National Academies Press: OpenBook

On-Board and Intercept Transit Survey Techniques (2005)

Chapter: Chapter Six - Response Rates

« Previous: Chapter Five - Survey Fieldwork and Data Processing
Page 44
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Six - Response Rates." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. On-Board and Intercept Transit Survey Techniques. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13866.
×
Page 44
Page 45
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Six - Response Rates." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. On-Board and Intercept Transit Survey Techniques. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13866.
×
Page 45
Page 46
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Six - Response Rates." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. On-Board and Intercept Transit Survey Techniques. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13866.
×
Page 46
Page 47
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Six - Response Rates." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. On-Board and Intercept Transit Survey Techniques. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13866.
×
Page 47
Page 48
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Six - Response Rates." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. On-Board and Intercept Transit Survey Techniques. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13866.
×
Page 48
Page 49
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Six - Response Rates." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. On-Board and Intercept Transit Survey Techniques. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13866.
×
Page 49
Page 50
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Six - Response Rates." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. On-Board and Intercept Transit Survey Techniques. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13866.
×
Page 50
Page 51
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Six - Response Rates." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. On-Board and Intercept Transit Survey Techniques. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13866.
×
Page 51
Page 52
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Six - Response Rates." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. On-Board and Intercept Transit Survey Techniques. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13866.
×
Page 52
Page 53
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Six - Response Rates." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. On-Board and Intercept Transit Survey Techniques. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13866.
×
Page 53
Page 54
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Six - Response Rates." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. On-Board and Intercept Transit Survey Techniques. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13866.
×
Page 54

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.

Response rates are critical to both survey quality and survey costs. High response rates minimize nonresponse error and thus reduce the impact of nonrespondents being different from those responding to the survey. High response rates also reduce the costs of carrying out the survey by reducing the number of survey worker hours needed to obtain the tar- geted number of completed surveys and, in the case of self- administered surveys, by reducing the number of question- naires that need to be printed. MEASURING RESPONSE RATES Careful thought needs to be given to calculating response rates and comparing response rates between surveys. Ideally, response rates are computed as the number of surveys returned and usable (the numerator) as a percentage of the number of riders asked to participate in the survey (the denominator, or base). For example, if 1,000 riders are offered questionnaires as they board a sample of buses and 400 accept and return their questionnaires, the response rate is 40%. Similarly, if 1,000 riders are approached in a transit center for an interview and 600 agree to be interviewed and complete the interview, the response rate is 60%. In practice, agencies reported response rates using a variety of different numerators and denominators, as summarized in Table 19. Depending on which counting method is used, and whether the study population is people or trips, response rates can be difficult to compare on an apples-to-apples basis. One “base” (denominator) often used is the number of customers asked to participate in the survey. This base is appropriate when the study population is trips (rather than people) and customers are asked to complete a second or third survey if they are encountered by a survey worker a sec- ond or third time. In practice, this base is most workable in large systems because customers are rarely encountered more than once by a survey worker. Thus, the problem of riders being disinclined to complete a survey more than once does not arise. An example of this situation is the SANDAG O&D survey in San Diego. Another often-used base is the number of surveys distrib- uted. This number is almost always less than the number of customers asked to participate in the survey, and therefore overstates the response rate. 44 Some agencies use an estimate of the number of unique riders as the base figure. This is appropriate in customer satisfaction surveys that do not expect riders to complete multiple surveys. Thus, LYNX and Pace Suburban Bus used an estimate of unique riders based on boardings, transfer rates, and trips per day per customer. Both were one-day surveys that attempted to include all riders using the bus on the survey day(s). The calculated response rate is also affected by the choice of numerator. Agencies generally reported the number of surveys “completed and returned.” As discussed here, some agencies require that every question be answered for a survey to be considered complete, whereas others set a lesser standard; a choice that affects the measured response rate. RESPONSE RATES REPORTED BY TRANSIT AGENCIES Response rates reported by transit agencies vary widely, from a low of 13%, for a survey distributed on-board buses by bus operators in Lodi to 90%, for an on-board bus survey distributed by university students in Ann Arbor. Within this very broad range, response rates for the major- ity of on-board and intercept surveys ranged from 33% to 67%, with one-half of agencies reporting response rates in this range. Response rates vary not only between agencies and sur- veys, but also between routes and modes for a given transit agency survey. For example, a TARC survey experienced response rates ranging from 23% to 53% among lines with at least 400 surveys distributed. The following detailed profiles and Table 20, a summary of response rates, provide overall response rates and key fea- tures of 29 surveys for which transit agencies reported suffi- cient information to compute a response rate. Surveys are presented in two groups based on the completeness of the count of riders being asked to participate in the survey. The first group is comprised of agencies that reported the total number of riders who were offered a questionnaire or were asked to be interviewed. The response rates in these cases therefore reflect both refusals and unreturned surveys. (In a few cases, the number of people offered surveys is calculated CHAPTER SIX RESPONSE RATES

45 as total daily ridership, because an attempt was made to offer a survey to every rider.) Surveys for which transit agencies did not track the num- ber of refusals are grouped separately. The true response rate for these surveys is somewhat lower (probably by 5 to 15 per- centage points) as a result of not counting riders who refused to take a survey. Surveys in which refusals are included in calculating response rates AATA (Ann Arbor, MI) Rider survey Self-administered survey on board buses. Survey staff dis- tributed surveys to passengers as they boarded. Surveys were returned to surveyors. Incentives: Pens with agency name, website, and phone number. 2,700 riders were offered surveys. 2,433 surveys were completed and returned. 90% response rate. Refusals included in base number. High response rate attributed to using University of Michigan students as surveyors; students are personable and enthusiastic survey workers; incentive; conducting the survey regularly (every 2 years); and the university setting. King County Metro Transit Division (Seattle, WA) Ride Free Area (RFA) Survey Short interviews conducted on board buses in downtown Ride Free Zone. Survey workers selected every 3rd or 5th person boarding for very short interview. Incentives: None. 1,899 riders were approached for interviews. 1,663 surveys were completed. 88% response rate. Refusals included in base number. High response rate attributed to short, personal inter- views and general willingness of riders to participate in surveys. Base Comments Riders a • Fares paid or boardings, excluding transfers and adjusted for number of riders making multiple trips • If data are collected for period other than survey days, this may differ from number of riders on survey days • Requires calculation of transfers (when boarding data are used) and number of riders making multiple trips per day Tripsb • Passenger boardings, measured through farebox or automatic passenger counters, adjusted for transfers • Need to weight surveys to account for transfers Asked to participate • Number of customers approached for interview or offered questionnaire • Must track people refusing Surveys distributed • Number of questionnaires distributed to customers • Must track number actually taken by customers; this can be difficult to discern if surveys are left in envelops or seats for customers to pick up Respondents Surveys returned • Count of returned surveys that are not blank • May include unusable surveys with few answers marked Complete surveys • Count of returned surveys that are fully or partially completed • Strictness of rule for counting as “complete” will affect response rate and data quality Measure aNumber of people using transit—each rider asked to complete the survey once. bPassengers asked to complete a survey for each trip. TABLE 19 BASES AND NUMERATORS USED IN RESPONSE RATE CALCULATION

46 Modes Agency Project Base P e r c e n t a g e c o m p l e t e d a n d r e t u r n e d B u s L i g h t r a i l S u b w a y C o m m u t e r r a i l S e l f - a d m i n i s t e r e d I n t e r v i e w S u r v e y s t a f f B u s o p e r a t o r s I n c e n t i v e s Refusals included in calculating response rate AATA Rider survey 2,700 offered 90 Pens King Co. Metro (Seattle) Ride Free Area (RFA) Survey 1,899 approached 88 None SEPTA (Philadelphia) R-7 Origin, Destination and Trip Purpose Study 535 offered 86 None MARTA (Atlanta) Systemwide Survey 5,000 approached 80 None Gulf Regional Planning Commission Customer Appreciation Day Survey 110 approached 73 Food CTA Douglas Branch Blue Line Passenger Survey 2,478 distributed + est. refusals 71 None Intercity Transit (Olympia, WS) Customer Satisfaction 2,672 offered 70 None Lane Transit District (Eugene, OR) 2004 Origin/Destination Study 8,338 offered 63 None SANDAG (San Diego) Onboard Transit Passenger Survey 79,220 offered 54 None Metra (Chicago area) On-Board Survey 50,000 offered 50 None LYNX (Orlando) 2001 LYNX Market Research Study 33,470 est. daily ridership 45 None Santa Clara VTA 2000 On-Board Survey 44,633 offered 41 None Method. Survey distributed by TABLE 20 SUMMARY OF SURVEY RESPONSE RATES

47 Modes Agency Project Base P e r c e n t a g e c o m p l e t e d a n d r e t u r n e d B u s L i g h t r a i l S u b w a y C o m m u t e r r a i l S e l f - a d m i n i s t e r e d I n t e r v i e w S u r v e y s t a f f B u s o p e r a t o r s I n c e n t i v e s Metrolink (L.A. area) 2004 Onboard Survey 32,960 boardings 41 Drawing TriMet (Portland, OR) TriMet O&D Systemwide Survey 2000 205,000 offered 40 None Santa Monica Big Blue Bus Line-by-Line Analysis 13,000 offered 36 None TARC (Louisville, KY) Project Gobility 12,906 offered 33 Free ride(s) Pace Suburban Bus (Chicago area) CSI/User Study 58,000 est. daily ridership 14 Drawing Refusals not included in calculating response rate Fort Worth Transportation Authority Customer Satisfaction Survey 500 distributed 80 None Potomac & Rappahannock Transportation Commission (Woodbridge, VA) Full on-board surveys of local and commuter bus riders 3,647 distributed 70 None CTA West Side Customer Travel Survey 8,230 distributed 67 None Metro (Los Angeles) Spring 2004 On-Board Customer Satisfaction Survey 27,280 distributed 52 Drawing RTD (Denver) Customer Satisfaction Survey 9,000 distributed 41 Free ride(s) Orange County (CA) Transportation Authority 2001 On-Board Survey 25,000 distributed 38 Free ride(s) Metro (St. Louis) Metro On-Board Survey 10,000 distributed 35 Drawing Method. Survey distributed by TABLE 20 (Continued)

48 Modes Survey distributed by Agency Project Base P e r c e n t a g e c o m p l e t e d a n d r e t u r n e d B u s L i g h t r a i l S u b w a y C o m m u t e r r a i l S e l f - a d m i n i s t e r e d I n t e r v i e w S u r v e y s t a f f B u s o p e r a t o r s I n c e n t i v e s WMATA (Washington, DC) Metrorail Passenger Survey 207,788 distributed 28 None GCRTA (Cleveland) Annual Onboard Survey 4,000 distributed 23 None CTTransit (Hartford, CT) Bi-annual passenger survey 22,000 distributed 20 None DART (Dallas) Customer Satisfaction Survey 40,000 distributed 14 Drawing City of Lodi Customer Service 400 distributed 13 None Method. Notes: Offered = number of passengers offered a questionnaire. Includes refusals. Approached = number of passengers approached for personal interview. Includes refusals. Distributed = number of surveys distributed. Does not include refusals unless otherwise noted. Boardings = number of riders boarding bus/train. Includes customers who had completed survey previously. Estimated daily ridership = Number of unique customers. Persons transferring and persons taking 2+ trips per day are counted once. See chapter six for detailed information. TABLE 20 (Continued)

49 SEPTA (Philadelphia, PA) R-7 Origin, Destination, and Trip Purpose Study Self-administered survey on board commuter rail trains. Survey workers distributed short one-page surveys to passengers as they boarded. Surveys were returned to surveyors. Incentives: None. 535 riders were offered surveys. 460 surveys were com- pleted and returned. 86% response rate. Refusals included in base number. MARTA (Atlanta, GA) Systemwide Survey Survey workers interviewed passengers on board buses and subway cars. Every fifth rider selected for a short interview. Incentives: None. 5,000 riders were approached for interviews. 4,000 surveys were completed. 80% response rate. Refusals included in base number. High response rate the result of short, personal interviews. Gulf Regional Planning Commission (Gulfport, MS) Customer Appreciation Day Survey Survey workers approached riders as they alighted buses at transfer station and train, beach, and mall hubs. Sur- veyors offered riders the option of being asked questions or self-administering the survey; most riders chose to be interviewed. Self-administered surveys were returned to survey workers. Incentives: Soft drinks and cookies offered. 110 riders were approached for interviews. 80 surveys were completed. 73% response rate. Refusals included in base number. Interviewing increased response rates, particularly given low literacy rate and demographic groups involved. CTA (Chicago, IL) Douglas Branch Blue Line Passenger Survey Self-administered survey on board elevated train. Survey workers distributed two-page (front and back) surveys to passengers as they boarded. Surveys were returned to surveyors. Incentives: None. 2,230 surveys distributed. About 90% of riders entering the train accepted a survey. 1,756 surveys were completed and returned. 71% response rate, based on refusal rate of 10%. Very skillful and experienced survey worker generates high response rates. Focused nature of survey area (branch of the Blue Line) may also have encouraged par- ticipation. Intercity Transit (Olympia, WA) Customer Satisfaction Survey Self-administered survey on board buses. Survey workers distributed two-page (front and back) surveys to passen- gers as they boarded. Surveys were returned to surveyors and bus operators. Incentives: None. 2,672 riders were offered surveys. 1,885 surveys were completed and returned. 70% response rate. Refusals included in base number (18% of riders boarding refused to take a survey). Suburban/rural area, many riders users for many years; riders appreciated being asked their opinion. Lane Transit District (Eugene, OR) 2004 Origin/Destination Study Self-administered survey on-board buses. Survey workers distributed two-page (front and back) surveys to passen- gers as they boarded. Surveys were returned to surveyors or bus drivers. Incentives: None. 8,338 riders were offered surveys. 5,528 surveys com- pleted and returned. 63% response rate. Refusals included in base number (10% refused). (Note that 73% of passengers returned survey; response rate is reduced by 10% as a result of some riders filling out multiple surveys; these were set aside.) High response rate attributed to ridership being skewed to younger riders, many of whom are university students and are likely to complete the survey. SANDAG (San Diego, CA) Onboard Transit Passenger Survey Self-administered survey on board buses, light rail, and commuter rail. Survey workers distributed one-page surveys to passengers as they boarded. Surveys were returned to surveyors. Incentives: None. 79,220 riders offered surveys. 42,740 surveys were completed and returned. 54% response rate. Refusals included in base number. (Note that 65% of passengers returned survey; response rate is reduced by 11% from setting aside incomplete surveys.) High response rate attributed to use of short, simple ques- tionnaire and effective survey staff. Metra (Chicago, IL) On-Board Survey Self-administered survey on board commuter rail trains. Survey workers distributed five-page survey to passen- gers after they were seated. Large majority of surveys

were returned to survey workers or deposited in boxes at downtown terminals; surveys also returned by mail. Incentives: None. 50,000 riders were offered surveys. 25,000 surveys were completed and returned. 50% response rate. Refusals included in base number. Good response rate attributed to length of most commuter rail trips and by convincing passengers that results would be used to improve service. LYNX (Orlando, FL) 2001 LYNX Market Research Study Self-administered survey on board buses. One-page surveys placed in boxes on board buses. Signs and bus operators encouraged riders to complete a survey. Incentives: None. 33,470 estimated number of daily riders, all of whom were at least theoretically offered a survey. 15,000 surveys were completed and returned. 45% response rate. Total ridership included in base number. Bus operators were happy with their contract at that time and many actively encouraged riders to complete the survey. Note that some riders may have completed multiple surveys, in which case true response rate would be lower. Santa Clara VTA (San Jose, CA) 2000 On-Board Survey Self-administered survey on board buses and light rail. Survey workers distributed two-page (front and back) sur- veys to passengers as they boarded. Surveys were returned to surveyors or return box at rear exit. Incentives: None. 44,633 passengers who had not previously been asked to complete a questionnaire on the line being surveyed were offered surveys. 18,351 surveys were completed and returned. 41% response rate. Refusals included in base number. Metrolink (Los Angeles, CA) 2004 Onboard Survey Self-administered survey on board commuter rail. Survey workers distributed four-page surveys to passengers as they boarded. Surveys were returned to surveyors or by business reply mail. Incentives: Drawing for free monthly passes. 32,960 passengers boarded during the surveying, includ- ing many who had previously completed the survey; 14,834 surveys were actually distributed, with 13,470 com- pleted and returned. 41% response rate based on total passengers, including those who refused the survey because they had com- pleted a survey earlier. Response rate for surveys dis- tributed was 91%. 50 TriMet (Portland, OR) TriMet Origin Destination Survey—Systemwide 2000 Self-administered survey on board buses and light rail. Survey workers distributed one-page surveys to passen- gers as they boarded buses. On light rail, two survey workers approached riders after they boarded. Surveys returned to envelopes posted by each exit and by mail. Incentives: None. 205,000 riders were offered surveys. 81,100 surveys were completed and returned. 40% response rate. Refusals included in base number. Santa Monica Big Blue Bus (Santa Monica, CA) Line-by-Line Analysis Self-administered survey on board buses. Survey workers distributed one-page surveys to passengers as they boarded. Surveys were returned to surveyors or bus drivers. Incentives: None. 13,000 riders were offered surveys. 4,709 surveys were completed and returned. 36% response rate. Refusals included in base number. TARC (Louisville, KY) Project Gobility Self-administered survey on board buses. Survey work- ers distributed two-page surveys to passengers as they boarded. Surveys were returned to surveyors and by mail. Incentives: Free ride ticket with the completion of the survey. 12,906 riders were offered surveys. 4,211 surveys were completed and returned. 33% response rate. Refusals included in base number. Pace Suburban Bus (Arlington Heights, IL) CSI/User Study Self-administered survey on board buses. Bus operators distributed surveys or made surveys available on bus dashboard. Bus operators chose method to distribute that they were most comfortable with. Bus operators were also asked to make announcements and car cards were posted in each bus to announce the survey. Surveys returned to on-board folder and by mail. Incentives: Raffle of three 1st prizes—$500 U.S. Savings Bonds and five 2nd prizes—$100 U.S. Savings Bonds. 58,000 estimated number of daily riders, all of whom were at least theoretically offered a survey. 7,937 surveys were completed and returned. 14% response rate. Total ridership included in base number. Surveys were distributed to bus operators through dispatchers. Not known how many surveys were actually distributed to passengers.

51 Surveys in which refusals are not included in calculat- ing response rate Fort Worth Transportation Authority (Fort Worth, TX) Customer Satisfaction Survey Self-administered survey at bus terminal and four transfer facilities. Survey workers intercepted riders and asked them to complete survey. Surveys returned to survey workers or by mail. Also distributed some surveys on board; bilingual survey worker conducted some interviews in Spanish. Incentives: None. 500 surveys distributed. 403 surveys were completed and returned. 80% response rate. Refusals not included in base number. High response rate for riders who agreed to participate, but difficult to obtain participation in this setting owing to lack of time. Potomac & Rappahannock Transportation Commission (Woodbridge, VA) Full on-board surveys of local and commuter bus riders Self-administered survey on board buses. Survey work- ers distributed one or two-page surveys to passengers as they boarded. (Survey length varied by type of service.) Surveys were returned to surveyors. Incentives: None. 3,647 surveys distributed. 2,544 surveys were completed and returned. 70% response rate. CTA (Chicago, IL) West Side Customer Travel Survey Self-administered survey on board buses. Survey workers distributed one-page surveys to passengers as they boarded. Surveys were returned to surveyors or by mail. Incentives: None. 8,230 surveys distributed. Does not include riders refus- ing to take a survey. 5,200 surveys completed and returned. 67% response rate. Refusals not included in base number. Metro (Los Angeles, CA) Spring 2004 On-Board Customer Satisfaction Survey Self-administered survey on board buses, subway, and light rail. Survey workers distributed surveys to passen- gers. Surveys were returned to surveyors. Incentives: Drawing for 10 free monthly passes. 27,280 surveys distributed. 14,265 surveys were com- pleted and returned. 52% response rate. Refusals not included in base number. RTD, Denver (Denver, CO) Customer Satisfaction Survey Self-administered survey on board buses and light rail. On buses, bus operators distributed seven-page surveys (in envelopes with pencils and incentives) to randomly chosen passengers. Surveys were returned by mail (primarily) and to bus operators. On light rail, survey work- ers distributed 11-page survey to passengers on plat- forms. Surveys were returned by mail. Incentives: Two free ride coupons included in each survey packet; drawing for grocery gift certificates. 9,000 surveys distributed. 3,654 surveys were completed and returned. 41% response rate. Refusals not included in base number. Anecdotally, however, only a small number of passengers refused to take a survey. Good response rate attributed to strong incentives, survey being conducted periodically, and passengers wanting to provide feedback to the agency. Orange County Transportation Authority (Orange, CA) 2001 On-Board Survey Self-administered survey on board buses and at transit centers. Survey workers distributed surveys to passen- gers. Surveys were returned to surveyors and by mail. Incentives: Free ride coupon on survey return. 25,000 surveys distributed. 9,500 surveys were completed and returned. 38% response rate. Refusals not included in base number. (Note that 56% of passengers returned survey; response rate is reduced by 18% from setting aside of incomplete surveys.) Metro–St. Louis (St. Louis, MO) Metro On-Board Survey Self-administered survey on board buses and at light rail sta- tions. Survey workers distributed two-page (front and back) surveys to passengers as they boarded buses and at light rail stations. Surveys were returned to surveyors and by mail. Incentives: Respondents eligible for contest drawing. 10,000 surveys distributed. 3,500 surveys were completed and returned. 35% response rate. Refusals not included in base number. WMATA (Washington, DC) Metrorail Passenger Survey Self-administered survey in subway stations. Survey workers distributed surveys on platforms. Surveys were returned to surveyors and by mail. Incentives: None. 207,788 surveys distributed. 57,700 surveys were com- pleted and returned. 28% response rate. Refusals not included in base number.

GCRTA (Cleveland, OH) Annual Onboard Survey Self-administered survey on board bus and light rail. Sur- vey workers distributed four-page surveys to passengers as they boarded. Surveys returned to survey workers and by mail. Incentives: None. 4,000 surveys distributed. 935 surveys were completed and returned. 23% response rate. Refusals not included in base number; number refusing tends to be small. Experience of agency staff is that response rate with City Year survey workers used in this project (as well as other temporary workers) tends to be about one-half the response rate when using agency employees. CTTransit (Hartford, CT) Bi-annual passenger survey Self-administered survey on board buses and at transit centers. Surveys were distributed on board buses from envelopes; bus operators encouraged riders to take and complete a survey. Agency staff distributed surveys to rid- ers at bus stops and transportation centers. Survey returned on board and by mail. One-day blitz in each divi- sion of CTTransit. Incentives: None. 22,000 surveys distributed. 4,500 surveys completed and returned. 20% response rate. Refusals not included in base number. DART (Dallas, TX) Customer Satisfaction Survey Survey workers distributed surveys to passengers at tran- sit centers. Also used seat drops on buses and rail at start of trips, and stocked timetable holders on board buses and light rail. Surveys returned by mail and to operators. Major- ity of surveys were returned by mail; some also returned to bus operators. Incentives: Drawing for a monthly pass. 40,000 surveys distributed. 5,950 surveys completed and returned. 14% response rate. Refusals not included in base number. Response rate affected by mail return. City of Lodi (Lodi, CA) Customer Service Survey Self-administered survey on board buses. Distributed by drivers on fixed-route buses and returned by mail. Distrib- uted by drivers and by mail to dial-a-ride service riders and returned by mail. Incentives: None. 400 surveys distributed. 50 surveys completed and returned. 52 13% response rate. Refusals not included in base number. Relatively low response rate attributed to use of mail for return of survey and the survey format, which may have appeared similar to comment card. Agency expects higher response rate with on-board return of surveys and revised formatting. Distribution by drivers is an asset; passengers know drivers by name. FACTORS AFFECTING RESPONSE RATES Many factors affect the response rate achieved for on-board and intercept surveys. Primary factors based on a compari- son of response rates across different surveys and interviews with transit agency personnel can be divided between people factors and methodological factors. “People factors” include the enthusiasm and diligence of survey workers, rider inter- est in responding to transit surveys, and rider demographics. Methodological factors include whether surveys are self- administered or conducted as personal interviews, the venue (on-board or in-station), length and complexity of the ques- tionnaire, use of incentives, and the regularity with which surveys are conducted. Enthusiasm and Diligence of Survey Workers The importance of the survey staff and diligence with which they go about their jobs cannot be understated. Agency staff repeatedly cited survey staff as a primary factor in explaining both unusually high and unusually low survey response rates. It is more difficult than one might expect to generalize about who makes for effective survey staff aside from proper training and supervision. The experiences with student work- ers, for example, is quite varied. AATA found that Univer- sity of Michigan students were personable, enthusiastic, and effective as survey workers. AATA’s bus survey achieved a response rate of 90%, owing in part to the effectiveness of the students as well as a small incentive (pens) and riders’ will- ingness to participate. CTA has also had good experience with recruiting students and other part-time workers to dis- tribute and collect surveys. Conversely, Metrolink moved away from using student survey workers owing to accuracy and reliability problems. Response rates are sometimes relatively low when bus operators distribute the questionnaires. Bus operators are pri- marily focused on their regular duties and may give less attention to encouraging riders to complete a survey and may be less able to provide assistance to riders in completing the survey. CTTransit, Pace Suburban Bus, and the city of Lodi experienced response rates of 13% to 20% using bus opera- tors to distribute on-board surveys. However, RTD and LYNX achieved response rates of 41% to 45% using bus operators to distribute surveys—comparable to many on-board surveys distributed by dedicated survey

53 workers. RTD’s response rate is particularly remarkable given the length (seven pages) of the survey. RTD attributes the high response rate to strong incentives that included two free ride coupons in each survey packet and passengers’ desire to provide feedback to the agency. In addition, RTD conducts on-board surveys on a periodic basis, conditioning riders to the survey process. LYNX attributes its high response rate to bus operators actively encouraging riders to take and complete a survey. Whether students, part-time or full-time survey workers, or bus operators handle the task, it appears that having an individual actively distributing and collecting questionnaires is important. A DART survey was distributed, in part, by leaving questionnaires on seats and in timetable holders (as well as some distribution by survey workers). The DART survey response rate was 14%. Rider Interest in Responding to Transit Surveys As mentioned for AATA and RTD, rider interest can be just as important as survey worker enthusiasm. To some extent, rider interest is a function of their view of the agency and ser- vice and perhaps demographic characteristics. However, there are steps that agencies can take to increase interest, including advance notification of the survey and an explana- tion of how the survey will benefit them through improved service. Publicizing survey results may also spur interest; AATA reports that its customers like to complete the survey and see the results. Rider Demographic Characteristics Certain groups tend to be consistently more likely to respond to surveys. Response rates tend to be higher among express bus, light rail, and commuter rail riders than bus riders. For example, response rates were in the 40% to 50% range on local bus routes in Denver and Dallas, but more than 60% for express and regional bus routes in Denver and on light rail lines in Dallas. Mode and express versus local service reflect respondent income and length of the ride, both of which are positively correlated to response rates. Some agencies report that frequent riders, long-time rid- ers, students, and tourists are inclined to have relatively high response rates. In Ann Arbor and Eugene, Oregon, large student populations contributed to relatively high survey response rates. Short routes, which do not allow time for riders to com- plete a survey, are more likely to experience lower response rates. Riders who lack English proficiency also tend to be less likely to complete surveys. Some agencies substituted personal interviewing for self-administered surveys to address low response rates among these groups. Self-Administered or Personal Interviews Not surprisingly, personal interviewing tends to generate bet- ter response rates than self-administered surveys. Interview- ing provides more individual attention to respondents, less respondent burden to complete the questionnaire, and assis- tance with understanding questions. Interviews also are more likely to involve shorter questionnaires than self-administered surveys, which can also influence the response rate. Short, personal interviews conducted by King County Metro, MARTA, and Gulf Regional Planning Commission achieved response rates of 80% or higher. Interviewing is particularly effective when riders lack English proficiency. In the Gulf Regional Planning Com- mission survey, surveyors offered respondents the option of being interviewed or completing the questionnaire them- selves. Most riders opted for the interview. Agency staff reported that offering the interviewing option was particu- larly important for riders with low literacy skills. Venue (On-Board or In-Station) The importance of venue is not that on-board or in-station venues tend to produce higher response rates. Rather, venue affects the ease of approaching riders and the amount of time that riders have to complete the survey. In many cases, the on-board environment offers the better venue for these very reasons; riders can be easily approached as they board the bus or railcar. They usually have sufficient time during the trip to complete a questionnaire. The on-board environment can pose problems, however. The primary problem is trip length—riders taking short trips may not have time to complete a questionnaire. On train cars with multiple doors, survey workers may be challenged to keep track of which riders have entered at each station, for purposes of offering a survey. In-station locales can offer distinct advantages. For exam- ple, in the Gulf Regional Planning Commission survey agency staff offered food to respondents who completed an interview or survey. Offering food is more practical in a station than on board a bus. Length and Complexity of the Questionnaire In mail surveys, length tends to be inversely related to response rates (Dillman 2000). One would expect the same to be true for on-board and intercept transit surveys. Indeed, SANDAG and SEPTA survey response rates were high in part from the use of a short questionnaire (see Appendix C). At the other end of the response rate spectrum, GCRTA attributed a 23% response rate to the need for mail-back return of a four-page questionnaire. Long questionnaires, however, do not necessarily result in low response rates. Excellent examples are the four- to

seven-page surveys for RTD, Metrolink, and Metra. This shows that response rates are a function of a combination of factors and not simply survey length. The threshold for considering a survey complete and usable also affects response rates. Some agencies considered a survey complete if three or more questions were answered, whereas other agencies used only surveys with complete O&D data. The criteria for “complete and usable” depend on survey purposes. For surveys that include O&D questions, the definition of complete frequently depends on whether the O&D information is the central survey purpose or one of sev- eral purposes, in which case surveys with incomplete or unusable O&D data still have value for the analysis. Differences in the definition of complete can significantly affect the reported response rate. A VTA O&D survey used only those surveys in which all questions were answered; the response rate was 41%. LYNX reported a slightly higher response rate of 45%. However, if the LYNX survey had counted only those surveys with complete O&D information, the response rate would have been just under 30%. Similarly, the CTA West Side survey response rate would be 48% instead of 67% if only surveys with complete O&D infor- mation were counted. 54 Incentives In several cases, incentives appear to have had a significant impact on obtaining good response rates. Transit staff in Ann Arbor and Denver reported that the distribution of pens and free rides, respectively, stimulated response rates. On the other hand, TARC and Orange County Transportation Authority surveys in which free rides were offered do not show higher response rates than similar surveys in which no incentives were offered. Regularity with Which Surveys Are Conducted Several agencies reported that conducting surveys on a regular basis generally improves response rates. Riders learn to expect a survey every year or two. Riders also become educated about the purpose of the survey. If riders see improvements to service that may be attributed to feedback through surveys as well as other means, they are likely to feel empowered and thus more likely to respond. On the other hand, agencies mentioned that surveying riders too often induced respondent fatigue, with a negative impact on response rates.

Next: Chapter Seven - Costs »
On-Board and Intercept Transit Survey Techniques Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB’s Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Synthesis 63: On-Board and Intercept Transit Survey Techniques examines transit agencies’ experiences with planning and implementing on-board and intercept surveys. On-board and intercept surveys include self-administered surveys distributed on board buses and railcars, and in stations, as well as interviews conducted in these environments. The report provides an overview of industry practices and covers a broad range of issues addressed in planning a given survey.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!