1 / 49

2003 UDOT Benchmark Telephone Survey: Utah Residents’ Attitudes Toward Transportation Issues

2003 UDOT Benchmark Telephone Survey: Utah Residents’ Attitudes Toward Transportation Issues. Institute for Outdoor Recreation and Tourism Utah State University. Acknowledgements. Utah Department of Transportation Institute for Outdoor Recreation and Tourism (USU)

lakeisha
Download Presentation

2003 UDOT Benchmark Telephone Survey: Utah Residents’ Attitudes Toward Transportation Issues

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. 2003 UDOT Benchmark Telephone Survey:Utah Residents’ Attitudes Toward Transportation Issues Institute for Outdoor Recreation and Tourism Utah State University

  2. Acknowledgements • Utah Department of Transportation • Institute for Outdoor Recreation and Tourism (USU) • Natural Resource and Environmental Policy Program (USU) • Department of Environment and Society (USU) • Discovery Research Group, Inc.

  3. Purpose & Content Provide Baseline Data, Analysis, and Recommendations Useful in Developing UDOT’s Long Range Plan • Current transportation uses and concerns • Future preferences for transportation alternatives • Past involvement in transportation planning • Opinions of UDOT’s planning/decision making processes • Perceptions of opportunities to influence transportation decisions

  4. Sampling Method • Random sample of household telephone numbers stratified by UDOT’s four regions (Region 4 over-sampled by a factor of three) • Phone interviews conducted in January 2003 • Interviewed one adult (18 or over) in each household • Response rate: 60% • Results representative of the entire state at a 95% level of confidence and accurate to +/- 2.2 points for the state; +/- 4 points for each region.

  5. Map of Utah State Population = 2,233,169 Adult Population = 1,514,471 Sample Size = 2,561 Weighted n = 2,005

  6. Region 1 Region Pop. = 578,753 Adult Pop. = 386,523 Sample Size = 550 Sample to Adult Pop. Ratio:1 : 702 Weight = 0.93 Weighted n = 512

  7. Region 2 Region Pop. = 968,858 Adult Pop. = 672,159 Sample Size = 889 Sample to Adult Population Ratio:1 : 756 Weight = 1.00; Weighted n = 889

  8. Region 3 Region Pop. = 432,505 Adult Pop. = 284,405 Sample Size = 426 Sample to Adult Population Ratio:1 : 667 Weight = 0.88; Weighted n = 376

  9. Region 4 Region Pop. = 253,053 Adult Pop. = 171,384 Sample Size = 696 Sample to Adult Population Ratio:1 : 246 Weight = 0.33 Weighted n = 226

  10. Sample Characteristics &Statistical Comparisons • Average age 45 years • 58.5% females (2000 census ~ 50.5% females) • Statistical comparisons of key variables by: • Regions • Age (18-24, 12.3%; 25-44, 38.1%; 45-64, 33.4%; 65 & older, 16.1%) • Gender • Special transportation needs (7.1%) • Level of trust (13.2% with a low level of trust) • Public participation transportation decision making experience (21.6% with previous experience) • Bike/Pedestrian transportation subgroup (32.7%) • Contrasts reported are significant at <0.01 probability

  11. Car, truck or van (97.7%) Motorcycle (2.6%) Bus or light-rail (11.3%) Bicycle (13.2%) Walk (25.4%) None (0.5%) Multiple (37.3%) Bike and/or walk (32.7%) Bus or light-rail Region 1 (6.7%) Region 2 (16.8%) Region 3 (10.6%) Region 4 (1.6%) Walk Region 1 (22.9%) Region 2 (25.8%) Region 3 (24.4%) Region 4 (30.7%) Types of Transportation Usedat Least Once a Week

  12. Familiarity with UDOT

  13. Familiarity with UDOT:Subgroup Comparisons • Respondents from Region 2 more likely to be very familiar than the other three regions. • Age 18-24 less likely to be very familiar (10.0%)than 25 to 44 (18.2%), 45-64 (23.1%), and 65 and older (19.0%). • Men more likely to be very familiar (22.7%) than women (16.2%). • Those with low trust more likely to be very familiar (25.3%) than those with moderate and high trust (18.5%). • Public planning participants more than twice as likely to be very familiar (33.3%) than non-participants (15.1%).

  14. Overall Satisfaction withState Transportation System

  15. Overall Satisfaction:Subgroup Comparisons • Respondents with ages 45 to 64 more likely to be very dissatisfied or dissatisfied (20.2%) than those 18-24 (7.5%), 25-44 (12.3%), and those older than 64 (12.3%). • Those with low trust more likely to be very dissatisfied or dissatisfied (49.8%) than those with moderate and high trust (9.0%).

  16. Importance to Quality of LifeMean score calculated on a scale where 1 = not important, 2 = slightly important,3 = moderately important, 4 = very important.VI = very important and NI = not important. • Access • Travel time between destinations: 3.5 • (VI 60.2%, NI 3.9%) • Easy access to regular destinations: 3.7 • (VI 74.6%, NI 2.2%) • Transportation of consumer goods by truck/rail: 3.5 • (VI 62.1%, NI 3.5%) • Safety • Safety for drivers, pedestrians, and cyclists: 3.9 • (VI 90.0%, NI 1.0%) • Safe bus or public transit system: 3.4 • (VI 62.4%, NI 8.7%)

  17. Importance to Quality of LifeMean score calculated on a scale where 1 = not important, 2 = slightly important,3 = moderately important, 4 = very important.VI = very important and NI = not important. Economics • Affordable transportation costs: 3.7 • (VI 75.2%, NI 3.7%) • Efficiency • Timely road maintenance and repair: 3.7 • (VI 78.7%, NI 1.3%) • Environment • Clean air by reducing automobile and truck exhaust emissions: 3.6 • (VI 68.1%, NI 2.6%)

  18. Importance to Quality of LifeMean score calculated on a scale where 1 = not important, 2 = slightly important,3 = moderately important, 4 = very important.VI = very important and NI = not important. • Alternative Transportation • Interconnected system of roads, public transportation, bicycling, and walking routes: 3.3 • (VI 50.9%, NI 6.1%) • Walking and bike paths: 3.1 • (VI 43.3%, NI 10.4%) • Commuter bus or rail system between cities and towns: 3.3 • (VI 53.1%, NI 9.4%)

  19. Importance to Quality of LifeMean score calculated on a scale where 1 = not important, 2 = slightly important,3 = moderately important, 4 = very important.VI = very important and NI = not important. • Tourism/Recreation/Aesthetics • Traveling to outdoor recreation areas: 3.2 • (VI 45.2%, NI 6.3%) • Scenic overlooks: 3.0 • (VI 31.9%, NI 9.2%%) • Highway waysides and rest areas: 3.2 • (VI 44.2%, NI 4.4%) • Quality transportation system for tourism opportunities: 3.2 • (VI 46.5%, NI 5.8%) • Appearance of our major roads and highways in town: 3.3 • (VI 48.9%, NI 3.0%)

  20. Primary Concerns about Transportation in Utah Of the 2,561 respondents, 300 (11.7%) said they had “no concerns” and 67 (2.6%) “did not know.” The other 2,194 respondents offered 4,113 responses. • Construction/Maintenance (1,190 responses; 28.9%) • Road repairs when needed (203 respondents) • Snow removal (97) • Accommodate growth (76) • Public Transportation (783 responses; 19.1%) • Establish/extend commuter rail along Wasatch Front (295 respondents) • More bus stops/routes, more convenient (87) • Safety (707 responses; 17.2%) • Safety (249 respondents) • Bad/aggressive/unsafe drivers (113) • Dangerous roadways (52)

  21. Primary Concerns about Transportation in Utah • Congestion (583 responses; 14.2%) • Too much congestion/reduce (264 respondents) • Too many people/cars/traffic (189) • Need more alternatives to travel (52) • Access (236 responses; 5.7%) • Easy/direct access into cities/city centers (53 respondents) • More bike/pedestrian access (19) • Costs (233 responses; 5.6%) • Keep costs down/more efficient spending (77 respondents) • Environment (223 responses; 5.4%) • Pollution/air quality problems (96 respondents) • Legacy Highway/Legacy Highway detrimental to environment (46)

  22. Special Needs/Accessibility • Do you or any of your family members need types of transportation or special equipment to help people with physical disabilities, age, or other special needs? • Yes: 7.1% (n = 183) • No: 92.9% (n = 2,378) • Have you experienced problems meeting those needs? (n = 183) • Yes: 31.1% (n = 57) • No: 68.9% (n = 126)

  23. Problems ExperiencedMeeting Special NeedsOf the 57 respondents who said they had experienced problems meeting their needs, 47 gave 57 responses. • Accessibility Problems/Physical Barriers (28 responses; 49.1%) • Responses included examples such as curbs, no lifts on buses, access difficult for the elderly and blind. • Public Transportation Scheduling/Inconvenience/Availability (17 responses; 29.8%) • Most responses indicated the lack of adequate coverage (not enough routes), inconvenient (transportation not available when needed), and lack of adequate transportation in rural areas. • Agency and Agency Personnel Issues (6 responses; 10.5%) • Respondents mentioned rude and offensive bus drivers and improper distribution of handicap permits.

  24. Ideas for Improving AccessOf the 183 respondents who indicated they have transportation special needs, 120 gave 167 responses when asked how UDOT can meet its objective of providing fair and equal access. • Scheduling/Inconvenience/Availability (37 responses; 22.1%) • Most of the responses indicated that availability of disabled transportation vehicles be improved and public transportation agencies need to add additional routes and vehicles. For example, 13 respondents said there should be more availability in rural areas and 13 want to expand TRAX service. • Improve Accessibility (33 responses; 19.8%) • Remove impediments to wheelchairs and walkers. • Accommodate the elderly and blind. • Expense (28 responses; 16.8%) • Costs need to be reduced. • Internal Agency Issues (23 responses; 13.8%) • People with disabilities need to be involved in decision making (5) and information communication should be improved (e.g., brochures, pamphlets, route signs) (11). • Other • Several mentioned the idea of providing equal access to all and there were 7 who said that infrastructural improvements are important (e.g., covered waiting areas at stops, restrooms).

  25. Overall Condition ofState Highways and Freeways

  26. UDOT’s Emphasis on Highways and on Other Types of TransportationThe survey question asked “Does UDOT place: Too much emphasis on highways; Too much emphasis on other types of transportation; or The right amount of emphasis on both highways and other types of transportation?”

  27. Emphasis on Highways and Other Types of Transportation:Subgroup Comparisons • Age 65 and up less likely to say too much emphasis on highways (12.4%) than other age groups (between 18.2% to 21.2%). • Those with low trust more likely to say too much emphasis on highways (33.6% compared to 16.5%) and too much emphasis on other types of transportation (25.7% compared to 10.9%). Those with moderate and high trust more likely to say the right amount of emphasis on both. (87.5% compared to 40.4% with low trust). • Public planning participants more likely to say too much emphasis on highways (25.1%) than non-participants (17.1%) and non-participants more likely to say the right amount of emphasis on both (70.1%) than participants (59.6%). • Bike/ped more likely to say too much emphasis on highways (21.5% compared to 17.4%) and least likely to say too much emphasis on other types of transportation (9.0% compared to 14.9%).

  28. Familiarity with UDOT’sDecision Making Process

  29. How do Utahns Receive Information About UDOT • Television reports: 70.0% • Newspaper articles: 56.4% • Radio reports: 48.2% • Family or friends: 38.8% • At work: 22.9% • Internet or e-mail: 15.4% • Newsletters: 13.3% • Public meetings: 10.2% • None: 3.1%

  30. Region 1 Newspaper: 30.2% Television: 28.9% Newsletters: 19.0% Radio: 11.5% Internet or e-mail: 6.8% Public Meetings: 2.4% None: 1.3% Region 3 Television: 30.7% Newspaper: 26.0% Newsletters: 20.0% Radio: 11.0% Internet or e-mail: 7.9% Public Meetings: 4.0% None: 0.5% Region 2 Television: 32.1% Newspaper: 24.2% Newsletters: 19.7% Radio: 9.5% Internet or e-mail: 9.2% Public Meetings: 4.4% None: 0.9% Region 4 Television: 33.8% Newspaper: 27.2% Newsletters: 20.6% Internet or e-mail: 6.1% Radio: 5.8% Public Meetings: 4.9% None: 1.6% Sources Utahns Prefer to Receive Information About Transportation Decision Making

  31. Region 1 Mail questionnaire: 39.4% Internet questionnaire: 29.0% Telephone: 21.3% Public meeting: 7.9% Personal meeting: 1.5% Other ways: 0.9% Region 3 Mail questionnaire: 32.6% Internet questionnaire: 31.4% Telephone: 24.9% Public meeting: 7.2% Personal meeting: 2.2% Other ways: 1.7% Region 2 Mail questionnaire: 36.1% Internet questionnaire: 32.5% Telephone: 21.5% Public meeting: 7.2% Other ways: 1.7% Personal meeting: 0.9% Region 4 Mail questionnaire: 40.0% Telephone: 24.7% Internet questionnaire: 21.4% Public meeting: 10.4% Other ways: 1.8% Personal meeting: 1.6% How Would Utahns Preferto Provide Commentson Transportation Decision Making

  32. UDOT’sResponsiveness to the Public

  33. Responsiveness to Public:Subgroup Comparisons • Those with low trust more likely to rate responsiveness as poor (36.7%) and fair (48.6%) than those with moderate and high trust (2.0% poor, 32.6% fair). • Planning participants less likely to rate responsiveness as good (46.2%) and more likely to rate it as poor (10.9%) than non-participants (53.3% good, 5.8% poor).

  34. Trust in UDOTto Develop Fair Transportation Plans

  35. Amount of Trust:Subgroup Comparisons • Respondents age 45 to 64 more likely to have low level of trust (19.7%) than 18 to 24 (5.2%). • Those who participated in public planning more likely to have low trust (18.4%) than non-participants (12.4%).

  36. Reasons for Low Level of TrustOf the 2,561 respondents, 339 (13.2%) indicated a low level of trust. Of the 339 with a low level of trust, 310 gave 408 reasons why they have a low level of trust. • Ineffective Planning (102 responses; 25.0%) • UDOT’s poor planning results in inefficient time and money expenditures (24 respondents) • Poor decisions (22) • Public Relations Issues (74 responses; 18.1%) • Respondents not informed/involved in decision making process (34 respondents) • UDOT disregards public comment/opinions (29) • Specific Major Projects (65 responses; 15.9%) • Legacy Highway/improper handling of Legacy (36 respondents) • Need for expanded public transit services (16) • Rural Transportation Needs (42 responses; 10.3%) • UDOT failing to plan for rural areas (42 respondents)

  37. Reasons for Low Level of TrustOf the 2,561 respondents, 339 (13.2%) indicated a low level of trust. Of the 339 with a low level of trust, 310 gave 408 reasons why they have a low level of trust. • Time and Money (29 responses; 7.1%) • Inferior quality of work inefficient expenditure of time and money (19 respondents) • Distrust of Government Agencies (21 responses; 5.2%) • Specific Road Projects (19 responses; 4.7%) • UDOT Failure to Respond (13 responses; 3.2%) • General Discontent with UDOT (11 responses; 2.7%) • UDOT Dishonest with Public (10 responses; 2.5%) • Other (6 responses; 1.5%)

  38. Suggestions to Address ConcernsAbout Low Level of TrustWhen the 339 respondents with a low level of trust were asked what UDOT can do to address those concerns, 217 gave 259 responses. • Listen to Public Concerns (102 responses; 39.4%) • UDOT should consider/listen to public input (50 respondents) • Better dissemination of information (31) • Involve public in making decisions (21) • Improve Planning Efforts (46 responses; 17.8%) • Improve planning (14 respondents) • Improve planning to save time and money (13) • Streamline bureaucratic structure (10) • Specific Projects (38 responses; 14.7%) • Light rail/public transit expanded (19 respondents) • Address Legacy Highway needs (11) • Efficient Time and Money Expenditures (27 responses; 10.4%)

  39. Ways Respondents Have Participated in Transportation Decision Making

  40. Participate as private citizen or represent a group or organization. Individual: 81.9% (n = 452) Organization: 18.1% (n = 100) Satisfied input was considered during the planning process. Yes: 66.1% (n = 365) No: 33.9% (n = 187) Public Participation CharacteristicsOf the 2,561 respondents, 21.6% (n = 552) indicated they had participated in one or more ways in transportation decision making.Region 1, 19.4% (n=107); Region 2, 36.4% (n=201); Region 3, 13.8% (n=76); Region 4, 30.4% (n=168).

  41. Satisfaction that Input was Considered During the Planning Process

  42. Public Participation:Subgroup Comparisons • 18 to 24 year olds least likely to participate (15.4%) than expected (21.6%). • Those with special needs are more likely to participate (35.9%) than those without special transportation needs (20.4%). • Those with low trust more likely to have participated in transportation planning (29.1%) than those with moderate or high trust (20.4%). • The bike/ped user group more likely to have participated (26.6%) than non bike/ped group (18.4%).

  43. Satisfied InputConsidered During Planning ProcessOf the 365 (66.1%) who said they participated and felt satisfied, 312 gave 392 reasons why they felt satisfied. • Fairness of Participation Procedures (203 responses; 51.8%) • UDOT listened to and considered input • Fairness • Public and UDOT made decisions together • Newsletters received • Favorable Results (87 responses; 22.2%) • Problems/concerns addressed (road maintenance, traffic lights) • Suggestions/input followed up on • Communication with UDOT (52 responses; 13.3%) • Questions answered/explained • Information needs met • UDOT made effort to communicate effectively

  44. Not Satisfied InputConsidered During Planning ProcessOf the 187 (33.9%) who said they participated and were not satisfied, 167 gave 212 reasons for dissatisfaction. • Lack of Fairness in Participation Procedures (88 responses; 41.5%) • Agency had mind made up ahead of time • Public meetings only to satisfy procedural requirements • Concerns not taken into account • No power as individual • Unsatisfactory Response to Concerns (66 responses; 31.1%) • Unclear responses to meeting concerns • Problems not addressed (road maintenance, traffic lights) • Untimely/poor/no response • Perceived Lack of Concern (9 responses; 4.2%) • Non-local agency personnel do not care • UDOT’s lack of interest

  45. Summary: Uses and Preferences • Over 10% use public transportation at least once a week and one-quarter walk to work, shop, or other destinations. • One-third walk or bike for transportation purposes. • Majority (74%) rated the overall condition of state highways and freeways as good and excellent (n=1,891). • A majority think that UDOT places the right amount of emphasis on highways and other types of transportation (68%). • All “quality of life” transportation items averaged high importance scores. Safety and access issues were the highest and recreation/tourism the lowest. • Construction/maintenance concerns primary, followed by public transit, improving safety, reducing congestion. • Just over 7% indicated they or someone in their family have special needs for transportation or equipment. Accessibility, physical barriers, and public transit scheduling were primary concerns.

  46. Summary: Awareness and Participationin Decision Making • Three-quarters of respondents very or somewhat familiar with UDOT, but only one-quarter very or somewhat familiar with UDOT’s decision making processes. • Most receive information about UDOT from TV reports and newspaper articles. More than one-third get information from family or friends and one-fifth at work. • Preferred information sources are newspaper articles, newsletters, TV reports. • Preferred ways to provide input are mail questionnaires, internet questionnaires, and telephone. • Trust and responsiveness ratings are moderate -- about the same number rated UDOT in the low and high categories. Planning and public involvement/relations more important than specific project decisions. • More than one-fifth participated in transportation decision making processes. Participation processes as important as content.

  47. Summary: Subgroup Differences • Very few gender and regional differences so far. • Bike/Pedestrian more likely to have participated, and feel there is too much emphasis on highways, too little on other transportation forms. • Special needs more likely to have participated. • 18-24/over 64 age groups less familiar, less likely to participate, less likely to feel there is too much emphasis on highways (+64 only). • 45-64 less satisfied, lower trust level.

  48. Summary: Trust & Participation Subgroups • Low Trust: • More familiar with UDOT, • More likely to have participated, • More likely to rate responsiveness poor/fair, • Too much emphasis on highways and • Too much emphasis on other transportation forms, • Less satisfied with state transportation system. • High Participation • More familiar with UDOT, • More likely to have low trust, • More likely to rate responsiveness as poor, • Too much emphasis on highways.

More Related