Sam,
Your point is well taken - but one of the really
interesting thing about doing CTA research in Chicago is that our market
share is so large that I have no trouble finding CTA customers -- even in the
suburbs (about 20% of our customers are suburban residents!). This
makes it much easier to find users of our products than when
I was doing commercial market research before coming to CTA. However,
for the TBAS project, the primary output of the survey was
are market share, so we were just as interested in surveying former customers
and never customers as frequent (5+ days per week) infrequent (1-4 days per
week) and occasional customers (<1 per week, but at least once in the last
year)
There is geographic variation in our market
penetration. My neighborhood in Chicago is so well served by Metra - and
travel time to the nearest CTA rail station is so long by bus - that my
immediate neighbors are less likely to ride CTA frequently unless they transfer
once downtown. However, for much of the rest of the South Side and for
many other parts of the service area it takes no time at all to find a frequent
(5+ days a week) CTA customer. Whenever I meet people here, the minute I
mention working for CTA I am often deluged with comments from CTA customers - If
I am at a party on the North or Northwest Side 80 - 90% might be frequent CTA
customers. This makes it really easy for me to ask questions that give me
insights into whether our survey data collection has been skewed somehow.
And so I do. It also means that there is a great deal of
self-identification of our customers if I mention working for CTA.
Happily, due to the success of our Customer Satisfaction work, I do a lot less
referring of customers to our call center and a lot more explanation of new
features and programs.
I do not mean to diminish the importance of reality
checks in analytical work, especially when engaged in primary data
collection. I find it an essential practice to double check even
marginally questionable survey results with some kind of testing. In
the case of TBAS that included remote monitoring of survey calls, checking key
results against other sources of internal and external data, and other
checks of the data.
I'll give you an example of a valuable lesson
I learned in checking up on concerns about data collection methodology. One
of my standard checks with new surveyors for an on-board survey is to make
sure - through field observation and examination of surveys returned - that they
are surveying all kinds of riders without regard to gender, race, age, or
likelihood of being willing to agree do the survey - because I know that every
once and a while I will run into problems with these potential sources
of bias. For example, a male surveyor in their 20's who comes back
with surveys from mostly women in their 20's or 30's (or a female surveyor
who does the reverse and turns in many more men than can be expected)
- is an obvious potential source of bias. I watch for that even with
experienced surveyors and I check for this and other problems during every
on-board project, I also try to have a good idea of
what demographics to expect on our routes through field
observations and pre-testing when I design a project. Given that, I
was more than a little concerned when a relatively new male surveyor on a North
Lakeshore route turned in far more surveys of women (80-85% female rather than
the 55 - 65% which is more typical for bus.. The rail split tends to be
54% female/46% male) than I had expected. Since I had not
noticed figures quite that high on my field checks and pre-test, I immediately
went out into the field and did a quick gender count on 30 or 40 buses in that
corridor. Lo and behold, the surveyor was right and my expectations were
wrong. On the particular route he had been assigned there
were many more women riding than I had
expected.
So, you are right to ask in essence, do I believe
that my survey results match reality? I believe they do. A very
large portion of the TBAS project was spent on methodological development
so that the survey was as accurate as it could be. One known sources
of bias may be important. Households without phones are not
represented. This is an instance where the census has a clear advantage
over a telephone survey. Since those households are more likely to be
transit dependent, that suggests that the TBAS survey results could understate
our market penetration, especially given the population growth among Hispanic
residents in Chicago since this group may be a little less likely to
own a phone.
No survey is perfect. Budget
requirements often force tradeoff's. If I had the money (probably $2M+ in
2002 dollars) to do a market penetration study with a budget like
the Urban Family Life Project that I worked on for NORC in the early 80's,
I would use many of the same methods that they used for that study: random
sampling of census tract blocks, definition of households (what
is a household - do 10 single locking rooms and 1 shared kitchen make 1
household or 10), listing of household residences on sampled blocks including
checking the alleys for additional units, random selection of households,
listing of the members of the selected household, random selection of the
household member to be interviewed with 10 repeat refusals required before they
can be dropped from the sample, a budget for paying reluctant respondents, and
the survey conducted as an oral interview with extremely clear definitions by
highly skilled interviewers who have undergone extensive training to avoid any
leading responses, coding of numerous open-ended questions by highly trained and
experienced coders, and a big budget for weighting, analysis and reporting, I
would do it. Or more likely hire a contractor to do it. The results
would be incredibly useful and might create a wealth of innovative ideas and
transportation planning data. However, for that kind of money I could do
8-10 system level telephone surveys like TBAS that will yield repeatable,
verifiable, sensible results that are a good match for other data and
provide meaningful and very useful actionable information.
I realize that our market share information and
electronic fare acceptance has been higher than in other systems and so
they may seem to be skewed when you compare it to your own experiences in
Ohio. One thing that helped believability of TBAS was that we were not
just looking for CTA customers. There was no benefit by being either a
customer or non-customer with the survey in terms of survey length, for
example.
I've avoided sending the survey report to the whole
list because of its file size (752kb), but if you would like a copy of the
report which includes extensive detail on methodology and the full questionnaire
I would be happy to forward it to you. Substantive
methodological suggestions are most welcome.
Since you brought up the share of CTA pass and
transit card users: our AFC data can provide us very detailed
information and very useful data about usage and revenue by fare
type that goes far beyond what was available with a single "pass" key on a
bus farebox or a press of a pass button at the ticket agent's
window. Our system now not only provides detailed reporting
of electronic fare use - but - validates the legitimacy of the pass in
question - removing a source of arguments for bus riders - and - giving us the
ability to offer many more - and more flexible - types of fare media designed to
fit niche markets - and - know exactly how much use each farecard or pass type
is getting. Having actual data whole categories of problems with
interpreting fare transaction data. Our "store" at www.transitchicago.com/store/index.html
allows us to reach many more customers - including those who are coming in
from out of town - and has increased the use of electronic fare media among bus
customers.
I haven't looked farecard usage data in awhile but
here's some data on AFC usage at CTA that I happen to have close at
hand:
Our AFC system was turned on over the summer of
1997. By October of 97, cash as a share of revenue had dropped from 62.1%
to 39.4% of revenue compared to October of the previous year.
When unlinked trips are examined, pass use
(excluding Transit Cards) grew from 8% of bus transactions (10/86) to 25%
of bus transactions (10/97) after the AFC system had been fully
implemented.
Originating (first ride) transit card use on CTA
bus grew from 0% of bus transactions to 24% by 10/97, and 27% by 10/99.
On rail, pass use grew from 8% (10/86) to 25% by
10/99. Originating Transit Card Use on rail jumped immediately to 48% of
all rail transactions and was at 50% by 10/99.
Cash entries on bus dropped from 27% (10/96) of all
bus transactions to 18% (10/99).
On CTA rail cash use dropped from 30% of all
entries (10/96) to 6% (10/99).
If you are interested in more information on
current Transit Card, pass and cash ratios at CTA I can probably get
updated results to you. A lot more detail on the impacts of our
AFC system is available in Impacts of Transit Fare Policy Initiatives Under
and Automated Fare System, Foote and Stuart, Transportation Quarterly,
Volume 54, Number 3, Summer 2000. There is also an earlier article in the
Journal of Public Transportation.
Putting the South branch of the Red Line in the
median of the Dan Ryan (I-90/I-94) and the Congress Branch of the Blue Line in
the median of the Congress Expressway (I-90) was an innovative idea.
While it was great in concept, I'm not sure that it had as many benefits as
liabilities however.
While it is true that rush hour commuters do see
the trains whizzing by, the lack of Park and Ride lots on the Red Line
meant that those stuck in traffic could not pull off the expressway and use
CTA.
Worse yet, highway planners failed to build a
NB exit from either 94 or 57 at 95th street so that drivers headed to the Loop
from south east and south west of the station had no easy method to access
even on-street parking at the 95th street terminal. Its almost as
if highway planners didn't want auto drivers coming
from the south suburbs and Indiana to switch to CTA!
Another problem is that while CTA trains can get up
to 50 or 55 mph between stations, auto drivers who are willing to break the
speed limit in "non-rush" conditions, are able to speed past CTA trains
instead of the other way around. Granted, the Dan Ryan is so crowded that
non-rush conditions tend to happen around noon and after 8pm on weekdays, this
effect somewhat neutralizes the rush hour effect.
The Congress branch does have some park and ride
lots and worse traffic problems, so the benefits you describe are better
there.
On both branches however, there is one other
negative impact. Putting the station in the median isolates the station
from the surrounding communities. So, very little access to the station is
by walking, much more is by bus. There is a longer walk to nearby stores
which reduces some of the beneficial impact of the lines (dry cleaning, small
grocery stores etc) on the community. Also walkers must cross very
busy intersections to get to the station which often forces a transfer from bus
that might not otherwise be needed. Expressway accidents (snow plows
pushing through concrete barriers, toxic spills, autos flipping onto the tracks)
can occasionally impact service.
The Orange Line routing seems to get the benefits
of both which could be a key to its success. While much of the route
can be seen from the expressway, the station entrances are at street level with
plenty of walking traffic. The stations seemed to be much more integral to
the surrounding communities. Access still may involve crossing a city
street, but drivers are not gearing up to enter an expressway.
If I was building the south branch of the Red Line
today, I probably would have put it next to the expressway rather than in it -
but all hindsight is 20/20. Another key to Orange Line success was the
Stevenson Expressway reconstruction which followed the opening of the Orange
Line.
All the best!
Market Research/Resource Planning
Planning
Division
Chicago Transit Authority
120 N. Racine Avenue
Chicago, IL
60607
(312) 733-7000 x 6840 (Voice)
(312) 432 - 7108
(Fax)
****************************************************************************
****************************************************************************
*******************************************
Unless
otherwise stated, the views expressed are those of the author and
not
those of the Chicago Transit
Authority.
****************************************************************************
****************************************************************************
*******************************************
http://www.TransitChicago.com
CTA CUSTOMER SERVICE
HOTLINE
1-888-YOUR-CTA
RTA Travel Information
836-7000
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2002 9:30
AM
Subject: RE: [CTPP] Reconciling Census
Transit Commuters...Impact of Rail Lines etc
Try this out to guage the difference between survey
answers and reality - ask a group of people if any of them take public
transit, then ask them to show you their transit passes (daily, monthly,
whatever).
Someone in Chicago at
least had the foresight to put the rail system in the freeway medians, so
commuters stuck in rush-hour traffic can watch the trains at least appear to
get to their destination faster than their car is. So no
out-of-sight-out-of-mind problem that transit has most everywhere
else.
Sam Granato
Ohio DOT,
Office of Technical Services
1980 W. Broad Street, Columbus, OH
43223
Phone: 614-644-6796, Fax: 614-752-8646
"Men and
nations will all eventually do the right thing - after first exhausting all
the other alternatives." - Abba Eban
|
| "Gardner, John F"
<GardnerJF@dot.state.sc.us>
Sent by: owner-ctpp-news@chrispy.net
07/10/02 09:05 AM
|
To:
"'Peter J. Foote'" <pfoote@transitchicago.com>,
ctpp-news@chrispy.net
cc:
Subject:
RE: [CTPP] Reconciling Census Transit
Commuters...Impact of Rail Lines
etc |
Peter Foote's responses are excellent. Although I suspect the
smaller
metros have had such an increase in choice riders, because the
congestion
and parking cost incentives are not as strong.
Very good point about the impact of prepaid fare media -- day
passes,
monthly passes, etc. -- boosting off-peak ridership. Prepaid
fares help
level the playing field between cars and transit. Drivers
behave as if the
marginal cost of an additonal trip or mile is zero;
unlimited-ride passes
induce the same behavior in transit
users.
-----Original Message-----
From: Peter J. Foote
[mailto:pfoote@transitchicago.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 8:34
PM
To: Mark Schlappi; 'Chuck Purvis'; ctpp-news@chrispy.net
Cc:
dstuart@transitchicago.com; mpatzloff@transitchicago.com
Subject: Re:
[CTPP] Reconciling Census Transit Commuters...Impact of
Rail Lines
etc
The impact of a new rail line, branch or extension on a
system's unlinked
trip count depends upon many factors.
In general
terms, the implementation of rail systems should generate new
unlinked
trips because they tend by nature to draw new customers, including
suburban
men, out of their cars. This is especially true when parking fees
in the
CBD are high. Links can be lost however, when rail route
design
allows former bus riders to save one or more transfers previously
made on
their commute.
CTA's Orange line (running diagonally across
the grid SW from the Chicago's
Loop) which opened 10/31/93, was a bonanza
for Pace suburban bus ridership
for routes connecting to CTA at Midway
airport. The line exceeded CTA
ridership expectations in part due to high
suburban ridership, but also
resulted in some lost linked trips (not
individuals) between bus routes -
and of course a substantial shift from
bus to rail.
Limited stop express services can add individuals overall
but eliminate the
need for some transfers when they cross over route ends.
The X49 for
example, eliminated some transfers (unlinked trips)
between routes 49A and
49, however ridership increases and customer
satisfaction rose far more than
trips lost.
In Chicago, it is more
likely that increases in off-peak discretionary
riding by electronic pass
users (30 and 7 day rolling pass markets have
grown substantially since the
were re-introduced in the Winter of 1998) are
responsible for a portion of
this shift. New York of course had tremendous
ridership growth when
the eliminated the 2nd fare required to move from bus
to rail when their
Metro Card was used. Check with them, but my guess would
be that they
have also had big boosts in off-peak riding, etc stimulated by
having
pre-paid media available. DC's Smart Card probably generates many
new
rides as well. Could the impact of just these 3 systems be enough
to
cause an increase in trips with no new net gain in riders? Once
you have a
farecard, even a money card rather than a pass, you are much
more inclined
to hop on a bus or train to take a trip. Discounting
and the impact of
lowered average fares on ridership through the use of
these fare instruments
may also be a factor.
The issue of whether
census data questions are complete enough to extract
true mode splits
(raised in another thread) is a valid one, especially when
respondents are
asked about an entire previous week is a valid one. BUT, I
also think that
it is unrealistic to expect more from the Census that can
reasonably be
expected.
Reconfiguration of a rail line can cause losses. When
the Dan Ryan/Lake and
Howard/Englewood/Jackson Park were realigned 2/1993
to connect the busy
South and North branches in the Red Line and less busy
South and West
branches as the Green Line many transfers which had been
recorded as
unlinked trips were eliminated with no real reduction in
persons (average
trip lengths expanded). Reconstruction of a rail
line can also cause
losses. The decision to close the Green line for
reconstruction rather than
single track in 1/1994 resulted in bus and
offset gains made by the new
Orange Line rail.
The impacts of
service changes are often complex. It likely that changes in
auto
ownership and transit riding frequency among fairly frequent customers
over
the decade are also an important of the story. It is also
very
difficult to make assessments of persons using a system from unlinked
trip
counts. This is part of why NTD average trip length calculations
and
passenger miles estimations are important.
Peter J.
Foote
PFoote@TransitChicago.com
Market Research/Resource
Planning
Planning Division
Chicago Transit Authority
120 N.
Racine Avenue
Chicago, IL 60607
(312) 733-7000 x 6840
(Voice)
(312) 432 - 7108
(Fax)
****************************************************************************
****************************************************************************
*******************************************
Unless
otherwise stated, the views expressed are those of the author and not
those
of the Chicago Transit
Authority.
****************************************************************************
****************************************************************************
*******************************************
http://www.TransitChicago.com
CTA
CUSTOMER SERVICE HOTLINE
1-888-YOUR-CTA
RTA Travel
Information
836-7000
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark
Schlappi" <Schlappi@mag.maricopa.gov>
To: "'Chuck Purvis'"
<CPurvis@mtc.ca.gov>; <ctpp-news@chrispy.net>
Sent: Wednesday,
July 03, 2002 6:01 PM
Subject: RE: [CTPP] Reconciling Census Transit
Commuters with Ridership
Statistics
> Is there a possibility
that changing route structures, with more rail,
have
> caused more
unlinked trips?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chuck
Purvis [mailto:CPurvis@mtc.ca.gov]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2002 3:36
PM
> To: ctpp-news@chrispy.net
> Subject: [CTPP] Reconciling
Census Transit Commuters with Ridership
>
Statistics
>
>
> To: CTPP-News
>
> One of the
interesting journey-to-work results is the lack of change, at
the
>
NATIONAL level, in the total number of transit commuters. The US had
> 6,069,589 transit commuters according
to the 1990 Census, and 6,067,703
> transit commuters according to the
2000 Census, a 0.03 percent decrease.
(On
> the other hand, the US
transit commute SHARE declined from 5.3 percent in
> 1990 to 4.7 percent
in 2000.)
>
> This compares to national transit ridership
statistics which show a 6.4
> percent increase in annual unlinked
passenger trips comparing 1990 to
2000.
> (Source is APTA's 2002
Public Transportation Fact Book, Table 26.) The
APTA
> book (I would
assume based on FTA-collected ridership statistics) shows
> annual
unlinked public transit trips increasing from 8,799 million
trips
in
> 1990 to 9,363 million trips in 2000 (the 2000 numbers are
preliminary,
> according to the 2002 APTA Fact Book).
>
>
So, an issue is how to reconcile a 0.0 percent change in national
transit
> commuters with a 6.4 percent increase in national transit
ridership.
>
> A plausible explanation is that the work trip share
of public
transportation
> trips has declined since 1990. According
to the 1990 NPTS, 42.6 percent of
> public transportation person trips
are for the purpose of "earning a
living"
> (NPTS Databook, Vol. 1,
Table 4.40).
>
> So, I can calculate that about 3,748 million
unlinked transit boardings
(in
> 1990) are "work trips" and that this
might decline to about 3,747 million
> unlinked transit boarding "work
trips", in 2000. This means that perhaps
40
> percent of year 2000
transit boardings are work trips (3,747 / 9,363),
which
> is quite
plausible at the national level.
>
> The story might be that the
national number of transit work trips, 1990 to
> 2000, has remained
fairly stable, and that, at least at the national
level,
> the growth
in transit is attributable to non-work travel.
>
> The data
question is: is information available from either the 1995 NPTS
or
>
the 2001 NHTS that can corroborate this possible trend - - a decline
in
the
> work purpose share for public transportation
trips?
>
> Also, who has attempted to reconcile their change in
regional transit
> commuters with their own transit ridership
statistics? What would be most
> helpful is any comparisons of on-board
surveys or household travel surveys
> that show any changes in the trip
purpose mix for transit trips.
>
> (Other larger issues still loom
in terms of the plausibility/fixability of
> the Census data. We are
very concerned about the overall LOW numbers of
> TOTAL commuters and
employed residents we're seeing in the 2000 Census in
> our
region....)
>
> Wishing a Safe & Sane Happy Fourth of July to
All!
>
> Chuck Purvis
>
>
>
***********************************************
> Charles L. Purvis,
AICP
> Senior Transportation Planner/Analyst
> Metropolitan
Transportation Commission
> 101 Eighth Street
> Oakland, CA
94607-4700
> (510) 464-7731 (office)
> (510) 464-7848
(fax)
> www: http://www.mtc.ca.gov/
> Census WWW:
http://census.mtc.ca.gov/
>
***********************************************
>