South Florida Commuter Travel Survey Summary and Preliminary Results. Southeast Florida FSUTMS User Group Meeting June 1, 2012

Similar documents
Executive Summary. TUCSON TRANSIT ON BOARD ORIGIN AND DESTINATION SURVEY Conducted October City of Tucson Department of Transportation

SoundCast Design Intro

1999 On-Board Sacramento Regional Transit District Survey

STRAVA - DATA ACCESS AND USES. March 9, 2016 Shaun Davis + Dewayne Carver Florida Dept. of Transportation

Cobb Community Transit

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY... vii 1 STUDY OVERVIEW Study Scope Study Area Study Objectives

Investigating Commute Mode and Route Choice Variability in Jakarta using multi-day GPS Data

Market Factors and Demand Analysis. World Bank

Using SHRP 2 s NDS Video Data to Evaluate the Impact of Offset Left-Turn Lanes on Gap Acceptance Behavior Karin M. Bauer & Jessica M.

U.S. Bicycling Participation Study

BUILDING THE CASE FOR TRAVEL OPTIONS IN WASHING TON COUNTY. Image: Steve Morgan. Image: Steve Morgan

METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN OUTREACH: INTERACTIVE MAP SUMMARY REPORT- 10/03/14

VI. Market Factors and Deamnd Analysis

Eliminate on-street parking where it will allow for a dedicated bus only lane %

The specific activities consisted of:

A Comprehensive HCM 2010 Urban Streets Analysis Using HCS 2010 US 31W in Elizabethtown, KY

US 1 Express Lanes Public Kick-Off Meeting

Model Applications for Oakland Park Boulevard Transit Corridor Study

Baseline Survey of New Zealanders' Attitudes and Behaviours towards Cycling in Urban Settings

Rail Station Fact Sheet University of Dallas Station

BIKEPLUS Public Bike Share Users Survey Results 2017

Title: Modeling Crossing Behavior of Drivers and Pedestrians at Uncontrolled Intersections and Mid-block Crossings

JONESBORO HIGHWAY 63 HIGHWAY 18 CONNECTOR STUDY

Double Pair Comparisons PART III AGE & GENDER. Age and Crash Risk. Subject & control groups Relative risk or rate. Relative Accident Involvement Ratio

Clackamas County Comprehensive Plan

Project Report. South Kirkwood Road Traffic Study. Meadows Place, TX October 9, 2015

511 Public Information Materials for America s Cup Partners

Travel and Rider Characteristics for Metrobus

Key objectives of the survey were to gain a better understanding of:

City of Hamilton s Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Public Consultation 3 December 2015

2017 North Texas Regional Bicycle Opinion Survey

BETHEL ROAD AND SEDGWICK ROAD CORRIDOR STUDY

Typical Rush Hour Commute. PennyforTransportation.com

Community & Transportation Preferences Survey

WILMAPCO Public Opinion Survey Summary of Results

A Conceptual Approach for Using the UCF Driving Simulator as a Test Bed for High Risk Locations

Minnesota Toward Zero Deaths: It's more than just a slogan

CITY OF ABBOTSFORD TRANSPORTATION AND TRANSIT MASTER PLAN

US 41 COMPLETE STREETS CORRIDOR PLANNING STUDY from University Parkway to Whitfield Avenue

Chapter 13 ORANGE COVE

Rail Station Fact Sheet CentrePort/DFW Airport Station

VISION Long Range Plan Update Board Workshop. February 10, 2016

Pre-Plan Consultation Summary

2018 Transportation Survey October 17, Prepared by:

Purpose and Need. For the. Strava Bicycle Data Project

Bike/Multipurpose Trail Study for Glynn County, Georgia MAY 16, 2016

DKS & WASHINGTON COUNTY Washington County Transportation Survey

New in the MUTCD: The Flashing Yellow Arrow Presented at the 57 th Annual Traffic and Safety Conference May 17, 2006

Transportation 2040 Update: Eudora Public Input As of June 1, 2017

AAMPO Regional Transportation Attitude Survey

February 2018 HIGHWAY 316 IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT

The Who and What: Bus Rapid Transit Riders and Systems in the U.S.

How familiar are you with BRT?

Travel Survey November 2014

Rail Station Fact Sheet DFW Airport North Station* (*station under construction with anticipated start of service in late 2018)

Richmond, Adelaide and Simcoe Street Pilot Cycle Tracks. Special Report: Opinions of Property Representatives & Drivers

2014 Regional Bicycle and Pedestrian Study Evaluation Tools Leslie A. Meehan, AICP MPO Technical Coordinating Committee Meeting April 1, 2015

PASSENGER SURVEY RESULTS

STUDY ADVISORY COMMITTEE. October 8, 2015

Exhibit 1 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM

National Association of REALTORS National Smart Growth Frequencies

Bicycle Helmet Use Among Winnipeg Cyclists January 2012

Travel Demand Management. Travel Reduction Program Sun Rideshare Tucson On The Move

GIS Based Non-Motorized Transportation Planning APA Ohio Statewide Planning Conference. GIS Assisted Non-Motorized Transportation Planning

Transportation Master Plan Advisory Task Force

DOI /HORIZONS.B P23 UDC : (497.11) PEDESTRIAN CROSSING BEHAVIOUR AT UNSIGNALIZED CROSSINGS 1

Route User Intercept Survey Report

Traffic Safety Barriers to Walking and Bicycling Analysis of CA Add-On Responses to the 2009 NHTS

February Funded by NIEHS Grant #P50ES RAND Center for Population Health and Health Disparities

6.0 PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE FACILITIES 6.1 INTRODUCTION 6.2 BICYCLE DEMAND AND SUITABILITY Bicycle Demand

Merced County Association of Governments: Voter Survey

NO BUILD TRAFFIC OPERATIONS

Land Use and Transportation Town Hall September 17, 2018

Public Event 1 Community Workshops

Utilizing QR Codes and SurveyMonkey to Generate High School Travel Tally Data

GIS Based Data Collection / Network Planning On a City Scale. Healthy Communities Active Transportation Workshop, Cleveland, Ohio May 10, 2011

Corridor Advisory Group and Task Force Meeting #10. July 27, 2011

Online Open House Survey Report. December 2016

Community & Transportation Preferences Survey U.S. Metro Areas, 2015 July 23, 2015

395 Express Lanes Extension

City of Palo Alto Transportation Division Update

Encouragement. Chapter 4. Education Encouragement Enforcement Engineering & Facilities Evaluation & Planning. Encouragement Chapter 4

City of Cape Coral Traffic Calming. City Council May 16,

2011 Countywide Attitudinal and Awareness Survey Results

Satisfaction with getting to work 56% 15% 6% 6% Total distance travelled. miles per week

The City of Newark Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety

Satisfaction with getting to work 54% 14% 6% 5% Total distance travelled. miles per week

Balboa Area Transportation Demand Management

I-25 PEL: CO Springs Denver South Connection. Presentation to Castle Rock Town Council

Detroiters need to be able to conveniently and reliably get to work, school, church, stores, and parks.

Citizen Advisory Group Meeting #8 May 5, Welcome. Today s meeting will focus on: Land Use & Transportation CHARLOTTEPLANNING.

June 3, Attention: David Hogan City of San Mateo 330 W. 2oth Avenue San Mateo, CA 94403

Gold Team: Tempe Transportation. Group Members: Melissa Dobroski, Skylie Dosier, Jake Damle, Joseph Dean

Application of Demographic Analysis to Pedestrian Safety. Center for Urban Transportation Research University of South Florida

Tracking Bicyclists' Route Choices, Case Study: The Ohio State University

Look Up! Positioning-based Pedestrian Risk Awareness. Shubham Jain

Data Analysis February to March Identified safety needs from reported collisions and existing travel patterns.

KING STREET TRANSIT PILOT

MCTC 2018 RTP SCS and Madera County RIFP Multi-Modal Project Eval Criteria GV13.xlsx

LOOP 360 IMPROVEMENT STUDY

Transcription:

South Florida Commuter Travel Survey Summary and Preliminary Results Southeast Florida FSUTMS User Group Meeting June 1, 2012

Agenda Introduction Survey Design Survey Implementation Preliminary Findings Summary 2

Introduction Both Regional and Microsimulation Models Make Assumptions about People s Route Choice: Regional model shortest path Microsimulation vehicle interactions (gap, car following) Based on Theories without Empirical Evidence Need to Understand People s Route Choice Behavior and Identify Factors Influencing People s Choices Help Improve Travel Forecasting Models Intended dto be a Pilot Study: Test survey instruments Collect empirical evidence 3

Survey Design On line Survey with Google Map Volunteers with Smartphones to Track the Actual Route Information Actual Travel Time Route Variation 4

http://sfsurvey.myworktrip.net 5

Using Google Map to Select the Route 6

Using Smartphones Solicit Volunteers and Install Free APP (GPS Tracker) Work Trip in the Morning Only Data Collection for Five (5) Weekdays Confidentiality Guaranteed Can Terminate Any Time 7

Survey Implementation From Feb 17, 2012 to March 22, 2012 Email Invitations Employment centers Professional organizations Local social and cultural organizations Social Media Survey Announcement Cards Residential communities Shopping centers Office buildings Dedicated Email Account for Communications 8

Route Comparison Tool 9

Example of Same Route 10

Example of Different Route 11

Preliminary Findings 12

1 & 2. Responds Home & Work Addresses Home Work 13

3. Stated Routes vs. Google Default Routes 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% Different 37.8% Same 62.2% 14

5. Reported vs. Google Default Travel Time 130 120 110 100 tes Reported Travel Time, minu 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Google Default Time, minutes 15

6.How Often Do You Use This Route? 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% Every Weekday 62.6% Almost Every Workday 16.2% Often. Use Alternate Route 13.1% Sometimes. Routinely Use Alt. 3.8% Rarely. Make Mk Regular Int. Stops 35% 3.5% Refused 0.8% 16

7a.Travel time the route takes to work? 17

7b. Distance of the route? 18

7c. Amount of tolls to pay? 19

7d. Reliability of travel time? 20

7e. Number of traffic lights? 21

7f. Number of left turns? 22

7g. Real time road condition info? 23

7h. Presence of School zones? 24

7i. Safety of the neighborhood? 25

7j. Road construction? 26

7k. Scenic view of the road? 27

7l. Familiarity with the route? 28

7. Scores for Influencing Factors Physical Conditions 0 2 4 6 8 10 Travel time the route takes to work 928 9.28 Distance of the route 7.47 Amount of tolls to pay 6.18 Number of traffic lights 7.00 Number of left turns 4.59 Presence of School zones 6.75 Traffic Conditions Reliability of travel time 8.88 Availability of real time road condition information 5.77 Road construction 7.10 Other Conditions Safety of the neighborhood to go through 6.17 Scenic view of the road 3.81 Familiarity with the route 6.70 29

8. Other Factors Sample Comments Avoids traveling west to I 95 all other routes are typically just as congested i I prefer to ride my bike. I do not like question 6 Please note that I am a full time telecommuter. Other drivers using the roadway/safety More roadway Safety, less truck volumes, less tran i sometimes stop at the sheridan train station and finish the construction on I595 ASAP Avoid railroad crossings 30 The most important thing for me in choosing a rout Direct route connection. Amount of traffic most efficient, less traffic route Congestion quickest route have to factor in traffic lights, Avoid 1 95

9. Survey Respondents Gender Distribution 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% Female 42.9% Male 53.5% Refused 3.5% 31

10. Respondents Age Distribution 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 29 or Younger 8.8% 30 54 Years Old 69.4% 55 or Older 20.7% Refused 1.0% 32

11.Respondents Income Distribution 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% Lower than $25,000 2.0% $25,001 $40,000000 93% 9.3% $40,001 $ 75,000 26.8% More than $75,001 59.8% Refused 2.0% 33

12. Smartphone Use 0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00% 30.00% 35.00% 40.00% No SmartPhone 21.21% iphone 36.87% Android 24.49% BlackBerry 13.13% Other 4.04% (blank) 0.25% 34

13. Use Cell Phone for Survey? 0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% 70.00% No 57.58% Yes 20.45% (blank) 21.97% 35

GPS Route vs. Google Route Sample 1 Google Survey Route 36

GPS Route vs. Google Route Sample 1 GPS Route 37

GPS Route vs. Google Route Sample 2 Google Survey Route 38

GPS Route vs. Google Route Sample 2 GPS Route 39

Cell Phone GPS Data Very Small Sample Often Different from Google Default or Stated Routes Sometimes Missing Data Points Speed Data Inconsistent GPS Data Not Used for Analysis 40

Scores for Influencing Factors by Gender 0 2 4 6 8 10 Physical Conditions Travel time the route takes to work Distance of the route Amount of tolls to pay Number of traffic lights Number of left turns Presence of School zones Traffic Conditions Reliability of travel time Availability of real time road condition information Road construction Other Conditions Safety of the neighborhood to go through Scenic view of the road Familiarity with the route Total Male Female 6.18 6.22 6.12 4.59 4.76 4.38 5.77 5.70 5.86 7.47 7.19 7.84 7.00 7.03 695 6.95 6.75 6.65 6.88 7.10 7.06 7.05 6.17 5.99 6.39 3.81 3.72 3.88 6.70 6.48 7.03 9.28 916 9.16 9.43 8.88 8.90 8.73 41

Model Route SERPM 652l 2005 AM Loaded Network Cube Path Building AM Congested Travel Time as Cost Variable 42

Example 1: Zone 873 Zone 210 Google Default and Reported SERPM 2005 AM Loaded Network Source Google Default Surveyor Reported Model Congested Travel Time (minutes) 12 15 10.36 43

Example 2: Zone 3984 Zone 3440 Google Default and Reported SERPM 2005 AM Loaded Network Source Google Default Surveyor Reported Model Congested Travel Time (minutes) 27 45 39.47 44

Example 3: Zone 2049 Zone 3228 Google Default and Reported SERPM 2005 AM Loaded Network Source Google Default Surveyor Reported Model Congested Travel Time (minutes) 38 45 35.65 45

Example 4: Zone1999 Zone1766 Google Default and Reported SERPM 2005 AM Loaded Network Source Google Default Surveyor Reported Model Congested Travel Time (minutes) 25 30 24.33 46

Example 4 Influencing Factors (175) 0 2 4 6 8 10 Physical Conditions Group Individual Travel ltime the route tk takes to work Distance of the route Amount of tolls to pay Number of traffic lights Number of left turns Presence of School zones 4.6 6.0 6.2 5.8 60 6.0 6.0 6.8 7.0 8.0 7.5 8.0 93 9.3 Traffic Conditions Reliability of travel time Availability of real time road condition information Road construction 6.0 6.2 7.0 7.0 8.0 8.9 Other Conditions Safety of the neighborhood to go through Scenic view of the road Familiarity with the route 3.8 6.0 7.1 6.7 8.0 80 8.0 47

Example 5: Zone 3901 Zone 3261 Google Default and Reported SERPM 2005 AM Loaded Network Source Google Default Surveyor Reported Model Congested Travel Time (minutes) 25 60 34.49 48

Example 5 Influencing Factors (272) 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Physical Conditions Group Individual Travel time the route takes to work Distance of the route Amount of tolls to pay Number of traffic lights Number of left turns Presence of School zones 2.0 2.0 4.6 5.0 6.2 5.8 6.8 7.5 8.0 9.3 9.0 9.0 Traffic Conditions Reliability of travel time Availability of real time road condition information Road construction 6.2 6.0 7.0 8.0 89 8.9 10.0 Other Conditions Safety of the neighborhood to go through Scenic view of the road Familiarity with the route 2.0 3.8 6.0 7.1 6.7 7.0 49

Preliminary Findings Many Factors other than Time and Distance Influence People s Route Choice Decisions Reported Travel Times are in Five (5) Minutes Increment and Usually Longer Than Actual Travel Times Over 60% of Commuters Use the Same Routes Modeled Paths Could be Different from Actual Paths, thought More Analyses are Needed. 50

Summary Google Map Effective for the Survey More Tests Needed Due To Varying OS and Browsers Reached Target Sample Email Links More Effective than Announcement Cards Clear Description of the Purpose of the Survey More Encouragement/Incentives Needed for Using Personal Smartphones for the Survey 51