Districtwide Passenger Origin & Destination (O & D) Surveys 2015 Planning & Development Committee November 01, 2016.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
GREATER NEW YORK A GREENER Travel Demand Modeling for analysis of Congestion Mitigation policies October 24, 2007.
Advertisements

The Current State and Future of the Regional Multi-Modal Travel Demand Forecasting Model.
Presented to presented by Cambridge Systematics, Inc. Transportation leadership you can trust. Comparison of Activity-Based Model Parameters Between Two.
FOCUS MODEL OVERVIEW CLASS THREE Denver Regional Council of Governments July 7, 2011.
METRO Rail Intercept Survey Findings, Data Uses AMPO Travel Modeling Work Group October 1, 2009.
1 Item 9: (DRAFT) Briefing on the Draft Update of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan for the National Capital Region Michael Farrell DTP Presentation to the.
Three Phases of Commuting Trip 1.Collection Phase – the trip from home to the main travel vehicle Cost: a.basically zero for automobile b.time costs and.
Lec 7. Ch.3P3 Characteristics of urban travel Trip types (purposes) Three approaches for modeling trips Travel behaviors of men and women Trip purpose/temporal,
 Travel patterns in Scotland Frank Dixon and Stephen Hinchliffe, Transport Statistics branch, Scottish Executive.
1 Using Transit Market Analysis Tools to Evaluate Transit Service Improvements for a Regional Transportation Plan TRB Transportation Applications May 20,
Business Logistics 420 Public Transportation Lectures 8: The Performance and Condition of Transit in the United States.
Client Name Here - In Title Master Slide 2007/2008 Household Travel Survey Changes in Daily Travel Patterns 1994 to 2007/2008 Robert E. Griffiths Technical.
1 Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority Customer Satisfaction Measurement FY 2006 Q3 Comparison April 28, 2006.
Rochdale Key Centre Analysis 1 This PowerPoint presentation has been created to accompany GMTU Report 998 – GMATS Rochdale Key Centre report Whereas report.
On-Board Transit Survey Presentation to TCC Dec. 13, 2002 Heather Alhadeff, AICP
Wigan Key Centre Analysis 1 This PowerPoint presentation has been created to accompany GMTU Report 1001 – GMATS Wigan Key Centre report Whereas report.
Norman W. Garrick Transportation Forecasting What is it? Transportation Forecasting is used to estimate the number of travelers or vehicles that will use.
Tameside Key Centre Analysis 1 This PowerPoint presentation has been created to accompany GMTU Report 999 – GMATS Tameside Key Centre report Whereas report.
2008 Regional Bus Survey Preliminary Results Presentation to the Access for All Advisory Committee Robert E. Griffiths Technical Services Director April.
Stockport Key Centre Analysis 1 This PowerPoint presentation has been created to accompany GMTU Report 947 – GMATS Stockport Key Centre report Whereas.
Bolton Key Centre Analysis 1 This PowerPoint presentation has been created to accompany GMTU Report 974 – GMATS Bolton Key Centre report Whereas report.
Oldham Key Centre Analysis 1 This PowerPoint presentation has been created to accompany GMTU Report 997 – GMATS Oldham Key Centre report Whereas report.
Presented to MTF Transit Committee presented by David Schmitt, AICP November 20, 2008 FSUTMS Transit Survey Applied Research.
Source: NHI course on Travel Demand Forecasting (152054A) Trip Generation CE 451/551 Grad students … need to discuss “projects” at end of class.
Trafford Key Centre Analysis 1 This PowerPoint presentation has been created to accompany GMTU Report 1000 – GMATS Trafford Key Centre report Whereas report.
Manchester Regional Key Centre Analysis 1 This PowerPoint presentation has been created to accompany GMTU Report 996 – GMATS Manchester Regional Key Centre.
Walk Statistics.  The question has been asked: “Is Lomas a better BRT corridor than Central?”  The purpose of this analysis is to compare the two corridors.
University of Virginia 2009 NHTS Survey Results
Mobility Coordination Center Concept
CASE STUDY #1 Fresno County Public Transportation Gap Analysis and Service Coordination Plan A project of the City of Fresno/FAX in collaboration with.
Use Survey to Improve the DFX Transit Model
Changing the Commuter Equation
Continuous Regional Travel Behaviour Survey
Social Planning and Research Council of Hamilton
How may bike-sharing choice be affected by air pollution
Airport and Ground Access Choice Modeling
Access Free Fare Program Assessment Survey
Access Free Fare Program Assessment Survey
Network Characteristics
Survey of Potential Overnight Service Passengers
THE GROWING POPULARITY OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION
American Driving Survey: 2014 — 2015 September 2016
Service Routes and Community Transit Hubs: Right Sizing Transit
Transportation Engineering Mode Choice January 21, 2011
Walking to transit (and potential of walking)
Orange County Transportation Authority Micro-Transit Pilot Program
Staten Island Bus Study Public Workshop
Comprehensive Operational Analysis (COA)
Network Characteristics
Transportation Management Plan Modernization Project
Use of Transportation Network Companies among MARTA Patrons
Promoting Shared Rides: Where do Transit Agencies Fit?
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION AND LAND USE IMPACTS ON ACCESSIBILITY FOR SUSTAINABLE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM IN BLOEMFONTEIN NDAKHONA BASHINGI Southern African.
Travel patterns in a city
Increasing Access to Commuter Benefits
Senior Transportation Options on Cape Cod
different Approaches different generations
WHY AND WHEN WE TRAVEL Household Travel Surveys March 2018.
CHANGES IN OUR TRAVEL BEHAVIOUR 2018 Household Travel Survey Results
Travel patterns in a city
BMC/ BUMC 2018 MA DEP Commuter Survey
Modernising the Swedish National Travel Survey to be launched in RVU Sverige Luxembourg
Mass Transit Usage According to IBISWorld, the public transportation industry increased 14.3%, from $63 billion during 2013 to $72 billion for 2017,
Chattanooga Transportation Data Collection Review
Norman Washington Garrick CE 2710 Spring 2016 Lecture 07
Geocoding of 2007 WMATA Rail Survey
Passenger Mobility Task Force 21 May 2015
Seattle Transportation Benefit District
Valley Metro Accessibility Advisory Group (VMAAG) Meeting
Transit Survey White Paper
Presentation transcript:

Districtwide Passenger Origin & Destination (O & D) Surveys 2015 Planning & Development Committee November 01, 2016

Passenger O&D Surveys 2015 FTA Before and After Studies West After Eagle Before Two separate surveys On - Off Survey Boarding and Alighting Pairs On - board Survey Trip and Demographic Questionnaire Spring and Fall of 2015 Weekday No MallRide and MetroRide On to off provides a geographical distribution of our passenger trips and allow for the expansion of the longer survey responses (match passenger attributes to more of the geographical distributions). Mention that we did surveys on weekdays only and didn’t survey the MallRide or MetroRide.

On – Off Survey Collected using GPS based scanners Random selection 20% of boardings By route, direction, time of day English, Spanish 50,000 pairs scheduled but 62,000 collected

On – Board Survey Collected using tablets and telephone interviews Random selection 10% of boardings By route, direction, time of day English and Spanish 30,000 surveys scheduled but 34,800 collected Bus – 23,045 Rail – 11,802

On – Board Survey cont. Home address/nearest intersection Trip details origin, boarding, alighting, destination, mode of access/egress, transfers, fare media etc. Personal and household demographics household income, number of cars, driver’s license, ethnicity, employment status etc.

Mode of Access (Rail & Bus) Significant Walk Access 55% of rail boardings 85% of bus boardings Rail has higher drive access than bus Very low usage from transportation network companies (e.g., Zipcar, Uber, Lyft etc.) 0.5% of rail boardings 0.2% of bus boardings

Fare Media (Rail & Bus) Cash College Pass EcoPass 24% of rail boardings 33% of bus boardings College Pass Significant differences between bus and rail 29% of rail boardings 12% of bus boardings EcoPass No significant differences 15% for both bus and rail boardings

Household Income (Rail & Bus) Average household income for bus passengers is lower than rail passengers 60% of rail boardings and 70% of bus boardings with less than $50,000 household income

Trip Purpose (Rail & Bus) Commute to work is the highest 50% of rail boardings 50% of bus boardings High university trips by rail 26% of rail boardings 11% of bus boardings Buses serve other trip purposes more than rail e.g., shopping HBW = home-based work HBO = home-based other HBU = home-based university NHB = non-home-based HBS = home-based shop

Transfers (Rail & Bus) Over 50% trips with no transfers Similar patterns for bus and rail boardings Average system wide boardings per trip is 1.3 (excludes MallRide and MetroRide)

Age (Rail & Bus) Significant percentage of millennials (Age 20 – 34) 47% of rail boardings 41% of bus boardings Less than 5% of both rail and bus boardings in 65+ age group

Ethnicity (Rail & Bus) Caucasian/White African American Hispanic 58% of rail boardings 50% of bus boardings African American 13% of rail boardings 19% of bus boardings Hispanic 17% of bus boardings More than 1 race 10% of rail boardings 8% of bus boardings

Household Cars (Rail & Bus) Significant number of households without cars 19% of rail boardings 31% of bus boardings Higher auto ownership for rail passengers

Employment Status (Rail & Bus) High percentage of full-time employees 62% of rail boardings 59% of bus boardings Very low percentage of boardings from retired passengers 2% of rail boardings 3% of bus boardings

Mode of Access/Egress Walk access/egress includes: Walked Bike Skateboard Wheelchair etc. Drive access/egress includes: Was dropped off by someone Drove alone and parked Drove or rode with others and parked Car share (i.e. Car2Go, Zipcar, etc.) Taxi, Uber, Lyft, etc. Call-n-ride

Fare Media (By Mode of Access) Walk access boardings 34% cash 12% EcoPass 26% Monthly Pass 15% CollegePass Drive access boardings 15% cash 31% EcoPass 20% Monthly Pass 24% CollegePass

Household Income (By Mode of Access) Walk access boardings 75% with less than $50,000 household income Drive access boardings 42% with less than $50,000 household income

Transfers (By Mode of Access) Walk access boardings 51% with no transfers Drive access boardings 69% with no transfers

Age (By Mode of Access) Walk access boardings Drive access boardings 44% millennials (Age 20 – 34) 10% baby boomers (Age 51 – 64) Drive access boardings 39% millennials (Age 20 – 34) 17% baby boomers (Age 51 – 64)

Ethnicity (By Mode of Access) Walk access boardings 49% Caucasian/white 20% African American 18% Hispanic 9% more than 1 race Drive access boardings 67% Caucasian/white 9% African American 11% Hispanic 8% more than 1 race

Employment Status (By Mode of Access) Walk access boardings 57% employed full-time Drive access boardings 70% employed full-time

Transit Trip Patterns Used On-board Survey Expanded to boardings and trips Inter-District Transit Trips 8% East – CBD 8% Central – CBD 5% West – CBD Intra-District Transit Trips 13% within East 10% NW Boulder 5% West On to off provides a geographical distribution of our passenger trips and allow for the expansion of the longer survey responses (match passenger attributes to more of the geographical distributions). Mention that we did surveys on weekdays only and didn’t survey the MallRide or MetroRide.

Questions ? Lee Cryer Planning Project Manager 303-299-2410 Lee.Cryer@rtd-denver.com Ravi Palakurthy Transportation Planner 303-299-2586 Ravikumar.Palakurthy@rtd-denver.com