1 / 16

Geographically-Focused Household Travel Surveys in the Metro Washington Region (2010 – 2012)

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.

ashanti
Download Presentation

Geographically-Focused Household Travel Surveys in the Metro Washington Region (2010 – 2012)

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

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

  2. Project Background • Follow-on to 2007-2008 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

  3. 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)

  4. 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 2007-2008 TPB Household Travel Survey with additional household travel data collected in 2010. Interested in knowing more about how new higher density residential and commercial development was affecting daily travel behavior in these areas.

  5. 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

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

  7. 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)

  8. 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

  9. 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 & E-mail Address (Optional) • Business Reply Mail-Back Envelope • Reminder Post Card, Additional Recruitment package mailing and 2nd Reminder Post Card • Web Response for HH Questionnaire after 1st Reminder PC

  10. 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 2/3rd 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%

  11. 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%)

  12. 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

  13. CommuteMode Share 2010/2011 In Neighborhoods Throughout the Region * Based on initial findings from the 2010/2011 Geographically Focused Household Surveys reported to the TPB on May 16, 2012

  14. 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? Email for online GC with physical GC option • Web Recruitment • Start Web Recruitment with 1st Mailing to Household

  15. 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

  16. Questions? Contacts: Robert E Griffiths reg@mwcog.org Clara Reschovsky creschovsky@mwcog.org

More Related