1 / 19

Travel Behavior Panel Surveys: Measuring the Impacts of Road Pricing in Seattle and Atlanta

Travel Behavior Panel Surveys: Measuring the Impacts of Road Pricing in Seattle and Atlanta. Travel Survey Methods Committee Meeting January 25, 2012. Project Background.

yvonne-lott
Download Presentation

Travel Behavior Panel Surveys: Measuring the Impacts of Road Pricing in Seattle and Atlanta

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Travel Behavior Panel Surveys: Measuring the Impacts of Road Pricing in Seattle and Atlanta Travel Survey Methods Committee Meeting January 25, 2012

  2. Project Background • USDOT Urban Partnership Agreement (UPA)/Congestion Reduction Demonstration (CRD) programs fund selected cities/ regions to implement a comprehensive, integrated approach to reducing congestion • The four T’s: Tolling; Transit; Technology; Telecommuting • Recipients: Atlanta, Seattle, Miami, Minneapolis, Los Angeles, San Francisco • National Evaluation being conducted by Battelle • FHWA funds Volpe Center to perform household panel survey Source: Wikipedia

  3. Seattle and Atlanta

  4. Evaluation Questions • How did travel times, vehicle miles traveled, and daily travel budgets change at the individual/household level? • Were there shifts in departure times or modes? • In origin-destination patterns? • For those who used the priced facility less, where did the reduced trips go? Telework? Combined errands? Route diversion? • Atlanta: How do 2-person carpools adapt to the new occupancy requirements? • What are the equity impacts of the road pricing policies?

  5. Overall Study Approach • Household Panel Study: same households before and after road pricing

  6. Overview of Study Population • Peak hour corridor drivers: sample through license plate capture with match to registered address • Seattle: SR-520 and I-90 • Atlanta: I-85 and Buford Highway • Peak hour corridor transit users: In-person intercept • Seattle: bus stops, transit centers; park & rides; on-board buses • Atlanta: park & rides in corridor: MARTA stations • Corridor vanpool members: send email to vanpool participants

  7. Atlanta Sample Development (Drivers)

  8. Sample Development for Transit/Vanpools • Seattle: in-person intercept October 18-21, 2010 • on-board intercept (ipad) on buses crossing Lake Washington • Postcard handout: Redmond and Bellevue Transit Centers; South Kirkland and Eastgate Park & Rides; on-board buses; downtown bus stops • Atlanta: in-person intercept March 21-25, 2011 • Postcard handout only: Discover Mills, Indian Trail, Mall of Georgia, and I-985 Park and Rides, Doraville and Lindbergh MARTA Stations • Vanpool recruitment: Georgia Regional Transportation Authority/King County sent an e-mail to registered vanpoolers who use the corridor inviting them to participate (~500)

  9. Survey Materials • Advance notification postcard • Introductory letter • FAQs • Memory Jogger • Reminder postcards and emails

  10. Online survey tool • Household survey on demographics (completed by one person) • 2-day travel diary completed by all adult (18+) household members • Additional survey questions: typical commute behavior; typical use of the facility; trip satisfaction; attitudes and values • Phone option available; Spanish version of materials in Atlanta

  11. Purpose: Test all steps of survey administration Recruitment method (license plate capture and transit intercept; effectiveness of materials; incentive structure) Online tool: questionnaire design and functionality, survey duration Obtain estimate of response rate Pilot Study NOTE: “Completion” defined as all adult members of the household complete their travel diary

  12. Pilot Study, continued • Findings: Overall, no major issues or problems • Cut survey questions due to comments on length • Clarify several error messages/instructions • Add response categories for some questions • Trip purpose: “exercise/gym” • Increase automation • Pre-populate starting point for day 2 trip roster with ending point from day 1 • Utilize $15 gift card incentive (resulted in 9.4% response) • $10 gift card: 7.0% response rate • $10 gift card with enclosed $1 bill: 9.8% response rate • $15 gift card with enclosed $1 bill: 11.8% response rate

  13. Incentives and Panel Maintenance • Each household receives $15 gift card after wave 1 completion; $30 after wave 2 completion • Approximately 3 contacts per household • graphic display of findings (~3 months after wave 1) • Seattle only: letter about wave 2 survey delay • After pricing: mini-survey to engage respondents and obtain initial feedback on tolling • Household update survey (several weeks prior to wave 2 survey)

  14. Wave 1 Response Seattle (November 2010) Household Completion Rates by Recruitment Mode Atlanta (April/May 2011) Household Completion Rates by Recruitment Mode NOTES: “Completion” = Alladult members of the household completed all surveys

  15. Wave 1 Methodology Notes • Respondent Burden • Rough estimates come from RSG data on respondents’ web-based survey times • This does not include time for filling in Memory Joggers or other work • Averaged 4 minutes per household for initial screener • Approx. 10 minutes per person per day for diary and related questions • 44 minutes total for a typical 2-adult household • Item Non-Response: • Essentially none due to design of online survey • ~10% selected “prefer not to answer” on income question • Survey medium: • At least 95% of respondents used online tool, but telephone option was available and used

  16. Methodology Notes, continued • Non-response Bias: • Analyzed via comparison of completed surveys against partial completions and external benchmarks (including other corridor studies, Census, and Acxiom data) • Household size appears to be the only key variable with a bias – the achieved sample has fewer large households

  17. Lessons Learned • Pilot your survey • Spend the extra time needed to develop a high quality online survey; provide clear, concise directions • Pop-up windows, map of corridor • Advance planning is critical • License plate capture process differs by state • Be flexible • Added travel days in Atlanta to boost response rate • Enhanced panel maintenance with “mini-survey” to engage respondents

  18. Next Steps • Focus groups in Seattle (February 2012) • Panel maintenance “mini-survey” in Seattle and Atlanta (January/February, 2012) • Final version of wave 2 surveys • Household update and wave 2 survey administration

  19. Comments? Questions?Margaret Petrella, Social ScientistThe Volpe CenterMargaret.Petrella@dot.gov

More Related