1999 On-Board Sacramento Regional Transit District Survey

Transcription

1 SACOG On-Board Sacramento Regional Transit District Survey June 2000 Sacramento Area Council of Governments

2 1999 On-Board Sacramento Regional Transit District Survey June 2000

3 Table of Contents Chapter 1 Introduction...1 Chapter 2 Findings...3 Characteristics of Transit Use...3 Characteristics of Transit Riders...9 Passenger Ratings and Comments on RT Service...14 Chapter 3 Individual Question Responses...17 Appendix A Survey Forms... A-1 Appendix B Survey Methodology...B-1 i

4 List of Figures Figure 1: Sacramento Regional Transit District Activated Service Boundary...2 Figure 2: Trip Purpose...3 Figure 3: How Home-Work Riders Got to Transit...4 Figure 4: How Non-Work Riders Got to Transit...4 Figure 5: How Home-Work Riders Left Transit...5 Figure 6: How Non-Work Riders Left Transit...5 Figure 7: How Often Home-Work Riders Use Transit...6 Figure 8: How Often Non-Work Riders Use Transit...6 Figure 9: Fare Types of Home-Work Riders...7 Figure 10: Fare Types of Non-Work Riders...7 Figure 11: Trips by Purpose by Hour...8 Figure 12: Gender of Transit Riders...9 Figure 13: Age of Transit Riders...9 Figure 14: Auto Availability of Home-Work Riders...10 Figure 15: Auto Availability of Non-Work Riders...10 Figure 16: Auto Ownership of Home-Work Riders...11 Figure 17: Auto Ownership of Non-Work Riders...11 Figure 18: Household Size of Home-Work Riders...12 Figure 19: Household Size of Non-Work Riders...12 Figure 20: Household Income of Home-Work Riders...13 Figure 21: Household Income of Non-Work Riders...13 Figure 22: How Home-Work Passengers Rate RT...14 Figure 23: How Non-Work Passengers Rate RT...14 Figure 24: Comments of Surveyed Passengers...15 ii

5 Chapter One: Introduction Transit Ridership on the Sacramento Regional Transit District (RT) system has grown significantly over the last five years, on both bus and light rail. Annual boardings since 1994 have increased to 27,757,098 passengers, a 23 percent increase. Although this ridership currently accounts for about one percent of all travel within Sacramento County, it is important to remember that some groups, particularly low income and the disabled, rely on public transit as their only means of transportation. Figure 1 depicts RT s existing service boundary. Also, as the Sacramento region continues to grow, congestion will increase on our roads and freeways. Transit can play an important role in reducing congestion by offering an alternative to driving. This is especially true in areas like downtown Sacramento where high employment densities offer an opportunity to capture a large share of the Home-to-Work trips. Report Objective This report profiles the existing characteristics of passenger use of RT service, and also compares results of the 1999 survey with those of the previous survey conducted five years prior in The study was designed to provide planners and public officials with locational trip information and demographic profiles for the passengers currently using RT services. The project scope includes all fixed route ridership before 6:00 pm. Survey Process Survey forms were distributed to passengers on-board regularly scheduled transit trips between 5 a.m. and 6 p.m., Monday through Thursday. All bus and light rail routes were surveyed. The surveyed trips were selected to achieve the maximum number of responses. Appendix B describes the methodology used to collect the survey data and develop the database used to prepare the report. The survey was originally designed to sample all routes before 8:00 pm. This strategy would have included 97 percent of RT ridership in the sample population. However due to lower than expected response rates on bus routes between 6:00 pm and 8:00 pm, this survey report will only cover ridership before 6:00 pm. Service before this time includes for 92 percent of RT weekday ridership. A separate data summary on light rail passengers between 6:00 pm and 8:00 pm will be forwarded to RT staff. All trips on bus routes with weekday ridership below 400 passengers were surveyed. Routes with weekday ridership of 400 or more were sampled stratified by driver work assignments to survey the most passengers in the most efficient manner. A total of 16,200 survey forms were distributed to passengers during the study. Of the forms returned, more than 8,300 had complete information. This represents almost 10 percent of the total average weekday ridership in the RT service area. A summary of the survey s findings is contained in chapter 2 of this report. Chapter 3 provides survey questionnaire responses for each question asked in the survey. The survey forms used in this study are reproduced in Appendix A. 1

6

7 Chapter Two: Findings Characteristics of Transit Use Trip Purpose The survey asked riders for the purpose and location of their trip s origin and destination. The responses to these questions show how the current transit service is used and may provide valuable information on how passengers may use future transit service. Figure 2 depicts the trip purposes of RT riders from the 1999 survey, and compares these results to the trip purposes of RT riders from the 1994 survey. As the figure illustrates, Home-to-Work, Home-to-School and Home-to-Other trips comprise the majority of trips of current riders, together totaling some 80 percent of all transit trips. Home-to-Work (commute) trips, at 45.3 percent, constitutes the primary trip purpose. Home-to-School and Home-to-Other trips constitute 17 and 17.7 percent, respectively. Generally, Home-to-Work and Home-to-School trips comprise the highest trip purpose proportion of most transit system riders, including RT riders, since they usually involve transporting people from home to centralized locations at specific times of the day. By contrast, Home-to-Shop, Work-to-Other and Other-to- Other trips constitute a lower proportion of overall transit trips, since they are usually to a wide variety of dispersed locations which are more difficult to reach by transit. Home-to-Shop trips account for 5.8 percent of all trips, while Work-to- Other and Other-to-Other trips comprise some 7 percent each. Comparing results from both surveys shows a slight increase in the percentage of people making Home-to- Work and Home-to-Other trips, while Home-to-School trips showed a slight decrease. Most of this difference in Home-to-School trips can be attributed to a difference in the survey coding between 1994 and In 1994, Home-to-College trips were coded separately for SACOG's Travel Modeling purposes. These included trips to college for both work and school purposes. However, for comparison to 1999 data, all 1994 Home-to- College trips were coded into the Home-to-School purpose. 3

8 In 1994, Home-to-Shop trips accounted for 8.6 percent of the total, while Work-to-Other and Other-to-Other trips accounted for approximately 8.5 and 4.5 percent, respectively. As Figure 2 shows, Home-to-Shop and Work-to-Other trips decreased slightly between 1994 and 1999, while Other-to-Other trips increased. How Riders Get to Transit Passengers were also asked how they accessed and departed transit service. Figure 3 displays how commuters got to the surveyed transit trip, while Figure 4 shows how non-work riders (noncommuters) got to transit. As these two figures show, the overwhelming majority of current passengers reach transit by walking, with 62.9 percent of non-commuters and 59.6 percent of commuters walking. The second highest mode of access for both commuter and non-commuter passengers was a transfer from another transit vehicle, with 24.8 percent of commuters transferring and 31.3 percent of non-commuters transferring. As these figures show, a slightly higher percentage of non-commuters transferred from another transit trip than did commuters. Commuters were far more likely to drive alone to the transit trip than were non-commuters. Some 10.2 percent of commuters drove to transit, compared to only 1.1 percent for noncommuters. The percentage of commuters and non-commuters who carpooled, biked or used other modes was very small. Figure 3 shows quite similar mode shares for the 1999 survey compared to the 1994 survey. While overall mode percentages are similar, some minor trends in a few mode categories can be seen from the data. For commuters, there was a slight decrease between 1994 and 1999 in the percentage of people walking to their transit trip. There was, however, a slight increase in the percentages of people either transferring from another transit trip, carpooling or bicycling. There 4

9 was no change in the percentages of those who either drove alone, or used some other way of getting to transit. The distribution for non-commuters in the two surveys was nearly identical, showing a slight decrease in walking and a slight increase in the percentage of those who transferred from another transit trip. The percentage of people driving alone remained unchanged, while percentages for those carpooling decreased slightly. Both bicycling and other ways of getting to transit increased slightly. How Riders Leave Transit Figures 5 displays how commuters left the surveyed transit trip, while Figure 6 shows how noncommuters left transit. Again, most commuters (59.3 percent) and non-commuters (60.3 percent) departed the trip by walking, while the next largest percentage (27.4 percent for commuters and 32 percent for non-commuters) transferred to another transit trip. The third largest percentage of commute riders, some 10.2 percent, drove alone after the transit trip. Non-commute riders were not nearly as likely to drive after the transit trip, with only 1.5 percent doing so. Figures 5 and 6 also show a few minor ridership trends between the 1994 and 1999 surveys. With regards to commute trips, the only real change was that riders were more likely to transfer to another transit trip. In 1994, 21.1 percent of commuters transferred to another transit trip, while in 1999 this percentage rose to 27.4 percent. In addition non-commuters were slightly less likely to leave the transit trip by walking in 1994 than in

10 How Often Passengers Use Transit As Figure 7 shows, most commuters (some 58 percent) ride RT five days a week. Noncommuters, as illustrated in Figure 8, are more likely than commute riders to ride transit either less than once a week or more than five days a week. This accounts for both infrequent riders who use transit when other transportation is unavailable, and transit dependent riders who must use transit for all of their travel needs. While overall ridership trends have not changed significantly over the past five years, some minor trends are evident. The percent of commuters riding transit either less than once a week or one to two days a week saw little change, but the percent riding either three to four days a week or five days a week declined slightly. Conversely, the number of commuters riding transit six to seven days a week increased by some 5 percent. Trends for non-commuters between 1994 and 1999 saw a slightly different pattern, with a small decline in the percentage of people riding transit less than five days a week. The percentage of riders utilizing transit five or more days a week, on the other hand, increased slightly. 6

11 Fare Types of Passengers The survey asked passengers to describe the general fare categories used to pay to board the transit trip. Figure 9 shows fare types for commute riders, while Figure 10 presents this information for non-commute riders. Use of a monthly pass was the primary fare type used by commuters, accounting for some 50 percent of fares. In most cases, this is probably due to the fact that commute riders know that they will be utilizing transit frequently and therefore are more likely to purchase a monthly pass. In contrast, while use of a monthly pass was also the primary fare type used by non-commuters (at 39 percent), passes constitute a smaller overall proportion of total fare types. This may reflect a larger proportion of riders who may not plan to use transit frequently. Comparing results of the current survey to those of the 1994 survey found that a higher percentage of both commute and non-commute passengers used cash to pay for their ride, while a smaller percentage used a monthly pass. Another trend was that appreciably fewer riders used transfers when boarding the transit trip. This was the case for both commute and non-commuters. 7

12 Trips by Purpose by Hour Figure 11 displays all trip purposes by the hour of travel. Since the study only surveyed routes before 6:00 p.m., ridership is not displayed after 5:00 in the evening. As previously noted, home to work riders comprise the largest passenger volume of any trip purpose. Seven in the morning and four in the afternoon show the highest peaks for these riders, with 12 noon having the lowest home to work ridership. Home to school ridership also shows two peak periods, one at seven in the morning and the other at two in the afternoon. The other four trip types did not show any significant peaks periods; however, ridership was generally highest during the mid-day and early afternoon periods. The trip purpose by hour travel data collected during the 1999 ridership survey closely parallels that from

13 Characteristics of Transit Riders The survey also asked passengers to provide demographic information. This information can be of great value in planning new transit service. By combining origin and destination data with demographic data, planners can see who is using the existing transit system and how they may use new services. Gender of Transit Riders Figure 12 depicts the gender of RT riders. A higher percentage of RT riders are female. There is little difference when comparing the gender characteristics of the 1994 survey with the current survey, with the exception of a very slight decrease in the numbers of males using transit accompanied by a slight increase in female ridership. Age of Transit Riders Over forty percent of RT riders are between 24 and 45 years old, as shown in Figure 13. The next largest age group is the 45 to 64 years old group, with over 23 percent. The two age groups having the smallest share of riders include the under 16 age group, and the 65 or older age group. 9

14 Auto Availability of Passengers The survey asked passengers whether there was a car they could have used instead of transit. The question was asked to see if the passengers had any other choice other than using transit. Figure 14 shows the results for commute riders, and Figure 15 presents results for non-commute riders. Among commuters, more than 47 percent could have used a car instead of transit. For noncommute riders, only some 23 percent could have used a car. Between 1994 and 1999, people unable to access an auto increased in both categories. For commuters, the number of people not having access to an auto increased by 7.1 percent. Non-commuters saw a 4.9 percent increase in the number of people not having access to an auto. The three following questions were also asked by the survey for use in SACOG s travel demand model, which estimates household travel behavior on auto ownership, household size and household income. 10

15 Auto Ownership Figure 16 displays auto ownership levels for commute riders while Figure 17 shows the same information for non-commute riders. This question was different from the previous question in that it asked how many vehicles a household owned, not whether there was a vehicle the passenger could have used. For example, some passengers who do not own a car may be able to borrow one from a relative or neighbor. Also, some passengers who own a car may not be able to use it if someone else in the household needs to drive that day. These figures also show that Non-Work riders are less likely to own vehicles than were Home- Work riders. Only 18.8 percent of Home-Work riders indicated that they did not own an auto, while 30.6 percent of Non-Work riders did not own an auto. 11

16 Household Size of Transit Riders The household size reported by commute riders is shown in Figure 18, while Figure 19 depicts household size for non-commute riders. These figures show that commuters have a higher percentage of two person households and a smaller share of four or more person households. Commuters were also more likely to live alone than non-commuters. 12

17 Household Income of Transit Riders Figure 20 shows annual household income for commuters, while Figure 21 shows non-commuter income. These figures highlight striking differences between the incomes of commuters versus non-commuters. The largest proportion of commute riders fall into the $50,000 or more income category, while the smallest proportion fall within the $10,000 category. For non-commute riders, the income proportions were just the opposite, with the largest proportion making less than $10,000 and the smallest proportion making $50,000 or more. 13

18 Passenger Ratings and Comments on RT Service How Passengers Rate the Transit System The survey asked passengers to rate the quality of RT s overall transit service. Figure 22 displays question results from commuters, while Figure 23 shows responses from non-commuters. Overall, passengers were generally satisfied with RT s service. Over 65 percent of commuters rated RT as good or excellent, while only 7.5 percent rated service as poor. Non-commuters provided similar ratings, with more than 61 percent giving RT a good or excellent rating, while only 7.6 percent rated service as poor. Further breaking down responses by type of passenger, bus or light rail, shows that light rail riders were slightly more satisfied with light rail service than were passengers using RT s bus service. Some 69.4 percent of light rail riders rated service as good or excellent, as opposed to 60.3 percent of the riders using bus service. Light rail riders giving RT a fair or poor rating amounted to 30.5 percent, while 39.7 percent of bus passengers responded with either fair or poor rating. It should be noted, however, that when comparing responses from the current survey with the 1994 survey, both commuter and non-commuters gave the service a lower rating. Passenger Comments In addition to asking passengers to rate the overall quality of transit service, the survey form gave passengers the opportunity to make comments about transit. A total of 7,398 comments were received, 6,453 of which were from bus passengers and 945 coming from light rail riders. As the survey forms were coded, each comment was placed in one of twenty different categories. A number of comments were too dispersed or unrelated to fit into one of the twenty general 14

19 categories, and were placed under the category of Other. In addition, some passengers misunderstood the comment space. Figure 24 below displays comments received from both bus and light rail passengers. Figure 24 Comments of Surveyed Passengers Comment Category Number of Comments Comments of Bus Riders Percent of Total Comments of Light Rail Riders Number of Comments Percent of Total Good Service % % Good Drivers % 3 0.3% Good Schedules 7 0.1% 5 0.5% Good Bus Condition 9 0.1% 3 0.3% Poor Service % % Poor Drivers % % Late Buses % % Poor Bus Condition % % Need More Overall Service 1, % % Earlier Service % % More Night Service % % More Weekend Service % % Fares Too High % 1 0.1% Need Additional Passes 9 0.1% 2 0.2% Improve Timetables % % Change Machines 2 0% 4 0.4% Fix Ticket Machines 3 0% % More Security % % More Bike Areas % % Other 1, % % Total 6, % % As Figure 24 illustrates, most of the comments received (39.3 percent from bus and 22.2 percent from light rail passengers) relate to the need for more transit service. While comments regarding the need for more overall service comprised the largest proportion of service need responses, some passengers provided more specific responses regarding the time of day which they would like to see additional service provided. The responses of both bus and light rail riders show that the highest proportion commented on the need for more nighttime service, with the second and third highest being the need for more weekend service and the need for earlier service, respectively. More than 11 percent of bus riders and close to 10 percent of light rail passenger comments were positive. These were coded into the four categories of comments beginning with the word good. A higher percentage, close to 19 percent for bus passengers and 15.7 percent for light rail riders, were mainly complaints. These comments were coded into the four categories relating to poor 15

20 service conditions. In general, survey respondents are more likely to make comments about negative situations than they are about positive ones. Viewing the number of both positive and negative comments in this light, the number of positive comments received is more than would normally be expected. This does, however, match the favorable results received from the question asking passengers to rate the overall transit system. 16

21 Chapter 3: Individual Question Responses This chapter profiles the responses to each survey question. Each question contains a section for no responses if there were survey forms which did not answer the question. Transit Access and Trip Purpose Number of Expanded Surveys Percent of Valid Responses Trip Origin Home 42, % Work 20, % School 8, % Medical 3, % Shopping 3, % Recreation/Visit 2, % Other 4, % Mode to Transit Trip Transferred from Bus 17, % Transferred from LRT 7, % Walked 52, % Bicycled % Drove Alone 4, % Carpooled % Dropped Off 2, % Other % Skateboard/Rollerblade 8 0.0% Reported Walking Time to Transit One Minute or Less 6, % 2-3 Minutes 12, % 4-6 Minutes 18, % Seven Minutes or More 12, % No Response 34,729 n/a 17

22 Number of Expanded Surveys Percent of Valid Responses Trip Destination Home 31, % Work 26, % School 9, % Medical 3, % Shopping 4, % Recreation/Visit 4, % Other 5, % Mode to Next Destination Transferred from Bus 18, % Transferred from LRT 6, % Walked 51, Bicycled % Drove Alone 3, % Carpooled % Picked Up % Other 2, % Skateboard/Rollerblade % Reported Walking Time Away from Transit One Minute or Less 8, % 2-3 Minutes 15, % 4-6 Minutes 16, % Seven Minutes or More 11, % No Response 33,351 n/a Computed Trip Types of Passengers Home to Work 38, % Home to Shop 4, % Home to School 14, % Home to Other 15, % Work to Other 6, % 18

23 Number of Expanded Surveys Percent of Valid Responses Number of Transfers Needed to Make the Complete Transit Trip No Transfers 40, % One Transfer 44, % Two Transfers % Three or More Transfers % Transit Passenger Characteristics Days a Week Passenger Used Transit Less than Once a Week 5, % One or Two days a Week 6, % Three to Four Days a Week 13, % Five Days a Week 36, % Six or Seven Days a Week 22, % No Response 1,520 n/a How Passengers Rate the Overall Transit System Excellent 11, % Good 40, % Fair 24, % Poor 6, % No Response 2,379 n/a Was There a Car Passengers Could Have Used Instead of Transit Yes 28, % No 54, % No Response 2,018 n/a 19

24 Gender of Passengers Number of Expanded Surveys Percent of Valid Responses Male 36, % Female 46, % No Response 1,867 n/a Age Group of Passengers Under 16 3, % 16 to18 8, % 19 to 24 11, % 25 to 44 30, % 45 to 64 17, % 65 or more 2, % No Response 9,992 n/a Household Size of Passengers One Person 14, % Two People 22, % Three People 16, % Four People 14, % Five or More People 14, % No Response 2,996 n/a Auto Ownership of Passenger Households No Cars 18, % One Car 26, % Two Cars 19, % Three Cars 6, % Four or More cars 3, % No Response 10,529 n/a 20

25 Ethnicity of Passengers Number of Expanded Surveys Percent of Valid Responses African American 20, % Asian 3, % Caucasian 39, % Hispanic/Latino 9, % Native American 2, % Other 6, % No Response 3,713 n/a Number of Expanded Surveys Percent of Valid Responses Annual Income Level of Passenger Households Under $10,000 14, % $10,000 to $19,999 14, % $20,000 to $34,999 15, % $35,000 to $49,999 12, % $50,000 or More 15, % No Response 12,292 n/a 21

26 Appendix A SURVEY FORMS

27 Appendix A SURVEY FORMS

28

29 Appendix B SURVEY METHODOLOGY The Sacramento Regional Transit District On-Board Transit Survey project was designed to obtain origin, destination, and demographic information for transit passengers by route and time of day. The sample size was stratified by route and time of day to assure adequate representation. To ensure an adequate sample for each route, routes with less than 400 daily riders were surveyed entirely. Regional Transit's 30 routes with over 400 riders were sampled to represent all areas and daytime configurations. Survey Implementation A team of 12 part-time temporary employees were hired by SACOG in March Their job was to distribute and collect survey forms on-board buses and light rail cars throughout the RT service area. These transit surveyors received three days of training at the SACOG offices and on-board the RT buses. All transit surveyors collected the data by full bus and light rail trips. In most cases, the surveyors were assigned to driver blocks, a series of bus trips with a driver on-board single vehicle. This made surveying all trips on a given route much easier since the scheduling materials already existed. While on board the bus and light rail trips, surveyors distributed and collected survey forms among all passengers willing to participate. Passengers were asked to fill out a form each time they encountered a surveyor. Since this the survey is based on boarding passengers, it was important that each transit segment of a passenger's overall trip be sampled. Pre-paid return address envelopes were given to passengers not able to complete the survey on the transit vehicle. However, not all passengers were able to receive survey forms. On some trips, standing passengers or persons making short trips would not accept survey form and return envelope. Response Rate Response to the survey was good. Of the 23,800 passengers encountered on RT, over 67 percent returned a survey form. The percentage was identical to the response rate seen for the 1994 survey. A variety of reasons were given for refusing the survey. Some passengers did not speak or read English or Spanish. Other passengers were suspicious of the surveyors and refused to give any information about their transit trip. Some passengers simply refused to fill out the surveys for unknown reasons. While on-board the transit vehicles, surveyors tallied the number of refusals, people missed and children under 12 were tallied on a large manila envelope. These envelopes were used to track the survey forms by route, trip time and direction. Survey also collected the 16,200 returned survey form into these envelopes to be coded at a later time. Response rates on bus and light rail trips after 6:00 pm were much lower than expected. The survey design had originally identified routes and trips necessary to create a valid sample of RT service between 6:00 pm and 8:00 pm. However because of minimal response rates on bus B-1

30 routes, the survey dataset only includes service to 6:00 pm. Table 1 below shows that service before this time includes over 92% of RT s weekday ridership. A separate summary of RT light rail ridership between 6:00 pm and 8:00 pm will be forwarded to RT planning staff. Table 1 Time Period 1999 Section 15 Counts Percent of Total Riders Bus Rail Before 9:00 am 16,106 8, % 30.3% 9:00 am - 3:30 pm 31,163 11, % 40.3% 3:30 pm - 6:00 pm 13,759 6, % 22.5% After 6:00 PM 5,256 2, % 6.8% Total Riders 66,284 29,347 Coding the Survey SACOG hired and trained six temporary employees to code the returned survey forms. The coders identified the addresses for each trip's origin and destination and located the boarding and alighting bus-stops. Each of these locations was then verified using Thomas Brothers maps. In many cases, the route a passenger transferred from or to was left blank. To fill in this missing information, coders found the most likely method for making the full trip from origin to destination. Only completed surveys are included in the dataset described in this report. In 1999, just over 51 percent of the collected surveys were complete and useable. This compares to over 66 percent of the forms which were useable in the 1994 survey. Reasons for the significant drop in the quality of the survey responses are not clear. Anecdotal reports from the field surveyors suggest that there were more passengers with limited literacy skills than were seen in previous surveys. Survey Expansion The survey forms with complete information were expanded to represent the average weekday boardings for each transit route. The expansion accounts for passengers who refused to take a survey form, passengers who did not complete their survey form or passengers who were missed. The expansion applies the characteristics of the sampled percentage of passengers to the daily ridership as a whole. It is a common practice to expand surveys so that the full survey dataset will represent the entire weekday transit ridership. The expansion applied the boardings by time of day, and geographic area to the usable number of survey forms collected and coded for each transit route. Three periods were used to describe the time of day ; the a.m. travel period from 5 a.m. to 9 a.m., the midday travel period from 9 a.m. to 3:30 p.m., and the p.m. travel period from 3:30 p.m. to 6 p.m.. These time periods were chosen because each has different travel characteristics. The geographic areas were used so that long transit routes would not be unbalanced by any one geographic area when they were expanded. B-2

31 Survey Database Analysis of the survey database will provide SACOG with detailed information on transit ridership for the SACMET Regional Travel Demand Model. The database will also provide valuable community level data to both SACOG and the staff of RT. B-3