Public Transit Rider Origin–Destination Survey Methods and Technologies (2019)

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.

C-1 A P P E N D I X C Synthesis Questionnaire Results

C-2 C O N T E N T S C-3 Table C-1. Modes surveyed. C-3 Table C-2. Frequency of conducting origin-destination surveys, by organization size. C-3 Table C-3. How on-board, or intercept, survey data are used. C-4 Table C-4. Primary justification for on-board, or intercept, survey. C-4 Table C-5. Funding sources. C-4 Table C-6. Entity responsible for conducting surveys. C-4 Table C-7. Regional coordination. C-5 Table C-8. Frequency of use of major survey methods. C-5 Table C-9. Permutations of survey methods employed by respondents. C-5 Table C-10. Frequency of use of specific survey methods. C-6 Table C-11. Reasons why tablets were used. C-6 Table C-12. Type of validation strategies used. C-6 Table C-13. Change in cost with tablets. C-6 Table C-14. Tablet survey application development. C-7 Table C-15. Time periods surveyed. C-7 Table C-16. Paper survey distribution locations. C-7 Table C-17. Recruitment techniques for tablet and other interview-based survey. C-8 Table C-18. Topics addressed. C-8 Table C-19. Primary source of survey questions. C-8 Table C-20. Modifications to source questions. C-8 Table C-21. Method for capturing transfers. C-9 Table C-22. Strategies to accommodate people with disabilities. C-9 Table C-23. Total number of languages in which surveys were available. C-9 Table C-24. Survey length. C-9 Table C-25. Survey cost by agency size. C-10 Table C-26. Costs per completed survey. C-10 Table C-27. Change in cost compared to previous survey efforts. C-10 Table C-28. Level of geography for which survey results can be summarized. C-10 Table C-29. Change in response rates from survey to survey. C-10 Table C-30. How minors were incorporated in the survey sample. C-11 Table C-31. Response base method. C-11 Table C-32. Average response rates by survey method. C-11 Table C-33. Underrepresented population groups. C-12 Table C-34. Standards for completion. C-12 Table C-35. Number of completed surveys by agency size. C-12 Table C-36. Common survey expansion factors. C-13 Table C-37. Prevalence of the utilization of “big data.” C-13 Table C-38. Impact of “big data” on survey techniques. C-13 Table C-39. Big data challenges.

Synthesis Questionnaire Results C-3 Mode Count Percentage Local bus, including electric bus and trolley bus 47 92 Commuter bus 21 41 Streetcar or light rail 16 31 Bus rapid transit 13 25 Commuter rail 13 25 Heavy rail (subway, metro, rapid transit) 8 16 Paratransit or demand-response service 4 8 Ferry 2 4 Other (express bus) 1 2 Total respondents 51 Note: Respondents had the option to choose multiple responses. Table C-1. Modes surveyed. Agency Size Frequency All (60) Small (19) Medium (14) Large (10) Very Large (14) Ongoing/rolling basis 7% 0% 0% 0% 29% Annually 7% 16% 7% 0% 0% Every 2 to 5 years 40% 26% 50% 70% 14% Every 6 to 10 years 23% 32% 14% 10% 36% < Every 10 years 2% 0% 0% 0% 7% Never 7% 11% 7% 10% 0% Other 15% 16% 21% 10% 14% Table C-2. Frequency of conducting origin-destination surveys, by organization size. Data Use Number Percentage Long-range planning 42 74 Modeling or forecasting 39 68 Route planning 39 68 Title VI planning 38 67 Schedule planning 22 39 Federal or state grant requirements 21 37 Other 9 16 Total respondents 57 Note: Respondents had the option to choose multiple responses. Table C-3. How on-board, or intercept, survey data are used.

C-4 Public Transit Rider Origin–Destination Survey Methods and Technologies Primary Justification Count Percentage Federal compliance 25 48 Model development 12 23 Planning 11 21 Understand customer needs 7 13 Understand travel patterns 6 12 Analyze service changes 5 10 Ridership demographics 5 10 NTD reporting 2 4 Complete operations analysis 1 2 Advise system redesign 1 2 Time had elapsed, due for a new one 1 2 Total respondents 54 Note: Respondents had the option to choose multiple responses. Table C-4. Primary justification for on-board, or intercept, survey. Funding Source Count Percentage Local funds 25 51 Federal funds 23 47 MPO funding 13 27 State funds 3 6 Total respondents 49 Note: Respondents had the option to choose multiple responses. Table C-5. Funding sources. Government Entity Count Percentage Regional transit agency 49 86 MPO 6 11 City 1 2 Regional organization 1 2 Total respondents 57 Table C-6. Entity responsible for conducting surveys. Coordinated with Other Transit Agencies or MPO? Count Percentage No 22 41 Yes 32 59 Total respondents 54 Table C-7. Regional coordination.

Synthesis Questionnaire Results C-5 Survey Method Utilized Count Percentage Paper 34 67 Tablet 27 53 Online 9 18 Two-step 4 8 Other 1 2 Total respondents 51 Table C-8. Frequency of use of major survey methods. Methods Used Count Percentage One Method 30 59% Paper alone 15 29 Tablet alone 14 27 Two-step alone 1 2 Two or More Methods 20 39% Paper + tablet 10 20 Paper + online 5 10 Paper + tablet + two-step 2 4 Paper + online + two-step 1 2 Paper + online + tablet 1 2 Tablet + online 1 2 Other 1 2 Total respondents 51 Table C-9. Permutations of survey methods employed by respondents. Specific Method Used Count Percentage Paper survey: Staff handout survey, self-administered and returned to survey staff 29 57 Paper survey: Handout paper survey, self-administered and mailed back 12 24 Paper survey: Interviews administered by survey staff (e.g., read aloud) and recorded on paper 8 16 Paper survey: Seat drops (paper surveys left on seats and mailed back or returned at designated location) 3 6 Tablet survey: Interviews administered by survey staff (e.g., read aloud) and recorded on tablets 27 53 Tablet survey: Handout tablet survey, self-administered and returned to survey staff 1 2 Two-step survey: Short on-board survey followed by staff-administered survey over the phone 4 8 Two-step survey: Short on-board survey followed by self-administered web survey 0 0 Online survey: Handout invitation to online survey (with URL), self-administered and submitted 5 10 Online survey: Seat-drop invitation to online questionnaire (with URL), self-administered and submitted 2 4 Online survey: Advertised via stations, buses, or social media 1 2 Online survey: E-mail invitations 1 2 Online: Paper survey with option to submit online 1 2 Other 1 2 Total respondents 51 Note: Respondents had the option to choose multiple responses. Table C-10. Frequency of use of specific survey methods.

C-6 Public Transit Rider Origin–Destination Survey Methods and Technologies Reason Count Percentage Improved data quality due to automated validation of responses 28 100 Shortened wait period between completion of field survey and availability of data for analysis 17 61 Reduced labor costs related to data cleaning and analysis 17 61 Reduced labor and materials costs related to printing and paper handling 14 50 Enabled a new approach to survey design 11 39 Other 9 32 Total respondents 28 Note: Respondents had the option to choose multiple responses. Table C-11. Reasons why tablets were used. Validation Used Count Percentage Consistency of responses (e.g., transit route used was consistent with stops used) 19 66 Addresses 18 62 Reasonableness of responses was validated (e.g., number of vehicles available in household less than 20) 17 59 Stop locations 16 55 Responses were required for each question (e.g., to prevent missed questions) 12 41 No automatic response validation 5 17 Total respondents 29 Note: Respondents had the option to choose multiple responses. Table C-12. Type of validation strategies used. Change in Cost Compared to Paper Methods Count Percentage Higher costs per completed survey 8 29 Lower costs per completed survey 5 18 I do not know 15 54 Grand total 28 Table C-13. Change in cost with tablets. Application Source Count Percentage Custom app developed by a hired consultant or survey firm 23 82 Custom app developed in-house 1 4 Third-party app 1 4 Other 3 11 Total respondents 28 Table C-14. Tablet survey application development.

Synthesis Questionnaire Results C-7 Days and Time Periods Surveyed Count Percentage Weekday: All time periods 48 94 Weekday: Only peak and midday 2 4 Weekday: Only peak periods 0 0 Weekday: Only peak periods in peak direction 0 0 Weekday: Other 1 2 Saturday: All time periods 21 41 Saturday: Only peak and midday 2 4 Saturday: Only peak periods 0 0 Saturday: only peak periods in peak direction 0 0 Saturday: Other 0 0 Sunday: All time periods 15 29 Sunday: Only peak and midday 2 4 Sunday: Only peak periods 0 0 Sunday: Only peak periods in peak direction 0 0 Sunday: Other 3 6 Total respondents 51 Note: Respondents had the option to choose multiple responses. Table C-15. Time periods surveyed. Survey Distribution Location Count Percentage No, only distributed on a select number of trips 22 55 Yes, distributed on all trips on board the vehicle 11 28 Yes, distributed continuously but at station/stop instead of on vehicle 2 5 No, other: 5 13 Total respondents 40 Table C-16. Paper survey distribution locations. Recruitment Technique Count Percentage Adult riders selected on a random basis 27 79 All adult riders on a surveyed trip approached 7 21 Total respondents 34 Table C-17. Recruitment techniques for tablet and other interview-based survey.

C-8 Public Transit Rider Origin–Destination Survey Methods and Technologies Topics Count Percentage Trip purpose 51 96 Rider demographics 50 94 Type of fare used 46 87 Means of access and egress 45 85 Frequency of transit use 41 77 Customer satisfaction 21 40 Rider support for policy and planning proposals 4 8 Other 17 32 Total respondents 53 Note: Respondents had the option to choose multiple responses. Table C-18. Topics addressed. Source of Questions Count Percentage Questions drawn from organization’s previous on-board survey 26 51 Questions written specifically for this on-board survey 15 29 Questions from MPO 5 10 Questions from another organization’s on-board survey were used 2 4 Questions from the Transit Performance Monitoring System (TPMS) 1 2 Questions from other existing source used 1 2 Total respondents 50 Table C-19. Primary source of survey questions. Modification to Standard Questions Count Percentage Source questions were not modified 7 21 Source questions were modified 26 79 Total respondents 33 Table C-20. Modifications to source questions. Method Count Percentage All stops where boarding and alighting occurred during the trip were captured 26 51 The locations where the first boarding and final alighting occurred were captured 18 35 Other 7 14 Total respondents 51 Table C-21. Method for capturing transfers.

Synthesis Questionnaire Results C-9 Accessibility Strategy Count Percentage Surveyors were trained on how to interact with people with disabilities 21 54 None 11 28 Online versions of the survey were compatible with screen reader technology 7 18 Proxy respondents were provided for those that could not complete surveys on their own 3 8 Adaptive technology was used for surveys administered on tablets 3 8 Other 9 23 Total respondents 39 Note: Respondents had the option to choose multiple responses. Table C-22. Strategies to accommodate people with disabilities. Total Number of Languages Count Percentage English only 3 7 Two languages 25 56 Three languages 7 16 Four languages 4 9 Five languages 3 7 Six languages 2 4 Eight languages 1 2 Thirteen languages 1 2 Total respondents 46 Table C-23. Total number of languages in which surveys were available. Survey Characteristic Average Min Max Total Respondents Time to complete (minutes) 7.4 2 30 35 Number of questions 29 10 61 45 Table C-24. Survey length. Agency Size Median, $ Min, $ Max, $ Total Respondents Small 80,000 2,100 412,000 10 Medium 365,000 20,000 753,000 7 Large 750,000 340,000 1,248,443 6 Very large 1,140,000 91,390 5,000,000 10 All 530,899 2,100 5,000,000 34 Table C-25. Survey cost by agency size.

C-10 Public Transit Rider Origin–Destination Survey Methods and Technologies Median Min Max Total Responses Cost per complete/usable $36.83 $6.19 $139.78 21 Table C-26. Costs per completed survey. Change in Cost (Compared to Previous Survey) Count Percentage Cost decreased with most recent survey (< –10% change) 3 7 Cost increased with most recent survey (> 10% change) 19 43 Little to no change (i.e., ± 10% change) 9 20 Do not know 13 30 Grand total 44 Table C-27. Change in cost compared to previous survey efforts. Level of Geography Count Percentage Certain-higher ridership routes as well as the entire mode 3 7 Only for an entire mode of service 2 5 Route level (may exclude lower ridership routes) 16 39 Route segment level 8 20 Stop level 12 29 Total respondents 41 Table C-28. Level of geography for which survey results can be summarized. Change in Response Rates Count Percentage Little to no change (e.g., ±10% change) 17 47 Response rate increased 14 39 Response rate decreased 5 14 Total respondents 36 Table C-29. Change in response rates from survey to survey. Approach Count Percentage No specific efforts 17 47 Riders younger than 18 approached 12 33 All riders approached 6 17 Supplementary survey 1 3 Total respondents 36 Table C-30. How minors were incorporated in the survey sample.

Synthesis Questionnaire Results C-11 Method Count Percentage Passenger counts 16 35 Number of surveys distributed 12 26 Number of persons approached by interviewers 9 20 Other 9 20 Total respondents 46 Table C-31. Response base method. Percentage Method Average Response Rate Min Max Total Respondents All methods/method undefineda 49 3 96 19 Tablet 63 5 88 8 Paper 34 10 71 11 Online 5 3 7 2 aSome respondents specified response rate by survey method whereas others only provided totals, hence “all method” line is not an average of the tablet, paper, and online row. Table C-32. Average response rates by survey method. Population Group Count Percentage Non-English Speakers 22 63 Persons under age 18 14 40 Persons with limited literacy 11 31 Riders making short transit trips 10 29 Riders with disabilities 4 11 Riders during times of day surveyed (e.g., PM peak vs AM peak ridership) 4 11 Particular ethnic or racial groups 3 9 Low-income riders 2 6 Transit-dependent riders 0 0 Total respondents 35 Note: Respondents had the option to choose multiple responses. Table C-33. Underrepresented population groups.

C-12 Public Transit Rider Origin–Destination Survey Methods and Technologies Standards Count Percentage Origin and destination locations could be geocoded accurately 25 54 Boarding and alighting stops identified 25 54 Trip purpose was collected 16 35 Access and egress mode was collected 14 30 Route sequence (for trips that included a transfer) was collected 11 24 Respondent's demographic information was collected 11 24 All questions were completed 8 17 Other 15 33 Do not know 7 15 Total respondents 46 Note: Respondents had the option to choose multiple responses. Table C-34. Standards for completion. Agency Size Definition (Annual Unlinked Trips) Average Min Max Total Responses All — 16,070 339 96,614 29 Small <10 million 2,092 339 4,189 9 Medium 10–30 million 5,520 352 7,987 6 Large 30–100 million 20,958 5,008 33,897 5 Very large >100 million 38,755 2,274 96,614 7 Table C-35. Number of completed surveys by agency size. Expansion Factor Count Percentage Route-level ridership (via fare-box counts or other sources) 26 62 On and off counts (via stop/station-level data such as automatic passenger counter or turnstile counts) 22 52 Boardings by route 21 50 Boardings by route and direction 21 50 Boardings by time of day 21 50 Boardings by stop or segment 20 48 Census data 5 12 Other travel survey results (e.g., regional travel survey across all travel modes) 2 5 Iterative proportional fitting 1 2 None 1 2 Other 2 5 Do not know 2 5 Total respondents 42 Note: Respondents had the option to choose multiple responses. Table C-36. Common survey expansion factors.

Synthesis Questionnaire Results C-13 Data Source Count Percentage Fare-box and fare-card data 43 98 Automatic vehicle locator and automatic passenger counter data 41 93 General Transit Feed Specification data 36 82 Third-party data services that provide travel flow based on passively collected geospatial information 12 27 Third-party data on rider characteristics and demographics 4 9 Video analytics (e.g., facial recognition software) 0 0 Other 6 14 Total respondents 44 Note: Respondents had the option to choose multiple responses. Table C-37. Prevalence of the utilization of “big data.” Impact Count Percentage Improve sampling strategy 28 64 Refine expansion factors applied to survey results 22 50 Not currently affecting the survey process 13 30 Reduce the scope and scale of traditional intercept surveys 9 20 Eliminate entirely the need for intercept surveys 1 2 Other 1 2 Total respondents 44 Note: Respondents had the option to choose multiple responses. Table C-38. Impact of “big data” on survey techniques. Challenge Count Percentage Lack of quality data related to transit ridership 27 61 Concerns that certain groups of riders are underrepresented 23 52 Cost of acquiring data 22 50 Lack of in-house knowledge to fully use and process data sources 21 48 Concerns that utilizing big data will not comply with regulatory requirements such as Title VI 16 36 Other 9 20 Total respondents 44 Note: Respondents had the option to choose multiple responses. Table C-39. Big data challenges.

Abbreviations and acronyms used without definitions in TRB publications: A4A Airlines for America AAAE American Association of Airport Executives AASHO American Association of State Highway Officials AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials ACI–NA Airports Council International–North America ACRP Airport Cooperative Research Program ADA Americans with Disabilities Act APTA American Public Transportation Association ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials ATA American Trucking Associations CTAA Community Transportation Association of America CTBSSP Commercial Truck and Bus Safety Synthesis Program DHS Department of Homeland Security DOE Department of Energy EPA Environmental Protection Agency FAA Federal Aviation Administration FAST Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (2015) FHWA Federal Highway Administration FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration FRA Federal Railroad Administration FTA Federal Transit Administration HMCRP Hazardous Materials Cooperative Research Program IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers MAP-21 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (2012) NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NASAO National Association of State Aviation Officials NCFRP National Cooperative Freight Research Program NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NTSB National Transportation Safety Board PHMSA Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration RITA Research and Innovative Technology Administration SAE Society of Automotive Engineers SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (2005) TCRP Transit Cooperative Research Program TDC Transit Development Corporation TEA-21 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (1998) TRB Transportation Research Board TSA Transportation Security Administration U.S. DOT United States Department of Transportation

TRA N SPO RTATIO N RESEA RCH BO A RD 500 Fifth Street, N W W ashington, D C 20001 A D D RESS SERV ICE REQ U ESTED ISBN 978-0-309-48021-5 9 7 8 0 3 0 9 4 8 0 2 1 5 9 0 0 0 0 Public Transit Rider O rigin–D estination Survey M ethods and Technologies TCRP Synthesis 138 TRB