Introduction ► Brian Saville ► RoadStats, LLC ► GCM Travel Stats Web Site  Developed With IDOT ITS ► Scott Lee, David Zavattero ► Started Work March 2004 ► Companion Site To GCM Travel Site ► Focus On Historical Travel Times ► Charts  Current Travel Time  Average Travel Time  Normal Travel Time Range ► Simple Tables Accompany Charts

Planned Enhancements To GCM Travel Stats Web Site Results of our User Survey

Background ► Elicit user feedback to determine future site enhancements ► Gauge satisfaction with current site ► Propose list of possible enhancements to users ► Determine how users make use of site ► Gather basic user demographics (optional)

Survey Overview ► Began August 25, 2006 ► 195 responses in 75 days ended 11/7 ► 32 Total Questions ► On average, 7 minutes to complete survey

Site Differentiation ► Delineate GCM Travel & GCM Travel Stats ► Focus user feedback on GCM Travel Stats ► Provided screen shot of each site ► 80.20% were not aware of delineation

GCM Travel ► GCM Travel is a site that provides current travel time, construction, and other travel information and is operated by a government cooperative known as the Gary-Chicago-Milwaukee (GCM) Priority Corridor.

GCM Travel Stats ► GCM Travel Stats is a site that provides historical travel time information and charts and is operated by a small private company named RoadStats, LLC located in Schaumburg, IL. ► Although GCM Travel Stats is a separate site from GCM Travel, GCM Travel Stats depends upon the information provided by the GCM Priority Corridor to generate its historical data. GCM Travel Stats would not be possible without the cooperation and support of the GCM Priority Corridor.

Current Site Operation Questions ► 11 statements ► Users asked to state agreement / disagreement with each statement ► Focus on site usability and performance ► 84% overall satisfaction

Current Site Question Highlights ► Most agreement  98.48% responded “No” to the statement: “The charts are too large.” ► Least agreement:  55.33% responded “No” to the statement: “The drop down list of road segments is too long.

Current Site Question Responses

Proposed Features ► 10 proposed features ► Categories:  Site Personalization  Alternative means of access to data ► RSS, On-Demand s, Mobile Device Formatted Pages ► 5 point scale  1 = proposed feature is of no value  3 = proposed feature is somewhat valuable  5 = proposed feature is very valuable ► 3.52 average overall score for all proposed features

Proposed Feature Highlights ► Personalization was most important to users ► Highest average score of 4.25 was for: “The ability to save a list of your favorite road segments” ► Most desired alternative means of access was RSS feeds with an average score of 3.77 ► Only 2 of 10 had average score below 3.0  Personalize color scheme  Choose chart size

Proposed Feature Scores

Pay For Features ► Determine true value of proposed features  Asked user their willingness to pay  Operational Cost Recovery / Subscription Model ► Fee would only apply to new features ► All existing features remain free of charge

Pay For Features Response ► “If a majority of the proposed new features that you found at least somewhat valuable were added to the site, how much would you be willing to pay to access these new features?”  $3 per month: 4.1%  $2 per month: 7.1%  $1 per month: 16.2%  Not willing to pay: 72.6%

Other Things Learned ► 77.7% of people have told others about the site ► 68.5% have the site bookmarked ► 43.7% of people visit the site either once or twice per day  ~18% visit more than two times per day  ~37% visit less than once per day ► 73.1% of people say they spend 3 minutes or less on each visit to the site ► 46.2% use the site exclusively for their daily commute  ~37% use the site for both their daily commutes and for special commutes such as attending a baseball game  ~16.8% use the site only for special commutes

Demographics ► 49.5% of respondents live in Chicago  41.8% live in the Chicago suburbs  5.2% live in Wisconsin ► 83.4% of respondents were male ► 29.5% of respondents were aged  68.4% were aged  ~2% of users were >= 65  ~7.8% of users were < 25

Optional Feedback ► Free form text ► 39% of respondents provided feedback ► Main classification of responses  Feature suggestions ► Custom segments ► Integration with Google maps ► Predictive Travel Times  Praise  General Comments  Data accuracy concerns

Free Form Text Responses (Cont.) ► Site needs better usage documentation  Requests for features that already exist ► “One Stop Shop” site for travel info  Current, historical, predictive travel times  Weather, incidents, construction, GIS / mapping, mass transit alternatives ► Requests for data for roads without sensors ► Power user request for access to raw data to do individual in-depth analysis

Planned Enhancements ► Based on survey results, 3-6 month focus:  Address concerns raised about current site operation  A number of the popular personalization options  At least one of the alternative modes of access ► RSS, On-Demand s, Mobile Device Formatting  Some implementation of “Custom Segments”  FAQs / Documentation ► Specific request from UIC / IDOT  Incorporate smoothed / weighted average into charts

Looking To The Future ► Pursue opportunities with IDOT / other agencies  Development of predictive travel time model ► Initial talks with NIU ► Class project with Kellogg grad students ► Initiated contact with UIC  “One Stop Shop” travel info site ► Imagine Weather Underground, GCM Travel, GCM Travel Stats, RTA Trip Planner, Google Maps, predictive travel time model, real-time mass transit performance (e.g. Metra Milwaukee District West Line train #2228 is running 4 minutes behind) rolled into one site

Contact Info Brian J. Saville / RoadStats, LLC View this presentation, with additional slides, at: Detailed Survey Results Will Be Made Available On Request