NYSERDA/ NYSDOT Final Presentation Understanding Commuter Patterns - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

NYSERDA/ NYSDOT Final Presentation

Understanding Commuter Patterns & Behavior; An Analysis to Recommend Policies Aimed at Reducing Vehicle Use Agreements 11108, C012668, C-08-30, & PIN R.021.27.881 September 16th 2010

Availability of Alternative Transportation

• Main finding on accessibility and availability of

alternative transportation.

– Unless on a CDTA line, it is difficult for a UAlbany commuter to take bus transportation. – While there are bus lines that do make stops at UAlbany, their schedule is incompatible with the majority of the worker’s and student’s schedule. – Most buses make one stop on campus between 7 and 7:30 am and pick up around 4 pm. – There is an abundance of information and resources available as to bus routes and park and rides via the CDTC. However, it is difficult to get commuters to take advantage

• f their services.

– There are concerns with safety in biking and walking to campus.

Availability of Alternative Transportation

• Current conditions: Parking

fees are very low

– ($20 – 100)

• The campus population has

access to CDTA lines and the UAlbany shuttle for free. The following steps have been taken by the University in the last year:

• Participating in IPool2.
• Participating in the vanpool

program

• Hired Zipride to coordinate a ride

share program.

• Offering Universal Access to CDTA

bus lines

• Contracted with Connect by Hertz

to provide a car share program

• Graduate planning studio Master

Bike Plan

Availability of Alternative Transportation

• Overview of GIS analysis was performed on parking

permit data

– Able to identify clusters of commuting population to encourage and identify carpool and vanpool opportunities. – Able to identify commuting commonalities between UAlbany and Harriman campus employees. – About half of employee commuters living in Albany, Rensselaer and Schenectady counties are being served by a CDTA bus line within a 1/4 mile of their home. – Less than 20% from Saratoga county are being served by a CDTA line

Top postal codes of faculty commuters

Zip Code Name COUNT

12203 Albany 200 (13%) 12054 Delmar 152 12208 Albany 96 12309 Schenectady 94 12159 Slingerlands 59 12303 Schenectady 55 12065 Clifton Park 51 12084 Guilderland 49 12186 Voorheesville 42 12211 Albany 36 12210 Albany 33 12866 Latham 33 12205 Albany 31 12009 Altamont 27

• ut of 1,502 permits

Top postal codes of staff commuters

Zip Code Name COUNT

12203 Albany 276 (11%) 12205 Albany 130 12208 Albany 116 12065 Clifton Park 113 12303 Schenectady 102 12054 Delmar 98 12306 Schenectady 76 12180 Troy 76 12020 Ballston Spa 76 12110 Latham 73 12159 Slingerlands 73 12309 Schenectady 71 12144 Rensselaer 62 12206 Albany 55

• ut of 2,587 permits

Top postal codes of student commuters

Zip Code Name COUNT

12203 Albany 507 (5%) 12065 Clifton Park 341 12208 Albany 336 12180 Troy 277 12309 Schenectady 243 12205 Albany 241 12110 Latham 189 12303 Schenectady 176 12302 Schenectady 145 12054 Delmar 141 12210 Albany 134 12306 Schenectady 131 12866 Saratoga Springs 130 12020 Ballston Spa 125

• ut of 9,839 permits

Harriman: 60 mile buffer from UAlbany

Harriman Zip Code Name COUNT

12065 Clifton Park 169 (5%) 12205 Albany 160 12203 Albany 159 12180 Troy 130 12306 Schenectady 124 12303 Schenectady 123 12110 Latham 105 12144 Rensselaer 89 12208 Albany 81 12010 Amsterdam 81 12189 Watervliet 76 12309 Schenectady 73 12302 Schenectady 70

Harriman with UA Faculty & Staff Zip Code Name COUNT

12203 Albany 635 (9%) 12065 Clifton Park 333 12205 Albany 321 12054 Delmar 319 12208 Albany 293 12303 Schenectady 280 12309 Schenectady 238 12180 Troy 233 12110 Latham 211 12306 Schenectady 209 12159 Slingerlands 173 12144 Rensselaer 163 12020 Ballston Spa 154

• ut of 3,105 permits
• ut of 7,106 permits

How far from the bus stop?

Jurisdiction Walking Distance [Maryland] Mass Transit Administration 1500 ft. (0.28 mi.) [Kansas City, Missouri] Mid-America Regional Council 1500 ft. (0.28 mi.) [New Jersey] New Jersey Transit 0.25 – 0.5 mi. [Ontario, Canada] Ontario Ministry of Transportation 0.25 mi. [NY, CT, NJ, Tri-metro] Regional Plan Association 1000 ft. (0.19 mi.) [Snohomish City, Washington] Snohomish County Transportation Authority 1000 ft (0.19 mi.)

• Determine how many people are serviced by public

transportation by analyzing bus stop coverage.

• Buffer distance of 0.25 mi. was used for our initial

investigation.

Source: http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/planning/tod_docs/walking_distance_abstracts.pdf

Access to Bus Routes

County

2008 Faculty – Access to Bus Routes

Permits in County Permits within 0.25 mile bus stop buffer Percentage Served

Albany 842 470 56% Rensselaer 84 30 36% Saratoga 130 25 19% Schenectady 126 56 44% Total: 1,182 581 49%

County

2008 Staff – Access to Bus Routes

Permits in County Permits within 0.25 mile bus stop buffer Percentage Served

Albany 1,127 627 53% Rensselaer 272 131 48% Saratoga 298 23 8% Schenectady 270 133 49% Total: 2,012 914 45%

Access to Bus Routes

County

2008 Students – Access to Bus Routes

Permits in County Permits within 0.25 mile bus stop buffer Percentage Served

Albany 2,407 1,530 64% Rensselaer 665 343 52% Saratoga 889 102 11% Schenectady 667 321 48% Total: 1,182 581 50%

Summary of GIS analysis

• Albany County has the largest commuter base with 56.52% of the

permits distributed listing an Albany County address.

• The highest density of students is within two Albany communities

(12203, 12208) and Clifton Park (12065).

• Albany zip codes of 12203, 12205 and 12208 have the highest

density of staff commuters.

• Albany (12203) and Delmar (12504) have the highest density of

faculty.

• Clifton Park (12065) and two Albany communities (12205, 12203)

have the highest concentration of Harriman commuters.

• Approximately 45 to 50% of UAlbany commuters live within a

quarter mile of a CDTA bus stop

On-Time Performance Analysis

Using GPS to Evaluate the Effectiveness and Reliability of Mass Transit Serving the University at Albany

Background

The current body of literature on Transportation Demand Management (TDM) and evaluating on-time performance

• f transit systems was reviewed.
• Use of GPS allows for time and spatial analysis
• Schedule adherence of departures used as performance metric
• Use multiple timing points as posted in transit schedule to conduct

ride check

• For each time point along route determine if bus is early, on-time,
• r late
• On-time performance is the difference between scheduled and

actual departure time of bus from time point

• On-time percentage=OT departures/Total departures*100

Methodology

Definition of Departures:

• Early- Actual departure occurred

before scheduled time

• On-time- Actual departure occurred 0-

5 minutes after scheduled time

• Late- Actual departure occurred more

than 5 minutes after scheduled time Defining Level of Service(LOS):

• The LOS definitions are derived from a

manual produced by the Florida Department

• f Transportation that details how to

conduct a comprehensive operational analysis of transit

• Based on the on-time percentage it is

possible to grade the LOS provided by the transit agency

On-Time Percentage Level of Service (LOS) 95.0 – 100.0% A 90.0 – 94.9% B 85.0 – 89.9% C 80.0 – 84.9% D 75.0 – 79.9% E <75.0% F

On-time Performance LOS

Unit of Analysis

• The transit routes under

investigation in this study include CDTA routes 11 and 12 and the UAlbany Shuttle routes that serve Western Ave and Madison Ave

• The map shown on the right

illustrates CDTA route 12

• The blue line indicates the

path the bus traveled and the red dots are timing points

Map of CDTA Route 12

Deployment

• The deployment of the study occurred for three weeks during the

fall semester

• A total of nineteen student workers were trained to ride the bus

routes being studied and collect GPS data

• The GPS data has been post-processed and converted to a file

format compatible with Microsoft Excel for analysis

• An analysis template has been developed

in excel that converts the GPS time to seconds past midnight, reports the on- time percentage of departures and grades the level of service provided by the transit agency

On time percentage and reliability

• Mean provides on

time percentage of bus route

• Standard deviation

indicates reliability

• f route
• Low s.d. indicates a

consistent level of service Statistical Analysis of Routes

On time percentages Mean Stand. Dev.

• CDTA Route 11

71.4% 8.90

• CDTA Route 12

65.8% 17.20

• UAlbany- Madison 64.8%

9.90

• UAlbany- Western 60.2% 7.90

On time performance

• Routes: CDTA 11 and 12
• Both routes experienced a large percentage of early

departures (leaving prior to scheduled departure)

• UAlbany shuttle: Western and Madison routes
• Both routes experienced a large percentage of early

departures (leaving prior to schedule departure)

On time performance

GPS analysis summary

• Both transit operators were

found to have approximately 65 percent of departures on- time

• The percentage of late

departures was found to be minimal and not problematic

• Approximately 33 percent of

departures for both transit

• perators were found to be

early

• Both transit agencies need

to address the high percentage of early departures in order to provide a higher level of service

• The use of an Automatic

Vehicle Location (AVL) system is the recommended method of conducting future

• n-time performance

studies

Survey Overview

• Survey of entire campus administered by

Institutional Research during fall semester.

• Approximately 815 employees and 1265

students participated in the survey.

• Sample provided a good representation of

the campus composition with a slight

• verrepresentation of females.

Survey Overview

Employee sample:

• 30% teaching faculty, 70%

staff

• 57% female, 43% male
• Majority have worked at

University for over 5 years (72%)

• Most work on uptown

campus (91%) Student sample:

• 66% undergraduate, 34% graduate
• 14% Freshman, 14.5% sophomores,

19% junior, 17% senior, 19% masters, 13% doctorate

• 87% full time, 13% part time
• 5% from Alumni, 6% Colonial, 6%

Dutch, 6% Empire Commons, 3% Freedom, 9% Indian, 6% State

• 62% female, 38% male
• 90% spend most of their time on the

uptown campus

Survey Results: Employee Commuting Modes

• 40% commute between 3 and 15 miles
• 16% commute over 30 miles
• Average time of commute is 21 – 30 minutes
• 89% use car when travelling from campus to campus

3% 1% 2% 4% 3% 3% 73%

Drive alone Carpool (driver) Carpool (rider) Take CTDA Take UAlbany Shuttle Bike Walk

Survey Results: Student Commuting Modes

• 75% live within 10 miles of campus
• Average commute time is 11 to 15 minutes
• When travelling from one campus to another:

49% take a CDTA bus, 46% Drive, 43% take the UAlbany shuttle, 14% walk, 2% bike

Survey Results: Top problems in commuting

Big problem Severe Total Availability of bike lanes 26 22 48 Safety while biking 21 15 36 Availability of parking 20 14 34 Big problem Severe Total Availability of parking 21 30 51 Availability of bike lanes 14 13 27 Safety while biking 15 9 24 Availability of bus service 11 11 22

Employees Students

Survey Results: Top reasons preventing people from using alternative transportation

Driving is the most convenient option 82 Live too far to walk 77 Have to travel to other places on way to and from work 65 Live too far to bike 55 Do not feel safe biking 50 Live too far to walk 68 Driving is the most convenient option 60 Have to travel to other places on way to and from work 50 Bus does not come frequently or at right time 48 Live too far to bike 46 I do not know a person with whom I can carpool 44

Employees Students

Survey Results: Factors that would entice people to take the bus

Length of commute by bus similar to car commute 25 Bus stop within 5 minutes of home 18 Bus ran on more frequent schedule 18 Emergency transportation service available 16 Parking costs more or less available 7 Bus ran on more frequent schedule 32 Length of commute by bus similar to car commute 28 Bus stop within 5 minutes of home 27 Emergency transportation service available 19 Parking costs more or less available 15

Employees Students

Likelihood of employees using services

Definitely would Very likely would Total

Ability to work from home 39 26 65 Compressed work week 29 22 51 Free taxi rides home in an emergency 21 21 42 Rewards to taking transit 15 19 34 Free access to all CDTA bus routes 14 16 30 Preferred parking for hybrid/fuel efficient cars 9 13 22 Preferred parking for carpoolers 8 14 22 Carpooling program 6 16 22 Pre-tax bus pass purchases 8 13 21 Ride sharing 6 15 21 Assistance in finding carpool partners 6 14 20 Vanpooling 4 11 15 Bicycle amenities 5 8 13 Car sharing 4 9 13 Bike sharing 2 4 6

Likelihood of students using services

Definitely would Very likely would Total

Free access to all CDTA bus routes 39 18 57 Rewards to taking transit 22 24 46 Preferred parking for carpoolers 13 21 34 Carpooling program 8 16 24 Ride sharing program 8 15 23 Assistance in finding carpool partners 9 13 22 Preferred parking for hybrid/fuel efficient cars 9 12 21 Vanpooling program 7 13 20 Bicycle amenities 7 11 18 Car sharing program 6 11 17 Bike sharing program 6 7 13

Survey Results: Most desired bus services

Faster service (express buses, fewer stops) 63 More direct service (no transfers) 62 Shorter waiting time between buses 51 More convenient location of stops 47 Free access to all CDTA routes 42 Better and larger waiting shelters 29 Better security 22 More comfortable buses 13 More appealing look 3

Employees

Free access to all CDTA routes 63 Shorter waiting time between buses 63 Faster service (express bus and less stops) 62 More direct service (no transfers) 43 Better and larger waiting shelters 39 More convenient location of stops 37 Better security 32 More comfortable buses 22 More appealing look 6

Students

Survey Results: Top areas of connection

Downtown Albany 42 Rensselaer Train station 38 Albany Airport 36

Employees

Downtown Albany 67 Crossgates 55 Albany Airport 43 Rensselaer train station 43

Students

Survey Results: Do you know where to get information on:

Faculty Students

Yes No Yes No

Parking on campus 92 8 68 38 Taking transit to campus 54 46 62 32 Walking and biking to campus 26 74 24 76 Finding a carpool partner 21 79 11 89

Focus groups

• Focus groups gathered to provide more in depth response

to commuting patterns.

• Total of six stakeholder focus groups were formed.

– 4 student groups, 1 faculty, 1 staff – Student groups broken down into on campus, off campus (male and female) and graduate student

• Conducted during a two week

span between March 15th and 24th 2010.

Focus group topics

• What kinds of “rewards” would most likely entice employees

and faculty into using alternative transportation?

• How exactly can biking be made safer, what kinds of amenities

are most desired?

• Are there other reasons besides “lack of potential carpool

partners” that keep students and employees from using carpools?

• What locations do respondents need to “make trips to and

from campus”, for which their car is more “convenient”?

• Are there any other alternative transportation problems or

solutions that respondents wish to have expressed but were not able to due to the closed answer-system of quantitative surveys?

Main points from the employee focus groups

• Faculty/staff are generally positive about current parking options

at Uptown campus.

• Peak hour parking is a concern at Uptown
• Parking at Downtown campus is a concern after 9am
• Solutions to parking concerns by faculty/staff

included a parking garage, parking shuttle, and student parking restrictions.

• Valet parking, additional costs for parking,

preferred parking for certain vehicles all disliked by faculty/staff.

• Bus service is unavailable in certain locations,

inconvenient, often full, and has security concerns.

• Northway Express option is considered to be

"expensive".

Main points from the employee focus groups

• Improvement to bus service should include:
• Higher frequency, free routes (advertise).
• Internet on buses and hybrid buses didn't

test well in terms of lowering SOV use

• Carpooling efforts must include more incentives if it is to outweigh

the negatives (loss of "alone time", inconvenient, less dependable)

• Biking is not as important of a concern to faculty/staff as indicated
• n survey.
• General improvements offered included: telecommuting,

improved access to daycare on campus, rewards for transportation behavior, rail.

Main points taken from the student focus groups

• Improvement offered: Updates

available by phone, better signage, better service to certain locations (mall, train station, airport, etc), improve safety at bus stops.

• Internet on bus and hybrid buses

mixed reception by students.

• Students have parking concerns at Uptown Campus.
• Suggestions to improvement parking include: parking garage, better

signage, preferential parking.

• Cost and convenience major disincentives to using alternative

transportation.

• Bus service generally liked.
• Problems listed: too many stops, frequency, consistency,

schedule confusion, bus service doesn't exist where students live, buses are too full.

Main points taken from the student focus groups

• The idea of carpooling is liked by students although flexibility, safety,

logistical concerns were expressed.

• Ideas to improve carpooling include: website, rewards, and standards.
• Preferred parking, car sharing, and subsidized hybrids didn't test well.
• Biking improvements offered:

additional storage, racks on all CDTA and Ushuttles, better roads for biking including bike lanes, bike maps, and education campaigns.

• Reasons why students don't bike:

weather, lack of amenities (storage, showers), location of campus in relation to home.

• Additional suggestions: offer more
• n-campus entertainment, shopping
• ptions, graduate housing, improve

safety around neighborhoods for walking and biking.

Added insight garnered from Focus Groups

• Prevalence of driving for students due to convenience, home

travel, mall access

• Low use of alternative transportation and carpooling among

faculty and staff due to daycare access, preference for personal/alone time in car

• Specific areas of concern for safe bicycle access: Washington,

Western, Central Avenues, and State Office Campus

• Supported rewards for using alternative transportation

included gift and food certificates, podium money, and reduced student fees

• Reasons behind non-use of transit: distrust of

bus reliability during high stress periods (such as tests)

New suggestions from Focus Groups

• Parking garages
• Parking lot shuttles
• Expanded on-campus daycare
• Graduate housing on campus
• Real-time bus tracking
• Dormitory-led bus-education programs
• Expanded on-campus entertainment and dining
• ptions to reduce student off campus travel

Recommendations

• GIS Suggestions
• Review permit data collection system to ensure it can:
• Provide a baseline of the current population with accurate data
• Allow for continuity of data formatting from year to year

– Allow updating of data to allow for changes in commuter classification (i.e. faculty to staff, student to staff) – Flag households where multiple vehicles are registered to one commuter – Format should allow:

• Breakdown by type of commuter
• Breakdown data by type of vehicle to allow for a fleet mix study
• Student address database must include the primary local address based
• n residence, not work address

Recommendations

• GPS Analysis Suggestions
• The fiscal and time efficiency of on-time performance studies could be

greatly improved if transit agencies made use of an automated vehicle location (AVL) system.

• Survey and Focus Group Analysis Suggestions
• Suggested changes in wording of survey
• Begin the recruitment of focus group participants at least 1 month in

advance of the meeting

• Broaden scope to include any member on the campus community rather

than just survey respondents

Recommendations

• Improve UAlbany coordination of marketing programs

– Pair information on alternative transportation with information about parking, send information in the annual email notice to renew parking permits. – Set up point person at Harriman campus to coordinate efforts – Market IPool2 more aggressively to off-campus student commuters – Promote new universal access to CDTA routes by UAlbany community

• Obtain usage data from CDTA to analyze usage to improve

coordination of marketing.

Suggestions for future research

• Research the participants that are

already using IPool2 to analyze their usage and location.

• Identify potential rewards, both

monetary and nonmonetary, that can be administered to provide incentives to use alternative transportation.

• Continue to re-administer the

survey on a regular basis to assess changes in commuting patterns.

• Look into partnership
• pportunities beyond Harriman

Campus (i.e. Patroon Creek, NanoTech Complex).

• Explore options to increase the

price of parking to act as a deterrent for SOV use.

• Consider adding a fuel

efficient/hybrid vehicle category as a separate color coded parking permit.

• Explore whether it is feasible to

register employees and students up for carpooling and ridesharing programs when applying for parking permits.

• Research alternative work

arrangements. – Telecommuting – Compressed work-week

Questions?