1 / 71

Metro Transit Light-Rail Rider Survey

Metro Transit Light-Rail Rider Survey. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. Prepared by: DECEMBER 2008. PERISCOPE. Background and Methodology.

mandar
Download Presentation

Metro Transit Light-Rail Rider Survey

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. Metro TransitLight-Rail Rider Survey FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Prepared by: DECEMBER 2008 PERISCOPE

  2. Background and Methodology Metro Transit recently completed the 13th wave of its rider survey. This annual research project was initiated in 1993, and is overseen by Metro Transit’s Customer Service and Marketing departments. It is fielded to measure system-wide customer service and satisfaction levels. The research quantifies the opinions and perceptions of customers, measures the effectiveness of existing service and communications programs, and helps determine the elements of Metro Transit’s service which are most important to customers. As with recent waves of research, we will again used a distinct survey for light-rail riders. The deliverables are comparative reports outlining Metro Transit’s performance relative to previous years of bus and rail ridership. One additional report will be prepared that compares bus and light-rail results for questions that are common to both surveys.

  3. Background and Methodology (continued) • Notable changes were made to this 2008 light-rail rider study from the previous wave conducted in 2006. It is important to take note of these changes in methodology when considering differences in findings between the two studies. • Several questions and/or possible responses were altered in 2006 to better understand rider behavior and more closely match the bus rider study. Some additional changes were also made to this wave of research. • The dates, hours and number of stations increased in order to gather a broader set of data, as follows:

  4. Background and Methodology The number of completes and the response rate decreased slightly for this latest study. In total, 1,461 surveys were completed, achieving a response rate of approximately 15% for 2008, compared to 1,598 surveys completed and a response rate of 16% for the 2006 rider study. *Downtown East/Metrodome Terminal was not sampled on Sunday because it was closed.

  5. Background The chart below can be used to determine the approximate confidence interval (CI) of the data collected in the 2008 wave of research and presented in this report. The CI for data is a direct result of the sample size (N) (i.e., the number answering each question) and thus varies for each question based on the number of completes. The table presents the CI for sample sizes in increments of 500 assuming a 95% confidence level. In this manner, we would thus be able to determine that a question with N=4,500 would be accurate to within ±1.46% and a question with N=3,250 would be accurate to between ±1.66% and ±1.79%.

  6. Objectives • The specific objectives of this research are as follows: • To determine why customers ride the bus or light-rail. • To identify the primary sources of bus/light-rail information. • To assess how well Metro Transit communicates with customers in a variety of areas. • To evaluate riders’ overall level of satisfaction with Metro Transit. • To determine riders’ levels of satisfaction with several specific components of service, as well as identify which components impact overall satisfaction the most. • To identify which service elements are of greatest importance to customers. • To evaluate which possible service improvements are most important to riders. • To assess demographic characteristics of current riders. • To monitor attitudinal shifts from wave to wave. *Humphrey Terminal was not sampled because it was closed. Bloomington Central was not sampled because of low usage.

  7. Methodology For the 2008 research, we again fielded two distinct surveys: one for light-rail riders and one for bus riders. Unlike the bus, where the driver can actively distribute surveys, we do not have the same fielding option for the train. For riders of the light-rail system, surveys were distributed at stations along the Hiawatha line. Trained field staff were placed at these stations to distribute surveys to riders as they waited for their train. Those light-rail riders received a survey and were given the option of returning the completed survey by mail or completing the survey online. Due to a small online sample size, those results were not included in this report. We anticipated distributing about 20,000 bus surveys and 10,000 light-rail surveys. As in the past, surveys were distributed on both weekdays and weekends, per our sampling plan. 1,461 light-rail surveys were returned. Once collected, the surveys were scanned and subsequently analyzed. These numbers provide for excellent statistical reliability to compare wave to wave. In previous waves, surveys were distributed on a weekday and on a Saturday. Due to construction on the light-rail train, 2008 surveys were distributed on Wednesday and Sunday (instead of Saturday).

  8. Observations • The 2008 study showed an increase in advance-purchase fares such as Go-To Cards and other passes and a decrease in the percentage using cash and ticket vending machines. • Unlike those using the bus, the age profile for train users shows an increase in those in the 25-34 range (compared to an increase in the 18-24 age range for bus) – typically, people who are no longer in school but are active in the workforce. This shift is also seen in an increase of those reporting rush-hour ridership.. • There continues to be an increase in those boarding at the 38th Street station and a decrease in 46th Street and Fort Snelling (Park & Ride) station boardings. Riders are increasingly taking the LRT to the Airport-Lindbergh Terminal. • Respondents who drive to Park & Ride lots continue to decrease slightly as those walking or taking the bus continue to increase slightly. • Usage of the Metro Transit website currently is focused on general transit usage information such as route and schedule information. • Fewer train departures were made at downtown stations and more departures were made at airport stations during this 2008 study relative to previous waves.

  9. Observations (continued) • The percentage having used transit service for 2 or more years increased and the percentage having used transit service for less than two years decreased, perhaps suggesting a maturation on transit service usage. This is similar to findings in the bus survey. • Ratings of Metro Transit information attributes and overall satisfaction remain consistent with previous waves. Perceptions of train service are slightly down. Opinions relating to the cleanliness and comfort, security and safety, service hours, announcements and convenience are all down. As with bus, this may be in part due to increased train usage, larger numbers using the trains, and new riders with new expectations.

  10. Communications Implications • As Go-To cards and pre-paid usage continues to rise, we should promote the ability to use the Light-Rail beyond the daily commute. The Hiawatha line runs close to event venues and popular destinations and the flexibility of our cards encourages multi-modal transportation and allows for easy transfers. Our key growth areas are off-peak and we should leverage the flexibility of our existing programs to increase ridership beyond the already saturated commute. • Rush hour ridership continues to grow as our 25-34 year-old segment increases. The trains are congested, and in order to cut through that we should promote our alternative modes of transportation such as ride-share and bike-friendly resources. Commuter Challenge seems to be a strong avenue, with an increase in exposure and online efforts. • Riders frequently access the web for route information, yet we can be more dynamic then giving them a time and a place. We should utilize the web space to inform riders about alternative modes of transportation, the advantages of off-peak ridership, and the flexibility of our programs and transfers. If they are only going to specific pages, we should entice them to further explore through compelling copy, links and FFEs • Like the bus, we saw a dip in perceived service, safety and communication. We should utilize the amount of platform space as well as train interiors to display messaging to reassure riders and provide commuter tips that are beneficial to those who ride.

  11. Communications Implications (continued) • The percentage of both bus and train users continues to grow in the younger demographics. There seems to be an opportunity to focus on these student and early-career audiences through the increased focus on existing Metro Transit programs such as prepaid fares (e.g., U-Pass/Go-To College Pass or Go-To cards) and other programs such Commuter Challenge. Continued growth among these audiences may benefit the image of Metro Transit as a socially accepted or even preferred form of transportation - e.g., young and hip.

  12. CUSTOMER COMPOSITION

  13. Half of those surveyed ride the train five days per week. “HOW MANY DAYS PER WEEK DO YOU (USUALLY) RIDE THE TRAIN?” N = 1,409 *Not an option.

  14. Sixty-seven percent of respondents, a 17% increase from 2006, have used Metro Transit service for more than two years. “HOW LONG HAVE YOU USED METRO TRANSIT SERVICE?” N = 1,432Note: 2005 options phrased: More than 5 Years, 1 to 5 Years, 1 Month to 1 Year, Less than 1 Month, New Rider Since Train. 21% of 2005 respondents indicated that they were a New Transit Rider Since Train Service Began – this was only an option in 2005.

  15. Forty-six percent of respondents indicated that the train’s introduction “greatly influenced” their decision to use Transit. “HOW MUCH DID THE INTRODUCTION OF THE LIGHT-RAIL TRAIN INFLUENCEYOUR DECISION TO USE METRO TRANSIT SERVICE OR REGIONAL BUS SERVICE?” N = 1,397Note: Question was not asked in 2005.*Not an option.

  16. Similar to 2006, more than half of respondents indicated that they use Metro Transit service for the State Fair and for sporting events. “PLEASE INDICATE FOR WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING SPECIAL EVENTSYOU USE METRO TRANSIT SERVICE?” N = 1,073Note: Question was not asked in 2005. Multiple responses allowed; totals may not equal 100%. .*Not an option.

  17. Friend/Family/Coworker and Employer show the strongest influence on the decision to use Transit. “WHAT INFLUENCED YOUR DECISION TO FIRST TRY TRANSIT?” N = 1,380 Note: “Friend/Family/Coworker” was phrased “Friend/Coworker” in 2005 version. Options deleted from previous waves: “1-800-NEWRIDER,” “How to Ride Video,” “On My Own.” 59% of 2006 and 64% of 2005 respondents indicated “On My Own.” Multiple responses were allowed in 2008; totals may not equal 100%.*Not an option.

  18. Racial or ethnic backgrounds were very consistent with 2006, though the percentage of Caucasians is trending downward. “WHICH BEST DESCRIBES YOUR RACIAL OR ETHNIC BACKGROUND?” N = 1,396

  19. Eighty-five percent of respondents fall between the ages of 25 and 64, a 4% increase from 2006. “WHAT IS YOUR AGE?” N = 1,426

  20. Females continue to outnumber males consistently from year to year. “ARE YOU…?” N = 1,308

  21. Income distribution remains consistent with previous waves. “APPROXIMATELY WHAT WAS YOUR FAMILY’S TOTAL INCOME LAST YEAR BEFORE TAXES?” 36% N = 1,344*2005 version phrased: “$70,000 or More”; 2006 $70,000 or more = 34%; 2008 $70,000 or more = 36%.

  22. “Convenience” and “Saves Money on Parking” are the primary reasons respondents use Transit. “Avoids Stress of Driving” responses decreased 4% from 2006. “WHAT IS THE ONE MAIN REASON YOU USE THE TRAIN?” N = 1,451Note: 2005 was single response only and therefore results are not included. Multiple responses allowed; totals may not equal 100%.Also see supplemental data “one main reason no mult response”. *Not an option.

  23. Similar to 2006, the majority of respondents have one or two working automobiles available for their use. “HOW MANY WORKING AUTOMOBILES DO YOU HAVE AVAILABLE FOR YOUR USE?” N = 1,414

  24. RIDING PATTERNS

  25. Top 10 ZIP Codes: Trip Begun “FROM WHICH ZIP CODE DID YOU BEGIN YOUR COMMUTE TODAY?” N = 1,518Note: Top ten responses in order of frequency (most to least).

  26. Top 10 ZIP Codes: Trip Ended “TO WHICH ZIP CODE ARE YOU COMMUTING TODAY?” N = 1,164Note: Top ten responses in order of frequency (most to least).

  27. Train boardings were very similar to 2006 results with a 3% increase in the 38th Street station and a significant decrease (5%) in the 46th Street station. “AT WHICH STATION DID YOU BOARD THE TRAIN TODAY?” N = 1,438Note: Downtown East/Metrodome was not included in weekend data collection (10/26/08) due to platform maintenance.*Not an option.

  28. Over half of respondents (58%) departed the train at a downtown station. There was also a significant increase in departures from the Airport-Lindbergh station, increasing 4% from 2006 to 12%. “AT WHICH STATION DID YOU DEPART THE TRAIN TODAY?” N = 1,432 *Not an option.

  29. Similar to 2006, nearly two-thirds of participants ride on weekdays. 33% indicated that they ride on both weekends and weekdays, a 4% increase from 2006. “ON WHICH DAY(S) OF THE WEEK DO YOU USUALLY RIDE THE TRAIN?” N = 1,394Note: 2005 data is not included due to changes in response options.

  30. Seventy-one percent of respondents use the train during rush-hour periods, a 4% increase from 2006. “WHEN DO YOU USUALLY RIDE THE TRAIN?” N = 1,254Note: 2005 data is not included due to changes in response options.

  31. Usage of cash to pay fare decreased from 32% to 20% in 2008 and Metropass usage increased 7% to 24%. “HOW DID YOU PAY YOUR FARE TODAY?” N = 1,412Note: “U-Pass” and “Go-To College Pass” were combined as one option in 2006. Cost of Monthly Rail Passes increased from $40 to $76 in 2005. *Not an option.**SuperSaver was added in 2008.

  32. The number of respondents who indicated that they “Never” use a ticket vending machine to pay their fare increased 11% to 46% in 2008. “HOW OFTEN DO YOU USE A TICKET VENDING MACHINE TO PAY YOUR FARE?” N = 1,435Note: Question was not asked in 2005.

  33. Half of respondents indicated their employers offer Transit passes. “DOES YOUR EMPLOYER OFFER TRANSIT PASSES?” N = 1,364

  34. Eighty percent of respondents with employers who offer Transit passes indicated that their employer shares part of the Transit pass cost. “IF YOUR EMPLOYER OFFERS TRANSIT PASSES, DOES IT SHARE PART OF THE COST?” N = 661Note: Question was only asked of respondents who indicated that their employer does offer Transit passes. Previous waves are not included because the data is not comparable. A slide with data from all three waves is included in the Appendix.

  35. Metro Transit’s website remains the primary source of information for respondents. “WHAT IS YOUR PRIMARY SOURCE FOR TRANSIT INFORMATION?” N = 1,428 Note: “On-Board Cards” was phrased “Interior Cards” in the 2005 version. Multiple responses allowed in 2008; totals may not equal 100%. .*Not an option.

  36. Of those respondents who use www.metrotransit.org, over half use the Route/Schedule Pages (67%) and the Trip Planner (54%). “IF YOU USE METROTRANSIT.ORG, WHICH FEATURES DO YOU USE?” N = 1,024 Note: Multiple responses allowed; totals may not equal 100%. .

  37. Seventy-four percent of respondents take the train to work. “WHAT IS THE PRIMARY PURPOSE OF YOUR TRIP TODAY?” N = 1,449Note: Multiple responses allowed in 2008; totals may not equal 100%.

  38. Drive to Park & Ride (27%), Bus (27%) and Walk (26%) were the top three responses to how respondents got to the train station. “WHEN YOU BEGAN YOUR COMMUTE TODAY, HOW DID YOU GET TO THE TRAIN STATION?” N = 1,433

  39. Over half of respondents (56%) traveled over 1 mile to get to their train station. “HOW FAR WOULD YOU ESTIMATE YOU TRAVELED TO GET TO THE LIGHT-RAIL STATION WHERE YOU BEGAN YOUR TRIP?” N = 1,406

  40. Over half of respondents (58%) traveled ¼ mile or less to their final destination from the train station. “HOW FAR WOULD YOU ESTIMATE YOU WILL TRAVEL FROM YOUR LAST TRAIN (OR BUS) TO YOUR DESTINATION?” N = 1,407

  41. Similar to 2006 results, 42% of respondents indicated that they would transfer to a bus to complete their trip. “WILL YOU TRANSFER TO/FROM A BUS TO COMPLETE YOUR TRIP TODAY?” N = 1,439

  42. Among those who do transfer, the majority take one bus (in addition to the train) to complete their trip. These results are comparable to previous waves. “HOW MANY BUSES WILL YOU TAKE TO COMPLETE YOUR ONE-WAY TRIP?” N = 603Note: Question was only asked of those respondents who indicated that they would transfer to/from a bus as part of their trip.

  43. Slightly less than half of respondents would have otherwise driven alone had the train not been available; this percentage continues to decrease from wave to wave, as taking the bus slowly increases. “IF THE TRAIN HAD NOT BEEN AVAILABLE, HOW WOULD YOU HAVE MADE THIS TRIP?” N = 1,341

  44. RATINGS

  45. Nearly all consider the information provided on the Transit System Map to be good or excellent. RATING: CLEAR, ACCURATE ROUTE INFORMATION IN THE TRANSIT SYSTEM MAP  N = 1,180 Note: Arrow in the above table indicates direction of change over previous year’s top two box results. “Don’t Know” responses are not included.

  46. The majority of respondents (88%) consider the courteousness of customer service on the information line to be good to excellent. RATING: COURTEOUS CUSTOMER SERVICE ON THE METRO TRANSIT INFORMATION LINE (612-373-3333)  N = 649 Note: Arrow in the above table indicates direction of change over previous year’s top two box results. “Don’t Know” responses are not included.

  47. The information given out over the Metro Transit information line continues to be rated good to excellent. RATING: CLEAR, ACCURATE INFORMATION ON THE METRO TRANSIT INFORMATION LINE(612-373-3333)  N = 710 Note: Arrow in the above table indicates direction of change over previous year’s top two box results. “Don’t Know” responses are not included.

  48. As in previous waves, 90% of respondents indicated that the accuracy of the information in printed schedules is good to excellent. RATING: CLEAR, ACCURATE INFORMATION IN PRINTED SCHEDULES  N = 1,133 Note: Arrow in the above table indicates direction of change over previous year’s top two box results. “Don’t Know” responses are not included.

  49. Eighty-one percent of those surveyed rated the information provided in train shelters as good or excellent, a 4% increase over 2006. RATING: CLEAR, ACCURATE INFORMATION IN SHELTERS/PLATFORMS  N = 1,282 Note: Arrow in the above table indicates direction of change over previous year’s top two box results. “Don’t Know” responses are not included.

  50. www.metrotransit.org continues to be rated good to excellent by the majority of respondents. RATING: CLEAR, ACCURATE INFORMATION AT WWW.METROTRANSIT.ORG  N = 1,053 Note: Arrow in the above table indicates direction of change over previous year’s top two box results. “Don’t Know” responses are not included.

More Related