Data Collection and Surveys
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
TDM Encyclopedia
Victoria Transport Policy
Institute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Updated
May 17, 2007
This chapter discusses how to collect data and perform surveys for TDM program planning and evaluation.
Data Collection and Surveys are important for TDM Planning and Evaluation. This information helps improve the effectiveness of TDM programs, and identify possible problems and opportunities for improvement.
The following data is typically collected:
·
Before-and-after travel behavior data, such as commute mode choice and
Average Vehicle Ridership.
·
Information on takeback effects, such as additional vehicle trips that
participants make when they telecommute, or when they have extra non-work days
due to Compressed Workweeks.
·
Participants’ reactions, including both positive and negative feelings
about the program and individual strategies.
·
Problems and barriers, including unanticipated costs, spillover impacts
(such as parking problems in nearby neighborhoods), and opposition by some
participants.
·
Costs to participants, such as additional home heating and electricity
consumption while telecommuting, and perceived benefits, such as more
convenient childcare scheduling.
·
Costs and benefits to employers, including program administrative
costs, and effects on productivity and recruitment.
·
Market information (i.e., surveys of potential participants) to help
determine demand for potential new transportation services and the effects of
possible transportation improvements, and to identify barriers and potential
problems.
·
Parking and traffic counts.
This information can be used to produce an annual “State of the Commute” report, which describes TDM programs and resources, travel trends, and comparisons with other communities.
Data Collection and Surveys can be performed by a regional planning agency, a TDM Program, Transportation Management Association or a Commute Trip Reduction Program.
It is important that the data which is collected be comparable between different times and geographic areas. For example, it is helpful to use the same survey questions and evaluation methods for different worksites, and when performing surveys at different times, so the results are comparable. State, provincial or regional transportation planning agencies can develop standard evaluation procedures to insure data quality and consistency.
|
TDM Performance Indicators Below are common performance indicators used to Evaluate TDM programs. These indicators can be defined for a particular time (such as peak-hour) and geographic location (such as a particular destination, district or region). · Awareness – the portion of potential users who are aware of a program or service. · Participation – the number of people who respond to an outreach effort or request to participate in a program. · Utilization – the number of people who use a service or alternative mode. · Mode split – the portion of travelers who use each transportation mode. · Mode shift – the number or portion of automobile trips shifted to other modes. · Average Vehicle Occupancy (AVO): Number of people traveling in private vehicles divided by the number of private vehicle trips. This excludes transit vehicle users and walkers. · Average Vehicle Ridership (AVR): All person trips divided by the number of private vehicle trips. This includes transit vehicle users and walkers. · Vehicle Trips or Peak Period Vehicle Trips: The total number of private vehicles arriving at a destination (often called “trip generation” by engineers). ·
Vehicle
Trip Reduction – the number or percentage of automobiles removed from
traffic. · Vehicle Miles of Travel (VTM) Reduced – the number of trips reduced times average trip length. · Energy and emission reductions – these are calculated by multiplying VMT reductions times average vehicle energy consumption and emission rates. · Cost Per Unit of Reduction – these measures of cost-effectiveness are calculated by dividing program costs by a unit of change. For example, the cost effectiveness of various TDM programs could be compared based on cents per trip reduced, or ton of air pollution emission reductions. However, cost-effectiveness analysis that only considers direct impacts and a single objective may overlook additional costs and benefits to participants and society. For example, two TDM programs may have the same direct costs per unit of emission reduction, but differ significantly in terms of consumer costs, consumer travel options, traffic congestion, parking costs, crash risk and land use impacts. Evaluation
studies can compare performance indicator values before-and-after, over time
(for example, over months or years), with-and-without (for example, comparing
performance indicators at a worksite or area that has a TDM program with
otherwise comparable sites that do not have such programs, or with regional
averages). A
variety of methods can be used to collect the data needed for performance
evaluation, including general travel surveys and Statistics,
participant surveys, parking lot counts, traffic counts, and focus groups.
Before-and-after and with-and-with comparisons require the collection of good
baseline data, or the use of readily-available statistics. |
Benefits include improved TDM program effectiveness, early detection of possible problems, and justification for TDM program support.
Costs include administrative costs for gathering and evaluating information, and time/bother to participants for filling out surveys. Some employees may be uncomfortable answering surveys they consider personal or coercive.
· Establish data collection
and evaluation plans early during TDM program development.
· Develop a comprehensive
evaluation framework that considers direct and indirect impacts.
· Develop baseline data, if
possible, before the program is implemented.
· Survey TDM program
participants regularly (annually or semi-annually) to measure program
effectiveness and identify possible problems.
· Provide convenient
opportunities for participants and other stakeholders affected by VTR programs
to provide feedback by telephone, comment forms and email.
· Have data collection plans
reviewed by program evaluation experts. Review survey forms to insure that they
are easily understood.
· Perform market surveys
(i.e., of potential participants) to determine demand for alternative
transportation, and identify barriers and problems that limit their use.
|
A
doctor explains to his patient, “No wonder you feel run down, Mr. Grover.
We’ve done an extensive series of tests.” |
The Washington State Commute Trip Reduction law
provides several possible methods for employers to track their employees’
commute trips, including participant surveys, transit pass and ridesharing
benefits, or parking lot counts. The state provides a model survey, or
employers can produce their own.
Commute Trip Reduction programs in
Many TDM organizations now use Internet-based surveys for evaluation, some based on third-party support services. Examples include:
Carpool.ca (www.carpool.ca/Questions.asp)
Perseus (www.perseus.com).
Self Surveys (www.selfsurveys.com).
Los
Angeles-based RideLinks, Inc. offers a customizable Web-based employee commute
survey that requires no installation or training. From a remote location (i.e.
your office in N.Y. or our office in L.A.), you can implement the survey at
multiple sites (e.g. agency, employers, homes) and monitor survey progress at
each site in real-time. The online survey may be supplemented if necessary with
paper surveys as well.
The
standard commute survey can be tailored for specific trip reduction ordinances.
The Average Vehicle Ridership is automatically calculated and converted into
mobile source emissions generated: CO, VOC, NOx. The report is complete the
same day the survey is closed. A demonstration survey is available at their
website (click on “Demo”- marked with
the blue-checked racing flags).
Portions
of the section on Employee Trip Reduction program tracking and evaluation from
the BC Transit Travel Options Manual
are included below.
Program tracking and evaluation allows you to
determine how well your trip reduction efforts are doing in relation to your
planned targets and in relation to other organization’s Travel Option Plan
programs. Keep in mind that not meeting your targets does not always equate
with failure. You may have set your goals unrealistically high, or some facet
of your plan may be inappropriate to employees’ needs.
The process of program assessment or evaluation,
really takes place to some degree throughout the whole process; it is an
integral part of the process. Recall in our learning cycle of “think”, “act”,
“assess” and “reflect”, we learn best when theory is combined with practice.
Evaluation is where you, as a Travel Option
Coordinator, and your organization as a whole, have an opportunity to learn
from your experience as it grows. Viewed in this light, program evaluation,
though often viewed as separate from the main stream of program activity, is in
fact a very important element to long-term program success. Evaluation is the
first step in the feedback loop that sees your program ‘learn’ and adapt even
as it is being designed and implemented.
Measure as often as you require to keep interest up
and to track progress. People are always interested to see evidence of success
or failure. This feedback in important for program profile.
As a minimum, an annual partial Employee
Transportation Survey is an essential part of your program tracking and
evaluation. Seek out enough information to compare each year’s Average Vehicle
Ridership and Employee Percentage Participation with the year previous, as well
as any other participation targets you may have set. Comparing data generated
each year will provide a clear picture of how your Travel Option Plan is
encouraging change in commuting habits.
An essential companion to the annual employee survey,
are informal, but semi structured interviews with both participating and
non-participation fellow employees. Semi structured interviews are just
interviews with open questions that you ask of each interviewee. Open questions
are used to encourage interview participants to volunteer information that you
may not have anticipated in your questions. Open questions are questions for
which there is no yes or no answer. For example, “How would you describe your
experience as a vanpool participant?” is an open question. This will elicit
more information than closed questions such as, “Was your experience with the
van pool good or bad?”
Canvass fellow workers about their expectations and
concerns about your company’s Travel Option Plan. Speak with them in the
lunchroom, place a more comprehensive questionnaire in the employee newsletter
and (of course) bring up the topic among your own carpool mates. Keep a record
of what they tell you, to see if any pattern emerges. The best suggestions
usually come from those who have to live the plan, day in and day out.
Average Vehicle Ridership is recommended as the best
single overall benchmark for your organization. When determined using the
standards of this manual, AVR is easily measured, easily understood, and will
enable you to compare your commuting patterns with that of other organizations
as well.
We also recommend you measure and set targets using
the “Employee Percentage Participation Calculation” described in this manual.
This calculation measures the alternative travel modes used by employees as a
percent of all employees. By using the Employee Percentage Participation
Calculation, you be able to assess, report and set new targets about what
percent of all employees in your workplace travel to work in the different
modes i.e. solo drivers, car and van poolers, transit riders, cyclists,
walker/joggers, and telecommuters.
Depending on the nature of your Travel Option Plan,
the travel options best suited to your organization and the targets your Travel
Option Plan set, you will likely develop your own specific benchmarks to assess
progress. These could include cost benefit analyzes, changing employee
perception and attitudes, or trace links between the program and workplace
productivity and employee absenteeism, for example.
Surveys are used to Measure and Evaluate TDM programs, particularly Commute
Trip Reduction and Campus Transport Management
programs. Their results can be compared with other Transportation
Statistics.
Association for Commuter Transportation (www.actweb.org) is a non-profit organization supporting TDM Programs.
Auditor General
(2003), “Road Transportation in Urban
Areas: Accountability for Reducing Greenhouse Gases,” 2003 Report of the
Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Office
of the Auditor General of
Bureau of Transportation Statistics (www.bts.gov) provides information on survey methodologies.
Center for Urban
Transportation Research (http://cutr.eng.usf.edu)
provides TDM materials and classes and publishes TMA Clearinghouse Quarterly.
Lori Diggins, Eric N. Schreffler and Jennifer Gregory (2004), “Methodology for Regional Survey to Estimate Extent of Alternative Mode Switching from Voluntary Mobile Emissions Reduction Program,” Transportation Research Record 1864, Transportation Research Board (www.trb.org), pp. 144-152.
Carolyn Fallon (2004), Charles Sullivan and David A. Hensher, “Constraints Affecting Mode Choices By Morning Car Commuters,” Transport Policy, Vol. 11, No. 1 (www.elsevier.com/locate/tranpol), January 2004, pp. 17-29.
FHWA (2000), Transportation Performance Measures Toolbox, Operations Unit, Federal Highway Administration (www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov); available at www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/travel/deployment_task_force/perf_measures.htm.
METRO (2002), Regional TDM Program Evaluation Report, Portland METRO (www.metro-region.org). This is an example of comprehensive TDM program evaluation.
Performance Measurement Exchange (http://knowledge.fhwa.dot.gov/cops/pm.nsf/home), is a website supported by the U.S. Federal Highway Administration and the Transportation Research Board to promote better transportation decision-making.
Craig Jesus Poulenez-Donovan and Cy Ulberg (1995),
Seeing the Trees and Missing the
RIDES (various years), Commute Profile, The Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s Regional Rideshare Program (www.rideshare.511.org/research).
Peter R. Stopher and Stephen P. Greaves (2007), “Household Travel Surveys: Where Are We Going?,” Transportation Research A, Vol. 41, Issue 5 (www.elsevier.com/locate/tra), June 2007, pp. 367-381.
TravelSmart Survey Methods Website (www.TransportSurveyMethods.com.au) provides information on the survey methods used to evaluate the Australian Travel Smart programs.
TRB (2001), Performance Measures to Improve Transportation Systems and Agency Operations, Transportation Research Board (www.trb.org); available at http://gulliver.trb.org/publications/conf/reports/cp_26.pdf.
TC (2002), Commuter Options: A Complete Guide for
Canadian Employers, Transport
WSDOT (1999), Employee Transportation Coordinator Handbook, Washington State CTR Program (www.wsdot.wa.gov); available at www.wsdot.wa.gov/tdm/tripreduction/download/ETC_Handbook.pdf.
This
Encyclopedia is produced by the Victoria Transport Policy Institute to help
improve understanding of Transportation Demand Management. It is an ongoing
project. Please send us your comments and suggestions for improvement.
Victoria Transport Policy Institute
www.vtpi.org info@vtpi.org
Phone & Fax 250-360-1560
#40