National Academies Press: OpenBook

Enhancing Internal Trip Capture Estimation for Mixed-Use Developments (2011)

Chapter: Appendix D - Pilot Survey Experiences and Lessons Learned

« Previous: Appendix C - Procedures for Internal Capture Surveys
Page 140
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D - Pilot Survey Experiences and Lessons Learned." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Enhancing Internal Trip Capture Estimation for Mixed-Use Developments. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14489.
×
Page 140
Page 141
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D - Pilot Survey Experiences and Lessons Learned." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Enhancing Internal Trip Capture Estimation for Mixed-Use Developments. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14489.
×
Page 141
Page 142
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D - Pilot Survey Experiences and Lessons Learned." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Enhancing Internal Trip Capture Estimation for Mixed-Use Developments. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14489.
×
Page 142
Page 143
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D - Pilot Survey Experiences and Lessons Learned." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Enhancing Internal Trip Capture Estimation for Mixed-Use Developments. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14489.
×
Page 143

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.

D-1 This appendix describes experiences and lessons learned in conjunction with the pilot studies. Survey results are described in Chapter 3. The project panel requested that the two initial pilot study sites have different character—one a TOD and the other large enough to require driving to complete at least some internal trips. Two developments were sought that would meet those general criteria. A third development was later added courtesy of a different sponsor. Site Survey Permissions Permissions The first step after selection of the preferred steps was to obtain permission from the owners or managers of the selected developments. The initial phone conversation requested per- mission to: • conduct brief interviews of people entering or leaving build- ings and businesses during weekday A.M. and P.M. peak peri- ods (two days each); • count people entering and exiting each entrance where surveys were being conducted; and • conduct a (person trip) cordon count around the develop- ment(s) site being surveyed. The owner or manager was also requested to provide infor- mation quantifying development characteristics, a site plan, and other information needed to complete the survey and analyze the results per the procedures described in the interim report. The initial phone conversation was followed up with a letter or email message requesting permission and describing the surveys to be conducted. One of the initial sites selected for surveys was Mockingbird Station (a TOD) in Dallas, Texas. Mockingbird Station had been the subject of several different types of studies since open- ing. The on-site management company provided permission to conduct surveys. The management company wanted to review each survey instrument to make sure questions or infor- mation was not intrusive. A commitment was made not to impede movement to and from businesses or residences and to accept interview refusals without question. Only exit interviews were permitted. Each survey crew member had to be identified with a badge issued by the management company. The man- agement company was very cooperative and helpful before and during the survey. The second site was Atlantic Station in Atlanta, Georgia. Even though Atlantic Station had opened less than a year earlier, ownership there had changed from a single developer who had welcomed studies of the development to several dif- ferent owners with varying levels of interest. Owners were pri- marily concerned about having patrons and residents inter- viewed and did not want to risk customers not wanting to do business at a place where interviews were being conducted. Permissions were secured with some limitations about where interviews could be conducted. Only exit interviews were per- mitted. Some access/parking-related information was to be provided by the parking operator rather than be collected directly. The third development added later was Legacy Town Center in Plano, Texas. The sponsor for that survey specified a scenario unrelated to this NCHRP project, but which permitted a devel- opment meeting this project’s requirements. Although the master developer was still active on an adjacent block of land, this development, too, had multiple developers and owners. In the end, only one owner declined to permit interviews. How- ever, again there was concern about the effect of inbound inter- views on business. As a result, the inbound trip information was obtained by asking outbound respondents about the trip they had made to reach the building from which they were exit- ing. Unfortunately, that information was often incomplete or for trips outside the time periods of interest. The results were surveys with much more outbound than inbound trip data. Pilot Survey Experiences and Lessons Learned A P P E N D I X D

Lessons Learned The permissions process took much longer than had been experienced by the researchers in past surveys. The researchers had recommended the first two sites because the owners had previously welcomed the attention and information that resulted from different types of case studies. However, changes in ownership from original developers to owner-operators or investors using operating companies made obtaining permis- sions significantly more challenging at all three developments. In the case of Atlantic Station, the development has been structured so it may be possible for each commercial block and each residential project to be sold to separate owners. Since surveys to determine internal capture need to cover samples of all different land use types in the survey area, diverse ownership will make it much more difficult to obtain the necessary permissions. One of the considerations for future surveys of this type should be the ownership structure of the buildings or busi- nesses to be surveyed. From this experience, it would appear that original developers (who will be more interested in reduced traffic impacts due to internal capture) are possibly more will- ing to have surveys conducted and single local owners may also be easier to interest. An additional aid would be a completed survey report so the owners-managers are able to see an example of what will be conducted. There was considerable reluctance to be involved in something new with uncertain results, although most of the owner-manager representatives were able to grasp the concept of internal capture after extended discussions. Even if favorable ownership structures are encountered, the complexity of the owner-tenant relationships may result in a longer approval period than for single-use or single manager- operator developments. A period of one month should be allowed for a site, but if difficulties arise, it could take two or even three months to secure complete permissions and author- izations to proceed. Finally, the limitation to only exit interviews means that data for inbound trips must come from the exit interviews. A com- promise could be to conduct exit interviews at retail, restau- rant, and cinema establishments and attempt to obtain inter- views in both directions elsewhere. Where only exit interviews are permitted, it should be recognized that the inbound data may be limited and that interviewers need to persist to obtain complete information for the inbound trips. Field Data Collection Surveys The surveys were built around exit interviews. The objective was to obtain for both A.M. and P.M. peak periods a sample of travel patterns involving internal and external trips for each land use type. Interview information included both origin and destination land use types, time and mode of trip, original mode of access to the development. The owners-managers demanded brief interviews. While the intent was to interview at every land use type rep- resented within each study area, it was recognized from the beginning that interviews would not be able to be conducted at all entrances (permissions withheld at some; number of entrances to cover) all the time. It was also understood that the interviews would represent a sample of the total trips made at interview locations because people could not be detained for their interview until the interviewer completed a previous inter- view. Hence, counts of people entering and exiting entrances where surveys were being conducted were necessary. Inter- views were conducted at every entrance at Mockingbird Station (over 50). At Atlantic Station there were too many entrances to interview at all of them and permissions could not be obtained for all businesses so sampling had to be performed by land use (factored proportionally by square footage within each land use). In addition to interviews and door counts, person trips by mode were counted at each cordon location plus some added locations where needed to separate different types of destina- tions. For example, at both developments some parking areas for certain buildings were cordoned off or otherwise parti- tioned from general parking and it was necessary to count entrances to those areas separately. Surveys were conducted between 6:30 A.M. and 10:00 A.M. and between 4:00 P.M. and 7:00 P.M. The same interview approach was used at all three developments. The research team secured about 40 temporary personnel for each survey to conduct interviews or perform counts. Not all persons worked all shifts; since much of each development was retail space and since most retailers did not open until 10 A.M., fewer personnel were needed for the A.M. peak. Three members of the research team supervised the surveys. Cordon counts were conducted at all cordon locations for at least one A.M. and one P.M. survey period. As applicable, inbound and outbound counts were made by the following modes: • personal vehicle: – 1 person, – 2 people, – 3 people, – 4+ people; • motorcycle; • delivery truck; • walk; and • bike. D-2

Mockingbird Station had no on-site transit routes (both light rail and bus transit serve a transit station adjacent to the site). A shuttle connects Atlantic Station to a nearby MARTA rail station; the shuttles were surveyed separately. One bus route passed along two sides of Legacy Town Center. Door counts were made both inbound and outbound dur- ing interview periods. Whenever interviews were being con- ducted on a building face, all doors were counted on that building face for that period. Interviews were conducted at both developments 6:30 A.M.– 10 A.M. and 4 P.M.–7 P.M. beginning on a Tuesday afternoon and ending on a Thursday morning. With minor exceptions, all interviews were conducted at building access points as people exited the building. Interviewers were assigned either single entrances where activity was heavy or groups of entrances where they were close together and activity was low to mod- erate. Interviewers were instructed to interview everyone they could, but not to try to have anyone wait to be interviewed while another interview was being completed. Interviewers were to be assertive in trying to initiate interviews but were told to accept refusals without question. Interviewers assigned to multiple entrances were to watch people enter business and try to intercept them as they departed. It was estimated that effective interviewers were turned down about one-third of the time. On the average, interviewers were able to complete inter- views with 10 to 15 percent of all exiting individuals. Produc- tivity varied by the amount of activity at the assigned location, the assertiveness of the interviewers, and the interviewer skill. All personnel were trained prior to the first shift. A few trainees were not used as a result of unsuccessful training. Some others were either reassigned to counting jobs or discharged during the first shift if supervisor checks showed that the interview approach or results were insufficient. About 25 percent of the original personnel did not work after their initial shift. The plan for all three developments was to interview as many people as possible using about 20–25 interviewers in the P.M. peak (when all businesses were open) and a lesser number during the A.M. peak commensurate with the num- ber of businesses open. This required interviewing at differ- ent locations each day, although some of the lower activity entrances were covered both days. At Mockingbird Station, inbound interviews were also con- ducted at the entrance from the DART rail station that is served by two rail lines and six bus routes. The purpose was to ascer- tain modes of access. At Atlantic Station, interviews were con- ducted on the shuttles operating between Atlantic Station and the MARTA Art Center rail station for the same reason. Inter- views were also conducted inbound at a few locations to inter- cept walkers and bikers entering Atlantic Station’s business dis- trict from the adjacent residential portions of the development. Use of buses for trips to and from Legacy Town Center was almost non-existent. No special interviews were conducted for that mode. Cost and complexity were the two primary reasons given in telephone conversations with consultants and public agencies about why more internal capture studies had not been con- ducted. The research team elected to cap the survey team size at about 40 people during the P.M. peak for cost considerations. The cost for temporary labor to conduct the surveys may dif- fer by location, and it did for the Dallas, Atlanta, and Plano sur- veys, but the direct cost for the Atlanta team was approximately $19,000 using a temporary employment agency and personnel classified as interviewers. In all three cases the temporary employment agency had difficulty securing the requested 40 persons. In one city, a second agency was used to provide people. In another city, the agency provided a large percentage of people who could work some but not all shifts. All count data were compiled by 15-minute period. All interviews were maintained as sep- arate trip records. Lessons Learned The cordon counts were easily completed for all three devel- opments with no problems. They were easy enough so people who could not successfully perform the interviews (or did not want to do interviews) could accurately complete the counts. Men were assigned locations that were out of view of passing pedestrians (e.g., some parking garage entrances). Supervisors made it a priority to locate counters so they would be visible but not distractions to passersby. Supervisors also walked by every isolated location at least hourly. All personnel also had cell phones and the supervisors’ phone numbers in case an emergency arose or relief was needed. No safety or security dif- ficulties or concerns were reported by any of the survey team at any development. Use of cell phones and men in isolated locations was successful. Some interviewers, despite successful training, were not suc- cessful because they were not effective at approaching people quickly enough to get their attention. Assertiveness was the deficiency in most cases. Despite practice interviews in a train- ing atmosphere, the only way to confirm a good interview approach is in the field with practice interviews under watch by a supervisor. This should be conducted in advance of initiating surveys. Despite a clothing specification given to the temporary employment agencies, at two locations a few of the personnel were not attractively dressed and probably discouraged peo- ple from talking with the interviewers. In such a case, those interviewers should be assigned to counting or sent home to change clothes. D-3

With as many as 40 temporary employees on a survey team, a range of capabilities will exist. For a survey of this complex- ity, at least three supervisors are needed to be able to both check and circulate to all sites. The most frequent supervision was needed to: • answer initial judgment questions related to interview responses (e.g., how to record trips to walk the dog); • locate interviewers so they could intercept exiting patrons from multiple doors; • identify and separate interviewers talking with each other instead of focusing on exiting patrons (a problem in low activity locations); • schedule breaks and place “floaters” in those locations; • deliver water to survey personnel near mid-shift time; and • respond to cell phone calls for help (usually questions or approval to relocate to more active or convenient spot). Development Data Development Characteristics Data describing the characteristics of the developments were acquired from the on-site management company for Mock- ingbird Station, from the parking operator on behalf of the management companies for Atlantic Station, and from the var- ious owners and management companies at Legacy Town Center. Because trip generation surveys need to be linked to occupied development areas rather than total area, the research team requested both total and occupied square footage or other development units, current at the time the surveys were conducted. On-site management companies sometimes do not have information on occupied areas. That information is usually maintained by the leasing offices, or agents, which are often separate offices or even handled by separate companies. In the case of Mockingbird Station, leasing was handled by the man- agement company for office space, by another office of the management company for residential, and an outside com- pany for retail and restaurant. The management company ultimately assembled information. The diversity of ownership of Atlantic Station would have posed a similar situation for Atlantic Station. However, the parking operator needed the same information for its own surveys being conducted during a similar timeframe. Hence, the research team was able to obtain the development data after the parking operator assembled the information. Both development and occupancy data for Legacy Town Center had to be obtained from the applicable owner, management company, or leasing agent. Lessons Learned MXDs may have separate ownerships in what seems like a single development. Occupied space inventories are usually maintained by the leasing (or sales) units, which may or may not be parts of the ownership or on-site management orga- nization(s). Ownership that is more diverse may lead to more diverse sources for the development and occupancy data. However, after permissions have been obtained to conduct the survey, obtaining the development data becomes some- what easy. However, it may take several follow-up calls to obtain a complete set of information. D-4

Next: Appendix E - Florida Survey Questionnaires »
Enhancing Internal Trip Capture Estimation for Mixed-Use Developments Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB’s National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 684: Enhancing Internal Trip Capture Estimation for Mixed-Use Developments explores an improved methodology to estimate how many internal trips will be generated in mixed-use developments—trips for which both the origin and destination are within the development.

The methodology estimates morning and afternoon peak–period trips to and from six specific land use categories: office, retail, restaurant, residential, cinema, and hotel. The research team analyzed existing data from prior surveys and collected new data at three mixed-use development sites. The resulting methodology is incorporated into a spreadsheet model, which is available online for download.

  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!