WWW.NWRG.COM Idaho Transportation Department Traveler Opinion & Perception (TOP) Survey Part 1: Idaho Data Final Draft Submitted April 2005 SUBMITTED BY: CONTACT: Rebecca Elmore-Yalch President / CEO 225 North 9 th Street, Suite 200 Boise, Idaho 83702 P. (208) 364-0171 F. (208) 364-0181 byalch@nwrg.com
Executive Summary Background / Overview In 1992, Federal, State and Highway industry representatives collaborated to create a National Policy on the Quality of Highways. The focus of this policy is to enable the United States to maintain a leadership role in delivering a quality highway system by providing a durable, smooth, safe, aesthetically pleasing, environmentally sensitive, efficient, and economical highway system. Over the years, the transportation community has committed to achieving new levels of quality in the construction and maintenance of the transportation system. The voice of the customer is essential to provide the direction for any serious and concerted quality effort. Increasingly, surveys of the end transportation users are being used to build a better understanding of transportation system performance from the perspective of the user. In 1995, with funding provided by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the National Quality Initiative (NQI) - now the National Partnership for Highway Quality (NPHQ) - conducted the National Highway User Survey to determine the general public s satisfaction with the nation s highway system and to identify the public s priorities for system improvements. This study was followed by three surveys conducted in 2000, each with an emphasis on distinct areas of interest: operations and planning, infrastructure, and federal lands. FHWA contracted with Northwest Research Group, Inc. to conduct the 2004 Traveler Opinion and Perception (TOP) Survey. This survey was developed as a nationwide study, sampling nearly 2,600 travelers, with the overarching objective of understanding the needs and expectations of users of the nation s comprehensive transportation system and the extent to which the existing transportation system meets those needs. Results from the research will be utilized to identify possible areas where improvements can be made to increase traveler satisfaction. While the FHWA TOP Survey was nationwide in nature, individual states could participate by conducting their own state-specific TOP survey. These additional samples provide greater analytical power for both intra-state analysis and comparisons to national data. The Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) elected to participate in this research to provide inputs for internal statewide planning and development. The state-specific surveys included core questions from the national TOP Survey, as well as custom questions directed at issues specific to the participating state. Idaho s main areas of research interest were: transportation funding, perceived benefits of an effective transportation system and the extent to which Idaho delivers these benefits, perceptions of roadway safety and traveler information, use of and attitudes toward the Department of Motor Vehicle s web site, consideration of lifestyle changes because of transportation issues, and support for different options to deal with growth. The survey was administered to a statistically valid and representative sampling of more than 600 users of Idaho s transportation system. For the purposes of this survey, a transportation system user is defined as a randomly selected individual in an Idaho household, age 18 years of age and older, who has at least some recent experience traveling on the nation s transportation system. The transportation system includes roads, public transportation, bikeways, walkways, and sidewalks a much broader definition than in the past when the system was focused primarily on roadways and highways. The sample was stratified by transportation district and an approximately equal number of interviews (n = 100) were conducted in each district. Page i
Key Findings On the Road Virtually everyone in Idaho uses a car, truck, or motorcycle to get around on a nearly daily basis. On average (as measured by the median) Idahoans drive 12,596 miles per year. This is about 7 percent less than the national average of 13,500 miles driven annually from National Personal Travel Survey conducted by USDOT and FHWA in 1995. Nearly three out of five (59%) Idaho residents commute to work; generally following the traditional commute pattern of five days per week. In addition, 11 percent commute to school. In total, nearly two-thirds (64%) of Idaho residents (18 and older) commute to work and/or school. Nearly all Idahoans have access to a car which they use on a nearly daily basis. Percent Used Mode in Past 12 Months Frequency* of Using Mode Personal Vehicle 98% 6.0 Walked 49 3.0 Ridden a Bicycle 37 1.3 Used Public Transportation 5 0.9 * Frequency of mode use is reported in days per week and includes only those persons who took a trip for this purpose in the past week. Idaho travelers are generally satisfied with their ability to travel around their region regardless of trip type. The majority of Idahoans are satisfied with their ability to travel within their region. 100% Mean = 3.96 Mean = 4.01 Fewer than one out of five Idaho travelers are dissatisfied with their local travel. 80% 60% 45% 39% Very Satisfied 40% 20% 36% 45% 18% 15% Somewhat Satisfied Dissatisfied 0% Commute Trips Non-Commute Trips Neutral responses excluded from graph. Mean is based on 5-point scale where "1" means "very dissatisfied" and "5" means "very satisfied." Source: 1995 National Personal Travel Survey. This figure will be updated with figures from the 2004 FHWA Traveler Opinion and Perception Survey following public release of that information. Idaho / Federal Highway Administration Traveler Opinion and Perception Survey Submitted by Northwest Research Group, Inc. March 2005 Page ii
Nearly nine out of ten (86%) Idahoans have taken a trip of 50 miles or more outside their local region in the past year. On average, Idahoans who have traveled outside their local region have taken 10 trips. Nearly all (91%) of these trips are leisure trips. Nearly all (92%) travelers are satisfied with the roadways they use for the trips they take outside their local region. Mean Satisfaction * = 4.33 Neutral / Dissatisfied 8% Very Satisfied 52% Idaho travelers are also satisfied with their travel outside their local region. Somewhat Satisfied 40% * Mean based on 5-point scale where 5 means very satisfied and 1 means very dissatisfied. Focusing on Quality Idahoans have generally neutral to positive attitudes toward the transportation system in their region. More than half (52%) are satisfied; however, 39 percent have neutral opinions. Relatively few Idahoans are extremely satisfied (7%) or dissatisfied (9%). Mean * Satisfaction = 6.33 In the Middle (4-6) 39% Dissatisfied (0-3) 9% Extremely Satisfied (10) 7% Idahoans have generally neutral to positive attitudes toward Idaho s overall transportation system. Satisfied (7-9) 45% * Mean based on 11-point scale where 0 means not at all satisfied and 10 means extremely satisfied. Page iii
Idahoans have mixed views as to whether they are getting value for the tax dollars spent to build or maintain the transportation infrastructure in the region where they live. Nearly two out of five (38%) Idahoans agree that they are getting value; however, 45 percent hold a neutral opinion. At the extreme ends, the percent that strongly agree and strongly disagree are nearly equal. While all aspects of a quality transportation system are important, by far, highway / roadway safety is the most important system characteristic. Other important system characteristics include: bridge conditions, pedestrian mobility and safety, planning for future transportation needs, pavement conditions, and efforts to reduce traffic flow. Note that Idaho travelers clearly distinguish between efforts to improve traffic flow and those to reduce traffic congestion rating improving traffic flow significantly more important than reducing delays resulting from traffic congestion. Idaho receives an overall C plus (C+) grade (2.48 on a 4.0-point grade scale) for its transportation system. Grades are relatively consistent across all of the major program characteristics ranging from a C plus (C+) the lowest grade given for pavement conditions and planning for transportation needs to a B minus (B-) the highest grade given for bridge conditions. Grades are relatively consistent across the different transportation districts ranging from 2.38 (a C plus) in District 1 (Benewah, Bonner, Boundary, Kootenai, Shoshone) to 2.63 (a B minus) in District 6 (Bonneville, Butte, Clark, Custer, Fremont, Jefferson, Lemhi, Madison, Teton). This would suggest that on the whole Idaho is delivering the same level of quality statewide. However, residents of Idaho s most urbanized and high-growth districts Districts 1 and 3 give the state lower-than-average grades. Potential problem areas in District 1 include: bridge conditions and safety. In District 3, potential problems areas are traffic flow and congestion related issues and planning for future transportation needs. Allocating Resources for Improvement Target improvement opportunities are identified by classifying the perceived importance of different elements of service and the ratings for quality into four quadrants that provide indicators of potential problems and opportunities. They can be used to set priorities for areas that may require attention: Performance High Low Low Priority 4: Limit Efforts / May be Over-resourced Priority 3: Potential Weaknesses: Improve if Resources are Available Importance High Priority 1: Strengths: Maintain Resources / Leverage Priority 2: Critical Weaknesses: Target Improvement Efforts Here Idaho / Federal Highway Administration Traveler Opinion and Perception Survey Submitted by Northwest Research Group, Inc. March 2005 Page iv
1 0-1 0 1-1 A diagonal line is drawn through the quadrant from low importance / low performance to high importance / high performance. This line represents the ideal match between traveler requirements and system performance. The further the distance from a point to this line suggests the greater the mismatch between traveler requirements and system performance. ~ Strengths: Idaho should capitalize on the strengths of the transportation system it currently provides its residents by maintaining current service levels and using these strengths to leverage support for other improvement areas. Strengths include: Bridge conditions and management of work zones represent key system strengths that appear to be delivering quality that is nearly in line with traveler requirements. Highway safety is also a strength. However, there is considerable distance between system delivery (performance) and traveler expectations. Continued efforts should be targeted at improving highway safety. ~ Critical Weaknesses: Idaho should target resources toward improvements in: Pavement conditions. Planning for future transportation needs. Traffic flow. Pedestrian safety and mobility. Performance ratings for pedestrian safety and mobility are only slightly below average i.e., it is nearly in the strength quadrant. It is possible that relatively small investments in resources in this area could convert a weakness to a position of strength. POTENTIALLY OVER-RESOURCED Highest Performance Bridge conditions STRENGTHS Idaho s greatest strengths are the condition of its bridges and management of work zones. Lower Importance Visual appeal Traveler information Highway amenities Maintenance response times Reducing delays from congestion Bicycle safety & mobility Delays from road work POTENTIAL WEAKNESSES Management of work zones Improving traffic flow Lowest Performance Pavement conditions Overall safety Pedestrian safety & mobility Planning for transportation needs CRITICAL WEAKNESSES Programs to improve safety Highest Importance Critical weaknesses include pavement conditions, planning for future transportation needs, improving traffic flow, and pedestrian safety and mobility. Page v
1 0-1 0 1-1 Delivering a High-Value System Idahoans say that the key benefits a high-quality and effective transportation system can deliver to a community are: A good quality of life, The ability to travel safely, Mobility that is, the freedom to travel when and where people want and, Access to the things people need in their everyday lives. Idahoans believe that Idaho s current transportation system provides these four key benefits. Idaho may wish to focus its future efforts on increasing the value of the system by... Providing additional transportation options and choices, Minimizing traffic congestion, and Controlling the impact of vehicle emissions on air quality. The key benefits Idaho s transportation system provides its citizens include: DELIVERS VALUE Highest Performance DELIVERS HIGH VALUE Freedom to travel when and where they want Have freedom to travel when / where they want PRIMARY A safe transportation system A good quality of life Access to the things people need in everyday life. Lower Importance Control the impact of vehicle emissions on air quality Has strong economic growth and development Are not overly impacted by traffic congestion in daily travel Have easy access to things they need in everyday life SECONDARY Have ability to travel safely Have a good quality of life Highest Importance TERTIARY Has multiple transportation choices and options available POTENTIAL FUTURE PROBLEMS Lowest Performance CRITICAL AREAS Idaho / Federal Highway Administration Traveler Opinion and Perception Survey Submitted by Northwest Research Group, Inc. March 2005 Page vi
Maximizing Traveler Safety Consistent with the relatively high grade given to Idaho s efforts to improve roadway safety, travelers say they are generally satisfied with specific programs and services targeted at safety. However, travelers are more likely to suggest they are somewhat satisfied with some of the programs rather than very satisfied. Idahoans are most satisfied with the rumble strip program, designed to minimize roadway departures. As Idaho has one of the highest levels of accidents in the nation resulting from roadway departures, this program should be a continued focus. While still generally satisfied, Idaho travelers are least satisfied with the number and length of passing lanes and width of shoulders. Residents of Districts 1 and 2 express the greatest concern about the number and length of passing lanes and shoulder width. Proposed plans widening some of the major highways in these districts should have a positive impact on these concerns. Keeping Travelers Informed Idahoans are generally satisfied with the extent to which the state provides traveler information. Idaho travelers are most satisfied with the access to traffic reports through the media and on the Internet. While still generally satisfied, Idaho travelers are least satisfied with the availability of route planning information. Funding Transportation Improvements Support for different funding options varies widely. And not surprisingly, there is not strong support for any kind of funding. This is not unusual in surveys of this kind as people are generally resistant to say that they would support anything because they think it will increase what they currently pay. Idahoans are most likely to support what they are currently accustomed to use of vehicle registration fees. Idahoans are neutral to negative about using fuel taxes to fund transportation improvement and highway construction. This may in part be due to the increases in fuel costs in the past year and a fear on the part of travelers that fuel taxes would increase, adding an additional burden. According to 2001 State Data from NHTSA State Data, 68 percent of all highway fatalities in Idaho were attributable to roadway departure compared to 55 percent for the nation. http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/crash/crashstatistics/2001statedatefatalities.htm Page vii
Planning for the Future Idahoans are most likely to support building more roads. Idahoans also suggest they would be likely to support building and/or expanding public transportation. Idahoans are most likely to support transportation projects to provide additional capacity. Build More Roads Build / Expand Public Transportation Build / Expand Pedestrian Walkways Build / Expand Bike Lanes Extremely Likely (10) 14% 17% 18% 15% Likely (7-9) 49 36 37 31 Likely (Net 7-10) 63% 53% 55% 46% Neutral (Net 4-6) 30 33 30 31 Not Likely (Net 0-3) 8 14 15 22 Mean * 6.84 6.43 6.37 5.82 * Mean based on 11-point scale where 0 means not at all likely and 10 means extremely likely. When asked to allocated $100 across five different types of transportation projects, Idahoans would spend nearly one-third ($31.13) of the available $100 on road / highway improvements. They would provide equal funding to improving bridge conditions and additional public transportation spending nearly one-fifth ($19.63) of the available $100 on bridges and $17.77 on public transportation. Urban Idahoans are willing to take money from roads to fund additional public transportation services. Despite the high importance placed on pedestrian safety and mobility and the lower-than-average grade given to this system attribute, Idahoans would spend less $16.87 of the available $100 on sidewalks. This could suggest that other programs, besides sidewalks, are more important pedestrian projects that people would be willing to fund. Idahoans would spend nearly one-third of available dollars on road and highway projects. Bike Paths, $14.24 Roads, $31.13 Sidewalks, $16.87 Bridges, $19.88 Public Transportation $17.77 Allocation of $100. Idaho / Federal Highway Administration Traveler Opinion and Perception Survey Submitted by Northwest Research Group, Inc. March 2005 Page viii
Respondents were also asked to allocate $100 across five specific highway and roadway projects. Consistent with the importance they put on overall safety, Idahoans would allocate nearly one-third of the available dollars ($30.14) for roadway projects to improve roadway / highway safety. Specific safety projects travelers prefer include use of rumble strips to minimize roadway departure, more and longer passing lanes, and wider shoulders The remaining dollars are allocated across the remaining categories of projects, with nearly equal amounts being allocated to pavement smoothness and congestion. Idahoans would allocate the least amount of dollars to bridge conditions and would spend significantly less on bridge conditions than on any other program. Bridge Conditions, $19.63 Safety, $30.14 Consistent with the importance they put on safety, Idahoans would allocate nearly one-third of the available dollars for specific highway and roadway projects to improve safety. Congestion, $24.31 Pavement Smoothness, $25.92 Allocation of $100 across roadway projects. Idahoans show a clear preference for building transportation systems to accommodate people living spread out over increased density 85 percent supporting additional transportation compared to 14 percent preferring increased density. While more Idahoans would support than oppose enforcement of Idaho s seat belt law as a primary action 59 percent versus 41 percent, respectively a significant number (33%) would strongly oppose this change in the existing law. Page ix
Conclusions Based on the key findings, there are some critical areas that were perceived very well by the residents of Idaho. Idaho should continue to devote resources to maintaining current levels of quality in these areas. Moreover, Idaho can leverage these strengths to support other areas. Strengths include: Bridge conditions, Management of work zones, and However, there were also some critical areas that did not receive a satisfactory rating. Idaho should consider focusing on improving the following critical weaknesses to provide its residents with an efficient transportation system. Those critical areas include: Pavement conditions. Planning for future transportation needs. Improving traffic flow. Pedestrian safety and mobility. Highway safety is also a strength. However, there is considerable distance between system delivery (performance) and traveler expectations. Continued efforts should be targeted at improving highway safety. Idaho should continue to invest in rumble strips to further minimize fatality accidents resulting from roadway departures. More and/or longer passing lanes and wider shoulders were also identified as a priority for safety improvements, notably in Northern Idaho. Idahoans may be willing to support investments in transportation programs that enhance safety and mobility. Idahoans clearly recognize the need for planning for future transportation needs but express concern about increased funding and whether current funds are being used wisely. Messaging to support future transportation projects should focus on the qualities of a system that are important and that Idaho is currently delivering: safe travel, mobility, and access all of which contribute to a good quality of life. Investments may be required to deliver other key benefits sought that could be potential problem areas if growth continues: delays from congestion, air quality, and transportation choices. These considerations are most likely to become issues in Idaho s growing metro areas. Idahoans are most willing to support investments in additional roadway capacity and, in urban areas, public transportation services. However, effective messaging will be needed to overcome concerns about providing funding, particularly given the high cost of fuel and concerns about increased fuel taxes. Idaho / Federal Highway Administration Traveler Opinion and Perception Survey Submitted by Northwest Research Group, Inc. March 2005 Page x
Table of Contents Contents Executive Summary...i Background / Overview... i Key Findings...ii On the Road...ii Focusing on Quality...iii Allocating Resources for Improvement...iv Delivering a High-Value System...vi Maximizing Traveler Safety...vii Keeping Travelers Informed...vii Funding Transportation Improvements...vii Planning for the Future...viii Conclusions... x Table of Contents...xi Contents...xi List of Figures...xiii List of Tables...xiv I. Project Overview...1 Background & Objectives... 1 Methodology and Sampling... 2 Statistical Weighting... 4 Questionnaire Design... 5 Respondent Characteristics... 7 How to Use This Report... 9 Report Format... 9 Statistical Significance... 10 II. Key Findings from TOP Survey...11 General Travel Characteristics... 11 Modes of Transportation Used... 11 Extent of Travel... 12 Extent of Travel by Age and Gender Segments... 13 Extent of Travel by Other Key Segments... 14 Local / Regional Travel... 15 Types and Frequency of Local Travel... 15 Satisfaction with Local / Regional Travel...16 Satisfaction with Local / Regional Travel by District... 17 Satisfaction with Commute Travel by Mode of Travel to Work... 18 Long Distance / Extended Travel... 19 Page xi
Extent / Frequency of Long Distance / Extended Travel... 19 Trip Purpose... 20 Satisfaction with Roadways Used Outside Local Region... 21 Quality of Idaho s Transportation System... 22 Overall Satisfaction with Idaho s Transportation System...22 Overall... 22 By District... 23 Important Characteristics of an Effective and High-Quality Transportation System... 24 Quality of Idaho s Transportation System... 29 Overall System Quality... 29 Quality by District... 30 Quality by Other Key Segments... 32 Improvement Opportunities... 34 Value for Tax Dollar... 36 Differences by District... 38 Support for Future Transportation Projects... 39 III. Idaho s Key Issues...41 Consideration of Lifestyle Changes... 41 Benefits of Idaho s Transportation System... 42 Important Regional Characteristics... 42 Extent to Which Idaho s Transportation System Delivers Key Benefits... 43 Key Benefits of Idaho s Transportation System... 44 Effectiveness of Idaho s Transportation System in Serving Special Populations... 45 Need for Alternative Transportation Modes... 46 Other Service Quality Issues... 48 Roadway Safety... 48 Traveler Information... 50 Department of Motor Vehicle (DMV) Web Site... 51 Use of DMV Web Site... 51 Satisfaction... 52 Willingness to Use Internet to Perform Transactions... 53 Funding... 54 Support for Different Funding Options... 54 Allocation of Funding... 55 Preference for Increased Density or Transportation Systems to Accommodate Growth... 59 Support for Seat Belt Law Enforcement as a Primary Action... 61 Use of Idaho Airports... 63 IV. Appendix...64 Survey Questionnaire... 64 Sample Banner Pages... 82 ighway Administration Traveler Opinion and Perception Survey rthwest Research Group, Inc. March 2005 Page xii
List of Figures Figure 1: Idaho Transportation Districts... 3 Figure 2: Number of Miles Idahoans Drive Annually... 12 Figure 3: Satisfaction with Local / Regional Travel... 16 Figure 4: Extent & Frequency of Travel outside Region... 19 Figure 5: Purpose of Most Recent Long Distance / Extended Trips... 20 Figure 6: Satisfaction with Roadways Used Outside Local Region... 21 Figure 7: Overall Satisfaction with Idaho s Transportation System... 22 Figure 8: Improvement Opportunities... 35 Figure 9: Value for Tax Dollar... 36 Figure 10: Relationship between Overall Satisfaction with System and Extent to Which Travelers Feel They Are Getting Value for Tax Dollars... 37 Figure 11: Relationship between Extent to Which Travelers Feel They Are Getting Value for Tax Dollars and Support for Future Transportation Projects... 40 Figure 12: Key Benefits of Idaho s Transportation System... 44 Figure 13: Need for Alternative Transportation Modes... 46 Figure 14: Satisfaction with DMV Web Site... 52 Figure 15: Willingness to Use the Internet to Perform Transactions... 53 Figure 16: Allocation of Funds to Different Transportation Projects... 55 Figure 17: Allocation of Funds to Different Roadway Projects... 57 Figure 18: Preference for Increased Density or Transportation Systems to Accommodate Growth... 59 Figure 19: Support for Seat Belt Law Enforcement as a Primary Action... 61 Figure 20: Use of Idaho Airports... 63 Page xiii
List of Tables Table 1: Sampling Plan: Idaho Traveler Opinion & Perception Survey... 4 Table 2: Idaho Sample Plan: Weighting... 5 Table 3: Respondent Characteristics by District... 8 Table 4: Error Associated With Different Proportions at Different Sample Sizes at the 95% Confidence Level... 10 Table 5: Transportation Systems Used in Past 12 Months... 11 Table 6: Miles Driven Annually by Age and Gender... 13 Table 7: Extent of Travel by Income... 14 Table 8: Extent of Travel by Auto Availability... 14 Table 9: Extent of Travel by Use of Alternative Modes... 14 Table 10: Trips Taken on Idaho s Transportation System by Car or Other Vehicle... 15 Table 11: Satisfaction with Local / Regional Travel by District... 17 Table 12: Satisfaction with Commute Travel by Mode of Travel to Work... 18 Table 13: Overall Satisfaction with Region s Transportation System by District... 23 Table 14: Important Characteristics of an Effective / High-Quality Transportation System... 24 Table 15: Importance of Improving Traffic Flow and Planning by District... 25 Table 16: Importance of Consideration of Environment by District... 25 Table 17: Important System Characteristics by Gender... 25 Table 18: Importance of Roadway Safety by Age and Gender... 26 Table 19: Importance of Pedestrian Safety and Mobility by Pedestrian Behavior... 27 Table 20: Importance of Pedestrian Safety and Mobility by Age and Gender... 27 Table 21: Importance of Bicycle Safety and Mobility by Bicycle Use... 28 Table 22: Importance of Bicycle Safety & Mobility by Age and Gender... 28 Table 23: Quality of Idaho s Transportation System... 29 Table 24: Overall Quality by District... 30 Table 25: Quality of Key Elements of Idaho s Transportation System by District... 31 Table 26: Perceptions of Quality by Urban and Rural Idahoans... 32 Table 27: Perceptions of Quality by Commuters and Non-Commuters... 32 Table 28: Value for Tax Dollars by District... 38 Table 29: Support for Transportation Projects... 39 Table 30: Consideration of Lifestyle Changes Because of Transportation Issues... 41 ighway Administration Traveler Opinion and Perception Survey rthwest Research Group, Inc. March 2005 Page xiv
Table 31: Important Regional Characteristics... 42 Table 32: Extent to Which Idaho s Transportation System Delivers Key Benefits... 43 Table 33: Effectiveness of Idaho s Transportation System in Serving Special Populations... 45 Table 34: Need for Additional Transportation Options by District... 47 Table 35: Satisfaction with Roadway Safety... 48 Table 36: Satisfaction with Number / Length of Passing Lanes by District... 49 Table 37: Satisfaction with Shoulder Width by District... 49 Table 38: Satisfaction with Traveler Information... 50 Table 39: Use of DMV Web Site... 51 Table 40: Support for Different Funding Options... 54 Table 41: Allocation of Project Funds by District... 56 Table 42: Allocation of Roadway Project Funds by District... 58 Table 43: Preference for Increased Density or Transportation Systems to Accommodate Growth by Age and Gender 60 Table 44: Support for Seat Belt Law Enforcement as a Primary Action by Age and Gender... 62 Page xv
[Blank page inserted for pagination purposes.] ighway Administration Traveler Opinion and Perception Survey rthwest Research Group, Inc. March 2005 Page xvi
I. Project Overview Background & Objectives In 1992, Federal, State and Highway industry representatives collaborated to create a National Policy on the Quality of Highways. The focus of this policy is to enable the United States to maintain a leadership role in delivering a quality highway system by providing a durable, smooth, safe, aesthetically pleasing, environmentally sensitive, efficient, and economical highway system. (For more information, go to www.nqi.org/about_us.cfm.) Over the years, the transportation community has committed to achieving new levels of quality in the construction and maintenance of the transportation system. The voice of the customer is essential to provide the direction for any serious and concerted quality effort. Increasingly, surveys of the end transportation users are being used to build a better understanding of transportation system performance from the perspective of the user. In 1995, with funding provided by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the National Quality Initiative (NQI) - now the National Partnership for Highway Quality (NPHQ) - conducted the National Highway User Survey to determine the general public s satisfaction with the nation s highway system and to identify the public s priorities for system improvements. This study was followed by three surveys conducted in 2000, each with an emphasis on distinct areas of interest operations and planning, infrastructure, and federal lands. In 2004, the FHWA contracted with Northwest Research Group, Inc. to conduct the 2004 Traveler Opinion and Perception (TOP) Survey wherein the five program offices of the FHWA Infrastructure; Operations; Planning, Environment, and Realty; Safety; and Federal Lands partnered with FHWA Corporate Management to create one comprehensive study. This survey was developed as a nationwide study sampling nearly 2,600 travelers with the overarching objective of understanding the needs and expectations of users of the nation s comprehensive transportation system and the extent to which the existing transportation system meets those needs. Results from the research will be utilized to identify possible areas where improvements can be made to increase traveler satisfaction. This national survey instrument queried respondents on a variety of travel-related topics, such as: General travel patterns for local and long-distance / extended travel, The perceived benefits of an effective transportation system and the extent to which existing transportation delivers these benefits, The importance of key elements of an effective transportation system, The degree to which transportation issues are viewed as problems and the extent to which travelers support potential areas for improvement, Perceptions of, and satisfaction with general roadway safety, as well as satisfaction with specific safety-related activities / measures, Overall satisfaction with travel, and satisfaction with specific aspects of travel related to bicycle and pedestrian mobility / safety, highway infrastructure and operations, traffic flow and congestion, planning, environment, and federal lands, Overall evaluation of the transportation system and the extent to which travelers support new / additional programs and services, Interest in and attitudes toward the public involvement process, and Respondent demographic and socioeconomic characteristics. Page 1
While the FHWA TOP Survey was nationwide in nature, individual states had the opportunity to augment the data collected by conducting their own state-specific TOP survey. These additional samples provide greater analytical power for both intra-state analysis and comparisons to national data. The state-specific surveys include core questions from the national TOP, as well as custom questions directed at issues specific to the participating state. The Idaho Transportation Department elected to participate in this research for purposes of internal statewide planning and development. In particular Idaho s main areas of research interest were: Methodology and Sampling Transportation Funding Measuring public opinion on how transportation projects should be funded and willingness to support increased funding. Air Service Determining the public s general attitudes toward access to and ease of use of air service in Idaho, as well as impact of air service to quality of life. Lifestyle Changes Measuring the extent to which residents have considered changing or have changed their lifestyle to address transportation issues. Internet Use Measuring awareness of websites for performing errands in lieu of driving, determine interest in Internet usage as a way to reduce road trips. DMV Customer Service Determining public opinion of DMV s customer service performance. Seat Belts Assessing support for enforcement of existing seat belt law as a primary action. Data collection was conducted by telephone in November 2004 yielding a total of 636 completed interviews. Telephone data collection using random digit dial (RDD) sampling continues to be the best sampling and data collection methodology for conducting research that needs to be projected to the general population. Moreover, while response rates for surveys in general are down, response rates for telephone surveys, notably for public opinion and policy surveys such as the TOP Survey, continue to be higher than for other methods. The response rate for the Idaho TOP Survey based on 2004 AAPOR (American Association for Public Opinion Research) formulas was 34%. Only 14 percent of those reached refused to complete the survey. This is significantly lower than the average refusal rate of 41 percent for RDD telephone studies. Telephone surveys, notably those using computer-assisted telephone interviewing (CATI) technology, also continue to be the best methodology for completing long and complex surveys, particularly those using a large number of rating scales where it is important to randomize the order of delivery to minimize response order bias and ensuring more valid responses. Finally, professional interviewers probe for complete answers to all questions, limiting the number of unanswered questions and gaining in-depth information for openended questions. Note for all questions, respondents are given the option to provide a response of don t know or no opinion. Council for Marketing and Opinion Research (CMOR), 2003 Respondent Cooperation & Industry Image Study. Idaho / Federal Highway Administration Traveler Opinion and Perception Survey Submitted by Northwest Research Group, Inc. March 2005 Page 2
As stated, more than 600 users of Idaho s transportation system were surveyed. A transportation system user is defined as a randomly selected individual in an Idaho household, 18 years of age and older, who has at least some recent experience traveling on the state s transportation system. Individuals to be interviewed were selected using the most recent birthday method, the most common method for sampling within a household. For purposes of this research, the transportation system was defined for respondents to include roads, public transportation, bikeways, walkways, and sidewalks a much broader definition than in past surveys of this type where the definition of the transportation system focused primarily on roadways and highways. The sample was stratified by Idaho s six transportation districts and an approximately equal number (n =100) of interviews were completed in each district. This ensures that reliable analysis can be conducted at both the state and subregional (district, rural versus urban, etc.) level. Figure 1: Idaho Transportation Districts Page 3
A random sample, screened for disconnected numbers, was ordered proportionately by county within each transportation district from Survey Sampling International to obtain 100 completed interviews per region. The sample includes both listed and unlisted telephone numbers. Cell phone numbers are not included in the sampling frame. Table 1: Sampling Plan: Idaho Traveler Opinion & Perception Survey The Idaho TOP Survey is based on telephone interviews with a statewide sample of more than 600 adults, yielding a margin of about 4 percentage points. District # of Households % of Households Population 18 plus % of Population Unweighted n Precision 1 69,194 15% 130,928 14% 104 + or - 9.8% 2 39,439 8 77,680 8 106 + or - 9.8% 3 195,145 42 383,657 41 106 + or - 9.8% 4 58,853 13 114,778 12 105 + or - 9.8% 5 52,794 12 105,645 11 109 + or - 9.8% 6 54,220 12 112,235 12 106 + or - 9.8% Total 469,645 924,923 636 + or 3.9% Statistical Weighting The basic premise behind probability sampling is that each household has a known and non-zero probability of selection. In telephone surveys today, all households do not have an equal probability of selection. For example, households with multiple telephone lines have a higher probability of selection than do those with a single line. In addition, multiperson households have a greater probability of selection than do those with a single person as it is more likely that a person will be at home when calls are attempted. The first stage of weighting, therefore, adjusts for the probability of being selected resulting from: Phone numbers dialed and the universe of phones within the sampling frame. Multiple telephone lines in the household. Households without telephones. Number of adults in the household. In addition, post-stratification weighting was used to adjust the sample to match the target population estimates and adjust for non-response. Because disproportionate sampling was used to ensure minimum sample sizes within each district, post-stratification weights were developed using 2000 Census data to allow the sample to adequately represent the study area s population as a whole. The final weighting scheme also adjusted for any over- or under-sampling of gender and age categories. Two weight variables are added to the dataset that provide the same data estimates and level of precision when performing analysis. The first weight is expanded to represent the actual population counts that is the number of people, 18 and older who behave, think, in the specified way and the second is scaled to the sample size of 636. Idaho / Federal Highway Administration Traveler Opinion and Perception Survey Submitted by Northwest Research Group, Inc. March 2005 Page 4
Table 2: Idaho Sample Plan: Weighting District DEFINITION Disproportionate Sample Stratification 1 Benewah, Bonner, Boundary, Kootenai, Shoshone 2 Clearwater, Idaho, Latah, Lewis, Nez Perce 3 Ada, Adams, Boise, Canyon, Elmore, Gem, Owyhee, Payette, Valley, Washington 4 Blaine, Camas, Cassia, Gooding, Jerome, Lincoln, Minidoka, Twin Falls 5 Bannock, Bear Lake, Bingham, Caribou, Franklin, Oneida, Power 6 Bonneville, Butte, Clark, Custer, Fremont, Jefferson, Lemhi, Madison, Teton Proportionate Sample After Weighting to Population Counts Proportionate Sample After Weighting Scaled to Sample Size 104 130,928 90 106 77,680 53 106 383,657 264 105 114,778 79 109 105,645 73 106 112,235 77 TOTAL 636 924,923 636 The sample was weighted to reflect the sampling plan and to adjust for any over- or under-sampling of the different age and gender subgroups. Questionnaire Design Idaho s survey is based, in part, on the National FHWA Traveler Opinion & Perception Survey. This survey is based in part on previous surveys conducted by FHWA. In addition, a complete review of existing literature (e.g., surveys conducted by other states and agencies) was undertaken. Finally, focus group research was completed to ensure that all relevant system attributes were included and that the language used in the survey were terms used by travelers. One set of the focus groups were held in Boise, ID. Questions taken from the national survey identified as most applicable to all states were delineated as core questions. These core questions were then incorporated into every state-specific questionnaire. This allows states to compare their data with the national data and to key subgroups within the national data. For example, Idaho can compare its findings with states of comparable size, states within the West Census region and/or within the Mountain Census division. It is anticipated that the national data will be released during the 2 nd quarter of 2005; a follow-up report will follow that provides these key benchmark figures for comparison. The core questions address: Travel behavior Frequency of travel, modes used, trip purpose, etc.; Importance of key system attributes; Evaluations of key system attributes; Overall evaluations of system and likelihood of supporting future programs; and Respondent demographics. Page 5
In addition, states could include additional questions to address specific current issues. Idaho elected to include the following sets of questions drawn from the National TOP Survey. Extent to which Idaho s transportation system serves special populations, The perceived benefits of an effective transportation system and the extent to which existing transportation delivers these benefits, Roadway safety, and Traveler information. Finally, Idaho included custom questions designed specifically for the state. Senior members of Idaho s Transportation Department worked closely with the NWRG Project Team to develop these state-specific questions which addressed: Consideration of lifestyle changes because of transportation issues. Note this series of questions was included in the Idaho Transportation Department survey on Idaho s Transportation Future conducted in February 2003. Support for different options for funding transportation. Support for changing the seat belt law to make it a primary offense. Support for increased density versus expanding the transportation systems to accommodate growth. Use of Department of Motor Vehicle web site. The final survey averaged 24 minutes in length. A copy of the full survey questionnaire is included in the Appendix. Idaho / Federal Highway Administration Traveler Opinion and Perception Survey Submitted by Northwest Research Group, Inc. March 2005 Page 6
Respondent Characteristics In order to further analyze the data, several key demographic questions were asked of respondents. This information allows us to determine the representativeness of the final sample by comparing this information with current Census figures. Moreover, these questions provide additional opportunity for segmentation. Finally, these numbers give a clear demographic profile of travelers as defined for the survey. Age and gender distributions match the Census within each of Idaho s transportation districts based on the weighting process. The population of District 1 (Benewah, Bonner, Boundary, Kootenai, and Shoshone) has a higher-than-average segment of travelers between 50 and 64. As this segment further ages, this district may have some specific travel needs related to older drivers that may need to be addressed. The average household size is 3.2 persons, with the average number of adults per household (those 18 years of age and older) at 2.3 persons. This is higher than reported in the 2000 Census (2.7 persons) and may reflect a higher number of multiple-person households than in the general population. It is possible that single-person households are less likely to meet the screening criteria of having had to travel on the state s transportation system using some mode at least once in 2004. The vast majority (96%) of Idahoans has a valid driver s license. Younger respondents are somewhat less likely to have a valid driver s license 95 percent for those between 18 and 24 and 91 percent for those between 25 and 34. Most of those in the 25 to 34 age segment without a driver s license are men. Ninety-five percent (95%) of those 65 and older have a driver s license. Nearly all (98%) Idaho households have at least one working vehicle available. On average, Idaho households have 2.8 vehicles. This equates to 1.03 vehicles per household member or 1.3 vehicles per household member over the age of 18. Nearly half of all respondents (47%) are employed full-time and another 11 percent are employed part-time. Ten percent (10%) are students. The majority (64%) of respondents are commuters. Commuters are defined as those respondents who commute to work and/or school at least one day per week. Seventy-three percent (73%) of men are commuters. Nearly all (90%) men between the ages of 18 and 49 are commuters. Three out of five (61%) men between 50 and 64 also commute. Only 11 percent of men 65 and older continue to commute. Fifty-six percent (56%) of women commute. The largest segment of women who commute are between the ages of 35 and 49 67 percent of women in this age segment commute. Somewhat fewer women between 18 and 34 and between 50 and 64 commute 63 percent and 61 percent, respectively. Only 9 percent of women 65 and older commute. District 5 has the highest percentage (76%) of respondents who commute. Page 7
~ The median income of respondents is $45,503. As with household size, this is higher than reported in the 2000 Census ($35,572). Some of this difference may simply be growth in income since the Census data was reported. However, it is also likely that this reflects the definition of a traveler and that lower income persons may be less likely to meet this definition (i.e., have not traveled by any mode). Table 3: Respondent Characteristics by District The sample is representative of the population of travelers in Idaho as a whole and its six primary transportation districts. Age 18 34 35 49 50 64 65 and older Median District Total 1 2 3 4 5 6 28% 33 25 14 44.3 27% 23 37 13 48.9 34% 25 23 18 44.2 22% 43 22 13 44.0 30% 23 29 18 47.1 35% 32 21 12 41.5 37% 27 26 10 41.6 HH Size % Single Mean HH Size Mean Adults 6% 3.2 2.3 7% 2.8 2.2 6% 3.0 2.4 5% 3.2 2.3 11% 3.2 2.2 6% 3.3 2.1 6% 3.8 2.7 Accessibility % with License % Car Available Mean Vehicles 96% 98 2.8 93% 98 3.0 97% 99 2.8 97% 97 2.7 92% 99 2.9 98% 100 3.2 97% 100 2.8 Commute Status Commuter Noncommuter 64% 36 61% 39 68% 32 60% 40 64% 36 76% 24 66% 34 Employment Status Full-Time Part-Time Retired Student Homemaker Other 47% 11 14 10 8 10 46% 9 20 6 4 15 41% 9 13 13 10 14 47% 11 13 10 9 19 47% 12 18 10 8 5 58% 11 11 9 8 3 43% 12 10 14 11 10 Income < $30,000 $30K -- $50K $50K -- $75K > $75,000 Median 27% 29 20 24 $45,503 32% 30 18 21 $42,714 33% 26 21 19 $43,200 25% 26 18 32 $49,403 25% 35 21 19 $44,088 26% 34 19 20 $44,117 30% 31 26 13 $42,350 Idaho / Federal Highway Administration Traveler Opinion and Perception Survey Submitted by Northwest Research Group, Inc. March 2005 Page 8
How to Use This Report Report Format Extensive analysis of the data was completed. This report summarizes the major findings for each of the topics as a whole, and for key subgroups. The following notes describe the reporting conventions used in the report. The report is organized by major topic area. Tables and charts provide supporting data. Information about the overall results for each topic area is presented first, followed by relevant, statistically and practically significant differences between key subgroups. The probability level for determining statistical significance is <.05 (unless otherwise noted). When significant differences (assuming a 95 percent confidence level) were observed among important subgroups (e.g., geography, frequency of travel, commuter status, etc.), they are noted in the written text of the report and notated in the accompanying tables. In most charts and tables, unless otherwise noted, column percents are used. Percents are rounded to the nearest whole number. Note that some percentages in this report may add up to more or less than 100 percent because of rounding, the permissibility of multiple responses for specific questions, or the presentation of abbreviated data. Except where noted, tables and charts provide information from respondents who offered opinions to a question. Don t know and refusals are counted as missing values unless don t know is a valid or meaningful response. The no answer category is not included in the analysis generating the graphics. Complete documentation of the data analysis (in the form of banners) is kept separately. These banners are useful in providing easy-to-use documentation of the results of all questions broken out for important subgroups of the sample. The NWRG Project Team worked with the ITD Project Team to determine the best segments for this analysis. ITD elected to segment the data as follows: Transportation District: Six transportation districts defined by ITD. Urban versus Rural Counties: Defined by the percent of the county s population that live in what is considered urban (as specified by the Census). Counties with at least 50 percent of population in an urban area are considered urban and include: Ada, Bannock, Blaine, Bonneville, Canyon, Elmore, Gem, Kootenai, Latah, Madison, Nez Perce, Payette, Power, Twin Falls, and Washington. Travel Frequency: Based on miles driven annually. Commuter Status: Commuters defined as those who commute to work and/or school one or more days per week. Age. Gender. Income. One set of banners were run providing insight into how important subgroups responded to each question. A sample of the banner output is included in the Appendix. Page 9