USF Libraries
USF Digital Collections

Factors related to transit use

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Factors related to transit use
Physical Description:
1 online resource (iv, 67 p.) : ill. ;
Language:
English
Creator:
University of South Florida -- Center for Urban Transportation Research
United States -- Urban Mass Transportation Administration
Publisher:
Center for Urban Transportation Research
Place of Publication:
Tampa, Fla
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Choice of transportation -- Statistics -- United States   ( lcsh )
Genre:
bibliography   ( marcgt )
statistics   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references (p. 51).
Statement of Responsibility:
prepared by Center for Urban Transportation Research.
General Note:
"October, 1989."
General Note:
"Prepared for Urban Mass Transportation Administration."

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 - 028672705
oclc - 751453654
usfldc doi - C01-00312
usfldc handle - c1.312
System ID:
SFS0032385:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

Center for Urban Transportation Research FACTORS RELATED TO TRANSIT USE CUTR 'I .. ,:.-; : :':1! :.-..;.:.:;: ::- .. .. . University of South F l orida College of Engineering Tampa, Florida

PAGE 2

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

PAGE 3

TABLE O F CONIENTS SECTION LIST OF TABLES .................................... I EXECUTI'VE SU MMAR. Y . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A Sununazy ........................................ B. Service Planning And Marke t ing ............. C. Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . ll. BACKGROUND ..................... ................. A. Researc h O b jeCtive s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B. Previous Research .................................. ill. SURVEY PROCEDURES ............................... IV. RESEARCH FINDI NGS ................................ A. Cons umer P;eferences Of Aut o Users ................... B. Consumer P r e f erences Of Public Transportat ion U sers ...... C. Comparisons Of Beh avior And Attitudes In The Central City v s. S uburban Are as ....... ..................... D Transit Innovations 0 0 0 0 0 0 E. Public Policy Issues 0 0 0 0 0 0 PAGE . 11 1 1 1 2 6 6 7 15 17 18 23 28 34 38 F. Regi onal Co m parisons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 V. SERVICE PlANNING AND MARKETING I MPLICATIONS . . 4 9 VI REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 VII. APPENDICES .... ....... ....................... 52 A. Mi scella n eous Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 B. Future R e search Opportuni ti es . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 C. Survey Instru ment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 8

PAGE 4

Figur e 1 Figure 2 Figu r e 3 F i gur e 4 Figure 5 F i gu r e 6 Figu r e 7 F i gure 8 Figure 9 F i gure 10 Figure 11 UST OF FIGURES MSA's I ncluded in Survey o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Major Advantage of Going to Work by Car as Opposed to U sing Public T r ansportation (Reported by those who drive t o work) .................... .......... ........ . Major Disa dv antage o f Going_to Wor k by Public Transportation (Reported by tho se who drive to work) o o o o o o o o o o o .o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 The Single G r eatest Advantag e of Taking P u blic Transportatio n (Bas e d o n r espo n ses of t h ose using the privat e auto in t heir trip to \Vork . . .............................. Amoun t Pai d by Respondent t o Park Auto at Work (Asked of those that drive to Work) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 P erce n t of Those Who Would Take a Car to Work, i f They Owned' a Car, for Sel ected Gro u ps (Asked o f thos e who wo r k but do not 15 18 19 20 Z.t own cars) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5 Reasons for No t Drivi n g to Work (As re po r ted by those who do n o t own cars, but even if they did w o uld not u s e them to drive to work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 The Single Greatest Advantage of T aking Public Transpor t ation (As r eporte d by those who use public transporta tion t o get to work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . '2'7 Mod e Which Respondents Feel the Most Safe and the Least Sa fe Using 0 o 0 o o o o o 0 o 0 0 0 o 0 o 0 0 0 0 o o 0 28 Frequency of Use of V arious Modes : Central City vso Subur ban Residence, days per year o o o .. o o o o o o 29 Characterist i cs of W o r k Trips as Rel ated to Residence and Workplace o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 0 0 o o 31 0 0 11

PAGE 5

Figu r e 12 Figure 13 Figure 14 Figure 15 Table 1 Table 2 T able 3 Tab l e 4 Table 5 Tab l e 6 Table 7 T able 8 Perceived Th reat of Crime on Public Transportation for Various Wor k Trips . . . . . . . . . 34 Per cent Ind i cating They Would Use M i nivan Service, as Related to Income (As ked of those that drive to wor k ) .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Response to Personal Valet Service at Tran-sit Stops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Frequency of Use of Indicated Mod e s by R e gion, mean number of days per year . . . . . . . . . . 4 7 UST OF TABLES Conditions Under Which Those That Drive to Work Indicate They Would Switch to Public Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Reaso n s G i v e n for Not Taking Car to Wo r k (Reported by those who have cars b u t do not drive them to work . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Major Advan t age of Goi ng to Work by Car As Opposed to Public Transportation (As reported by people without cars who would drive to work if they had cars) . . . . . . . . . . 26 Freq u ency of Use of Various Modes (days per year) ..... : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Characteristics of Work Trips as Related to R esidence and Workplace . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Likelihood of Using "Almost Door-to-Door" Mini v an Service, Percent (Asked of thos e that drive to work) ................. : . . . . 35 Reported Fair Price for Minivan Service, that Respondents Indicaied They Would be Wil ling to Pay (As r eported by those that said they would u s e service) . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Price Respondents Would be Willing to Pay for Eac h . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 l1l

PAGE 6

Table 9 Table 10 Table 11 Table 1 2 Table 13 Table 14 Table 15 Public Opinion of Traffic Congestion . . . . . . . . 39 Public Opi nion of T raffic Congestio n in Major Cities (Figures given indicate the percentage who believe that congeStion is so m ewhat or very senous . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Response to Proposed Parking F ees at Work and at Shoppi n g Malls . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Response to Requiring Developers to Make Projects More Accessible to Public Transportation . . . . 41 Response to a Proposed Twenty-five Cent Per Gallon Gas Tax, Substantially Increased Tolls, and Generally Making it Much More Expensive to Drive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Response to a Proposed Twenty-five Ce nt Per Gallon Gas Tax, etc., According to Location of Residence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Response to How T r ansit Services Should Be De-live _red . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . 43 Table 16 Public Opinion of Competition in Providing Local Transportat ion Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Table 17 Classification of Areas Surveyed . . . . . . . . . 45 Table 18 Frequency of Use of I ndicated Modes, mean n umber of days per year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Table A-1 Frequency of Use of Indicated Modes, as Related to Income, mean number of days per year . . . . . . 54 Table A-2 Hou sehold Auto Ownership as Related to Household Income, mean auto ownership . . . . . . . . . . 55 IV

PAGE 7

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Thi s report presents the findings of a study undertaken by the Center for Urban Transportation Research (CU'IR) under cooperative agreement with the Urban Mass Transportation Administration. The major objective is to identify factors related to the use of public transportation. The project was directed by UMfA staff and performed by CUTR at the University of South Florida, with the subcontracting support of Diversified Research, Inc. SUMMARY The project examined attitudinal factors and travel characteristics of persons with access to public transportation residing in seventeen metropolitan areas of the United States. A te lephone i nterview survey, comprised of 86 questions, was administered to a total of 4,000 per sons in the seventeen metropolitan areas included in the study. The survey was principally designed to establish individual choice factors affecting the use of public transportation. The survey also pertnits these factors to be aggregated for many sub marke ts, such as central city travel vs. suburban travel and others of interest It addressed perceptions toward several innovative types of transit service, as well as several public policy issues related to the role of the public sector in promoting o r discouraging particular transportat ion actions. SERVICE PlANNING AND MARKETING IMPUCATIONS Interpretati o n of the 4,000 survey responses suggests numerous transit service planning and mar keting implica tions. These are summarized below. A s i gnificant portion (approximately 50 percent) of auto users are open to the possibility o f using transit services if it meets their specific service needs. Factors identified as most im portant by potential riders include schedule flexibility, reduce d travel time, and lower money cost Therefore, transit planners and marketers should concentrate their efforts on these factors in attempting to encourage greater ridership. In addition to these factors, transit route transfers were also cited as a major deterrent to the use of public transportation Other changes that would encourage a switch to public transportation include express transit services and substantially increasing the price of parking Transit innovations, consisting of a high frequency minivan service or a personal valet service at major transit stops, may also help contribute to increased ridership as approximately 50 percent of respondents indicate they would probabl::p or definitely switch to public transportation if these services were provided. Those mark eting the taxi mode will be interested to note that the taxi was indicated as the least safe of all transportation modes. This perception needs to be changed if taxi services are to attain their full potential as a modal alternative. 1

PAGE 8

An overwhelming majority of those that drive to work have free or low cost parking provided to them, while few choice transit riders (those owning cars) have this same benefit. Public policy makers need to address this issue of inexpensive and free parking if their intent is to promote trans i t services. Results of this survey challenge trad i tional definitions of transit dependents or transit captives, as comprised of those without an automobile. A large portion of transit riders are not transit dependent in the true sense because they indicate they would continue to use transit for their work trip even if they had an automobile. The rate of carpooling is much greater for suburb to central city trips than for any other category of work trip, including suburb to suburb. The influence of typical central city auto disincentives (parking cost and availability, traffic congestion, etc.), as well as the high employment conce n tration, is apparently greater than the i nfluence of trip length. RESEARCH FINDINGS In addition to the results presented in the previous section, there were numerous survey findings that may be of interest to transportation researchers. Some of these findings are highlighted below. Those That Use the Auto to Drive to Work Several observations were made concerning those that use an auto to drive to work. Even though all survey respondents have access to public transportation, 22 percent reported that they cannot get to their workplace by public transportation. In a sense, the s e respondents are "auto captives", in terrns of their trip from home to work. Those driving to work cite schedule flexibility and travel time savings as the ma jor advantages of the auto as compared to public transportation. Alternatively, when asked the single greatest advantage of public transportation, the most frequent response was "no advantage". Other common responses were: costs less than driving, reduces congestion, and don't have to worry about parking. Despite this initial negative response, approximately 50 percent of respondents indicated they would defmitely or possibly switch to public transportation if various transit service improvements were implemented. In particular, the elimination of transfers was cited as one transit improvement that would have significant influence in the consideration of transit use. Another interesting finding involved the cost of parking. Approximately 89 percent of respondents driving to work pay nothing out of their own pocket to park. Even of those working in the central city, 82.6 percent pay nothing to park. The average daily parking rates for those driving to work were$ 0.35 for all respondents and S 0.54 for those working in the central city. The average daily parking charge for those that do pay to park was approximately $3.35. The overwhe l ming majority of those that drive to work have free or low cost parking provided to them. 2

PAGE 9

Those That Take Public Transportation to Work There are also some interesting rmdings concerning those respondents using public transportation in their trip to work. Approximately 82 percent of choice transit riders (those who have cars, but do not use them to drive to work) work in the central city. These transit riders cite cost and availability of parking as the more significant reasons for not driving their cars. Other significant reasons cited include traffic congestion and longer travel time. Approximately 30 percent of all transit riders do not own an automobile. These riders have his torically been referred to as "transit dependene'. Of those considered transit dependent, only 37 percent indicate they would drive an auto to work if one were available to t hem. Tills is particularly interesting since it indicates that a significant portion of transit riders are autoless by choice. Those that would not drive to work if they had a car were asked their reasons. Their responses were nearly identical io those responses of choice transit riders. In fact, the four most significant responses are the same: cost of parking, availability of parking, trave l time, and traffic congestion. In contrast, those that are truly transit dependent (do not own car, but would like to) cite travel time savings and schedule flexibility as the major reasons for their preference to drive to work. Of all respondents taking public transportation to work, the advantages cited most frequently were: don't have to worry about parking, take s less time than driving, and costs l ess than driving. Other observations were made concerning the perceived safety and security of various transportation modes. Almost 60 percent of the national survey respondents feel the safest when using the private automobile. Conversely, 31.1 percent of respondents feel the taxi is the least safe, distantly followed by the bus, train, and car, all at abou t 15 percent. A fo llow-up question determined that for the taxi mode, 83.3 perceni of the respondents indicated the taxi driver to be the major reason for feeling u nsafe or insecure. Suburban vs, C'..entral City Attitudes and Characteristis:s . Suburban residents travel significantly further to work than central city residents (11.79 miles vs. 8.77 miles) but take slightly less time to get there (24.25 minutes vs. 25.04 minutes). Also, suburb to suburb work trips are much shorter (9.37 miles) than suburb to city (16.65 miles) or city to suburb (15.o7 miles) :work trips. It is apparent that one of the effects of suburbanization of the workplace i s that workers Jive to their jobs. Those driving to work in the central city, both city to city and suburb to city, reported travel time as the most significant disadvantage of pub lic transportation, with schedule inflexibility a distant second. Conversely, those driving to work in the suburbs indicated schedule infleXIbility as being the greatest disadvantage of public transportation and travel time as being the second most significant. This is probably a reflection of the general CBD orientation of many public transportation services, resulting in schedules which are more designed for trips to and within the CBD as opposed to trips to and within the suburbs. 3

PAGE 10

An additional finding indicated that concern by auto drivers about crime on public transportation is highly correlated with central city residence. Those living and working in the central city were almost four times as likely to voice this concern as those living and working in the suburbs To a large extent, the frequency of use of various modes reflects their availability by location and their general operating characteristics. For example, it is not surprising that the use of all public transportation modes is greatest for work trips to the central city . T!'a!lSit JgnovatiOJ!S Several questions were designed to determine whether specific transit innovations would be met with a positive response. Questions wete asked regarding the likelihood of using a high quality minivan service with half -hour headways, operating within a single block of the respondents origin and desti n ation. As described, this service represents a good abstraction of a high quality convenient transit service. Of those that drive to work, there was approximately a 50..50 split between those who state they would use the minivan service and those who would not. This response corroborates those given in response to transit service improvements. It is apparent from these results that half of those driving to work can be considered potential transit riders if flexible and convenient transit service were provided. Willingness to use a minivan service was also highly correlated with the income of those who drive to work; those with household incomes Jess than $10,000 are 50 percent more likely to use a minivan service than those with household incomes greater than $50,000. It was also indicated that respondents are much more willing to consider using a minivan for work trips than for other types of trips. The preponderance of potential minivan users would be willing to pay $2.00 or less for this service. Another transit innovation discussed was the provision of a per sonalized errand or valet service at major transit stops. Almost half of those driving to work, but who would take a train or a bus/streetcar if they used transit, reported that they would definitely or possibly switch to transit if such a service were offered. The mean willingness to pay for this service was $4.29 per errand, although a significant portion of the market response was within the $2.00 and under category. Re&ional Comparisons Several regional comparisons are noted in the text, some of which are highlighted below. Cities with rail systems are generally much more transit oriented than non-rail In rail cities, much greater use is also made of bus, carpool, and taxi service than in non rail cities. Results also indicate that car ownership rates are much lower for rail cities than for non-rail cities. Data reported for Atlanta are somewhat unusual. Use of auto/privately-owned vehicle is higher than all other cities in the sample; carpool use is very high; rail use i s lower than all other cities and bus use is also very low. 4

PAGE 11

!3ll!lic P olicy Iswes Numerous questions were asked to determine public opinion regarding various public policy issues These findings are listed below. T raffic congestion was seen as being very serious by 35.9 percent of respo n dents, somewhat serious by 27.6 percent, and not very serious at all by 35.7 percent. Respondents we r e overwhelming l y opposed (71.6percentvs. 20.0 percent) to imposing parking fees at workplaces and shopping malls as a means to discourage private auto use. Nearly three-fourths of respondents favored requiring developers to make projects more accessible to public transportation. There was strong opposition (81.1 percent) to imposing a twenty-five cent per gallon gas tax, increasing tolls, and in general making it more expensive to drive However central city residents were somewhat less opposed to such a measure (76 0 percent) Public opinion regarding public transportatio n service delivery indicated that 30.4 percent feel that the private sector should deliver service 33.5 percent prefer private/ government competition, and 19.4 percent prefer government service delivery. Tw<>:-thjrds of all respondents believe that compe t ition in the provision of public transportation services is good. 5

PAGE 12

II. BACKGROUND This section provides an overview of the research objectives of the project, as well as a review of previous related research projects. RESEARCH OBJECilVES The principal research objectives of the project are enumerated below. To establish individual choice factors affecting the use of public transportation. More specifical ly, to establis h attitudinal factors as to why current auto users use their autos and do not use public transportation; and to establish why current transit users use public transportatio n and do no t use an auto. The identification of these factors will assist in planning new transit services and in marketing existing public transportation services. To compare travel behavior and attitudes in the central city with the suburbs. With the increasing suburbanization of the United States, it is important to be aware of basic attitudii!al differences between central city and suburban trip makers. To determine consumer perceptions on the utility of certain transit innov ati o ns, particularly a high quality minivan service and a personal valet service at transit stops. To identify public sentiment on several emerging policy issues, such as the ser iousness of traffic congestion, making developments more accessible to transit, increasing parking charges, increasing motor fuel taxes, and compe tition in the provision of transit services. To verify certain factors of interest to transportation p lanners, s uch as tr i p length and duration distributions, factors related to auto ownership, and the relationship between mode choice and income. To highlight the service planning and marketing implications of consumer attitudes. 6

PAGE 13

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

PAGE 14

time was very important in work journeys whereas conyenience and comfort were most important in pleasure journeys. In July of 1973, the Tampa Bay Area Rapid Transit Authoriry (TBART) conducted a survey of public attitudes toward rapid transit in the Tampa Bay area. 5 Approximately 92 percent of the survey sample believed t h at the construction of a rapid transit system was needed with the most frequent reasons being "fastest way to t ravel (68 percent) and "safer than driving an auto" (28 percent). Surprisingly, when compared to the automobile and bus, rapid t rans it was rated first in all characteristics except "very convenient" where it was rated second only to the auto. The respondents also indicated major concern about traffic congestion and danger of accidents which they associated with th e automobile. This response is likely due to real experiences with the auto versus an abstract expectation of the services provided by a rapid transit system. "The National Transit Marketinff Project" was prepared by the U.S. Department of T ransportation in June of 1976. This project was a summary of consumer attitudes toward the Baltimore and Nashville Metro Transit Systems. Nashville respondents indicated "insufficient awareness of routes and fares" and "important dest inations i na dequately served" as being the major disadvantages of public transportation. However, respondents in the Baltimore area indicated the major disadvanta ge to be a n overall dissatisfaction with the existing service. Peter Hart directed a survey of American attitudes toward public transportation in a p roject completed in 1978.1 Of those surveyed, public transportation was rated positive by only 29 percent and negative by 58 percent. Only six percent of the respondents stated they use public t ranspo rtati on to trave l to work while 55 percent indicated that they never use public transit for any type of journey. The University of Cincinnati conducted an economic impact study of Queen City Metro (QCM) on t he Cincinnati area.8 This project was completed in March of 1985. Included in this impact study was an on-board bus survey which incorporated several public opinion questions. Over 90 percent o f respondents indicated that they perceive QCM as being importa nt or extremely important to the Cincinnati area. Major reasons given for this perceived importance were the following: transportation for those without autos, t rans port ation for the elderly, and a means of getting to work. The survey also reported that over 90 percent b elieve that the Metro bus service is very dependable. Market Opinion Research conducted a national survey in November of 1986 in a report to the Urban Mass Transportation Administration (UMT A). 9 This survey concentrated on public perception of competition in gen eral as well as competition in the provision of public transportation. Results indicate that 69 percent of the respondents believe competitio n in general is beneficial to the consumer. In addition, 92 percent of those surveyed also indicate that competition in the provision of transit services should be encouraged if it can lower prices and produce improved transportation services. In May of 1988, West Group Marketing Research conducted a survey of non-transit riders in the Phoenix Urban Area.10 This project was undertaken at the request of the Phoenix 8

PAGE 15

Transit System. N:on-riders indicated the following reasons for not using public transit : insufficient awareness, lack of bus stop shelters, lack.offrequency, having to transfer, and long walks. These factors are important but the study concludes that the major reasons fo r not using transit are the utility derived from driving an auto and the necessity of the auto for their business. However, respondents do believe there are advantages to riding a bus as the following factors were cited: safe (90 percent), clean (82 percent), and comfortable (75 percent). Some important observations were made concerning carpools/vanpools. Of those surveyed, ten percent indicated they already use a carpoolfvanpool and 33 percent stated they would consider carpooling if it were more readily available. Ilium Inc. prepared a market research study for Indianapolis Metro in June of 1988 Almost 90 percent of transit riders indicated they were satisfied with the transit service. Respondents were most satisfied with driver courtesy and b us stop locations; however, they were les s satisfied with bus stop shelters, frequency of service, and on-t i me performance. A significant proportion of non-riders ( 42 percent of former riders and 21 percent of no riders) stated they would likely begin using transit if improvements were made in the system, especially if improvements were made in routing a nd safety of waiting areas. The University of South Florida's for Urban T ransportation ReseMch (CUTR) recently conducted a transit usage survey in Hillsborough County, Florida. Completed in August of 1988, the survey indicated that 87 percent of respondents believe there is a moderate or large problem with transportation. Despite this general agreement, 93 percent of the sample indica t ed they still use an auto or small truck to travel t o work. Respondents believe that the auto is safer, more convenient, and more dependable than the bus; however, they do indicate that the bus is slightly more economical. Models of Modal Choice In contrast with survey research models that directly determine public perceptions, models of modal choice are developed and calibrated on the basis of empirical data. In some cases, these models can be used to infer behavioral attitudes toward public transportation. Analysis of modal choice is an essential prerequisite to the investigation and understanding of urban transportation and policy Faced with many alterna tive modes of transportation, all consumers must select among them on the basis of several variables such as money cost, time cost, comfort, reliability, convenience, and others. Empirical models have been developed to determine the relative significance of such variables in modal choice. These models may be relativ el y simple, including as few as two variables or extremely complex including many variables. With the aid of these models, transportation demand forecasting can be attempted The following paragraphs address so me m odels o f modal choice that have been developed. In 1972, Dooiencich, Kraft, and Valette published an urban travel demand model in Readings in Urban Econ omicsP This model is relatively simple as it considers only two variables: money cost and time cost. The authors estimate money and time cost elasticities for journeys to work by auto and by public transportation in the Boston metropolitan area. 9

PAGE 16

The responsiveness of t ravel behavior to changes in one or more variables of travel cost depends on the estimated elasticities of demand for transportation services. Elasticity in this context can be defined as the ratio of the percentage change in t he number of trips taken to the percentage change in trip cost that brings it about. By comparing these elasticities, it can be determined which variable is generally perceived as more significant. Some conclusions of the study are mentioned below. For public transportation, the estimated money cost elasticities were calculated to be -.09 for the line-haul cost and -.10 for the access cost wbile the estimated time cost elasticities were calculated to be -.39 and .709 respectively. Because the time cost elasticities are significantly hi gher than the money cost elasticities., an x percent reduction in time cost will have a much greater impact on total trip cost than a reduction of the same proportion in money cost. Therefore, faster and more frequent service would be much more successful in encouraging ridership than any red uction in fares. It is also inte resting to note tha t time elasticities are greater for access time than for line-haul time, indicating that service improvements might better be targeted toward resid e ntia l collection and downtown distribution then toward line-haul improvements. Peter Watson conducted a series of modal choice studies in 1974 in order to consider several different situations. 14 He reported that models using simple time and cost difference variables were not satisfactory for analyzing the choices of intercity, social and recrea tional travelers. The basic conclusion is that different situations require different modeling efforts and attempts to transfer results from one area to another can be very dangerous. For example, the results of one of the studies indicate that, for medium-range, intercity social and recreational trips, the user is concerned more with comfort and convenience than with time and cost. Another major factor to cons ider is the effect o f income. Each income group emphasizes a different set of variables which indicates that, .in order to be accurate, a different model should be developed for each of the income groups as well. "Pa t ronage Impacts of Changes in Transit Fares and Services" is a study produced by the U .S. Department of Transportation's Urban Mass Transportation Administration in September of 1980.15 The purpose of the study was to present the most reliable information available on the results of changes in fares and/or services on public transportation. The study concentrates on presenting major conclusions that can be derived based on calculated transit demand elasticities. The elasticity of demand in this context can be defined to be the ratio of the percentage change in transit demand (ridership) to the percentage change in fares or services. Major conclusions are expressed based on the calculated effects of changes in fares., changes in service, and changes in both fares and service simultaneously. Some of these conclusions are listed below. Changes in Fares (1) Transit demand is inelastic with respect to changes in fares. The fare elasticities ranged from -0.04 to -0.87 with a mean of -0.28. This inelastic demand indicates that a proportional change in transit ridership in response to a change in fares is less than the proportional change in fares. 10

PAGE 17

(2) Small cities have huger fare elasticities than large cities. (3) Bus travel is more elastic than commuterand rapid -rail transit. (4)ff-peak fare elasticities are double the size of peak-f are elasticities. (5) Short-distance trips are more elastic than long-distance trips. ( 6) Intrasuburban trips are four times more elastic than radial trips on arterials. (7) Fare elasticities rise with income and fall with age. (8) Of all trip purposes, the work trip is the most inelastic. (9) Travel by e lderly is slightly more elastic than tb.e average Changes in Service . (1) Transit demand with respect to changes in service is also inelastic. (2) Off-peak ridership is more elastic than peak ridership. (3) Ridership response is similar in the various forms of mass transportation. (4) Ridership is more elastic with respect to improvements in headways than with respect to vehicle time (5) Elasticities derived from modal-choice models show transfer-time elast i cities to be twice as large as first wait-time elasticities. Joint Consideration of Changes in Fares and Service (1) Since transit demand is inelastic with respect to both fares and service; independent variations in fares and services will not by themselves increase both revenues and ridership simultaneously. . (2) However, the study suggests that there is a large degree of variatio n in the disaggregated elasticities which in tum suggests that significant shifts in ridership could result without revenue deteriorating by manipulating fare and service levels. An extensive econometric analysis was published in 1985 in Research in Transportation Economics which considers the demand for intercity passenger transp ortati on. 16 The authors of the study are Morrison and Winston. The following table illustrates the elasticities calculated for intercity business trips. 11

PAGE 18

Intercity Business Trip Elasticities Mode Cost Travel Time Tune Between Departures Auto -.6990 -2.1521 ---Bus -.3151 -1.5041 -3.3713 Rail -.5715 -1.6691 -4.0240 It is important to realize that these elasticities are estimated only for intercity business trips which have significantly different characteristics than urban travel. Since the calculated elasticities for the auto are significantly larger than those calculated for the bus and rail, the auto is projected to be the most sensitive to any changes in cost or travel time. It i s interesting to note the elasticity of travel time (relatively elastic) as compared to the elasticity of cost (relatively inelastic). These results indicate that changes in travel time will have a much greater influence in modal choice than will changes in cost. Notice also that the elasticities for time b etween departures (bus and rail only) are twice the elasticities for travel time This result supports the earlier contention that, to encourage ridership, the collection and distribution portions of the trip should be targeted for service improvements. In 1987, D. B. Madan and R. Groenhout published a model of modal choice in the Journal of Transport Economics and Policy.17 The study is based on the journey to work in Sydney, Australia. It is basically a two-way split model between private car travel to work and travel partly by public transport. The authors indicate that their approach, which includes a utility function allowing correlations and provides a non-linear transform of the employment density variable, results in more significant !-values and increases the overall explanatory value of the model. Previous conventional models do not take this approach. Results of the study indicate an overall inelasticity of travel behavior. Elasticities calculated are in aggregate form and are arrived at thr ough probability weighted averages of individual elasticities. Elastici ties calculated for both the auto and transit are significantly inelastic with respect to all variables considered. Both highway and transit travel demands are most sensitive to highway travel time followed by the number of cars per adu l t income, employment density, number of t ransfers, in-vehicle time, transit fares wait and access times, and finally the vehicle operating cost. In all variables, the elasticities with respect to transit are greater than those with respect to highways. The elasticities are illustrated in the following table. 12

PAGE 19

. Demand Elasticities Mode Explanatory Variable Highway Transit # Of Cars/ Adult 0.148 -0.267 Income 0.089 -0.161 Employme nt Density -0.065 0.118 .Vehicle Operating Cost -0. 038 0 068 Transit Fare 0 .056 -0.102 Highway Time -0.171 0.307 Access O.G38 -0.068 Wait 0.042 -0.076 In-Vehicle 0.060 -0.108 # Of Transfers 0.061 -0.110 SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS RESEARCH Survey research helps to establish perceptions toward public t ransportation which e nables further understanding of factors related to transit use. The majority of the surveys reported a negative attitude toward public transportation in general Tilis negative atti t ude arises from a variety of reasons, some of which are long travel time, inconvenience (inflexibility) and insufficient awareness. Some of the other studies report that individuals place different levels of significanc e on variables depending on the purpose of the trip An example was given which ind i cates that travel time was considered most important in work journeys whereas convenience and comfort we re considered most important in pleasure journeys. The models of modal choice also contribute to further understanding of t r ansit use factors These empirical models estimate elasticities and/or probabilities indicating which variables are considered most significant in modal choice Typically, money cost and travel time variab les are used most frequently in devising these models. However, it is r eported tha t 13

PAGE 20

other variables such as comfort, convenience, and income play an important role as well. In fact, one of the models above concludes that, in intercity social and recreational trips, the user is more concerned with comfort and convenience than with time and cost. All of the previous research mentioned is very useful because it provides results which can be compared with the findings of the study at hand. 14

PAGE 21

Ill. SURVEY PROCEDURES A survey questionnaire, comprised of 86 questions, was developed to determine travel characteristics, attitudes toward pub lic transportation, and socioeconomic characteristics of the respondent. A typed copy of the survey instrument is included as Appendix C. All interviews were conducted from a central telephone facility, by professionally trained data collectors working directly on a CRT interviewing system. The interviewer stations were equipped with computer terminals which are wired directly into a central processing unit. Using this technology, questionnaires were programmed into the system so that all branching from one question to the next is computer controlled. This means that when the answer to one question determines which question should be asked next, the coinputer automatically scrolls to the appropriate question on the screen. Using these procedures, there can be no inadvertent sldpping of questions or asking of questions which should have been sldpped. The sample consisted of individuals in 17 metropolitan areas across the country who have access (i.e., live within one-half mile) to public transportation. This latter point is very important; this is not a survey of the general population, it is a survey of those with access to public transportation. The areas surveyed were: New York, Boston, Philadelphia, Washington, Atlanta, Houston, Orlando, Tampa, Chicago Kansas City, Madison, Minneapolis/St.Paul, St. Loui s, Phoenix, Denver, Los Angeles, and San Francisco. Figure L MSA's Included in Survey 15

PAGE 22

Areas were defined by Metropolitan Statistical Areas, as defined by the U.S. Bureau of the Census, except for New York, where the Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area was used. Two hundred inte!Views were conducted in each area, except for New York, where eight hundred were conducted. Within each area, the number of randomly selected inteiViews within each county was proportional to population. For purposes of the national aggregation of data, responses from each area were weighted by the population of the MSA to arrive at weighted national response rates. Because tbe 17 areas surveyed are mainly representative of large and medium MSA's, the survey results are likely to be fairly representative of large and medium MSA's and not necessarily representative of the national population. 16

PAGE 23

IV. RESEARCH FINDINGS This section presents major observations and findings of the survey effort. Primary concern bas been focused on the results as reported in the national aggregations The research findings are categorized in the following major topical areas: Consumer Preferences of Those Using the Auto for Their Trip to Work Why do they use their autos and not use public transportation? Consumer Preferences of Those Using Public Transportation for Their Trip to Work Why do they use public transportation and not the automobile? Comparisons of Behavior and Attitudes in the Central City vs. Suburban Areas Perceptions on Transit Innovations -Attitudes toward high service level minivan service and toward an entrepreneurial personal valet service at major t ransit stq>s Public Opinion Issues --Attitudes toward a number of public policy questions involving traffic congestion, public transportation, parking fees, gasoline taxes, and competition in the public transportation business. Regional Comparisons D i fferences in attitudes between urban areas. It is important that the survey results be properly interpreted and tha t the reader have a clear unders t anding of the survey methodology as presented previously. Notably, it should be recognized that the survey reports only responses from individuals that have access to public transportation in the selected survey cities. It is not a r andom sample of the entire population Moreover the survey can only report r esponses to the questionnaire; it c annot judge the reasonableness of the responses . Very importantly, the results of the survey should not be used for predictive purposes. Routinely in survey research it is found that responses to hypoth e tical situations are not born out by actual behavior. No n etheless, the responses to the survey can be used to iden ttfy the relative importance of various behavioral factors. These findings can be very useful in transit marketing and service planning activities This will be discussed in detail in Section V after the major factors related to transi t use have been established. 17

PAGE 24

CONSUMER PREFERENCES OF AUTO USERS Several of the questions in the survey can be used to identify a t titudes and travel characteristics of those using the automobile as their mode of travel to work. The survey enables us to identify the features they like about using their autos, features they dislike about public tra nsportation, and under what conditions they might switch to public transportation. One question asked of those who drive to work and do not use public transportation for any part of the trip was which mode they would take if for some reason they had to take public transportation to work. Since the survey responses are limited to those reporting that they do have access to public transportation in some form, it is particularly inter est ing that 22 percent of the respondents cannot get to their workplace by public transportation This indicates that, even if this 22 percent desired to use public transit, they would b e unable to do so as the service is not available to them in their trip to work. What Do They Like About Using Their Autos? Some important insights can be gained by reviewing the responses cited as major advantages of going to work by car. These results are summarized in Figure 2. Figure 2 Major Advantage of Going to Work by Car, as Opposed to Using Public Transportation (Reported by those who drive to work). Takes Less Time 32.2% 18 Can Leave Anytime 42.0% Costs less 9.8% Other 8.9% No Waiting 7.1'14

PAGE 25

As indicated in Figu re 2, the major advantages offered by those driving to work relate to service level, notably the flexibility provided by the automobile and the comparative travel time savings The greatest single response identified schedule flexibility, which was in dicated as the major advantage by 42.0 percent of respondents. An additional 7.1 percent cited not having to wait, which is similar to schedule flexibility. The second major response was time savings, which was indicated by 32.2 percent of respondents. These respon ses far outweighed all others. Cost savings was a distant third, cited as a major advantage by only 9.8 percent of respondents. The responses tend to confirm previous research findings related to the importance of various mode choice factors; much of the previous research also reported convenience, flexibility, and travel time as major advantages of the auto. The low rate of response for certain factors is also of some interest. Only 3.1 percent of resp ondents cited the need to use their car on the job (whereas the May 1988 Phoenix survey reported necessity of using the auto for their business as a major factor); only_1.9 percent cited no threat of crime; and only 1.2 percent cited privacy or lack of crowding. What Do They About Public. Tral!liportatiQD? Another question asked of those who drive to work and do not use public transportation on any part of the trip inquired as to what they would dislike about going to work by public transportation. The respons es are summarized in Figure 3. Figure 3. Major Disadvantage of Going to Work by Public Transportation (Reported by those who drive to work). Takes too long 28.6% Have to wait 13.4'11. Tied to schedule 29.3% Don't know 11.2'11. Costs too much 5.9% As indicated, the results are consistent with reasons cited in the preceding section. The most frequent responses reflected a perceived lower level of service by public transportation than by the private automobile. Concern about schedule inflexibility was 19

PAGE 26

cited by 29.3 percent of respondents. A very close second was the response indicating travel time disadvantage, cited by 28.6 percent of respondents. Cost was a distant 5 9 percent. Generally these responses reinforce those of the preceding section This inherent need for flexibility and limited travel time is confirmed by numerous modal split models in their calculation of time elasticities. The majority of modal choice models indicate that time cost elasticiti e s are significantly greater than mon e y cost elasticities. This indicates that a change in travel time, wait time, and/or access time will have a much greater affect on public transportation demand than will a change in the fare structure. A number of illustrations of these elasticities were reported in the previous research section. What (if ;mythin&) Do The_x Like About Public 'frllnSJK>rtation? All survey respondents were queried as to the single greatest advantage of taking public The most freque n t responses by those using private automobiles for their trip to wor k are summarized in Figure 4. Figure 4. The Single Greatest Advantage of Taking Public Transportation (Based on r esponses of those using the private auto to go to work). Reduces Congestion 11.3% No Parking Worries 11.2% Don"t Need Car 6.8% 5.2% Costs Less 14.4% No Advantage 19.0% Other 32.1% The greatest response (19.0 percent) was that there is no advantage--not surpnsmg considering that these are people who drive to work Other significant responses included cost savings (14.4 percent), not having to deal with parking problems (11.2 percent), reducing congestion (11.3 percent), don't have t o own a car (6.8 percent), takes less time than driving (5.2 percent), can read on trans i t (3.7 percent), less chance of getting into accident (3.4 percent) and can sleep (3.2 percent). Thes e findings may be useful to transit s e rvice planners and marketers, a.S they attempt to convert auto users to transit By 20

PAGE 27

emphasizing those factors suggested as being the gre a test advantages of public transpo r tation, perhaps planners and mark e ters will b e more s uccessful in attracting new transi t riders. Under What Conditions Migh t Th ey Switch t o Puplic Respondents who driv e to work were asked if certain hnprovements in public transport a tion would c ause them to switch their trip to work mode: The responses are summa rized in Table 1 T able 1. Conditions U nder Which Those That D rive to Work Indicate They W ould Switch to Public T ransportation. .. . Pe rc e nt Indicating They Would Situation D efinitely P ossibly Switch Swit ch If train were an express 1 1 5 1 32.1 Special bus/streetca r lane2 10.9 30.2 Express bus/streetca r2 16 6 32. 3 Bus stop on your comer2 18.0 28.4 If tra n sfer, bus always waiting3 17.6 29.1 No transfers 3 25.4 26 0 Increased tr.rlfic congestion 3 19.0 22.0 Doub l e price of 18.7 27.5 Personal valet at transit s t op 3 8.8 14.4 1. Asked only i f respondent said would use commuter rail or s u bway train if had to travel to work by public transportation 2. Asked only if respondent would use local bus/streetca,r. 3. Asked of all who drive to work. 21 Not Switch 47.9 56.3 48 9 50.8 48.6 44 0 51.8 47.9 56.5

PAGE 28

In most cases, roughly 50 percent of respondents indicated the cited servi c e improvement would possibly or defini tely cause them to switch to public transportation. Of all the proposed actions, the most positive response related to the elimination of transfers. A total of25A percent of respondents indicated they would definitely switch to transit if they did not have to transfer. An additional 26.0 percent said they would possibly switch. This once again confirms previous research concerning the emphasis on schedule flexibility and time savings. In particular, the Ecosometrics study referred to in the previous research indicates that transfer-time elasticities ar e twice the size of first wait-time elasticities. This illustrates the extreme discontent associated with transfers and implies that, if transit systems were designed in such a way as to e limi nate or minimize transfers, then ridership would perhaps increase considerably. In general, respondents indicated some sensitivity to service improvements, with 10 to 20 percent indicating they would definitely S\vitch and an additional 25 to 30 percent indicating they would possibly switch in response to various service improvements. This indicates that a significant portion of auto drivers are open to the possibility of using transit service if it meets their specific oommuting needs. It must be recognized that actual empirical re s ponse to service improvements may not measure up to the indicated switching, but there does appear to be a widespread willingness to consider modal alternatives. Paid by Those Drivin1: to Work Because it may h ave a bearing on the decision to drive to work, it is intere sting to examine the parking charges paid by those using a private auto to get to work. One q uestion asked in the survey related to the amount the respondent bas to pay each day to park his/her car at work. This question was asked only of those using a private auto to get to work. Selected results are presented in Figure 5. Figure 5. Amount Paid by to Park Auto at Work (Asked of those that drive to work). 89.2"tt 76" $0.00-l----$0.2$ .... $0.00 Dally Pa.rklno Rat tJ. Paylno Noth i ng Ill All Respondent m C.ntrel CUy Aup. 22

PAGE 29

The responses are quite revealing. Of the total national sample, 89.2 percent of those going to work by private auto pay nothing for parking, while the mean for the entire survey is only $ 0.35 per day. Even for that work in the central city, 82.6 percent pay nothing to park, and the reported mean iS oii.ly $ 0.54 per day. Of those who do pay to park, the mean rate is $ 335 daily. These findings are very important as most studies indicate that out-of-pocket expense is a significant factor in modal choice. The response above indicates that those driving to work generally have parking provided by their employers at little or no cost. As long as this process continues, parking problems will not be significant enough to encourage a large number of auto users to convert to the use .of public transportation. Auto Ownership Rates It is of smne interest that of the entire sample, 87.1 percent oWn. or have access to a car whenever they need it, and 12.9 percent do not. Of those that do not own cars, approximately half have no interest in becoming an owner. CONSUMER PREFERENCEs OF PUBUC TRANSPORTATION USERS There were several questions in the survey that can be used to derive attitudes and characteristics of those using public transportation for their trip to work. Choice Tran.
PAGE 30

question, which asked "Why do you not take your car to work?" This wording may have e n couraged nega t ive observations on auto use rather than posit i ve observations on transit use. N onetheless, it is interest i ng that difficulties associated with parking were cited as major reasons Not surprisingly, the overwhelming majority of respondents in t hi s category work in the central city Of the weighted total of 299 responses which represent choice transit riders, 246 of them work in the ce ntral city, where the cost of parking is highest and the availability is the lowest Table 2. Reasons Given for Not Taking Car to Work (Reported by those who have cars but do not drive them to work). Response All NewYork Non-New York Responde nts Respondents Respondents Costs too much to park 27.5 27.6 27.2 No place to park 23.9 33. 7 15.8 Too much traffic 18.4 21.4 15 8 Take s longer by car 11.4 11.2 11.4 Walk to wo r k 10.9 6.1 15. 2 . Other household member uses car 5.2 6.1 4.4 Dislike driving 1.5 1.0 1. 9 More chance of getting int o accident 1.3 2.0 0 6 . I t is in t erest i ng to note that par king cost and availability were cited by this group as the most significant motives for not t aking their cars to work, while t h e parking charges paid by those who actually do take their cars to wor k is nominal or none. Apparently, there are few choice transit riders who would have the benefit o f free o r low cost parking if they were to drive their auto to work Transit Dependent Ridea Approximate l y 30 percent o f all transit riders do not own cars (transit dependent). Several questions relate specifically to the attitudes and transportation characteristics of these transit dependents One question, asked of autoless wor ke rs, was "If you owned a car, do you think you would take it to work?" Again, the responses are dominated by the New York City area, which accounted app r oximate l y half of auto less wo rke rs in the survey. 24

PAGE 31

Therefore, the results of this disaggregated sample should be considered with caution due to the high pro bability of sample bias. Responses for various groups are summarized in the Figure 6. Figure 6. Percent of Those Who Would Take a Car to Work, if They Owned a Car, for Selected Groups (Asked of those who work but do not own cars). All Respondents New York Respondents Non-New York Respondents 247 OS 10'rt 20'1t 40S 60% 60Y. The responses to this question were somewhat unexpected, with only 37.1 percent of this group indica ting a preference to drive to work. This finding challenges the common perception tha t autoless workers are "transit captives". Based on these data, it appears that nearly two-thirds of those without cars, who ride transit to work, choose to not own a car.. Workplace and residence location were shown to be significant, factors in the response to this question. Of those that resid!l in the central city, only 30.5 percent indicated that, if they had a car, they would use it to drive to work; only 28.1 percent of those working in the central city would drive if they bad a car available. For suburbanites, the responses were quite different, with 77.6 percent of those livin g and working in the suburbs indicating they would drive to work if they had a car. Distance was also a factor, with those conunuting 3 to 5 miles to work indicating a 66.9 percent positive response, steadily decreasing to 17.7 percent for those commuting more than 20 miles. An additional question was asked of autoless workers that inquired as to why they would or would not use an auto to drive to work, if they had an auto. Those that would drive to work if they had cars indicated the primary responses shown in Table 3. The response is consistent with thar of previous questions by re ferring to schedule flexibility and time savings as the major advantages of the auto. 25

PAGE 32

Table 3. Major Advantage of Going to Work by Car as Opposed to Public Transportation (As reported by people without cars, who would drive to work if they had cars). Response Percent(%) Takes les s time 51.3 Can leave when I want--not tied to schedule 37. 2 Don't have to wait/no wasted time 13.2 Costs less 7.6 More enjoyable 5.8 Figure 7 indicates the major responses o f those who do not own cars, that even if they had them, would not take them to work Again, the responses shown in Figure 6 are dominated by responses from New York accou n ting for over half of the responses in the nat i onal survey Figure 7. Reasons for Not Driving to Work (As reported by those who do not own cars, but e ve n if they did would not use them to drive to work). roo nwueh tramo: Cu ta)ou "'' zo It i s of some interest to compare the responses given by those who own cars but do not drive to work and those who do not own cars and would not drive to work, even if they had cars. F or both categories of respondents, the top four responses were the same. Both 26

PAGE 33

groups see parking cost and availability, travel time, and traffic congestion as major disadvantages to auto use. As noted in the discussion on choice transit riders, captive riders also would expect to pay parking charges out o f their own pocket, if they had a car to drive to work. The fact that these two answer this question similarly tends to confirm that these factors should be considered as priority items for improvements in the public transportation system. This would perhaps encourage even more auto users to convert to public transportation. As noted previously, all survey respondents were queried as to the single greatest advantage of taking public transportation. The responses of those using public transportation for their trip to work are summarized in Figure 8. Figure 8. The Single Greatest Advantage of Taking Public Transportation (As reported by those who use public transportation to get to work). No parking worries Takes less time Costs less No advantage Don't need car Can read Fewer accidents O'llo 6% 10'!1, 15%' 20% Perceptions Regarding Safety of Various Modes Although safety considerations were not cited as principal factors in why people do or do not use public transportation, there were two separate questions which directly asked about personal safety: Which mode do you feel the most safe using and which mode do you feel the least safe using? Responses are summarized in Figure 9. 27

PAGE 34

Figure 9. Mode Which Respondents Feel the Most Safe and the Least Safe Using. Don't Kf!Oit Minivan $.3'4 The response was very SUIJlrising. For the national sample, as well as for almost a ll subgroups, the taxi was identified as the mode peopl e feel the least safe using. Approximately 31 percent of respondents indicated the taxi mode as being the transportation mode that people tend to feel the least safe using This response was distantly followed by the bus, train, and car, all at about 15 percent of responses. This response likely arises from concern for safety due to perceived aggressive driving as well as concern for security due to the mistrust that passengers may have for taxi drivers. A follow-up question asked why the respondent feels the least s afe using the indicated mode. For the taxi mode, the finding is dramatic -83.3 percent of the respondents cited the taxi driver as their major reason for feeling unsafe using taxicabs. This finding should be of major importance to those interested in promoting taxi services, be it tradit i onal taxi service or various forms of innovative taxi-based service. In contrast, the overwhelming majority (58.9 percent) cited the auto as being the most safe of all transportation modes. This i s distantly followed by the bus (16.1 percent) and train (13.0 percent). These responses were fairly consistent for nearly all subgroups. Although it is conunon to joke about the precarious ride many of us experience when we use taxis, there is a serious message here There is strong evidence that the marketability and the competitive position of taxi services are currently being severely impacted by an overwhe lmin g public concern about the safety and security of traveling by taxi. However, because of the ambiguity in the question, as to whether safety from accidents or safety in the sense of personal security is inte nded, there is some uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of result s. It is anticipated that, because of this ambiguity, this would be an excellent topic for additional research. . COMPARISONS OF BEHA VI ORAND ATIITUDES IN 1HE CEN'IRAL CITY VS SUBURBAN AREAS In recent years there has been considerable interest in the issue of suburban mobility Increasingly, urban areas are becoming suburbanized, as the growth in commercial and residential development has been occurring in suburban areas, much more than in central cities. Because of this social and demographic phenomenon, comparisons between 28

PAGE 35

suburban and central city attitudes aU of considerable interest. A review of all survey questions and responses was performed, with special attention given to differences between center city and suburban responden t attitudes. This section does not attempt to comprehensively report on comparisons for all survey questions, only for those that appeared to be of particular significance Frequency of Use of Various Modes All s urvey respondents were asked how often they use various forms of transportation Reviewing the responses reveals marked differences between center city and suburban trips. A mean was calculated for each transp!)rtation mode, based on the following conversion ofresponses into frequency of use: Almost every weekday = 250 days per year; couple of times a week= 100 days per year; once a week= SO days per year; once a month = 12 days per year; couple of times a year = 3; about once a year = 1; virtually never = 0 The means calculated on this basis are summarized in Figure 10 below and in Table 4 on the following page . Figure 10. Frequency of Use of Various Modes : Central City vs. Suburban Residence, days per year. 250 I B Central Clly M Suburban J 150 100 50 0 Auto Bus Subway Taxi Exp. Bus Rail Carpool Minivan 29

PAGE 36

Table 4. Frequency of Use of Various Modes (Days per RESIDENCE WORK TRIP TO WORK Total Central SubCentral Sub City City Suburb Suburb MODE Sample City urban City urban to to to to City Suburb City Suburb Carpool 1220 7.52 14.21 1555 11.13 8.63 9.05 25.64 11.74 Commuter Railroad 11.04 8.07 13.43 17.18 8.67 10.22 13.48 26.13 8.40 Subway Z4.82 38.61 17.51 48.75 7.82 52.28 13.82 43.72 8.38 Train Commuter 8.87 12.42 6.69 13.86 3.49 14.02 7.26 13.82 2.70 Express Local Bus/ 29.44 47.73 18.96 42.46 15.Ql 51.90 23.29 29.33 13.24 Street Car Commerical 2.86 4.35 1.99 4.71 0.65 3.98 2.98 5.81 0.25 Mini-van Taxicab 11.33 19.11 6.93 17.24 6.11 22.37 8.20 10.15 5.58 Auto 201.60 172.18 220.06 189.53 229 .46 173.16 216.11 213.63 230.70 . -

PAGE 37

To a large extent, the usage rates reflect ihe availability of various modes by locatio n a n d the basic operating characteristics of each mode. Several of the modes, such as commuter railroad, subway train, local bus/streetcar, and commuter express bus, typically are configured as radial systems, feeding into the central city. As a result, i t is not surprising that use of these modes is substantially higher for central city work trips. The use of all public transportation modes is greatest for work trips to the central city. Aside from these generalizations which confirm expectations, there are several interesting findings based on these data. Commuter railroad also showed a strong bias toward suburb to central city work trips. This is not surprising, since the service provided by most commuter rail systems is strongly oriented to connecting commuter suburbs .with the central city. Not surprisingly, use of taxicab service for work trips was heavily oriented to the central city and particularly for work trips from central city reside nces to central city workplaces. Again, this probably reflects the large taxi fleets operating in central cities, which oftentimes allow it to function as an immediate demand responsive service. Freque ncy of auto use was significantly lower for central city to central city work trips, reflecting the better competitive position of other modes, while it was greatest for suburb to suburb work trips, which are the most difficult to serve by traditional public transportation modes. Characteristics Related to Trip Distance. Duration. apd Speed Survey respondents were asked the distance t hey travel to work and the length of time the trip takes. Subsequently, the average speed was derived. The results are displayed in Figure 11 below as well as in T able 5 on the following page. Figure Characteristics of Work Trips as Related to Residence and Workplace. Distance (Miles) Time (Minutes) Speed (MPH) -City to City ffi! Suburb to City 31 City to Suburb 1m Suburb to Suburb

PAGE 38

Table 5. Characteristics of Work Trips as Related to Residence and Workplace. RESIDE NCE WORK Char Total Cent r al SubCentral Sub City City Suburb Suburb acteristic Sample City urban City urban to to to to City Suburb City Suburb Distance 10.90 8.77 11.79 11.43 9.67 7.74 15,07 16.65 9.37 (Miles) ld Time 24.69 25.04 24.25 28.96 18.62 24.72 26.94 34.84 18.05 (Minutes) Speed (M PH) 28.50 23.96 30.63 26.24 30.52 22.55 32.61 31.45 31.01 ---------------

PAGE 39

Several int e resting observations can be lliiide. First, examining characteristics by residence location, suburban reside nts travel significantly further than central city r es i dents (11.79 miles vs. 8.77 miles) but take less time to get there Similarly, those that work in the s u b u rbs t r avel somewhat shorter distances and t ake significantly less time to get there. Of some interest is the observation that sub u rb to suburb trips are generally shorter in distance and in duration than most other categories of trips. There is a positive aspec t to this finding, in that it appears that suburb to suburb work trips will generate substantially l ess vehicle miles of travel, resulting in less air pollution, and possibly a lesser overall impact on the transportation system. On the other hand, due to their short length, they are less likely to be converted to various ridesharing alternatives. of Auto Users oo Disadvantages of Public Transportation Previously, aggregate data were presented on the major disadvantages of goi n g to work by public transportation, as reported by those who drive to work. In comparing attitudes of various types of work trips, there are a f ew differences worth noting. Those driving to work in the cent r al city, both city to city and suburb to city, reported travel time as the most significant disadvantage of public transportation, cited by 36.4 percent and 342 per cent of the respondents, respectively. In addition, these same groups cited schedule inflexibility 24.2 percent and 27.8 percent of the time respectively In contrast, those driving to work in the suburbs reversed the significance of these factors. City to su burb and suburb to suburb commuters cited travel time as a major disadvantage only 23.4 percent and 22.9 percent of the time, respectively. These g r oups cited schedule inflexibility 30. 0 percent and 32.9 perce n t of the time, respectively These data show that those driving to work in the central city see the major disadvantage of public transportation as travel time, whereas those driving to work in the sub u rbs (where transit schedules tend to be more inconvenient and headways longer) see schedule inflexibility as the major negative feature. Another interesting observat i on is concern expressed by auto users concerning the threat of crime on public transportation: For city to city work trips crime threat was cited by 9 7 percent of the respondents; for city to suburb. work trips it was cited by 4.7 percent. In contrast, suburb to city and suburb to suburb respondents cited crime in only 2.7 percent and 2 5 percent of the cases. These data indicate that auto commuters residing in the center city have a greater concern about crime on public transportation than their suburban resident cou nt erparts and is probably a reflection of the socio-economic characteristics associated with these area. This relationship is illustrated in Figure 12. 33

PAGE 40

Figure 12. P erceived Threat of Crime on Public Transportation for Various Work Trips. C!ly to Chit c:Jty to S"butb Stlbwrb to C.lly $1/biii'IJ kt auburb Type ol Work Trip TRANSIT INNOVATIONS There were several questions included in the survey that dealt with innovative transit services. Use of "Almost Door-to-Door" Minivan Service One group of questions was targeted at those that drive to work and do not use transit for any part of their trip. This group was asked the following question: "'f there were a mini-van service which picked you up on your comer and drove you to within a block of where you worked (shop, entertainment, visit friends), and it left every half hour, wo uld you be likejy to use this service or would you still take your car/other privately owned vehicle? The responses are indica ted in Table 6 and are of considerable interest, as the specified service might be considered repre sentative of a very high quality transit service. Some interesting observations can be made about the responses to these questions. Of those that drive to work, 42.9 percent indicated they would use minivan service of the service quality specified for their trip to work. The likelihood of using the service decreases substantially for other trip purposes. A greater percentage, 47.4 percent, indicated they would not use such a service, even though the service specified would provide an extremely high quality of service. The response to this question indicates the magnitude of "hard-core" auto users who would not switch, even with a transit option of extremely high quality. This data would suggest that approximately half of all auto users 34

PAGE 41

are committed to their autos and are u nlikely to switch to transit under any circumstances, while half might be convinced to switch t o a high q u ality service. Table 6. Ukelihood of Using Almost Door-to-Door" Minivan Service, Percent ( Asked of those that drive to work). Destination Response Work Shop Entert. VISit Would use service 42.9 28. 3 20.7 15.9 Would not use service 47.4 68.9 76.6 81.7 Don't know/Refused 9 7 2.7 2.7 2.4 Figure 13 clearly indicates that willingness to use t he minivan service declines significantly as income rises. Apparently1 those m progressively highe r income brackets would still prefer the convenience assoc1ated with therr autos than the idea of using the minivan service. Desp ite this relationship, there is still a significant portion of all mcome groups that indicate a willingness to u se a miniva n service particu l arly in the journey to wor k trip. Figure 13. Percent Indicating They W ould _Use Minivan Service as Relate d to Income (As ked of those that drive to wor k). f 10 10-1 8 9 20--29.9 30 .. 39.9 40--4.9.9 so 01' Annual Household Income ($000) Wor k mel ShOs> Ill Ent.ttalntMnt 35

PAGE 42

In addition, those that indicated a willingness to use a minivan service were asked what they considered to be a fair price, that they would be willing to pay for the service. This is likely due to the characteristics of the minivan service which are closely rela ted to characterist i cs of a personal auto. The responses are indicated in Table 7. Table 7. Reported Fair Price for Minivan Service, that Respondents Indicated They Would be Willing to Pay (As reported by those that said they would use service). Percent Willing to Pay Price per Trip Work Shop Entert. Visit s 1.00 33.0 45. 8 36.4 39.6 s 2 00 21 9 162 18.1 12 0 $ 3.00 7.9 4.5 5 0 4.4 $4.00 3 6 1.5 1 6 2.4 $5.00 6 6 53 72 7 2 s 6 .00 $ 9.00 3.3 2.5 2.1 13 $ 10.00 1.0 0 7 1.7 1.5 $ 11.00$ 19.00 1 1 0.2 0 2 0.1 $ 20.00 or more 1.5 03 0 6 0 8 Don't know/Refused 20.2 22.9 27 2 30.9 Mean Respons e $2.88 $2.08 $2.46 $2.41 Finally, the willingness to pay is of substantial interest. As indicated in the table, the preponderance of potential userS would be willing to pay $1.00 or $2 00, with comparatively few willing to pay over $2.00. If the rate of responses were adjusted to remove the "non responses", they would show 60 to 70 percent of the meaningful responses indicating a willingness to pay $2 .00 or less. 36

PAGE 43

pPtential for Entre.pregeurial Valet Service at Transit Stops A special question was asked of people who drive to work but who would take either a train or a bus/streetcar to work if they bad to travel by public transit. Tbis particular group was asked "If there were a service located where you boarded the b u s or t r ain where you could place a shopping order or an errand order and when you came back the thing(s) were waiting for you in a locker, would tbis make you switch to public transit? This might include dry cleaning, movie rentals, registration renewals at motor vehicles, flowers, wine, or just about any other kind of errands you needed done d u ring the day." The responses are summarized in Figure 14. Figure 14. Response to Personal Valet Service at Transit Stops. Definitely Switch 18.4% Possibly Switch 26.4% Will Not Switch 48.6% Don't Know/Refused 6.5% Subsequently, those who indicated they would definitely or possibly switch were asked what they feel would be a fair price that they would be willing to pay, on average, for each errand like this. The results are summarized in Table 8 . The responses to these questions were somewhat surprising, particularly the substantial portion of respondents who said they would possibly or definitely switch to public transportation if such a service were offered. The mean willingness to pay for such a service was $ 4 .29 per errand, although a significant share of the market is in the S 1.00 to $ 2.00 range. Interpretation of these data must be conducted carefully. In many locations, where there are sufficient transit passengers to warrant private investment, the marketplace has responded with personal service type establishments frequently locating near major transit boarding places. For example it is fairly commonp l ace at major transit points to see a dry cleaning establishment, a floris t wine shops, and other personal services. However, the survey response indicates some interest in a highly personalized valet service, which may be worthy of further exploration by UMT A This may be a service which can be promoted through UMTA's Entrepreneurial Services Program. 37

PAGE 44

Table 8. Price Respondents Would be Willing to Pay for Each Errand. Amount Percent(%) s 1.00 14.9 $ 2.00 13.3 $ 3.00 8.0 $4.00 2.1 $5. 00 12.7 $ 6.00 $ 9.00 1.8 $ 10. 00 6 1 $ 11.00 s 19.00 1 0 $ 20.00 or more 1.5 Don't know/Refused 38.5 PUBUC POUCY ISSUES Several questions were included in the survey to examine public sentiment toward various policy issues The subjects dealt with traffic congestion, increasing parking charges, making new dev e lopments more accessible to public transportat i on, increasing motor fuel taxes, and the role of public private competition in the delivery of transportation services. Seriousness of Traffic Congestion All survey respondents were queried as to the perceiv e d s e riousness of traffic cong e sti o n in the area where they li:--e. The responses are summarized in Table 9. 38

PAGE 45

Table 9. Public Opinion of Traffic Congestion Response Percent(%) Very serious 35.9 Somewhat serious 27.6 Nofvery serious at all 35.7 Don't know/Refused 0.8 The table indicateS that 63.5 percent of those surveyed felt that the traffic congestion in their area was somewhat or very serious This perception seems to be fairly consis tent in all of the major cities surveyed. There are some interesting variations in the results when broken down into various cities. Table 10 illustrates a number of the major cities in various regions of the United States. The results are somewhat surprising as it was expected that New York would be a mo r e significant proportion when compared to other cities. But, the survey indicates that Orlando, Washington, D C., and Los Angeles are perceived as having the most s e rious problem with traffic congestion. Table 10. Public Opinion of Traffic Congestion in Major Cities (Figures given indicate the percentage who believe that congestion is somewhat or very serious.) City Percent(%) Orlando 77.5 Washington D.C. 77.0 .. . Los Angeles 74.5 Tampa 68.0 New York 64.0 Kansas City 45.3 39

PAGE 46

The CUTR Transit Usage Survey (referred to in Section ll) included a question which inquired about transportation problems in the Tampa Bay area.(Hillsborough Co unty) Results indicated that '07 percent of those surveyed believed that transportation was a moderate or large problem in the area whereas 68 percent of the respondents from Tampa in the UMTA survey indicated a somewhat or very serious problem with congestion. However, it should be noted that these two questions are not directly comparable as the UMTA survey includes only congestion as a problem while the CUTR survey considers all problems associated with transportation. Therefore, it is logical to expect the response to the CUTR survey to be greater than that of the UMTA survey. Wide,w,!!d Fees An interesting follow-up question was presented. Respondents were asked if, in order to reduc e traffic congestion, they favor or oppose parking fees at work and at shopping malls to encourage the use of other forms of transportation. Table 11 presents the results of this question. Table 11. Response to Proposed Packin g Fees at Work and at Shopping Malls. Response Percent(%) Favor 20.0 Oppose 71.6 Don't know/Refused 8.4 Therefore, despite general agreement about the seriousness of traffic congestio11, 71.6 percent of those surveyed indicate they would oppose any action to bring about new or additional packing fees at wor k and at shopping malls. It is also interesting to compare the attitudes of different income groups with respect to proposed parking fees. The data indicate that only 56.9 percent of those in the lowest income group (less than $10,000) would oppose such a measure; however, 75.3 percent of those in the highest income group ($50,000 or more) stated they would oppose that same measure. The income groups within these two extremes indicate that, as income rises, the likelihood of opposition to additional parking fees also rises. Other v ariations indicate that only 65. 0 percent of central city residents would oppose such actions, compared to 75.8 percent of suburban residentS. Similarly, 68.6 percent of central city workers are opposed, compared to 77.9 percent of suburban workers. This 40

PAGE 47

dissimilarity is likely due to the reasoning that central city residents and workers stand to benefit more from reduced congestion within the central city. F inally, as would be expect ed, those traveling to work by car are more opposed (TI.O percent) than those going by public transportation (percent varies for each mode, between 48.6 percent and 68.9 percent) Making Developments More Accessible to Transit Public opinion was also sought regarding requiring developers to make their projects more accessible to public transportation. The results of this inquiry are summarized in Table 12. Of those surveyed, 73.9 percent indicated they would favor a measure such as this. Evidently, there is a natural tendency to respond positively to an increase in ihe provision of public services when the cost is bome by others. Table 12 Response to Requiring Developers to Make ProjectS More Accessible to Public Transportation. Response Percent(%) Favor 73.9 Oppose 13.6 Don't kriow /Refused 12.5 Io.creased Gasoline Tax and Tolls The survey also proposed a possible solution to alleviate traffic congestion, conserve energy and reduce pollution. Opinions were surveyed on discouraging the use of privately-owned vehicles with a twenty-five cent per gallon tax on gasoline, substantially increasing tolls and generally making it much more expensive to drive. The response to. this proposal was negative for the most part as can be seen in Table 13. 41

PAGE 48

Table 13. Response to a Proposed Twenty five Cent Per Gallon Gas Tax, Substantially Increased Tolls, and Generally Making it Much More Expensive to Drive Response Percent(%) Favor 13. 2 Oppose 81.1 Don't know/Refused 5.7 The table indicates that 81.1 percent of those surveyed are opposed to such actions. These results seem to indicate that the proposed actions are seen as inapprop r iate to be included in public policy actions. The response to this same q uestion is also interesting when answers are categorized accord in g to location of residence. Refer to Table 14 belo w T able 14. Response to a Proposed T w enty-five Cent Per Gallon Gas Tax, etc, According to Location o f R esidence Percent(%) Response Central City Suburban Favor 16. 7 11.3 Oppose 76.0 83 8 Don't know/Refused 13 4 9 There is a definite variation in response among those residing in the different areas within and around the city. The perceived imponance of the congestion, en ergy conservation and pollution problems and the reliance on public transponation is greatest for those in the central city and therefore, they are more willing to see such a d i sincentive imposed. 42

PAGE 49

Contract. Competitive Or Public Transportation? The purpose of this line of questioning was to determine the public opinion regarding who should deliver transit services. The respondents were given a choice among the following: contracting with private companies to deliver transit services, allowing competition between private companies and transit agencies for the right to deliver transit services, or having government agencies solely deliver transit services. The opinion of those surveyed is depicted in Table 15 below. Table 15. Response to How Transit Services Should be Delivered. Response Percent(%) Private 30.4 Private/Government Competition 33.5 Government 19.4 Don't know /Refused 16.7 It is possible that some of those surveyed did not actually comprehend the significance of their choices as the consequences resulting from these options are not expe cted to be common knowledge. Despite this consideration, it is still very useful to consider the respons e of those surveyed. The results above indicate that 33.5 percent of those surveyed believe that private enterprise should compete with government agencies to deliver transit services. Another 30.4 percent regard the contracting of transit services to private companies as the most efficient method of allocation while 19.4 percent believe that the government alone should be responsible for providing these services. The respondents were also questioned about their views concerning competition in general. Specifically, the question was designed to determine whether respondents viewed competition as being good by reducing costs and increasing service or as being harmful by reducing services and t hre atening jobs. The response is recorded in Table 16. 43

PAGE 50

Table 16. Public Opinion of Competition in Providing Local Transportation Services. Response Percent(%) Competition Good 66.6 Competition Hannful 19.0 Don't know /Refused 14 4 It is evident from the table that the vast majority of respondents believe that competition in general is good. This response was chosen by 66.6 percent of the survey population. These responses are consiste n t with the results of the survey conducted by Market O p inion Rese arch (unde r contract with UMTA) and is summarized in the section on previous research. This survey reported that 92 percent ofrespondents felt that competition in the provision of transit services should be encouraged. 44

PAGE 51

REGIONAL COMPARISONS Among the cros5tabs performed were that present survey data by area (i.e., Met r opolitan Statistical Area), by region of the cou ntry, and by whether or not the area has a rail transit system These categorizations are shown below. Table 17. Classification of Areas Surveyed Region/ Area Rail Service NOR1HEAST New York Yes Boston Yes Philadelphia Yes Washington, D.C. Yes so urn Atlanta Yes Houston No Orlando No Tampa No MIDWEST Chicago Yes Kansas City No Madison No Minneapolis/St Paul No StLouis No WEST. Phoenix No Denver No Los Angeles No San F rancisco Yes Because all survey questions are crosstabulated by these categories, there is a voluminous data set. The purpose of this section Is to highlight observations of particular interes t not to comprehensively descnbe the data. It may be of int erest to those in each city to compare their city to the national averages This task is reserved for future research. 45

PAGE 52

Table 18 presents some interes tin g data concerning frequency of use of various modes whil e Figure 15 highlights some of this data graphical l y. Table 18. Frequency o f Use of Indicated Modes, mean number of days per year. MODE REGION/ Auto/ Car/ Express Local CITY Other Van Rail Bus Bus Minivan POV Pool NOR1HEAST 208.9 13.8 65.0 10.7 38.0 4.3 New York 201.5 15.6 77.0 12.8 39.4 6.2 B oston 224.2 93 55. 2 7.3 335 1.6 P hil adelphia 211 .5 10.6 30.3 6.3 33.1 1.5 Washington 232.2 12.8 57 .8 8.4 40.6 0.1 SOUTH 271.1 15.4 32 4 7 8 2 1 7 Atlanta 278.7 16.9 9.4 0.4 5.3 5.3 Houston 272.6 15.8 0.7 9.6 11.4 0.1 Orlando 264 9 12 5 1.3 1.4 7.1 0.2 Tampa 262.2 13.9 0.1 3.8 7.4 0.4 MIDWEST 245.9 8.6 21.4 6.4 322 1.7 Chicago 226.0 6.9 41.7 82 49 8 2.4 Kansas City 266.1 6.7 0.0 32 15 .4 1.7 Madison 265.9 17.0 0 0 3.9 13.3 7.7 Minn/St.P. 270.5 11.2 5.1 7.3 21.2 0.0 St. Louis 258.6 10.6 0.0 3.3 9.2 0 6 WEST 260.5 10.0 62 9 8 21.6 1.6 Phoenix 272.4 13. 7 5.0 0 .6 9.5 1.7 Denver 253 4 11.8 1.4 8 .2 14.7 0.2 Los Angeles 267.0 9.8 1.8 9.7 19.9 0.5 San Fran. 219.7 4.4 35.2 22.9 52.0 8.3 RAILC1I1ES 216.5 12.6 56.6 10.1 38.2 4.2 NON-RAIL 266.2 11.6 1.8 6.8 15 0 0.7 CfTIES 46 Taxi 17.5 21.8 12 4 8 0 12.7 4.5 3.0 7 2 3.0 2 9 9.6 12.6 9.8 5.0 5.1 6.6 3 7 1.5 2.8 2.4 13.8 15 7 42

PAGE 53

. Figure 15. Frequency of Use bf Indicated Modes by Region, mean number or days per year. Days Per Year AYto/POV Bua Rail Ca rpool !xp Bua Tul M t nlvan llilll South 1;';"3 Weot Mldweot -Northeast . . .. ... Cities with rail systems exhibit substantially different travel behavior than those without rail systems Not only is fr e quency of auto use substantially less, but general reliance on all forms of public transportation is greater. In rail cities, much greater use is made of express bus, local bus, mini van, and taxi than in non rail cities. This characteristic very well may result from the tendency for cities with rail systems to have m u c h more developed public transportation systems of all kinds, as well the tendency for these cities to have more severe congestion, more costly parking, and o t her auto disincentives. The Atlanta area represents somewhat of an anomaly, as it refle cts unusual travel characteristics in comparison with other areas. Atlanta shows the highest use of auto or other privately owned vehicle of all cities in the sample Carpool use is high, second only to Madison. Rail use is extremely low, in comparison to other rail cities. Presumabiy, this may be due to the co m paratively low coverage area of the system The data for Atlanta also reflect extremely l ow usage .rates for both express bus and for local bus, while the reported use of minivans is somewhat high Taxi usage rates are also very low in Atlanta, in spite of the fact that the reported coverage of the taxi system is much greater than most areas. Atlantans also reported 27 5 percent res i ding in a rural area, compared to 7.5 percent of the national sample and 18.6 percent working in rural areas, compared to a national sample of 5.6 percent Car ownership rates were reported to be much less for cities with rail service, where 83. 7 per cent of the respondents indicated they have access to a car, compared to 92.6 percent of those in cities without rail systems. There was considerable variability in the reported rates of those working outside the home, ranging from 555 percent of those surveyed in Tampa to 73.0 percent of those in Denver. 47

PAGE 54

Average trip characteristics showed considerable variation by city The mean home to work travel d i stance reported in the nat i onal survey was 10.90 miles Cities showi n g subs tantial differences were (on the short side) Boston, Philadelphia, Tampa, and Madison, at 8.48 miles, 8.82, 8.80, and 8.41, re spective l y; and (on the lo n g side) Atlanta and St. Louis, at 14.63 and 13.46 miles, respectively. There was very little reported difference between mean trip lengths in rail vs. non-rail cities. Reported home to work trip durations averaged 24.69 minutes for the national sample, ranging to a high of 29.65 minutes for New York. On the low side were Minneapolis/St. Paul, at 18.49 minutes, Madison at 14.55, and Tampa at 17.26 minutes. Average trip durations reported for rail cities were significantly higher {27.0vs 20. 7 minutes), probably reflecting general congestion levels in rail cities. In one of the previous sections, the concern with taxi safety was presented on an aggregate basis. By city it was found that respondents bad the most concern with taxi safety in Washington and Boston, with much less concern expressed in Tampa, Atlanta, and Los Angeles 48

PAGE 55

V. SERVICE PLANNING ANI> MARKETING IMPUCATIONS Mruty transit use factors have been establish e d through the comprejlensive analysis of the national survey results. From these factors can be derived !Dany planning and marketing implications These implications were briefly discussed in the presentation of the research findings but will be reiterated in this section. Several questions were asked of respondents concerning the advantages and disadvantages of both the automobile and bus. The majority indicated either schedule flexibility or time savings as being the major advantages of the aUto and the disadvantages of the bus. There was also some concern regarding money cost involved with both transportation modes. It is obvious from this response that planners and marketers sbould concentra t e their efforts on these three characteristics in order to have any chance for success in increasing ridership on public transportation. This contention is supported empirically by the majority o f modal choice models in the i r calculation of elasticities as well as by attitudinal survey res u lts. These models report that time cost elasticities are significantly greater than money. cost elasticities. Therefore, changes in travel time (line haul, wait time, access time, etc.) will have a much greater influence on ridership than changes in the fare structure. Previous research also contends that, even though schedule flexibility is all but impossible to quantify, individuals h i ghly value this factor in their modal choice. Based on these observations, it appears that the elimination of the indicated disadvantages of public transportation will be much more successful than attempting to improve on the perceived advantages of public transportation. Planners and marketers .should also note the Conditions under w h ich those that drive to work would switch to public transportation. Those conditions that would most encourage such a c h ange are the elimination of all transfers, the provis ion of express transit services, and doubling the price of parking. The first two conditions relate to improving service by reducing travel time associated with transit. The third condition encourages a switch because of an increase in the money cost of auto use. Approximat ely 50 percent of the respondents indicated they would possibly or defrnitely switch to public transportation in response to one of the suggested service improvements. It does appear that a substantial increase in parking fees would contribute greatly to an increase in transit ridership. However, the findings indicate that this option has been seldom used in practice throughout the United States. This is supported by the finding that those driving to work generally have parking provided by their employers at little or no cost to themse l ves. It is interesting to note that the majority o f choice transit riders as well as transit dependent riders who would not use an auto even if they had o n e indicate the major reasons to be those that re.Iate to parking problems (cost and unamlability). This provides strong evidence that this option would be very effective in converting auto users to public transportation. If, as a matter of public policy, additional transit use is to be encouraged, mechanisms should be investigated to cause auto drivers to bear the true cost of "free parking". 49

PAGE 56

Although the main scope of this paper was to consider national aggregations, several disag.,aregations were mentioned throughout the analysis. Many of these disaggregations may be of interest to planners and marketers as well This information suggests that, from a plaMing and marketing standpoint, different groups of people should be approached in a different manner. For example, those driving to work in the central city indicate travel time to be the major disadvantage of public transportation while those driving to work in the suburbs see schedule inflexibility as the greatest negative characteristic. This response indicates that planning and marketing should be approached with this dissimilarity in mind Transit innovations such as door-to-door minivan service and personal valet service could also have success in encouraging additional transit ridership. Responses indicate that approximately 50 percent of auto users may be willing to switch to a high quality minivan service. As suggested previously, this could perhaps be investigated through UMTA's Entrepreneurial Services Program. There are also some interesting implications concerning the use of the taxi mode Survey results indicate that respondents feel the least safe using this mode with the major reason being the taxi driver. It is not clear whether respondents feel unsafe as a result of careless driving or distrust for the driver It is likely that both of these feelings are reflected in the survey results These results should be of great interest to those promoting any type of taxi service as the competitive position of taxi services is being greatly effected by this overwhelming public concern for the safety and security of its riders. The implications discussed above are mea n t only as s u ggestions for further investigation for, as stated before, responses to hypothetical situations are not necessarily born out by actual behavior Nevertheless the information provided by the survey is very useful in helping to establish factors related to transit use. Although public opinion regarding public transportation is shown to be negative for the most part, many factors have been suggested which may help contribute to increased transit ridership. 50

PAGE 57

VI. REFERENCES 1. Edmund J. CantiDi, Prwammjng Environmental Improvements in Public Transportation (Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath and Company, 1974), pp. 17,18. 2. IBID., pp. 14,15. 3. IBID, pp. 13,14. 4. IBID., pp. 19-22. 5. Hilton Advertising Agency, "Report on a Benchmark Survey of the Public Attitude Toward Rapid Transit in the Tampa Bay Area," July 1973, Tampa, FL. : 6. Grey Advertising and Chase, Rosen &: Wallace and Smith and Locke Associates, "The Transit Marketing Project--summary of Consumer Research--Baltimore MTA and Nashville MTA," Prepared for the U.S. Department of Transportation, Urban Mass Transportation Administration, Washington, D.C, June 1976. 7. Peter D. Hart Research Associates, "SUrvey of American Artitudes Toward Transportation," Prepared for the U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C, 1978. 8. University of Cincinnati Institute for Policy Research, "Assessing the Economic Impact of Queeo City Metro on Greater Cincinnati," Prepared for the Southwest Ohio Regional Transit Authority, Cincinnati, March 1985. 9. Market Opinion Research, "Transit Issues: National and the City of Philadelphia," Prepared for the Urban Mass Transportation Administration, November 1986. 10. West Group Marketing Research, "Phoenix Urban Area Non Transit Ridership Survey; Prepared for the Phoenix Transit System, Phoenix, AZ., May 1988. .. 11. Ilium Associates, "Indianapolis Metro 1988 Market Research Study Results, Analysis, and Recommendations," Prepared for Indianapolis Metro, Bellevue, WA, June 1988. 12. Center for Urban Transportation Research, "Hillsborough County Mass-Transit Corridor Alternatives Analysis StudyTrans it Usage Survey," Prepared for the Tampa Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization, Tampa, FL, August 1988. 13. Thomas A. Domencicb, Gerald Kraft, and J.P. Valette, "Estimation of Urban Passenger Travel Behavior: An Economic Demand as summarized in James Heilbrun, Urban Economics !l!ld fubli' Policy (New York: SL Martins Press, 1987), pp. 186,187. 14. Peter L. Watson, The Value of Time: Behavioral Model< of Modal Choice (Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath and Company, 1974), pp. 151-153. 15. Eeosometries, Incorporated, "Patronage Impacts of Changes in Transit Fares and Services," Prepared for the U.S. Department of Transportation, Urban Mass Transportation Administration, Washington, D.C, 1980. 16. Steven A. Morrison and Clifford W'mston, "An Econometric Analysis of lhe Demand for Intercity Passenger Transporta tion, in Re.
PAGE 58

Vll. APPENDICES A. Miscellaneous Findings B. Future Research. Opportunities C. Survey Instrument 5 2

PAGE 59

APPENDIX A MISCELLANEOUS FINDINGS 53

PAGE 60

. MISCElLANEO U S FIND INGS 1bis section pres e nts several data analyses w hich may be o f int erest to t r ansport a tion planners. Since they are of secondary interest to the purposes of this research they are pres e nted here, in an Appendix. Responses to thi s survey c onfirmed expectations that a direct relationship exists between auto use and income and an inverse relationship exists between tran s it use and incom e These findings are illustrated in Tab l e A-1. Table A1. Frequency o f Use of Indicated M odes, as Related to Income, mean number of days per y ear. H O U SEHOLD MOD E INCOME Auto/ Car/ ($000) Express Local Oth e r Van Rail Bus Bus Minivan POV Pool < 10 139.5 12.7 26.3 18.1 60.5 7.5 1019.9 209.4 7 7 31.5 11.5 52.9 2.9 20-2 9.9 235.5 10.2 39.6 7.7 28.4 1.7 3039.9 250.7 13.4 24.8 3. 6 21.2 0.4 40. 49.9 254.7 9.1 28.0 9.3 16.2 1.2 50 + 260.1 12. 0 45.7 9 6 18.4 2 7 Taxi 10. 2 10. 0 6.3 6.3 9.3 15.6 As shown, frequency o f a u to use is highly correlated with income. On the other hand, use of local bus s ervice has a strong inverse re l ationship to income. Taxi s hows an interesting characteristic-it is used by th e wealthy, who can afford it, and by th e low income, who m a y have no ch o ice, but is avoided by the middl e income person As woul d also be expected, there was a higli correlation b e tween income and auto ownership, as indicated in Tab l e A-2. 54

PAGE 61

Table A-2. Household Anto Ownership as Related to Household Income, mean auto ownership. Household Mean Auto Income ($000) Ownership < 10 0 79 1019.9 1.29 20 29.9 1.69 30-39.9 1.99 40-49. 9 2.18 50 + 2 50 1bis confirms expectations that auto ownership is logically tied to household income 55

PAGE 62

APPENDIX B FUTURE RESEARCH OPPORTUNITIES 56

PAGE 63

FUnJRE RESEARCH OPPORTUNITIES This project has drawn numerous observations from a two-dimensional cross classification of survey results. There are numerous three-dimensional cross-classifications that may be of mterest. Further, it may be of int erest to perform comprehensive statistical studies of the entire survey data set to identify correlations and relationships that are not evident from inspection. Although the primary purposes of the survey were related to transportation preferences, there i s also a wealth of information on socio-economic characteristics of the population of seventeen urban areas. Although the sample is limited to those in the transit service areas of each of these areas, the data may be of considerable interest to social scientists. It is anticipated that there would be considerable interest in the results that could be compiled on the seventeen areas considered in the survey . This anticipation is based on the probability that those residing in each area are likely to be interested in how their area compares with national averages. It is recommeniled that area-specific reports be undertaken which compare and contrast each of the seventeen areas with the national sample. These reports could be prepared and made available to local planners and decision-makers Response concerning the taxi mode ind i cated that it was perceived as being the least saf e of all transportation modes. Those interested in attaining full ridership potential may want to consider this finding further. It was reported that, of the 30 percent of all transit riders who do not own an automobile, 63 percent indicate they would not use an auto in their trip to work even if one were available Future research should consider this result in more detail in order to determine factors which cause transit riders to respond in this manner. This report was designed to establish national aggregational factors related to transit use. However, it has been mentioned that much information can also be derived from the survey regarding disaggregational factors I t is anticipated that these factors should b e considered locally in order to help design a transportation plan that is specifically designed to meet the needs of various groups in the community. In summary, a national data base of 4000 telephone interviews comprised of 86 questions is a resource of considerable value. A program t o make this data set available to researchers representing a broad spectrum of social science interests should be undertaken. 57

PAGE 64

APPENDIX C SURVEY INSTRUMENT 58

PAGE 65

FINAL QUESI10NNAIRE 1 INTRODUcnON: Good evening My name is and I'm calling from Diversified Research, a nat ional marketing research company. This evening we're conducting a nationwide study on people's regarding, and experience with, public transportation. If you're of driving age or older, we'd like to get your opinions. 2. Regardless of whether you actually usc public transportation or not, is there any public transport ation service which operates within a half mile of where you live? This could be train, bus, streetcar, a taxi depot or stand, a commercial mini-van service, etc. 1. Yes (Continue) 2. No (Terminate) 3 O.K. (Terminate) . 3. Which forms of public trausportalio n operate within a haJ! mile of your home, Of which forms of public trausportation do you have access to, that you could use if you wanted to or had to? (More than one answer allowed) 1. Commuter railroad 2. Subway train 3. Commuter express bus 4. Loeal bus/Streetcar 5. Taxicab 6. Commercial mini-van servioe 7. Other (specify) ___ How often would you say you say each of the following kinds of transportation almost every weekday, a couple of times a week, about once a week, a couple of times a month, about once a month, a couple of times a year, about once a year, or virtually never? 4. Private automobile (not carpool} S. Carpool or vanpool 6. Other privatel y owned vehicle 7. Commuter railroad 8. Subway train 9. Commuter express bus 10. Loeal bus/Streetcar ll. Commercial mini-van service 12. Taxicab Every Couple/ Once/ Couple/ Once/ Couple/ Onoe/ weekdayweek week month month year year Never (IF ANSWERS 'COUPLE 0 TIMES A YEAR,' 'ONCE A YEAR' OR 'NEVER" to #'s 7 THRU 12, R.ESPONJ?ENT WilL BE CLASStF.lED AS A NON-USER) 13. Do you own or have use of an automobile that you can drive whenever you need it? 1. Yes (SKIP TO #16) 2. No (ASK #14) 14. Do you not own a car because you don't want one, or because it is too expcusive? 1. Don't want one (SKIP. TO #16) 2. Too expeusive (ASK #15) 15. Do you expect to get a car in the near future, do you think you probably" won't be getting a car for quite a while, or do you have no plans for ever getting an automobile? 1. Near future 2. Not for quite a while 3. Not gettU.g car 59

PAGE 66

16. Would you say that the area in which you live is central city, suburban or rural (country)? 1. Celitral city 2. Suburban 3. Rural 4. D.J<. 17. Do you work at a regular job outside the home? 1 Yes (Go to #18) 2. No (Skip to #44) ASK fP EOMPl1)YED OU"ISIDi:t 1HE HOME 18. And the area in which you worlc, is it central city, suburban or rural (country)? 1. Central City 2. Snburban 3. Rural 4. D.J<. 19. How many miles would you estimate you travel from home to work? 1. l.ess than 2 2. 3-5 3. 6-10 4. 11-20 5. 21-30 6. More than 30 7 D.K. 20. How many minutes does your trip to work usually take? 1. 10 or less 2. 11-20 3. 21-29 4 30 5 31-40 6. 41-59 7. 60 8. 61 9. 90 10. More than 90 11. D.K. 21 What time do you leave for work each day? 1 6:00AM8:59AM 2. 9:00AM11:59 AM 3. Noon 2:59 PM 4. 3:00 PM 5:59 PM 5. 6:00PM 8:59 PM 6. 9:00 PM 11: 59 PM 7. Midnight 5:59 A.'.{ 8. Differeot times 9. D.K.jRefused 22. Which of the following modes of transportation do you usually take oo your trip to work? 1. Car (alone) 2. Carpool or vanpool IF JUST ONE OF THESE, ASK #23 3. Other privately owned vehicle 4. Commuter railroad 10. Motor bike 5 Subway train 11. Bicycle 6 Commuter express bus 12. Walk 7. LoeaJ bus/streetcar 8. Commercial Mini-van service SKIP T0#38 9. Taxicab IF ANSWERED 1, 2 OR 3 TO #Z2, ASK: 23. How much, if anything. do yon personally bave to pay each day to park your ear (or the ear you ride in) at work? 1. Don't have to pay 2. $1.49 or less 3. $1.50 $2.49 4. $2.50 -$3.49 5. $3.50 $4.99 6. $5.00 $9.99 7. $10.00 or more 60

PAGE 67

24. If for some reason you bad to travel to wark by public transport a tion, which of the following means of traDsportation would you have to take? (All that apply) 1. Commuter railroad 2. Subway train 3. Commuter express bus 4. Local bus/Streetcar 5. Commercial Minivan service 6 Taxicab 7 None, ea.n't get there by public transportation 25. What is the major advantage of your going to work by car/other privately owned vehicle, as opposed to using pnblic transportation? (PROBE) (DO NOT READ CHOICES) (ACCEPT MORE THAN ONE ANSWER) 1. Takes less time 2. Costs less 3. Can leave when I want tcr-not tied to schedule 4. Don't have to walk to get to transportation S. Don't have to wait at station or stop/No wasted time 6 1.ess chance of getting into accident 7. No threat of crime 8. Mor e enjoyable/relaxing 9. Other (specify)-------------26. What, if anything, would you dislike about going to work by public transportation? (PROBE) (DO NOT READ CHOICES) (ACCEPT MORE THAN ONE ANSWER) 1. Takes too long 2. Makes too many stops 3. Costs too much 4 Can't leave when I want t
PAGE 68

{ASKED TO ALL WHO DRIVE TO WORK) 31. If when you bad to switch or transfer, there was always a bus/train waiting 32. If you take one vehicle without switching 33 If the fare were cut in bali 34. If traffic congestion increased a great deal 35. If you J>.!d to pay twice as much as you are now paying to park your ear at work 36 .. If there were a service located where you boarded the bus or train where you could place a shopping order or an errand order and when you came back, the thing(s) you ordered were waiting for you in a locker . This might iDclude dry cleaniDg, movie reotals, registratioo renewals at motor vehicles, Oowers, wiDe, or just about any other kind of errands you needed dooe during the day. 37. What do you think would be a fair price that you would be willing to pay, on average, for each errand like this? IF SAID "l''SSSBLY SWITCH" OR 'DEFINITELY SWITCH" TO #36, ASK: 3S. If there were a minivan service which picked you up on your corner and drove you to within a block of where you worked, and it left every half hour, would you be likely to use this service or would you still take your cv:jother privately owned vehicle? 1. Use it {ASK #39) 2. Still use car/other privately owned vehicle (SKIP TO #40) 39 What do yon think would be a fair price that you would be willing to pay for this service? IF OWN A CAR AND DO NOT TAKE IT TO WORK, ASK: 40. Why do you not take your cv: to work? {MORE 1HAN ONE ANSWER ALLOWED) 1. No place to park 2 Co.t too much to park 3. Takes longer by ear 4. Too much traffic 5. Can't sleep in cv: 6. Can't read/work iD ear 7. More chance of getting iDto accideot 8. Bad for the environment 9. Other (specify)------ASK IF EMPLOYED OUTSIDE 1'HE: .HOME, AND DO NOT OWN A CAR: 41. If you owned a ear, do you think you would take it to work? 1. Yes (ASK #42} 2. No (SKIP TO #43) 42. What do you think would be the major advantage of your going to work by cv: as opposed to how you're goiDg now? (IF RESPONDENT SAYS 'CONVENIENT,' ASK 'IN WHAT WAY IS IT CONVENIENT?") (PROBE) (DO NOT READ CHOICES) {ACCEPT MORE 1HAN ONE ANSWER) 1. Takes less time 2. Costs less 3. Can leave when I want to-not tied to schedule . 4. Don't have to wait at station or stop/No wasted time 5. Don't have to walk to get to transportation 6. Less chance of getting into accident 7. No threat of crime 8. More enjoyable 9. Other (specify)-------'--62

PAGE 69

IF NO, ASK 43. Why do you think you would not take it to work? (DO NOT READ CHOICES) (ALL THAT APPLY) 1. No place to park 2. Cost too much to park 3: Takes longer by car 4. Too much traffic 5. Can't sleep in car 6. Can't read/work 7. More chance of getting into aecideot 8. Bad for the environment 9. Other (specify) ----ASK EVERYONE 44. What do you consider to be the single greatest advantage of taking public transportation? 1. Takes less time than driving 2. Costs less than driving 3. Can read 4. Can sleep 5. Can talk to people 6. Don't have to worry about parking 7. Don't have to own a car 8. Less chance of getting into accident 9. Better for the environment 10. Uses less energy 11. Reduces congestion 12. Only way .for low income perwns to get aroWld 13. Other (specify) 14. No advantage 45. Wbenyou gosbopping at the department store you shop at most, do yon usually go from home or from work? 1. Home 2. Work 46. When yon go shopping at your favorite department store, which means of transportation do yon usually use to get there? 1. car (alone) 2. carpool or vanpool IF JUST ONE OF THESE, ASK #47 3. Other privately owned vehicle 4. Commuter railroad 5 . Subway tiain 6. Commuter express bus 7. Loeal bus/Streetcar 8. Commercial Mini-van service 9. Taxicab SKIP TO #49 10. Motor Bike 11. Bicycle 12. Walk 47. If there were a mini-van semce which picked you up on your comer and drove you to within a block of the department store, and it left every half hour, would you be likely to use this scmce or would you still probably take your car/other privately owned vehicle? 1. Use it (ASK #48) 2. Still use car/other privately owned vehicle (SKIP TO #49) 63

PAGE 70

48. Wbat do you think would be a fair price that you would be willing to pay for this ______________________________ __ 49. Do you usually just go to one store, do you go to more than one store at the same location or do you usually go to more than one location when you $hop? 1. One store 2. More than 1/Same location 3. More than !locat ion SO. Do you usually go out just to $hop, or do you generally try to combine your shopping with other errands or trips you have to take? 1. Just to shop 2. Combine trips 51. When you go out for entertainment, like to the movies, or to a restaurant, do you usually go from home or from work? 1. Home 2. Work 52. When you go out for entertainment, like to the movies, or to a restaurant which means of transportation do you usually use from home or from work? 1. Car (alone) 2. Carpool or vanpool 3. Other privately owned vehicle IF JUST ONE OF THESE, ASK #53 4. Commuter railrQad 5. Subway train 6. Commuter express bus 10. Motor bike 11. Bicycle 7. Local bus/Streetcar SKIP TO #55 12. Walk 8. Commercial Mini-van service 9. Taxicab 53. If there were a mini-van service which picked you up on your corner and drove you to within a block of the theater or restaurant, and it left every half hour, would you be likely to use this service or would you still probably take your car/other privately owned vehicle? 1. Use it (ASK #54) 2. Still use cat/other privately owned vehicle (SKIP TO #55) 54. Wh4J: do you think would be a fair price that you would be willing to pay for this service? 55. When you visit friends or relatives, do you usually go from home or from work? 1. Home 2. Work 56. When you visit friends or relatives, which means of transportation do you usually use to get there? 1. Car (alone) 2. Carpool or vanpool 3. Other privately owned vehicle IF JUST ONE OF THESE, ASK #57 4. Commuter railroad 5. Subway train 6. CommUler express bus 7. Local bus/Streetcar (SKIP TO #59) 8. Commercial Mini-van service 10. Motor bike 11. Bicycle 12. Walk 9. Taxicab 64

PAGE 71

If there were a minivan .service which picked you up on your corner and drove you to within a block of where you were and it left every ball hour, would you be like l y to use this service or would you still probably take your car/otller privately owned vehicle? 1. Usc it (ASK #58) 2. Still use car/other privately owned vehicle (skip to #59) 58. What do you think would be a fair price that you would be willing to pay for thi < service? ASK TO ALL TilOSE WHO USE COMMUTER OR SUBWAY TRAINS A COUPLE OF TIMES A MONTH, OR MORE OFfEN: . 59. What places do you go to wheuyou use tlletrain? (ALL THAT APPLY) 1. Work 2. Shopping 3. MoviesfTbeaterfR e staurantsfMuseums, etc. 4 Friends/relatives 5. School 6. Other --ASK TO ALL TilOSE WHO USE BUSES OR STREEl'CARS A COUPLE OF TIMES A MONTH, OR MORE OFfEN: 60. What places do you go to when you use the bus/streetcar? (ALL THAT APPLY) 1. Work 2. Shopping 3 MoviesfTbeaterfRcstaurants/Muscums, etc. 4. Friends/relatives 5. School 6. Other -------ASK TO ALL TilOSE WHO HAVE COMMUTER OR SUBWAY TRAINS AVAILABLEFOR TiiEM TO USE (FROM #3) 61. What one or two things could be done to make you use the train more often? ASK TO ALL THOSE WHO HAVE BUSES OR STREEI'CARSAVAIIABLEFOR TREM TO USE (FROM #3) 62. What one or two things could be done to make you use the bus/streetcar more often? ASK ALL RESPONDENTS 63 How serious a problem would you say traffic congestion is in the area where you live? 1 Very serious Z. Soroewhat serious 3. Not very serious at all 64. Would you favor or oppose requiring developers to make t heir projetls more ac:ccssible by public transportation? 1. Favor 2. Oppose 3. Don't Know 65. In order to help reduce traffic congestion in suburban areas, would you favor or oppose making people pay for parking at work and at shopping maDs in order to encourage mor e people to use public transportation, carpools and vanpools? 1 Favor 2. Oppose 3. Don't Know 66. In o r der to alleviate traffic congestion, collServc energy and reduce pollution by trying to get fewer people to drive, would you favor imposing a 25 cent per gallon tax ou gasoline, substantially increasing tolls and generally making it much more expensive to drive? 1 Favor 2. Oppose 3. Don't Know 65

PAGE 72

67. lD genua!, do you think mass transportation services c:a11 be best provided by contracting priva t e companies to deliver the services, by having private companies compete with government agencies for the right to deliver transit services, or by just having government agencies deliver transit services. L Private 2. Private/Government competition 3. Government 68. Which of the following comes closest to your point of view: 1. cOmpetition to provide local transportation service is good because it would reduce costs and result in increased services and jobs: or . 2. Competition would be harmful because it might result in reduced and would undercut wages and threaten existing transit union jobs. 69. Which of the following modes of transportation do you feel safest using private car, taxicab, bus, streetcar, train or L Car 2 Taxi 3 Bus 4. Streetcar 5. Train 6. Mini van 70. And which do you feel least safe using? 1. Car 2. Taxi 3. Bus 4 Streetcar 5. Train 6 Minivan 71. Why do you feel least safe using (mode named in #70)? 72. Would you say th'!_t the county in which you live is rapidly increasing in population, slow l y increasing in population, is basically stable or is losing population? 1 Rap idly increasing 2. Slowly increasing 3. Stable 4. lng population 5. Don't Know 73. How many people, including yourself, reside in your household? IF MORE 1HAN 1 74. What is your current marital status? L Single, never married 2. Married 3. Separated 4 Divorced 5 Widowed 75. How many chilclren under 18 year s of age, currently reside in your hous e hold? IF EMPLOYED: 76 How would you classify your current job? (READ CHOICES) 1. Professional 2. Ex=ltive/Manage< 3. Salesperson 4. Othe r office work 5. Technical worker (compute,., machines, equipment) 6. Government or Municipal (Police, Ftre) 7. Blue collar (Machine operator, Codstruction, Trades) 8. Other-----66

PAGE 73

IF NOT EMPLOYED: 77. Into which of the followiDg categories do you fall? 1. Student 2. Homemaker 3. R etired 4. Unemployed and looking for work 78. Howmany incomes contribute to your total household income? 79. How many automobiles all together are owned by you and other members of your household? IF AT LEAST ONE CAR 80. How many miles all together would you estimate you and Olher household members drive in a year? 8L Do you own or rent your residence? 1. Owu 2. Rent 82. What is the last grade of formal education you completed? L Less than H.S. graduate 2 High School graduate 3. Some college 4. College graduate 5. Post grad uate 83. What is your national ancestry, other than American? 84. What is your total annual household income? (READ CHOICES) 1. Less than $10,000 3. $20,000 $29,999 5. $40,000 $49,999 2. $10,000$19,999 4-$30,000 $ 39,000 6. $50,000 or more 85. Into which of the following age categories do you fall? 1. Less than 30 2 30 -39 3. 40 49 4. 50 59 5. 60-69 6. 70 or older 86. Gender: L Male 2 Female 67

PAGE 74

Center fo r Urban Transportation Research College of Engineerin g University of South Florida Tampa, Florida 33620 CUTR


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 2200325Ia 4500
controlfield tag 001 028672705
005 20110909155738.0
006 m o d
007 cr bn|||||||||
008 110909s1989 flua obs 000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a C01-00312
035
(OCoLC)751453654
040
FHM
c FHM
043
n-us---
090
HE336.C5 (ONLINE)
0 245
Factors related to transit use
h [electronic resource] /
prepared by Center for Urban Transportation Research.
260
Tampa, Fla. :
b Center for Urban Transportation Research,
1989.
300
1 online resource (iv, 67 p.) :
ill.
500
"October, 1989."
5 FTS
"Prepared for Urban Mass Transportation Administration."
FTS
504
Includes bibliographical references (p. 51).
588
Title from e-book t.p. (viewed Sept. 9, 2011).
650
Choice of transportation
z United States
v Statistics.
2 710
University of South Florida.
Center for Urban Transportation Research.
1
United States.
Urban Mass Transportation Administration.
773
t Center for Urban Transportation Research Publications [USF].
4 856
u http://digital.lib.usf.edu/?c1.312
FTS
y USF ONLINE ACCESS
951
10
SFU01:001926037;
FTS