Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 54
54 Exhibit 56. Significant Differences in Ratings Pedestrian. Group Group sample size Mean rating Test Control Test Control differencea Highly significant differences Walks non-recreational > 2 All other respondents 97 48 -0.60 blocks more than once a week Significant differences Metro area is College Station All other respondents 38 107 0.78 Metro area is Chicago Metro area is College Station 35 38 -0.77 Has a bike available All other respondents 107 38 -0.76 Dwelling unit is single-family All other respondents 52 93 0.36 home a Mean of test group rating minus control group rating The metropolitan area showed up as a significant factor Under TriMet's union contract, drivers of buses on which affecting pedestrian LOS ratings for a couple of metropolitan surveys will occur must be notified in advance, which required areas, so this factor was included in the pedestrian LOS model that specific trips to be surveyed had to be identified well in development. advance. This requirement did not exist at the other agencies; however, the drivers there were also given advance notice, so that they would be aware that the surveys would be occurring. 4.6 Transit On-Board Surveys Surveyors at all sites carried a letter from the transit agency au- The transit survey methodology used for this project was thorizing them to be on the bus, in case a driver had any ques- designed to achieve the following objectives: tions. WMATA also required that the names of the surveyors be provided in advance so that they could be listed on the letter. · Confirm the quality of service factors important to pas- sengers who have already decided to make a trip by transit; · Ask questions in a form relevant to passengers (relating to Field Data Collection their trip), but provide results in a form relevant to the The following roadway-related information was collected project (relating to a specific urban street facility); along the entire route: · Maximize the amount of useful information that could be gleaned from a limited number of survey locations; and · Average stop spacing (bus stops/mile); · Provide the information necessary to develop the project · Stop-specific data: team's initially proposed transit model form, while also Presence of shelter (yes/no); providing data that could be used to develop alternative Presence of bench (yes/no) [including a bench inside a model forms, if necessary. shelter]; Presence of sidewalk or path (yes/no); Presence of ditch or other obstacle between sidewalk Agency Coordination and street (yes/no); Five transit agencies were contacted to obtain permission to Bus stop waiting area separation from auto traffic conduct surveys: TriMet in Portland, Oregon; Washington (curb-tight, sidewalk set back from street, on median or Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) for North- traffic island, off-street); ern Virginia; Broward County Transit (BCT) for the Fort Street width (lanes); Lauderdale, Florida area; the San Francisco Municipal Railway Median type (raised/painted/none); (MUNI) (which operates bus and rail services within the City Traffic control at stop (signal/all-way stop/bus street of San Francisco); and AC Transit (which operates express stops/side street stops/roundabout/mid-block location/ and local bus services in and between several cities in the San off-street location); and Francisco metropolitan area). These agencies were chosen for Crosswalk type at stop (marked/unmarked/no legal geographic variety, a range of service and demand conditions, crosswalk). and their proximity to research staff offices. All of the agencies were provided with an explanation of the purpose and The following transit-related information was collected: expected outcomes of the NCHRP 3-70 project, a draft copy of the survey form, and the route(s) desired to be surveyed. All · Stop location for each stop on the surveyed routes; readily agreed to participate. · Survey route frequency--peak and midday (bus/h);