USF Libraries
USF Digital Collections

Statewide Commuter Assistance Program evaluation report

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Statewide Commuter Assistance Program evaluation report general public survey : results of survey and conclusions
Running title:
Statewide CAP evaluation general public survey
Physical Description:
1 online resource (ii, 37, 15 p.) : charts. ;
Language:
English
Creator:
Cleland, Francis
Florida -- Dept. of Transportation
University of South Florida -- Center for Urban Transportation Research
Publisher:
Center for Urban Transportation Research, University of South Florida
Place of Publication:
Tampa, Fla
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Urban transportation -- Evaluation -- Databases -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Local transit -- Evaluation -- Databases -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Commuting -- Evaluation -- Databases -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Genre:
technical report   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

Funding:
Performed for Florida Dept. of Transportation.
Statement of Responsibility:
Francis Cleland.
General Note:
"December 2001."
General Note:
Final report.

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 - 029120370
oclc - 753040105
usfldc doi - C01-00132
usfldc handle - c1.132
System ID:
SFS0032242:00001


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 2200397Ia 4500
controlfield tag 001 029120370
005 20110916180521.0
006 m o d
007 cr bn|||||||||
008 110916s2001 flud ot 000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a C01-00132
035
(OCoLC)753040105
040
FHM
c FHM
043
n-us-fl
090
HE309.F6 (ONLINE)
1 100
Cleland, Francis.
0 245
Statewide Commuter Assistance Program evaluation report
h [electronic resource] :
b general public survey : results of survey and conclusions /
[Francis Cleland].
7 246
Statewide CAP evaluation :
general public survey
260
Tampa, Fla. :
Center for Urban Transportation Research, University of South Florida,
[2001]
300
1 online resource (ii, 37, 15 p.) :
charts.
513
Final report.
536
Performed for Florida Dept. of Transportation.
500
"December 2001."
5 FTS
588
Description based on print version record.
2 610
South Florida Commuter Services.
650
Urban transportation
z Florida
v Databases
x Evaluation.
Local transit
Florida
Databases
Evaluation.
Commuting
Florida
Databases
Evaluation.
710
Florida.
Dept. of Transportation.
University of South Florida.
Center for Urban Transportation Research.
776
i Print version:
Cleland, Francis.
t Statewide Commuter Assistance Program evaluation report.
d Tampa, Fla. : Center for Urban Transportation Research, University of South Florida, [2001]
w (OCoLC)49040485
773
Center for Urban Transportation Research Publications [USF].
4 856
u http://digital.lib.usf.edu/?c1.132
FTS
y USF ONLINE ACCESS
951
10
SFU01:001963454;
FTS



PAGE 1

STATEWIDE COMMUTER ASSISTANCE PROGRAM EVALUATION REPORT GENERAL PUBLIC SURVEY Final Report Results of Survey and Conclusions Prepared for: Department of 1)-ansportation State of Florida By: Center for Urban Transportation Research College of Engineering University of South Florida December 2001

PAGE 2

Florida Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 (904) 488-7774 Fax (904) 922-4942 Project Manager: Michael Wright Center for Urban Transportation Research University of South Florida 4202 E. Fowler Avenue, CUT 100 Tampa, Florida 33620-5350 (813) 974-3120 Suncom 574-3120 Fax (813) 974-5168 Principal Investigator: Francis Cleland The opinions, findings and conclusions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Stale of Florida Department of Transportat ion. Prepared in cooperation with the .Slate of Florida Department of Transp ortation

PAGE 3

Statewide CAP Evaluation General Public SulVey Table of Coo tents Executive Summary .. .. .. .............. .. ............... .... . . .. .. .. . .......................................... ..... ......... . . l Introduction .......... ..................................... ............................................................. ...... ................... 2 Purpose ............ ....... ............. ......... ............... ....... .......... . . .... . ...... .. ...... ... ...... ...... ..... .................. 2 P . 2 arttctpatton .. ............ ... ............ . .. ........ .. . .... .. ........ ..... .. .. .. .. .... . .. ..... . .. .. .. .. .... .. . ,. .... .. .. .. ....... Methodo logy . . .. . .......... .. . . . .. .. .. . . .. .. . . .. . . .... . .. . . ..... .......... .. . .. .. .. ..... . . .. .. .. .... .. ... .. 3 Commuting Patterns .................. .. .... ............ .. .. .. ............ . . . ........... .. .. .. . ... . ..... ............ .. .. ..... 4 Commute Distances ... .... ..... .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. . .. . .. ..... .. .. .... .. ..... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. . .. .. .. ..... ..... . .. .. 4 Commute Times .... . .. . ..... .. . . . . .. .. . .. . .. . . .. . .. . .. .... . . .. ... . ... .. . . . .. . . . . . .. .. . .. ..... . . ...... 5 Time of Commute Indexed .. .. .. .. .. .. . ... .. .. . . .. .. . .. .. .. .. . . . . ..... .. .. .. .. . . ..... . . .. .. ....... ...... 6 Congestion Index ..... .. .. .... ......... .. .. ................... .. .. .. .......... ..... ....... .. .. .. .......... .. . ..... .. .... . 12 Use of Alternative Modes .... .. .... ....... . .. .. .. ........... ...... . . . . ...... . .. .. .. .. . .... ............... ..... 13 Analysis of Average Trips and M iles Reduced by Mode ...... ...... .... .. .. .. .... .. .. .. .. .. .. ... . .. . 16 Variables Related to Mode Choice .. . .. .... . .. .. .. .. ... ....... .. .... .... . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..... .. .. . .. .. . .. . 24 Marketing Impact and Bebaviorallnfluence . . .. .. . .... . . ....... .. . ......... .. .. .. . .. . . .. .. .. . .. .. .. . 25 Advertising Awareness .. .. . .. .. ... .. .. .. .... . .. .. .. .. ........ ..... .. ..... ..... .. .. .. .. .. . . .. . . .. .. .. .. . . 26 Message Recall ....... ........ .. . . . .. . . .. .. . .. . . ..... .. .. ....... .. ..... . .. .. . ..... .. .. .... . .. .. . .. .. . .. . . . 29 Awareness of Local CAPs and CAP (Ride) Numbers . ........... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..... .. . .... .... 30 Impact of Advertising on Commuters ...... . . ... .. ........... .. ..... . ..................... .. . ... . . . . .. . . .. 31 Public Support for CAPs ...... .. .. .. ..... .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .... .. .. .... ... . ... . ... . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. . ......... 32 Conclusions and Recorrunendations . .. .. ........... . .. .. .. . .. . . .. .. . . . ..... .... .. ..... ................... .. ..... 34 Appendix A: Survey Instrument . .. .. ... ............. . . .. .. . .. .. . . . . . .. .. ..... ... . .. .. . . .. .. ........... ... . .. .. 37 Tables: Total Annual Trip and VMT Statistics Per Corrunuter Table !-South Florida .. .. .. . ........ .. . .... ..... ....... .. ............ . .. . .. .. ....... ... . .. .. .. .. .. .. . ..... .. .. ...... .. 18 T able 2-Tampa/St. Pete/Clearwate r .. .. . . ..... ...... . .. ............ ..... .. ...... ................. .. .. .......... ...... 19 Table 3-Jacksonville ..... ........ . . ......................................... .. .... .. .. .. .. ....... ........ .. .. ...... ... .. ......... 20 Table 4-0rlando .................................................. .. .. ........ ........ .. ........ ........ ........................ . . . 21 Table 5-Miami-Ft. Lauderdale . .. . ........ .. .... .. ....... ...... . .. .. . .. ....... .. .. . . .. .. .. .... ....... .. .. .... . 22 Table 6 -Rest of Florida .. .. .. .. .... .. ..... .. .. . .. ..... .... .. .. .. .. ............. .. ................. .. .. .. .. ... . ..... . .. 23 Table of Figures: Figure I: Commute distances for Florida commuters .. .. .. .. . . .. .... .............. .. ..... ............ . ... .. .... 4 Figure 2: Commute t imes for Florida commuters .. ..... . .. .. ... ..... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . ..... .. .. . . . . ......... .. 5 Figure 3: Tampa AM rush hour index .. . . ... .. . ... . .. .. . .... ... . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. . .. .... ....... 7 Figure 4: Tampa PM rush hour index . .. .. .... .. ... ... .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .................................. . . .. 7 Figure 5: Jacksonville AM rush hour index ....... .. ..... . .. .. ........ .. .. . .. ..... .. .. .. .. .... .. .. .. . .. .. . . . .. 8 Figure 6: Jacksonville PM rush hour index .. ........ . .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. ... .. .. .. .. . ... .... .. . .. ....... .. .. ..... .. .. 8 Figure 7: Orland o AM rush hour index ...... .... ... .... .. . .. .............. . .. .. .. .. ................... .......... .. ....... 9 Figure 8: Orlando PM rush hour index ... .. . .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. ....... .. .. .. .. . .. .... .. . .. . ..... ..... .. .. ........ .. 9 Figure 9: Miami-Ft. Lauderdale AM rush hour index ............ .. .. .. . ....... . ........ .. .... .. ........ ...... .. 10 I

PAGE 4

statewide CAP Evaluation General Public Survey Figure 10: Miam i -Ft. Lauderdale PM rush hour index ....... ...... ....... ......... ....... ......... ...... .. ......... 10 Figure 11: Rest of Florida AM rush hour index-...... ......... .... ... .... ...... .... ............... ..... ..... ... ... II F i gure 12: Rest of Florida PM rush hour index . ...... ...... ............ .... .... ..... .... ................... ....... II Figure 13: Congestion index for Florida comm u ters .... ..... ... ............ ............... ... .... .... ........... ... 12 Figure 1 4 : Percent of trips made by all Florida commuters using alternative commute modes 2001. ...... ........ .... .... ........... ........ ................ ... .... ... ... ....... ....... ....... . ....... . ....... . . . .. .... .... 1 3 F i gure 15: Perc .ent of F lorida commuters using alternative commute modes once per week or more . .... ...... .... ............ ............... ... . ............ ..... ........... ....... ....... .......... ....... ... .... .... .......... 14 F i gure 16 : Percent of Florida commuters regularly using a commute alternative ..... ... ...... ... .... 1 5 F igure 17 : Percent of Florida commuters that are aware of carpooVvanpoo l related advert i sing or other messages ........ ... .......... . .... .............. ... .......... ... ....... ......... .... .................. ........ ... ...... 26 Figure 1 8: Percent of F lorida commuters advertising awareness by income level... . . .... .... .... 28 Figure 1 9: Message recalled from carpooVvanpool advertising by Florida commuters ... ..... .... 29 Figure 20: Percent of Florida commuters that are aware of Commuter Services and/or the Ride NLUllber ........ ............ .... ....... ........... ...... ............................... .... ........... ......... . ....... ............ ... 30 Figure 21: Impact of advertising on Florida commuters . .... . .. ........ ... ........... .... ..... . ....... .... ... 31 Figure 22: How important it is to have a commuter service agency available for Florida commuters . ... ............... .......... ....... ............... ...... ... ... . ............ .. ........ ...... ... ............. . ...... 32 II

PAGE 5

Statewide CAP EvaluationGeneral Public Survey Executive Summary The Statewide Commuter Assistance Program (CAP) Ev alua t ion Research Project was commissioned and fu n ded by the Florida Department of Transportation's Research Ideas Program. The purpose of this research project was to provide a systematic evaluation of the performance of Florida's commuter assistance programs from two perspectives: o Impact on the commuti ng patterns and awareness of the genera l public; and o Impact on the commuting patterns and awareness of eac h CAP database of commuters, which are comprised of commuters who have called or otherwise applied for commuting assistance and/or i nforma tion. This report summarizes the findings from a survey of the general public conducted with 1,410 residents of Florida distributed throughout the state. Overall alternate mode use is highest in Jac kso nville, Tampa, and Miami/Fort Lauderdale than in the rest of the state. Those households a t mid-level incomes have the highest awareness of these advert isem ents. Previous analysis in South Florida has raised the question of whether this is the most effective targeting strategy for carpooVvanpooling advertising. There should be some consideration given to targeting advertising to lower-i ncome groups that may be more likely to take advantage of these services. I t is impossible to estimate with any certainty the number of people who tried ridesharing based on advertis ing. This is better measured through analysis of nwnbe r of calls received by the CAP and nwnber of people added to the database, which is analyzed for those programs (South Florida Commuter Services and BACS) that provided database sample for database i nterviews to be conducted. In all metropolitan areas, over 75% said it either "very or "somewhat" important to have a service like this available. Residents believe that this service is importan t even if they don't choose to use it personally. The demographic variables most highly related to support were gender and in come.

PAGE 6

statewide CAP Evalvation General Pvblic SvNey Introduction The Statewide Commuter Assistance Program (CAP) Evaluation Research Projec t was commissioned and funded by the Florida Department ofTransportation's Research Ideas Program. Purpose The purpose of this research project was to provide a systematic evaluation of the performance of Florida's Commuter Assistance Programs from two perspectives: Impact on the commuting patterns and awareness of the general public; and, Impact on the commuting patterns and awareness of each CAP database of commuters, which are comprised of commutes who have called or otherwise applied for commuting assistance and/or informatio n. Participation Participation in the evaluation by the CAPS was voluntary. Only three CAPs agreed to participatC'in the project. South Florida Commuter Services of Fort Lauderdale, Florida (serving Broward, Miami-Dade, and Palm Beach counties), Metropolitan Commuter Assistance Program of Jacksonville, Florida (serving Duval county) and Bay Area Commuter Services of Tampa, F lorida (serving Citrus, Hernando Hillsborough, Pasco, and Pinellas counties) agreed to participate fully, providing database member contact information and specific survey questions related to their own market areas. Jacksonville's participation was somewhat salutary in that they did not really maintain a database of contacts and therefore had no commuters for us to survey. North F lorida Commuter Services (Tallahassee), West Florida Commuter Services (Pensacola), LYNX (Orlando), VOTRAN (Daytona), Suncoast Metropolitan & Rural Transportation Commuter Assistance Program (Sarasota), and SCAT (Melbourne) declined to participate. -2-

PAGE 7

Statewide CAP Evaluation General Publi c Survey Me t hodo l ogy A random sample of commuters was developed through random-digit dialing, stratified by m ajo r metropolitan areas in the State. Areas with participating CAPS were oversampled to provide the ability to analyze those areas separately. The resulting surveys were weighted to provide estimates of commuter ac t ivity and awareness for the entir e state of Florida. Sampl i ng quotas were developed as follows: Area Jacksonville T ampa!St Pete Quota 300 300 Miami /Ft Lauderdale 350 Orlando 150 Rest of F l orida 300 Actual Completes 304 302 351 153 300 The developed survey instrument (Appendix A) was designed to provide information about general public commuting patterns and awareness of promotional messages. The survey instrument is very similar to the instrumen t used in previous evaluations for South Florida Commuter Services, and thus provides valid trending of results for the South Florida progiam. For other programs, this was the first survey of this type conducted with the general pub l ic. -3-

PAGE 8

statewide CAP EvaluationGenersl Public Survey Commuting Patterns Commute Distances Commuters were asked how fa r they bad to drive to get to their workplaces. These figures are shown in the Figure I. Commute Distances for Florida Commuters Figure I: Commute dl$1Jlnces for Florida tommutel"$. For the entire state, 45% of commutes are less than 10 miles, and 14% are over 30 miles, with the rest evenly distributed between I 0 and 30 miles. The shortest commutes occur in the less urbanized areas ofF!orida (49% under 10 miles). However, the less urbanized areas also have the highest proportion of 30+ miles commutes (18%). Within the major metropolitan areas, Jacksonville has the shortes t commutes (only 6% over 30 miles, average 12.8 miles), while Tampa, Orlando, and South Florida have approximately equal average-length commutes, although the distributions are differently skewed more 5-14 mile commutes in Orlando, more 0-9 mile commutes in Tampa, and the most even distribution in South Florida. -4-

PAGE 9

Statewid e CAP Evaluation General Puollc Survey Commute Times Commute times are, not surprisingly, closely related to commute distances (for the correlation of these two items for driving commuters, r = 74-.91 for all ar e as e xcept South Florida, where r = .49). This is also reflected in the dis tribu t ions of commute time s, whic h mirror the distributions o f dis t ances in Figure 2 Commute Times for Florida Commuters 30%...-----Figure 2: Commute dmes for Jolorida c o mm uters. The only major discrepancy is in the non-metropolitan areas wher e the large number of 30+ miles commutes (18%) does not entail extremely long commute t i mes (only 17% above 40 minutes). -5-

PAGE 10

Statewide CAP Evaluation General Public SuNey Time of Commute Indexed Commuters were also asked at what time they leave home to go to work and at what time they leave work to go h ome By factoring in commute times, and adjusting for telecommuting and use of alternative modes (averaged over the past year) it is possible to e stimate the percentage of commuter v ehicles on the road at any given time The following charts clearly show sharp spikes at 7 am and 8 am, and the sharpest at 5 pm, when about 20% of commuters are on the road. Calctdated in 6-minute increments, these charts are shown in Figures 3 -12.

PAGE 11

statewide CAP Evaluation-General Public Survey Tampa AM Rush Hour Index ZS% 0 20% ... -a 15% 0 M tO% E a 5% 8 0% \ "" r'\i \ {\ "-..f-... TIDle Figure 3: Tampa AM r-ush hour Index. Tampa PM Rush Hour Index 0 25% 20% = c 15% 0 M 10% -I! E 5% 8 :!e 0% \ 'l\. T\. \ \ \ v" ....... ....,,., .,, .. .,9' .. ,..P. .;'>"' .;9' .. ,..P. .. .,, .. .,9' .l .. .P. Time Figure 4: Tampa Pl\-f rush bour index. -7-

PAGE 12

Statewide CAP Evaluation-General Public Survey Jacksonville AM Rush Hour Index "' ZS% .! 20% 0 t 9 ., e c 0 a e 0 u "$ 15% 10% S% 0% \ ""' f\ \ (\.,_ .... r-, vy-..._ Figure 5: Jacksonville AM rush hour Index Jacksonville PM Rush Hour Index 25% ZO% 15% 10% S% 0% \ f\f\ 1\ \ 1\ 1\ 1....-..i .... \j ,...___ -;"' o;'l' .. ,'b ._f!' ,._
PAGE 13

statewide CAP EvaluationGeneral Public Survey ., 0 D .. 0 r: -= 5 e e ... e ... -Q 0 ;; 6 e 8 :!1. Orlando AM Rush Hour Index :ZS% 10% JS% 1\ 10% M. """' \ l\ 5% \I\ 0% 'J \ ..... !"\. Time Figure 7: Orltndo AM rush hour index Orlando PM Rush Hour Index ZS% 20% 15% 10% 5% \ "' T\ \ 0% \j \I\.. A-. ..;<#' ..;'>"' o;'t ,.'>"' ,.fi' o;<#' o;'>"' o;'t .. .. "" "'>"' ""' Timt F igure 8: Orlando PM rusb bour index. -9-

PAGE 14

statewide CAP E valuation General Public Survey MiamiFt. Lau d erdale AM Rus h Hour Ind ex ... e .., 0 a <.> :1! 2 5 % 20% IS% 5% 0% r-.."'-r\ h 'J V\ 'y., .;"' .. ._<#> -.:'>"' Oi<#' Oi'>"' ..,.,f:' Time Figure 9: Miami -F t. L aude rdal e AM r ush hour I nd ex. Miami-Ft. L auderdale PM Rus h Hour Index e ... 0 w ;; s s 0 <.> :1! 25o/ 20% 15% 10% S% 0% f\1\_ \ \ \"' '"'-J '-.1 " y.. ..r..... .;'"' -.;'>"' .. .. .. '!!' .;'"' .;'>"' .. "''""' ;;fi' -.:'"' -.:'>"' '!if:' 11= Figure 1 0: 1\Daml-Ft Lauderdal e PM r u sh hour index. -10

PAGE 15

Statewide CAP General Public Survey Res t of Florida AM Rus h Hour Index e 20% +---------------.-------------------; = g IV 10% 5 .. \""' .,, .. ,.'>"' ,.f" "'>"" .;":>"' o;'>"' .._,.-:."'._,,.'F-' Tlnle F i gure II: Rest of Florida Al\1 rush bour index-ucludes Jack.sonYill e Tampa-st Petersburg, O rlando and MJanliFt Lauderdale. "0 25% e to 20% = g 15% r! lOo/o E E 8 S% 1-0% Re s t of Flo rida PM Ru sh Hour Index h I\. '\... \ \ ,-.J '--'.. ,, .. ,.f" .,, .. ,.-:."' ,.f:Y ""'"' "'"" llme Figure 12: Rest of Florida PM rusb bour index-excludes Jac. ksonville, Tampa-S t Petersburg O r l ando and Miami Ft. Lauderdale. -11-

PAGE 16

Statewide CAP Evaluation General Public Survey Congestion Index Commuters were asked how lon g their commutes would take them on a Saturday or Sunday. The ratio of the usual commute time on weekdays to the length oftime the same trip would take on a Saturday or Sunday mul tip li ed by 100, is referred to as the "congestion in dex" for that area. A com parison of the congest i on indices across the state i s presented in Figure 13. Congestion Index for Florida Commuters 60% 40% 20% 0% 133 150 3,. 33% 18% 15% 25% 7% a,-. 40% 14% 18% 13'% 9% 4% 38% 14% 15, 1 8% 11% Florida 1% 42% 14% 24% 6% of Florida 7% 13% 12% 8% 3 % Figure 13: Congestion index f o r Florida commuters More Orlando commuters face a congestion index of200 (trips twice as l ong on weekday commutes as on weekends) than any other commuters in the state. Among the metropolitan areas, more Tampa commuters have a congestion index of I 00 or less (meaning their commute is unaffected by congestion) than any others. Some caution is advised i n interpreting this index since areas with heavy weekend traffic will show low "congestion indices." It may be advisable also t o focus on congestion as a 7 -day per week issue -12-

PAGE 17

State wid e CAP Evalu ation Gen e ral Public S wvey Use of Alternativ e Modes Curren t use o f alterna t ive modes is s hown in the f ollowing two charts Figure 1 4 shows the simple result of per c ent of wor k trips curre n t l y cond u c ted by alternative mode: Percent of Trips Made by All Florida Commuters Using Alternative Commute Modes 2001 Flgure1 4 : Portent oftrips made by a U F lori da tommu t ers usin g a lterna tive tom mute Th e ra t e of alt ernative mode use does n o t vary m u c h aroun d the sta te, with th e exception that t o ta l alternat ive mode use i s higher in the major metropolitan areas than i n the rest of the state. 13

PAGE 18

statewide CAP Evaluation-General Public Survey Figure 15 shows the total alternative mode use, at least once per week, by comm uters in Florida. This chart takes into account part-time mode use to a greater degree than does the chart in Figure 14 (since anyone using an alternative mode even once per week is counted as being an "alternative mode user"). Also the totals do not reflect a simple addition of the co mponents since some respondents use more than one alternate mode. Percent of Florida Commuters Using Alternative Commute Modes Once per week or more GI'Flonda Figure IS: Pe-rcent or Florida eommut.ers using alternative commute modes once per week or more.

PAGE 19

Statewide CAP Evaluation General Public Survey Ovcraii alternate mode use is highe st in Jacksonville, Tampa, and Miami/Fort Lauderdale than in the rest of the state. This is also reflected in Figure 16, which breaks down alternate mode use rs into the categories of regular and occasional users, as well as showing how many people are former or trial users. Percent of Florida Commuters Regularly Using a Commute Alternative (At least twice per week for the last 12 months) 20%,-----------------, 10% 5% 0% Figure 1 6 : Percent of Florida commuters regWarly using a eommute alternative. -15-

PAGE 20

Statew ide CAP Evaluation General Public Survey Analysis of Average Trips atul Miles Reduced by Mode Using a battery of q ue st i o n s to detennine commuting patterns CU TR deve l oped es t i m at es of total trips reduced by mode and to t al vehicle miles re d u ced by mode for the past y e ar, using the fo ll ow i ng assumpt i ons : I Commuter s work 49 wee ks per year. 2. For all com m u ters who have no t used an alterna t ive mode for t he entirety o f the prior year, it is conservativ el y assumed that they have b e en u s ing the alternative m ode for 4 months (Fo r carpoolers and vanpo o lers, the ques t ion was asked directly). 3 T he number o f trips red uc ed is I exc e pt f o r carpoo l ers and vanpoo l ers, whe r e the n u m be r of trips reduced is: (number o f passengers I) I the nu mber of pa ss engers. The results of the analysis are s h own in Tables 1-6 It s h ou l d be noted that a ll of these figur e s are on a per c ommuter bas is The total employed l abor fo r c e not working at home drawn from th e 2000 Florid a Statistica l Abstracts, adjusted d ownward for those working at h ome is as follows: Jacksonville Tamp a/St. Pete Miami/Fort Laud e rda l e Orlando R e s t of Florida Total Florida 513,249 1,171 995 2,1 63 679 840 995 2 250,442 6 940 360 (Duva l Clay Nassau St. John's) (Hillsboro u gh, Hernando, Pinellas, Pasco, C itrus) (Broward, Miami -Dade Pa l m Beac h ) (Orang e S e mi n ole Lake, Osceola) So, t o calculate trips red u ced for any area, o n e wou l d take the trips r educ e d per commuter from the appropriate table, and multiply that number by the numb e r of comm u ters listed abov e The statistics inc l uded i n th e tables are defin e d as follows: -16 -

PAGE 21

Statewide CAP Evaluation General Public Survey Mean Trips Reduced: Refers to the calculation of ht>w many fewer trips are made per year as a result of the use of alternative modes. For instance, using a two-person carpool would reduce one-half a trip per day each way. Riding a bus would reduce one trip per day each way. Reductions are calculated per average commuter, to facilitate making estimates for regions and sub-regions Mean Miles Reduced: Refers to the calculation of how many fewer miles are driven per year as a result of the use of alternative modes. It is calculated by multiplying the trip d i stance by the trips reduced, as above. Mean Trips Provided: Refers to how trips are made using alternative modes per year. For instance using a carpool or riding a bus would be provided one trip per day each way. 95% Confidence Interval (C.l.): A calculation of the range in which the true result for the area falls, due to sampling error Thus, for carpooling in South Florida, the true trips reduced are somewhere between 12.6-5.6=7 and 12.6 + 5.6=18.2 trips per year. -17-

PAGE 22

statewide CAP Evaluation General Public Survey Table 1 Total Annual Trip and VMT Statistics Per Commuter South Florida (2,163,679 commuters) Mean Trips 95% Mean Miles 95% Mean Trips 95% Mode Reduced C. I. Red need C. I. Provided C. I. 2000 2001 2001 2000 2001 2001 2000 200 1 2001 Carpool 13.9 1 2 .6 5.6 162.6 177.8 86.6 24.0 21.7 9.1 Vanpoo l 0 2 0 0 0.0 5.8 0 0 0 0 0.25 0.0 0.0 Bus 3.6 10.5 6 8 62.9 135.6 106 8 3.6 10.5 6 8 Train 0.0 0 8 1.4 0 1 12.3 18.6 0.0 0.8 1.4 Biki n g 4.1 0.3 0.5 23 0 0.3 0 6 4.1 0 3 0.5 Walking 2.4 1.7 3.3 3 6 1.8 3.5 2.4 1.7 3.3 Te1econunuting 1.9 3.2 2.6 25.8 29.9 31.9 1.9 3.2 2 6 All Other 1.8 3.8 3.7 1.7 4 0 3 9 1.8 3.8 3.7 CP&VP 14.1 12.6 5.6 168 4 1 77.8 86.6 24.3 21.7 9.1 T otal Reduced 28 0 32. 8 10 3 285 6 361.6 140 9 38.2 41.9 12.6 provided provided 486 498 6733 7222 486 498 T o t a l Samp l e total total 7 4 total t otal 842 tota l t otal 7 .4 trips trips miles m ile s trips trips 1 8-

PAGE 23

Statewide CAP Evaluation General Public Survey T a ble 2 Total Annual Trip and VMT Stati stics Per Commuter Tampa/St. Pete rsburg/Cl earwate r (1, 1 71,995 commuters ) Mean T r ips 9 5 % M ean M il es 9 5 % Mean Trips 95% Mode R ed u ced C. I. Red u ced C I. P rovi d e d C I. 2001 2001 200 1 2001 200 1 200 1 Carpool 12.6 5 8 267 2 1 75.0 22 .4 10 1 Vanpool 1.6 2.3 4 5.4 86.8 1.7 2.7 B us 2.3 3 0 22.4 31.3 2 3 3.0 T rain 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 B iking 1.7 3 2 3. 05 4 2 1.7 3.2 Walking 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Telecommuting 2 3 2.5 42 0 54 8 2 3 2.5 All Oth e r 4.2 4.7 4 4 4 9 4 .2 4.7 CP&VP 14. 2 6 .4 3 1 2.6 1 94.5 6 4 10.5 Total Red uced 24 6 9.3 384.5 203 .4 34. 6 p rovided 1 2.4 Total Sample 491.3 t otal 7.6 7515 total 962 491.3 total trips 7.6 trips miles 19

PAGE 24

Statewide CAP Evaluation General Public Survey Table3 Total Annual Trip and VMT Statistics Per Commuter J ackso n v ill e (513,249 commuters) Mean Trips 95% Mean Miles 95% Mean Trips 95% Mode Reduced C. I. Red u ced C. I. P r ovided C. I. 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 200 1 Carpool 12.5 5 5 123. 1 69.6 21.5 9.3 Vanpool 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Bus 2.1 2.9 17.3 27.1 2.1 2.9 Train 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 Biking 1.6 3.2 8.4 16. 5 1.6 3 2 Walking 5.2 5 5 4 3 4.9 5 .2 5.5 Telecomm uting 4.6 4.1 38.1 38.3 4.6 4 1 All Other 4.4 4.3 3.6 3.6 4.4 4 3 CP&VP 12.5 5.5 69.6 69.6 21.5 9.3 Total Reduced 30.3 10.9 194 .6 87.2 39.3 provided 13.3 Total Sample 496.1 total 7.0 6463 total 763 496 1 total 7 0 trips miles trips -20-

PAGE 25

Statewide CAP Evaluation General Public Survey Table4 Total Annual Trip and VMT Statistics Per Commuter Orlando (840,995 commuters) Mean Trips 95% Mean Miles 95% Mean Trips 95% Mode Reduced C I. Reduced C. I. Provided C. I. 2001 200 1 2001 2001 2001 2001 Carpool 12. 9 7.5 293.5 276 9 24.6 14.0 Vanpoo l 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Bus 5 3 7 .9 13.9 23.5 5 3 7 9 Train 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 Bik in g 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Walking 2.6 5.0 0.0 0.0 2.6 5.0 Telecommuting 2 6 2.5 21.9 39. 1 2 6 2 5 All Other 0.3 0 6 0 3 0.6 0 3 0.6 CP&VP 12. 9 7 5 293.5 276 9 24.6 14. 0 Total Reduced 23.7 13.0 329.6 295 3 35 3 provided 17.7 Total Sample 496.4 total 10 .9 7648 total 1314 496.4 total 10 9 trips miles trips 1

PAGE 26

Statewid e CAP Evaluation General Public Survey TableS Total Annual Trip and VMT Statistics Per Commuter Rest of Florida (2,250,442 commuters) Mean Trips 95% Mean Miles 95% Mean Trips 95% Mode Reduced C. I. Reduced C. I. Provided C. I. 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 Carpool 12.8 5.7 231.3 158 9 23.3 10 .3 Vanpool 1.3 2.5 68.8 134.9 1.4 2 8 Bus 0.3 0.6 5.1 9.9 0.3 0.6 Train 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Biking 1.6 3.2 0.0 0 0 1.6 3.2 Walking 0.7 1.3 1.3 2.6 0 7 1.3 Telecommuting 3 6 4.3 77.5 133.4 3 6 4.3 All Other 0 8 1.6 0.8 1.7 0.8 1. 6 CP&VP 14.0 6.2 300.2 207.5 24.8 10.6 Total Reduced 21.1 8.5 384.9 246.3 31.8 provided 12.2 Total Samp le 500.8 tota l 6.9 7949total 1090 500.8 total 6.9 trips miles trips -22-

PAGE 27

Stetewfd e CAP Evaluation General Public Surv e y Table 6 Total Annual Trip and VMT Stat istics Per Commuter State of Florida (6 940 ,351 commuters) Meao Trips 95% Meao Miles 95% Mean Trip s 95 % Mode Reduced C. I. Reduced C. I. Provide d c. I. 2001 2001 2UU1 200 1 2001 ZUUl C arpool 12 .7 2.7 220. 6 65.0 22.7 4 6 Vanpoo l 0 7 0.8 3 0 .2 40.0 0.8 0. 9 Bu s 4.5 2.3 5 0 .2 33.1 4.5 2.3 T r a m 0.2 0.4 3. 8 5.6 0 2 0 4 Biki n g 1.0 1.1 1.2 2.2 1.0 1.1 W a lkin g 1.4 1.3 1.3 1 .4 1.4 1.3 Telecommutm g 3 .2 1.6 71.7 4 9.3 3.2 1.6 AUOiller 2 5 1.6 2..5 1.6 2.5 1.6 T otal Reduced 2 6 .3 4 .6 3 8 2 9 6 4 36.4 prov ided 5.9 T otal S ample 498total 3 5 7481 t otal 449 498 total 3.5 trips m i les trips 23

PAGE 28

statewide CAP Evaluation General Public Survey Although the question was not asked d ir ectly, using arriva l and departure times from work and the number of days worked, it is possible to estimate the number of commuters that are currently working compressed work schedules. U sing only commuters who work at least 36 hours per week, but commute less than five days as a basis for defi n ing "Compressed Work Weeks," the data indicate that about 4.5% of respondents have a compressed work schedule. This is not used i n formal trip reduction calculations because of the indirect m ethod of estimating Compressed Work Weeks. However it seems possible that nearly as many people work a Compressed Work Week as telecommute Variables Related to Mode Choice A statistical analysis of the use of alternative modes was conducted using the SAS GLM (General Linear Models) procedure. Use of any given mode was used as the dependent variable, and the following independent variables were used: Commute distance; Age; Gender; Income; Number of vehicles in the household; Presence of children under the age of 16 in the household; and Race (identified as a categorical variable). The analysis was not intended to provide a predictive model of mode choice, but rather to identify variables that seemed to be related to mode choice. The analysis showed that compared to a 10% overall rate, those aged 18-24 had a 24% rate of carpooling during the work week (i.e. used carpooling at least once), whereas members of other age groups were usually around I 0%. The analysis fwther showed, compared to an overall rate of transit use under 2%, that those households with no vehicles had a 33% rate of transit use during the work week, and that African Americans and 'Other' (non-specified) races had a 6% rate of transit use No other demographic variables w ere significantly related to mode choice. -24-

PAGE 29

statewide CAP Evaluation-General Public Survey Marketing Impact and Bebaviorallnfluence The primary purpose of a Commuter Assistance Program is to in fl uenc e travel behavior. Trave l behavior baseline data were measured and the results of these measurements were presented in the previous section. However, it is also necessary to measure the effectiveness of the method s us ed in trying to influence behavior as well as the direct behavioral results themselves. Methods of influencing behavior measured in this surve y of the general public were essentially three-fold: 1. Use mass media advertising to promote the idea or concept of carpooling, vanpooling and transit use. 2. Use mass media advertising to info rm people that there is an organization (and/or a specific number) where you will be provided with information to hel p you start carpooling and vanpooling. 3. Work through large employers to se t up programs that will encourage ridesharing. The following elements are measurable from the surveys of the genera l public: Awareness of CAP advertising; Content recall; U naided and aided awareness of the CAP and the CAP telephone number ; Stated mode choice effects of advertising for those who saw/heard adve rtisi ng; and, 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 correlations between advertising awareness (as well as awareness of the CAP) and mode choice that do not necessari ly 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 particularly to recall the relative importance of the different causes. This is not to say that questions about infl uence of advertising messages should not be asked-they should be asked, and the trends of answers to -25-

PAGE 30

State w ide CAP Evalua t ion G e neral P ubli c Survey such quest ion s are meaningful. However, these d irect s ta ted data sh ou ld n o t be the s o l e bas i s for an a lysis It i s equally (an d perh a ps more) import an t to ex am ine various non-st a ted correlat i ons to p rovide supp l ementary information a bout the effects of a d vertising o n m od e c h o i c es Advertisi n g A w areness F i gure 1 7 s hows recall o f any c arp ooVvanpool re l a t e d advertising o r m essa g es in eac h o f the market areas SO% 40 % 3 0 % 20% 10 % 0 % Percent of Florida Commuters that are Aware of Carpool/Vanpool related Advertising or other Messages Florida Fig ure 17: P erce n t of Florida commu ters that are a"are of earpool/va n pool relat ed a d v ertls i og o r other m essa ge.s. Th e S outh F l orid a area h as the high est recall of advertising messages. Orland o an d Tamp a/ St. Pet er s b ur g h a ve the next highest and J ackson v ille is abo u t e ve n with the r emain der of the sta t e It i s q uite p o ssible that there is some 'noise' in this data th a t p eo p l e recall seeing or he aring somethi n g th a t was not necessarily carpool o r vanp o ol re l ated The important p art of thi s fmding -26

PAGE 31

Statewide CAP Evaluation General Public Survey is to track changes over time, more so than the absolute level of the number. Comparisons between metropolitan areas are also of some value, although the local level of media advertising may impact the types of messages that people recall. A statistical analysis of the use of advertising awareness was conducted using the SAS GLM (General Linear Models) procedure. Awareness of some type of carpool/vanpool advertising was used as the dependent variable and the following independent variables were used: Commute distance; Age; Gender; Income; Number of vehicles in the house hold; Presence of children under the age of 16 in the household; and, Race (identified as a categorical variable) -27-

PAGE 32

statewide CAP Evaluation General Public Survey The ana lysis was not intended to attempt to provide a predic t i v e model of awareness, but rather to identify variables that seemed to be re l ated to awareness. The analysis showed that the only demographic variable significantly related to awareness was income This find ing has been fou n d to hol d in previous stud i es conduc t ed in South F lorida. The analysis is summarized in Figure 18. 500/o 40% 300/o 20% 10% 0% Percent of Florida Commuters that are Aware of CarpooiNanpool related Advertising or other Messages by Income Level Figure 18: Percen t of Florida commuters advertising awareness by h:tc:omt level. Those households at mid level incomes have the highest awareness of these advertisements. Previous analysis in South Florida has raised the question of whether this is the most effective targeting st r ategy for carpooling/vanpooling advertising (see the 2000 evaluat i o n of South Florida Commuter Services for more information). There should be some consideration given to targeting advertising to lower-income groups that may be more likely to take advantage of these serv i ces. -28-

PAGE 33

Statewide CAP EvaluationGeneral Public Surv e y Message Recall Co mmuters were also asked what type of message they reca ll ed f ro m the adve rti s i n g. These figures are s h own as the per cefll of the total population that recalls a specific t ype o f m essage This mak es co m pari s on s b etw e en d iffere n t area s mor e c oncrete because there is no adj ustment for a w arenes s o f m es s ag e s. Thi s data i s summarized i n Figure 19. Message recalled from carpool / vanpool advertising by Florida commuters 10% F i gu.r e 1 9 : J\fessage recalled from carpooVvanpool advertWng by Flo rida commuters. The none" refers to th e perc e nt of p eo p le that remember some kind of message related t o carpoo li ng!vanpo o ling b u t cannot remember any spec i fic content. In Orlan do and Sou t h F l o ri da, 8% recall s ome kin d o f Ride Number m e ssage, m u ch hig her th an anyw h ere e l se in th e stat e. The "Other" messages recalled are a hos t of different messages, n one of whi c h amount to more than I% of responses. 29

PAGE 34

Statewide CAP Evaluation General Public SuNey Awareness of L ocal CAPs and CAP (Ride) Numbers Perhaps more important than the message recal l is r e call of the Commuter Assi stance Program and the Ride Number. In some areas such as in South Florida, recall of the CAP name (South Florida Commuter Services) is not a major marketing priority. Recall of the Ride Nwnber is perhaps the single most important measure of awareness of CAP acti vities. This measure is highest in Jacksonville and in South F l orida, and lowest in Tampa among the Commuter Assistance Program cities where this survey was done in sufficient quantity for analysis. Percent of Florida commuters that are aware of Commuter Services and/or the Ride Number 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Nurtber Figure 20: Percent of Florida commuters that are aware of Commuter Services and/or the Ride Number. This is a performance measure that should be carefully monitored from the general public's perspective. From this analysis, it is apparent that BACS, the Assistance Program in the Tampa/St. Petersburg area, should increase efforts to publicize the ride number so that people are aware it exists and that they can make use of it. Given limited budgets, it may be a good idea for BACS personne l to contact South Florida Commuter Services personnel to learn how they have publicized the number and kept awareness at the high levels that exist there. -30-

PAGE 35

Statewide CAP Evaluation Genersf Public Sutvey Impact of Advertising on Commuters The impact of advertising was also measured in terms of what peop le did when they heard or saw the advertising. This is shown in Figure 21. Impact of advertising on Florida commuters 5% J...l-------0% rtdtshariog ridtsharbg c:onta.ctinc CS Figurt 21: I mpact of ad\ertlslng on Florida c:ommuters. The confidence intervals about these numbers, particularly those who "tried ridesharing'' are such that the results are not significantly different than 0 (although they are obviously greater than 0 to the extent that people who tried ridesharing were directly interviewed and other people clearly joined the database during the t ime period in question). Therefore, it is imp<>ssible to estimate with any certainty the number of people who tried ridesharing based on advertising This type of performance is better measured through analysis of the number of calls received by the CAP and the number of people added to the database which is analyzed for those programs (South Florida Commuter Services and BACS) that provided database sample for database in terviews to be conducted. Other CAPS routinely provide this information to DOT via regular reports of required performance measures. -31-

PAGE 36

Statewide CAP Evaluation-General Public Survey Public Support for CAPs A very important question was asked of Florida residents regarding CAP operations, which was "how important is it to have a commuter assistance program available for your community? Responses were collected on a "Very Important" "Very unimportant" five point Likert-type scale. In all metropolitan areas over 35% said it was "very important" and over 75% said it either "very" or somewhat important to h a ve a service like this available. Much l ike support for tran sit service, many residents believe that this service is important even if they do not choose to use it personally. How important it is to have a commuter service agency available for Florida Commuters Figure 22: How Important it i.s to have a commuter service agency 1\'aflable for Florida commuters. -32-

PAGE 37

statewide CAP Evaluation General Public SuNey A statistical analysis of the use of support for CAPs was conducted using the SAS GLM (General Linear Models) procedure Support for CAPs was used as the dependent variable, and the foll owing list of independent variables were used: Commute distance; Age; Gender; Income; Number of vehicles in the household; Presence of children under the age of 16 in the household; and, Race (identified as a categorical variable). The analysis was not intended to provide a predictive model of support for CAPS, but rather to identify variables that seemed to be related to support. The analysis showed that the demographic variables most highly related to support were gender and income Other variables were not s i gnificant l y rel at e d to support for the CAPs. Females tended to provide a higher support rating ( 4.02 to 3. 73). A l so, those with lower incomes were more supportive ( 4.13 average for those with incomes under $20K, 4.00 average for those with incomes $20-$50K, and 3.75 for those with incomes over $50K) Overall levels of support are fairly high in all groups, so this dos not seem to indicate a great need to communicate the value of CAPS to any specific group. In Tampa Bay an additional question was asked: "How important is it to include funding for carpooVvanpool programs when planning transportation?" The response l evel was similar on this question (80% saying it was very or somewhat important). Interestingly, correlation between the two above items was only .45, and on l y 60% of respondents assigned the same important ratings to both i ssues. This suggests that there are some divergent views on the issue. -33

PAGE 38

Statewide CAP Evaluation General Public Survey Conclusions and Recommendations A baseline study does not allow for a great number of conclusions or recommendations. Most of the value i n these studies comes from future trending. A separate report is being provided to South Florida Commuter Services that provides a number of oonclusions and recommendations based on the trending of their results. Current trip reduction levels in Florida metropolitan areas are summarized as follows: Annual trips Annual trips Annual miles Annual miles reduced by reduced by reduced by reduced by alternative Metropolitan area alternative alternative alternative commute modesoommute modes co mmuter mode oommuter mod e per commuter -total per oommuter total Jacksonville 15,551,445 30.3 99,878,255 194. 6 Tampa/St. 28,831,077 450,632,078 Petersburg 24.6 384.5 M iami /Fort 70,968,671 782 386,326 Lauderd ale 32.8 361.6 Orlando 19,931,582 23.7 277,191,952 329.6 Rest of F l orida 47,484,326 2l.l 866,195,126 384 9 Entire State 182,531,231 26.3 2,651,214,082 382.0 Of oourse, the CAPs cannot be considered responsible for all of these results. Many alternative mode users have never heard of CAPs or seen any caq>ool and vanpool related advertising. Transit agency efforts are also responsible, to a large degree, for t he level of transit ridership. There seems to be an opportunity to reduce co ngestion by encouraging employers to consider alternat i ve work schedules, thereby spreading the peak of commuter travel. Currently the PM peak at 5 PM is extremely sharp i n all areas. Staggering work schedules by one-half to one hour in both directions could help reduce this peaking characteristic although even greater staggering wou l d he l p use roadways more efficiently in much lower use periods. Currently, the use of telecommwing is not widespread Telecommuting is essentially working from home using the electronic communications network to set up an office at home that is just -34-

PAGE 39

Statewide CAP Evaluation-General Public SuNey as functional as an office in a centralized site. A variant of this approach uses "telecommute centers" that allow employees to work at sites closer to their homes and/or in less congested areas Telecommuting, particularly home-based telecommuting, is theoretically an extremely effective method of reducing congestion and vehicle travel, and is very popular among commuters (see 1999 CUTR study on 'Market-Based Trip Reduction Program Design') Again using contacts with employers to promote this strategy would be an effective way of increasing telecommuting, and commuters are already quite anxious to begin. The use of Compressed Work Weeks is another potential method of decreasing commuter trips that show great popularity among commuters. The aforementioned study on trip reduction program design suggests that Compressed Work Weeks would be popular incentives to get people to tty carpooling, not even counting the beneficial impact they would have on reduc ing travel on their own. The revised Commuter Choice programs may also offer an opportunity for SOV reductions ICF consulting is preparing a report for TCRP that should lend some insight into the ways of implementing Commuter Choice more effectively through employers. -35-

PAGE 40

Statewide CAP Eva l uation General Public Survey All of these programs require a structured approach, based u pon first deve lo ping awareness, then gene ratin g inqu iry, next, stimulating trial of a vailable options, beginning regu lar use, and possibly increasing u se of the options. The status of each of these components is summarized, by city, as follows: Awareness of Interest/Inquiry Trial ( t otal Metropolitan Awareness (considered using Agency/Ride current l y or Regular Use Area of Ads among not Number ever used) currently using) Jacksonville 27% 36% 3% 26% 9% Tampa/St. 33% 32% 3% 26% 8% Petersburg Miami/Fort 43% 41% 6% 31% 100/o Lau d erdale Orlando 34% 29% 3% 19% 8% Rest of Florida 26% NIA 1% 20% 8% All ofFiorida 33% NIA 3% 23% 9% In terms of support for existing programs, the key resu l t i s the level of support for the program, w h ere 75% 80% of respondents believe it is 'somewhat or very important' to hav e a serv ice available that provides information and assistance for carpoo l ing and vanpooling. -36-

PAGE 41

Statew i de CAP Evaluation General Public Survey Appendix A: Survey Instrument -37-

PAGE 42

Statewide Commuter Assistance Program Eva luation General Public Survey ( ASK T O SPEAK TO AN ADULT IF RESPONDENT IS CLEARLY NOT AN ADULT) Good morning/afternoon/ e vening My name is and I am calling on behalf of the Center for Urban Transportation Res ea r ch at the University of Sou th Florid a and the Florida Department of Transportation This eveni ng/today we are conducting a survey on commuting and traffic issues in the (Insert o ne of the following): A. "Jackson vill e Area (Duval Co unty) B. "West central Flor id a Area (FOOT District Seven Area Hillsborough, Pinellas Pasco Hernando Citrus) C. South Florida Area (Broward, Miami-Dade & Palm Beac h Counties) D. Orl ando a re a (Orlando S MSAJ E. West F lorid a area ( Bay Calhoun, Esc a mbia, Gulf Ho lmes, Jackson Okaloosa Santa Rosa Walton and Washington Counties ) F. State of F lorida ( a ll others) We a re not attempting to sell you anything, we are only interested in your opinions. 1 a How many persons, 18 years or older In your household, work outsid e t h e home, 35 or mor e hours per week? ------# persons who work full time IF 0 THANK RESPONDENT AND TERMINATE IF MORE THAN 1 PERSON WORKS FULL-TI ME OUTSIDE THE HOUSEH OLD, ASK Q. 1 B O THERWISE SKIP TO Q.1 C 1 b. Of the persons working full t im e I need to speak with the person who had the most recent b irth day. Would that person be you? RECORD GENDER: 1 c. Yes No Male Female 1 2 1 2 CONTI NUE ASK FOR THAT PERSON AND REPEAT INTRO (QUOTA 60%1 (QUOTA 50%) 2 Do you currently hold more than one job? Ye s .. 1 (Please answer the questions in this survey with respect to your primary job.)

PAGE 43

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 Q.17 4a. Please tell me t he number of days i n 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 w ith someone else in the car, or not? ("CARPOOLING" IS DRIVING WITH SOMEONE ELSE TO THE WORKSITE. TAKING A CHILD TO SCHOOUDAYCARE 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 SCHOOUOA YCARE DOES NOT COUNT AS CARPOOLING FOR THIS QUESTION.) ____ #days 4d. (IF Q.4a AND Q.4c ARE > 0, VERIFY) "So you drive to work alone (Q.4a response) days per week and carpool (Q.4c response) days per week?" 4a. response should be. __ 4c. response should be, _ 2 } IF TOTAL = Q.3, SKIP TO Q.Sa. OTHERWISE, CONTINUE

PAGE 44

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 ON L Y THE MODE USED FOR MOST OF THE TRIP.I 1 Vanpoo l, 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-Q.4a, Q .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.5a Sa. Please 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 5b. When you drive home from work, do you ever carpoo l 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.5e IF APPLICABLE) 5c. P l ease 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/DA YCARE DOES NOT COUNT AS CARPOOLING FOR THIS QUESTION .I ___ #days 3

PAGE 45

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?" Sa. response should be _ 1 5c. response should be __ 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. Ride 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.Sc & 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 Q 6 I ASK Q.6-Q.8 ONLY IF Q.4c>O OR Q.5c>O 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 carpool? (MULTIPLE RESPONSES) Household members 01 Non-househo l d relatives 02 Co -workers 03 Neighbors 04 People from a carpool/vanpool matchlist 05 Other Specify 97 4

PAGE 46

ASK 0.9.11 ONLY IF 0.4e1 > 0 OR 0.5e1 >0 9 How long have you been in your current vanpool? Days Weeks Months Years 10. Including yourself how many people are usually i n 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 twice 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 past 12 months have you usually been taking the train to or from work at least twice per week, or not? Yes No Don't know Refused 5 1 2 8 9

PAGE 47

I ASK 0.14 ONLY IF 0.4e4>0 OR 0.5e4>0 14. In the past 12 months have you usually been riding your bike to or from work at least twice per week, or not? Yes No Don't know Refused 1 2 8 9 I ASK 0.15 ONLY IF 0.4e5>0 OR 0.5e5>0 15. I n the past 12 months have you usually been walking or joggi ng to or from work at least twice per week, or not? Yes No Don't know Refused 1 2 8 9 ASK 0.16 ONLY IF Q.4c, Q.4e1, Q.4e2, Q.4e3, 0.4e4 and Q .4e5 =0 and if Q.5c, Q.5e1, 0 .5 e2, Q.5e3, Q 5e4 and 0.5e5 =0 16d Since the last time either you moved or your job changed locations, have you tried carpooling, vanpooling, riding the bus, rid ing 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 1 No 2 Don't know 8 Skip to q. 18a Refused 9 Skip to q. 18a IF Q.3 = 0 and Q.17a = 1 THEN CONTINUE IF Q.3 = 0 and Q.17a = 2 THEN TERMINATE 6

PAGE 48

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 Don't know Refused 1 2 8 9 17d. And about how far would your commute to your office be, one-way in 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 usua liy 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 lime does it take you to commute to work? 18c. And how much time would it take to make the same trip on a Saturday or Sunday? 18d. What time do you usually leave home to go to work? ___ am/pm 18e. and what time do you usually leave work to go home? ___ am/pm 7

PAGE 49

20. Have you heard, seen or read any advertising 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 or hear this advertising? (00 NOT READ LIST) (MULTIPLE 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/rela tives 11 I. Commuter Fair/Special event/ transportation day 12 m. Employer 13 n Internet 14 0. Phonebook 15 p. Fax 16 q, Advertisement 17 r. Other (SPECIFY: ) 97 s Dk/Ref 99 8

PAGE 50

22. What message do you recall from this advertising? (00 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 Ridesharing is "Cool" 08 Ride/Try Transit 09 Use HOV lanes 10 Driving alone is a hassle 11 Park and Ride related 12 Ridesharing is good for the environment 13 BCT's Yield to Bus campaign 14 Other specify 97 23. Did you try carpooling or vanpooling after seeing or hearing advert is ing 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 vanpooling after seeing or hearing the advertising, or not? Yes No Don't know Refused 9 1 2 8 9

PAGE 51

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 01 Gold Coast Commuter Services 02 Bay Area Commuter Services 03 Commuter Services of North Florida 04 Metropolitan Commuter Assistance Program 05 LYNX 06 VOTRAN 07 Space Coast Area Transit 08 Suncoast Metropolitan & rural Transportation Commuter Assistance 09 West Florida Commuter Services 10 1 -800-234-RIDE (7433) 11 1 -800-998-RIDE (7433) 12 1 -888-454-RIDE (7433) 13 (904) 633-RIDE (7433) 14 407-843-POOL (7665). 15 (386) 761-RIDE (761-7433) 16 321-952-4563 1 7 1 -800-379-SMART 18 (800) 342-5557 19 Other specify 97 10

PAGE 52

IF PROGRAM NAME FOR MARKET AREA MENTIONED IN 0 .27 THEN SKIP 0.28 Use the following information to complete questions 28 30. Survey Area Proa ram Name Proa ram Numbe r Jacksonville Duval County Metropolitan Commuter (904) 633RIDE (7 433) Assistance Pro!lram FOOT District Seven Hillsborough & Pinellas Bay Area Commuter Services 1-800 998-RIDE (7433) Counties South Florida Broward, South Florida Commuter Miami-Dade & Palm Beach Services 1-800-234-RIDE (7433) Counties Orlando SMSA LYNX 407-843-POOL (7665). Tallahassee SMSA Commuter Services of North 1 -888454-RIDE (7433) Florida Davton a SMSA VOTRAN (386) 761-RIDE (76 17433) Sarasota SMSA Suncoast M et ropolitan & rura l Transportat i on Commuter 1-800-379-SMART Assistance Melbourne SMSA Space Coast Area Transit 321-952 -4563 Bay, Calhoun, Escambia, Gulf Holmes J ackson, Okaloosa West Florida Commuter (800) 342-5557 Santa Rosa, Walton and Services Washinoton Counties Rest of Florida Skip to q 32 Skip to q. 32 28. Have you ever heard of (insert Program Name for respective Survey Area) o r not? Yes 1 No 2 Don't know 8 Refused 9 IF PROGRAM NUMBER FOR MARKET AREA MENTIONED IN 0.27 THEN SKIP 0 .29 29. Have you ever heard of any commuter information numb ers such as (Insert Program Number for respective Survey Area) or not? Yes No 11 1 2

PAGE 53

Don't know Refused 8 9 IF YES TO EITHER 0.28 OR 0 .29 OR MARKET AREA PROGRAM NAME OR NUMBER MENTIONED IN 0 .27 THEN GO TO Q.30, OTHERWISE SKIP TO a.32 30. Have you ever contacted (insert Program Name for respective Survey Area), the (Program Number) number or some other group for carpool or vanpool information, or not? Yes No Don't know Refused 3 1 Who did you contact? 1 2 8 9 CONTINUE SK I P TO 0.32 SKIP TO Q.32 SKIP TO 0.32 South Florida Commuter Services or Commuter Services 01 Gold Coast Commuter Services 02 Bay Area Commuter Services 03 Commuter Services of North Florida 04 Metropolitan Commuter Assistance Program 05 Local database phone numbers Other specify 97 32. How important is to you that there be a service that provides commuter information about carpooling and vanpooling and makes it easier to set up carpools and vanpools in your area? Would you say it is: a) Very important b) Somewhat important c) Neither important nor unimportant d) Not very important e) Not at all important IF AREA= PALM BEACH, BROWARD, OR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY ASK 033 IF AREA= HILLSBOROUGH, PINELLAS, CITRUS, PASCO, OR HERNANDO SKIP TO Q35 ALL OTHER AREAS GO TO 01 33. How often do you currently ride transit? a) More than 1 day per week b) 2-3 times per month 12

PAGE 54

c) once per month d) 2-3 times per year e) once per year or less f) never 34. What could be done to encourage you to ride more often? !record response)----------------35. Where do you usually get information about products or services you want to purchase? Would i t be !scatter responses): a) radio b) television c) newspaper d) internet e) or somewhere e lse (specify: -----36. How important do you t hink it is to include funding for commuting options such as carpooling and vanpooling when planning transportation solutions? Would you say it is: a) Very important b) Somewhat important c) Neither important nor unimportant d) Not very important e) Not at all important 13

PAGE 55

D 1. Now I just have a few questions remaining that are for statistical and classification purposes only. Your answers will remain complete l y 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 in your househo l d? Yes No Refused 1 2 9 D4. How many working veh icles do you have in your household? (Record exact # ) D5. What is your race or ethnicity? Are you ... White 1 African-American 2 His pan ic 3 Asian 4 American Indian 5 Other, Specify: ____ 0 (DO NoT READ) Refused 9 D6. Please 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 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 9

PAGE 56

07. Please stop me when I read the range that contains your household's total income, including yourself and anyone else in your household that worked, for the year 2000? (00 NOT READ) U[Jder $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 or more Refused Thank you very much. That concludes our survey. Verify: Name:. __________________________ __ Phone Number: ______________________ 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9