of a problem traffic congestion is for employees: 30%L}------------------20% u----------10% u-------Figure 11: Employer ratings of bow much of a problem traffic congestion is for employees Figures for 2000 indicate that significantly fewer busin esses view traffic congestion as a slight problem (8% decrease) and significantly more see it as a moderate problem (7% increase). There was also a 2% increase in businesses that view traffic congestion as a serious problem. 32

PAGE 40

Additionally, employers tend to see congestion as the somewhat worse than a year ago, further supporting the need for Commuter Services' programs In 2000, 52% of businesses reported that traffic congestion was worse than in 1999, while only 6% stated it was better. Employer ratings of change in traffic congestion in the last year 60%.--r---------------------, Figure 12: Employer raliogs of chaoge io traffic coogestioo io the last year These data provide more of a framework of characteristics of local businesses than any sort of evaluation of Commuter Services. Clearly, Commuter Services could not be expected to reduce the amount of free parkin g available or t o increase the number of businesses available Where Commu ter Services will be able to have some effect is in the number of services that business can provide to alleviate any problems arising from the physical characteristics of the worksites. Commuter Services should not change strategic direction to marketing to businesses 33

PAGE 41

IV. Awarene$5 o f Commu ter Services an d Commuter Services Activities and Resulting E ff ects on Co m muting Conunuter S ervices' primary purpose is to influence travel behavior. Travel behavior baseline data were measur ed and the results of these m easurements were presented in the previous section. However, it is also necessary to measure the effectiveness of the methods used in tiying to influence behavior as well as the direct behavioral results themselves. Commuter Services' chosen methods of influencing behavior were essentially three-fold: I Use mass media advertising to promote the idea of carpooling, vanpooling and transit use. 2. Use mass media advertising to inform people that there is an organization (and/or a specific nwn b er ) w here you 'vill be provided with information to h el p you start carpooling and vanpooling. 3. Work through large employers to set up programs that will encourage ridesharing The following elements are measurable from the surveys of the general public as well as from the database survey: Awareness ofConunuter Services advertising Cont ent recall -Unaided and aided awareness ofConunuter Services and the Commuter Services telephone nwnber Stated mode choice effects of advertising for those who saw/heard advertising Correlation of advertising awareness and mode choice It is clearly important to measure direct stated effects of advertising, and to develop trends of the stated effects. Where possible, it is also important to examine the corre lation s between advertising awareness (as we ll as awareness of Commuter Services) and mode ch oic e th at do not necessarily involve "stated" effects. Survey respondents have a difficult enough time recalling messages or advertising that they heard It can be extremely difficult for them to remember the various causes of behavior changes (such as changes in mode choice), and panicularly to recall the relative importance of the different causes This is not to say that questions about influence of advertising messages should not be asked they should be asked, and the trends of answers to such questions are meaningful. But these direct, stated data should not be the sole basis for analysis. It is equally (and 34

PAGE 42

perhaps more) important to examine various correlations to provide supplementary information about the effects of advertising on mode choices. a. Advertising Awareness The chart below shows recall of any carpool!vanpool related advertising or messages in the three county market area SO% 30% 20% Percent of South Florida Commuters that are Aware ofCarpooiNanpool related Advertising or other Messages Figure 13: Percent of South Florida Commuters that are aware of carpool!vanpool related advertising or other messages Awareness of advertising messages about carpooling and/or vanpooling increased significantly from 33% in the 1999 evaluation to 46% in 2000. Furthermore, there has been a 20% increase in awareness since the 1998 evaluation. CUTR believes that the data show that the advertising media 35

PAGE 43

campaigns conducted by Commuter Services have in fact been effective. However, it is somewhat misleading to state absolutely that awareness increased by thirteen percentage points In spite of the increase in awareness of carpoollvanpool related messages, there has been only a slight i ncrease in the public's awareness of Commuter Services and awareness of the commuter information number (Ride number or 1-800-234-RIDE) between 1999 and 2000. Percent of South Florida commuters that are aware of Commuter Services and/or the Ride Number SO% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% ll" o ll'!lo 18% 34% 36% Figure 14: Percent of South Florida commuters that are aware of Commuter Services and/or the Ride Number 36

PAGE 44

This number is still much highe r than what could have been generated by Commuter Services efforts in contacting employers alone. Message recalled from carpoollvanpool advertising by South Florida commuters 15% 1..1--_,A Figure 15: Message recalled from carpool/vanpool advertising by South Florida commuters ln the 2000 evaluation, 16% of South Florida commuters could not recall an advertising message, a significant 6% increase from 1999 data. While in 1999, 9% of commuters recalled a message about park and ride, less than I% recalled a park and ride message in the 2000 evaluation. However, one in ten commuters recalled an advertising message for the Ride Number, an significant increase of 7%. 37

PAGE 45

b. Awareness of Co m muter Services and the RIDE Numbers 1. General Public Conun uter Services is not a top-of-mind item for conunuters, given the amount of advertising clutter and the vast quant ities of promotional informati on that are thrown at the general public every day. Given this clutter and Conunuter Services' limited advertising budget, it is unrealistic to expect Conunuter Services or any similar organization to achieve top-of-mind awareness. The basis for measurement should be aided a wareness. Aided awareness is determined by the number of peopl e who, whe n prompted, will say that they have heard ofConunuter Services and/or Conunu ter Services telephon e number. This chart was presented in an earlier section but is repeated for convenience here The figures are presented in the chart below and reflect litt le change from 1999. Between 1999 and 2000, there was no significant change in the percent of South F lorida conunuters that are aware of Conunuter Services and/or the Ride Number 38

PAGE 46

Percent of South Florida commuters that are aware of Commuter Services and/or the Ride Number 50% 40% 30% 20% RideNambtr 30% 35% 28% Figure 16: Percent of South Florida commuters that are aware of Commuter Service$ and/or the Ride Number An examination of the awareness levels for the ride number indicates that awareness of either Commuter Services and the Ride Number is increasing among Hispanic residents, due to the agency's efforts to reach this population since the last evaluation. In 2000, awareness among Hispanics increased to 42%, up from 30% in 1999. However, despite increases in 2000, awareness among those with lower incom e levels still remain the lower compared to higher income levels (28% among those with income leve l s below $20 ,000 and 5 I% for those with incomes about $20,000). Commuter Services should continue shifting targeting strategies to generate greater awareness among lower-income residents and Hispanics, particularly in Miami Dade County, where the Hispanic population is highest. They are more likely to adopt carpooling as a money-savi n g strategy. Carpooling is already more prevalent among lower-incom e households. 39

PAGE 47

Commuter Services should investigate the use of social marketing techniques to bener target these segments of the population and discover innovative means of disseminating the information to these hard-to-reach populations Social marketing is the application of commercial marketing techniques to influence th e voluntary behavior of target audience in order to improve their personal welfare and that of their society. The primary aim of social marketing is to promote voluntary behavioral change, such as switching from a single-occupant vehicle commute to an alternative mode. A social marketing campaign is customer-eentered and built around the four P's: product, price place and promotion The product is the behavioral change being offered, promoted or encouraged. The price relates to the benefits and costs of changing or not changing behavior Place refers to where the marketing materials can be accessed and promotion refers to the medium of the message. In order to identify the right marketin g mix (i.e. the best product, the appropriate benefits and costs, and where and how to deliver the message), extensive qualitative research with the target audience is necessary. For low income and/or minority populations finding the right marketing mix may differ substantially from Commuter Service's other clients. For example, qualitative research could identify which benefits to emphasize and what costs, such as childcare issues, to mitigate. In terms of place, discount grocery stores, government assistance offices, or thrift stores may be more effective places to promote Commuter Services' programs. Commuter Services should consider the following tactics, related to the ''4 P's" of marketing to bener target low-income commuters : Target place by distributing information to places likely to be frequented by low-income commuters, such as discount grocery stores or government assistance offices Also, use Spanish AM radio in drive time. Target promotion by communicating benefits to 'more closely tie in to the interests oflow income commuters For instance, focus on money-saving as opposed to reducing commuter stress. Also, focus communications on the fact that this is a free service, i.e. a low price service Make sure the product is delivered in a way that tits the needs oflow-income commuters. Is literacy a problem? Perhaps redesign materials to use more pictures and simpler language. 40

PAGE 48

2. Commuter Services Rideshare Database What remains surprising is the continued decreasi n g l eve l of awareness of Commu ter Services among Commut e r Services' customers ( i .e., database members) as shown below. Unaided awareness of Commuter Services (or "Free T-Shirt People" or "Hang up Your Keys People") and Ride Number Co1D1'1t1!trStrvlcts Rldt Number Nurmtr Figure 17: Unaided awareness of Commuter Services and Ride Number There were 8% decreases in unaided awaren ess of Commuter Services and either Commuter Services or the Ride Number. 41

PAGE 49

Aided awareness of Commuter Services (specifically) and Ride Number lOOo/oJr--------------, 80% .u----,_ 60% JA-----c 40% 20% Figure 18: Aided awareness of Commuter Services and Ride Number Compared to the 1999 data, there were significant increases in awareness in all thre e categories i n th e 2000 evaluation. Aided awareness of Commuter Services, specifically increased by 19% from 1999 and 33% from 1998 figures. There was also a significant 8% increase in aided awareness of eithe r Commuter Services or the Ride Number. Commuter Services database members were asked how they had heard about Commu ter Services or the ride number rather than what messages they might have recalled. This serves to giv e Co mm ut er Services an idea of what efforts have had the most impact among d atabase members. In 1999, the question was revised to accoun t for people who have heard of Commuter Service s but could not attribute itto a source. As such, it appears that the percent of database members who have not h e ard of Commuter Services declined significantly that year. However, most of this s hift wen t to the "Don t Know" response 42

PAGE 50

In 2000, the percentage of new database members that do not know where they heard about or were not aware of Commuter Services decreased significantly from 51-21%. Almost half of the database member heard about Commuter Services at work or, specifically, T-Days. That represents a significant I I % increase from 1999. Knowledge of Commuter Services from billboards significantly increased from I % to 6%. There was also a significant 5% increase in the radio and TV category. It is also important to note that three new ca t egories friends, yellow pages, and T ri-rail, appeared in this year' s evaluation. Where Database Members heard about Commuter Services (Base: members who joined in last 12 months) 50% .1+---=-----------------------------40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Figure 19: Where Database Members beard about Commuter Services 43

PAGE 51

3. Local Businesses Human Resource Directors in surveyed businesses were asked about their aware ness levels of Commuter Services and Commuter Services activities. These results are presented below. Growth in business awareness experienced little change. 6% less reported having heard of Commuter Services, but 6% more reported being familiar with Commuter Services. South Florida Businesses' Familiarity with Commuter Services 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% programs Flgure 20: South Florida Businesses' Familiarity with Commuter Services The awareness levels should also be tempered by consideration that those organizations most interested in transportation issues are more likely to return the survey and may be more likely to be aware of commuter services. It is probably exaggerating to estimate that 51% of all HRDs at area business employing I 00 or more people are actually aware of Commuter Services and their activities 44

PAGE 52

c. Stated Mode Choice Effects of Advertising The purpose of advertising is to move commuters along a continuum toward the goal of influencing travel behavior by mode and time of day. The continuum is described by the following points: I. Create/Increase awareness 2. Provide infonnation about options 3 Facilitate arrangement 4 Induce trial use 5 Maximize use/Increase frequency of use among those who try product and continue to use it The true value of Commuter Services lies in its ability to move people from awareness to trial use, and from there to increased frequency of use. As previously described, awareness levels have not changed significantly. The next step is to make detectable and significant progress from the standpoint of the general public. Commuters in the general public who recalled seeing advertising or other messages were asked what effect these messages had on their commuting habits These results are shown below: 45

PAGE 53

10% Impact of advertising on South Florida commuters Figure 21: Impact of advertising on South Florida commuters The 2000 evaluation indica tes that 3% more commuters are considering ridesharing, but less have tried it. Although the apparent indication is that the current advertising campaign is not having the intended effect of eliciting action from the general public, this must be tempered with a sense of what the objectives of these campaigns are It would be sensible for future advertising campaigns to have explicit goals set out for these measures that are agreed upon by all parties as reasonable, and to evaluate advertising impact based on those goals. 46

PAGE 54

d. Analysis of Provision oflncentives by Employers Employers were asked to provide information about flextime, compressed workweeks, and telecommuting in detail. The results on the following two graphs show the percentage of organizations with employees participating in commute programs and the average percent of employees participating in those programs 50% 40% Percentage of Organizations with Employees participating in Commute Programs Figure 22: Percentage of organizations with employees participating in commute programs In 2000, the percentage of employees on flextime increased significantly by 5%. There was also a significant 6% increase in the percentage of employees who telecommute. 47

PAGE 55

Average Percent of Employees participating in Commute Programs 50% 40% 30% 10% Figure 23: Average percent of emp loyees participating in com mute programs The above table shows that the average percentages of employees who work on flextime, compressed work weeks, or who telecommut e have remained virtually unchanged since the 1999 evaluation. Commuter Services should seek increases in participati o n rates and perce n t of businesses offering these programs. Flextime, compressed workweeks, and telecommuting programs will do as much to reduce traffic congest i on as pooling arrangements. If Commuter Services does not current l y have goals set for establishing these p rograms, CUTR strong l y recommends their implementatio n 48

PAGE 56

e. Stated Effect of Assistance Provided by Commuter Services on Mode Choice Commuter Services Database members were asked wha t effect the emergency ride home (ERH) information and all of the information provided by Commuter Services as a whole bad on their mode choice. The results are presented in the charts below. Effect of Information on Mode Choice for Database Members 80%....------------------, 60% 40% 20% 0% Contact C:S lnOutnet la!luence InOueoc:e Figure 24: Effect of Information on Mode Choice for Database Members The most notable change shown on the above table is a 17% decrease in the percentage of database members that "never did rideshare". Those results labeled "no influence" indicate the percentage of respondents who did try an alternative mode, but reported that Commuter Services messages and information had no influence on their choice. This figure increased by 10% between the 1999 and 2000 eva luat ions. 49

PAGE 57

The proportion of database members saying that the ERH infonnatio n had "some influence" on their choice of mode increased from 19% i n 1 999 to 27% in 2000 Furthennore, 6% more database members reported t h at ERH i nfonnation had a "great influence" on their mode choice. The number of database members receiving ERH infonnation continues to increase, from 76%% to 80% over the last year, and 46% i n crease over the last four years. Effect of Emergency Ride Home on Mode Choice for Database Members 0% ... ,..u ... w ... ,. ., .. Figure 25: Effect of ERH on Mode Choice for Database Members According to the 2000 evaluation, 1 9% fewer database members did not rideshare or were unaware of the ERH program. The percentage of database members who indicated that the ERH program was of "some influence" rose from 15% in 1999, to 29% in 2000. This increase is due to an 11% increase in the percentage of database members who reported that the ERH program was of"great influence" o n their mode choice. 50

PAGE 58

Analysis of Commute Patterns and Awareness of Commuter Services by County a. Commute Patterns by County Sufficient interviews were completed in both the 1999 and 2000 evaluations of the general public to conduct an analysis of commute patterns by county. The analysis shall follow the same sequence as the aggregate analysis of general public commute patterns. Commute distances increased for Miami-Dade County commuters as they surpassed Broward County commuters with 31% driving 20 miles or more. Palm Beach County commuters enjoy the highest percentage of short commutes with 47% driving under 10 miles, and the lowest percentage of long commutes with just 21% driving over 20 miles. Commute Distances for Broward County Commuters 20% Figure 26: Commute Distances for Broward County Commuters 51

PAGE 59

Commute Distances for Miami-Dade County Commuters 25%u----Figure 27: Commute Distances for Miami-Dade County Commuters Commute Distances for Palm Beach County Commuters Figure 28: Commute Distances for Palm Beach County Commuters 52

PAGE 60

Incidence of alternative mode use by county is shown in the nex t three charts: Percent of Broward County Commuters Using Alternative Commute Modes Once per week or more Figure 29: Percent of Broward County Commuters Using Alternative Commute Modes Once per week or more Percent of Miami-Dade Commuters Using Alternative Commute Modes Once per week or more Figure 30: Percent of Miami Dade Commuters Using Alternative Commute Modes Once per week or more 53

PAGE 61

Percent of Palm Beach County Commuters Using Alternative Commute Modes Once per week or more Figure 31: Percent of Palm Beach County Commuters Using Alternative Commute Modes Once per week or more In comparing 1999 to 2000 figures, there are no significant changes within the counties. It is important to note that Miami-Dade and Palm Beach Counties show a decreasing trend in the percentage of commuters using an alternative mode. Miami-Dade County experienced the largest decline as the percentage of alternative mode use dropped from 24% to 20%. However, Broward County experienced a 2% increase in alternative mode use. 54

PAGE 62

The current mode split as a percentage of trips is shown in the next three charts Percent of Trips made by Broward County Commuters Using Alternative Commute Modes Figure 32: Percent of Trips made by Broward County Commuters Using Alternative Commute Modes Percent of Trips made by Miami-Dade County Commuters Using Alternative Commute Modes Figure 33: Percent of Trips made by Miami-Dade County Commuters Using Alternative Commute Modes 55

PAGE 63

Percent of Trips made by Palm Beach County Commuters Using Alternative Commute Modes Figure 34: Percent of Trips made by Palm Beach County Commuters Using Alternative Commute Modes Broward County commuters demonstrate a decreasing trend in overall alternative mode use. Miami Dade County residents continue to have the most prevalent use of transit and alternative mode use, probably due to a combination of demographics and existing infrastructure. However there was a 3% decline in bus/train use by Miami-Dade commuters. This indicates that there are more "occasional" users of alternative commute modes in Broward and Palm Beach Counties. 56

PAGE 64

b. Awareness of Co m muter Services and Commuter Serv i ces Advertising The percentage of commuter s aware of any carpool or vanpool advertising by county is shown in the chart below: Perc ent of South Florida C ommuters Aware of C arpooiN an p o ol related Advertisin g b y County: 1 9 98 and 1999 50% Figure 35: P ercent of So u th Florida Commu t ers Aware o f carpool/v a n p ool r elated advertis in g by Cou n ty In all countie s awareness ofcarpool/van p ool advertising continues to in crease significantly. Palm Beach and Broward Counties each showed an 11% increase, while Miami Dade County awareness increased by 17%. 57

PAGE 65

The pattern of awareness of Commuter Services and the Ride number is demons trated in the next three charts: Percent of Broward County commuters that are aware of Commuter Services and/or the Ride Number '"' "" L+----'"' 1...+----"" '" Figure 36: Percent of Broward County commuters that are aware of Commuter Services and/or the Ride Number Percent of Miami Dade commuters that are aware of Commuter Services and/or the Ride Number Figure 37: Percent of Miami-Dade commuters that are aware of Commuter Services and/or the Ride Number 58

PAGE 66

Percent of Palm Beach County commuters that are aware of Commuter Services and/or the Ride Number '"' Figur e 38: P e rcent of Palm B e ach County commuters that are aware of Com muters Se rvices aud/or the Ride Number The 2000 figures ind i cate that awareness in Miami-Dade County increased substantially over the last year p assing Palm Beach County in awareness levels. Over the last three years, awareness levels in Pahn Beach County have experienced a downward trend. While Broward County levels are down slightly from !999, their commuters still have the highest le vels of awareness. 59

PAGE 67

VI. Telecommuting In 2000, the percentage of South Florida commuters that telecommuted once per week or more increased to 3%, up from 2% in 1999 (see Chart 2). Telecommuting resulted in a I% reduction in work trips in 2000 (See Chart 3) As in I999, only I% of South Florida commuters reported that they have been regularly t elecommuting at least once per week for the last 12 months (see Chart 4). In a comparison of the counties, Palm Beach commuters reported the highest percentage of telecommuting once per week or more at 5%, an increase of 4% since I999. 3% ofBroward County commuters reported telecommuting once per week or more, up from I% in I999 and 2% Miami Dade County commuters reported telecommuting, a I% decrease. (See Charts 29). In terms of businesses, 7% indicated that they have employees participating in telecommuting programs, up from 4% in I999. However, the average percent of employees participating in telecommuting programs remained the same at 1%. (See Charts 22 and 23) 60

PAGE 68

VII. Evaluation of Commuter Services by Database Members and Local Businesses a. Commuter Services Database Members Evaluation Database members evaluated the performance of Commuter Services in two ways: Responding to questions about specific actions Commuter Services took or did not take, and providing subjective ratings on a 1 -10 scale on their satisfaction with Commuter Services. Commuter Services database members were asked what types of assistance Commuter Services had provided to them Specifically, if Commuter Services had provided tips on what to do next to start carpooling, information on the ERH program, and a list of potential poolers (or a letter stating that the r e were no matches). Assistance provided by Commuter Services when contacted by Database Members 100% r.tter Figure 39: Assistance provided by Commuter Services when contacted by Database Members 61

PAGE 69

Commuter Services efforts at following up with database members continue to show improvement toward increasing the recall among database members, but the percentage of database member that recall receiving a pooler list or letter dropped b y 6%. The percentage that recalled receiving ERH infonnation is higher again for the third straight year, with 80% of database members recalling that they received ERH information in 2000. Approximately 83% of new database members received a match list from Commuter Services, down 7% from 1999. In 2000, only 31% received a "no match" letter, down significantly from 42% in the previous year. Approximately 40% of new database members received a list but did not take any action, 8% attempted to contact matc hes doubling last year s figure, and only 3% actually fonned carpools. Reception and use of match information by Database Members (Base: members who joined in last 12 months) 40%]----30%.!1-----20% .11-------10% 0% Figure 40: Reception and use of match information by Database Members 62

PAGE 70

To maximize the percentage of people using the list, Commuter Services should focus on the following item s: I. Re-examine the product. As in 1999, 40% of the people receive names but fail to take any action suggests that there could be something inhibiting them from taking action. For the third year in a row, the quality of the list has recei ved the lowest rating of effectiveness by database members. 2. Conduct qualitative research (e.g. focus groups) with database members to identify factors that encourage or prohibit use of the matchlist. If database members wtderstand the steps necessary to form a what is preventing them from taking the initiative to act? 3. Re-examine Commuter Services' level of assistance in the formation of carpools from match lis ts. Do database members require greater assistance and follow-up to form carpools? 63

PAGE 71

Commuter Services Database members were also asked to subjectively evaluate Commuter Services performance in a number of different areas based on their experiences. These results are shown below: Ratings of Commuter Services by Database Members (Base: members who joined in last 12 months) Figure 41: Ratings of Commuter Services by Database Members As in previous years, the lowest scores continue to come on the usefulness of the information and the quality of the lists. Commuter Services can control the quality of the list by making sure the people on it are still int erested in the service at periodic intervals, and ensuring that the addresses and telephone numbers are up-to-date. However, some elements, such as the quantity of matches provided, are to a large extent beyond Commuter Services control. As a rule of thumb in these types of surveys, a result of7.0-7.2 indicates a reasonably good score Commuter Services should, however, focus mo re on improving the subjective performance scores 64

PAGE 72

than on the absolute levels of those scores. Finally, Commuter Services database members were asked if they would recommend Commuter Services to other people seeking assistance in carpooling or vanpooling. Commuter Services results dropped 3% from the prior year with 75% of the database members probably or definitely would recommend Commuter Services to others How Database Members would Recommend Commuter Services to others 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% refused Figure 42: How Database Members would recommend Commuter Services to others 65

PAGE 73

b. Local Business Evaluation Business HRDs provided infonnation about their previous interactions with Commuter Services. These are presented in sununary below: South Florida Businesses' Interaction with Commuter Services 40% 30% 20% 10% 3% 26% Figure 43: South Florida Businesses' Interaction with Commuter Services The proportion of businesses contacted by Commuter Services dropped 8% in 2000 after a 19% increase between 1998 and 1999. The proportion of businesses saying they had received a presentation from Commuter Services fell by I%. Specific future goals should be set to reach higher levels for all of the categories listed above. 66

PAGE 74

Businesses were also asked to provide a rating, on a 1 0 scale, of their perception of the effectiveness of Commuter Services activities. The mean score was 4. 7 on the 1-10 scale among those who provided a rating. The ratings were distributed as shown below. Employer ratings of Commuter Services' effectiveness: Figure 44: Employer ratings of Commuter Services' effectiveness Approximately 82% ofbusiness were not familianvith Commuter Services, and of the 18% that did rate Commuter Services' effectiveness, almost half(8%) reported that the agency was "not at all" effective 67

PAGE 75

Employer ratings of usefulness of Commuter Services information: 80% .. Figure 45: Employer ratings of tbe usefulness of Commuter Services information 68

PAGE 76

VIII. Park and Rid e Analysis A portio n of the 2000 evaluation of Commuter Services was to update information on the current use and potential interest in using Par k & Ride (P&R ) l ots in the South Florida area. A series of questions were asked about awareness of park and ride lots, whether or not P&R was used, and if P&R were available with certain amenities at a convenient distance (I mi le o r l ess from home) what the likelihoo d of using P &R would be. The first issue is awareness oftbe lots This question was asked in two stages: Were residents aware of a P&R lot within 5 miles of their home, and if not, were they aware of a P&R lot between their home and worksite. The results are indicated i n the c h art below. Awareness of Park & Ride lot s among South Florida commuters wnnSmU.s BetNH nhom. a. wodt total ToCII Figur e 46-Awarenes s of Park & Rid e lots among Soutb Flo rida commu t ers Overall, 37% of residents are aware of park & ride lots, mainly within 5 miles of their home. There is, of course, no way to verify if this is true since we do not know the exact locations of r espondent residences. 69

PAGE 77

The data are consistent with prior studies. No major changes in awareness were indicated in this study. By county, the results are similar but show declines in awareness in some areas. Awareness of Park & Ride lots among Broward County commuters Figure 47-Awareness of park & ride lots among Broward County commuters 70

PAGE 78

Awareness of Park & Ride lots among Miami Dade County commuters Figure 48-Awareness of park & ride lots among Miami-Dade County commuters Awareness of Park & Ride lots among Palm Beach County commuters Figure 49-Awareness of park & ride lots among Palm Beach County commuters 71

PAGE 79

Broward county in particular has had a decline in awareness ofP & R lots. Use of the lots remains extremely limited but is slowly rising. About 8% of residents indicat e that they use park and ride lots as often as once per year, and about 2% use them once per week or more. A relatively large proportion of residents say that they would use an "ideal" park and ride lot if it were located within one.mile of their home The way these lots were described is: The city is considering building new park and ride lots. These lots would be located in or near residential neighborhoods. There is no cost to park at these lots. You can use the park and ride lots to park your car and take an express bus to downtown Miami or Fort Lauderdale, or meet with carpoolers or vanpoolers to ride to work. They have 24-hour security and offer services such as banking, grocery stores, dry cleaners and day care on the premises If there were a park and ride lot located within one mile of your home, how likely would you be to use the park and ride lot to carpool, vanpool, or ride transit to work at least once per week? The results are shown in the chart on the next page: 72

PAGE 80

South Florida commuters likelihood of using "ideal" park & ride lots 50%.,-r----------------, Figure SO -South Florida commuters likelihood of using "ideal" park & ride lots By county, the resu lts show that Miami-Dade County residents appear to be m uch more interested in using the lots, and currently already use them more frequently 73

PAGE 81

Broward County commuters likelihood of using "ideal" park & ride lots S0%Ar-------------------------, 40%u-----------------30%u-----------------20%u-------------= Figure 51Broward County commuters likelihood of using "ideal park & ride lots Miami-Dade County commuters likelihood of using "ideal" park & ride lots Figure 52Miami-Dade County commuters llkelibood of using "ideal" park & ride lots 74

PAGE 82

Palm Beach County commuters likelihood of using "ideal" park & ride lots Figure 53Palm Beach County commuters likelihood of using "ideal" park & ride lots A demographic analysis of the data shows that awareness of P&R lots is much lower among Hispanics (25% to 42% for non-Hispanics) and among residents in the area who have incomes between $10,000 and $30,000 (29% to 39%). As with last year, it appears that there is a reasonably high level of interest in expanding Park & Ride lots particularly for lower-income residents of Miami-Dade County Further research should be conducted to determine feasibility of developing P&R lots in those areas and promoting their use to the indicated target groups. 75

PAGE 83

IX Analysis of HOV Lane Perception In 1995, an initial study ofHOV lane awareness, perception, and attitudes was conducted. Some follow -up questions to this survey were done in I 999 and 2000 for trending purposes. There appears to be a slow but steady increase in the number of people that believe HOV do provide a significant speed advantage. 59% said the lanes provide at least "faster" travel for commuters compared to 53% last year and 51% in 1995. South Florida commuters perception of travel speed improvement when using HOV lanes Figure 54-South Florida commuters perception of travel speed improvement when using HOVIanes 76

PAGE 84

Broward County commuters perception of travel speed improvement when using HOV lanes Figure 55Broward County commuters p e rception oftravel speed improvement when using HOV lanes 77

PAGE 85

Miami-Dade County commuters perception of travel speed improvement when using HOV lanes 30% 1...1-----1 10% Figure 56MiamiDade County commuter$ perception of travel speed improvement when using HOY lanes Palm Beach County commuters perception of travel speed improvement when using HOV lanes SO% A""-----40% 30% 20% 10% Figure 57 -Palm Beach County commuters perception of travel speed improvement when using HOY lanes 78

PAGE 86

This trend is more pronoWlced in Palm Beach County than in other counties. Given the continued negative press that HOV lanes receive, it is very encouraging to see the value of the lanes moWlting in the public's estimation. 79

PAGE 87

X. Characteristics of Commuter Services' Database Members and General Public The research suggests that demographic characteristics are not determining factors on whether the individual will be influenced by Commuter Services or use an alternative mode. The only notable variations are the relationships between certain levels of income and age and the use of an alternative mode and the influence of Commuter Services. The charts below show overall demographic breakdowns for groups where Commuter Serv ice information had no influence on mode choice compared to those for whom Commuter Services' information did have influence on mode choice. Also shown are demographic breakdown for non-users of commute alternatives in the Commuter Services database versus those who are r egular users Thus, for instance 25% of those for whom the information had no influence on mode choice are single. 27% of those for whom the information had influence are single. 24% of non-users of commute alternatives are single, and 22% of regular users of commute alternatives are single. Database members who were influenced by Commuter Services' information are less likely to be between 25 and 44 (47% to 55% of those who were not influenced by Commuter servic e's information) but more likely to be between 45 and 64 (42% to 33%) and those who use alternative modes are less likely to be aged between 25 and 44 (42% to 53%-an 11% d i fference) but more likely to be between the ages of 45 and 64 ( 45% to 35% -a I 0% difference) In terms ofincome, database members that were influenced were less like l y to earn between $30,000 and $39,999 (9% difference) and those who are alternative mode users are also less likely to earn between $30,000 and $39,999 (9% difference). The following tables show demographic characteristics of Commuter Services database members. Four groups are shown: 1. Database members for whom Commuter Services' information was of no influence on mode choice, 2. Database members for whom Commuter Services' information influence mode choice, 3. Database members who do not use an alternative mode, and 4. Database members who are regnlar users of an alternative mode 80

PAGE 88

Tab l e 4: Demographic characteristics of Commuter Services Database 7\larital Status No Influence Non-Kcgular influence User Single 25% 27% 24% 22% Married 53% 55% 55% 57% Divorced 16% 13% 16% 13% Widowed 3% 1% 2% 3% (hildrt>n under 6 !'\o Jnlluence i\ un-Reuular innueru:e lJs.:r lJst'r Yes 23% 21% 22% 1 7% No 75% 77% 76% 79% !lave children 6to 16 :'\o Influence :\:on-Rcgular influence l i scr Cscr Yes 35% 37% 34% 35% No 62% 61% 63% 61% Education I
PAGE 89

;\\o lunu("tH.'l' :\on-Rruul;tr influcnn l SlT llscr White 35% 37% 36% 39% Afiican-American 24% 28% 26% 22% Hispanic 26% 23% 24% 22% Asian 3% 2% 3% 3% Native American 2% -1% .\gc :\o lntlurncr i\on-inllnlnn l w r I 'cr 18-24 5% 5% 5% 5% 25-34 18% 15% 19% 13% 35-44 37% 32% 34% 29% 45-54 24% 30% 23% 31% 55-64 9% 12% 1 2% 1 4 % 65+ 3% 1% 3% 2% lncomr i\o lntlurnct i\on-f{t':,!Ublr inlluenn l l''\(."1' Less than $10,000 0% 1% I% 1% $10,000-19,999 5% 7% 6% 7% $20,000 29,999 12% 14% 13% 13% $30,000 39,999 2 1 % 12% 18% 9% $40,000-49 ,999 11% 12% 10% 12% $50,000-59,999 9% 9% 10% 9% $60,000 69,999 6% 9% 6% 8% Over $70,000 1 7 % 22% 18% 21% 82

PAGE 90

Tab le 5. General Public: Users versus non users o f alternative modes :\larital Status !\:on -Lser l lser Single 36% 44% Married 48% 43% Divorced 10% 7% Widowed 3% 1% Ethnicity Non l.lscr llsl'r White 54% 44% African-American 15% 21% His panic 22% 23% Asian 3% 1% Native American 1% 1% Age l\onl'ser l 'ser 18-24 12% 21% 25-34 24% 21% 35-44 30% 31% 45-54 19% 17% 55-64 9% 3% 65+ 3% 1% 83

PAGE 91

I IH'0111l' '\un-l l \l'l Less than $10,000 2% 6% s 10,0001 9,999 7% 100/o $20,000-29,999 9% I 00/o $30,000-39,999 13% I 00/o $40,000-49,999 I 00/o 9% $50 ,000-59,999 It% 6% $60,000-69,999 9% 8 % Over $70,000 21% 22% 84

PAGE 92

XI. Recommendations General Public Advertising efforts s h ould focus on increasing the awareness of Commuter Services programs and the Ride Number among the lower income popu l ations. Awarenes s among individuals with income leve l s below $20,000 continues to be l ower compared to individuals of higher income levels. From the surveys, correlations indica t e a substantially higher incidence of use of carpooling and transit among lower income h ouseholds Comm u ter Services should continue their effo rts to reach the Hispanic p o pulation within their service area until Hispanic awareness levels reach equality with nonHispanic awareness l evels. There was a 12% increase in awarene s s among Hispanics since 1999, but non-Hispanic levels continue to be higher Efforts s h ould a l so aim on reaching lower i n come Hispanics and focus in Miami-Dade County, where the majority of the Hispanics reside (See Pages 37-38) o Commuter Services should conside r the following tactics, related to the "4 P's" of marketing to better target -lowinco m e commuters: Target place by distributing information to places lik ely to be frequented by low-income commuters, such as discount grocery stores or government assistance offices. A l so, use Spanish AM radio in drive time. Targe t promotion by communicating ben efits to m ore c l o s ely tie in to the interests oflo w income commuters. For instance focus on money-saving as opposed to r e duci n g commuter stres s Also, focus communications on the fact that this is a free service, i.e a low price service Make sure the product is delivered in a way that fits the needs oflow-income commuters Is literacy a prob l em? Perhaps redes ign materials to use more pictures and simp ler language. Commuter Services should investigate the use of social marketing techniques to better target these segments of the population and d i scover innovative means of disseminat ing the information to these hard tor each popu l at i ons. 85

PAGE 93

Commuter Services should continue to hold Emergency Ride Home (ERH) registration days at rail and bus stations. In 2000, 53% of bus/train users reported that the ERH program influenced their mode choice. Tills suggests that many might have stopped using bus or rail bad the ERH program not been available. The ERH program is not only an incentive to use an alternative mode, but it also provides a reward for those who already use an alternative mode, such as the bus or train. Also, ERH provides a good way to retain alternative mode users. It is always cheaper to retain an existing customer (or alternative mode user) than to use promotions to get a new one. The increased use of bus and train by database members suggests that ERH registration days at bus and train stations are a good way to increase the value of ERH to South Florida commuters. Commuter Services Database Members It is recommended that Commuter Services conduct qualitative research with current database members (e.g. focus groups) to identify: o How and why commuters use the matchlists o Factors that inhibit use of the matchlist to form carpools. As in 1999, 40% of database members received a matchlist but failed to take any action Furthermore, the quality of the list bas received the lowest rating for the third year in a row (1998 average rating: 6.5; 2000 average rating: 6.0). 9% of database members heard about Commuter Services from friends, second only to T Days (49%). Additionally 47% of all database members said they would 'definitely' recommend Commuter Services to a friend. In order to take more advantage of this avenue of distribution, Commuter Services should regularly provide database members with information and marketing materials to give to friends or neighbors. Commuter Services could also develop incen t ives for database members to register friends. For example, transit passes or additional emergency rides could be used as rewards. This approach may help to provide Commuter Services with more 'Origin end' marketing of commute alternatives, to compliment the 'Destination end' tactics of using T-Days at employer locations. 86

PAGE 94

South Florida Businesses Commuter Services should continue to organize Transportation Days (T-Days) at South Florida businesses to increase awareness of alternative commute modes. Almost half of database members learn of Commuter Services through T -Day events. T -Days are useful because they concentrate recruitment at a common destination end of the work trip and target those commuters most interested in commute alternatives. Commuter Services should continue to seek increases in participation rates and the percent of businesses offering flextime, compressed workweeks, and telecommuting. These alternatives are those most desired by commuters, as determined in the CUTR report A Market based Approach to Effective TDM Program Design, an FDOT research idea project. These alternatives are particularly helpful to businesses in managing parking needs, as they reduce parking and office space requirements. In order to implement this program, Commuter service should: o Assess current staff knowledge of these programs o Keep abreast of developments in CUTR 's TDM Marketing project for FDOT, where toolkits for telecommuting implementation are being developed. o Commuter Services should continue "to work closely with local businesses to increase awareness of Commuter Services and alternative commute programs. Presentations at businesses should emphasize the Commuter Choice program. Commuter Services could also establish workshops on Commuter Choice to teach employers how implement and maintain a program at their workplace. Commuter choice provides tax benefits under IRS Code section 132(f). Telecommuting, flextime, and compressed work weeks could also be instructional seminar topics. o Commuter Services should focus on businesses that report parking shortages and increased traffic congestion. While businesses may not perceive the absence of commute alternative programs as a problem, parking shortages and traffic congestion are tangible and have a direct effect on the "bottom line." Commuter Services' programs should be marketed as potential solutions to these tangible problems A list of businesses that reported parking shortages or increased traffic congestion is listed in the Appendix. 87

PAGE 95

The purpose of collecting this information was primarily to measure the changes from the 1999 le vels of performance, and to assist in the appropriate setting of goals for future evaluation periods. With the information provided in this report, and particularly in the performance measures report that accompanies this document, Commuter Services should be able to set meaningful, measurable goals for performance in 2001 and future years. This process should follow the guidelines set forth in CUTR's Strategic Marketing for Mobility Managers seminar. In brief, the goal setting process shollld take the following form: I. FOOT and Commuter Services should review program direction and determine which of the goals listed in the performance measures report are most relevant to Commuter Services' current direction. 2. FOOT and Commuter Services should select the peiformance measures within those goals that are most appropriate 3. Commuter Services should select target levels for those performance measures that reflect a reasonable level of performance improvement, to be approved by FOOT. For those performance measures where the data is derived from survey results, target levels should be set in one of two ways: minimum peiformance levels which, when measurements are taken will have a 95% probability of having been met i.e., there will be a 95% probability that the true measure is at or above the target leve l, or statistically significant increases from baseline levels. CUTR will be available to assist in the goal selection and target level setting processes. 88

PAGE 96

Appendices Business reporting congestion worse than a year ago Business reporting more employees than parking spaces Commuter Survey Database member Survey Employer Survey 89

PAGE 97

Businesses reporting worse congestion than a year ago CONTACT ORG Albert Henao sunbelW TV corp Silvia crawford sonesta Beach Ralph E. silerstein walmart #1517 Mike Nuttal Media Printing Jorge M Mi 11 an City of Hi a 1 eah Gardens Agnes Alejandre Riverside care center Steve Craycraft B & L service Inc. Lazara Marchante Kendall Medical Ctr Broward Nursing & Rehab Ct Phil Everingham Merrill-Stevens Dry Dock co Belinda ). Montigny Life care Home Health service corp steven Mahon oriole HOmes Jeff Fisher Fisher-Clark construction lack shayton Palace Gardens Rita weber Holiday Inn Ximena Elguera coscan Hoees Nancy Glynn Mikey Froehlier Vilma Rodriquez K. Ansell To. Newcomer Jorge Fidel Manuel rachi n Crace Grant-Brown L. coleman tHana Martinez Sally Throckmartou Human Resources A. Lefebvre Michael c Eddy O'Neill R. J. Keegan vern Th0411pson carlo Scalia M .L roseburr o. gaffor veronica Flores Terminix embassy suites Hotel SOSBS RX Medical services corp village of Palm springs CRC Press Altenaan Transport O'Pelle Enterprise Epworth village YMCA of south Broward Kendale lakes Elem The Palace at Kendall Nursing/Rehab cent Pol1o Tropical southern winds Hospital Recourse communications city of Miami Miami Springs sr High Brazilan court Hotel FPMC Publix Supermarket CHI Plantation Middle united Home care services, Inc. First national bank of south M iami AOOOESS CITY STATE ZIP 1401 79th street causeway 350 ocean Drive 3 00 w copans Rd 4300 N Powerline Rd 10001 NW 87th AVe 899 NW 4St P .O. Box 950 11750 Bird Rd 1330 s. Andrew Ave 1270 NW llst 800 NW 17th Ave 1690 s congress Ave 3600 Investment Lane 1101 1351 N Krome Ave 1711 N university or 20803 Biscayne Blvd suite 103 1304 N Federal Hwy 4350 PGA Blvd 2139 PB Lakes Blvd 888 E Las olas Blvd ste 210 226 Cypress Lane 2000 NW corporate Blvd 12805 NW 42 Ave 1501 sw 5th court "c'' 5300 W 16th AVe 3161 Taft St 8000 sw 142 Ave Miami Key Biscayne Pompano Bch Pompano Bch Hialean Gardens Miami Ft. Lauderdale FL FL FL FL FL FL FL Ft. Lauderdale F L Miami F L Delray Beach F L De 1 ray eeac:::h F L Pal Beach FL Homestead Fl Plantation FL Aventura FL Boynton Beach FL Palm Beach Gardens FL WPB F L Ft Lauderdale FL Pa 1m Springs FL BOca Raton FL opalocka FL P011pano Beach Fl. Hialeah FL Hollywood FL 11215 SW 84 St Mial'li FL 7300 N Kendall Dr, 8th FL M iami FL 422S west 20 Ave Hialeah FL 165S Palm Beach Lake Blvd #600 WPB F l 444 SW 2nd AVe Miami F l 751 Dove Ave Miami Springs FL 301 AUstrailian Ave PB FL 851 Jupiter Park Ln Jupiter F L 3740 west Hillsboro Blvd Deerfield FL 8300 w sunrise Blvd Plantation FL 6600 w. Sunrise Blvd S2SS NW 8th Avenue suite 400 Nia.n 5750 sunset drive south miami 90 F L FL 33141 3314 33064 33073 33016 33128 33302 33316 33U5 33445 33445 33404 33322 33180 33410 33409 33301 33461 33431 33054 33069 33012 33021 33173 33156 33012 33401 33130 33166 33480 33458 33442 33322 33178 33143

PAGE 98

o.ave Cherry City of coconut creek Public works oe.par 4800 w. Road coconut creek G.ayle A. coraier Land 'H' se.a 3111 H. Andrews Ave. bt. PMpano Stach Thou.s J. Baptist ttospit.al of Mfa.i 8900 H Kendall or Miaa i su.san H.addad R:exall sundown 1111 sw 30 Ave oeer+ield sch Ray Torres st Ives Inc 2025 St HOllywood Phyllis Affurte HC:Der.ott will & E.ory 201 s. Biscay ne alvd Stt 2200 Miami FL Fl. Fl. Fl. FL F L carol taGraves Offic.e of the Statt Attorney, 17th Circu 201 sw st., Suite 660 Ft. Lauderdale FL ).D. Gayheart Pilot Training 3814 curtis Pkwy virginia Gardens Fl Ti m Gipe, President Evans Enviromental 14505 way Suitt 400 Miui Lakes WS111am S Kwiatkowski Greenberg Training 1221 Brickell Ave Miallri Stephanie Schaltz The Ages Group 645 Park of COIIfllerce way aoca Raton Beth oay Adecco EMployment soo HE Spanish R1ver alvdl30 Boca R.aton sara baker Discovery 650 5 Blue Lagoon o r 1190 Mi ani fMa RruDirez -topez wyndha Bhcayne 1601 Biscayne 81vd Mialfti Evelyne Boyer BNP Paribas 201 s aisuyne Blvd Suhe 1280 Miuai Ernie >oyne:r Aon Group 1001 Brickell eay or 1 1100 Mia.i Ellen Burne sensormat1c 951 vamato Rd aoca Raton R. Raitt Pomtoc 1007 H .Merica way IUS Mia..i Oiane Alexander Royal Bank of canad a 801 Brickell Ave Suite 210 0 Miaai A,,P, Demos A.P. DemO$ P.A. 1101 8Ucke11 AVI Ste 1?00 MiUi Chuc k Si c e 1 off KIF 1801 HW 82 A v e Mi ui fJI111o Alva.rez Taylor & Nat hh, Inc. 777 Brickell Ave 1610 Nia.. i J. SOlAn Kennedy-wtlson 8216 HW lAth St Niaai oa.s zu:hU:.e SWiss Chalet F ine FOOds 9455 HW 40th S t Rd Miaai M n Pira.ol Charoewyao Thailand Trade C't.r 200 S 81.1-SCJ.yne Blvd Suite 4420 Miaaf Hoel stevens HFSF 601 Brickell Key or Stt 901 MiMi Marl tne Harmon Nicole aob unanue John Kissel Gigi Laudisio Gustafo Londo n o s. oannet Olga Rocheran Jill Strube Richard Henderson ,..ggie Angulo L Peterson candace l Grout Allan wtlit e Je.rr,r Par'kt:r Donors Foru111 lSO S 2nd Ave Suite 700 Miami Siicher zelnan 1<401 8rid:ell ave 1 700 Miami Pacific Photocopy 28 w Flager s.t 1420 Goya Foods of F1a 1900 NW 92nd Ave Catholic C e11eterie s 11411 NW 2Sst switchboard of M iami 444 erickell Ave 14 5 0 ACIF 6800 NW 72 St Miami Miami Miami Mfami Kane, Hoffa. & Danner 1101 Brickell Ave s utte Ml01 Miami Everglades Hotel 2 44 Biscayne Blvd Metropolitan center 150 SE 2nd Ave suite 1201 caterpillar 8205 NW 58th St seaboard Marine 8050 NW 79 Ave Manu AU Int'1 P.O. BOX 660880 White & Ca.se LLP 200 $, 81scayne Blvd Ste 4900 Opus 835.0 Doral Boulevud Miami Miami Miami Meoni Miami M1 ami OASA 144-4 afscayne Blvd suite 240 Mia.i 91 Springs F L FL FL FL FL FL FL FL FL F L FL FL FL FL FL FL FL FL FL FL F L FL FL FL FL FL FL F L FL FL FL FL l306l !3069 !3116 33442 !3020 33131 33301 33166 33016 33131 33487 33431 33126 33174 33131 33131 33132 33131 33131 33126 33131 33126 33178 33131 33 131 33131 33131 33172 33172 33131 33166 33131 33132 33166 33166 33266 33131 33166 33132

PAGE 99

page 92 does not exist

PAGE 100

Bob unanue Goya Foods of Fla 1 900 NW 92nd Ave Miami FL 33172 Joh n Kissel catholic CeMeteries 11411 ,.. 25st Miami F L 33172 Gustafo Londono ACIF 6800 NW 72 st Miui FL 33166 olga R ocheran eve r g l ades Hotel Pam Ameri c a n Hospital 244 Biscayne Blvd MiaMi FL 33132 Lori K u jawa Thomas Muraro Razook & Hart PA one SE Thir d Ave 17th F l oor Mia.i FL 33131 Allan White Opus south 8350 ooral Boulevard MiaMi FL 33166 Jerry Par ker OASA 1444 Biscayne Blvd Suite 240 Miaati FL 33132 93

PAGE 101

Commuter Survey

PAGE 102

08-8669 SOFRESINTERSEARCH 410 Horsham Road Horsham. PA 19044 8/3/98 Interview # _____ SOUTH FLORIDA RIDESHARE STUDY WAVE Ill (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 for Urban Transportation Research at the University of South Florida and the Rorida Department of Transportation. This evening/today we are conducting a survey on commuting and traffic issues in the Broward/Miami-Dad e/Palm Beach county area. We are not attempting to sell you anything, we are only interested in your opinions 1a. How many persons, 18 years or older in your household, worl< outside the home, 35 or more hours per week? ------# persons who work full time IF 0 THANK RESPONDENT AND TERMINATE IF MORE THAN 1 PERSON WORKS FULL-TIME OUTSIDE THE HOUSEHOLD, ASK 0.18. OTHERWISE SKIP TO 0. 1 C lb. Of the persons working full time, I need to speak with the person who had the most recent birthday_ Would that person be you? RECORD GENDER: 1c. Yes No Male Female 1 2 1 2 CONTINUE ASK FOR THAT PERSON AND REPEAT INTRO (QUOTA 50%) (QUOTA 50%) 2. Do you currently hold more than one job? Yes 1 No 2 (Please answer the questions in this survey with respect to your primary job.) 3. How many days do you usually travel to work in a week? _ #days IF "0" THIS IS NOT A PERSON WORKING OUTSIDE OF THE HOME THEN SKIP TO 0.17

PAGE 103

SOFRES INTERSEARCH 08-8669 4a. Please tell me the number of days in a typical week that you drive 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. ____ #days 4b. When you drive to work, do you ever carpool, that is go to work with someone else in the ca r or not? ("CARPOOLING" IS DRIVING WITH SOMEONE ELSE TO THE WORKSITE. TAKING A CHILD TO SCHOOL/DA YCARE DOES NOT COUNT AS CARPOOLING FOR THIS QUESTION ) Yes No 1 2 (CONTINUE WITH Q.4c) (SKIP TO Q.4e IF APPLICABLE) 4c. Please tell 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/DAYCARE DOES NOT COUNT AS CARPOOLING FOR THIS QUESTION.) ____ #days 4d. (IF Q.4a AND Q .4c ARE >0, VERIFY) "So you drive to work a l one (Q.4a response) days per week and carpool (Q.4c response) days per week?" 4a. response should be, __ i 4c. response should be, _ I IF TOTAL = Q.3, SKIP TO Q.Sa. OTHERWISE, CONTINUE

PAGE 104

SOFRES INTERSEARCH DS-8669 4e. Please tell me the number of days in a typical 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, that is ride to work in a van with 7-14 other people 2 Ride the bus 3 Ride the train to work 4 Ride a bicycle 5 Walk or jog 7 Do something else specify ___________ WHEN THE DAYS FOR ALL MODES-0.4a, 0.4c & Q.4e 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 Sa. P l ease tell me the number of days in 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.) ____ #days Sb. 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. PICKING A CHILD UP FROM SCHOOL/DAYCARE DOES NOT COUNT AS CARPOOLING FOR THIS QUESTION.) Yes No 1 2 (CONTINUE WITH Q.5c) (SKIP TO Q.Se IF APPLICABLE) 5c. Please tell me the number of days in a typical week that you carpool to get home from work? ("CARPOOLING" IS DRIVING WITH SOMEONE ELSE TO THE WORKSITE OR HOME. PICKING A CHILD UP FROM SCHOOL/OAYCARE DOES NOT COUNT AS CARPOOLING FOR THIS QUESTION.) ____ #,days

PAGE 105

SOFRES INTERSEARCH DS-8669 5d. !IF Q.5a AND Q.5c ARE >0, VERIFY) "So you drive home alone (Q.5a response) days per week and carpool (Q.5c response) days per week?" 5a. response should be, _ _ 5c. response should be, ___ l J IF TOTAL = Q.3, SKIP TO Q.6. OTHERWISE, CONTINUE 5e. Please tell me the number of days in a typical week that 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, that is go home from work in a van with 7-14 other people _ 2. Bide the bus 3. Ride the train 4. Ride a bicycle 5. Walk or jog 6 Do something else specify-------------WHEN THE DAYS FOR ALL MODES.Q.5a, Q .5c & Q.5e 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 0.6 I ASK Q.6-Q.8 ONLY IF Q .4c > 0 OR Q.5c > 0 6. How long have you been in your current carpool? _Days Weeks Months Years 7. Including yourself, how many people are usually in the car when you carpool? (PROBE IF "DON'T KNOW") 8. With whom do you regularly carpoo l ? (MULTIPLE RESPONSES) Household members 01 Non-household relatives 02 Co-workers 03 Neighbors 04 People from a carpoollvanpool matchlist 05 Other Specify 97

PAGE 106

SOFRES INTI:RSEARCH ASK 0.9-0.11 ONLY IF 0.4e 1 > 0 OR 0.5e1 >0 9. How long have you been in your cu rrent vanpool? _Days Weeks Months 08 Years 10. Including yourself, how many people are usually in the van when you vanpool? (PROBE IF "DON'T KNOW") 11. With whom do you regularly vanpool? (MULTIPLE RESPONSES) Household members 01 Non household relatives 02 Co workers 03 Neighbors 04 People from a carpool/vanpool matchlist 05 Other {Specify ) 97 I ASK 0.12 ONLY IF 0.4e2>0 OR 0.5e2>0 I 12. In the past 12 months have you usually been taking the bus to or from work at least twi ce per week, or not? Yes No Don't know Refused 1 2 8 9 I ASK 0.13 ONLY IF 0.4e3>0 OR 0.5e3>0 13. In the pas t 1 2 months have you usually been taking the train to or from work at l east twice per week, or not? Yes No Don't know Refused 1 2 8 9

PAGE 107

SOFRES !NTERSEARCH I ASK Q .1 4 ONLY IF Q .4e4>0 OR Q 5e4 > 0 14. In t he past 12 months have you usually been riding your bike to or f rom work at least twice per w eek or not? Yes No Don t know Refused 1 2 8 9 I ASK 0 .15 ONLY IF Q.4e5>0 OR Q 5e5>0 1 5. In the past 12 months have you us u ally been walk in g or jogging to or from work at least twi ce per week or not? Yes No Don' t know Refused 1 2 8 9 ASK Q .16 ONLY IF Q .4c, Q 4e1, Q 4 e2, Q .4e3, Q.4e4 and Q .4e5 = 0 16a. On your way to or from work, do you ever stop to run errands, such as shopping, ban k i ng or dropping somebody off, or do you always drive straight to and from work? Stop Straight t o worl
PAGE 108

SOFRES INTERSEARCH 08 16c. And what do you stop to do? (probe: what else?) record up to 3 mentions Shop 1 Banking 2 Get Gas 3 Drop off kids at school 4 Drop off carpooler/friend 5 Pick up carpooler/friend 6 Post Office 7 Doctor/dentist 8 Visit friends/family 9 Eat/get food 1 0 Go to dry cleaners 11 Exercise 12 Other (Specify) 1 3 1 6d. Since the last time either you moved or your job changed locations, have you tried carpooling, vanpooling, riding the bus, riding the train, or walking to or from work at least once, or not? Yes No Don't know Refused 1 2 8 9 17a instead of traveling to your usual worksite, do you ever telecommute, that is, work all day from your home on a regularly scheduled workday, or not? Yes No Don't know Refused 1 2 8 9 Skip to q. 1 Sa Skip to q. 18a IF Q.3 = 0 and Q.17a = 1 THEN CONTINUE IF Q.3 = 0 and Q.17a = 2 THEN TERMINATE IF Q.3 > 0 AND Q.17a = 2 THEN SKIP TO Q.18a 17b. How many days per week do you usually telecommute? __ days 17c. And have you been telecommuting regularly for the past year, or not? Yes No 1 2

PAGE 109

Don't know Refused 8 9 08-8669 1 Td. And about how far would your commute to your office be, one-way i n miles if you were working at your company's worksite rather than telecommuting? 17e. And about how much time would your commute take? __ 17f. what time do you usually start work? ___ am/pm 17g and What time do you finish working? ___ amlpm skip to q20 18a. And about how far is your commute, one-way, in miles? 18b. And about how much time does it take you to commute to work? 18c What time do you usually leave home to go to work? ___ am/pm 18d. and what time do you usually leave work to go home? ___ amlpm

PAGE 110

SOFRESnfrERSEARCH 08-8669 20. Have you heard, seen or read any advertis i ng or other messages related to carpooling or vanpooling in the past 6 months, or not? Yes 1 CONTINUE No 2 SKIP TO 0.26 Don't know 8 SKIP TO 0.26 Refused 9 SKIP TO 0.26 21. Where did you see o r hear this advertising? (DO NOT READ LIST) ( MULT IPLE RESPONSE) a. Newspaper 01 b Radio 02 c. Television 03 d. At work 04 e In the mall 05 f. On billboards 06 g On road signs 07 h. Received a phone call 08 i. At bus stop/on a bench 09 j. On the side of buses/vans 10 k. Friends/co-workers/relatives 11 I. Commuter Fair/Special event/ transportation day 12 m. Employer 13 n. Other (SPECIFY: ) 97 o. Dk/Ref 99

PAGE 111

SOFRES INTERSEARCH 08-8669 22. What message do you recall from this advertising? (DO NOT READ LIST) None 01 That one should rideshare why? 02 That you can call a number for car/vanpool information/the RIDE phone number 03 Ridesharing saves time 04 Ridesharing is less stressful 05 Ridesharing is more enjoyable 06 Ridesharing saves money 07 Driving alone is a hassle 08 Park and Ride related 09 Ridesharing is good for the environment 1 0 Other specify 97 23. Did you try carpooling or vanpooling after seeing or hearing advertising about it, or not? Yes No Don't know Refused 1 2 8 9 SKIP TO 0.26 CONTINUE CONTINUE CONTINUE 24. Did you consider trying carpooling or vanpooling after seeing or hearing advertising about it, or not? Yes No Don't know Refused 1 2 8 9 SKIP TO 0.26 CONTINUE CONTINUE CONTINUE 25. Did you consider contacting any organizations to get more information about carpooling or vanpoolin g after seeing or hearing the advertising, or not? Yes No Don't know Refused 1 2 8 9

PAGE 112

SOFRES ll'iTERSEARCH 088669 26. Have you heard of any organizations that promote carpooling or vanpooling or make it easier for commuters to carpool or vanpool, or not? Yes No Don't know Refused 1 2 8 9 CONTINUE SKIP TO 0.28 SKIP TO 0.28 SKIP TO 0.28 27 Which organizations have you heard of? (DO NOT READ LIST) South Florida Commuter Services or Commuter Services Or Gold Coast Commuter Services 1-800-234-Ride 525-Ride MOTA (Metro-Dade Transit Authority) BCT (Broward County Transit) Palmtran (Palm Beach Transit) The Electric Wave or Miami Beach shuttle TMAX Expresso Shuttle Tri rail Tri-rail Shuttle Civic Center TMO Miami Beach TMA South Florida Education Center TMA Downtown Fort Laud erdale TMA Downtown Miami TMA Free T -Shirt people "Hang up your Keys" People Airport West TMI VPSI Miami-Dade County Vanpool Program Transportation Management Organizations (unspecified) South Florida Vanpool program Other specify _________________ _ _ IF CODE 01 MENTIONED IN 0.27 THEN SKIP 0 .28 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 97 28. Have you ever heard of South Florida Commuter Services, or not? (Probe: Have you ever heard of Gold Coast Commuter services, or not?) Yes 1 No 2 Don't know 8 Refused 9

PAGE 113

SOFRES INTERSEARCH 08-8669 I IF CODE 02 OR CODE 03 MENTIONED IN 0.27 THEN SKIP 0.29 I 29. Have you ever heard of any commuter information numbers such as '1-800-234Ride'. or not? Yes No Don t know Refused 1 2 8 9 IF YES TO EITHER 0.28 OR 0.29 OR CODE 1,2, OR 3 MENTIONED IN 0.27 THEN GO TO 0.30, OTHERWISE SKIP TO Q.D1 30. Have you ever contacted South Florida Commuter Services, the 1-800-234Ride number or some other group for carpool or vanpool information or not? Yes No Don't know Refused 31. Who did you contact? 1 2 8 9 South Florida or Gold Coast Commuter Services 1-800-234-RIDE CONTINUE SKIP TO 0.01 SKIP TO 0.01 SKIP TO Q.D1 Other specify _______________ __ 01 02 97 ***new questions*** 32. When you are commuting or making other car trips in the Miami/Fort Lauderdale area, do you ever use the carpool lanes or HOV lanes on 1-95, or not? Yes 1 (Skip to 34) no 2 Don't Know/refused 99 (skip to 34)

PAGE 114

SOFIWS INTERSEARCH 33. Do you have the opportunity to use the carpool lanes and just choose not to use them, or do you not have t he opportunity to use them? (lntetviewer note : cerpoollanes require 2 or more people in the car at certain times of day) Have t he opportunity Don t know / refused 1 99 Don t have opportunity 2 34. And th i nking about carpool l anes or HOV lanes on the freeways in general do yo u believe that people who use carpool lanes during rush hour get to where they're going 1 Twice as fast or more than people traveling in non-carpool lanes 2. Significantly faster but not twice as fast 3 At about the same time 4 Or l ess qui ckly 99. Don t Know / refused Note: q19 series moved to here 35a. Park and ride lots are places where you can park your car and take an ex press bus or train to downtown Miami or Fort Lauderd a le, or meet with other carpoolers or vanpoolers to ride to work. Are you aware of any park and ride lots that are within 5 mil es of your home or no t? Yes No Don t know Refused 1 2 8 9 35b. Are you aware of any park and ride lots that a r e between your hom e and your worksite, or not ? Yes No Don t know Refused If q35a=1 or 35b=1 continue; else skip to q35d. 35c. How often do you use park and ride lots? once a week or m ore 1--3 times per mon th 1 2 8 9 1 2

PAGE 115

SOFRESnfiERSEARCH 1-10 t i mes per yea r ; Less than once per year Don't use them at all 3 4 5 IF ANSWER TO Q.35c IS 1-4 THEN SKIP TO 01 D8-S6
PAGE 116

SOFRES INTERSEARCH DS-8669 D1. Now I just have a few questions remaining that are for statist i cal and classification purposes only. Your answers will remain completely anonymous and confidential. What is your marital status? Are you .. (Do NOT READ) Single Married Divorced/Separated Widowed Refused 1 2 3 4 9 D2. Do you have any children under the age of 16 i n your household? NO 0.04 Yes No Refused 1 2 9 D4. How many working vehicles do yo u have in your house hold? exact #) 05. What is your race? Are you ... White 1 A frican American 2 Hispanic 3 Asian 4 American I ndian 5 Other Specify: 0 (DO NoT READ) Refused 9 06. P l ease stop me when I read the category that contains your age? (Do NOT READ) 18 24 years old 25.34 35.44 45.54 55. 64 65 or older Refused 1 2 3 4 5 6 9

PAGE 117

SOFRES INTERSEARCH 0 8866 9 07. Please stop me when I read the range that contains your household's total income, i n c l udi n g yourself and a n yo ne else in yo u r h ouse h old that worked for 1998? (Do Nor READ) Under $10,000 $10,000$19,999 $20,000$29,999 $30,000$39,999 $40,000$49,999 $50,000$59,999 $60,000$69,999 $70,000 o r more Refused T hank you v ery m u c h. That conc l udes our survey. Verify : Name:. __________________________ __ P hone Number:. ____________ ________ __ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

PAGE 118

Databa se Member S urvey

PAGE 119

SOFRESINTERSEARCH 410 Horsham Road Horsham, PA 19044 #08-8669 8/3/98 Commuter Services Evaluation Rideshare Database Survey (List) WAVE IV new** Good morning/afternoon/evening My name is and I am calling on behalf of the University of South Florida's Center for Urban Transportation Research. Th i s evening/today we are conducting a survey for the Florida Department of Transportation on commuting and traffic issues in the Broward/Miami-Dade/Palm Beach county area. We are not attempting to sell you anything, we are only interested in your opin ion s **new (Ask to speak to person named on sample sheet-repeat intro if necessary) A. Are you currently working outside the home, or are you attending schoo l ? (If ONLY attending school, replace word work with word school in questions 1, 14, 14a, 15, 17, 19,20,21,24,26,26a,32,34,34a,40,42,42a,44, 45,46,47,48,49,49a,51,52, 53, 54) 1. How many days per week do you commute to work? --------IF 0 TERMINATE 2. And about how far is your commute, one-way, in miles? 2a. How many minutes does your commute usually take? 2b. What time do you usually lea ve home to go to work? __ amipm 2c. And what time do you usually leave work to go home? __ amipm 3. Are you aware of any organizations that promote carpooling or vanpooling or make it easier for commuters to carpool or vanpool, or not? Yes No Don't Know/Refused 1 2 9 SKIP TO Q.5 SKIP TO Q.5

PAGE 120

SOFRESINTERSEARCH -2-#D8-86E I 4 Which organizations have you heard of? (probe: a n y o thers? ) (ALL THAT APPLY) (DO NOT READ LIST) South Florida Commuter Servicu or Commuter StNV/ces Gold Coast Commut81' StNVicu 1 800-234-Ride 525 R i de MDT A (Metro-Dade Transit Authority) BCT (Broward County Transit) Palmtran (Palm Bea ch Transit) The Electric Wave or M i am i Beach shuttle TMAX Expresso Shuttle T ri-rail Tri-rall Shuttle C i vic Center TMO Miami Beach TMA South Florida Education Center TMA Downtown Fort Lauderdale TMA Downtown Miami TMA Free T -Shirt people "Hang up your Keys People Airport West TMI VPSI Miami-Dade County Vanpool Program Tr ansportatio n Management Organizations (unspecified) South Florida Vanpool program DO NOT ASK Q.5 IF Q 4-a MENTIONED 01 23 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 24 97 5 Have you ever heard of Commuter Services? (If no, probe: "how about South Florida Commuter Services?" if no again probe "how about Gold Coast Commuter Services?") Commuter Services 1 South Florida Commuter Services 2 Gold Coast Commuter Services 3 Neither 4 Don't Know / Refused 9 J

PAGE 121

SOFRESINTERSEARCH 3 -#08-8669 DO NOT ASK Q .6 I F Q 4b or Q .4-c MENTIONED 6 Have you ever hea r d of the commute r information numbers ''1-800-234-RIDE", or not? Yes 1 No 2 Don't Know/Refused 9 IF SAMPLE=2 SKIP T O Q. 9 ASK Q.7 IF Q.5=1 OR Q.4-a MENTIONED 7. How did you hear about Commuter Services? (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY) a Newspape r 01 b. Radio 02 c. Television 03 d. At work 04 e. I n the mail 05 f. O n billboards 06 g. On road signs 07 h Received a phone call 08 i At bus stop/on a bench 09 j. On the side of buses/vans 10 k. Friends/co-workers/relatives 11 I. Comm u ter Falr/SCecial event/ transporta ion day 12 m. Employe r 13 n. Telephone book/Yellow Pages 14 o. Other (SPECIFY: )97 p. Dk/Ref 99

PAGE 122

SOFRESINTERSEARCH -4-#D8-86f .. ASK Q, 8 IF Q.6a 1 OR Q.4b MENTIONED 8. How did you hear about the commuter information number? a. b c. d. e. f. g. h. i. j. k. I. m. n. o. p. Newspaper Radio Television At work In the mall On billboards On road signs Received a phone call At bus stop/on a bench On the side of buseslvans Friends/co-workers/ r e l atives Commuter Fair/SCecial event/ transporta ion day Employer Telephone book/Yellow Pages Other (SPECIFY: Dk/Ref 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 )97 99 9. Have you ever contacted Commuter Services, 1-800-234 -RIDE or any other local group fo, carpool or vanpool infonnation, or not? Yes No Don t Know/Refused 1 2 9 SKIP TO Q.11 SKIP TOQ . 11 1

PAGE 123

SOFRESINTERSEARCH -5-10 Whom d i d you contact? (ALL THAT APPLY. DO NOT READ) South Florids Commutsr Services o r Commutsr Gold Cosst Commutsr Servic& 1-800-234-Ride 525-Ride MOTA (Metro-Dade Transit Authority ) BCT (Broward County Transit) Palmt ran (Palm Beach Transit) The E lec tric Wave or Miami Beach shuttle T MAX Expresso Shuttle Tri-rail Triofail Shuttle Civic C e nter TM 0 Miam i Beach TMA South F lorida Education Center TMA Downtown F ort laude rda l e TMA Downtown M iami TMA Free T .Shirt people Hang up your Keys People A irpo rt West TMI VPSI M iami-Dade County Vanpool Program Transportation Manageme n t O r gan i zations (unspecified) South Florlds Vanpool Program Other specify ___________________ 01 23 02 03 04 05 0 6 07 08 09 1 0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 24 97 #08-8669 11. Have you ever signed up or had your name registered with Commuter Services or the Hang up your keys" people or some other South Florida carpool/vanpool s ervice or not? Y es No Don't Know / Refused 1 2 9 } SKIP TO Q.14

PAGE 124

SOFRESINTERSEARCH -6-#D8-86E 12. Is your name still reg i s t e red with that service, or is it no longer registered? Yes. still registered 1 SKIP TO Q.14 No, not registered 2 Don't Know/refused 9 SKIP TO Q .14 13. Why did you decide to remove your name from that service? Any other reasons? (PROBE DO NOT READ) (ALL THAT APPLY) NO Q.13a Didn't get any use out of it Already got started in a carpool/vanpool D i d n't like carpoolingiVanpooling 1 2 3 D i dn't provid e any names for carpooling / van pooling 4 Onl y needed for emergenc ies Moved Changed jobs O ther reasons 5 6 7 8 IF Q.91S YES OR Q .11 IS YES THEN CONTINUE. IF Q.9 IS NOT YES AND Q.11 IS NOT YES, THEN TERMINATE For the next few questi ons I'm going to ask you abo u t how you commuted before you r ecei ved i nformation from the agency. IF SAMPLE=2 SKIP TO Q 24x Q.9 IS YES OR Q .11 IS YES, THEN CONTINUE. IF Q.9 IS NOT YES AND Q 111S NOT YES THEN TERMINATE 14. Before yo u received the information from the agency, were you driving to work alone every day you worked, or not? Yes No Don' t Know/Refused 1 2 9 CONTINUE SKIP TO Q .15 ]

PAGE 125

SOFRESINTERSEARCH -7#08-8669 14a. When you drove to work, did you ever carpool that is, go to work with someone else in the car? Yes No 1 2 CONTINUE WITH Q.15 GO TO Q.22 15. How many days per week were you carpoo li ng to work? ------IF 0, SKIP TO Q.17 16. About how many people were usually in your carpool, including the driver? 17. How many days per week were you vanpooling to work, that is, riding in a van with 7 to -14 other people? ------IF 0, SKIP TO Q.19 18. About how many people were usually in your vanpool. including the driver? 19. How many days per week were you riding the bus to work? 20. How many days per week were you getting to work i n some other way? ------IF 0, SKIP TO Q.22 21. And how were you getting to work? (SPECIFY: -------)

PAGE 126

SOFRES I NTERSEARCH -8#08-861 I 22. Specifically, what types of assistance or information did the agency provide you with? (PROBE DO NOT READ) (ALL THAT APPLY) List of potential carpoolers Bus schedules & routes 01 02 List of potential vanpoo l ers 03 I nformation about leasing vans for vanpools 04 L etter stat ing that no carpool/vanpoo l matches were found 05 Information about Park & Ride lots 06 I nformation about shuttle services 07 I nformation about Emergency Ride Home program 08 Tips on what to do next to start carpooling/vanpooling 09 I nformation about the commuter club 10 Other (SPECIFY:--------) Information about Tri-Rail Don't know/Refused 97 12 99 ASK Q.23a-b ONLY FOR THOSE NOT ALREADY MENTIONED IN Q.22 or not? 23. Did they provide you with ______ _____ Don't Yes No Know Refuseu b. lnfonnat lon about the Emergency Ride Home program c. A list of potential carpool or vanpool PARTNERS; IF Q.23c=2, ASK Q.23d 1 2 8 1 2 8 23d. Did they send a letter stating that no carpool or vanpool matches were found? Yes 1 No 2 IF Q.23c=1 or Q.22=1 Q.22=3, ASK Q.23e 9 9 J J J

PAGE 127

SOFRESINTERSEARCH .g. #08 23e. Thinking about the list of potentia l carpoolers or vanpoolers you were provided with, did you try to contact anybody on the list? Yes 1 No 2 IF Q 23e=1 ASK Q 23f 23f And did you successfully join a carpool or vanpool with someone from this list? Yes 1 skip to q. 25 No 2 24x. For the next few questions, I'm going to ask you about how you commuted since you received I nformation from or contacted the agency. Since you received the information, did you drive to work alone every day you work, or not? Yes No Don't Know/Refused 1 2 9 CONTINUE SKIP TO Q.24

PAGE 128

SOFRESINT ER SEARCH 10 #08-86! I 2 4 y When you drove t o w o rl\ did yo u e v e r carpool tha t i s, go to worl\ with someone else in the car? Yes No 1 2 S KIP TO Q.24a I NSTRUCTION GOTOQ.32 24. D id you ever carpool to or from worl\ after you rece ived the informatio n, or not? Yes N o 1 2 Don t Know/Refused 9 SK I P TO Q.32 ASK Q.24a ONLY IF ( EITHER Q.23c3 IS NOT YES OR Q.23f IS NO ) AND ( Q .24 IS YES OR Q24Y I S YES) 24a. And how d id you start this carpool? 25. Are y o u s t ill carpooling? Yes No Don't Know/Refused 1 2 9 SKI P T O Q. 2 9 26. About how many d ays per week a r e you carpooling both to and from worl\ ? ASK Q .26A ONLY I F Q .26 < Q1 26 a And how many days do you carpool only one-way e i ther to or from worl\ ? 27 About how many p eop l e are usually in your carpool, incl uding the drive r? 28. About how long have you been carpooling ? ___ Days ___ Weeks ___ Months ___ Years J

PAGE 129

SOFRESINTERSEARCH 11 #08 SKIP TO Q.32 29. About how long were you in your carpool? ___ Days ___ Weeks ___ M.onths ___ Years 30. How many days per week were you carpooling? 31. About how many people were usually in your carpool, including the driver? 32 Did you ever vanpool to or from work, that i s, ride in a van w ith 7 to 14 other people, after you received the information, or not? Yes No 1 2 Don't Know/Refused 9 33. Are you still vanpooling? Yes No 1 2 Don't Know/Refused 9 SKIPTOQ. 40 SKIP TO Q .3 7 34. About how many days per week are you van pooling both to and from work? ASK Q.34A ONLY IF Q.34 < Q.1 34a. And how many days per week are you vanpooling only one-way, e ither to or from work? 35. About how many people are usually in your vanpool, including the driver? 36. About how long have you been vanpooling? ___ Days ___ Weeks ___ Months ___ Years SKIP TO Q.40

PAGE 130

SOFRESINTERSEARCH -12#D8-86E l 37. About how long were you i n your v a n poo l ? ___ Days ___ weeks ___ Months ___ Years 38. How many days per week were you vanpoollng? 39. About how many people were usually in your vanpoo l including the driver? 40 Did you ever ride the bus or train to or from work after you received the information, or not? Yes No 1 2 Don t Know/Refused 9 40a. Woul d that be the bus or the train? Bus Train 41. Are you still riding the (bus/ tra i n)? Yes N o 1 2 1 2 Don't Know/Refused 9 SKIPTOQ.46 SKIPTOQ. 44 42. About how many days per week are you riding the (bus/train) both t o and from work? ASK Q.42A ONLY IF Q 42 < Q 1 42a And how many days per week a re you riding the (bus/tra i n) only one-way, either to or from work ? 43. About how long have you been riding the (bus/train)? ___ D ays __ Weeks ___ Months ___ Years J

PAGE 131

SOFRESINTERSEARCH 13SKIP TO Q.46 44. About how long were you riding the (bus/train) to work? ___ Days. ___ Weeks ___ Months ___ Years 45. About how many days per week were you riding the {bus/train) to work? 46 I s there any other way you used to get to work since you received the information? Yes No 1 2 Don t Know /Refused 9 GO TO Q.53 47. How were you getting to work? (SPEC I FY: -------) 48. And are you still getting to work by (INSERT ANSWER TO Q.47)? Yes No Don't Know/Refused 1 2 g GO TO Q.51 #08-8669 49. About how many days per week are you (INSERT ANSWER TO Q.47) both to and from work? ASK Q.49A ONLY IF Q.49 < Q.1 49a. And how many days per week are you (INSERT ANSWER TO Q.47) only one-way, either to or from work? ____ (ENTER 0 IF QUESTION IS SKIPPED) 50. About how long have you been (INSERT ANSWER TO Q.47)? ___ Days ___ Weeks ___ Months ___ Years SKIPTOQ.53 51. About how long were you getting to work by (INSERT ANSWER TO Q.47)? ___ Days ___ Weeks ___ Months ___ Years

PAGE 132

SOFRESINTERSEARCH -14-#D8-86f l 52. About how many days per week were you getting to work by (INSERT ANSWER TO Q.47)' ASK Q.53 IF Q.24, Q.32, Q.40 OR Q.46=1 ; OTHERWISE SKIP TO Q.55 SKIP Q53A IF SAMPLE=2 53a. So, before you received information from the agency, you: (If q14=1) drove alone to work, without anyone else in the car, every day (lfq14 ne 1): (lfq15>0) carpooled (q15) days per week, (if q17>0) vanpooled (q17) days per week (if q19>0) rode the bus or train (q19) days per week (if q20>0) (q21) (q20) days per week and after you received information from the agency, you: (If q24=2, q32=2, q40=2, q46=2 drove alone to work without anyone else in the car, every day (if q24=1 and q26>0) carpooled to and from work (q26) days per week. (if q26a>O) carpooled one-way (q26a) days per week (if q24=1 and q30>0) carpooled (q30) days per week for (q29) (if q32=1 and q34>0) vanpooled to and from work (q34) days per week, (if q34a>O) vanpooled one-way (q34a) days per week (if q24=1 and q38>0) vanpooled (q38) days per week for (q37) (if q40=1 and q42>0) rode the b us (train) to and from work (q42) days per week, (if q42a>O) rode the bus (train) one-way (q42a) days per week (if q40=1 and q45>0) rode the bus(traln) (q45) days per week for (q44) (if q46=1 and q49>0) (q47) to and from work (q49) days per week, (If q49a>O) (q47) one-way (q49a) days per week (if q46=1 and q52>0) (q47) (q52) days per week for (q51) Is that correct? Yes No 1 2 Continue Insert corrections and continue 53. To what extent did information or assistance from Commuter Services influence your choice of how you commute to or from work? Did it ... Have a great deal of influence 4 A moderate influence 3 A small influence, or 2 No influence at all 1 (DO NOT READ) Don't Know/Refused 9 J

PAGE 133

SOFRESINTERSEARCH 15-#08-8669 54. To what extent did the emergency ride home program influence your choice of how you commute to or from work? Did it... (DO NOT READ) Have a great deal of influence 4 A moderate influence 3 A small influence or 2 No influence at all 1 Don't understand/know about the 8 emergency ride home program (DO NOT READ) Don't Know/Refused IF SAMPLE=2 SKIP TO Q. 55a 9 55. And after this group provided you with the information, did anyone from that group follow up with you by Jetter or phone call to see i f you had any further questions or problems? Yes 1 No 2 Don't know 8 Refused 9 L

PAGE 134

SOFRE S INTERSEARCH 16#08-86 3 56. For the next few questions please respond by using a scale of 1 to 10 where 1 is the lowe t or wors t r a t ing and 10 is the highest o r best rating Using this scale how would you rate t h age nc y on .... (ROTAT E LI S T ) Wors t B est a The accuracy of t h e i nfonnation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 t hey provided b. The usefulnes s o f the informa t io n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 t h ey prov i d e d c. The promptness with which they 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 provided t he infonnation d. Their courtesy and p rofe ssiona l 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 attitude e. Their handl i ng o f any qu e stions or 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 prob l ems you h ad f The qua l ity and usefulness of the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 list o f po t ent i al carpoole r s or vanpoo l ers that th e y sent you. A S K F ONLY IF Q. 2 2-0 1 O R Q 2 2-03 MENTIONED OR Q .23 C= 1 57. And still us ing this s cale, overall h ow satisfied are you with this agency's perf o rmance? Not at all Satis fi ed Very S atisfie d 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 D .. 9r' 9A 99 99 99 J 5 8 And i f a friend or relative were to ask you abou t t his carpoollvanp o ol age n cy and whet her they should u s e t heir s ervic e s, wou l d you . .. Definitely recomm en d u si n g this agency 5 Probably recommend using this age n cy 4 M aybe/maybe not recommend them 3 Probably no t recomme n d them 2 or definitely not recommend th e m 1 10 N O T READ ) Don't know/refused 9

PAGE 135

SOFRESINTERSEARCH #D8-8669 Now I just have a few questions remaining that are for statistical and classification purposes only. Your answer will remain completely anonymous and confidential. d1. What is your marital status? Single 1 Married 2 Divorced/Separated 3 Widowed 4 :> NOT R E AD ) Refused 9 d2. Do you have any children under the age of 6 in your household? Yes 1 No 2 Refused 9 d3. Do you have any ch il dren aged 6-16 in your household? Yes 1 N o 2 Refused 9 d 4 What is the highes t lev e l of education you have completed ? ( DO NOT R EAD) Did not complet e high school 1 High school graduate 2 Trade/technical school 3 Attended college/associate degree 4 College graduate 5 Post Graduate degree 6 Refused 9

PAGE 136

SOFRESINTERSEARCH -18#08-861 l d5. What is your ethnicity? (if confused, as k r ace") White 1 African-American 2 Hispan i c 3 Asian 4 American Indian 5 Othe r specify 6 Refused 9 d 6. P l ease stop me when I read the ca t ego ry that contains your age? 18-24 years old 1 25 34 2 35-44 3 45-54 4 55-64 5 65 or older 6 l NO T READ ) Refused 9 d7. P l ease stop m e wh e n I read the range that contains your household's t o tal income, including yourself and anyone else in your househo ld that worked, f o r 1999? Un der $10,000 1 $ 10,000 -$ 1 9,999 2 $20,000$29,999 3 $30 ,000$39,999 4 $40,000$49 999 5 $50,000$59,999 6 $60,000 $69,999 7 $70,000 or more 8 0 N O T REA D) Refused 9 Thank you very much T h a t concludes our survey. For verification purposes etc. END: Thank you very much for your cooperation in thi s survey. G o od n ight.

PAGE 137

Employer Survey

PAGE 138

BROWARDIMIAMI DADEIPALM BEACH COUNTY EMPLOYER TRANSPORTATION SURVEY I Please fill out and return this survey by August 24, 2000. 1. Which of the following categories best describes your organization? (check ONE) Agriculture, Fores try, Fishing 0 (11 Mining 0C') Construction Om Manufacturing Om Transportation, Publi c Utilities 0 (3) Wholesale OcOJ F inance/Insurance/Rea l Esta te Cl Retail Trade 0(9) Services (business, personal) 0 (5) Publ i c Admin 0 (10\ 2. Not incl uding the building or corporate/industrial park where your organizat ion is located how many other employers are loca ted within 2 miles? (check ONE) None 0(1) 1-5 O m 6ormore 3. How many employees do you have at this location? (Check ONE) Less than 5 20-49 0 ( 1 ) 5 o,., 50-99 500 or more 0 (2) 1(}-19 0 ($) 100-499 0(7) 0 "' Dt>J o .. 4. How many parking places are available for your employees within 1/4 mile of your worksrte? (Check ONE) Less than 5 20-49 0 (1) 5-9 o ... 50-99 500ormore 0 (2) 10-19 o.., 100-499 0 (7) o,, 1:1(6) 5. Using a scale of 1 to 10, in your opin i on, how much of a problem is traffic congestion for your employees in getting to and from work? (c i rcle one number) Not a problem at a ll 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 A major problem 9 10 6. And compared to this time last year, is traffic congestion in your worksite: (check one) Much worse 0 c11 Slightly worse 0 "' About the same 0 (3) Slightly better 0 c> Much better 0 ''' 7. What percentage of your organization's employees are: currently eligible for: (Put 0 if you do not offer the program ) Flextime % Compressed work weeks (4 days/40 hours, 9/80, etc.) Telecommuting % % currently participating in: (Put 0 if you if you don't offer the program or no one participates) % % % 8. Please make a check mark by the statement which best describes your knowledge of South Florida Commuter Services: (Check ONE) a. You have heard of South Florida Commuter Services but don't know what they do 0 b. You are familiar with some of South Florida Commuter Services' activities 0 c. You have a working know ledge of South F lo rida Commuter Services' programs 0 d. You have never heard of South Florida Commuter Services 0 CONTINUE ON OTHER SIDE

PAGE 139

BROWARDIMIAMI-DADEIPAIM BEACH COUNTY EMPLOYER TRANSPORTA110NSURVEY 2 9. Please make a check mark by any of the followi ng commu te r programs of which you are aware: (Check ALL THAT APPLY) Emergency Ride Home 01,, Employer Assistance Program 0 <> CarpooWanpool Matching 0 c>> Employer Newsletter (Transmissions)O <> 1-800 234-RIDE Commuter Assistance Number 0 131 10. Please make a check mark by each of the following statements that correctly describes your organization's interaction with South Florida Commuter Services: (Cheek all that apply) a. Your organization has been contacted by South Florida Commute r Services 0 b. South Florida Commuter Services has made a presentation to your organization 0 c. South Florida Commuter Services' activnies have had a significant impact in meeting your organization's employee transportation needs 0 d. Your organization will probably conlact South Florida Commuter Services in the near future 0 e Your organization might contact South Florida Commuter Services in the near future 0 11. If you have been contacted by or received information from Commuter Services, please CIRCLE THE NUMBER that best reflects your opinion of the usefulness of the information they provide. Not at all Useful 123456 Extremely Useful 7 8 9 10 Have not received info from South Florida Commuter Services 0 and please CIRCLE THE NUMBER that besl reflects your opinion of the effectiveness of their activities in providing your employees with useable and reasonable transportation options :. Not at all Extremely Not familiar with Effective Effective South Florida Commuter Services 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 II i II II II II This survey is completely anonymous and confidential. However, if you would like to receive additional about commute alternative programs or about the results of this survey, please provide the infonnation listed below: Organization: Contact Name: ------II Address: Would like to receive: (check all that apply) II Information about Commute Alternative programs 0 Results of the survey 0 THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME IN FILLING OUT THIS SURVEY. THE RESULTS WILL BE USED II TO REDUCE TRAFFIC AND PARKING PROBLEMS AND IMPROVE AIR QUALITY IN THE BROWARD/MIAMI-DADEIPALM BEACH COUNTY AREA PLEASE RETURN IN THE ENCLOSED ENVELOPE OR FAX TO 813-974-5168 II Should you have any questions regarding this survey, please contact: Francis Cleland at CUTR (813) 974-9803, or David Burr at Commuter Services (800) 234-RIDE II