METRO Park-and-Ride Survey Presentation (Daniel Christen Graduate Thesis/Applied Project)

1,390 views

Published on

Presentation of my graduate thesis/applied project, which was a location (geo-spatial) analysis of park-and-ride users throughout the Phoenix metropolitan region. Information for the analysis was collected from survey data pertaining to respondent origin-destination locations and socio-economic characteristics.

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,390
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
27
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
10
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

METRO Park-and-Ride Survey Presentation (Daniel Christen Graduate Thesis/Applied Project)

  1. 1. METRO Park-and-Ride Survey<br />Daniel J. Christen<br />April 2011<br />
  2. 2. SURVEY BACKGROUND<br />
  3. 3. Survey Introduction<br />Purpose of the survey was to understand the travel patterns and characteristics of Valley Metro Rail (METRO) park-and-ride users.<br />Survey included 18 questions<br /><ul><li>Origin-destination locations
  4. 4. Opinions about METRO park-and-ride facilities
  5. 5. Personal socio-economic characteristics</li></ul>Eight of the 18 questions were looked at in detailed analyses<br /><ul><li>Respondent zip code locations (spatial distribution)
  6. 6. Respondent park-and-ride facility used (park-and-ride comparison)</li></ul>A commute time analysis was conducted to determine the time difference between direct commute (origin to destination) and park-and-ride commute (origin to destination via park-and-ride) for all respondents<br />
  7. 7. Survey Distribution<br />Flyers were used to invite participants to fill out the survey on Survey Monkey. The distributed flyers targeted all park-and-ride users among the eight METRO park-and-ride facilities within a given time frame.<br />2,500 flyers were used for distribution<br /><ul><li>1,844 flyers were distributed on Tuesday, November 16, 2010, between 9:00 AM and 11:00 AM (proportionally)
  8. 8. 656 flyers not used on November 16 were distributed on Wednesday, November 17, 2010, between 9:00 AM and 12:00 PM (equally)</li></ul>Flyers were distributed to 52.5% of all parking spaces on November 16, which represents total park-and-ride utilization<br />184 respondents based on the 2,500 flyers, thus a response rate of 7.36%<br />Only 156 respondents defined both their origin and destination locations, thus the remaining 28 respondents were not included in the survey analyses.<br />
  9. 9. Park-and-Ride Respondents<br />
  10. 10. Flyer and Respondent Percentages<br />
  11. 11. RESPONDENT DISTRIBUTION<br />
  12. 12.
  13. 13.
  14. 14.
  15. 15.
  16. 16.
  17. 17.
  18. 18.
  19. 19.
  20. 20.
  21. 21.
  22. 22.
  23. 23.
  24. 24.
  25. 25.
  26. 26.
  27. 27.
  28. 28.
  29. 29.
  30. 30.
  31. 31.
  32. 32.
  33. 33. QUESTION RESULTS<br />
  34. 34. Detailed Questions<br />Eight of the 18 questions were looked at in detailed analyses<br /><ul><li>Respondent zip code locations (spatial distribution)
  35. 35. Respondent park-and-ride facility used (park-and-ride comparison)</li></ul>The questions include…<br /><ul><li>Question 2: Weekly park-and-ride usage
  36. 36. Question 5: Perceived travel time from origin to park-and-ride
  37. 37. Question 7: Trip purpose (school vs. work)
  38. 38. Question 9: Parking availability
  39. 39. Question 10: Park-and-ride and light rail convenience
  40. 40. Question 11: Implementation of a park-and-ride fee
  41. 41. Question 16: Park-and-ride user age
  42. 42. Question 18: Park-and-ride user annual gross income</li></li></ul><li>Types of Analysis Weights<br />Two types of analysis weights were used to solve for zip code or park-and-ride facility values based on respondent attributes per question.<br /><ul><li>Linear weights
  43. 43. Weighted percentages</li></ul>Questions 2, 5, 16, and 18 were solved with linear weights because the questions could be scaled linearly (Ex. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 20, …)<br /><ul><li>Weights were multiplied by the number of respondents per question category per zip code or park-and-ride and then added to get a total value</li></ul>Questions 7, 9, 10, and 11 were solved with weighted percentage values because the questions had only two extreme values (Ex. No = -1, Yes = 1)<br /><ul><li>Weights were multiplied by the number of respondents per category, divided by the total number of respondents (per unit of analysis), and then added to get a deviation value from “0”</li></li></ul><li>More About Weighted Percentages<br />Questions with weighted percentages that had more than two categories were given half weights of -0.5 and 0.5 depending on the relationship of the categories. (Ex. Never available = -1, Somewhat available = -0.5, Available = 0.5, and Always available = 1)<br />Categories given a weight of -0.5 or 0.5 will only have half the influence of those categories with weights of -1 or 1.<br />EXAMPLE: Four respondents in a zip code. Three respondents answer always available, while the fourth respondent answers available.<br /><ul><li>(3 respondents) x (weight of 1) = 3 / (4 total respondents) = 0.75
  44. 44. (1 respondent) x (weight of 0.5) = 0.5 / (4 total respondents) = 0.125
  45. 45. 0.75 + 0.125 = 0.875 deviation value</li></li></ul><li>Question 2: Weekly Usage<br />
  46. 46.
  47. 47. Question 2 Park-and-Ride Results<br />
  48. 48. Question 5: Perceived Travel Time<br />
  49. 49.
  50. 50. Question 5 Park-and-Ride Results<br />
  51. 51. Question 7: Trip Purpose<br />
  52. 52.
  53. 53.
  54. 54. Question 7 Park-and-Ride Results<br />
  55. 55. Question 9: Parking Availability<br />
  56. 56.
  57. 57.
  58. 58. Question 9 Park-and-Ride Results<br />
  59. 59. Question 10: Convenience<br />
  60. 60.
  61. 61. Question 10 Park-and-Ride Results<br />
  62. 62. Question 11: Parking Fee<br />
  63. 63.
  64. 64. Question 11 Park-and-Ride Results<br />
  65. 65. Question 16: User Age<br />
  66. 66.
  67. 67. Question 16 Park-and-Ride Results<br />
  68. 68. Question 18: User Income<br />
  69. 69.
  70. 70. Question 18 Park-and-Ride Results<br />
  71. 71. COMMUTE TIME ANALYSIS<br />
  72. 72. Analysis Background<br />An analysis based on route distance and route time data was conducted in order to find the difference in commute times between origin and destination (direct commute), and between origin and destination via park-and-ride (park-and-ride commute). <br />Three major components…<br /><ul><li>Origin Route Time: Time between origin location and park-and-ride
  73. 73. Destination Route Time: Time from park-and-ride to closest destination station
  74. 74. Direct Route Time: Time between origin location and destination location</li></ul>The direct route time is the direct commute time, while the sum of the origin route time and destination route time is the park-and-ride commute time<br />
  75. 75. Solving for Origin Route Time<br />Origin route time was solved by finding a common factor for all respondent origin routes based on average distance and average travel time.<br /><ul><li>Average distance of all respondent origin routes was 6.43 miles
  76. 76. Average travel time was based on Question 5 category parameters</li></ul>Time factor estimates were compared to each other based on the amount of travel time values within corresponding stated travel time parameters for each respondent in Question 5. The time factor with the most respondents within stated parameters was 16.5 minutes for every 6.43 miles traveled.<br />EXAMPLE: If a respondent answered 10 to 15 minutes for Question 5 and had a travel time of 12.25 minutes, where for every 17 minutes, 6.43 miles would be covered, that respondent would be “in parameters” for a time factor of 17 minutes.<br />ORIGIN ROUTE TRAVEL TIME:<br /> 6.43 miles / 16.5 minutes = (respondent origin route distance in miles) / X min.<br />
  77. 77. Time Factor Comparison<br />
  78. 78. Solving for Destination Route Time <br />Destination route time for each respondent was solved by finding the light rail travel time between a respondent’s park-and-ride facility and the closest light rail station to their destination.<br />Light rail travel times were solved using the METRO light rail schedule that become effective on January 24, 2011.<br />The light rail station times for the train starting closest to 9:00 AM were used as the benchmark light rail times<br /><ul><li>Monday Through Thursday Eastbound: Starts at 8:57 AM at Montebello and ends 10:02 AM at Sycamore
  79. 79. Monday Through Thursday Westbound: Starts at 9:06 AM at Sycamore and ends 10:11 AM at Montebello</li></ul>The difference between the two station times per respondent is the destination route time<br />
  80. 80. Solving for Direct Route Time<br />Solved using trigonometry (Law of Cosines):<br /><ul><li>All three route distances are known (origin, destination, and direct)
  81. 81. Two of the three route times are known (origin and destination)</li></ul>NOTE: All three routes must be straight lines in order for trigonometry to work!<br /><ul><li>Why origin route distance was not based on the shortest path route
  82. 82. Straight destination route distance (park-and-ride to destination location) is used instead of the real destination route distance of the light rail line</li></ul>Two steps of trigonometry are needed to solve for direct route time…<br /><ul><li>STEP 1: Solving for the angle of distance between the origin route and destination route based on the known route distances
  83. 83. STEP 2: Angle measurement in radians is used to find the direct route time based on the other two known route times</li></li></ul><li>Destination Route Regression<br />A regression model showed straight destination route distances were statistically similar to real light rail destination route distances at the 95% confidence level with an r-square value of 0.97, thus significant to use.<br />
  84. 84.
  85. 85. Trigonometry Steps 1 and 2<br />STEP 1<br />STEP 2<br />
  86. 86.
  87. 87.
  88. 88. Park-and-Ride Average Time Values<br />
  89. 89.
  90. 90.
  91. 91. Commute Difference<br />
  92. 92. CONCLUSION<br />
  93. 93. Significant Findings<br />FIRST: The three closest park-and-rides to ASU (Dorsey, McClintock, and Price) had a significant amount of school purpose respondents compared to the other park-and-rides<br />SECOND: Dorsey was the only park-and-ride in which respondents felt not enough parking existed at the facility<br />THIRD: West Valley park-and-rides were considered slightly more convenient compared to East Valley park-and-rides<br />FOURTH: Contrasting relationship between terminal park-and-rides (Montebello and Sycamore) and central park-and-rides (38th Street and Dorsey)<br /><ul><li>WEEKLY USAGE
  94. 94. USER AGE
  95. 95. TRAVEL TIME
  96. 96. COMMUTE DIFFERENCE</li></li></ul><li>A Successful Survey Study?<br />FIRST: Ratio between distributed flyers per park-and-ride and number of respondents per park-and-ride was similar, thus creating an accurate response rate per park-and-ride facility<br />SECOND: Spatial distribution of respondents and respondent area shapes were similar to those found in other park-and-ride studies<br /><ul><li>50% of respondents are within 5 miles of park-and-ride: SURVEY HAD 58.3%
  97. 97. 80% of respondents are within 10 miles of park-and-ride: SURVEY HAD 82.7%
  98. 98. Respondent areas (catchment areas) tend to be either parabolas or ellipses: SURVEY HAD BOTH PARABOLAS AND ELLIPSES </li></ul>THIRD: Dorsey had the longest perceived travel time of 14.44 minutes, while having the largest commute difference in which the park-and-ride commute was 25.83% longer than the direct commute. Thus the commute time analysis a success!<br />
  99. 99. THANK YOU<br />

×