Prepared For: Utah Transit Authority, Utah Department of Transportation Submitted By: Utah State University, Landscape Architecture and Environmental Planning
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Prepared For: Utah Transit Authority, Utah Department of Transportation Submitted By: Utah State University, Landscape Architecture and Environmental Planning https://www.skicity.com/blog/stories/post/ski-citys-uta-ski-bus/ DISCLAIMER The authors alone are responsible for the preparation and accuracy of the information, data, analysis, discussions, recommendations, and conclusions presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, endorsements, or policies of the Utah Transit Authority. The Utah Transit Authority makes no representation or warranty of any kind, and assumes no liability therefore. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors acknowledge the Utah Transit Authority (UTA) and Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) for funding this research (Project number: UTA 18-2936TP). Cover page photo: Mackensen. (2012). Flickr. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Line_(TRAX)#/media/File:TRAX_Red_Line_to_Daybreak_a t_Fort_Douglas_Station.jpg (accessed on April 23, 2020). i TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................................... iii LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................................... iv EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................... 1 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 3 2. Literature Review.................................................................................................................... 5 2.1. Previous UTA studies ..................................................................................................... 5 2.2. Review of transit rider surveys ..................................................................................... 10 2.3. Academic Studies.......................................................................................................... 13 2.3.1. Transit customer experience, satisfaction, and loyalty ......................................... 13 2.3.2. First-mile and last-mile problem ........................................................................... 13 2.3.3. Experiential factors associated with transit satisfaction and loyalty .................... 15 3. Methods................................................................................................................................. 20 3.1. Survey design ................................................................................................................ 20 3.2. Analysis methods .......................................................................................................... 21 4. Results ................................................................................................................................... 22 4.1. Descriptive statistics of first-mile and last-mile travel ................................................. 22 4.2. Analysis of non-riders ................................................................................................... 25 4.3. Importance-Satisfaction (I-S) Analysis......................................................................... 26 4.4. Path analysis of customer satisfaction and loyalty ....................................................... 29 5. Recommendations to UTA ................................................................................................... 33 5.1. System investment on and around urban and neighborhood centers ............................ 33 5.2. Progressive adaptation of modal integration and mobility-as-a-service (MaaS) .......... 35 5.3. Safety and amenity on walking routes and stops: urban design strategies needed ....... 39 5.4. Land use—transit integration: shared parking and TOD programs .............................. 41 6. Conclusions and areas for future research ............................................................................ 44 7. References ............................................................................................................................. 45 Appendix A. Questionnaire survey ............................................................................................... 51 ii LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Summary of previous UTA studies………………………………………………. 6 Table 2. Summary of transit experience survey……………………………………………. 10 Table 3. Summary of variables related to transit customer satisfaction in the literature…... 16 Table 4. Summary of variables related to transit customer loyalty in the literature……….. 17 Table 5. Demographics of survey respondents and UTA service areas…………………… 22 Table 6. Number of travel modes for the first mile and the last mile……………………… 24 Table 7. Ride frequency and distance to the nearest transit stop…………………………... 25 Table 8. Impacts on not riding transit……………………………………………………... 26 Table 9. Importance-Satisfaction analysis results of UTA service……………………........ 27 Table 10. Ride frequency and overall satisfaction and loyalty to UTA service…………… 29 Table 11. Descriptive statistics of experiential variables…………………………………...30 Table 12. Path analysis result……………………………………………………………….31 iii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Change in annual ridership by year for bus and rail (1990-2018)……………….. 3 Figure 2. UTA TRAX and FrontRunner System Map……………………………………...5 Figure 3. UTA On-board survey results compiled by RSG in 2011……………………….. 7 Figure 4. Density and Transit Mode Relationship…………………………………………. 8 Figure 5. Average amenity preference score………………………………………………. 9 Figure 6. Attitudinal statements among different UTA user types………………………… 9 Figure 7. Frequency of survey modes……..……………………………………………….. 12 Figure 8. Sample size distribution…….…………………………………………………… 12 Figure 9. Frequency of survey items……………………………………………………….. 12 Figure 10. Conceptual framework of transit rider satisfaction and loyalty………………... 19 Figure 11. Walking time (home to stop)……….………………………………………….. 23 Figure 12. Walking time (stop to destination)……….…………………………………….. 23 Figure 13. First travel mode from home………..………………………………………….. 23 Figure 14. Last travel mode to the destination……….…………………………………….. 23 Figure 15. Common trip chain types for transit travel……………………………………... 25 Figure 16. Importance-Satisfaction quadrant of UTA service……………………………... 28 Figure 17. Net Promoter Score® distribution……………………………………………… 29 Figure 18. Bar graph of significant coefficients for overall satisfaction on transit travel…. 32 Figure 19. Wasatch Choice Vision 2020 map: hierarchy of centers and transit expansion... 34 Figure 20. FMLM strategies ecosystem employing MaaS………………………………… 35 Figure 21. High levels of interest in developing a MaaS platform in multiple counties…... 36 Figure 22. Chicago's bikeshare network…………………………………………………… 37 Figure 23. Dedicated ride-hailing pick-up zone…………………………………………… 38 Figure 24. Salt Lake City TRAX lines are in the middle of the road……………………… 38 Figure 25. Application of CPTED principles along main streets and station areas………... 39 Figure 26. Overlap between burglary hot spots in the year 2000 with service areas from existing TRAX stations……………………………………………………………………………... 40 iv Figure 27. NACTO Transit Street Design Guide…………………………………………... 41 Figure 28. Orenco Station study area and parking space occupancy rate; Station Park study area and parking space occupancy rate…………………………………………………………..42 Figure 29. Hub9 and Vector apartments at Orenco Station, Oregon………………………. 43 Figure 30. Portland TOD typology clusters………………………………………………... 43 v EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Enhancing the travel experience has become a crucial consideration for public transit authorities to promote ridership and customer loyalty. Therefore, transit planners, providers, and manufacturers are becoming aware of the significance of understanding the passenger experience better, in order to improve transit policies, management, and vehicles. Although transportation research has studied the different aspects of customer satisfaction, empirical studies with broad approach to the travel experience and its impact on loyalty are still rare. The purpose of this study is to measure the UTA customer experience focusing on out-of-vehicle environment (e.g., access, transfer, and egress) and explore elements that contribute to customer satisfaction, loyalty, and potential ridership. The first-mile and last-mile problem—distance traveled before and after using transit—is a well-known barrier of transit use, but an empirical study about how people experience it is lacking. In fall 2019, we conducted a questionnaire survey—via mail and online—of people living in UTA-serving areas—Salt Lake, Utah, Davies, Weber, Box Elder, Summit, and Tooele counties—and received 943 complete responses. The sample consists of 660 riders and 283 non- riders and well-represent the population. Then we analyzed the survey data through descriptive statistics, Importance-Satisfaction (I-S) analysis, and a statistical analysis with a path model. The findings and recommendations to UTA follow. Overall, the survey respondents represented the underlying population in most categories. A majority of the respondents were either non-riders or infrequent riders. Nearly half of the respondents (47.1%) live within 10-minute walking distance from a transit stop. But almost 20% live further than 20 minutes from the nearest stop location. Driving is the most common mode to start a transit-involved