Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
3BACKGROUND Virtually all transit agencies conduct surveys on board buses and trains and often in transit stations as well. Agencies sur- vey their customers on a wide range of topics, from the purpose, origin, and destination of their current trip to their satisfaction with the service and service improvements that would prompt them to ride more often. On-board and inter- cept surveys are highly valuable to transit agencies as a means of obtaining vital information and opinions from a cross section of their customers. As a description of survey methodologies, the terms on-board and intercept are both distinct and overlapping. âOn-boardâ means surveys conducted on buses, subway cars, light rail cars, commuter trains, and sometimes para- transit vehicles. On-board surveys can be self-administered surveys that are distributed to customers after they board the bus or rail car. Riders are typically encouraged to complete the survey immediately, but may also be offered the option of returning the completed questionnaire by mail. On-board surveys can also be conducted as personal interviews, in which case a survey worker asks riders a short series of ques- tions and records the answers. On-board personal interviews are generally speaking intercept surveys; however, the term âinterceptâ can also be reserved for surveys in subway and rail stations, at transfer stations or terminals, and at bus stops. Surveys at these locations can be conducted as self-administered surveys or personal interviews. The term âon-board/intercept surveysâ used throughout this report refers to self-administered surveys distributed on board buses and rail cars and in stations, as well as interviews conducted in these environments. They are distinct from tele- phone interviews, mail surveys, and on-line surveys, none of which involve in-person interaction between surveyors and transit riders. Transit agency staff that are responsible for on-board and intercept surveys encounter a number of important issues in planning and conducting these surveys. These issues include: ⢠What is the most effective way of obtaining a represen- tative sample of the target rider group or groups? ⢠What is the clearest way to word questions and elicit accurate responses? ⢠What are effective ways of eliciting meaningful responses on service quality issues? ⢠What response rates have been achieved? ⢠What techniques have transit agencies used to increase response rates? ⢠How long can surveys be without discouraging participation? ⢠How often are survey results updated? These questions involve a broad range of methodological issues that must be addressed in planning a given survey. Should the survey be administered on board or in a station environment? Should self-administered questionnaires or personal interviews be used? For on-board surveys, how should a sample of routes be selected for surveying? How large a sample size is needed to ensure a satisfactory level of accuracy? Should respondents be provided with incentives to complete a survey? What question wording is most effective for a given survey purpose? How should surveys be intro- duced and how should the questionnaire be formatted? In what order should questions be asked? Implementation of on-board and intercept surveys also raises a number of important questions. For on-board bus surveys, should self-administered surveys be distributed by bus operators or by dedicated survey staff? How should survey staff be recruited? What training, supervision, and monitoring is needed to ensure successful completion of the data collection? What factors affect response rates and how can response rates be maximized? Finally, what is the likely cost of an on-board/intercept survey and what factors affect the overall cost? This report documents and summarizes transit agency experiences with on-board and intercept surveys. Transit agency staff responsible for on-board and intercept surveys can use this report to learn from and compare their experi- ences with the experiences of other agencies. METHODOLOGY Findings in this report are based on a literature review, a sur- vey of transit agencies, analysis of documentation submitted by transit agencies, and interviews with transit agency staff and other professionals involved in on-board and intercept transit surveys. CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION
Information for this report was provided by 52 transit agencies from across the United States. Transit agency staff from these agencies completed a written questionnaire on on-board and intercept surveys (see Appendix A). In the questionnaire, agency staff reported on their overall experi- ences with on-board and intercept surveys. They also reported in detail on one or more on-board/intercept surveys conducted by their agency; information covering 58 surveys was obtained from this section of the questionnaire. Other information provided by transit agencies included ⢠On-board and intercept questionnaires, ⢠Methodology for surveys, and ⢠Survey results. Participating agencies represent a cross section of the transit industry in terms of agency size, location, and mode. Table 1 profiles key characteristics of participating agencies. ORGANIZATION OF REPORT This report is organized topically, synthesizing informa- tion from a literature review, the survey, interviews, and documents provided by transit agencies. Chapter two provides an overview of the use of on-board and intercept surveys in the transit agency environment, including frequency of use of on-board and intercept and other survey methodologies and reasons to use on-board and intercept surveys instead of a different survey method(s). Chapter three delves into decisions and choices that must be made in planning on-board and inter- cept surveys, ranging from choosing between on-board and transit locales to minimizing sampling error. Chapter four focuses on the process of developing questionnaires, including 4 question wording, question order, and layout. Chapter five addresses survey implementation and data processing, includ- ing staff recruitment, training, and supervision. Chapter six reviews the important issue of response rates and assesses factors that affect the response rates for different types of on-board and intercept surveys. Chapter seven summarizes survey costs, and chapter eight presents conclusions reached and suggested research needs. No. of Agencies Percentage Agency Size Very large 9 17 Large 12 23 Medium 16 31 Small 15 29 Total 52 100 Mode Bus 49 94 Light rail 12 23 Heavy rail 9 17 Commuter rail 6 12 Notes: Agency size definitions: Very largeâmore than 100 million annual unlinked trips. Largest and smallest in this group: MTA New York City Transit and TriMet (Portland, Oregon). Largeâbetween 50 and 99 million annual unlinked trips. Largest and smallest in this group: Bay Area Rapid Transit District (Oakland) and Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada. Mediumâbetween 10 and 49 million annual unlinked trips. Largest and smallest in this group: Metro (St. Louis) and Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority. Smallâfewer than 10 million annual unlinked trips. Largest and smallest in this group: Lane Transit District (Eugene, Oregon) and The Bus (South Bend, Indiana). TABLE 1 CHARACTERISTICS OF TRANSIT AGENCIES RESPONDING TO SURVEY