1. presented to MTF Transit Committee presented by David Schmitt, AICP November 20, 2008 FSUTMS Transit Survey Applied Research

2. 1 Purpose & Motivations Assemble information from 14 recently conducted surveys to: Develop general rider characteristics Compare observed paths with model parameters Develop tabulations that can be used by agencies that do not have available survey data Surveys conducted 2002-2007 12 – bus systems 1 – Metrorail 1 – Tri-Rail

3. 2 Survey Database AgencyCity or CountyYear Conducted Systemwide or Partial Jacksonville Transportation Authority (JTA)Jacksonville2006Systemwide VotranVolusia2002Systemwide Central Florida Regional Transportation Authority (Lynx) Orlando (Seminole, Volusia, Orange & Osceola Counties) 2005Systemwide SpaceCoast Area TransitBrevard2004Systemwide The Hernando Express (THE Bus)Hernando2005Systemwide Pasco County Public Transportation (PCPT)Pasco2005Systemwide Hillsborough Area Regional Transit Authority (HART) Hillsborough2004Systemwide Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority (PSTA)Pinellas2005Systemwide Broward County Transit (BCT) – CBD Survey Broward2006Partial Broward County Transit (BCT) – East-West Survey Broward2007Partial Broward County Transit (BCT) – County Line Survey Broward2005Partial Miami-Dade Transit Authority (MDT) – Metrobus Survey Miami-Dade2004Systemwide Miami-Dade Transit Authority (MDT) – Metrorail Survey Miami-Dade2004Systemwide South Florida Regional Transit Authority (SFRTA) – Tri-Rail Survey SE Florida2007Systemwide

4. 3 General Rider Characteristics For what purposes do riders use transit? (Trip purpose) How do they access transit? (Access mode) What is the composition of riders? (Market segment) When do they use transit? (Time of day) How do they use the system? (Number of transfers)

5. 4 Trip Purpose by Transit Mode ModeHBWHBNWNHB Bus40%37%23% Metrorail47%31%23% Tri-Rail53%33%14%

6. 5 Access Mode by Transit Mode ModeWalkPNRKNR Bus91%3%6% Metrorail53%33%15% Tri-Rail13%42%45%

7. 6 Market Segment by Transit Mode ModeZero CarOne CarTwo+ Car Bus51%27%22% Metrorail26%31%43% Tri-Rail8%29%63%

8. 7 Time of Day by Transit Mode ModePeakOff-peak Bus46%54% Metrorail46%54% Tri-Rail76%24%

9. 8 Number of Transfers for Bus Systems Mode ZeroOneTwoThree+ Bus69%24%6%1%

10. 9 General Rider Characteristics – Summary Bus system riders: Are evenly divided between zero-car and car-owning households Access transit by walking Use the bus system for all types of trips Make their transit trips throughout the day Metrorail riders: Are evenly divided among auto ownership categories Use transit more for work trips than other types of trips Use both walk and auto to access transit Use Metrorail throughout the day Tri-Rail riders: Mostly from households owning two or more cars Use the commuter rail dominantly in the peak periods and for work trips Access Tri-Rail by car

11. 10 Verifying Pathbuilding Parameters & Assumptions Walk-Access related assumptions Transit riders will not walk more than a ½ mile to access all types of transit Transit riders will not walk to transit much further beyond their zone Auto-Access related assumptions Transit riders will drive no more than 5 miles to access buses and 8 miles for rail systems The auto portions of drop-off and park-ride trips have identical maximum distances Bus riders are dropped off at park-ride locations or major transit stations Rail riders are dropped off at stations that do not have parking Park-ride catchment areas are not circular, but somewhat egg-shaped and oriented towards the CBD End-of-line rail stations have larger catchment areas than in-line stations Egress mode assumption The only egress mode is walking, regardless of the access mode

12. Walk-Access related assumptions Transit riders will not walk more than a ½ mile to access all types of transit Transit riders will not walk to transit much further beyond their zone 11

13. Initial Walk-access Results Initial results showed: A high proportion of riders walking more than a ½ mile to transit Riders walking extremely long distances to transit (>5 miles) Extensive manual review of survey records found a number of reporting and geocoding issues, including: Common geocoding issues like “began trip at ‘Dadeland’ station” Obvious “wrong” route patterns due to misinterpreted survey questions or improperly worded questions Respondents walking along bus path before boarding, or walking in opposite direction Coarse origin and/or boarding address information Using airline distance tended to underestimate actual walk distance 12

14. Initial Walk-access Results (2) Our conclusion: Determining exact walk distance is difficult unless a thorough, manual review of survey records verifies route pattern and address information Thorough review not possible for this effort, but records with known problems were eliminated from master dataset 13

15. Walk Access Distance About 60% of the passengers walk less than ½ mile to access transit About 80% of the passengers walk less than a mile to access transit Walk Access CDFs give the percentile of passengers walking less than a given distance to access transit

16. Final Walk-access Results (Bus) 15 About 70% walk less than ½ mile About 65% walk less than ½ mile About 55% walk less than ½ mile About 60% walk less than ½ mile

17. Final Walk-access Results (Rail) 16 About 75% walk less than ½ mile About 55% walk less than ½ mile

18. Walk-access Findings The quality of the addresses plays a significant role in determining the amount of walking distance to transit Future surveys with better quality address information would be desirable before making a decisive conclusion Transit riders tend not to walk more than a ½ mile to access all types of transit Transit riders tend not to walk much further beyond their zone (if the average zone size is considered to be around one square mile) 17

19. Auto-Access related assumptions Transit riders will drive no more than 5 miles to access buses and 8 miles for rail systems The auto portions of drop-off and park-ride trips have identical maximum distances Bus riders are dropped off at park-ride locations or major transit stations Rail riders are dropped off at stations that do not have parking Park-ride catchment areas are not circular, but somewhat egg-shaped and oriented towards the CBD End-of-line rail stations have larger catchment areas than in- line stations

20. Auto-access Distance Results 19 95% drive less than 5 miles to access transit 60% drive less than 5 miles to access transit 70% drive less than 5 miles to access transit

21. Park-Ride and Drop-Off Access Distance Results 20 KNR and PNR have Similar 5 mile percentiles but KNR access distance slightly less than PNR access distance KNR and PNR have very similar 5 mile percentiles (60%) 65% drive less than 5 miles for PNR and 75% drive less than 5 miles for KNR

22. Drop-Off Locations: Results 21

23. Drop-Off Locations: Results (2) 22

24. Drop-Off Locations: Results (3) 23

25. Park-Ride Origin Locations (Tri-Rail) 24

26. End-of-Line Park-Ride Origin Locations Tri-Rail 25

27. End-of-Line Park-Ride Origin Locations Metrorail 26

28. 27 Egress mode assumption The only egress mode is walking, regardless of the access mode

29. Egress Mode Results 28 ModeWalkPark-rideDrop-off Bus 87%8%5% Metrorail 67%24%9% Tri-Rail 29%43%28%

30. 29 Verifying Pathbuilding Parameters & Assumptions – Summary Transit riders will not walk more than a ½ mile to access all types of transit Transit riders will not walk to transit much further beyond their zone These appear to be true, but improved quality of geocodable records are needed to verify Transit riders will drive no more than 5 miles to access buses and 8 miles for rail systems This appears to be true

31. 30 Verifying Pathbuilding Parameters & Assumptions – Summary The auto portions of drop-off and park-ride trips have identical maximum distances Low number of records is inconclusive; additional data needed Bus riders are dropped off at park-ride locations or major transit stations This does not appear to be true; changes are needed to the drop-off path parameters Rail riders are dropped off at stations that do not have parking Insufficient data to draw conclusion

32. 31 Verifying Pathbuilding Parameters & Assumptions – Summary Park-ride catchment areas are not circular, but somewhat egg-shaped and oriented towards the CBD Appears to be true End-of-line rail stations have larger catchment areas than in-line stations Definitely true The only egress mode is walking, regardless of the access mode Definitely true for bus systems, less so for Metrorail and Tri-Rail

33. Findings & Lessons Learned Geocodable information varied among the surveys Some asked for street number and address, others nearest cross-streets, others provided insufficient space for respondents Regardless of quality of automated geocoding processes, the geocodable records needed extensive manual review Review of initial walk-access records showed many geocoding and survey reporting issues In some cases, “Nearest cross-street” responses provided greater error than “walked XX blocks” responses

34. Findings & Lessons Learned (2) The question types and pre-defined choices varied among the surveys, making it difficult to compare trends; some examples include: Number of transfers – (a) before/after surveyed route only, (b) entire path, (c) no question Access/egress distance – (a) # of blocks walked, (b) nearest cross-street, (c) boarding/alighting location recorded by surveyor with exact O/D address Most surveys did not appear to analyze expansion bias errors; limited number of auxiliary counts to expand survey (e.g., time of day counts, park-ride vehicle counts, station activity counts and boarding counts by person type)

35. Findings & Lessons Learned (3) Many surveys did not include all of the FTA recommended data items: Origin and destination purpose (14/14) Origin and destination address (9 full/4 partial/1 none/14) Origin and destination access/egress modes (4/14) Park-ride location (9/14) All routes in path (3 all transfers/5 all routes/14) Availability of driver’s license (2/14) Number of household vehicles (13/14)

36. 35 Thank you!