1 / 31

An on-line pilot for a SP survey

An on-line pilot for a SP survey. Dr Eric CORNELIS FUNDP-GRT. Outline. Context Why on-line surveying ? How advertising respondents ? Technical issues Design of the survey Some results from the RP part Demo Advantages & Limits. Outline. Context Why on-line surveying ?

phillip-gilliam
Download Presentation

An on-line pilot for a SP 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. An on-line pilot for a SP survey Dr Eric CORNELIS FUNDP-GRT COST 355, WG3, Madrid, May 10

  2. Outline • Context • Why on-line surveying ? • How advertising respondents ? • Technical issues • Design of the survey • Some results from the RP part • Demo • Advantages & Limits COST 355, WG3, Madrid, May 10

  3. Outline • Context • Why on-line surveying ? • How advertising respondents ? • Technical issues • Design of the survey • Some results from the RP part • Demo • Advantages & Limits COST 355, WG3, Madrid, May 10

  4. Context • Building a new RER around Brussels COST 355, WG3, Madrid, May 10

  5. Context(2) • Impact of parkings on mode choice • Inventorying actual parking places in the neighbourhood of the stations • Surveying on how commuters actually travel • Surveying on how they would change their mode according to modified parking characteristics =>Need for a SP survey COST 355, WG3, Madrid, May 10

  6. Outline • Context • Why on-line surveying ? • How advertising respondents ? • Technical issues • Design of the survey • Some results from the RP part • Demo • Advantages & Limits COST 355, WG3, Madrid, May 10

  7. Why on line ? • Postal or phone protocols not very suitable for SP surveys • Face to face OK but • Resources (time & budget) consuming • Possible to interview commuters in trains • BUT how surveying commuters using car ? • Sampling : from which base population ? Internet survey ? Recruiting COST 355, WG3, Madrid, May 10

  8. Outline • Context • Why on-line surveying ? • How advertising respondents ? • Technical issues • Design of the survey • Some results from the RP part • Demo • Advantages & Limits COST 355, WG3, Madrid, May 10

  9. Advertisement • Mobility managers from big companies in Brussels • Free newspaper (METRO) • Flyers in station parkings • E-mails to university alumni Rem : OK since more than 500 complete answers in one month COST 355, WG3, Madrid, May 10

  10. Outline • Context • Why on-line surveying ? • How advertising respondents ? • Technical issues • Design of the survey • Some results from the RP part • Demo • Advantages & Limits COST 355, WG3, Madrid, May 10

  11. Technical issues PHP + MySQL • Advantages • Dynamically built web pages • Automatic control and checking • Automatic storage of answers into DB • Retrieving data in other tools (e.g. Excel) • Free solution COST 355, WG3, Madrid, May 10

  12. Outline • Context • Why on-line surveying ? • How advertising respondents ? • Technical issues • Design of the survey • Some results from the RP part • Demo • Advantages & Limits COST 355, WG3, Madrid, May 10

  13. Design • Belgium => 2 languages • 2 parts • RP part (actual behaviour) • SP exercise : varying attributes on base of RP data 8 pairs of scenarii • Filters • Home or workplace outside RER area • Commuting with other modes than • Car • Bike + train • Car + train COST 355, WG3, Madrid, May 10

  14. RP part • Socio – economical characteristics (gender, age) • Commuting mode • Location (home, workplace) • Travel time (departure and arrival) • Availability of driving license and car(s) (including company car) • Reimbursement of travel costs COST 355, WG3, Madrid, May 10

  15. RP part (2) • If commuting by car • Knowledge according potential departure station (and parking opportunities) • Parking at workplace (distance, time, cost, type) • Knowledge according potential arrival station • If commuting by car + train • Parking at station (distance, time, cost, type, comfort, security) COST 355, WG3, Madrid, May 10

  16. SP part • If actually commuting by car • Commuting by car • Commuting by car + train • If parking AT working place, CAR alternative COST 355, WG3, Madrid, May 10

  17. SP part(2) • If parking NEAR working place, CAR alternative COST 355, WG3, Madrid, May 10

  18. SP part (3) • CAR + TRAIN alternative COST 355, WG3, Madrid, May 10

  19. SP part (4) • If actually commuting by car + train • Car + train • Car + train 2 alternatives with different attributes for parking COST 355, WG3, Madrid, May 10

  20. SP part (5) • If actually commuting by bike + train • Bike + train • Car + train 2 scenarii different by parking characteristics COST 355, WG3, Madrid, May 10

  21. Outline • Context • Why on-line surveying ? • How advertising respondents ? • Technical issues • Design of the survey • Some results from the RP part • Demo • Advantages & Limits COST 355, WG3, Madrid, May 10

  22. Some results from RP part • Bias ? COST 355, WG3, Madrid, May 10

  23. Some results from RP part(2) COST 355, WG3, Madrid, May 10

  24. Some results from RP part(3) COST 355, WG3, Madrid, May 10

  25. Some results from RP part(4) COST 355, WG3, Madrid, May 10

  26. Some results from RP part(5) COST 355, WG3, Madrid, May 10

  27. Outline • Context • Why on-line surveying ? • How advertising respondents ? • Technical issues • Design of the survey • Some results from the RP part • Demo • Advantages & Limits COST 355, WG3, Madrid, May 10

  28. Demo COST 355, WG3, Madrid, May 10

  29. Outline • Context • Why on-line surveying ? • How advertising respondents ? • Technical issues • Design of the survey • Some results from the RP part • Demo • Advantages & Limits COST 355, WG3, Madrid, May 10

  30. Advantages • No resources consuming • No re-encoding (=> less errors) • Automatic direct checking COST 355, WG3, Madrid, May 10

  31. Limits • Which base population (for weighting) ? • Problem for people unfamiliar with internet • Perhaps too much parameters in SP • Changes ranges ? COST 355, WG3, Madrid, May 10

More Related