USF Libraries
USF Digital Collections

HART on-board survey analysis

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
HART on-board survey analysis final report
Physical Description:
iv, 84 leaves : ill., maps ; 28 cm.
Language:
English
Creator:
University of South Florida -- Center for Urban Transportation Research
Hillsborough Area Regional Transit Authority
Publisher:
Hillsborough Area Regional Transit Authority
Place of Publication:
Tampa, Fla
Publication Date:
Frequency:
annual

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Local transit -- Public opinion -- Florida -- Hillsborough County   ( lcsh )
Genre:
local government publication   ( marcgt )

Notes

Additional Physical Form:
Also available online.
Statement of Responsibility:
prepared by Center for Urban Transportation Research, College of Engineering, University of South Florida.
General Note:
"November 1991."

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 - 026289845
oclc - 86074631
usfldc doi - C01-00192
usfldc handle - c1.192
System ID:
SFS0032292:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

HILLSBOROUGH AREA REGIONAL TRANSIT ON-BOARD SURVEY ANALYSIS Prepared for: Hillsborough Area Regional Transit Authority By: Center for Urban Transportation Research College of Engineering University of South Florida November 1991

PAGE 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Ust of F i gures Ust of Tables Page Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 ii 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 iv L IN'IRODUCTION 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 ll. OVERVIEW OF SYSTEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . 2 ID. SURVEY OBJECTIVBS . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 IV. SURVEY ANALYSIS .. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 s System Total Demographic Information 0 0 0 0 6 Travel Behavior 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 User Satisfaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Differe n ces Between Service Types 0 73 V. SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS ....... ..... ......................... 83 APPENDIX A Survey Methodology ......... .. ......................... A-1 APPENDIXB Survey Instrument .. . 0 0 0 B-1 APPENDIX C-Route Level Survey Results ...... .................... C-1 1

PAGE 3

LIST OF FIGURES Number 1 HART Systemwide Bus Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2 System Total Demographics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3 Survey Question # 14; Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4 Survey Question # 15; Gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 5 Survey Question #16; Ethnic Origin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 6 Survey Question #17; Annual Household Income . . . . . . . . 1 7 7 Survey Question # 18; Automobile Ownership . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 8 Survey Q uestion #3; Where did you come from . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 9 Survey Question #5; Where are you going to ........... ......... ...... 22 10, 11, 12, 13 Origin and Destination Maps ....... ................ . 23-26 14 Survey Question #2 Mode of Access ................................. 28 15 Survey Question #7 Mode of Egress ...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 16 Survey Question #4 Transfers Between Buses ... ... ...... ... .... .... . 31 17 Survey Question #8 Fare Category . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 18 Survey Question #9 Method of Fare Payment . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 19 Survey Question #10 Fre quency of Use ........................... . 37 20 Survey Question # 11 Reason to Use Bus . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 21 Survey Question #12 Alternative Transportation .................... 4 1 22 Survey Question #13 Length of Use of HART service .............. .... 43 23 System Total Travel Behavior and User Satisfaction . . . . . . . . . . 46 ii

PAGE 4

LIST OF FIGURES (continued) Figure faie Number 24 42 User Satisfaction Responses by Question .................... 47-65 43 SO Service Type Profiles .............................. 75-82 iii

PAGE 5

LIST OF TABLES Table Pa&e Number 1 Demographic Comparison with Riders in Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 2 Order of Importance of HART aspects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 3 Typical HART Ridership Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 4 Response Rates by Service 'JYpe . . . . . . . . . . A 3 5 Response Rates by Question . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A 5 6 Response Rates by Routes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-7 lV

PAGE 6

HILLSBOROUGH AREA REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY ON-BOARD PASSENGER SURVEY I. INTRODUCfiON As part of a comprehensive operati
PAGE 7

II. SYSTEM OVERVIEW The Hillsborough Area Regional Transit Authority a state chartered agency, was created in 1980 to provide public transportation in Hillsborough County. The Authority was created for the purpose of owning, operating. and maintaining public transportatio n service. It has grown from an approximately 60 bus system in 1980 to an approximately 190 bus fleet in 1991; ridership has increased to over eight million passengers per year In 1984, the Authority undertook its first comprehensive systems needs analysis in the form of its five year Transit Development Plan. As part of this effort, an on-board passenger survey was conducted to assess the demographic and travel characteristics of the patrons. Since that time, the system has undergone numerous changes and the transit user needs and travel behavior have changed as well. As a result of these changes HART initiated this survey to identify those users and their basic travel characteristics and needs. The system surveyed is comprised of 45 routes 32 local routes and 13 express routes. Figure 1 depicts the system service coverage. The system operates over 750 route miles of service The AM. peak fleet requires 130 vehicles in operation out of HARTs total fleet of 182 vehicles. Hours of operation are from 4:00 AM. to 1 1:00 P .M. on weekdays with Saturday service on 32 routes generally from 6:00 AM. to 10:00 P.M Sunday service is provided on 13 routes from 6:00 A.M. to 9:30 A.M. The focus of Hart service is on downtown Tampa with 30 of the routes serving downtown Tampa. Downtown operations focus on the Marion Street Transit Parkway, a new facility opened in 1989 and designed to improve vehicle floi.vs and passenger amenities in the downtown. HART also has transfer activities at University Square Mall, Britton Plaza, East Lake Square Mall, Tampa Bay Center as well as various other activity centers throughout the county. Fares on HART seJtioe 1auge fzum $150 fur full cam adnJt fare 1D S0.40 tor discount local cash fares for the elderly and disabled. In addition, a variety of multi-trip tickets and punch passes are available for the several fare categories and service types in the system. Transfen aJSt $0.10 aDd are good for thirty minutes beyond the time the bus arrives at tbe end of U5 trip. 1M uerage !am per pasWJFr baardia& (jgdwtiug t1 ansfta) was slightly more than SO.SO illl990. 2

PAGE 8

. T 30ARD VF:f NORTH 2.5 MILES 6 Flgure 1 . . FIGURE 1 HART AREA-WIDE BUS SERVICE LEGEND HART Bua Route 3

PAGE 9

III. SURVEY OBJECITVES As noted, prior to this on-board passenger survey, there had not been a survey .of travel, demographics and user satisfaction of HARTiine passengers since 1984. In order to update this data and to assess the composition of the HART patron population, this survey was conducted. The major objectives underlying this effort included: to collect data useful in service p l anning; to identify pe!ceptions and attitudes about HART linehaul bus service; to establish demographic information on patrons; to define travel characteristics and patterns of patrons; to determine major work activity centers of HART patrons; and, to provide an opportunity for HART patrons to provide information to HART management and decision makers. The survey was designed to obtain three major sets of information: demographics, travel behavior and user satisfaction. These three topics provide the information and data necessary to fulfill the stated objectives and will contribute to improved planning for bus services in Hillsborough County. 4

PAGE 10

IV. SURVEY ANALYSIS The survey analysis is presented in tliree dlfferent parts. The first part is a system total profile. This includes an analysis of the full results of the SUl'Vey. The question are categorized into three areas: demographics, travel behavior and user satisfaction. This part is followed by two additional major parts. The first is service type profiles. This summarized differences in the profiles of the four different types of service, weekday local, weekday express, Saturday and Sunday. Appendix C provides route profiles for each individual route. In general, the data provided includes a great deal of tabular and graphical information. Text is limited to introducing subjects and noting or interpreting findings. The reader is encouraged to use the table of contents and list of tables and figures for easy reference to a particular subject. A description. of the data provided in each subsection follows. Demographic information collected in this survey include age, gender, ethnic origin, household income, and auto ownership. This data enables HART to develop a composite description of a typical passenger. Also, an idea of patron needs, such as parking, bus shelters, and other amenities can be developed from this information. This kind of knowledge can be used in designing marketing materials and identifying target audiences. Travel behavior is understood through the collection of information such as trip origins/destinations and modes of access/egress. This information contributes to effective scheduling, planning, service design and policy decisions. User satisfaction is determined in questions 20a through 20s. These questions ask respondents to rate various aspects of HART service. Satisfaction is identified as perceived by the patrons. Those aspects that patrons perceive as being ''Dissatisfied" with can potentially be addressed through changes in. the system. By distinguishing patron sensitivities toward specific aspects of the system, HART is better able to set priorities for system improvements. From this information a ridership profile can be determined for each service type. Establishing such a profile enables HART to distinguish market characteristics and segments which are useful fpr the implementation of sound marketing and operating strategies. i I 5

PAGE 11

SYSTEM TOTAL SURVEY RESULTS System Demographic Information A number of questions were asked of patrons in order to establish a demographic profile for the HART system, as well as the service types. Demographic-related questions include age (question 14), gender (question 15), ethnic origin (question 17), annual household income (question 17), and auto ownership (question 18). Each of these questions are briefly discussed and is accompanied by graphics. Figure 2, shows demographic information for the weighted total response. Age Seventy percent of the survey res2ondents are between the ages of 23 and 59 indicating that most HART patrons arewoikmg age group is often employed and likely to drive and own a car if they are abl0 Gender Systemwide, use HART service then men. Sixty percent of the sample respondents were wonien This statistic reflects the larger share of females in society and no doubt reflects the increasing number of women in the work place Ethnic Origin Approximately 43 percent of the sample respondents were White with 42 percent being African-American. Also, approximately 11 percent indicated their ethnic origin to be Hispanic, while a small percent, indicated their ethnic origin as other. This shows a highly dieJlO eommnnity Annual Income Fcm,-seueu percent of sample respondents reported an income lower than $9,999. Twenty eight pera:nt reported an income between $10,000 and $19,999. This statistic is typical of most transit dependent users. People who frequently use transit are usually m.J!!e 6

PAGE 12

middle to lower income brackets. This finding suggest very low household 4tcome for HART users and indicates a large share of the market is dependent on HART. The Hillsborough County average household inIile is reported to be near $30,000 in 1990. (SOURCE: Florida Statistical Abstract 1990) Antomobile Ownership ApproximateW'451:rcent of the sample respondents do not own an automobile. This is also typical conventional bus transit markets were a majority of bus riders are transit dependents and therefore have no choice but to use public transportation. However, a significant number{32)percent, of the sample have one automobile in their household. This suggests that HMis attracting some residents who have an automobile available. 7

PAGE 13

FIGURE:Z SYSTEM TOTAL: DEMOGRAPHICS 18 yean or under 19 to 22 y<>fS 23 to 34 y<>rs 35 to45 yean 46 to 59 yean 60 to 64 y<>rs 65 to 74 years Age 75 years or more ""'.;.;...--1--+--+----l 0% 10% 20% 30% Annual Household Income Lm than $5,000 ss,ooo to S9,m S10,000 to $14,999 S15,000 to Sl9,m $20,000 to $24,999 $25,000 to $29,999 $30,000 to $39,999 $40,000 to $49,999 SSO,OOO to $59,000 $60,000 md ovu CM 11M Female 60% Gender Hispanic 11'11> Oth
PAGE 14

De m ographic Comparison o f HAR T Users a nd Con v en tional B ns Transit U sers It is interesting to compare the demographics of HART ridership with those of other systems in the State of Florida. Table 1 provides data for HART, Metro-Dade Transit Authority (regular bus riders only), Sarasota County Area Transit and Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority in three demographi c categories including gender, ethnic origin, and household income. In general, the proportion of HART riders in each of th e categories is similar to those from oth e r state transit agencies; however HART riders generally have lower incomes. TABLE 1 Demographic C o mpariso ns with B us In Flo rida Gender male 40% 27% 41% 42% female 60% 73% 59% 58% Ethnic Origi n white 43% 23% n% n% african-american 42% 29% 24% 22% hispanic 11% 44% 3% of a other 4% 4% 1% 6% Househo l d JQC<>me' I= than $10,000 35% n/a n/a o/a 49% 55% f 30% of a n/a ; $15,000 to $25,000 20% 31% 24% $25,000 or greater 14% 19% 21% 1Mct:Jo..Dadc TranAt Awbority Ridtt Retea&Jon tad Service Pufonaance Evllua t toa Study, Jutyl989 N'*= Data ladudcs ooly tbi.)$C JUpOn4eelt$ da.ssific:d as regular users. ltittcllu Sunooast Tnnsit Autbotity, O.o-boltd S\IIYC}', 1986.. 'saiUOta County Ami Tran sit On-boar< IUclcnhlp s-oy, l'd>ruary 1991. 41Acomo data woze to enabJc comparl:sollS with O l ber Oft.boatd tutvGys. 9

PAGE 15

Question 14 Age While 70 percent of weighted sample respondents are between the ages of 23 and 59, thirty two percent are in the 23 to 34 years age group. The next age group with a noticeable amount of respondents is the 35 to 45 age group which is 25 percent of the weighted sample respondents. 10

PAGE 16

SURVEY QUESTION #14 19to22 23 to 34 35 to 45 46 to 59 60to64 65 to 74 15 or more 18 years or under 19 to 22 years i3 to 34 years 35 to 45 years 46 to 59 years 60 to 64 years 65 to 74 years Figure 3 U% 24% 13% 4% 4% 2% 4% 24% U% 31% 3% 2% 4% 8% 6% 2% 2% 3% 0% \ 75 years or more 11-=-:.:....-+---+---+---1 0% 10% 20% 30% .. 40% 11 10% 25% 13% 4% 4% 1%

PAGE 17

Question 15 Gender Overall, more females (60%) use HART service then males. This is not surprising when considering the fact that more women have recently entered the workplace than men, and that women tend to use transit then men for other transportation reasons 12

PAGE 18

SURVEY QUESTION #15 . Male Female Figure4 41% 59% Male Female I 40% 49% 32% 40% 60% Sl% 68% 60% ..

PAGE 19

Question 16 Ethnic Origin The weighted total indicates that whites make-up 43 percent of the sample respondents. This is the highest percentage. 14-

PAGE 20

Figure 5 SURVEY QUESTION #16 White 40% 45% 38% 8S% 43% African-American 44% 6% 42% 12% 11% 8% U% Other 4% 4% 2% 2% 4% White Mrican-American Hispanic Other 0% Io% 20% 30% 40% 50% 15

PAGE 21

Question 17-Annual Household Income A high percent of the sample respondents fall in the "less then $5,000" income group. Each service type income group parallels the weighted total groups with a dominate amount of the sample respondents below $20,000. 16

PAGE 22

SURVEY QUESTION #17 Less lhan lo lo $14,999 $15,000 lo $19,999 $20,000 to $50,000 to $59,999 $60,000 and over Less than $5,000 $5,000 to $9,999 $10,000. to $14,999 $15,000 to $ 19,999 $20,000 to $24,999 $25,000 to $29,999 $30,000 to $39,999 $40,000 to $49,999 $50,000 to $59,999 $60,000 and over 0% Figure6 28% 21% 19% 10% 8% 5% 5% 2% 1% 1% 10% 17 31% 31% 4% 19% 26% 4% 19% 16% 8% 18% 12% 8% 9% 10% 6% 6% 11% 8% 4% 4% 10% 5% 5% 4% 16% 5% 2% 14% 3% 1% 0% 12% 2% Z% Z% 12% Z% 20%

PAGE 23

Question 18 Automobile Ownership While the breakdown of automobile ownership is similar to most conventional bus markets, it is interesting to see that over half of the sample respondents on Sunday have an automobile in their household. 18

PAGE 24

Figure 7 SURVEY QUESTION #18 Nooc 47% 55% 3Z% 7% One 32% 29% 49% 33% 10% U% 46% 16% Three or more 6% 6% 8% 15% 6% . None One Two Thre e or more 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% . 19

PAGE 25

Travel Behavior A number of questions were asked of respondents which identify travel behavior characteristics of HART patrons as shown in Figure 23. Information in this section includes how did you get to the bus stop? (question 2), where did you come from before you got on the bus? (question 3), where are you going on there trip? (question 5), and how will you get to your final destination (question 7). These questions help identify passenger trip origin/destination, trip purpose and modes of access/egress. A sum.mary graphic of these travel characteristics is provided on page 45. Trip Purpose Ninety-nine percent of survey respondents reported their trips as home-based, i.e having home as the origin Ql destination. Approximately 58 percent of all respondents made trips to 21: from work. These numbers are derived from the sums of the trip purpose data on the following two summary tables. Note that the results on the following two graphics reflect the fact that most sampling occurred in the mornings and hence includes predominantly t rips from home to work and other locations. A more accurate reflection of trip purpose is calculated by reporting the weighted average of these two tables (page 45) Trip Origin/Destination Figures 8 through 11 indicate the origin and destination zones for all reported trips. Census tract level data is available as is trip table data for origin and destination information, however, it is not presented in this report. 20

PAGE 26

SURVEY QUESTION #3 Home Work School VISiting/Recreation Other ( Home Work School F i gure 8 19% 10% 2% 2% 2% 1% 3% Doctor/Dentist 1211b Shopping/Errands Visi ti ng/Recreation Other 21 12% 82% 98% 80% 10% 8% 1% 9% 2% 1% 0% 2% 1% 1 % 0% 2% 7% 1% 0% 3% 4% 6% 0% 1% 4% 3% 1% 3% 40% 80%

PAGE 27

SURVEY QUESTION #5 Home Work School Otller Home Work School DoaorfDentist Other Figure 9 19% 48% 9% S% 8% 4% 7% 28% 13% 3% 25% 42% 94% 2% 0% 2% 3% 4% 0% 25% 13% 0% 11% 12% 0% 7% 17% 1% ()Clfl lOClfl 20Clfl 30'lb 40'lb S()Clfl 2:Z 19% 49% 8% S% 9% S% 7%.

PAGE 28

ART NBOARD URVEY 5.0 Figure 10 ORIGINS OF SURVEYED TRIPS @ LEGEND Dl8ttlct Boundry Dl8ttlct Number . -. ... 125 Number of Paaaangara Orlgln.tlng In District

PAGE 29

HART ON-BOARD SURVEY a NORTH 0 2.11 .0 Figure 11 .. CRG1NS OFSLIIIIEftD UU'6 LEGBCD Dlatlict Boundary @ Dlldricl Numbar PeD*' 1 otAil "fttpQigbw 24 I I I I I I ., I

PAGE 30

:-I BOARD JRVEY a NORTH 2.5 s.o MILES YigOre 12 DESTINATIONS OF SURVEYED TRIPS @ LEGEND District Boundary District Number .. -. .@) 125 Number of Paaaengera Tra11111lng to District 25

PAGE 31

'!ART :lN BOARD SURVEY 0 NORTl-1 0 2.5 5.0 Figure 13 DES"nN,AnONS OF SURVEYS> TRIPS LEGEND District Boundary District Number ... . -. .... @ 0.2% 2.8% Percentage of All Trip DNUnaUona 2 6

PAGE 32

Modes of Access/Egress The access/egress modes have been g!-oiipeil iiltll major categories: walk, automobile, and other. The modes of access/egress charts in figure 14 indicate the proportion of access and egress trips that are taken in each of the swrunary categories. The walk categozy includes walking 0-2 blocks, 2-4 blocks, and over 4 blocks. The automobile categozy includes driving and parking at a bus stop or being dropped off/picked up at a bus stop. A majority of access/egress trips are in the walking 0-2 blocks categozy with 2r percent in the walkiilg 2-4 blocks categozy. For all local trips (weekday, Saturday and Sunday) over 70% of the respondents walked 0 to 4 blocks to access the bus. This mode of access information is within the generally accepted standard that walk access to linehaul bus service is within one-quarter mile of the. user's point of origin. Alternatively, the express service mode of access was by a rum-walk mode (76% ). This is in line with typical access modes for work-trip oriented commuter services. Similar to the mode of access characteristics, a large percentage of the respondents (80+% systemwide) indicated that they walked 0 to 4 blocks to reach their destination. This high percentage is indicative of the fact that most users do no t have an alternative to the walk mode at the trip destination.

PAGE 33

Figure 14 SURVEY QIJESTION #1. - --------------, ... -.o::c.li_ - WaiJccd o-2 biocb WaiJccd 2-'1 blocks Walked more than 4 blocks Wu dropped off Dro.e and parked Other Walked Cl-2 bloclcs Walked 2-4 bloclcs Walked more than 4 blocks Wa.s dropped off Drove and parked Other 0% 28 SS% S3% 21% 19% 13% IS% 7% 6% 1% 1% 3% 6% 20% 40% . SS% 11% $2% 23% "' 20% . 14% S% 12% 4% 17% 8% 1% 59% 5% 4% 2% 4% 60% .,

PAGE 34

-, SURVEY QUESTION #7 Walk 0-2 blocks Walk 2-4 blocks Walk more Chan 4 blocks Get Other Walk G-2 blocks Walk 2-4 blocks. Walk more than 4 blocks Get picked up Drive Other OOfo Figure 15 59% 21% 11% 3% 1% 4% 200/o 29 S9% 61% 49% 59% 19% 22% 36% 22% 12% 10% 11% 11% 4% 4% 1% 3% 1% 1% 2% 1% 4% 3% 1% 4% 60%

PAGE 35

Question 4 Transfers Between Buses Systemwide the typical HART respondent's trip involved at least one transfer to another route. The locallinehaul services exhibited the highest percentage of transfers (59% for local weekday; 55% for Saturday service and 51% for Sunday service). The express route respondents answered that only 10% of their trips involved a transfer. Since minimal opportunities exist for transferring on such limited stop types of service, and since the service is designed to attract CBD bound travelers such a finding is consistent with generally observed travel of express bus riders. Note that this finding is consistent with data that approximately 25% of HART hoardings involve a transfer. These transferring passengers board their first vehicle and pay a fare and board a second vehicle using a transfer. Thus, approximately 50% of the passenger trips involve a transfer. 30

PAGE 36

Figure 16 SURVEY QUEST ION #4 45% 49% Yes, two oc more transfus 7% 7% 4% 6% . 'Z.'7 f. Yes. one tnnsfer -r y.. '{ 'J(, (, .,. '1. 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Yes, two or more tnrufers .:,."(.. --{.t/ 31

PAGE 37

Question 8 -Fare Category Systemwide the predominant fare type is the regular adult fare (76% ). Given the time of service and the work trip market that it seJVes, a significant amount of the express ridership (95%) pays the regular adult fare. It should be noted though, that a similarly significant percentage of this ridership, primarily on local services, are in fare categories generally considered transit dependent (i.e. youth, seniors, disabled). This is especially true on Saturday services where over 30% of all fares are into these categories. 32

PAGE 38

Figure 17 SURVEY QUESTION #8 Youth 10% 1 4% 10% Adult 7S% 68% 16% Seoior 7% 11% 10% 3% 8% Disabled 7% 6% 3% 6% Youth Regular Adult Senior Diu bled 20% 40% 60% 80% 33

PAGE 39

Question 9 -Method or Fare Payment On local linehaul services, the predominant method of payment is by cash, ranging from 71% on weekdays to 78% on Saturdays and 79% on Sundays. Express service respondents, alternatively, rely much more on multiple fare payment instruments such as the HART flash or punch passes (approximately 69% ). Even though the flash pass program is relatively new, a sizable proportion of the ridership 17% systemwide rely on this form of payment. 34

PAGE 40

Figure 18 SURVEY QUESTION #9 71% 78% 79% 17% 15% 15% 2A% Punch Pass. 9% S% S% 45% HRS ParePass 3% 2% 1% 1% Cash Flash Pass Punch P= HRS TicketjY ell ow Fare Pass 3% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 35 69% 17% 3%

PAGE 41

Question 10 -Frequency of Use Almost three-quarters (75%) of the HART riders are regular users averaging individual use over four days or more per week. Express bus passengers are even more likely to be frequent users in that 88% of these respondents ride four or more days per week. When th_ e sample of respondents who use the bus 2 to 3 times per week are added to the results the systemwide total shows that over 90% of HART riders rely quite frequently on the servioe for their travel. This is particularly true of the weekday local and express ridership. This indicates a user group which relies frequently on public transportation. 36

PAGE 42

SURVEY QUESTION #10 week 2 or3 Less than once a week 4 or more days per week 2 or 3 days per week About 1 day per week Less than onoe a week 0% Figure 1 9 74% 63% 15% 18% 6% 12% S% 8% 20%. 40% 37 69% 88% 74% 14% 9% 15% 8% 6% 9% 1% S% 60% 80% ..

PAGE 43

Ques t ion 11 Most Important Reason to Use the Bus Again there is a difference in response percentages between local passenger is using HART service because either that person cannot drive or does not _!!ave .. MJ. transportation alternative -This is conSistent-with .... observation that transit dependency is higher among local bus patrons versus express riders. Conversely, the .. have hlgher and better automobile availability, responded that the bus is chosen as their preferred mode of transportation because of either (1) it is more economical, 35%, or (2) it is more convenient, 30%. --... .... "' ........ .. - .... ,. . . Overall, however, the lack of an 111:o:de . ()!.. is the primary reasq_n.,_ ------"'' ... as indicated by 73% of all patrons, that the respondents use the bus. 38

PAGE 44

SURVEY QUESTION #U I don't drive Car is net avallable Bus is more ccoaOCical is Bus is more convenient Other I don't driYe Car is oot anihble Bus is more eoonomical Parking is difficult/expensive Bus is more convenient F i gure 20 33% 43% 9% 3% 8% 4% 39 :!8% 39% 7% 32% 43% 42% 14% 41% 8% 7% 35% 1% 4% l.S% 3% 7% 7% 23% 9% 3% 2% 7% 4% .

PAGE 45

Question 12 Alternative Transponation Possible Consistent with the following observations on automobile availability and household income, the local service passengers answering that to the E?.S ran!Png from 10% to 20% for Conversely, the express passengers ....,. .. .......................... _. indicated that they would be much more likely to use an automob ile if public transportation were unavailable. To further illustrate the transit dependency of the HART population, the respondents systemwide who answered that either they would rely on someone else for a ride or would not make the trip at all constituted over half (52%) of the respondents. 40

PAGE 46

SUR VEY QUESTION #IZ onve Rid e wich someone Wouldn' t make Walk Taxi Drive Ride with someone Wouldn t make trip Walk Taxi Bicycle Figur e 2 1 20% lS% 38% 3S% lS% 16% 16% 22% 10% 3% 3% 111'111 20% 4-t 10% 78% .23% 38% 14% 37% 16% S% lS% 25% 1% 16% 7% 1% 7% 3% 40%

PAGE 47

Question 13 -Length or Use or HART Service Across all service types, a high percentage of the respondents indicated that they have been long-time users of the HART system. Systemwide over half of the passengers have been riding the bus for over two years; while an additional14% of all passengers have been riding one to two years. In all, this response indicates that a substantial number of patrons are what could be considered a stable market. 42

PAGE 48

Figure 22 SURVEY QUESTION #13 Less than 6 moo.ths 17% 13% 17% 14% 16% 6 1110Dths to 1 14% 13% 11% 12% 14% ltol 13% 13% lS% 16% 14% 2 or 56% 61% 56% SS% ST% Less than 6 months 6 months t o 1 year 1 to 2 years 2 years o r longer 43

PAGE 49

User Satisfaction Respondents were asked to indicate how satisfied they were with various aspects of the HART system. The results indicate satisfaction l evels with each of the particular aspects. Based on these observations, decisions can be made on future improvements in the system that reflect patron perceptions. A summary graphic (figure 23) of these travel characteristics is provided on page 46. The following service aspects were rated by survey respondents: (a) Weekday hours of service (b) Saturday hours of service (c) Sunday hours of service (d) Frequency of service (bow often buses run) (e) Convenience of routes (where buses go) (f) Buses arrive on time (g) Travel time (time it takes to make a trip by bus) (b) Ease of transferring between buses (i) Transfer policy G) Cost of riding the bus (k) Cost of transfers (I) Availability of bus route information (m) Vehicle cleanliness ( n ) Comfort of ride (o) HART employee courtesy (p) Safety on bus (q) Safety at bus stop (r) I .ocarim of bus stops (s) What do ]1111& ifrink about HART service. in geoeral Figures 24 through 42 indicate user satisfaction responses for each of the above system cbaraderislics. The four user satlsfdion aspedS in figure 23 weR selected to be included in the uscr profile sectim These aspeas were jdc:ntjfied as providiDg the reader with the best overall 44

PAGE 50

indication of how satisfied passengers were with HART service. The following tables and figures summarize each user satisfaction question in the survey. In general, most HART patrons believe that this service is OK or better. Specifically, a significant percentage felt that improvements should be made in the weekend hours of service. 45

PAGE 51

FIGURE23 SYSTEM TOTAL: TRAVEL BEHAVIOR Trip Origin/ Destination Walked 2-4 blocks 21 'lt> Other 11% Shop ,!Errands Home 49% 6% Scbool S% Walked over 4 blocks 11% Walked bloclcs 55% By automobile 9% Other 4% Modes of Access/ Egress USER SATISFACTION Very Sa timed Somewhat Satidicd ou, Socnrwlut Dissatlsticd Vay Diaaaisf.ed No Opi.n.ion Very Satisfied Somc!what Sattar.d Olear Somewh..t Disatisficd Very Dissatisfied Weekday Hours of Service 1=--1---+-+---1 Convenience of Routes No Opiaion Jl!.!''--1'-----4--+---1 46 Frequency of Service Overall HART Service

PAGE 52

SURVEY QUESTION #lOa Somewhat Satisfied OK Somewhat Dissatisfied Dissatisfied No Very Satisfied Somewhat Satisfied OK Figure 2 4 37% 26% 21% 9% 6% 1% 41% 40% 44% 22% 24% 32% 17% 19% 14% 8% 10% 6% 10% 7% 7.% 1% 0% 2% Somewhat Dissatisfied Very Dissatisfied No Opinion 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 47 38% 26% 20% 9% 1%

PAGE 53

SURVEY QUESTION #lOb Satisfied Somewhat Satisficd OK Somewhat Dissatisticd Dissatisfied No OpiDion V uy Satisfied Somewhat Satisfied OK Somewhat Dissatisfied Very Dissatisfied No Opinion Figure 25 11% 20% 22% 3% 16% 15% 15% 2% 21% 18% 18% 8% 9% 18% 21% 3% 6% .28% 23% 6% 1% 2% .1% 78% 0% 5'lb 10% 15% 20% 25% 48 11% 15% 20% 18% 22% 14%

PAGE 54

SURVEY QUESTION #20c Very Satisfied Somewhat Satisfied OK Somewhat Dissatisfted Dissatisfied No Very Satisfied Somewhat Satisfied OK Somewhat Dissatisfied Very Dissatisfied No Opinion OOfo Figure 26 8% 6% 13% 15%. 42% 16% 100/o 49 14% 15% 2% 8% 7% 11% 1% 6% 12% 17% 6% 12% 14% 20% 4% 14% 46% 36% 7% 7% 1% 79% 19% 20% 300/o 400/o

PAGE 55

SURVEY QUESTION #20d Satisfied Somewhat Satisfied OK SomeWhat Dissatisfied Dissatisfied No Very Satisfie d Somewhat Satisfied OK Somewhat Dissatisfied Vay Dimrisfied No Opinion 0% Figure 27 19% 22% 26% 18% 14% 2% 10% 24% 23% 26% 20% 19% 18% 30% 22% 23% 25% 26% 26% 16% 18% ll% 18% 17% 15% 5% 13% 2% 0% '2% 2% 20%

PAGE 56

SURVEY QOESTJON #20e Satisfied Somewhat Satisfied OK Somewhat Dissatisfied No Very Satisfied Somewhat Satisfied OK Somewhat Dissatisfied Very Dissatisfied No Opinion 0% Figure 28 33% 24% 27% 8% 6% 2% 10% 51 37% 42% 34% 19% 17% 25% 23% 25% 30% 21% 26% 9% 6% 5% 8% 9% 7% 3% 6% 1% 1% 4% 2% 20% 30% 40%

PAGE 57

Figure 29 SURVEY QUESTION #20C Very Satisfied Somewhat Satisfied OK Somewhat Dissatisfied Dissatisfied No v cry Satisfied Somewhal Suisfied OK Somewhat Dissatisfied No Opinion 0% 26% 24% 27% 13% 9% 1% 10% \ 27% 27% 36% 26% 20% 19% 30% 24% 27% 28% 18% 27% 12% 13% 11% 13% 11% 12% 5% 9% 2% 1% 0% 1% 20% 30%

PAGE 58

SURVEY QUESTION. #20g Satisfied Somewhat Satisfied OK Somewhat Di$satls6ed Dissatisfied No Very Satisfied Somewhat Satisfied OK Somewhat Dissatisfied Very Dissatisfied No Opinion 0% F i gure 3 0 Z3% 29% 23% 18%' 32% 30% 12% 12% 9% 9% 2% 2%' % 20% 53 28% 42% 25% 21% 34% 22% 31% 9% 2% 11% 7% 3 % 9% 1% 2% 30% 40% ..

PAGE 59

Figure 31 SURVEY QUESTION #lOb n$'{U --I --------------------------------------------------. . Very Satisfied Somewhat Satisfied OK Somewbat Dissatisfied Very Dissatisfied No Opinion V ery Satisfied OK Dissatisfied Very Dissatisfied No Opinion 0% 2S% 33% 31% 5% 24% 19% 19% 19% 6% 19% 31% 2S% 29% 9% 30% 9% 9% 9% 3% 9% 8% 9% 7% 3% 8% 7% 5% 4% 15% 11% 10% 20% 30% 54

PAGE 60

SURVEY QUESTION #201 Satisfied Somewhat Satisfied OK' Somewhat Dissatisfied Dissatisfied No Very Satisfied OK Dissatisfied Very D issatisfied No Opinion 0% Figure 32 29% 18% 31% 8% 8% 7% 10% 55 35% 39% 6% 28% 16% 13% 6% 17% 28% 34% 11% 29% 7% S% 2% 8% 8% 6% 1% 7% S% 4% 74% 11% 20% 30%

PAGE 61

SURVEY QUESTION #20J very Salislied Somewhat Satisfied OK Somewhat Dissatisfied Dissatisfied No Very Satisfied Somewhat Satisfied OK Somewhat Dissatisfied Very Dissatisfied No Opinion 0'11> Figure 33 24% 17% 34% 12% 12% 2% 10% 20% 56 31% 34% 15% 24% 15% 16% 25% 17% 30% 29% 29% 33% 10% 10% 18% 12% 12% 10% 11% 2% 1% 2% 2% 30% 40%'

PAGE 62

SURVEY QUESTION #20k Somewhat Satisfied OK Somewhat Dissatisfied No Very Satisfied Somewhat Satisfied OK Somewhat Dissatisfied Very Dissatisfied No Opinion 0% Figure 34 17% 15% 15% 7% 17% 35% 32% 34% 12% 33% 6% 5% 4% 1% 6% 6% 6% 4% 2% 5% 6% 4% 3% 70% 10% 20% 30% 40% 57

PAGE 63

SURVEY QUESTlON #201 Very Satisfied Somewbal Salis&ed OK Somewhat Dissatisfied Dissatisfied No Very Satisfied Somewhat Satisfied OK Somewhat Dimris6af VeryFigure 35 39% 44% 4 1 % 35% 21% 18% 19% 25% 28% 26% 29% 28% 7% 6% 6% S% 4% 5% 4% 3% 1% 2% 1% 4% No Opinio n 1'111 0'111 10'111 20% 58 21% 28% 7% 4% 1% .

PAGE 64

SURVEY QUESTION #20m Satisfied Somewhat Satisfied OK Somewhat Dissatisfied Dissatisfied No V err Satisfied Somewhat Satisfied OK Somewhat Dissatisfied V err D i ssatisfied Figure 36 34% 24% 29% 6% 5% 1% 41% 43% 16% 20% 19% 18% '27% 28% XI% 6% 7% 19% 4% 19% 1% 0% 1% No Opinion J!!---+---+----l-----l 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% ) 59 34% 24% 28% 7 % 6% 1%

PAGE 65

Figure 37 SURVEll Q UESTION #20a Satisfied 36% 43% 47%, 18% Somewhat Satisfied 24% 20% 20% 27% OK 30% 29% 27% 37% SOmewhat Dissatisfied S% 4% 2% 14% Dissatisfie
PAGE 66

SURVEY QUESTION #20o Satlsfle
PAGE 67

SURVEY QUESTION #ZOp SOIDewhal Satisfied OK Somewhat Dissatisfied Dissatisfied No Very Satisfi
PAGE 68

SURVEY QUESTION #20q Somewhat SatisfiCd OK Somewhat Dissatisfied Dissatisfied No .Very Satisfied Somewhat Satisfied OK Somewhat Dissatisfied Very Dissatisfied No Opinion 0% Figure 40 3S% 42% 4S% 34% 36% 22% 15% 16% 32% 30% 30% 30% 25% 30% 7% 6% 3% S% 7% 5% 5% 6% 2% 4% 2% 1% 0% 2% 2% 10% 20% 30% 40% 63

PAGE 69

SURVEY QUESTION #20r Satjs6ed Somewhat Satisfied OK. Somewhat Dissatisfied Dissatisfied No V t:ry Satisfied OK Somewhat Dimrirfied Very DiwidWf Figure 41 34% 22% 29% 9% S% 1% 64 40% .40% 38% 35% 18% 20% 29% 22% 27% 30% 24% 29% 7% S% S% 8% 6% 4% 3% S% 1% 0% 1% 1% : .

PAGE 70

S'UJlVEY QUESTION #20s .. Satisfied SOJDewhat Satisfied O K Somewhat Dissatisfied Dissatisfied No Opinion Vuy Satisfied Somewhat Satisfied OK Somewhat Dissatisfied Vuy Dissatisfied .No Opinion I 0% Figure 42 27% 27% 30% lD% 5% 3% 10% 65 33% 33% 25% 27% 23% 20% 27% 26% 31% 28% 29% 7% 11% 6% 9% 9% 5% 3% 5% 3% 1% 1% 2% 20% 30%

PAGE 71

Patrons were also questioned on which aspects of performance they would most like to see improvements. Question 21 asked respondents to review all of the listed aspects of HART service provided in Question 20 They were then asked to list ''in order of importance" the three areas where improvements were needed. Table 2 ind i cates how the sample respondents rated each aspect as to its importance. Based on prior public criticism of HARTs weekend service, it is not surprising that 19 percent and 18 percent of survey respondents consider improving Sunday and Saturday services respectively, as a first priority This is supported by the fact that 18 percent and 13 percent cons i dered Sunday and Saturday service respectively, as the second area of importance that needs improvement. 66

PAGE 72

Tab le2 Order o f o r HART Aspects, W eigllled T ota l lst 2o d 3rd Weekday hours of semce 13%. 4% 5% Saturday hours of ser'Yice 13% S% Sunday hours of service '18% ll% Frequeocy of service (how ofteo buses run) 10% 14% 13% Convenience of ro utes (where buses go) 3% 6% 5% Buses arrive on time 9% 9% 9% Travel time (time it takes to ma1
PAGE 73

Typical HART Ridership Profile Table 3 presents the characteristics of a typical HART patron. On average, the person most li kely to use HART is a white female between the ages of 23 to 34 years. She bas an annual income of less then $5000, and does not own an automobile. She typically makes home-based trips and usually has a bus stop within two blocks her origin/destination. Although she may feel that HART service is OK overall, she would like to see some improvements in the weekend service, especially in the Sunday service. Table 3 Typical HART Ridership Profile Age 23 to 34 Gender female Ethnic Origi.u white Annual Household Income less than $5,000 Auto OwDersbip none T rip Origi.u/Destination home Modes of Access/Egress walk 0-2 blocks 68

PAGE 74

Comments/Suggestions At the conclusion of the survey, respondents were given the opportunity to provide comments and/or suggestions. Over 1,900 persons provided some comments -this represented approximately 40% of all respondents. Selected comments were chosen out of the pool of respondents and are presented below: Weekday Help the ones who go to work on Saturdays and Sundays. Buses need to run a little more frequently on weekends. Take care of the poor! They will always be with you. Found out Bus 16 East does not run on holidays; I still have to go to work. Keep up the good work. I love it. Thank you. The cost is a little much, but I guess everyone is out to make money, which is needed to keep the bus line clean and safe. Very satisfied with Hartline so far, rve only been riding a week and a half. Buses need to be sprayed for roaches every night; controlled air conditioners. We need more bus stops with more shelter cover. Very satisfied; somewhat dissatisfied with Saturday and Sunday, however, it is understandable. Keep up the good work. If you can raise the fan:, then you ought to be able fD improve the service. I feel the buses should nm later into the Digbts.. :'llle weekend schedule is totally pathetic.

PAGE 75

Bus No. 2 bas never run on time in 14 months. I have used it. Transfer bas to be longer to make continued buses. Shelters at every bus stop. Earlier times of routes going to Carrollwood and less breaks taken by drivers. Bus stops are too close together. Takes to long to get to destination. Sunday hours are ridirulous. I wish you run the buses longer o n the weekend because people in my family work late and depend on the bus system Improve efficiency in which calls to Hartline for bus times are handled Customer remains on bold too long or receives busy signal too often. More buses on Saturday and Sunday. For my purposes, Hartline is an effective cost-efficient alternative to a car: If there were more buses, perhaps ridership would increase and ease the traffic problem. Need more routes. Route 20x is supposed to be a:press. Lately, it is so full of FL riders that there are no seats for express people. Florida Ave. route is a horreodous ride. All buses are filthy and full of roaches. They leak water-disrepair. Some drivers drink they an: em a. race ttaa. The downtown bus stops need more shelter Should pick up in I .and 0'1 aires, should ba1le a. laaa-11115 to l.JI.Iz ar.cr 5:41 pm. Would like to have uew buses for express ride. 014 buses are DOt oomfonable for 45 70

PAGE 76

minute ride. Roaches on buses. Older buses need a smoother ride. Seat belts would be nice. Get the bugs off the bus (roaches) off the bus. Ability to purchase passes at more places. Where are all the new buses. Dirt and water in seats whenever it rains. Dirt always. Seats frequently have puddles of water on them and wall under window is "sooty". Perhaps driver could inspect and wipe seats and wall to help passengers clothes stay dry and clean. Also, many leaks from ceiling and windows. Most recent fare increase was too much-50% Bus sometimes doesn't show up or is late getting downtown. Later routes. rm in all quite pleased. HART lost a lot riders when the fares went up. Another raise would really kill ridership especially on express. Buses should go further into Pasco County. Fix leaky buses. Saturday Please improve weekend service. Thank JOI1 for the hartline. Thank you for the opportunity to speak out Are you listening?? Louger bus hoUIS. Need man: c:oven:d bus stops and place to sit down. 71

PAGE 77

Longer hours and shorter times on Saturdays. Keep up the good work. More hours on weekends (frequency run later) Keep up the good work. Sunday It would help if the buses tun more often and longer hours and that route timing could match up with buses that intersect the route therefore you would not have to wait an hour or more in the hot sun or rain. I think the buses should run l ater on Saturdays. Just like Fridays, it would be hel pful for me to get transportation. Extend Saturday hour and Sunday service. It is ok. Thank you. More late night service. It is hard to work in Tampa and use the bus. Keep the good work up, I lo v e it 1 wish they ran closer together. 72

PAGE 78

Service Type P rofiles Figures 43 through SO provide graphic representations of the four HART service types When compared to the weighted system total, weekday and Saturday statistics are similar in most respects. Figures 45 and 46, Express Service, presents characteristics that are dissimilar to the HART system overall. This is to be expected since express patrons are the "choicest of the choice" riders. Figures 49 and SO, Sunday Service, provides some indication of the different market that HART is servicing on Sunday. When compared to the weighted system total, there are a few passenger characteristic and pattern variations which should be considered when developing Sunday service. These are listed below: The largest age group for the Sunday sample (28%) is the 35 to 45 The largest age group for the weighted system total (32%) is the 23 to 34 age group Regarding the gender characteristic, each service type is consistent with the weighted total. The only difference is in the Sunday service. This shows a closer ratio of Male to Female then represented by the weighted total. The highest percent of Sunday riders (50%) are African Americans as compared to the highest group o f weighted system total riders ( 45%) are Whites Trip origin/destination as "other" for Sunday patrons is 20 percent, as compared to 11 percent for weighted system total. It is presumed that many of these trips on Sunday are made to Church. I There were two other variations found between service types. The weighted total indicates that a majority of patrons are between the ages of 23 and 59. A review of the weekday, Saturday and Sunday sample reveals an age group pattern that is similar to the weighted total. An exception is found in the age groups for express service. A higher percent of these respondents are in the 35 to 45 age group; 35%, and the 46 to 59 age group; 31%. 73

PAGE 79

Also, while the weighted total result shows that most of the patrons are white, a closer look at this data reveals that this percent is driven by the high percentage of whites that use express service, and that a higher response rate was received from this group. The weekday and Sunday results show that more African-Americans use HART. This is probably a truer representation of the ethnic origin of HART riders. 74

PAGE 80

FIGURE43 WEEKDAY: DEMOGRAPHICS Age 18 years or under 19 to 22yoau 23 to 34,...,.. 35 to4Sy
PAGE 81

FIGURE44 WEEKDAY: TRAVEL BEHAVIOR Trip Origin/ Destination Other 13
PAGE 82

FI GURE45 SATURDAY: DEMOGRAPHICS . Age 18 yean or under 19to22y=s 23 to34 yean 35 to 45 years 46 t o 59 yean 60to64yean 6 5 to 74 years 75 years or more 0% 10% 2 0% Annual Household Income Less than $5,000 $5,000 to S9,999 $10,000 to $14 999 $15 000 t o $19,999 $20 000 to $24,999 $25,000 to $29,999 S3o,ooo 111 S39, m $40,000 to $49,999 $50,000 to $59,000 $60,000 an d OVtr Ftmale 61% 30% Hispanic Attican-American 40% 11% Gend e r Other 4% Male 40% White 45% Eth ni c Orig i n One 29% Two 10% Three or m or e 6% 0% 4% 8% 12% 1 6 % 20% Auto Ow n ersh i p 77

PAGE 83

FIGURE46 SATURDAY: TRAVEL BEHAVIOR School Shop/E.rrands Walked 0-2 blocks 52% Trip Origin/ Destination Walked 2-4 blocks 19'11> W<>
PAGE 84

FIGURE47 SUNDAY: DEMOGRAPHICS 18 years or under 19 to 22 years 23 to 34 years 35 to 45 years 46 to 59 years 60 to 64 years 65 to 74 years 75 years or more Age 10% 20% Annual Household Income Less dian SS,OOO $5,000 to $9,999 $10,000 to $14,999 $15,000 to $19,999 $20,000 to $24,999 $25,000 to $29,999 $30,000 to $39,999 $40,000 to $49,999 $50,000 to $59,000 $60,000 and over 30% Female 51% Aiiican-Ame:rican SO% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 79 One 49% Gender Hispanic Other 10% 2% Ethnic Origin Ml11e 49% White 39% Two 11% Three: or more 8% Auto OWnership None 32%

PAGE 85

FIGURE48 SUNDAY: TRAVEL BEHAVIOR Trip Origin/ Destination Walked t4 blocks 22% ShopfErnnds 7% Work 25% Other 20% Modes of Access/ Walked over 4 bloclcs Egress Wallced G-2 blocks 56% 13% By automobile Othe r 4% 4% USER SATISFACTION Weekday Hours of Service Very S:uiUio:l 1!!!!!!1!!11!!!1!! ou,. Somnthat OH-;.r..t VCJY Oi fi.o:l No o,.;.ioa VoyL" 5ef Som
PAGE 86

FIGURE49 EXPRESS: DEMOGRAPHICS 18 yem or under 19 to 22 y
PAGE 87

FIGURE SO EXPRESS: TRAVEL BEHAVIOR ovu 4 bloclcs 5% Walked2-4 bloclcs 7% Walked G-2 blocks ll'lb Trip Origin/ Destination By automobile 76% Work 46% Home 49% Modes of Access/ Egress USER SATISFACTION v..,.s..u6al SocDM:II: Satiallo:f Oby Somewhat Oiuatia&cd Very Oisutis(loed Weekday Hours of Service No Opioion Vay s.tis6cd Socncwhat S.tisfia:l Oby Somewtt.a1 Diuuitfied Vcrf Dissatis'ted NoOpinioa Convenience of Routes 82 Frequency of Service Overall HART Service School 1% Other S'lb

PAGE 88

VI. SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS In summary, acomprehensive survey of the Hillsborough Area Regional Transit patrons was conducted from May 29 through June 9 of 1991. The purpose of this survey was to collect information on demographics, travel behavior characteristics, and user satisfaction. The survey analysis reviewed the three different types of information for each service type: weekday local, weekday express, Saturday and Sunday. A demographic profile was developed for the system through demographic information from the survey. A majority of HART patrons are white, from the middle age group of the population, and have incomes below the $10,000 level. More then half of these patrons are females, the majority with no access to an automobile. While it was not surprising that HART patrons are consistent with the traditional definition of transit dependent, it was surprising the extent to which this was the case. Seventy-three percent do not drive or have an auto available. It was particularly clear that many of HART patrons have very limited incomes. Thus, these patrons are dependent on HART and are sensitive to fare and service w levels. ride HART not because they wan.!__! but because they have no alternative. They are appreciative of the service that exists and its quality features; however, many have to tolerate the shortcomings as well. While this segment of the market is critical to HART and enables HART to provide important economic benefits to the community by enabling these persons access to jobs, medical services, education, and recreation, it is not a growing market segment. Typically, auto ownership has continued to increase even among the very poor. While this market segment may use more transit jn the funue if more or better exists. it is not "'i' strong growth market for HART. The somewhat higher income groups, those persons with moderate incomes, perhaps with one auto available to two or three drivers, . !_Cgment of the market where transit may be able to market share. Improved service could result in this segment making more of their trips on transit. Their decisions might involve taking a transit trip in lieu of waiting until a spouse returns from work with the car or taking additional trips that might not be taken in the absence of good transit. These consumers may also be sensitive to auto operating costs and choose transit to save parking and auto operating costs. The higher income segments are typically the pure choice transit users. They have .autos -.. 83

PAGE 89

available and .. trWi! it is sufficiently convenient. Their motivations might -.... include some parking and auto operating costs savings, convenience, or possibly a desire to use their travel time reading or perhaps are motivated by environmental or energy conservation concerns. These are typically the most difficult travelers to attract and not surprisingly, the smallest segment of the HART users. Travel behavior patterns were also identified from the responses to the travel behavior questions. Modes of access and egress were reviewed: The most access and_ riders _is walking. _ yot surprisingly, a significant percent of the ...... passengers (52%) walk Jess than two blocks and 32% walk bloc)ls However, for express-riiler$ ilie iiiosf frequent mode of egress is the. A majority of trips in the HART system are hC)I!!e with work trips being the next highest category It is also c lear that the majority of HART passengers are located in central city neighborhoods Transit is used less in more distant locations where less frequent service, higher incomes, and longer travel distances mean persons are more inclined to choose auto travel. The user satisfaction questions were also used to determine HARTs performance from the perspective of its patrons. Eighty-five percent of respondents indicated that HART service was OK or better. Also, respondents indicated the areas where improvements would be most helpful including extended service on Saturday and Sunday. Most striking in the satisfactions ratings was the very strong desire for improved weekend service. This is clear evidence of the transit dependent market expressing their needs for work and other travel on the weekends. In reviewing the performance data it was clear that many of the desired service impro v ements were in areas that would require more or reallocated resOurces. This included weekend service, service frequency, service coverage, and hours of service. HART ranked very WI}!) in the category of employee courtesy an9 saf:c;ty. o n the vehicle_. ........ In conclusion, the survey results suggest that HART is offering a convenient service which has many patrons that are appreciative of the service; however, they are eager to see improvements. The comments provided by riders bore out this finding. Several expressed appreciation for the service but many offered pleas for improvements and suggestions for areas where they wanted changes. Riders improvements madll -----.. ...... -. ... . . . in Saturday and Sunday service. Undoubtedly, the information gathered through this survey to further improvements in HART service. 84

PAGE 90

APPENDIX A S urvey Methodology A-1

PAGE 92

APPENDIX A IV. SURVEY METIIODOLOGY Survey Design and Pretest Based on a review of on-board transit surveys recently conducted by CUTR and others administered throughout the country, a survey was designed to distinguish demographic information, travel behavior and user satisfaction. A copy of the survey is provided in Appendix B. The survey was prepared with input from HART staff and the HART Consumers Alliance Committee who were asked to comp lete the draft survey to help in identifying potential p r oblems. Additionally, in an effort to allow all segments of the population to participate, a Spanish version of the survey wlis also produced. After a draft was fin ali :red the survey instrument as well as the a.dministration approach was pretested on three bus routes --one local route with downtown Tampa as its destination; one local crosstown route and one express route. These three distinct types of services were chosen to determine whether there was any variatio n in types of passenger responses. Following minor modifications the final survey instrument was produced The pretest also allowed an estimation of the response rate that could be expected. As is frequently the case, the desire to gather as much information as posSible resulted in the survey being quite long. However, the response indicated that the passengers both understood the questions and bad time to complete the survey. Survey Administration -The methodology for the conduct of the on-board survey was relatively straightforward. The survey was conducted between May 29th and June 9th, 1991. The survey was designed to be "self' administered where the passenger picks up and comp l etes the questionnaire with the operator making them aware of the survey and telling them where to pick up and drop-off the surveys. In an effort to adequately capture a representative sample of the HART ridership, a two-tiered approach was taken to survey A-3

PAGE 93

the HART passengers. In addition to driver administration, temporary personnel were employed to administer the surveys on the busiest routes. On routes with relatively low ridership, drivers were relied on to distribute surveys to the passengers; on routes with relatively heavy ridership such that drivers would have difficulty in distnbuting the instrument and instructing the passengers on how to complete the instrument, temporary personnel were hired to distribute the survey. Preliminary response rates indicated that several routes were not conducive to such administration because of passenger loads and the fare coUection duties of the drivers. As a result, additional temporary personnel were assigned to distribute the surveys on these routes. Approximately half of the trips for the four main service types: weekday local, weekday express, Saturday and Sunday were sampled. To avqid double counting of respondents, the survey was designed to ask that individuals not complete a second survey that day if they have already completed one prior to transferring to that bus or on an earlier trip that day. As is typical of written surveys, persons who are not literate will not be included in the response sample. Thus the users of the information should keep in mind that a small share of riders are not represented in the completed survey results. Data Entry and Processing -A complete questionnaire was not required to be included in the poo l of responses. AU completed questions were included in the analysis regardless of whether the entire questionnaire was fiUed out. The surveys were reviewed by data entry personnel who input answers into a Lotus software file. These files were then reviewed and subsequently processed with a statistical analysis package, "SAS". If data entry personnel bad questions about a response CUIR staff members reviewed the questionnaire. The entered data was checked for accuracy in data entry. Responses were subjected to weighting and factoring. This process results in the numbers being produced being reflective of the average for all HART riders. For example, the express routes have longer trips allowing the passengers more time to complete the survey, thus the share of riders of these routes who completed a survey was higher. When calculating overall system averages for things like income and average age, the fact that a greater share of express passengers completed a survey is taken into account so that the A-4

PAGE 94

typically higher income of express passengers is not overstated in total system results. Weekday .responses were factored -up and we ighted to adjust for directional response rate variations and afternoon/evening ridership. Weekend responses were also factored to adjust for directional response rate variations. In additioo, to calculate a weighted total response, weekday and weekend samples were factored-up to actual average total ridership tor each day. As a result, the weighted total response is adjusted to account for five weekdays, one Saturday, and one Sunday. Response Rates Generally, the response rate was excellent compared with similar efforts undertaken on this type of service. Not surprisingly, local weekday riders, with relatively .shorter trip lengths bad lower completion rates for the entire survey. Nonetheless, the response rate for the survey was very good and provides a very good information base for analysis. The survey resulted in a sample of 1,969 weekday local, 350 weekday express; 492 Saturday and 171 Sunday passengers. The resulting response rates by service type and route are provided in Table 4. SERVICE TYPE Table 4 Response Rate by Service Type for Sampled Trips RESPONSE RATE 32% 28% 25% 84% On a typical weekday HART bas approximately 25,000 passenger hoardings. When adjusted for transfers and return trips, this indicates that approximately 9,400 individuals are carried daily on HART routes. With over 2,300 completed weekday surveys, 25% of the typical weekdays' passengers have provided data for the analysis. The sample response rates on the weekdays, particularly on the expresses, were systematically higher than the weekend responses. A completed survey was not a requirement to be included in the survey results. All completed questions were included in the analysis regardless of whether the entire Sllrvey AS

PAGE 95

was filled out As a result, sample response rates differ by service type and route, and also by question. The total sample response rate was 33 percent. This was the percent of riders that completed pan or all of a survey on days and trips when surveys were distributed. While the weekday and weekend sample response rates were similar to the system total, there was a significantly higher response rate for the express service type. This type of response rate can be expected since express riders have more time to complete their survey. Since the implementation of the survey included questionnaires that were written in Spanish, language should not have presented any sample biases. A review of the response rate by question presented in Table 5 -shoWs that most of the sample respondents understood the questions However, those questions which had low response rates were the open-ended questions; 19, 19-1, 19-2, which referred to "'place of employment" and "work stan and end times". Also, the final four questions concerning service quality and comments have lower response rates. Represented in Table 6 are the total response rates for each route. The total number of surveys that were returned for each route, is calculated as percent of that route's GFI farebox total (not just sampled trips) for the day it was surveyed. In the absence of any GFI farebox reading no response rate is reported. Also, some routes do not operate on each day of the week, i.e., express routes on weekends, or Route #4 on Sunday. For these routes a N/ A is shown. With the exception to those few questions which showed lower response rates, the response rate by question remained relatively stable. This would indicate that most respondents had a sufficient amount of time to complete the full survey. A-6

PAGE 96

TableS Response Rat e b y Q u es t ion 1. You first got on the bus at: 95% 73% 71% 97% 2. How did you get to the bus stop? 96% 94% 98% 98% 3. Where did you come &om before you got on the 97% 96% 98% 98% bus? 4 Does your trip involve a Traasfer? 96% 94% 97% 99% 5. Where are you going on your trip? 96% 94% 95% 99% 6. Where will your bus trip end? 69% 64% 62% 69% 7. How will you gel lc> your final destination? 94% 91% 93% 98% 8. Which fare category are you in? 93% 93 % 95% 98% 9 How did you pa y for your fare? 96% 96% 98% 99% 1 0 How often do you ride the bus? 93% 92% 92% 97% 11. Wha t is the most imporlaDt reason you ride the 95% 93% 94% 99% bus? 12. How would you make your trip if not by bus? 94% 92% 96% 98% 13. How lc>ng have yc>u been using HAR T service ? 94% 91% 94% 98% 14. Your age is 95% 93% 97% 98% 15. Your gender is ... 92% 9 1 % 92% 98% 16. Your ethnic origin is... 90% 87% 90% 96% 17. Your t otal BDDual bouseb old incom e is 84% 81% 84% 90% 18. How many motor vehicles are owned by your 87% 86% 83% 95% hous ehold ? 19. P lace Df emplo?lmeut. SS% 45% 44% 89% Ccallinued Nat 1'9 A-7

PAGE 97

Table 5 (Continued) Response Rate by Question 19-1. Work start time. 53% 19-2. Work leave time. 52% 20a. Weekday hours of servi<:e. 86% 20b. Saturday hours of service. 82% 20c. Suaday hours of service 80% 20d. Frequency of service (bow often buses run). 80% 20e. Convenience of rou tes (where buses go). 2% 20f. Buses arrive on time. 84% 20g. Travel time (time it takes to make a trip by 80% bus). 20h. Ease of transferring between buses. 81% 20i. Transfer policy. 80% 20j. Cost of riding the bus. 82% 20k. Cost of transfers. 19% 201. Availability of bus rou1e 80% information. 20m. Vehicle cleaolines.s. 82% 20o. Comfort of ride. 82% 20o. HART employee courtesy. 83% 0MfHcd Mat Pap 42% 41% 92% 41% 91% 89% 84% 97% 89% 86% 88% 86% 84% 88% 84% 81% 95% 87% 82% 96% 87% 83% 96% 82% 81% 95% 85% 80% 88% 84% 78% 88% 86% 81% 96% 83% 80% 88% 85% 79% 94% 86% 81% 96% 86% 80% 96% 87% 81% 96%

PAGE 98

Wp. Safety on 'bus. 20q. Safety at bus stop. 20r. Location of bus stops. Table 5 (Continued) Response,Rate by Question 83% 8Z% 80% 2Ds. What do YOU think about HART 79%' sernce, in generaL 21-L rii'St area of importance. 21-2. Second area of importance. 21-3. Third area of importance. 22. Comments & Suggestioas: 1 3 4 54% 51% 47% 38% Table 6 Response Rate by Route 30% 32% 12% 51% Continued Next Page A-9 87% 81% 95% 85% 81% 95% 84% 80% 96% 82% 80% 94% 49% 78% 78% 47% 43% 74% 44% 42% 64% 39% 39% 55% 16% 31% 25% 2% N/A 44% 41% N/A

PAGE 99

s 6 7 8 9 10 u 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2S Table 6 (Continued) Response Rate by Route 30% 45% 29% 36% 45% 30% 60% 22% 36% 48% 38% 21% 37% 46% 33% 67% 82% 80% 75% 93% N / A Continued Next P age A-10 33% 53% N / A 9% N / A N / A N/A 59% 32% N/A NfA N/A N/A N / A N / A 42% N f A N /A N/A N/A 12% N/A N/A N/A N/A N / A N / A N/A 49% N / A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N / A N / A N / A N/A N / A

PAGE 100

26 '1:1 28 30 31 32 33 34 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 50 54 200 Table 6 (Contin u ed) R esponse by R oute . 100% 71% 15% 49% 34% 9% 12% N/A 2.0% 76% 35% N/A 29% 50% N/A N/A 43% 95% 1.00% 100% A-ll N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 59% N/A 11% N/A N/A N/A 100% 5% N/A N /A N/A N/A 37% N /A 100% N/A 5% 67% 6% N/A N/A 6% N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

PAGE 101

,o\PPENDJX B Survey Instrument B-1

PAGE 102

:r! DEAR TRANSIT RIDER: HART would like lnlormatlon about your trip and your opinion to help Improve h transit I8IVIce. PLEASE complete the loiU Cull Punch Pass Flash Pass : HRS Ticket/Yellow Fare Pass 10. How often do you rldalhe bus? 4 or more daye per week 2 or 3 daye per week -About I day per week -once fN8tY Wlllta -11. What Is the moet lmportent reason you ride lhe bus? (I only one) I don't drfole Parking Ia dllllcUI/ecpenelve car Ia not available Bus Ia more convenient : Bus Is more econoinlcal 12. How wo!Ad you make your trip W not by bus? Df1ve Walk Ride with aomeone -Taxi : make trip : Bicycle 13. How IDriQ hew you been usi'IQ HART eervloe? Lasa than a monthe 1 to 2 : 8 monthll to 1 year : 2 )'11m or Ionge< 14. Your age Is. .. 18 yearw or under 19 to 22 yearw : 23 to 34 yearw 48 to 59 )'11m -eo to 84 yeara :85 to 74 )'11m 75 yearw or mora 35 to 45 yearw 15. You are: Male Female 16. Your ethnic origin Is... (.f only one) _ Afro-American Hispanic Other 17. Your total annual household Income Is ... Less than $5,000 $25,000 to $29,999 $5,000 to $9,999 -$30,000 to $39,999 $10,000 to $14,999 -$40,000 to $49,999 $15,000 to $19,999 -$50.000 to $59,999 $20,000 to $24,999 $60,000 and CNer 18. H ow many motor vehicles are owned by your houtehold? None One Two Three or more PLEASE CONTINUE ON BACK -

PAGE 103

. Complete u much aa poaalble, but plaaM tum In questionnaire even If you have not finished 19. To help us In our marketing, please list tlieloilo'Mrig: Place cA empoyment 20. Please answer the questions below by placing a check (I) In the appropriale column. I n general, how saUsfled are you with each ollhe following aspects of HART servic e: Yay 5ooocwbol Somcwll&l v..., No SoiU&od 5oJU6od OK Diooa!Wicd Oi.atDW OpiDioo @@@ a Weekday hours of setVl ce ..,.._ b. Saturday hours of service c. Sunday hours of si!IVlce ----d. Frequency of seivlce (how often buses run) 8. Convenience of routes (where buses go) I. Buses arri\18 on drne g. Travel time J:,me It takes to make a by bus) h. Ease of transferring between buses I. Transfer policy J. Cost of riding the bus k. Cost of transfers I. Avallabll!tY of bus route InformatiOn m. Vehicle cleanliness --n. Comfort of ride o. HART &lqJajJea courtesy p. Safety on bus -q. Safely at bus stop ----r. l,oeallnn dlaa --s. What do 'IOU thWr abaur HART eervlce, In general 2t. In ques!fon 20, a through s Dsled above, list the 3 areas, In o!der of lmportanct, where lmp!'ovements 'II'IOuld be most h8Jlfl.' to you: --' and Cor &. SIW 'h'1L 1HANK YOU RlR YOUR COOP ERA nON. PI EASE PLACE IN RETURN BOX ON BUS OR RETURN TO DRIVER. If VOU have any additional comments or questions cell 254-1278. HAR1UNE 2111 East Kennedy Boulevard, #1600 Tampa, Florida 33602 B-3 : ..

PAGE 104

til OUERIOO PASAJEAO: HART .. gu.wfa obttrMf lntcwm.aclon tate& d au vf.,., al lgAt;U.JA:

PAGE 105

COMPI...ETE L0 MAS POSIBLE, PERO POR FAVOR ENTFIEGUE LA ENCUESTA AUN Sl NO LA A TERMINADO. 19. Para ayudamos en nuestnt encuesla, por favor Rene l o slgulente: Lugardeempleo _______ _,.,._.,.-...,.., ________ _ 20. Per favor contasle las pregl.l1fa8 marcando con una X en Ia columna apropl8da. En genenll, zqull satisfecho esl8 lhted con Ill servlclo de HART?: M.,. U. P-Ua P-. Mu, No S.( s .. s.. 5 I 0 OK J")je.tiJ....M DW...... ()piDo a. Horas de servlclo durante Ia semana b. Horas de seflllclo de los Slibados c. Horas de seMc:lo de los Domingos d. Frecuencla de serviclo -e. Convenlencla de las rutas t Puntuafldad de los buses -g. Toempo de vlaje -h. Facilldad en las tranferenclas I P61iza de las transferenclas j. Oosto del pasaje k. Coalo de las transferenclas I. Acceslb l ldad a Ia I nformacion de las rutas --m. Umpleza del bus -n. del bus o. Conesla de los empleados de HART p Segurldad en e1 bus q Segurldad en los paraderos -r. Localizacl6n de los parade

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 00000nas 2200000Ka 4500
controlfield tag 001 026289845
005 20110908173145.0
008 070320s1991 fluab l000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a C01-00192
035
(OCoLC)86074631
040
FHM
c FHM
043
n-us-fl
090
HE4487.F6
b H37 1991
0 245
HART on-board survey analysis :
final report /
prepared by Center for Urban Transportation Research, College of Engineering, University of South Florida.
260
[Tampa, Fla. :
Hillsborough Area Regional Transit Authority,
1991]
300
iv, 84 leaves :
ill., maps ;
28 cm.
500
"November 1991."
5 FTS
530
Also available online.
FTS
650
Local transit
z Florida
Hillsborough County
x Public opinion.
2 710
University of South Florida.
Center for Urban Transportation Research.
Hillsborough Area Regional Transit Authority.
1 773
t Center for Urban Transportation Research Publications [USF].
4 856
u http://digital.lib.usf.edu/?c1.192
FTS
y USF ONLINE ACCESS
910
tp3043
951
10
SFU01:001764123;
FTS