Geographically-Focused Household Travel Surveys in the Metro Washington Region (2010 – 2012) Robert E. Griffiths & Clara Reschovsky Metropolitan Washington.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
The Use of Online Methodology to Inform Public Policy Planning: A Case Study from San Francisco See Mobility, Access, and Pricing Study Final Report, Chapter.
Advertisements

STATISTICS FOR MANAGERS LECTURE 2: SURVEY DESIGN.
The Current State and Future of the Regional Multi-Modal Travel Demand Forecasting Model.
Tom Fairchild The R&D initiative of Arlington County Commuter Services.
Chapter 13 Survey Designs
1. National Research Center, Inc.2 A turnkey citizen survey service offered by the INTERNATIONAL CITY/COUNTY MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION and NATIONAL RESEARCH.
Independent Study to Assess Future Savings from Mitigation Track B Progress Report Project Management Committee Meeting, Washington, D.C. April 2, 2004.
Survey Methods: Communicating with Respondents
Chapter 13 Survey Designs
Survey Designs EDUC 640- Dr. William M. Bauer
11 Travel Behavior Panel Surveys: Measuring the Impacts of Road Pricing in Seattle and Atlanta Travel Survey Methods Committee Meeting January 25, 2012.
2010 State of the Commute Survey Presentation National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board July 21, 2010 ITEM #12.
CAHPS Overview Clinician & Group Surveys: Practical Options for Implementation and Use AHRQ ANNUAL MEETING SEPTEMBER 18, 2011 Christine Crofton, PhD CAHPS.
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.
Power Point Slides by Ronald J. Shope in collaboration with John W. Creswell Chapter 13 Survey Designs.
Power Point Slides by Ronald J. Shope in collaboration with John W. Creswell Chapter 13 Survey Designs.
2010 Travel Behavior Inventory Mn/DOT TDMCC- Jonathan Ehrlich October 14, 2010.
KY Module 2 Household Travel Surveys Chapter 6 of TS Manual.
ESRD-CAHPS Field Test Beverly Weidmer, M.A. RAND Corporation CAHPS RAND Team.
January Utah Statewide Household Travel Study Study overview and results.
Performance Analysis Presentation to the National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board (NCR-TPB) November 28, 2012 Adopted: July 18, 2012 Item.
September 151 Screening for Disability Washington Group on Disability Statistics.
Presented by Runlin Cai, CAUPD Affiliate. Issue: What determines travel mode choice Transit mode share in LA county was 3% in (Source: SCAG Year.
1 Briefing on the Round 8.0 Cooperative Forecasts Robert E. Griffiths Technical Services Director Department of Transportation Planning TPB Technical Committee.
Client Name Here - In Title Master Slide 2007/2008 Household Travel Survey Robert E. Griffiths Technical Services Director TPB Technical Committee September.
United Nations Regional Workshop on the 2010 World Programme on Population and Housing Censuses: Census Evaluation and Post Enumeration Surveys Bangkok,
Lesli Scott Ashley Bowers Sue Ellen Hansen Robin Tepper Jacob Survey Research Center, University of Michigan Third International Conference on Establishment.
Commuting to Work in the Metropolitan Washington Region Some Preliminary Results from the 2000 Census Robert E. Griffiths Cooperative Forecasting and Data.
2001 National Household Travel Survey Kentucky Add-on Ben Pierce Presentation By.
2030 Long Range Transportation Plan Update Ithaca-Tompkins County Transportation Council 2 nd Public MeetingFernando de Aragón TCPL May 26, 2009Staff Director.
Transportation 101 August 7, Presenting Agencies  Southwestern PA Commission’s CommuteInfo program  IndiGO: Indiana County Transit Authority 
Street Smart Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Campaign: Results & Funding Status Briefing to the Transportation Planning Board November 15, 2006 Michael Farrell,
National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board February 19, 2013 ITEM #12.
NHTS Update and Data Analysis Plans presented to Florida Model Task Force presented by Krishnan Viswanathan November 10, 2009.
TPB Geographically-Focused Household Travel Surveys Robert E. Griffiths Technical Services Director TPB Technical Committee Meeting September.
Performance Analysis Presentation to the National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board (NCR-TPB) December 19, 2012 (updated from November 28, 2012)
Client Name Here - In Title Master Slide 2007/2008 Household Travel Survey Presentation of Additional Findings by Robert E. Griffiths Technical Services.
On the Road to a New Metropolitan Transportation Plan Spokane Regional Health District Board of Health April 25, 2013.
1 American Community Survey Categories of Frequently Asked Questions –Purpose –Scope –Content –Operations.
Copyright 2010, The World Bank Group. All Rights Reserved. Reducing Non-Response Section B 1.
Journey to Work from 1990 Census and ACS National test (C2SS) Elaine Murakami, USDOT, FHWA Nanda Srinivasan, Cambridge Systematics Inc.
Regional On-Board Bus Survey Proposal Presentation to the TPB Technical Committee Robert E. Griffiths Technical Services Director October 5, 2007.
Educational Research: Competencies for Analysis and Application, 9 th edition. Gay, Mills, & Airasian © 2009 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.
1 Briefing on the Preliminary Round 7.2 Cooperative Forecasts TPB Technical Committee Timothy Canan, AICP 7 November 2008 Item 11.
Marketing Research Approaches. Research Approaches Observational Research Ethnographic Research Survey Research Experimental Research.
Household Surveys: American Community Survey & American Housing Survey Warren A. Brown February 8, 2007.
1 What If… The Washington Region Grew Differently? Results to Date of The TPB Regional Mobility and Accessibility Study February 8, 2006.
Best Practices Met Council Household Travel Survey (HTS) May
Questionnaires Questions can be closed or open Closed questions are easier to analyze, and may be done by computer Can be administered to large populations.
Conducted on behalf of: Conducted by: In Association With: PTV DataSource GeoStats PB Chandra Bhat Mark Bradley Mary Kay Christopher Keith Lawton Survey.
County of Fairfax, Virginia Fairfax County Comprehensive Transit Plan and Transit Development Plan Board Transportation Committee December 1, 2015 Randy.
Effects of Sampling and Screening Strategies in an RDD Survey Anthony M. Roman, Elizabeth Eggleston, Charles F. Turner, Susan M. Rogers, Rebecca Crow,
Client Name Here - In Title Master Slide 2007/2008 Household Travel Survey Presentation of Findings on Weekday Travel Robert E. Griffiths Technical Services.
 Pilot Survey: For non-radiation Risk Factors Faith Davis, Ludmilla Krestinina, Oleg Kalyov, Dale Preston, Alexander Akleyev, Timothy Johnson (JCCRER.
COG/TPB Transportation Analysis Zone (TAZ) Update Project Robert E. Griffiths Presentation to the TPB Scenario Study Task Force April 16, 2008.
Update Presented by Neighborhood Services Division Board of County Commissioners April 6, 2010 Census 2010… IT’S IN OUR HANDS!
FDA/FSIS Food Safety Survey Methods Amy Lando, MPP Consumer Studies Team Office of Scientific Analysis and Support Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition.
Copyright © 2008 by Pearson Education, Inc. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey All rights reserved. John W. Creswell Educational Research: Planning,
1 Using Household Surveys to Collect Data on Remittances: Lessons Learned from the CPS Migration Supplement Elizabeth M. Grieco Chief, Immigration Statistics.
2012 Citizen Survey Results Presentation City of Twin Falls, Idaho.
Non-response Bias Analysis and Evaluation Reporting Passport Demand Forecasting Study 11/14/2013.
Data Collecting Techniques Telephone interviews Traditional telephone interviews involve phoning a sample of respondents and asking them a series.
1 Draft Round 7.2 Cooperative Forecasts of Population, Households, and Employment Transportation Planning Board Timothy Canan, AICP April 15, 2009 Item.
University of Virginia 2009 NHTS Survey Results
Induced Travel: Definition, Forecasting Process, and A Case Study in the Metropolitan Washington Region A Briefing Paper for the National Capital Region.
2007 Household Travel Survey
Technical Committee Item # 9
Travel Behavior Inventory: Household Travel Survey
MSP Regional Travel Behavior Inventory Program
Non-Single Occupancy Vehicle (Non-SOV) Travel Performance Measure and Regional Targets Daniel Snyder - NCTCOG.
Presentation transcript:

Geographically-Focused Household Travel Surveys in the Metro Washington Region (2010 – 2012) Robert E. Griffiths & Clara Reschovsky Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments TRB Travel Survey Methods Committee Meeting January16, 2013

Project Background Follow-on to TPB Regional Household Travel Survey that was primarily conducted for the development of the new travel demand model Household Travel Survey data collection in specific geographic sub-areas of the region (Case Studies) Addresses a need expressed by local planners Will provide some current small area community-level socio-economic data that are no longer available from the Decennial Census 1

Project Objectives Analyze daily travel behavior in communities with different densities, physical characteristics and transportation options - “Regional Activity Centers” Assist local planners with current local land use and transportation planning efforts Build a household travel survey database that can measure changes in local community travel behavior over a period of time (Before and After comparisons) 2

Arlington County Spring 2010 Supplemental Survey Effort Three areas in Arlington County, Virginia were surveyed: The Jefferson Davis Highway/Crystal City/Pentagon City Area The Village of Shirlington The Columbia Pike Corridor Collaborative effort between Arlington County and COG/TPB staff to supplement the TPB Household Travel Survey with additional household travel data collected in Interested in knowing more about how new higher density residential and commercial development was affecting daily travel behavior in these areas. 3

Arlington County Subareas Spring 2010 Jeff Davis Hwy/Crystal City/Pentagon City Land Area= 0.7 sq mi Households= 9,600 Population= 15,300 Pop Density= 22,300 persons/sq mi Shirlington Area Land Area= 0.6 sq mi. Households= 4,200 Population= 7,200 Pop Density= 12,900 persons/sq mi Columbia Pike Corridor Land Area= 2.5 sq mi Households= 15,000 Population= 35,200 Pop Density= 14,100 4

Now Have Collected Survey Data in 17 Focused Areas 5 Dulles St Charles National Harbor Falls Church Beauregard Corridor Friendship Heights New York Ave

Focused Geo-Areas Area Size: 1 to 20 Square Miles (Most < 8 Sq mi) Number of HHs: 12,500 to 25,000 Sampling Rate: 1 in 6 to 1 in 3 Sampling Method: Address-Based Sample with Systematic Selection Target Completes: About 400 Completed Households in each Geo-Area Assumed Response Rate: 10% Survey Period: Spring and Fall (2 -3 Months) 6

Survey Methodology Basics Two-Stage Survey (1) Recruitment Stage – Advance Letter – Request Participation – Obtain Basic Information about Household (2) Travel Data Retrieval Stage – Travel Diary for 24-hr Weekday – Retrieve Data on Daily Travel for each Household Member 7

Recruitment Stage Address Sample is Phone-Matched – 35 to 65% of Addresses Phone Matched Initial Advance Letter Mailing in English and Spanish w/$1 Bill – Offer $25 Gift Card Incentive for Survey Completion – Short 10-Question Questionnaire Roster Household Members & Vehicles Get HH Telephone Number & Address (Optional) Business Reply Mail-Back Envelope Reminder Post Card, Additional Recruitment package mailing and 2 nd Reminder Post Card – Web Response for HH Questionnaire after 1 st Reminder PC 8

Recruitment Stage: Results Postal Non-Deliverables ranged from 3% to 10% (5.5% avg) Mail-Back of HH Questionnaire by households receiving the mailed recruitment materials ranged from 11 to 21% (15% avg) Web completion of HH Questionnaire < 1% About 2/3 rd of the households returning the HH Questionnaire were recruited to participate in the survey (range 61 to 76%) Phone recruitment of households not returning the HH Questionnaire, but with known telephone numbers resulted in another 3% to 4% of the households receiving the original mailing Overall Recruitment Response Rate averaged 14% 9

Retrieval Stage: Almost all travel dairy survey data was retrieved via a CATI survey interview Proxy Interviews conducted for children and call-backs after 3-days Less than 1% of the households mailed back their survey interviews Required retrieval of travel day data from every household member to be considered a “completed” household interview Retrieval Rates ranged between 62% and 78% (avg. 72%) The overall response rate ranged from 7.0% to 16.3% (avg. 10.7%) 10

Results: Use of Survey Results well received Board and local planning staff Supports planning focus on Regional Activity Centers Window on small areas not previously available, provides a dimension scale not seen in “Regional” averages Obtain travel modes not routinely well represented in region- wide household travel surveys Even modelers now beginning to show interest in the Geo- Focused Survey data 11

Commute Mode Share 2010/2011 In Neighborhoods Throughout the Region 12 Drive Alone (SOV) Carpool (HOV) TransitWalkBikeOther Core Logan Circle 21%4%28%33%10.6%2% Crystal City 22%4%53%19%0.7%2% Inner Largo 70%11%13%3%2.8%-- Reston 70%17%8%3%0.7%2% Outer Woodbridge 76%13%8%1%0.3%2% Frederick 78%12%4% 1.5%-- * Based on initial findings from the 2010/2011 Geographically Focused Household Surveys reported to the TPB on May 16, 2012

Lessons Learned (so far) Important to maintain compatibility with earlier surveys Incentives – Checks are a hassle for many recipients – Gift cards do not seem to be much better – They cannot be used everywhere Cannot be used online Cannot be used in many restaurants, independent establishments or to buy certain items like phone cards – Cannot track usage for ‘lost cards’ – Need policy of one replacement only – Options? for online GC with physical GC option Web Recruitment – Start Web Recruitment with 1 st Mailing to Household 13

Thoughts on Methodological Improvements Increase Duration of survey period – Longer period allows for adjustment of sample & survey procedures, more travel dates Reduce Respondent Burden – Newer technology can lower burden or perceived burden Doesn’t work for HHs without tech toys/access Lower perceived burden isn’t always lower – Participants want control – I will call you with my travel 14

Questions? Contacts: Robert E Griffiths Clara Reschovsky 15