National Academies Press: OpenBook

On-Board and Intercept Transit Survey Techniques (2005)

Chapter: Chapter Two - Transit Agency Use of On-Board and Intercept Methodologies

« Previous: Chapter One - Introduction
Page 5
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Two - Transit Agency Use of On-Board and Intercept Methodologies." 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 5
Page 6
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Two - Transit Agency Use of On-Board and Intercept Methodologies." 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 6
Page 7
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Two - Transit Agency Use of On-Board and Intercept Methodologies." 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 7
Page 8
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Two - Transit Agency Use of On-Board and Intercept Methodologies." 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 8

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.

5Transit agencies use on-board and intercept surveys to collect a wide variety of information. On-board and intercept survey topics include customer travel patterns, travel behavior, demographic characteristics, customer satisfaction and other attitudes, reasons for using transit, ways to attract increased ridership, and the effectiveness and usage of agency communications. This chapter reports on how frequently on-board and intercept surveys are used at transit agencies and considera- tions in choosing between on-board and intercept surveys and other methodologies such as telephone, web, and mail surveys. FREQUENCY OF USE OF ON-BOARD/INTERCEPT AND OTHER SURVEY METHODOLOGIES On-board and intercept surveys are a mainstay of transit agency market research programs. In the survey of transit agencies conducted for this study, 96% reported having conducted an on-board survey(s) between 2002 and 2004. This figure includes 60% of the agencies that conducted both on-board and intercept surveys in the past 3 years (Table 2). Although on-board and intercept surveys are a mainstay of transit agency market research programs, they are by no means the sole survey methodology used. Of agencies surveyed, 71% have conducted telephone surveys, 44% web- based surveys, and 38% mail surveys between 2002 and 2004 (Table 2). Transit agencies are particularly reliant on on-board and intercept surveys to collect detailed trip origin and destina- tion (O&D) data. In the agency survey, 73% reported using on-board surveys for O&D purposes. Intercept, telephone, web-based, and mail surveys were used far less frequently (Table 2). The frequency of conducting on-board and intercept sur- veys varies widely across different transit agencies. All large agencies surveyed conduct on-board and intercept surveys at least once each year and a majority conduct at least five on-board and intercept surveys annually. These surveys are often relatively small line-specific surveys fielded by in-house staff; results are used for planning and related studies. Two-thirds of the medium-size agencies conduct on- board and intercept surveys at least once a year, as do approximately one-third of smaller agencies. Medium and smaller agencies that conduct on-board and intercept surveys less than once a year typically conduct surveys every 2 to 4 years (see Table 3). O&D surveys are critical for areawide and route planning and thus are often conducted on a regular basis. Forty-three percent of responding agencies conducted an O&D survey (including all methods) in just the previous 2 years; 73% had conducted an O&D survey in the past 7 years. Among those agencies reporting dates for the two previous O&D surveys, most conducted such surveys at 1- to 5-year intervals. CHAPTER TWO TRANSIT AGENCY USE OF ON-BOARD AND INTERCEPT METHODOLOGIES TABLE 2 SURVEY METHODOLOGIES USED BY TRANSIT AGENCIES Methodology Percentage of Agencies Using Survey Method in Past 3 Years* Percentage Using Survey Method for Customer Satisfaction Surveys in Past 3 Years* Percentage Using Survey Method for Origin and Destination Surveys at Any Time On-board surveys 96 Intercept surveys 60 Telephone surveys 71 Web-based surveys 44 25 6 Mail surveys 38 17 8 Other 8 6 No. responding *Between 2002 and 2004. 52 52 52 12 88 73 44 21 56 13

USING ON-BOARD/INTERCEPT INSTEAD OF A DIFFERENT SURVEY METHOD In choosing whether to use on-board/intercept or a different methodology, primary factors include the ability of the methodology to reach the targeted population, quality of responses to questions, response rates, schedule, costs, and length and complexity of the survey. The central characteristic of on-board and intercept surveys is the direct access they provide to bus, subway, light rail, and commuter rail riders. On-board and intercept sur- veys can be conducted cost-effectively, because survey workers can readily reach a large number of bus and rail riders. By contrast, random digit dial telephone surveys are a costly way to reach transit users when the incidence of tran- sit users among the general population is low. Direct access to customers also means that on-board and intercept surveys can achieve excellent coverage of the targeted population. Surveys can be conducted of thin slices of the universe of users, such as riders on particular lines or those using transit in particular locations or specific times of the day. Thus, King County Metro (Seattle, Washington) surveyed only those riders in the downtown Ride Free Area. The Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) conducted one survey of riders on all bus and rail routes on the West Side and another survey of riders on the Douglas Line segment of the Blue Line. Conversely, on-board and intercept surveys can achieve excellent coverage and a representative cross section of all transit users served by an agency. This flexibility is another prime advantage of on-board/intercept methods. Transit agencies as large as the Los Angeles County Met- ropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) and as small as city of Lodi (California) have conducted systemwide on-board surveys. Whether systemwide, areawide, or route-specific, well- designed on-board and intercept surveys can generate a rep- 6 resentative sample of the desired population (see chapter three for a discussion of sampling frames). All transit users can be found within the system, and on-board and intercept surveys can achieve good participation levels from prospec- tive respondents (see chapter five). Not surprisingly, the ability to reach and isolate the desired population, and the ability to obtain a representative sample of that population, are two primary reasons that tran- sit agencies undertake on-board and intercept surveys instead of using telephone, web-based, mail, or other methodologies. Three-quarters of responding transit agencies indicated that “ability to target specific routes, customer segments, etc.” and “ability to obtain a representative sample” are among their primary reasons for using on-board and intercept survey methods (Table 4). Size of Transit Agency* Time Period All (51) Very Large (8) Large (12) Medium (16) Small (15) Several times a year 37% 88% 33% 44% 7% About once a year 22% 13% 33% 13% 27% About once every 2 years 4% 0% 0% 0% 13% About once every 3 years 20% 0% 17% 31% 20% About once every 4 years 4% 0% 8% 0% 7% In excess of every 4 years 14% 0% 8% 13% 27% Total *See Table 1 for agency size definitions. 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% TABLE 3 FREQUENCY OF CONDUCTING ON-BOARD AND INTERCEPT SURVEYS Reason Ability to target specific routes, customer segments, etc. 77 Ability to obtain a representative sample of the desired population 73 Better information (accuracy, reliability, detail) from respondents 63 Ability to survey during the immediate experience of the service 60 Higher response rate 52 Lower cost 46 Faster turnaround 44 Availability of staff 10 Availability of consultant 8 Other Do not conduct on-board/intercept surveys Total number responding, 52. 2 2 Percentage TABLE 4 REASONS TO USE AN ON-BOARD OR INTERCEPT METHODOLOGY INSTEAD OF A DIFFERENT SURVEY METHODOLOGY (check top 1 to 5 reasons)

7Two other advantages of on-board and intercept surveys, cited by more than 60% of the transit agencies surveyed, are “ability to survey during the immediate experience of the service” and “better information (accuracy, reliability, detail) from respondents” (Table 4). Both of these advan- tages are because on-board and intercept surveys are con- ducted as customers use the bus and rail services, lending immediacy to the information or opinions being provided. This immediacy facilitates accurate responses so that respondents need not rely on recall of past experiences or feelings, as when surveyed later by phone, mail, or other methods. Immediacy is also important when surveying a particular line or area. Respondents can readily focus on West Side service, or service on a particular route, because they are currently traveling in this area or on this route. The aspect of immediacy can also be put to innovative uses. For example, MTA New York City Transit conducted a survey on selected bus routes to gauge reaction to a new bus lighting system then under consideration. Several buses on the selected routes were outfitted with the new lighting sys- tem. Respondents experienced actual lighting conditions as they completed the on-board questionnaire. Furthermore, by conducting the survey on both test buses and buses with regular lighting systems, the results provided a direct comparison of customer ratings for lighting attributes (brightness, glare, ability to see street signs, etc.) for new and regular lighting systems. By conducting the survey on the same routes and at the same time of day, the survey method- ology controlled for exterior lighting conditions and trip and rider characteristics. Three other frequent advantages to on-board and inter- cept surveys, cited by approximately one-half of transit agencies, are higher response rates, faster turnaround time, and lower costs. Response rates for on-board and intercept surveys, although varying dramatically, generally range from 33% to 67% (see chapter five). By contrast, response rates are typi- cally below 20% for mail surveys and below 40% for tele- phone surveys, based on interviews with transit agency staff. (Note that the relevant comparison for telephone surveys is interviews divided by residential households called, includ- ing calls resulting in no answer, a busy signal, answering machine, etc., and not simply the refusal rate once a poten- tial respondent is on the phone.) Faster turnaround time reflects agencies’ ability to quickly draft and field on-board and intercept surveys, par- ticularly route-specific and area-specific surveys conducted for service planning purposes. As with response rates, costs vary widely. On-board and intercept surveys offer cost savings where a low incidence of transit users would drive up the cost of telephone or mail sur- veys. It should be noted that on-board and intercept surveys can also be costly, particularly when surveying on low-rider- ship routes or stations, or when the response rate is low. Just as on-board and intercept surveys offer many advan- tages, they also have distinct limitations that make them inappropriate in some situations. A primary reason to use telephone surveys is to reach non-users, those who cannot be reached on board or at transit stations or centers. Of transit agencies surveyed, 63% cited this as a reason for using other methodologies (Table 5). Transit agencies in Ann Arbor (Michigan), Seattle, Orlando (Florida), Dallas (Texas), Charlotte (North Carolina), Cleveland (Ohio), Fort Worth (Texas), suburban Chicago, and Broward County (Florida), use telephone surveys to reach non-users and on-board and intercept surveys to reach users. Surveys that are too lengthy and/or complex owing to skips, branching, or other complexities to be completed on board or in an intercept environment, also call for a differ- ent methodology. Approximately 4 in 10 agencies cited this as a major reason for using telephone, mail, or other survey methods. It should be noted that on-board and intercept methodologies are often used in conjunction with other survey methods. Inter- cept interviews, for example, are often used to gather names and telephone numbers for telephone interviewing to be conducted later. Pierce Transit’s (Lakewood, Washington) 2004 Fixed- Route Customer Satisfaction Survey adopted this approach. The combination of intercepts and telephone interviews is very suitable where the incidence of transit riders is too low to make Reason Need to include non-users in study 63 Ability to obtain a representative sample of the desired population 54 Length and/or complexity of survey 42 Ability to target specific routes, customer segments, etc. 25 Lower cost 23 Faster turnaround 21 Availability of consultant 19 Better information (accuracy, reliability, detail) from respondents 15 Higher response rate 8 Availability of staff 4 Other Do not conduct other types of surveys Total number responding, 52. 13 Percentage 2 TABLE 5 REASONS TO USE A DIFFERENT SURVEY METHODOLOGY RATHER THAN AN ON-BOARD OR INTERCEPT SURVEY (check top 1 to 5 reasons)

random digit dial telephone interviewing cost-effective, but the survey is too long or complex for on-board or intercept inter- views to be practical. The combination is particularly cost- effective for commuter railroads, where a large percentage of riders pass through a downtown terminal during their trip. TIME REQUIREMENTS The overall amount of time for on-board survey projects, from start to finish, ranged from several weeks to 29 months. Systemwide O&D surveys tend to populate the longest- 8 duration surveys and took a median of 10 months to com- plete. Non-O&D surveys involving 1,000 or more completed surveys took between 2 and 12 months to complete, with a median duration of 6 months. Smaller surveys took from 1 to 4 months, with a median duration of 3 months. As reported by transit agencies, survey planning and design, data collection, data cleaning and processing, and analysis and report writing each generally take about the same amount of time, although there is considerable varia- tion among projects.

Next: Chapter Three - Planning On-Board and Intercept Surveys »
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!