Web-Based Survey Techniques (2006)

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.

63 APPENDIX C Tabulations for Synthesis Survey Screener Section Type of organization Frequency Percent Public transit agency 24 68.6 Consultancy 4 11.4 University 2 5.7 Metropolitan planning organization 3 8.6 Other 2 5.7 Total 35 100 Other types of organizations Frequency Percent Federal government 1 50 Transportation department city government 1 50 Total 2 100 General Survey Inventory Section Frequency of conducting customer research studies More than 4 times per year 2 to 4 times per year Count % Count % Origin–destination surveys 3 8.60 4 11.40 Customer satisfaction surveys 4 11.40 7 20.00 Mode choice surveys 2 5.70 3 8.60 Planning surveys 5 14.30 7 20.00 Other, please specify 5 31.30 2 12.50 Frequency of conducting customer research studies (continued) Once per year Less than once per year, but more than every 5 years Count % Count % Origin–destination surveys 4 11.40 6 17.10 Customer satisfaction surveys 5 14.30 11 31.40 Mode choice surveys 3 8.60 9 25.70 Planning surveys 11 31.40 4 11.40 Other, please specify 1 6.30 1 6.30

64 Frequency of conducting customer research studies (continued) Less than every 5 years Never Count % Count % Origin–destination surveys 11 31.40 7 20.00 Customer satisfaction surveys 7 20.00 Mode choice surveys 5 14.30 12 34.30 Planning surveys 4 11.40 4 11.40 Other, please specify 1 6.30 3 18.80 Frequency of conducting customer research studies (continued) Don't know Total Count % Count % Origin–destination surveys 35 100.00 Customer satisfaction surveys 1 2.90 35 100.00 Mode choice surveys 1 2.90 35 100.00 Planning surveys 35 100.00 Other, please specify 3 18.80 16 100.00 Other types of surveys Frequency Percent Employers, employees, product tests, marketing, etc. 1 10.0 Household travel surveys, transit on-board surveys 1 10.0 Interactive map studies 1 10.0 Marketing evaluation 1 10.0 New technology 1 10.0 Policy and issue analysis 1 10.0 Station evaluation, special issues, new offers/programs related to fares, metrocard, etc., panel survey, safety/security issues, communication materials copy testing, etc. 1 10.0 Tracking, market share 1 10.0 Various 1 10.0 Various transportation issues 1 10.0 Total 10 100 Organization conducts customer panel surveys repeatedly Frequency Percent Yes 8 22.9 No 27 77.1 Total 35 100 Organization conducts longitudinal panel surveys Frequency Percent Yes 4 50 No 4 50 8 100 Total

65 Organization conducts cross-sectional surveys Frequency Percent Yes 22 62.9 No 13 37.1 Total 35 100 Origin–Destination (OD) Surveys Recruited riders/users for OD survey Count Column (%) Bus 11 68.8 Subway/rapid rail 2 12.5 Commuter rail Light rail 1 6.3 Auto 1 6.3 No mode issues in survey 1 6.3 Recruitment not based on mode 2 12.5 Recruited riders/users for OD survey Other, please specify 2 12.5 Other modes recruited Frequency Percent Airline 1 50 All modes 1 50 Total 2 100 Questions in OD survey about modes Count Column (%) Bus 13 81.3 Subway/rapid rail 2 12.5 Commuter rail 2 12.5 Light rail 1 6.3 Auto 4 25 No mode issues in survey 1 6.3 Recruitment not based on mode Questions in OD survey about modes Other, please specify 1 6.3 Questions about other modes Frequency Percent All modes 1 100

66 Recruited respondents for OD survey Count Column (%) In person, via intercept at stations/stops 5 31.3 In person, via intercept on board transit vehicles 10 62.5 Telephone recruit 4 25 Intercept at public locations other than transit- related E-mail recruit with clickable link 1 6.3 E-mail recruit with web address to paste Web link recruit from website Mail recruit 2 12.5 In person, via intercept at roadways/toll plazas 2 12.5 Recruited respondents for OD survey Other, please specify 1 6.3 Other recruit method Frequency Percent Variable message signs, press release, TMA newsletters 1 100 Sampling method Frequency Percent No sampling, total population surveyed 3 18.8 Random sampling 9 56.3 Systematic sampling (every nth) 2 12.5 Convenience sampling (anyone who would participate) 1 6.3 Other sampling method 1 6.3 Total 16 100 Other sampling method Frequency Percent No sampling 1 100 Type of incentives Frequency Percent No incentives 12 75 Incentive for each respondent 3 18.8 Other incentives 1 6.3 Total 16 100 Incentive for each respondent Frequency Percent $2 in advance letter and $5 per person with diary 1 33.3 Free ride 1 33.3 Promotional item 1 33.3 Total 3 100

67 Other incentives Frequency Percent A pen 1 100 Effectiveness of incentives Frequency Percent Increased response rate 1–25% 2 50 Donʼt know 2 50 Total 4 100 Administered most recent OD survey Count Column (%) Telephone 3 23.1 Paper 9 69.2 Computer-based, but not on Internet Online web survey 1 7.7 Personal 3 23.1 Administered most recent OD survey Other, please specify Response rate percentage Frequency Percent 9 56.3 17 Donʼt know/not applicable 1 6.3 20 1 6.3 30 1 6.3 40 1 6.3 41 1 6.3 60 1 6.3 75 1 6.3 Total 16 100 Reason for no response rate Frequency Percent % returned of a 100% sample 1 20.0 205,000 riders were offered surveys, 81,100 surveys were completed and returned. Refusals are included in base number. 1 20.0 It depends on how the survey is conducted. If it is on-board paper O–D survey, the usual response rate is around 60%. If it is a personal/intercept interview the response rate is around 90%. 1 20.0 Multiply recruitment rate by final completion rate to get total response rate. See documentation at: http://nhts.ornl.gov/2001/usersguide/chapter_4.pdf 1 20.0 Nonresponders not counted 1 20.0 Total 5 100

68 Survey data set was clean Frequency Percent Agree 7 43.8 Neutral 7 43.8 Disagree 2 12.5 Total 16 100 Respondents completed nearly every question of survey Frequency Percent Strongly agree 2 12.5 Agree 7 43.8 Neutral 6 37.5 Disagree 1 6.3 Total 16 100 Weighted data for most recent OD survey Count Column (%) Did not weight data 6 46.2 Weighted based on ridership/traffic 6 46.2 Weighted based on demographics 1 7.7 Weighted data for most recent OD survey Weighted based on other factors Other factors Frequency Percent Ridership, by route, direction, time of day, day of week 1 100 Total 1 100 Success of survey Frequency Percent Very successful 4 25 Successful 11 68.8 Neither successful nor unsuccessful 1 6.3 Total 16 100 Types of problems/issues Frequency Percent Technical problems: The text overlapped for some browsers 1 1 Total 1 100

69 Reason for administering survey with more than one method Frequency Percent To encourage better interaction with customers 1 33.3 To improve our response rate and targets covered 1 33.3 We selected paper method in our last large O–D study since it included 24 different bus routes and doing personal interviews required more labor and time. When we do O–D surveys in 1 or 2 routes, we usually do personal interviews that require fewer persons. 1 33.3 Total 3 100 How research from OD survey was used Count Column (%) Update origin–destination trip tables 5 31.3 Define traveler markets by geography 10 62.5 Determine trip purpose 9 56.3 Determine trip frequency 9 56.3 Determine distribution of station/stops used 4 25 Determine distribution time-of-day facilities/system used 6 37.5 Generate demographic profile of travelers 3 18.8 Determine toll plazas/ramps used Determine proportion through vs. external to internal trips 1 6.3 How research from OD survey was used Other, please specify 2 12.5 Other purposes Frequency Percent Fare analysis 1 50.0 Survey still being conducted. The results will be used to understand primarily bus transit riders’ park and ride needs, other transit issues along the I-78 Corridor. 1 50.0 Total 2 100 Results of OD survey presented to Count Column (%) General public 5 31.3 Customers 1 6.3 Constituents 3 18.8 Internal clients/management 14 87.5 External clients 6 37.5 Faculty/staff/students 2 12.5 Other, please specify 1 6.3 Results of OD survey presented to Research results were not presented

70 Customer Satisfaction (CD) Surveys Recruited riders/users for CS survey Count Column (%) Bus 9 64.3 Subway/rapid rail 1 7.1 Commuter rail 3 21.4 Light rail Auto 1 7.1 No mode issues in survey Recruitment not based on mode 2 14.3 Recruited riders/users for CS survey Other, please specify 1 7.1 Other modes recruited Frequency Percent Paratransit 1 100 Questions in CS survey about modes Count Column (%) Bus 15 75 Subway/rapid rail 3 15 Commuter rail 2 10 Light rail 2 10 Auto 4 20 No mode issues in survey 1 5 Recruitment not based on mode Questions in CS survey about modes Other, please specify 1 5 Questions about other modes Frequency Percent Paratransit vehicles 1 100 Sampling method Frequency Percent No sampling, total population surveyed 1 6.3 Random sampling 9 56.3 Convenience sampling (anyone who would participate) 4 25 Other sampling method 2 12.5 Total 16 100 Other sampling method Frequency Percent Every rider on a stratified sample of trips 1 50 Random sample of paratransit program enrollees, active in the 3 months prior to the survey 1 50 Total 2 100

71 Type of incentives Frequency Percent No incentives 11 68.8 Lottery conducted with prizes 3 18.8 Incentive for each respondent 1 6.3 Other incentives 1 6.3 Total 16 100 Lottery prizes Frequency Percent Digital music player 1 33.3 Free 30-day pass 1 33.3 Monthly pass 1 33.3 Total 3 100 Incentive for each respondent Frequency Percent Promotional item 1 100 Other incentives Frequency Percent A pen 1 100 Effectiveness of incentives Frequency Percent Do not know 5 100 Administered most recent CS survey Count Column (%) Telephone 8 50 Paper 9 56.3 Computer-based, but not on Internet Online web survey Personal 2 12.5 Administered most recent CS survey Other, please specify Response rate percentage Frequency Percent 9 56.3 14 1 6.3 30 1 6.3 40 1 6.3 50 1 6.3 55 1 6.3 75 1 6.3 90 1 6.3 Total 16 100 Don’t know/not applicable

72 Reason for no response rate Frequency Percent % returned of a 100% sample 1 25.0 All surveys have a unique sequential ID number. We know how many we hand out and we know how many we got back. 1 25.0 Estimate based on observation. We ask riders to only complete one survey during survey period, which makes this estimate more difficult. This estimate may be high, but the response rate is very high; most riders are eager to complete a survey. 1 25.0 We required a minimum sample size from the consultant. 1 25.0 Total 4 100 Survey data set was clean Frequency Percent Strongly agree 3 18.8 Agree 9 56.3 Neutral 3 18.8 Disagree 1 6.3 Total 16 100 Respondents completed nearly every question of survey Frequency Percent Strongly agree 6 37.5 Agree 9 56.3 Neutral 1 6.3 Total 16 100 Weighted data for most recent CS survey Count Column (%) Did not weight data 10 62.5 Weighted based on ridership/traffic 6 37.5 Weighted based on demographics Weighted data for most recent CS survey Weighted based on other factors Success of survey Frequency Percent Very successful 8 50 Successful 6 37.5 Somewhat unsuccessful 2 12.5 Total 16 100

73 Types of problems/issues Frequency Percent I do not respect the methodology used and I think that the analysis is mediocre at best. The supplier is paid by our service provider. 1 50.0 We did not state, one per person 1 50.0 Total 2 100 Reason for administering survey with more than one method Frequency Percent Annually a paper self-administered survey is conducted which is more detailed. Later in the year a telephone survey is done with a smaller sample and fewer questions. 1 33.3 Intercepts via paper; actual survey via telephone because of length 1 33.3 To cover all target audiences 1 33.3 Total 3 100 How research from CS survey was used Count Column (%) Update origin–destination trip tables 14 87.5 Define traveler markets by geography 2 12.5 Determine trip purpose 11 68.8 Determine trip frequency 9 56.3 Determine distribution of station/stops used 5 31.3 Determine distribution time-of-day facilities/system used 12 75 Generate demographic profile of travelers 10 62.5 Determine toll plazas/ramps used 5 31.3 How research from CS survey was used Determine proportion through vs. external to internal trips Results of CS survey presented to Count Column (%) General public 8 50 Customers 4 25 Constituents 3 18.8 Internal clients/management 15 93.8 External clients 2 12.5 Faculty/staff/students 2 12.5 Other, please specify Results of CS survey presented to Research results were not presented

74 Mode Choice (MC) Surveys Count Column (%) Bus 10 55.6 Subway/rapid rail 5 27.8 Commuter rail 5 27.8 Light rail 1 5.6 Auto 7 38.9 No mode issues in survey 1 5.6 Recruitment not based on mode 3 16.7 Recruited riders/users for MC survey Other, please specify 3 16.7 Other modes recruited Frequency Percent Airline 1 33.3 Carpool, vanpool, telecommute, bike, walk 1 33.3 Household survey 1 33.3 Total 3 100 Questions in MC survey about modes Count Column (%) Bus 17 85 Subway/rapid rail 11 55 Commuter rail 2 10 Light rail 5 25 Auto 4 20 No mode issues in survey 1 5 Recruitment not based on mode Questions in MC survey about modes Other, please specify 2 10 Questions about other modes Frequency Percent Airline 1 50 Commuter bus 1 50 Total 2 100 Recruited respondents for MC survey Count Column (%) In person, via intercept at stations/stops 6 31.6 In person, via intercept on board transit vehicles 8 42.1 Telephone recruit 5 26.3 Intercept at public locations other than transit- related 2 10.5 E-mail recruit with clickable link 3 15.8 E-mail recruit with web address to paste 1 5.3 Web link recruit from website 3 15.8 Mail recruit 3 15.8 In person, via intercept at roadways/toll plazas 2 10.5 Recruited respondents for MC survey Other, please specify 4 21.1

75 Other recruit method Frequency Percent Distribute at buildings 1 25 Employer-assisted recruitment 1 25 Variable message signs, press release, TMA newsletters, postcards on windshields at every park and ride lot in corridor 1 25 We have not done a mode choice survey in years. 1 25 Total 4 100 Sampling method Frequency Percent No sampling, total population surveyed 2 9.5 Random sampling 9 42.9 Systematic sampling (every nth) 3 14.3 Convenience sampling (anyone who would participate) 5 23.8 Other sampling method 2 9.5 Total 21 100 Other sampling method Frequency Percent A two-stage sampling approach was used for the on-board survey 1 50 We have not done a mode choice survey in years. 1 50 Total 2 100 Type of incentives Frequency Percent No incentives 12 57.1 Lottery conducted with prizes 4 19 Incentive for each respondent 2 9.5 Other incentives 3 14.3 Total 21 100 Lottery Frequency Percent $25 gift certificates 1 25 Digital music player 1 25 Gift basket 1 25 Transit passes 1 25 Total 4 100 Incentive for each respondent Frequency Percent $2 advance, and $5 with diary 1 50 Free week on transit 1 50 Total 2 100

76 Other incentives Frequency Percent Do not know 1 33.3 Some incentives/others not 1 33.3 We have not done a mode choice survey in years. 1 33.3 Total 3 100 Effectiveness of incentives Frequency Percent Increased response rate 1–25% 4 44.4 Increased response rate 25–50% 1 11.1 Do not know 4 44.4 Total 9 100 Administered most recent MC survey Count Column (%) Telephone 7 35 Paper 8 40 Computer-based, but not on Internet 2 10 Online web survey 6 30 Personal 4 20 Administered most recent MC survey Other, please specify 1 5 Other method administered survey Frequency Percent We have not done such a survey in years. 1 100 Response rate percentage Frequency Percent 10 47.6 10 Don’t know/not applicable 1 4.8 19 1 4.8 33 2 9.5 34 1 4.8 35 1 4.8 41 1 4.8 60 3 14.3 65 1 4.8 Total 21 100

77 Reason for no response rate Frequency Percent Incidence rate (respondents who passed the screening questions) 1 25.0 Interviewer had hand held calculator 1 25.0 See response to question on O–D survey 1 25.0 Using AAPOR* Formula 3 1 25.0 Total 4 100 *American Association for Public Opinion Research. Survey data set was clean Frequency Percent Strongly agree 4 19 Agree 9 42.9 Neutral 5 23.8 Disagree 3 14.3 Total 21 100 Respondents completed nearly every question of survey Frequency Percent Strongly agree 4 19 Agree 11 52.4 Neutral 3 14.3 Disagree 3 14.3 Total 21 100 Weighted data for most recent MC survey Frequency Percent Did not weight data 10 47.6 Weighted based on ridership/traffic 5 23.8 Weighted based on demographics 4 19 Weighted data for most recent MC survey Weighted based on other factors 2 9.5 Other factors Frequency Percent The weighting and expansion process was conducted at the day-time-route level—each survey was weighted and expanded based on the day of the week (i.e., weekday or weekend), time-of-day (a.m. peak, mid-day, p.m. peak, and evening) and route. 1 50.0 We weighted based upon the size (no. of employees) of the employer. 1 50.0 Total 2 100

78 Success of survey Frequency Percent Very successful 10 47.6 Successful 9 42.9 Neither successful nor unsuccessful 2 9.5 Total 21 100 Reason for administering survey with more than one method Frequency Percent Gave people who were in a hurry an alternative to taking time on the spot 1 16.6 N/A 1 16.6 To increase response 1 16.6 To sample a larger population 1 16.6 We participated in a mode choice survey conducted by our regional transportation planning agency. I believe they used an existing survey methodology that would yield results for their model that are consistent with past work. 1 16.6 We use the online survey because it is so easy to disseminate and no data entry is required. We use paper because some employers that we survey have large populations of employees without access to computers. 1 16.6 Total 6 100 How research from MC survey was used Count Column (%) Update origin–destination trip tables 8 38.1 Define traveler markets by geography 4 19 Determine trip purpose 8 38.1 Determine trip frequency 5 23.8 Determine distribution of station/stops used 4 19 Determine distribution time-of-day facilities/system used 5 23.8 How research from MC survey was used Generate demographic profile of travelers 6 28.6 Other purposes Frequency Percent Evaluate effectiveness of Transportation Demand Management programs, identify new markets for services 1 16.6 Evaluate TravelSmart Policy 1 16.6 Legislative information 1 16.6 Measure attitudes 1 16.6 We have not done such a survey in years. 1 16.6 We will use it as input to recommend new park and ride locations along the corridor. 1 16.6 Total 6 100

79 Results of MC survey presented to Count Column (%) General public 5 23.8 Customers 2 9.5 Constituents 7 33.3 Internal clients/management 16 76.2 External clients 6 28.6 Faculty/staff/students 6 28.6 Other, please specify 6 28.6 Results of MC survey presented to Research results were not presented Planning Surveys (PS) Recruited riders/users for PS survey Count Column (%) Bus 16 76.2 Subway/rapid rail 5 23.8 Commuter rail 3 14.3 Light rail 1 4.8 Auto 5 23.8 No mode issues in survey 1 4.8 Recruitment not based on mode 3 14.3 Recruited riders/users for PS survey Other, please specify 1 4.8 Other modes recruited Frequency Percent Vanpool and paratransit 1 100 Questions in PS survey about modes Count Column (%) Bus 17 70.8 Subway/rapid rail 7 29.2 Commuter rail 2 8.3 Light rail 3 12.5 Auto 4 16.7 No mode issues in survey 4 16.7 Recruitment not based on mode Questions in PS survey about modes Other, please specify 2 8.3 Questions about other modes Frequency Percent Parking/development 1 50 Vanpool, paratransit 1 50 Total 2 100

80 Recruited respondents for PS survey Count Column (%) In person, via intercept at stations/stops 12 50 In person, via intercept on board transit vehicles 11 45.8 Telephone recruit 9 37.5 Intercept at public locations other than transit- related 1 4.2 E-mail recruit with clickable link 2 8.3 E-mail recruit with web address to paste 1 4.2 Web link recruit from website 1 4.2 Mail recruit 3 12.5 In person, via intercept at roadways/toll plazas Recruited respondents for PS survey Other, please specify 1 4.2 Other recruit method Frequency Percent Press release 1 100 Sampling method Frequency Percent No sampling, total population surveyed 7 29.2 Random sampling 5 20.8 Systematic sampling (every nth) 3 12.5 Convenience sampling (anyone who would participate) 7 29.2 Other sampling method 2 8.3 Total 24 100 Other sampling method Frequency Percent Geographic 1 50 Random selection of bus runs, segmented by route 1 50 Total 2 100 Type of incentives Frequency Percent No incentives 19 79.2 Lottery conducted with prizes 4 16.7 Incentive for each respondent 1 4.2 Total 24 100 Lottery prizes Frequency Percent Airline tickets 1 25 Free monthly pass 1 25 Free transit rides 1 25 Trip to Hawaii, watches, fare tickets 1 25 Total 4 100

81 Incentive for each respondent Frequency Percent A small amount of cash with an introductory mailing notifying person that they would be contacted by phone for survey 1 100 Effectiveness of incentives Frequency Percent Increased response rate 1–25% 2 40 Increased response rate 25–50% 1 20 Don't know 2 40 Total 5 100 Administered most recent PS survey Count Column (%) Telephone 11 45.8 Paper 16 66.7 Computer-based, but not on Internet 2 8.3 Online web survey 5 20.8 Personal 9 37.5 Administered most recent PS survey Other, please specify Response rate percentage Frequency Percent 12 50 10 Don’t know/not applicable 1 4.2 15 1 4.2 20 1 4.2 30.4 1 4.2 35 1 4.2 37 1 4.2 40 1 4.2 42 1 4.2 50 1 4.2 58 1 4.2 74 1 4.2 75 1 4.2 Total 24 100

82 Reason for no response rate Frequency Percent 1,111 households contacted; 822 interviews completed 1 20.0 AAPOR* Formula 3 1 20.0 Completed over attempts 1 20.0 Return rate based on the number of useable questionnaire returns as a percentage of the number distributed 1 20.0 This is conservative. Ones at the stops = 1,153 for all times of day. Completed surveys = 860 for 7 a.m.–10 p.m. 1 20.0 Total 5 100 *American Association for Public Opinion Research. Survey data set was clean Frequency Percent Strongly agree 5 20.8 Agree 11 45.8 Neutral 6 25 Disagree 2 8.3 Total 24 100 Respondents completed nearly every question of survey Frequency Percent Strongly agree 5 20.8 Agree 13 54.2 Neutral 5 20.8 Disagree 1 4.2 Total 24 100 Weighted data for most recent PS survey Count Column (%) Did not weight data 14 58.3 Weighted based on ridership/traffic 6 25 Weighted based on demographics 2 8.3 Weighted data for most recent PS survey Weighted based on other factors 2 8.3 Other factors Frequency Percent Household Travel Survey utilizes both weighting and expansion factors to (1) adjust the sample data to match population parameters and (2) expand trip information to all households in the survey area. 1 50.0 Willingness to be interviewed 1 50.0 Total 2 100

83 Success of survey Frequency Percent Very successful 11 45.8 Successful 11 45.8 Neither successful nor unsuccessful 2 8.3 Total 24 100 Types of problems/issues Frequency Percent Lots of no response 1 1 Total 100 100 Reason for administering survey with more than one method Frequency Percent Attempting to get more and better responses 1 10.0 Because this was very significant survey that required input from customers, leaders, potential customers and we used different methods to reach them 1 10.0 Convenience 1 10.0 Maximize response rates 1 10.0 Paper was used for on-board bus survey because surveyors could administer it directly. Telephone was used for vanpool survey. 1 10.0 The online web survey was a different type of planning survey. It was focused on planning for a new regional transit ticket. The paper survey is our basic planning survey. The goal of this survey was to achieve a statistically projectable sample at each of our stations 1 10.0 To cover all target audiences 1 10.0 To get a bigger sample 1 10.0 To increase response rates 1 10.0 We included commuter rail users and non- users. We used the phone to contact non- users and an on-board paper survey for users. 1 10.0 Total 10 100

84 How research from PS survey was used Frequency Percent Determine operation planning 1 4.2 Forecasting, planning, marketing of services 1 4.2 It was a survey asking the public about travel safety — what behaviors they felt were most dangerous, most promising solutions, and if there were particular places they avoided because of traffic safety issues. It was good input into our Regional Safety study, which identified regional safety priorities. It also recieved quite a bit of attention from the press. 1 4.2 It was used to help plan future schedule changes to satisfy users and attract non-users. 1 4.2 Parking demand estimation 1 4.2 Plan new service 1 4.2 Plan route revisions 1 4.2 Planning projects 1 4.2 Provide information to local government for potential commercial development 1 4.2 Provided an evaluation of home interview surveys for an external client 1 4.2 Route planning 1 4.2 Route planning 1 4.2 Service changes, location of amenities, marketing 1 4.2 Service evaluation and planning 1 4.2 Service planning 1 4.2 The basic planning survey is the reference source for evaluating the impact of regional and station level improvements and possible changes in service. 1 4.2 The objective of the household travel survey is to collect information on work and non-work travel behavior. This includes trip generation, trip distribution, and modal choice. This study is an essential element in the transportation planning and models. 1 4.2 This survey of the public forms the basis for both service and political decisions. 1 4.2 To determine rider profiles, trip types, and perception of service 1 4.2 To determine if customers would be adversely affected by potential bus rerouting and the potential impacts on elderly and disabled passengers. Determined customers would tolerate the changes. 1 4.2 To make recommendations for the future of public transportation options 1 4.2 To support funding for major projects 1 4.2 We conducted the survey for the transit agency. 1 4.2 Total 23 100

85 Results of PS survey presented to Count Column (%) General public 9 37.5 Customers 5 20.8 Constituents 6 25 Internal clients/management 21 87.5 External clients 7 29.2 Faculty/staff/students 4 16.7 Other, please specify 5 20.8 Results of PS survey presented to Research results were not presented Other Surveys (OS) Recruited riders/users for OS survey Count Column (%) Bus 6 35.3 Subway/rapid rail 6 35.3 Commuter rail 4 23.5 Light rail 2 11.8 Auto 4 23.5 No mode issues in survey Recruitment not based on mode 5 29.4 Recruited riders/users for OS survey Other, please specify Questions in OS survey about modes Count Column (%) Bus 11 68.8 Subway/rapid rail 7 43.8 Commuter rail 2 12.5 Light rail 1 6.3 Auto 4 25 No mode issues in survey 1 6.3 Recruitment not based on mode Questions in OS survey about modes Other, please specify 1 6.3 Questions about other modes Frequency Percent Vanpool, carpool, biking, telecommuting 1 100

86 Recruited respondents for OS survey Count Column (%) In person, via intercept at stations/stops 4 23.5 In person, via intercept on board transit vehicles 6 35.3 Telephone recruit 7 41.2 Intercept at public locations other than transit- related E-mail recruit with clickable link 2 11.8 E-mail recruit with web address to paste Web link recruit from website 1 5.9 Mail recruit In person, via intercept at roadways/toll plazas Recruited respondents for OS survey Other, please specify 1 5.9 Other recruit method Frequency Percent All respondents to marketing campaign were surveyed 1 100 Sampling method Frequency Percent No sampling, total population surveyed 3 17.6 Random sampling 7 41.2 Systematic sampling (every nth) 3 17.6 Convenience sampling (anyone who would participate) 3 17.6 Other sampling method 1 5.9 Total 17 100 Other sampling method Frequency Percent A static link was at the top of the web page for interested visitors to click on if they wanted to participate. 1 100 Type of incentives Frequency Percent No incentives 14 82.4 Lottery conducted with prizes 3 17.6 Total 17 100 Lottery prizes Frequency Percent Free monthly pass 1 33.3 Gift cards 1 33.3 Trip to Hawaii, other gifts, and fare tickets 1 33.3 Total 3 100

87 Effectiveness of incentives Frequency Percent Increased response rate 1–25% 1 33.3 Do not know 2 66.7 Total 3 100 Administered most recent OS survey Count Column (%) Telephone 7 41.2 Paper 6 35.3 Computer-based, but not on Internet Online web survey 4 23.5 Personal 4 23.5 Administered most recent OS survey Other, please specify Response rate percentage Frequency Percent 9 52.9 16 Don’t know/not applicable 1 5.9 28 1 5.9 30 2 11.8 45 1 5.9 65.7 1 5.9 70 1 5.9 80 1 5.9 Total 17 100 Reason for no response rate Frequency Percent 28% of the people contacted did complete the survey. 1 14.3 Completed questionnaires divided by potential respondents 1 14.3 Response rate was calculated based on distributed paper surveys and collected on- board paper surveys. For personal interviews, based on number of people on the bus and number of people actually interviewed. 1 14.3 Same as before 1 14.3 This was a follow-up survey to a marketing campaign where individuals pledged to use a non-driving mode of travel to work. 1,957 of the 12,071 pledgers responded to the follow-up survey. 1 14.3 We have no way of judging how many different people had come to the web page while the survey link was available. 1 14.3 We only wanted 33 interviews for a quick assessment of vehicle design appearance. 1 14.3 Total 7 100

88 Survey data set was clean Frequency Percent Strongly agree 6 35.3 Agree 9 52.9 Neutral 2 11.8 Total 17 100 Respondents completed nearly every question of survey Frequency Percent Strongly agree 7 41.2 Agree 10 58.8 Total 17 100 Weighted data for most recent OS survey Count Column (%) Did not weight data 11 64.7 Weighted based on ridership/traffic 5 29.4 Weighted based on demographics 2 11.8 Weighted data for most recent OS survey Weighted based on other factors Success of survey Frequency Percent Very successful 7 41.2 Successful 9 52.9 Neither successful nor unsuccessful 1 5.9 Total 17 100 Reason for administering survey with more than one method Frequency Percent Same answer as previous question 1 25.0 The paper-based survey is a tightly controlled, stratified sample based on a random selection of cars on a sample of trains. The phone survey is a follow-up with these customers. 1 25.0 To appeal to the broadest base of our constituency 1 25.0 To include the population that did not provide an e-mail address 1 25.0 Total 4 100

89 How research from OS survey was used Frequency Percent Attempt to get more budget in the next year 1 5.9 Calculate ROI 1 5.9 Evaluate service changes 1 5.9 For modeling purposes 1 5.9 Improve services, communicate clearly, evaluate success of new programs/initiatives 1 5.9 Performance measurement 1 5.9 Planning service and schedule improvements, marketing 1 5.9 This research was on our automated fare collection media, MetroCard. Management uses the information from the survey to measure customer awareness, attitudes, and use of the fare media, and its different sales outlets. 1 5.9 This survey provides a regular measure of customer satisfaction with regard to some 50 service factors. The information is presented to our agency’s Board of Directors and to the public. It is used internally to apprise staff of critical issues that need attention. 1 5.9 To determine demographics of passengers. Also to serve as a means to evaluate our contract operator’s fulfillment of their obligations 1 5.9 To develop marketing projects 1 5.9 To evaluate possible new services 1 5.9 To get a feel for how strongly people felt about noses on commuter rail cars. We determined they overwhelmingly like noses, and so rethink our position on purchasing snub-nosed vehicles. 1 5.9 To get a profile of infrequent customers so as to target programs to increase ridership 1 5.9 Topline report released internally. Full report still being put together. 1 5.9 We are using it in planning next year’s campaign. It provides us information about stated motivators, information sources, and demographics of participants useful in targeting. 1 5.9 We are using the results to determine which improvements to make to the interactive map. 1 5.9 Total 17 100 Results of OS survey presented to Count Column (%) General public 4 23.5 Customers 4 23.5 Constituents 5 29.4 Internal clients/management 16 94.1 External clients 4 23.5 Faculty/staff/students 2 11.8 Other, please specify 1 5.9 Results of OS survey presented to Research results were not presented

90 Have not had the opportunity to try to do them or taken the time to explore this possibility. The agency has done some but it has been outside consultants, not our Market Research group. Oh but we do! Our latest was an interactive map study using SurveyMonkey. Web-based surveys are primarily used to test our website. We have conducted a couple of small, web- based surveys to test the concept. The primary limitation is obtaining a sample that is representative of the population if a large percentage of the population doesn’t have web access. We will be doing more web-based surveys. We have just started to conduct them as they relate to marketing promotions. There is also a survey now attached to renewals of membership in our Employer Discount Program, but we have just started collecting that data. Web-Based Survey Specifics Primary reason for not conducting web-based surveys Frequency Percent Ability to get a broad sample 1 4.2 Biased against customers who have no access to Internet 1 4.2 Captive market of user onboard the vehicle; agency wanted data on users. 1 4.2 1 4.2 I do not like self-selected samples. 1 4.2 Inability to guarantee one response per respondent 1 4.2 Inherent bias built into a strictly web-based survey is the primary reason 1 4.2 No experience in web-based surveys; no money for research 1 4.2 No expertise 1 4.2 No in-house experts 1 4.2 No resources to do so 1 4.2 None 1 4.2 1 4.2 Organization is slow to make dramatic changes in survey methods. 1 4.2 Response limited to those who use computers frequently; may not be representative of overall target population. 1 4.2 Still not everyone has access to the Internet 1 4.2 Survey opportunities are limited 1 4.2 Suspected low internet accessibility by transit users 1 4.2 The use of the web is not yet sufficiently pervasive in our target markets. 1 4.2 They are not as effective in reaching our targets. 1 4.2 1 4.2 1 4.2

91 Primary reason for not conducting web-based surveys (continued) We recently completed a web-based survey to university/college students. However, we typically conduct on-board surveys because we have a captive audience on our trains, buses, and light-rail services. Web-based surveys are not random. Not everyone in the universe has an equal chance of being selected because they either do not have an e-mail address or choose not to give it to us. Some tests in early had low web-based response; e.g., 5%. Organization feels that web-based response will bias the results because of differences in demographic characteristics of those with and without Internet accessibility, so more interested in methods that will combine response methods. We are waiting for our customer base of smart card customers to grow, because when they register their cards they have to give an e-mail address. Therefore, we have the opportunity to e-mail them a survey, but we need to create the questionnaire online, something we have not done yet. 1 4.2 1 4.2 Total 24 100 Other reason for not conducting web-based surveys Frequency Percent It would build-in response biases, based upon accessibility to the Internet. 1 12.5 Low interest by client 1 12.5 Management not too comfortable with results 1 12.5 None 1 12.5 Not confident in the representativeness of the responses 1 12.5 Skeptical about assuming results will reflect our riders 1 12.5 1 12.5 1 12.5 Total 8 100 Likelihood of beginning to use web-based surveys within two years Frequency Percent Very likely 6 25 Somewhat likely 11 45.8 Neither likely nor unlikely 4 16.7 Unlikely 2 8.3 Very unlikely 1 4.2 Total 24 100 of this kind of studies

92 As a way to gather public input on our planning studies, in addition to holding public meetings, which are usually poorly attended. So far we’ve conducted two web-based surveys, and are still learning how best to use them. To find out how well our website is meeting the needs of the website visitors. Because it reaches our target audience, it is somewhat effective. To provide an option for those who wish to use it Superior data quality and the ability to collect customer comments that are more unbiased than from other survey methods We have a regional requirement for employers to conduct employee commute surveys. We have set these up on the web, also. This works well because it is used by employers with employees who have web access, it simplifies data entry and process and allows for immediate results. Primary reason for conducting web-based surveys Frequency Percent Ability to present complicated subject matter, question design, and graphics 1 9.1 1 9.1 Cost 1 9.1 Ease of access to downtown workforce 1 9.1 Efficiency 1 9.1 High-quality database/complete answers 1 9.1 They are a convenient means of collecting information. 1 9.1 1 9.1 1 9.1 To reach a certain group of people. 1 9.1 Website is popular, give more options 1 9.1 Total 11 100 Other reason for conducting web-based surveys Frequency Percent Cost and timing 1 25.0 1 25.0 Timely, data consistency 1 25.0 1 25.0 Total 4 100

93 Bias in respondents. We are limited to those with high access to web. This limits its usefulness for surveying many of our current customers. Many people do not have access, do not know how to use it, or do not have a high-speed connection. The two surveys we have conducted (one on safety and one on transit preferences in the I-78 Corridor) were not based on random samples. This makes our results difficult to generalize to the public. As we move forward, we will look to have some kind of sampling plans so that the results can be valid. Primary disadvantages of web-based surveys Frequency Percent 1 9.1 Can only be used for specific, somewhat focused research 1 9.1 Difficult to do random sampling 1 9.1 Hard to control for multiple responses. Only one portion of our population 1 9.1 Lack of randomized selection of respondents 1 9.1 1 9.1 Not everyone has e-mail 1 9.1 Sampling is biased in that self-selection bias is very high and participation very low. 1 9.1 Some user groups under- or overrepresented 1 9.1 1 9.1 Web access is not available for all workers. 1 9.1 Total 11 100 Other disadvantages of web-based surveys Frequency Percent Can only be used as an optional response mechanism because of limited penetration 1 14.3 Do not know who did not participate. Cannot tell who is not represented from survey data. 1 14.3 Fairly low response rates compared with other modes 1 14.3 May not represent a cross section of our ridership 1 14.3 Not tangible 1 14.3 Survey takes a lot of time; lots of technical glitches 1 14.3 You cannot calculate statistical precision from nonrandom samples. 1 14.3 Total 7 100

94 Know the population you are surveying and be extra alert if respondents differ from what you know to be true for your population. Make sure the data format is what you are looking for. Many packages are very hard to use with software such as SPSS for additional analysis. Web-based surveys will not reach less literate people, or people without computers. If that is your primary ridership, then web-based surveys may not capture the attitudes or behavior of these customers. Also, be creative with outreach. For example, we sent postcards to the libraries in our region, asking them to post the card in their Internet access area. We have also used variable message signs with the simple website address to capture motorists. Primary advice offered to transit organizations considering web-based surveys Frequency Percent Always give them an out if it does not apply 1 9.1 Be aware of the survey population vis-à-vis your 1 9.1 Combine it with other data collection techniques that are a good fit with the audience. 1 9.1 Consider the target market segment and assess Internet availability among these people. 1 9.1 1 9.1 Excellent way to go 1 9.1 However long you think it will take to implement the survey, double it! 1 9.1 It is good for many purposes, but not all. 1 9.1 Make certain to incorporate with other methods, complementary methods to get greater response. 1 9.1 None 1 9.1 None to offer 1 9.1 Total 11 100 Other advice offered to transit organizations considering web-based surveys Frequency Percent Check out the latest web survey services. They are becoming less expensive and more user friendly— especially if you are doing the survey yourself. 1 16.6 1 16.6 1 16.6 Need supplementary surveys, on board, etc., to establish web responder share of population. 1 16.6 Provide incentives for participants 1 16.6 1 16.6 Total 6 100 Do not consider web-based surveys as a cost- saving strategy to substitute existing random sampling surveys. Use it better to complement your existing research tools. target population.

95 To give options; for example, if someone was not on bus when survey was administered, they can still contribute. To provide an easy tool for the end user and our staff to gather data on work trips for employees at large employers in the county. Primary objective of web survey Frequency Percent Collect data from those who would not respond in other ways 1 9.1 Determine attitude toward proposed new service 1 9.1 1 9.1 Learn about attitudes; test a model 1 9.1 Not sure 1 9.1 Obtain comments in the customers’ own words. Conduct low-cost, automated program evaluation. 1 9.1 Solicit customer feedback on their experiences with the interactive map. Determine if there are any fatal design flaws that need immediate attention. 1 9.1 1 9.1 To gather a large sample 1 9.1 1 9.1 1 9.1 Total 11 100 Other objective of web survey Frequency Percent Stated preference sensitivity factors 1 50.0 Test messaging 1 50.0 Total 2 100 How web survey was designed Frequency Percent Designed in-house using web page layout software 2 18.2 Designed with an online survey development tool 3 27.3 Contracted out to a consulting or web development firm 6 54.5 Total 11 100 How and where web survey was hosted Frequency Percent Hosted on your own organization’s computers 3 27.3 Hosted by a consulting or web development firm 5 45.5 Hosted by a survey provider 3 27.3 Total 11 100 Evaluate features of a cross-agency regional fare card To gain a greater understanding of what it takes to get people to ride the express buses from Pennsylvania and western New Jersey to Newark and NYC

96 Technologies used to create/conduct web questionnaire Count Column (%) ASP 1 9.1 ASP.net PHP Perl MS SQL MySQL Oracle MS Access Java 1 9.1 JSP ColdFusion Third-party website 1 9.1 Other, please specify 1 9.1 Technologies used to create/conduct web questionnaire Do not know 9 81.8 Other means used to create survey Frequency Percent SurveyTracker software 1 100 How survey questionnaire differs from other web versions Very similar Similar Count Percent Count Percent Question ordering 6 54.50 2 18.20 Question wording 7 63.60 1 9.10 Page format 3 27.30 3 27.30 Use of skip patterns 5 45.50 2 18.20 Other comparison of web questionnaire to other versions 1 25.00 How survey questionnaire differs from other web versions (continued) Neither similar nor different Different Count Percent Count Percent Question ordering 3 27.30 Question wording 3 27.30 Page format 3 27.30 2 18.20 Use of skip patterns 3 27.30 1 9.10 Other comparison of web questionnaire to other versions 2 50.00 How survey questionnaire differs from other web versions (continued) Very different Total Count Percent Count Percent Question ordering 11 100.00 Question wording 11 100.00 Page format 11 100.00 Use of skip patterns 11 100.00 Other comparison of web questionnaire to other versions 1 25.00 4 100.00

97 Other comparison of web questionnaire to other versions Frequency Percent Internal error checking 1 25.0 Not applicable; the survey was only web-based 1 25.0 There were no other questionnaires 1 25.0 Void 1 25.0 Total 4 100 Days in field Frequency Percent Do not know 3 27.3 7 1 9.1 21 1 9.1 30 1 9.1 35 1 9.1 45 1 9.1 60 1 9.1 90 2 18.2 Total 11 100 Number of recruits Frequency Percent Do not know 9 81.8 1,000 1 9.1 No sample 1 9.1 Total 11 100 Number of completes Frequency Percent Don't know 3 27.3 20 1 9.1 210 1 9.1 250 1 9.1 501 1 9.1 1,000 1 9.1 2,809 1 9.1 4,000 1 9.1 10,460 1 9.1 Total 11 100 Number of incompletes Frequency Percent Do not know 8 72.7 0 2 18.2 5 1 9.1 Total 11 100

98 Web-based percentage of completes Frequency Percent Don't know 2 18.2 5 1 9.1 10 1 9.1 80 1 9.1 90 1 9.1 100 5 45.5 Total 11 100 Support provided to web respondents Count Column (%) Toll-free telephone number 2 20 E-mail support 3 30 Link with FAQs Links with context-specific help on web page 1 10 Other, please specify None of above 5 50 Survey design plan followed to conduct research Frequency Percent In-house expertise 5 45.5 Survey design software instructions 1 9.1 Other, please specify 1 9.1 Did not follow a survey design plan 1 9.1 Do not know 3 27.3 Total 11 100 Other survey design plan Frequency Percent E-mails sent by individual agencies to their own lists of customers 1 100 Collect geographical information in web survey Frequency Percent Yes, data coded by latitude and longitude 7 63.6 Yes, data coded by zip code 4 36.4 Total 11 100 Have used online geocoding in any web surveys conducted Frequency Percent No 11 100

99 Ways to ensure e-mail invitations not considered spam Count Column (%) Third party or hosted e-mail solution E-mail sender reputation monitor 1 9.1 Sender policy framework (SPF) or sender authentication Tools to identify common phrases used in spam 1 9.1 Other, please specify 3 27.3 Don't know 3 27.3 Ways to ensure e-mail invitations not considered spam Nothing 3 27.3 Other methods used to ensure e-mail not considered spam Frequency Percent Did not solicit via e-mail, and if I checked this off earlier, I was wrong. 1 33.3 Did not use e-mail invitations 1 33.3 Use e-mail from transit agencies to existing customers 1 33.3 Total 3 100 Reminded respondents to take survey Frequency Percent Yes 4 36.4 No 7 63.6 Total 11 100 Number of times reminded respondents Frequency Percent 1 2 50 2 1 25 3 1 25 Total 4 100 Types of reminders used for web survey Count Column (%) E-mail 3 75 Telephone 1 25 Mailed pieces 1 25 Types of reminders used for web survey Other, please specify Increased response rate after first reminder Frequency Percent No 4 100 Increased response rate after second reminder Frequency Percent No 2 100 Total 2 100

100 Increased response rate after third reminder Frequency Percent No 1 100 Total 1 100 Total cost of web survey (dollars) Frequency Percent Do not know 9 81.8 100 1 9.1 3,000 1 9.1 Total 11 100 In-house costs for web survey (dollars) Frequency Percent Do not know 10 90.9 0 1 9.1 Total 11 100 Third-party costs for web survey (dollars) Frequency Percent Do not know 7 63.6 0 1 9.1 100 1 9.1 500 1 9.1 3,000 1 9.1 Total 11 100 Types of costs associated with web survey Count Column (%) Hosting costs 8 72.7 Recruitment costs 4 36.4 Incentive costs 3 27.3 Types of costs associated with web survey Other, please specify 3 27.3 Other costs associated with web survey Frequency Percent Programming 1 33.3 Staff costs 1 33.3 Survey was part of overall study 1 33.3 Total 3 100

101 Most important Best Practice for conducting web-based research Frequency Percent Careful selection of representative sample for population/market being surveyed 1 9.1 Clearly identify sender and purpose of the e-mail invitations 1 9.1 Develop a willing database of respondents with interest in transit 1 9.1 Do not use e-mail or the web to recruit 1 9.1 Keep it simple; if it is too long and too detailed, you’ll lose your respondents. 1 9.1 Make sure sources are reliable, reputable 1 9.1 Make survey consistent with other methods 1 9.1 None 1 9.1 Sample size large enough to support inferences 1 9.1 Thorough testing of the survey tool 1 9.1 Understanding and accounting for all of the sampling biases 1 9.1 Total 11 100 Second most important Best Practice for conducting web-based research Frequency Percent Budget enough time and resources. It will take more than you initially think. 1 9.1 Clear, concise wording of questions 1 9.1 Ease of use (intuitive tool) 1 9.1 Easily accessible on website 1 9.1 Ensuring that the respondent can go “back” without erasing data 1 9.1 case all the information is not 1 9.1 Make sure that respondents can leave the survey and rejoin later at the point they left off. 1 9.1 None 1 9.1 Provide an incentive 1 9.1 Provide feedback options to respondents 1 9.1 Yes 1 9.1 Total 11 100 Get a contact in there.

Third most important Best Practice for conducting web-based research The Metrolink rider panel is in existence since 2001. We are periodically replenishing the sample with new riders (< one year tenure) to maintain proportional representation and to be able to survey new-rider sub-populations. There are different ways to calculate attrition rates (i.e., non- respondents or non-opts). The most recent panel update had the following results: Final count of panel members who did not respond—of the 3,520 members with e-mail addresses as of 11/02/05, 1,458 responded, 386 e-mails were undeliverable, and 1,676 did not respond. Frequency Percent Allowing a respondent to save a long survey and return to it later, or print it out to be filled out 1 9.1 Approach it with creativity and a sense of humor 1 9.1 Convenient access for target audience 1 9.1 Do not force responses 1 9.1 Do not know 1 9.1 Don’t spend 90% gathering 1 9.1 Logical progression of screens/questions 1 9.1 Make sure survey is not too long or repetitive as this will reduce data quality. 1 9.1 None 1 9.1 Remind people 1 9.1 Yes 1 9.1 Total 11 100 Information about current web-based research Frequency Percent It was not a panel survey so much as it was a longitudinal telephone survey 1 33.3 1 33.3 We didn’t do a panel study, and if I indicated this earlier, I was wrong. 1 33.3 Total 3 100 Percent of customers with Internet access at home and work Frequency Percent 60 2 5.7 75 2 5.7 85 1 2.9 90 1 2.9 Total 6 17.1 Not reported 29 82.9 Total 35 100 Percent of customers with Internet access only at home Frequency Percent 40 1 2.9 50 1 2.9 90 1 2.9 Total 3 8.6 Not reported 32 91.4 Total 35 100 ahead of time

103 Percent of customers with Internet access only at work Frequency Percent 20 1 2.9 30 1 2.9 63 1 2.9 75 1 2.9 Total 4 11.4 Not reported 31 88.6 Total 35 100 Do not know percentages of Internet access Frequency Percent Selected 26 74.3 Not reported 9 25.7 Total 35 100 Other ways organization uses web Count Column (%) Intranet 29 82.9 Website 33 94.3 Trip planner 17 48.6 E-commerce 11 31.4 Internal research 10 28.6 Other ways organization uses web Other, please specify 2 5.7 Other ways organization uses the web Frequency Percent Real-time vehicle arrivals at the stop level 1 50 Varies 1 50 Total 2 100 Rating organization on research and presentation of research Very good Good Count Percent Count Percent Rate organization: Promotes web-based customer research 1 2.90 12 34.30 Rate organization: Promotes web/Internet initiatives (other than web-based customer research) 11 31.40 13 37.10 Rate organization: Promotes customer research 9 26.50 16 47.10 Rate organization: Promotes communication of research results to customers 5 14.30 8 22.90

104 Research to determine community attitudes about a local referendum Research using web-based survey combining geographic information systems (GIS) for household travel/activity survey. Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) project/U.S.DOT. Rating organization on research and presentation of research (continued) Neutral Poor Count Percent Count Percent Rate organization: Promotes web-based customer research 13 37.10 6 17.10 Rate organization: Promotes web/Internet initiatives (other than web-based customer research) 7 20.00 3 8.60 Rate organization: Promotes customer research 5 14.70 3 8.80 Rate organization: Promotes communication of research results to customers 14 40.00 5 14.30 Rate organization: Promotes web-based customer research 3 8.60 35 100.00 Rate organization: Promotes web/Internet initiatives (other than web-based customer research) 1 2.90 35 100.00 Rate organization: Promotes customer research 1 2.90 34 100.00 Rate organization: Promotes communication of research results to customers 3 8.60 35 100.00 Involved with web-based surveys that affected transit research Frequency Percent Yes 10 28.6 No 25 71.4 Total 35 100 Description of research Frequency Percent No answer 8 80 1 10 1 10 Total 10 100