INTERREGIONAL MULTI-MODAL COMMUTE TRIP PLANNING STUDY FINAL REPORT June 2013

SAN JOAQUIN COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS INTERREGIONAL MULTI-MODAL COMMUTE TRIP PLANNING STUDY FINAL REPORT June 2013

MOVINGFORWARDTHINKINGTM

INTERREGIONAL MULTI-MODAL COMMUTE TRIP PLANNING STUDY

FINAL REPORT

Prepared For: San Joaquin Council of Governments 555 E. Weber Ave. Stockton, CA 95202 209.235.0600

Prepared By: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 428 J Street, Suite 500 Sacramento, California 95814 916.226.2190

Project Manager: David Reinke Project Principal: Jim Damkowitch

Project No. 13101

June 2013

Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary...... 1 1.1 INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW...... 1 1.2 REGIONAL COMMUTE CHARACTERISTICS ...... 3 1.3 CURRENT TRIP PLANNING INFORMATION SOURCES...... 5 1.4 DESIRED FEATURES OF AN INTERREGIONAL MULTIMODAL TRAVELER INFORMATION SYSTEM...... 8 1.5 GETTING FROM HERE TO THERE: ALTERNATIVES...... 10 1.6 RECOMMENDATIONS...... 13 Regional Profile...... 15 2.1 OVERVIEW...... 15 2.2 SOCIOECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS...... 15 2.3 EXISTING COMMUTE SERVICES...... 17 2.4 COMMUTE PATTERNS...... 21 2.5 LOCAL AND NEIGHBORING TRAVELER INFORMATION SYSTEMS...... 29 2.6 SUMMARY...... 31 Literature Review & Peer Case Studies...... 33 3.1 LITERATURE REVIEW...... 33 3.2 CASE STUDIES...... 35 3.3 FINDINGS...... 36 Survey Results...... 39 4.1 BACKGROUND...... 39 4.2 ORIGINS AND DESTINATIONS...... 39 4.3 COMMUTE MODE...... 41 4.4 SYSTEM ACCESS PREFERENCE...... 43 4.5 PREFERRED TRIP PLANNING TOOL FEATURES...... 44 4.6 SUMMARY...... 46 Needs Assessment...... 47 5.1 CURRENT TRIP PLANNING INFORMATION SOURCES...... 47 5.2 NEEDS ASSESSMENT...... 49 5.3 SUMMARY...... 53 Systems Alternatives & Evaluation...... 55 6.1 MMTP FEATURES...... 55 6.2 IMPLEMENTATION ALTERNATIVES...... 67 6.3 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS...... 71 Summary and Recommendations...... 73

Interregional Multimodal Commute Trip Planning Study | i LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1-1. Study Approach...... 2 Figure 1-2. Work trip destinations for commuters who work outside their county of residence...... 3 Figure 1-3. Commute mode shares by work destination...... 4 Figure 1-4. Example: Google Maps transit trip plan, Stockton to Lodi...... 5 Figure 1-5. Commute Connection screen, transit alternative from Stockton to Lodi...... 6 Figure 1-6. User screen example: top-level comparison of mode alternatives...... 8 Figure 1-7. User screen example: top-level comparison of vanpool alternatives...... 9 Figure 1-8. User screen example: detailed comparison of selected vanpool alternatives...... 10 Figure 2-1. Three-County Region Transit Services...... 18 Figure 2-2. Inter-county commuting out of the three-county region...... 24 Figure 2-3. Inter-county commuting within the three-county region...... 25 Figure 2-4. San Joaquin County inter-city commutes...... 26 Figure 2-5. Stanislaus County inter-city commutes ...... 27 Figure 2-6. Merced County inter-city commutes ...... 28 Figure 4-1. County of Residence...... 40 Figure 4-2. County of Work/School...... 40 Figure 4-4. Previous Experience with Trip Planning Tools...... 44 Table 4-3. Preferred MMTP System Elements...... 45 Figure 5-1. Example: Google Maps transit trip plan, Stockton to Lodi...... 47 Figure 5-2. Commute Connection screen, transit alternative from Stockton to Lodi..... 48 Figure 6-1. Vanpool stakeholders and key success factors...... 59 Figure 6-2. User screen example: top-level comparison of mode alternatives...... 64 Figure 6-3. User screen example: top-level comparison of vanpool alternatives...... 64 Figure 6-4. User screen example: detailed comparison of selected vanpool alternatives...... 65 Figure 6-5. Detailed list of desired features, priorities, and sources...... 66 Figure 6-6. Detailed features, estimated implementation difficulty and cost for each system alternative...... 68

ii | San Joaquin Council of Governments Table of Contents

LIST OF TABLES Table 1-1. Summary assessment of system alternatives by type of feature...... 12 Table 2-1. Summary socioeconomic and work travel statistics for Merced, San Joaquin, and Stanislaus counties...... 16 Table 2-2. Transit providers for the three-county area...... 17 Table 2-3. Interurban transit routes in three-county area...... 19 Table 2-4. Interregional commuting from/to Merced, San Joaquin, and Stanislaus counties...... 21 Table 2-5. Commute modes from Merced, San Joaquin, and Stanislaus counties for i nter-county commutes...... 21 Table 2-6. Commute modes from Merced, San Joaquin, and Stanislaus counties to places outside the three-county region...... 22 Table 2-7. Commute modes for intercity commutes within the three-county region..... 23 Table 2-1. Case study regions...... 36 Table 4-1. Preferred Commute Modes...... 41 Table 4-2. Average Travel Time by Commute Mode...... 42

Interregional Multimodal Commute Trip Planning Study | iii

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.1 INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW The three-county region comprised by San Joaquin, Stanislaus, and Merced counties has unique transportation problems that require unique solutions. Nearly a quarter of all commuters in the region travel to a different county to work - many to other regions including the Bay Area and Sacramento. Most of these trips are made by driving alone. Ensuring that the demand for interregional travel is well managed is a key objective of the three Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOS) charged with regional transportation planning in the three-county area; San Joaquin Council of Governments (SJCOG), Stanislaus Council of Governments (StanCOG) and the Merced County Associates of Governments (MCAG). Transit and ridesharing alternatives are available for interregional commutes, but it is difficult for commuters to find out about these alternatives. Currently available trip planning systems lack one or more features that are critical to helping commuters make fully informed decisions on how to commute based on comparative travel times and costs of different travel modes. Recent advances in technology have made it possible to offer more advanced solutions for trip planning than were available even five years ago. Open source mapping, new trip planning tools, and open data sources on roads, ridesharing, and transit make it possible to collect and disseminate information in a much more sophisticated manner. The increasing use of smart phones and tablet devices makes it possible to provide personalized information so that each commuter can obtain real-time information on availability of travel mode alternatives for his individual commute trip. Links to social media allow commuters to share their commute experiences and to find persons with similar interests with whom they can carpool or vanpool. Supplementary information on supporting programs such as guaranteed ride home and tax benefits for carpoolers, vanpoolers, and transit riders can provide further incentives for commuters to consider using these modes. A state-of-the-art multimodal trip planner (MMTP) can provide significant benefits to the three-county region. Better information on travel mode alternatives can help encourage switching from driving alone to alternate modes. Reductions in driving alone will not only reduce traffic congestion, it will contribute to improving air quality. The purpose of this study is to assist the San Joaquin Council of Governments (SJCOG) and its partner agencies to identify the best course of action to implement a 21st century MMTP.

1.1.1 Study Objectives A MMTP can serve as a valuable resource for commuters traveling to and from Merced, Stanislaus and San Joaquin counties. A three-county MMTP will modernize the existing structure of commuter information services currently provided by SJCOG’s Commute Connection. The new system will integrate inter-jurisdictional transit trip planning, bicycle and pedestrian routing, and ridesharing options and services. In addition, a MMTP will provide commuters and residents with transportation options not only within the tri-county area but to the Bay Area, Sacramento, and Fresno regions as well. These expanded traveler information capabilities, resources and coordination will lead to greater efficiency in a system with limited transportation capacity and will provide environmental, fiscal and economic development benefits to the region.

Interregional Multimodal Commute Trip Planning Study | 1 The San Joaquin Valley has been designated by the EPA as an “Extreme” air quality non-attainment area. The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District’s (SJVAPCD) Rule 9410, adopted in December 2009, is in effect throughout the San Joaquin Valley. Rule 9410 (also known as the Employer-Based Trip Reduction or e-TRIP rule) requires large employers to participate in commute management activities that promote alternatives to driving alone (i.e, transit, carpools, vanpools). Its purpose is to reduce vehicle miles traveled by employees to and from work in order to limit emissions of nitrogen oxide, volatile organic compounds, and particulate matter. It requires jurisdictions within the San Joaquin Valley — including the Counties of Merced, Stanislaus and San Joaquin — to implement employee trip reduction programs by the year 2014. The successful implementation of a MMTP would provide an essential employer resource to assist employees in finding viable alternatives to commuting alone. It would also provide a single clearinghouse for commuter assistance services and provide employers with tools and resources to assist in meeting the requirements of Rule 9410. Such a system would also serve as a reliable vehicle to track and measure the region’s progress towards air quality attainment and peak period congestion management relief improvement. Last but not least, a MMTP can provide better multi-modal coordination not only within the tri-county study area, but also with neighboring regions to the north, south, and west.

1.1.2 Approach The following steps were taken to perform the MMTP study: ▪▪Develop a profile of interregional commute characteristics. ▪▪Inventory existing transit systems and identify service gaps. ▪▪Conduct a literature review of traveler information systems in the U.S. ▪▪Perform detailed case studies of traveler information systems in three peer regions. ▪▪Interview stakeholders in the region including Commute Connection staff, transit operators, and vanpool providers. ▪▪Conduct a web-based survey of Commute Connection registrants and residents of the three- county region. Information from the regional profile, literature review, case studies, stakeholder interviews, and the web-based survey were used to develop a list of desired elements and features for a MMTP. From these several alternatives were identified and evaluated, ultimately, leading to the recommendation for development of a new MMTP. This approach is illustrated in Figure 1-1.

Figure 1-1. Study Approach Literature Review Potential System Elements Survey Case Studies Needs and Priorities Short Listed Stakeholders System Elements

System Alternatives

Advisory Preferred Committee Alternative

SJCOG Implementation Strategy

2 | San Joaquin Council of Governments Executive Summary

1.1.3 Summary of Findings ▪▪There is a significant amount of interregional commuting from the three-county San Joaquin region to other areas, particularly the Bay Area and Sacramento. ▪▪There is no single source of information on travel mode alternatives for commuters to make an informed choice of travel mode. ▪▪Commuters and stakeholders want a MMTP that provides a number of features not present in current information systems. ▪▪The most flexible and cost feasible way of providing the desired traveler information features is to implement a new MMTP system. The remainder of this executive summary expands on these findings as follows: ▪▪Regional commute characteristics ▪▪Current trip planning information sources ▪▪Regional traveler information needs ▪▪Desired features of an interregional multimodal traveler information system ▪▪Assessment of alternative ways to implement these features 1.2 REGIONAL COMMUTE CHARACTERISTICS A large number of employed residents of San Joaquin, Stanislaus, and Merced counties work outside the region or in a county different from their county of residence. As shown in theFigure 1-2, residents of the three-county region who work outside their home county travel mostly to the Bay Area. Of the 492,000 employed residents in the region: ▪▪70,000 commute to the Bay Area ▪▪10,000 commute to the Sacramento region ▪▪2,000 commute to Fresno ▪▪45,000 work in the three-county region, but in a different county from where they live Figure 1-2. Work trip destinations for commuters who work outside their county of residence 80,000

70,000

60,000

50,000

40,000

30,000

20,000

10,000

0 Bay Area Sacramento Fresno Merced, San Joaquin, Stanislaus Work destination

Interregional Multimodal Commute Trip Planning Study | 3 As shown in the Figure 1-3, the majority of these trips are made by driving alone, although this varies considerably by workplace location. Commuters to the Bay Area show a much higher likelihood to rideshare or use transit because of the high job density and availability of transit service in the Bay Area: 25% of work trips are made by ridesharing, while 4% are made by transit. By comparison, interregional commuters to places other than the Bay Area are less likely to rideshare or use transit: 20% of these commute trips are made by ridesharing, and only 1% by transit. Results from the web-based survey revealed that a substantial percentage of the respondents spend two or more hours per day commuting. Over one-third of carpoolers/vanpoolers, over 25% of transit riders, and over 10% of those who drive alone spend two hours or more commuting. More than half of carpoolers/vanpoolers and transit users and nearly one-third of those who drive alone spend more than an hour a day commuting.

Figure 1-3. Commute mode shares by work destination 90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

Drive alone 40% Shared ride Transit 30%

20%

10%

0% Bay Area Sacramento Fresno Merced, San Joaquin, Stanislaus Work destination

4 | San Joaquin Council of Governments Executive Summary

1.3 CURRENT TRIP PLANNING INFORMATION SOURCES The following sources of information for planning an interregional commute trip are available to residents of the three-county region.

1.3.1 On-line Commercial Mapping Sites Several sites such as Google Maps or MapQuest offer directions between a user specified origin and destination. Google Maps can also be used for transit trip planning by clicking on the bus icon on the left-hand side of the screen, as shown by the item circled in red inFigure 1-4. The figure shows a transit trip planned from the SJCOG offices in Stockton to City Hall in Lodi.

Figure 1-4. Example: Google Maps transit trip plan, Stockton to Lodi

▪▪Google does not provide cost information for transit. ▪▪There is no way to directly compare travel times for driving and transit. ▪▪Google does not provide information on carpooling and vanpooling alternatives. ▪▪Google cannot address multimodal trips such as park and ride, or bike to transit. 1.3.2 Commute Connection Commute Connection is a web site maintained by SJCOG and is funded jointly by San Joaquin, Stanis- laus, and Merced counties. Commute Connection provides information on carpools and vanpools plus some limited information on transit. However, transit information provided by Commute Connection does not always reflect updates and changes in transit schedules. An example is shown in Figure 1-5.

Interregional Multimodal Commute Trip Planning Study | 5 Figure 1-5. Commute Connection screen, transit alternative from Stockton to Lodi

Commute Connection improves on Google in that it does provide information on carpools, vanpools and commuter programs and incentives. But it has a limited scope for interregional commute trip planning. ▪▪Users can register only a single residence and work location for planning a regular commute. The system is therefore unsuitable for planning other types of trips, such as an infrequently made work trip to another location. ▪▪There is no side by side comparison of the availability of carpool, vanpool or transit options. ▪▪Cost information is not provided for transit, carpooling, or vanpooling. ▪▪There is no easy way to make a comparison on relative travel times between alternate modes. ▪▪Transit information may be incomplete. 1.3.3 Bay Area 511 and Sacramento 511 Bay Area 511 and Sacramento 511 are web sites that provide traveler information on driving, carpooling, vanpooling, and transit for their respective regions. Neither site provides traveler information outside its own region. While these systems might be useful to a commuter who already knows how to get to these areas by ridesharing or transit, they are far less useful to an interregional commuter seeking first-time information on commute alternatives. Several available transportation options between the Bay Area and Sacramento are not covered by these systems.

1.3.4 Transit Operators Each transit operator in the San Joaquin region maintains its own web site where a user can go for route, schedule, and fare information. While this information is more detailed and accurate than that provided by either Google or Commute Connection, these sites are generally limited to their own services and with few exceptions, do not provide connecting information. Regional travelers often traverse more than one system; hence, they would greatly benefit from an interregional MMTP.

6 | San Joaquin Council of Governments Executive Summary

1.3.5 Third-party Web Sites Third-party web sites such as zimride.com and avego.com provide information on carpools and vanpools, but their coverage is incomplete and they do not provide information on transit alternatives. The new MMTP would integrate information on carpools, vanpools, transit alternatives, commuter incentives and benefits, as well as provide information on commuting to neighboring regions.

1.3.6 Summary of Current Trip Planning Information Capability As the above examples show, current trip planning information sources do not adequately meet the needs of commuters or casual trip planners who live in the three county San Joaquin region and commute outside the region. ▪▪There is no single information source that can provide an integrated set of information on all commute alternatives. ▪▪Cost information is missing from most sources. ▪▪None of the information sources provide side-by-side comparison of travel times and costs of alternate modes so that commuters can make an informed decision on which best suits their needs and budget. Information from the literature review, case studies, stakeholders, and survey were analyzed and reviewed with SJCOG staff and the Advisory Committee for this study. The stakeholder group included the following agencies: ▪▪San Joaquin Council of Governments ▪▪Merced County Association of Governments ▪▪Stanislaus Council of Governments ▪▪San Joaquin Regional Transit District ▪▪Altamont Commuter Express ▪▪Modesto Area Express ▪▪Caltrans The research yielded the following findings which are presented in greater detail in Chapter 5: 1. There is a large interregional commute market from residents in the SJCOG region that is currently not well served by existing traveler information systems. Hence, there is a potentially large user market for a MMTP that provides full information on all commute alternatives. 2. Trip planning technology has improved allowing implementation of many new features that travelers desire. 3. To maximize utility, a MMTP needs to provide easy uploads of data from service providers such as transit operators and vanpool providers. 4. Supplementary information such as information on guaranteed ride home programs and tax benefits for use of alternative modes should be provided along with trip planning information.

Interregional Multimodal Commute Trip Planning Study | 7 1.4 DESIRED FEATURES OF AN INTERREGIONAL MULTIMODAL TRAVELER INFORMATION SYSTEM The assessment of traveler information needs clearly indicates that there is a need for a “one-stop shop” traveler information system that can provide information on travel alternatives, not only for commuting, but for other trips that residents of the three-county region would make. An ideal traveler information system would be capable of the following: ▪▪Cover the three-county region and, at a minimum, the Bay Area and Sacramento. ▪▪Provide transit, traffic, and ride sharing information. ▪▪Compare travel times and costs between modes. ▪▪Be internet based with mobile compatibility and employer based interfaces. ▪▪Have information on ride sharing or alternative mode choice incentives. ▪▪Support personalization and user profiles to memorize frequent trips. ▪▪Allow advance fare purchases. ▪▪Accept user feedback and suggestions. ▪▪Be flexible and expandable as new technologies, resources, and needs arise. 1.4.1 Illustrative Example Figures 1-6, 1-7, and 1-8 show images of what a potential new MMTP could look like. Figure 1-6 shows an overview screen that a user would see once an origin and destination has been specified. The system would show the user the available mode alternatives for the trip – driving, vanpooling, carpooling, and transit – and the comparative travel times and costs by mode. The overview screen would also provide a tab for individual modes so that the user could get more detailed information for each. Optional trips are provided. In the example below, two driving routes are provided, as well as three vanpool options and three transit options. It also provides information regarding available carpool options (identifies 35 carpool registrants with same commute origin and destination).

Figure 1-6. User screen example: top-level comparison of mode alternatives

8 | San Joaquin Council of Governments Executive Summary

Figure 1-7 shows what users would see if they clicked on the “vanpool” tab. The system identifies several possible vanpools showing the available number of seats in each vanpool or, if the vanpool is filled, the number of waitlisted persons. The user could then select one or more vanpools to get more detailed information on each. Figure 1-7. User screen example: top-level comparison of vanpool alternatives

Figure 1-8 shows a detailed side-by-side comparison of vanpools selected by the user. The comparison displays the following: ▪▪Schedule ▪▪Seat availability or, if the vanpool is filled, the number of persons on the wait list ▪▪Pickup locations ▪▪Cost ▪▪Potential financial incentives provided by Commute Connection, the air pollution control district, employers, or the vanpool company. Studies of vanpooling have shown that financial incentives can significantly increase participation in vanpools. ▪▪User reviews of the vanpool ▪▪Links to social media where users can provide more information about themselves and their opinions on each vanpool

Interregional Multimodal Commute Trip Planning Study | 9 Figure 1-8. User screen example: detailed comparison of selected vanpool alternatives

1.5 GETTING FROM HERE TO THERE: ALTERNATIVES Three alternatives have been identified for implementing a new MMTP for the three-county region: ▪▪Enhance the current Commute Connection system to provide the necessary features. ▪▪Host a new system on a neighboring traveler information system. ▪▪Develop a new traveler information system. ▪▪Each alternative has advantages and disadvantages which are outlined below. ▪▪Enhanced Commute Connection. Commute Connection uses proprietary software. One option is to base a new system on the current Commute Connection software; the new system would use the existing Commute Connection platform for the currently supported features and new features would be built on top. ▪▪ Advantages. The existing Commute Connection database is quite large, covering over 8,000 commuters in the San Joaquin region. The current system already provides information on available carpools and vanpools and provides some information on transit alternatives. ▪▪ Disadvantages. Proprietary software can be difficult and expensive to customize. SJCOG would have to either work with the software supplier to change the existing software or write an application that sits on top of the existing software; either of these alternatives could easily cost more than developing a new system. 10 | San Joaquin Council of Governments Executive Summary ▪▪Host by neighboring system. The Bay Area 511 has many of the desired features, but the system is restricted from expanding beyond the nine-county Bay Area. Expansion of the Bay Area 511 would most likely face significant monetary and political challenges. SACOG staff have indicated a willingness to discuss the expansion of their system to include information on mode alternatives for travelers who reside in the three-county region and work in Sacramento; adding information on interregional transit services in the three-county San Joaquin area could be done at relatively moderate cost. ▪▪ Advantages. This option would solve the problem of connecting San Joaquin residents to the Sacramento region. SACOG is currently developing a new add-on system (River Region 511) that already includes driving information for some of San Joaquin County. SACOG has indicated that transit information from the three-county San Joaquin region could be incorporated into their system at moderate cost. ▪▪ Disadvantages. This would cover only a fraction of the interregional trips made by residents of the San Joaquin region; it would not, for example, cover the Bay Area. It would also require SACOG’s agreement on which features to implement; for example, the type of modal comparison user interface shown in the preceding section would require a substantial redesign of the current user interface. ▪▪New system. A new system would fully meet the needs of commuters from the San Joaquin region to the Bay Area and Sacramento. ▪▪ Advantages. Implementing a new system would provide a fresh start that would allow development of a system with an integrated set of features that would work together. SJCOG or the designated system owner would be able to maintain complete control of development and operation. There are several platforms available that would provide an advanced initial starting point rather than having to build from scratch. ▪▪ Disadvantages. Both users and operators will have to learn a new system that is likely to be quite different from what is currently available. System maintenance and operation will be the responsibility of the owner. As an independent and highly custom system, there will be limited opportunity for external support. ▪▪ Potential Framework. The Partnership for Advanced Transportation and Highways (PATH), a research institute at the University of California, Berkeley, has worked with Caltrans to develop a new traveler information system for the Los Angeles region; the new system, PATH2Go, will begin testing in July 2013. Caltrans and PATH have expressed an interest in adapting PATH2Go for implementation in other regions. We have based our assessment of a new system alternative on the PATH2Go system. Table 1-1 illustrates overall ratings for the alternatives by anticipated difficulty of implementation.

Interregional Multimodal Commute Trip Planning Study | 11 Table 1-1. Summary assessment of system alternatives by type of feature Host by Feature Enhanced CC New system Neighboring System

Area coverage

Modes (route & schedule)

Side-by-side modal comparison for individual trip

Interface

Data access/feeds

Supplementary information

Individual needs, trip alerts

Fare payments

User feedback

Adaptability/expandability

Cost $$$ $$ $$

Feature is present or easily adaptable to three- county region. Feature could be implemented or adapted to three-county region with moderate effort. Feature not present. Difficult to implement for three-county region.

12 | San Joaquin Council of Governments Executive Summary

1.6 RECOMMENDATIONS To best serve the unique interregional travel information needs of the tri-county area encompassing Merced, Stanislaus and San Joaquin Counties, the most cost effective strategy appears to be implementation of a new MMTP that provides all of the features documented as a need in this study. Features may be implemented in phases as resources become available. The most essential features – coverage of neighboring regions and providing comparisons of all modes including carpooling and vanpooling – appear to be well within the reach of currently available technology. A MMTP would provide significant benefits to commuters, employers, transit operators, and other public agencies in the San Joaquin region such as: ▪▪A centralized “one-stop shop” for commuters to get information on travel mode alternatives. ▪▪Giving information to commuters and other travelers about available options that might save them time or money. ▪▪Shifting people from single occupant vehicles to other modes, allowing for cleaner air and less peak period traffic congestion. ▪▪Providing employers with an additional tool to help them comply with rule 9410 and to provide an additional benefit to their employees. ▪▪Easy interface with emerging technologies such as smart phones and tablet computers to provide commuters with more convenient access to information on travel modes and road conditions. ▪▪Helping transit operators provide more coordinated service in the region. ▪▪Keeping planners informed about current travel patterns and mode choice trends.

Interregional Multimodal Commute Trip Planning Study | 13

Regional Profile

2 REGIONAL PROFILE

2.1 OVERVIEW This chapter describes the regional context that will help guide development of a MMTP. Several characteristics of the San Joaquin, Stanislaus, and Merced County region set it apart from its neighbors and other regions in the United States that have implemented similar trip planning-or-traveler information systems. Particularly significant is that this region is not a “closed system” for commuters. Proximity to three adjacent urbanized areas has led to a great deal of interregional commuting. People commute in and out of this region to and from four primary locations; Alameda and adjacent counties, South Bay cities, Sacramento, and Fresno. There are also three distinct centers within this region; Stockton, Modesto, and Merced, that draw commuters from within as well as from outside the three-county area. The imbalance between workers living in the region and the jobs available require that the regional transportation network continue to service long distance commuting for the foreseeable future. Ensur- ing that the demand for interregional travel is well managed is a key objective of this study. The lack of a clearly dominant center, interaction with larger surrounding cities, and the dispersed internal population have led to a complex web of commuter travel patterns that cause significant recur- ring congestion, and create a difficult planning scenario for alternative modes. A MMTP will need to provide a means for individuals and employers to plan and implement carpools, vanpools, rideshares, and shuttles. The system will also need to provide a consolidated transit trip planning resource that accounts for the various providers in the region and the external services that they connect with. This chapter discusses socioeconomic characteristics of the region, presents available information on interregional commute patterns, discusses existing transit service and presents an assessment of how these services may serve current commuting patterns, and discusses existing traveler information- sys tems within the three-county area and in adjacent areas. 2.2 SOCIOECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS The socioeconomic characteristics of the regional population are very similar across the three counties. The most notable difference is that Merced County has a slightly younger population and a lower average income. As a region, the population is notably younger than the state and national averages. While average regional incomes are lower than the state average, they are in line with the national average. Despite the slightly lower household incomes, vehicle ownership in the three county region is actually higher than it is in other parts of California and the nation. Nearly 40% of all commuters come from households with three or more vehicles. Regardless of their income levels, people living in the region are more dependent on private vehicles to get to work and other activities than they would be in a more heavily urbanized area. The region has a very low commute mode share for transit relative to both the state and national averages. This is not surprising due to low residential and employment density in the region. Although a MMTP is likely to help those commuters who currently do not use transit because of lack of adequate information, ridesharing will remain an important alternative to driving alone for interregional commute trips. Hence, any MMTP developed for the region should be designed to address this important commuter market.

Interregional Multimodal Commute Trip Planning Study | 15 Summary socioeconomic and work travel statistics are shown below in Table 2-1. Table 2-1. Summary socioeconomic and work travel statistics for Merced, San Joaquin, and Stanislaus counties San Stanislaus Merced California U.S. Joaquin Total population (2011 est) 696,214 518,522 253,606 36,969,200 306,603,772 Age <20 33% 32% 36% 28% 27% 20 – 24 7% 7% 8% 7% 7% 25 – 44 27% 27% 26% 28% 27% 45 – 64 23% 23% 21% 25% 26% 65or> 10% 11% 9% 11% 13% Median age 33 33 30 35 37 Household income ($000) <25 22% 24% 28% 20% 23% 25 – <50 25% 25% 27% 21% 24% 50 – <75 18% 19% 18% 17% 18% 75 – <100 13% 13% 11% 13% 12% 100 – <150 14% 13% 10% 15% 13% 150or> 9% 7% 5% 14% 9% Median household income $54,000 $51,000 $44,000 $62,000 $53,000 Labor force participation 63% 63% 61% 65% 65% Occupation category Management, business, science, and arts 28% 27% 23% 37% 36% Service 17% 17% 19% 18% 18% Sales and office 25% 25% 23% 25% 25% Natural resources, construction, and maintenance 13% 14% 18% 10% 10% Production, transportation, and material moving 16% 17% 18% 11% 12% Means of travel to work Drive alone 76% 80% 76% 73% 76% Carpool 15% 11% 12% 12% 10% Transit 1% 1% 1% 5% 5% Walk 2% 2% 3% 3% 3% Other 2% 2% 4% 2% 2% Work at Home 4% 4% 4% 5% 4% Mean travel time to work (min) 29.4 26.6 25.7 27 25.4 Number of vehicles available (% of workers) 0 vehicles 2% 2% 3% 4% 4% 1 vehicle 18% 17% 19% 20% 21% 2 vehicles 40% 41% 41% 40% 42% 3 or more vehicles 40% 40% 38% 36% 32%

16 | San Joaquin Council of Governments Regional Profile

2.3 EXISTING COMMUTE SERVICES The three-county area is home to a wide variety of public transportation options for commuters, ranging from local transit services like Manteca Transit to countywide interurban services like Stanislaus Regional Transit. A listing of interregional public transportation services is presented in Table 2-2. The routes include longer distance commute services connecting to the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) system or the Altamont Commute Express (ACE) train which links the valley to the South Bay Area. There are also numerous transit agencies serving the urban areas of the region providing most residents with access to at least some transit service in addition to other alternatives modes of commuting to work such as vanpool and carpool services operating in the three counties. Table 2-2. Transit providers for the three-county area Commuter Rail The Altamont Commuter Express (ACE) Amtrak San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) San Joaquin County San Joaquin Regional Transit District (SJRTD) The Tracy Tracer The Lodi Grapeline Manteca Transit eTrans The City of Ripon Bus (Thursdays and special events only) Rio Vista Delta Breeze (limited service to Lodi on Wednesdays) South County Transit/Link (provides service to Lodi) Stanislaus County Modesto Area Express (MAX) / Modesto Area Dial-A-Ride (MADAR) Stanislaus Regional Transit (StaRT) Bus Line Service of Turlock (BLAST) / Dial a Ride Turlock (DART) Ceres Area Transit (CAT) / Ceres Dial-A-Ride (CDAR) Merced County The Bus The Yosemite Area Regional Transportation System (YARTS) * Although BART does not directly serve the three-county region, there is a substantial BART ridership from the three-county region by commuters who drive to the East Dublin/Pleasanton BART station or who take transit to that BART station.

Interregional Multimodal Commute Trip Planning Study | 17 Figure 2-1 provides an illustration of the service areas and interregional routes for transit providers in the three-county region. Figure 2-1. Three-County Region Transit Services

18 | San Joaquin Council of Governments Regional Profile

Table 2-3 shows a listing of interregional routes, service frequencies, and service hours for interurban routes in the three-county area. The large number of transit providers serving the three counties results in a decentralized system of small transit options, each covering a relatively limited service area. In addition, as can be seen from options such as the City of Ripon bus service which only operates on Thursday unless booked two weeks in advance, some of these services are not suitable for commuters. For example, the MAX BART Express service provides two buses to the Dublin/Pleasanton BART station during each peak. Hence, for some commute trips it is difficult for commuters to use transit for their work trips if they do not have a fixed schedule aligned with typical business hours. Given these limited hours of operation for commuter services and the decentralized network of transit providers, the region could benefit from a more holistic approach to transit planning, particularly for interurban services. The region currently lacks a well-integrated spine network of transit routes that can be fed by the numerous local transit services. A MMTP will not solve this problem, but it can help highlight service gaps and keep planners informed on current transportation demand for such service connections. Table 2-3. Interurban transit routes in three-county area Agency Route From To Frequency Span Number of Buses San San 7:18 am to 6 trains per day, Amtrak San Diego Joaquin Francisco 10:39 pm each direction BART Dublin/Pleasanton 2 buses each Modesto Express BART peak MAX ACE Lathrop/Manteca ACE 3 buses each Modesto Express Station peak Atwater/Winton/ 8 or 9 daily 5:45 am to 7 Merced Livingston/Delhi/ (depends on 7:50 pm Turlock direction) 6:40 am to 8 Merced Atwater 10 daily 7:25 pm Merced 7:00 am to 16 Atwater Winton ~1 hour 11 daily the Bus 6:30 pm 6 daily (Route 7:00 am to 10/10A Merced Dos Palos 10), 5 daily (Route 5:00 pm 10A) 6:45 am to 9 Merced Planada/Le Grand 1.5+ hours 11 buses daily 6:15 pm Highway Galt/Elk Grove/ 5:25 am to SCT/Link Lodi 1 hour 14 buses daily 99 Express Sacramento 7:20 pm

Interregional Multimodal Commute Trip Planning Study | 19 Agency Route From To Frequency Span Number of Buses 5:25 am to 90 Stockton Lathrop 30+ min 9 buses daily 11:00 pm 5:53 am to 91 Stockton Manteca/Ripon 30+ min 11 buses daily 10:30 pm 5:30 am to 93 Stockton Lodi 1+ hours 7 buses daily 8:52 pm 5:25 am to 97 Stockton Lathrop/Tracy 3 or 4 buses daily 7:39 pm 6:00 am to 23 Stockton Lodi 1+ hours 7 or 8 buses daily 6:25 pm Lathrop/Manteca/ 5:00 am to 150 Stockton Tracy/Livermore/ 7 buses daily 8:10 PM Dublin BART 1 bus each way 152 Stockton Lathrop/Livermore daily during SJRTD commute hours 1 bus each way 163 Stockton Lodi/Sacramento daily during commute hours Sunnyvale (Lockheed 1 bus each way 164 Manteca Martin/VTA Transit daily Center) 1 bus each way 165 Stockton Sacramento daily Manteca/Tracy/ 1 bus each way 166 Stockton Pleasanton/Sunnyvale daily Lathrop/Tracy/ 1 bus each way 172 Stockton Sunnyvale daily Manteca/Tracy/ 1 bus each way 173 Stockton Sunnyvale daily 6:10 am to 10 Express Modesto Turlock 45 min 15 buses daily 10:36 pm 5:05 am to 15 Modesto Turlock 2 hours 8 buses daily 9:51 pm Grayson/Westley/ 5:25 am to 40 Modesto 2+ hours 5 buses daily Patterson 8:45 pm StaRT Patterson/Newman/ 5:20 am to 45 Turlock 3+ hours 5 buses daily Gustine 8:00 pm 5:30 am to 60 Modesto Riverbank/Oakdale 1+ hours 10 buses daily 9:03 pm 6:00 am to 70 Modesto Turlock/Merced 2 buses daily 6:35 pm Highway Yosemite YARTS Merced 6 buses daily 140 Route Valley

20 | San Joaquin Council of Governments Regional Profile

2.4 COMMUTE PATTERNS

2.4.1 Interregional Commute Travel As stated previously, the three county study area currently has fewer jobs than workers. This imbalance is common for regions adjacent to larger centers and it leads to significant proportions of the workforce having long distance commutes which in turn, puts stress on transportation infrastructure. The region has over 423,000 jobs and houses nearly 492,000 workers which means at minimum, 79,000 workers or 15% of the workforce must commute to adjacent counties for work. In actuality, more than twice that number commutes out of the region for work, while approximately 27% of the jobs within the region are staffed by workers from neighboring areas. Table 2-4 shows the external counties that have the highest worker exchange with the study region. Table 2-4. Interregional commuting from/to Merced, San Joaquin, and Stanislaus counties

Commute from/to 3-county region County From To Alameda 9,690 37,540 Santa Clara 8,580 26,520 Sacramento 18,190 19,894 Contra Costa 8,390 13,580 Fresno 8,470 9,700 San Francisco 2,300 7,710 San Mateo 2,970 7,330 Los Angeles 5,800 7,010 Madera 3,490 2,640 Source: Longitudinal Employment and Housing Dynamic (2011)

Table 2-5. Commute modes from Merced, San Joaquin, and Stanislaus counties for inter-county commutes

Mode to work Place Commuters Drive alone Rideshare Transit Other Merced, San Joaquin, 45,135 84% 14% 0% 2% Stanislaus counties Bay Area 70,060 71% 25% 4% 1% Sacramento 10,370 78% 21% 1% 1% Fresno 1,985 77% 20% 1% 1% Other 8,735 73% 22% 1% 4% San Francisco 2,300 7,710 San Mateo 2,970 7,330 Los Angeles 5,800 7,010 Madera 3,490 2,640 Source: ACS Journey to Work tabulations, 2006 – 2008

Interregional Multimodal Commute Trip Planning Study | 21 Table 2-6 shows mode shares for commuter traveling from the three-county area to places with over 1,000 commuters per day. Although driving alone accounts for most of the trips, there are some significant differences in mode shares for some of the places: ▪▪Relatively high transit use can be seen in commute corridors with higher levels of transit service such as BART (San Francisco and Oakland) and ACE (San Jose). ▪▪Ridesharing is the dominant alternative to driving alone, accounting for two to ten times the number of commute trips as transit. ▪▪Ridesharing is especially dominant in places with relatively high job densities such as San Francisco, Hayward, San Jose, and Santa Clara.

Table 2-6. Commute modes from Merced, San Joaquin, and Stanislaus counties to places outside the three-county region

Mode share No. Place commuters Drive alone Rideshare Transit Other Livermore 6,070 69% 27% 2% 3% San Jose 5,810 64% 28% 6% 1% Pleasanton 3,865 85% 13% 2% 0% Sacramento 3,770 74% 22% 2% 0% Oakland 3,665 77% 20% 2% 1% San Francisco 3,175 60% 26% 13% 0% Fremont 3,090 70% 25% 4% 1% Hayward 2,000 69% 30% 2% 0% San Ramon 1,795 80% 11% 8% 1% Dublin 1,610 69% 25% 1% 4% Santa Clara 1,375 57% 42% 1% 0% San Leandro 1,285 79% 21% 0% 0% Source: ACS Journey to Work tabulations, 2006 – 2008

Table 2-7 shows intercity commutes within the three-county region for total commute movements of 500 or greater. Transit accounts for less than 1% of the mode share for most intercity movements shown in this table. Ridesharing use is relatively high for commutes from Stockton to Manteca and Stockton to Modesto.

22 | San Joaquin Council of Governments Regional Profile

Table 2-7. Commute modes for intercity commutes within the three-county region

Mode share No. Residence Workplace commuters Drive alone Rideshare Transit Other Atwater Merced 3,045 77% 18% 2% 3% Merced Merced Atwater 1,155 92% 6% 0% 3% County Los Banos Merced 865 74% 23% 0% 3% Stockton Lodi 5,475 81% 19% 0% 0% Lodi Stockton 4,290 88% 10% 0% 1% Manteca Stockton 3,800 88% 10% 0% 2% Stockton Tracy 2,975 80% 18% 0% 2% San Stockton Manteca 2,215 79% 21% 0% 0% Joaquin County Manteca Tracy 2,025 84% 16% 0% 0% Tracy Stockton 1,635 87% 10% 0% 3% Stockton Modesto 940 73% 27% 0% 0% Manteca Modesto 775 97% 3% 0% 0% Tracy Manteca 505 91% 0% 0% 9% Turlock Modesto 5,550 84% 14% 2% 1% Ceres Modesto 5,390 89% 9% 0% 2% Riverbank Modesto 2,690 91% 9% 1% 0% Modesto Ceres 2,655 87% 9% 0% 4% Modesto Turlock 2,300 88% 7% 1% 4% Modesto Stockton 1,815 88% 8% 0% 4% Stanislaus Oakdale Modesto 1,600 98% 2% 0% 0% County Modesto Manteca 1,580 81% 18% 0% 0% Modesto Oakdale 1,565 90% 7% 0% 3% Ceres Turlock 1,240 90% 7% 0% 3% Modesto Riverbank 1,200 88% 10% 0% 2% Turlock Ceres 810 95% 5% 0% 0% Modesto Tracy 730 87% 13% 0% 0% Turlock Merced 525 94% 6% 0% 0% Source: ACS Journey to Work tabulations, 2006 – 2008. Only total commutes 500 or more shown. 2.4.2 Existing Commute Movements and Transit Service Figures 2-2 – 2-6 show existing interregional commute movements in combination with existing transit services for these movements as follows: ▪▪Figure 2 – Commuting from the three-county region to neighboring counties. ▪▪Figure 3 – Inter-county commuting within the three-county region ▪▪Figures 4 – 6 – Intercity commuting within San Joaquin, Stanislaus, and Merced counties respectively. The width of the paths indicates the total number of commuters. Paths are color-coded according to the relative frequency of transit service provided; “morning only” indicates that service is provided during peak hours only.

Interregional Multimodal Commute Trip Planning Study | 23 Figure 2-2. Inter-county commuting out of the three-county region

24 | San Joaquin Council of Governments Regional Profile

Figure 2-3. Inter-county commuting within the three-county region

Interregional Multimodal Commute Trip Planning Study | 25 Figure 2-4. San Joaquin County inter-city commutes

26 | San Joaquin Council of Governments Regional Profile

Figure 2-5. Stanislaus County inter-city commutes

Interregional Multimodal Commute Trip Planning Study | 27 Figure 2-6. Merced County inter-city commutes

28 | San Joaquin Council of Governments Regional Profile

2.4.3 Assessment of Existing Interregional Transit Services The following is a summary of existing interregional transit services for the commute patterns identified in the journey to work data. ▪▪Three-county area to Bay Area. The main transit connectors are RTD, which runs peak-period service to the Livermore Valley and Silicon Valley, and the ACE Train, which provides service from Stockton and Tracy to the Dublin/Pleasanton BART station and to Silicon Valley. The other main transit alternative is driving to the Dublin/Pleasanton BART station and taking BART. Service is as follows: ▪▪ 7 buses per day to Livermore/Dublin BART ▪▪ 3 buses per day to Pleasanton and Silicon Valley ▪▪ 4 ACE trains per day to Dublin/Pleasanton BART All of the above services are provided during the peak commute hours and in the peak direction only. ▪▪Three-county area to Sacramento. RTD runs two buses per day to Sacramento from Stockton during the commute hours, one along I-5, the other along SR 99. Amtrak service is available between Stockton and Sacramento, but it does not run during the peak commute hours. ▪▪Inter-county commuting within the three county area. Amtrak service is provided from Stockton to Modesto. There is a train during the morning peak but the evening train from Stockton to Modesto does not leave until 7:34 PM. Transit connections between Stanislaus County and Merced County also exist. TheBus provides hourly service between Merced and Turlock, while StaRT provides limited service to Merced and Gustine. ▪▪Interurban, intra-county commuting in the three county area. ▪▪ San Joaquin County – Hourly bus service is provided between Stockton and Lodi, Tracy, and Manteca. Service from Manteca to Tracy is provided during peak hours only. ▪▪ Stanislaus County – Half-hourly bus service is provided from Turlock to Modesto. Hourly bus service is provided from Modesto to several cities within the county and from Ceres to Modesto. ▪▪ Merced County – Half-hourly bus services is provided between Atwater and Merced. Overall, for most interregional origin and destination pairs there is at least some transit service. How- ever, when comparing the transit services in this section to the transit mode shares presented in the previous section, a higher level of transit service is associated with a higher transit mode share. Transit accounts for a relatively high mode share for trips from the three county area to the Bay Area in large part due to the high density of destinations in the Bay Area and the high level of transit service there. Similarly, within the three-county area, the origin and destination pairs with the highest transit mode share are those where the average transit service frequencies of half an hour or better. This agrees with findings in most other areas in the US: the higher the frequency of transit service and the longer the span of service (hours during the day), the greater the transit mode share. 2.5 LOCAL AND NEIGHBORING TRAVELER INFORMATION SYSTEMS

2.5.1 Commute Connection SJCOG’s Commute Connection serves the three counties of Merced, Stanislaus, and San Joaquin. It provides information on its’ rideshare and traveler information services, transportation demand management strategies, as well as the costs and benefits of using different modes of transportation to and from work. The site provides in depth discussions of different transportation options including frequently asked questions.

Interregional Multimodal Commute Trip Planning Study | 29 Commute Connection operates a ride matching service using Trapeze Software Group’s platform as well as listing current vanpools looking for riders. Additionally, the location of current Park and Ride lots are mapped using Bing transit trip planning is handled by Google Transit, and traffic conditions are provided through a link to an outside service called: BeatTheTraffic. Commute Connection also directs users to programs, information, and tools for individuals and employers that encourage the use of alternatives to driving alone. This includes information on bicycle routes throughout the region, commute cost calculators, and suggestions on how to set up and operate vanpools. It also advises employers on potential incentives to encourage their employees to use alternative commute modes and advertises those already being provided by various agencies such as guaranteed ride home services.

2.5.2 Bay Area 511 Bay Area 511 is one of the earliest traveler information systems in the country. The service covers the nine-county Bay Area. Bay Area 511 provides the following type of information: ▪▪Real-time road conditions, including incidents ▪▪Transit fares and schedules for 26 operators ▪▪Transit trip planner ▪▪Real-time transit departure information (for some operators) ▪▪Ride match services ▪▪Information on commute tax benefits, ridesharing incentives ▪▪Bicycling ▪▪Parking ▪▪Casual carpool locations The site also includes a number of mobile applications that can be downloaded and links to third-party applications and web sites. Information is available both on the web and by phone. Average monthly use of the site is about 500,000 phone calls and about 2 million visits to the web site; during major events such as the recent Bay Bridge closure the number of phone calls exceeded 700,000 per month and the number of web visits exceeded 3.5 million per month.

2.5.3 Sacramento Region 511 / Sacramento Region Travel Information (beta) The Sacramento Region 511 is currently in transition to the new Sacramento Region Travel Informa- tion (or “River Region 511”) beta service which will be released soon. The current 511 service provides traveler information for Sacramento, Yolo, Placer, El Dorado, Sutter and Yuba counties. The Sacramento Region 511 service is maintained by the Sacramento Area Council of Governments and is funded by the Service Authority for Freeways and Expressways program. The site provides a full range of traffic information including: real time traffic information, live traffic cameras, current road conditions and incident information, planned road work, and weather information. Most of these data are drawn from external sites hosted by Caltrans, CHP, NOAA, and others. Transit route and schedule information is provided by Google Transit’s trip planner and is currently available for services provided by Sacramento Regional Transit, Roseville transit, and Unitrans. External links to each of the 20 transit service providers and the Bay Area’s 511 service are also provided. Ridesharing is accommodated through the Commute Club, a ridesharing database, to help coordinate shared rides. There is also information explaining SACOG’s Vanpool Incentive program and a map of park and ride lots in the area. Finally, the Commute Club allows individuals to track their trips for the chance to win prizes. A commute cost calculator is also available through the Commute Club page.

30 | San Joaquin Council of Governments Regional Profile

2.5.4 San Joaquin Valley 511 The San Joaquin Valley (SJV) 511 service provides traveler information for Fresno and Merced counties. The interface for the SJV 511 service is much simpler than the Sacramento region service, with the home page providing AccuWeather information, as well as traffic conditions via Google (centered on the City of Fresno), a “camera tour” of traffic cameras in the region, and a Google Transit based trip planner. In addition to Google’s traffic conditions, the website also provides text-only traffic information, construction information, and outside links to CHP traffic incident, freeway service patrol, and fog safety websites. The service also highlights available transit, vanpool, and Amtrak services in the area, providing links to their respective websites. Ridesharing information is handled through a link to the eRide- Share website which allows users to post commute/carpool listings. Information on bicycling is also listed with links provided to local cycling group websites. Finally, the site provides information on the local transportation agencies and provides links to information on the local National Parks.

2.5.5 Google Transit Google Transit is currently the only available system that can provide transit information for interregional trips. Most transit operators in the region provide feeds to Google Transit. At the time this report was prepared; several interregional transit services are not included in the Google Transit database. For example, SJRTD has found that when Google receives and incomplete database, valid routes will be removed. Such errors are not easy or quickly corrected. A locally managed MMTP would allow route updates to happen as quickly and as often as required. Google Transit is a useful tool, but it is ultimately, not in public control and therefore, cannot be managed to accommodate local interests. 2.6 SUMMARY This chapter has provided an overview of the following: ▪▪Socioeconomic characteristics of the three-county region: Merced, San Joaquin, and Stanislaus counties ▪▪Existing interregional transit services ▪▪Existing commute patterns compared to transit services ▪▪Existing traveler information services within the three-county region and in neighboring regions Residents in the three-county region are in general younger than average for both California and the US as a whole. Household incomes are typically lower than the California average, although on a par with the US average. Vehicle availability is higher than for California and the US. The data show that commute movements that are served by transit service of at least half an hour frequency – both for trips from the three-county region to outside the region, and for interurban trips within the three-county region – experience higher transit mode shares. Even where service is less frequent, transit can capture a significant number of trips if the commute corridor is sufficiently dense e.g., the ACE train. By focusing on a relatively high-density commute corridor from Stockton to Silicon Valley, ACE has had a significant effect on transit mode shares to places such as San Jose. As is the case in California and in most of the US, ridesharing is the most used commute alternative to driving alone. Hence, it is reasonable to assume that ridesharing will continue to be a significant commute alternative to driving alone, and that any new MMTP will need to provide information on ridesharing alternatives as well as transit.

Interregional Multimodal Commute Trip Planning Study | 31 Existing traveler information systems in the three-county area and in neighboring areas already provide significant functionality for ride matching and transit within the three-county area. These services also provide additional information on auto travel conditions. The Open 511 project for Bay Area 511 will provide significant added functionality that will directly benefit a MMTP in the three-county region, as it will provide a seamless way to download auto and transit information from the Bay Area. However, this would require that a MMTP developed for the three-county region to be explicitly designed to accommodate these data feeds. The most important gap is the lack of interregional commute information. Existing 511 systems are limited to their service areas, and do not provide information on commute alternatives for interregional trips. As noted previously, Google Transit currently fills some of this need. However, it is not easily updated when erroneous data is input or when service (e.g., transit lines) changes occur. Further, the lack of local control does not facilitate the introduction of many of the new services identified in this study as desirable, such as user profiles and service alerts. This regional profile was used in conjunction with the literature review and case studies discussed in Chapter 3, and the input from residents and stakeholders discussed in Chapter 4 to develop alternatives for MMTP development in the three-county region.

32 | San Joaquin Council of Governments Literature Review & Peer Case Studies

LITERATURE REVIEW & 3 PEER CASE STUDIES

3.1 LITERATURE REVIEW This chapter assesses the current state of the practice on interregional multimodal commute trip planning systems. Recent and ongoing research on practices, technologies, opportunities, and challenges associated with MMTPs were identified and categorized as part of the literature review process. Some of the observed development paths are ground-breaking but untested. Others are supported to some extent by current practice. Two regional MMTPs that are the most advanced systems currently in existence in the U.S. were explored in depth. These two systems represent the state-of-the-practice in that sense, although recent and ongoing research suggests that even these systems can continue to evolve. Three additional systems were studied as peer region case studies to the three-county region. The studies included a detailed review of system specifications and conversations with representatives from the sponsoring agencies. Finally, any issues and innovations that were discovered through the literature review and case studies that stood out and were considered in this plan have been summarized.

3.1.1 Recent and Ongoing Research This literature review is grouped into the following categories: ▪▪Existing multimodal commute trip planning systems ▪▪Conceptual multimodal commute trip planning systems ▪▪Partnerships ▪▪Technology ▪▪Data An abstract summarizing the key findings from each of the reviewed documents is provided in Appendix 1. The diversity and depth of the research projects described in the literature review reveals the complexity of developing MMTP as well as the transportation industry’s increasing access to and reliance on electronic data and electronic communication. Electronic data and electronic communication make it possible to incorporate many different types of data into a MMTP—data such as real-time bus location, weather conditions on a given roadway segment, and the estimated emissions of one mode and route choice over another. Ready community access to such information leads to more well-informed transportation decision making. What the research projects described above do not explicitly state is that increased access to and reliance on electronic data and electronic communication also seems to lead to more sophisticated and personalized transportation decision-making. That is, with more abundant and better data at hand as well as the ability to express the costs and benefits of transportation choices in more ways, a greater number of travelers can make transportation choices that express of their values and social conscience. This observation could be a key to (1) increasing the number of commuters in the study area who are commuting via alternative modes and (2) increasing the value of a MMTP tool to individuals.

Interregional Multimodal Commute Trip Planning Study | 33 3.1.2 State-of-the-Practice Systems The two regions described in this section have multimodal (transit, pedestrian, bicycle, and automobile) trip planning integrated in one location and one interface and represent the state-of-the-art in that sense. Other regions offer unique features worthy of consideration (e.g., “bike buddy” matching and on-line trip logging), but these other regions do not offer comprehensive multimodal trip planning and/ or they rely on Google for trip planning. This finding is one of several in this study that points to a MMTP as the most promising way for the three-county region to best achieve its goals. Chicago (IL) The Chicago region was one of the first regions in the U.S. to implement a MMTP, courtesy of FTA funding for a pilot implementation. The system was originally focused on transit only but was extended to other modes in 2009. The extended trip planning system runs at www.goroo.com and supports planning for transit (urban and suburban), driving, biking, and walking. “Drive to Transit” is a modal preference option. Goroo.com covers six counties and 272 municipalities. Portland (OR) TriMet was one of the first transit agencies in the U.S. to implement real-time transit trip planning. The trip planner went multimodal in 2012; the multimodal planner (ride.trimet.org) uses an open source trip planning platform and was built in conjunction with the organization OpenPlans. TriMet’s trip planner includes carsharing locations and considers topography and “safety.” A test version of the tool was deployed in 2011 and refined based on user feedback. The final version updates a map as information is entered about the desired trip, and users can move origin and destination icons around the map. The route map includes a distance-measuring tool, aerial photography, and a unique means of balancing trip characteristics (e.g., quick vs. flat vs. bike-friendly). TriMet plans to add C-TRAN (the transit agency in Vancouver, WA) to the tool in the future.

3.1.3 Issues and Innovations for Consideration This section introduces the questions and issues that other regions have dealt with as they developed their MMTPs and were central to the development of alternatives for this study. Transportation planning agencies and operators in the three-county should continue to consider these questions as the region moves forward with system development. 1. Who is the audience for the MMTP? Should it focus on commuters? Commuters generally make the same trip each day, so, from that standpoint, they may not need to use a MMTP frequently, unless the MMTP also includes information about real-time weather and transportation conditions. On the other hand, they may find value in a MMTP when making trips during the middle of the work day (e.g., a trip to a restaurant for lunch). Knowing that they can make mid-day trips without a car may encourage them to leave the car at home in the first place. Should the planner consider peak period travel of youths, the elderly, etc. as well? Does it need to consider visitors and tourists? What type of information and what means of presentation are most helpful to the selected audience? 2. To what extent do open-source tools and data promote interregional travel? If adjacent regions can share data readily, and their MMTPs can be linked, interregional travelers have access to a better tool. (Open source MMTP tools are available. See www.opentripplanner.com, for example, which has been deployed to varying extents in Portland (OR), Ottawa, New York City, D.C., Chattanooga, Tampa, and cities outside of North America.) Can existing trip planners in the study region and adjacent regions be linked? 3. To what extent should a MMTP address single trips that are completed on two or more modes? Should bike+transit, for example, be an option?

34 | San Joaquin Council of Governments Literature Review & Peer Case Studies

4. To what extent should a MMTP focus on employers as well as (or instead of) commuters? Should a MMTP be destination-oriented or origin-oriented? Should it be activity-oriented? 5. Does the study area experience “trans-regional” commuting (i.e., a round-trip commute that extends outside of the MMTP service area)? Are such commuters part of the audience? 6. Mobile applications can be useful for informing transportation choices, but could real-time applications create a user distraction issue? To what extent does the audience have access to mobile applications? 7. How actively does SJCOG want to influence travel choices? Should the MMTP include tools that, for example, incentivize commuters to travel during off-peak periods? 8. How can transit and ridesharing be linked? 9. What is the role of optimization techniques in identifying the “best” trip option? Are existing techniques adequate? 10. Are parking cost and availability (at park-and-rides or other locations) factors that should be considered? 11. What value could crowd-sourced data provide? How accurate is it? Are there privacy issues? 12. How should the success of a MMTP be measured? 13. Can the MMTP incorporate real-time traffic, transit, and parking information (if available)? Is real- time information needed? 14. How can a MMTP benefit users? Can it speak to multiple values and needs simultaneously? a. Can the MMTP estimate “real” costs of commuting (e.g., insurance and subsidies)? b. Should SJCOG provide tools that help commuters make the most environmentally friendly travel choices? Can the MMTP estimate emissions, carbon footprint, and so forth? Can it estimate energy consumption? c. Can the MMTP estimate impacts on personal health (e.g., calories burned by biking instead of driving)? d. Can the MMTP incorporate weather conditions as it relates to the viability of walking and biking trips? e. Can the MMTP measure the quality of commute options with respect to the value of a traveler’s productive time? 3.2 CASE STUDIES Three MMTPs were selected as case studies; GoTriangle (North Carolina), 511 New York, and go511 (Southern California). These systems were chosen based on the services that they provide and similar interregional characteristics in their service areas to those of the three-county region. The case studies summarized in this report develop an understanding of technological, administrative, and coordination challenges associated with development, implementation, and maintenance of MMTPs in regions that exemplify the state-of-the-art in multimodal trip planning and/or are similar to the SJCOG study area. The case studies provide detailed information about the complexities of developing and operating a MMTP. These complexities pertain to costs, data compatibility, contracting, hardware, software, training, system capacity, user feedback, and planning for future enhancements. The case studies also identify lessons learned by other regions. Information from these case studies were used to develop criteria for evaluating the system alternatives described in Chapter 6.

Interregional Multimodal Commute Trip Planning Study | 35 The case studies summarized in this memorandum reflect a compilation of available planning and contracting documents, telephone interviews with staff from the case study organizations, and a review of the publicly available tools that each MMTP offers. Detailed analysis is presented in Appendix 2.

3.2.1 Case Study Candidates Selection Criteria Three case study regions were identified based on: ▪▪The degree to which they exemplify state-of-the-practice features and comprehensive, integrated multimodal approach to trip planning (i.e., technological case studies) ▪▪The degree to which they are similar to the three-county study area with respect to population, proximity to large metropolitan area, probability of cross-county commuting, connectivity provided by major highways, and availability of on-line trip planning tools (i.e., situational case studies) The selected case study regions are described in the table below. Table 2-1. Case study regions Proximate Metropolitan Statistical 2011 MSA Region Major Cities Areas Population San Joaquin, Stockton MSA 685,306 Bay Area Study Stanislaus, and Modesto MSA 518,522 Sacramento Merced Counties Merced MSA 255,793 1,163,515 Technological Raleigh-Durham-Cary MSA Research Triangle (NC) Raleigh 512,979 Case Study Durham-Chapel Hill MSA

Albany-Schenectady-Troy 870,716 MSA Situational Albany-Poughkeepsie- 670,301 New York City Poughkeepsie-Newburgh- Case Study Kingston (NY) 182,493 Middletown MSA Kingston MSA Santa Barbara-Santa Oxnard-Thousand Oaks- 823,318 Situational Maria-Goleta-Oxnard- Ventura MSA Los Angeles 423,895 Case Study Thousand Oaks- Santa Barbara-Santa Maria- Ventura (CA) Goleta MSA 3.2.2 Case Study Questions The questions that guided the case study interviews focused on topics related to development of the multimodal trip planner system, system features, maintenance of the system, use and user feedback, and future plans for the system. Case study questions and findings are presented in Appendix 2. 3.3 FINDINGS MMTPs require partnerships. They need to be kept up to date which require active engagement with transit agencies, planning councils, Metropolitan Planning Organizations, traffic engineers, employers, and any individuals or groups who makes decisions that impact local or regional transportation options. MMTPs are works in progress even in regions that are considered to be leaders in the development of such tools. Refinements, research, and technical innovations are ongoing. As a result, they often rely heavily on continual contractor expertise for system development and maintenance. Developing standards for data compatibility and processes for data management are essential early activities. These standards and processes will require buy-in and support from numerous partner

36 | San Joaquin Council of Governments Literature Review & Peer Case Studies agencies—and the partner agencies may be asked to make significant changes to the ways in which they collect and share data. To achieve partner agency buy-in and support, a MMTP may need to be implemented in concert with tools that are of greater interest to the partner agencies. This could lead to the creation of an “umbrella” or “one-stop shop” for regional transportation information and tools. There may be marketing benefits in creating such an umbrella, as it would simplify travel planning and travel information tasks for users. This umbrella might be a 511 system. Some existing MMTPs provide one itinerary for a requested trip, while others provide several itineraries for the user to review. The latter approach could support offering options for different modes (or combinations of modes) simultaneously. The options could be accompanied by cost and benefit information. There are many lessons to be learned from agencies that have implemented MMTPs and many of these agencies are very willing to share their experience. Relationships with such agencies should be established to take advantage of the knowledge that they can share.

Interregional Multimodal Commute Trip Planning Study | 37

Survey Results 4 SURVEY RESULTS

4.1 BACKGROUND As part of this study, a survey of residents in the counties of San Joaquin, Stanislaus, and Merced was performed to evaluate a variety of topics related to evaluating the need for and desired components of a MMTP for the three-county region. The survey was developed and implemented using an Internet survey. Respondents for the survey were selected from the Commute Connection program database as well as the State voter file in the Counties of San Joaquin, Merced, and Stanislaus based on an email sampling design and self-reported/provided email addresses. Commute connection members were recruited via email by SJCOG staff; potential respondents from the voter file were recruited via email. A total of 704 respondents were surveyed, and the survey was fielded from March 14, 2013 to April 17, 2013. The survey was approximately 50 questions in length, depending on whether the respondent identified as a Commute Connection member or not, as well as by their primary commute mode. Respondents were also given the choice of taking the survey in either English or Spanish. To increase response rates and potential participation among a broad range of three-county residents, a contest with fifteen various prizes, including gas cards and BlueTooth headsets was included as part of the overall survey process. The survey instrument is shown in Appendix 3, and the full report is provided in Appendix 4. Segmentation of the survey data by the following sections is described herein: ▪▪County of Residence ▪▪County of Work or School ▪▪Area of Commute ▪▪Preferred Commute Modes ▪▪Time Spent Commuting to/from Work/School ▪▪Time Budgeted for Commuting to/from Work/School ▪▪Number of Stops Made for Respondents Who Drive Alone ▪▪Primary Internet Access Devices ▪▪Previous Use of Trip Planning Tools ▪▪Preferred Trip Planning Tool Features ▪▪Respondent Demographics 4.2 ORIGINS AND DESTINATIONS Figure 4-1 shows the number of respondents by County. The distribution of respondents within the three counties did reflect the overall population distribution, but Merced County was slightly over-rep- resented compared with Stanislaus County.

Interregional Multimodal Commute Trip Planning Study | 39 Figure 4-1. County of Residence

Figure 4-2 shows that most survey respondents travel within the three-county region for work or school, but nearly one quarter of area residents do commute to destinations outside of the region. This confirms the regional profile findings that interregional commuting is a significant part of the three- county travel demand, so it must be accommodated in the MMTP. Figure 4-2. County of Work/School

40 | San Joaquin Council of Governments Survey Results

Although not shown in the chart above, 15 percent of all respondents indicated that they commuted to work or school in a Bay Area County. Only 4 total respondents indicated commuting to work or school in Fresno or Madera County, and only 2 total respondents indicated commuting to Sacramento County. 4.3 COMMUTE MODE The survey results below show preferred Mode Choice by County of Residence. Not surprisingly, given the nature of the Commute Connection and listed sample used, driving alone was the most popular commute mode among all respondents with carpool/vanpool second, and bicycle and public transit being the third most popular commute mode options (there were no statistical difference between Bicycle and Public Transit). Table 4-1 displays respondent mode preference by county of residence. Table 4-1. Preferred Commute Modes County of Residence

Merced San Joaquin Stanislaus Prefer not Total Other County County County to respond

Total 704 133 282 171 63 55 75 17 34 17 2 5 Bicycle 10.7% 12.8% 12.1% 9.9% 3.2% 9.1% 258 18 116 67 32 25 Carpool/Vanpool 36.6% 13.5% 41.1% 39.2% 50.8% 45.5% 440 107 159 112 35 27 Drive alone 62.5% 80.5% 56.4% 65.5% 55.6% 49.1% Mode Choice (multiple 73 13 37 14 5 4 responses accepted) Public transit 10.4% 9.8% 13.1% 8.2% 7.9% 7.3% 45 14 18 7 3 3 Walk 6.4% 10.5% 6.4% 4.1% 4.8% 5.5% 4 0 1 0 2 1 Other .6% .0% .4% .0% 3.2% 1.8% 1 0 0 1 0 0 Don't know .1% .0% .0% .6% .0% .0%

Results indicate that Merced County respondents were much more likely to Drive Alone than respondents in either San Joaquin County or Stanislaus County. However, this could be due to the use of the Commute Connection sample, the fact that Merced County respondents have shorter self-reported commute times, and/or tend to commute more inter-county than respondents from other areas. Par- ticularly in San Joaquin and Stanislaus Counties, there is interest in ridesharing. The MMTP should therefore support this mode as well as transit. Table 4-2 shows that interest in alternative commute modes increases as the average time spent commuting increases. Possible causes of this could include people wanting to be productive during commuting hours, or that they are more likely to take transit to avoid congested regional corridors.

Interregional Multimodal Commute Trip Planning Study | 41 Table 4-2. Average Travel Time by Commute Mode Mode Choice Carpool / Public Total Bicycle Drive alone Walk Vanpool transit Total 699 75 258 440 73 45 99 24 10 83 1 15 Less than 15-minutes 14.2% 32.0% 3.9% 18.9% 1.4% 33.3% 137 21 35 99 8 6 15-minutes to 29-minutes 19.5% 28.0% 13.6% 22.5% 11.0% 13.3% 158 16 58 100 12 7 Time Spent Commuting 30-minutes to 59-minutes 22.4% 21.3% 22.5% 22.7% 16.4% 15.6% to/from Work or School 279 9 153 135 48 11 60 minutes + 39.9% 12.0% 59.3% 30.7% 65.8% 24.4% I work or go to school from 8 4 0 7 3 4 home 1.1% 5.3% .0% 1.6% 4.1% 8.9% 18 1 2 16 1 2 Don’t work or go to school 2.8% 1.3% .8% 3.6% 1.4% 4.4%

It was shown in the regional profile that long distance commuters to the Bay Area do have transit options that have been implemented to serve them. Many are also already carpooling. Commuters who travel within the three-county region prefer to drive. This is likely reflective of limited regional transit service within the area and less centralized employment and residential nodes allowing for fewer shared ride opportunities. Over 40% of commuters who do drive alone indicated that they use their commutes to accomplish other tasks which involve one or more stops. Many of these commuters will be less likely to switch to another commute mode unless it will save them enough time to accomplish the tasks they are currently doing while commuting.

42 | San Joaquin Council of Governments Survey Results

4.4 SYSTEM ACCESS PREFERENCE More than 90% of respondents indicated that they use a stationary device as an internet access tool. More than 50% of respondents indicated they use a smartphone to access the Internet, and one-quarter of respondents indicated that they use a tablet for internet access.

*More than one response was allowed, leading to a total greater than 100% More than two-thirds of all respondents indicated that they had previously used either an Internet-based Trip Planning Tool, Trip Planning Application, or Trip Planning Web Site. Less than one-third of respondents indicated that they had not previously used one or did not know if they had used one. Of those that had used one previously, most had used free online mapping sites such as Google Maps, while very few had used neighboring MMTPs such as Bay Area 511 and Sacramento 511. This suggests that if a MMTP has a similar looking interface as commonly used mapping sites it could reduce the learning curve for area residents. Figure 4-4 shows the tools that respondents indicated experience with.

Interregional Multimodal Commute Trip Planning Study | 43 Figure 4-4. Previous Experience with Trip Planning Tools

*More than one response was allowed, leading to a total greater than 100%

4.5 PREFERRED TRIP PLANNING TOOL FEATURES Respondents were given the opportunity to rate various potential MMTP system elements by importance to themselves. Table 4-3 shows the mean score values, 0 = Not Useful at All, 1 = Somewhat Use- ful, 2 = Very Useful, and 3 = Extremely Useful, for each element.

44 | San Joaquin Council of Governments Survey Results

Table 4-3. Preferred MMTP System Elements

Total

TRAFFIC: current traffic conditions, maps and traffic 2.13 information

MILEAGE, FUEL AND PARKING COSTS: information on mileage and fuel costs for vehicle trips, and parking costs at 1.92 destinations

GUARANTEED RIDE HOME: information on services for 1.86 guaranteed rides home for frequent rideshare users

FINANCIAL BENEFITS FOR COMMUTERS: information on tax and other financial benefits and costs for various commute 1.84 options

WEATHER: information on weather conditions that could 1.84 impact mode choice

PUBLIC TRANSIT: local and regional public transportation trip 1.78 planner, schedules and route maps

RIDESHARE: carpooling and vanpooling information, and park 1.69 and ride information

PURCHASING OPTIONS: information on how to purchase 1.66 transit passes online

INTERREGIONAL INTEGRATION: integration with other regional transportation planning web sites and trip planning tools, 1.64 such as Bay Area 511 and Sacramento 511

DRIVING VS. PUBLIC TRANSIT CALCULATOR: information on 1.63 time and cost comparisons for driving vs. public transit

ENVIRONMENTAL AND HEALTH BENEFITS: information on impact on productive time, calories burned, fuel used, and 1.60 other health and environmental information

BICYCLING AND WALKING: bike and walking maps and general 1.59 biking and walking information

TELECOMMUTING: information on services for telecommuting 1.54 and employers who participate

Interregional Multimodal Commute Trip Planning Study | 45 Information on traffic and fuel cost were the highest scoring features. This is reflective of the fact that most of the respondents drive alone to work. Being able to access this information on a day-to-day basis may however cause people to look at their travel choices in a new light. As they see their daily costs and travel times, they might become curious about similar metrics for other modes. 4.6 SUMMARY Survey respondents from the three-county region are more likely to drive alone than to carpool or use transit for their commutes. Those commuting long distances, especially to the Bay Area are much more likely to carpool or use transit, as they face the worst congestion and have the most options available. A successful MMTP should provide a method for commuters and other travelers to directly compare modes so that they can make the best choices. Most residents access internet services with desktop computers or mobile phones. The MMTP should therefore be configured to allow convenient access using either. This is particularly important for real time transit information and traffic updates. The main areas that respondents were interested in were Information services on traffic conditions, trip costs, and guaranteed ride home programs, but all of the services on the list scored between somewhat useful and very useful. An MMTP for the three-county region should be information heavy (i.e., besides trip planning, complementary information services are highly important to residents of the region as well).

46 | San Joaquin Council of Governments Needs Assessment 5 NEEDS ASSESSMENT

This chapter synthesizes the findings from the regional profile, stakeholder interviews, case studies and online survey and condenses them into specific needs. It presents a vision of how these needs could be turned into a vibrant MMTP. 5.1 CURRENT TRIP PLANNING INFORMATION SOURCES A resident of the three-county region who works in the Bay Area or Sacramento may want to consider using carpooling, vanpooling, or transit to get to work rather than driving alone. But there is currently no convenient way to find out about these alternatives in order to make an informed travel choice. The following are several available sources of information for planning an interregional commute trip.

5.1.1 Online Mapping Tools Several sites such as Google Maps or MapQuest offer directions between a user specified origin and destination. Google Maps can also be used for transit trip planning by clicking on the bus icon on the left-hand side of the screen, as shown by the item circled in red inFigure 5-1. The figure shows a transit trip planned from the SJCOG offices in Stockton to City Hall in Lodi.

Figure 5-1. Example: Google Maps transit trip plan, Stockton to Lodi

Interregional Multimodal Commute Trip Planning Study | 47 ▪▪Google does not provide cost information for transit. ▪▪There is no way to directly compare travel times for driving and transit. ▪▪Google does not provide information on carpooling and vanpooling alternatives. ▪▪Google cannot address multimodal trips such as park and ride, or bike to transit. 5.1.2 Commute Connection Commute Connection is a web site maintained by SJCOG and is funded jointly by San Joaquin, Stanis- laus, and Merced counties. Commute Connection provides information on carpools and vanpools plus some limited information on transit. But transit information provided by Commute Connection does not always reflect updates and changes in transit schedules. An example is shown in Figure 5-2.

Figure 5-2. Commute Connection screen, transit alternative from Stockton to Lodi

Commute Connection improves on Google in that it does provide information on carpools, vanpools and commuter programs and incentives. But it has a limited scope for interregional commute trip planning. ▪▪Users can register only a single residence and work location for planning a regular commute. The system is therefore unsuitable for planning other types of trips, such as an infrequently made work trip to another location. ▪▪There is no side by side comparison of the availability of carpool, vanpool or transit options. ▪▪Cost information is not provided for transit, carpooling, or vanpooling. ▪▪There is no easy way to make a comparison on relative travel times between alternate modes. ▪▪Transit information may be incomplete. 5.1.3 Bay Area 511 and Sacramento 511 Bay Area 511 and Sacramento 511 are web sites that provide traveler information on driving, carpooling, vanpooling, and transit for their respective regions. Neither site provides traveler information outside its own region. While these systems might be useful to a commuter who already knows how to get to these areas by ridesharing or transit, they are far less useful to an interregional commuter seeking

48 | San Joaquin Council of Governments Needs Assessment first-time information on commute alternatives. Several available transportation options between the Bay Area and Sacramento are not covered by these systems.

5.1.4 Transit Operators Each transit operator in the San Joaquin region maintains its own web site where a user can go for route, schedule, and fare information. While this information is more detailed and accurate than that provided by either Google or Commute Connection, these sites are generally limited to their own services and with few exceptions, do not provide connecting information. Regional travelers often traverse more than one system so would again benefit from an inter-regionally connected MMTP.

5.1.5 Third-party Web Sites Third-party web sites such as zimride.com and avego.com provide information on carpools and vanpools, but their coverage is incomplete and they do not provide information on transit alternatives. A MMTP would need to integrate information on carpools, vanpools, transit alternatives, commuter incentives and benefits, as well as provide information on commuting to neighboring regions.

5.1.6 Summary of Current Trip Planning Information Capability As the above examples show, current trip planning information sources do not adequately meet the needs of commuters or casual trip planners who live in the three-county San Joaquin region and commute outside the region. • There is no single information source that can provide an integrated set of information on all commute alternatives. • Cost information is missing from most sources. None of the information sources provide side-by-side comparison of travel times and costs of alternate modes so that commuters can make an informed decision on which best suits their needs and budget. 5.2 NEEDS ASSESSMENT The needs assessment was derived from the following: 1) a regional profile of current commuting behavior (Chapter 2); 2) literature review of current knowledge of trip planning systems (Chapter 3); 3) interviews with service providers and Commute Connection (Chapter 3); 4) case studies of peer traveler information systems (Chapter 3); 5) a web-based survey of Commute Connection members and the general public (Chapter 4). The initial assessment was reviewed by the stakeholder group consisting of the following agencies: ▪▪San Joaquin Council of Governments ▪▪Merced County Association of Governments ▪▪Stanislaus Council of Governments ▪▪San Joaquin Regional Transit District ▪▪Altamont Commuter Express ▪▪Modesto Area Express ▪▪Caltrans

Interregional Multimodal Commute Trip Planning Study | 49 The following are the needs identified by this assessment: 1. There is a large interregional commute market for residents in the SJCOG region. The American Community Survey Journey to Work data for 2006 – 2008 show the following numbers of interregional and inter-county commuters from the San Joaquin region to the following areas: ▪▪Bay Area: 70,000 ▪▪Sacramento: 10,000 ▪▪Fresno: 2,000 ▪▪Inter-county commuting within the San Joaquin region: 45,000 Ridesharing accounts for a higher percentage of these interregional trips than for California as a whole, but transit use is much lower than the California average. Driving alone accounts for 76% of all work trips in San Joaquin and Merced counties and 80% in Stanislaus counties. This is slightly higher than the statewide average of 73% for all work trips. Ridesharing rates vary from 12% to 15% across the three counties and is slightly higher than the 10% average for all California trips. However, ridesharing rates are 25% for commutes to the Bay Area and 21% for commutes to Sacramento. The transit use for the three counties is very small and is just 1% for all work trips compared to 5% for all of California. For commutes to the Bay Area, the percent of commutes by transit increase to 4%, but is six times less ridesharing participation to the Bay Area. 2. There is a need for a system that provides convenient access to trip planning information for trips that cross regional boundaries. Currently there is no one system that provides information on all modal alternatives for commuters going from the three-county San Joaquin area to the Bay Area and Sacramento. Commute Connection provides information on ridesharing alternatives for -car poolers and vanpools that are registered in its database; it also provides information on transit using Google Transit. There is currently no locally managed system to manage transit information across regional boundaries. 3. There is a need for a system that can integrate transit and ridesharing information. There is currently no traveler information system available to the three-county San Joaquin area that provides both transit and ridesharing information in a convenient way. As noted above, Com- mute Connection can provide access to ridesharing information through its ridesharing reg- istry and to transit information using Google Transit; but this information is only available for planning a trip between a user’s registered home and work locations. Neither Commute Con- nection nor the trip planning systems in the neighboring regions provide side-by-side information on transit and ridesharing options to allow commuters to make informed decisions. Google Transit provides no information on ridesharing options. Private ridesharing websites such as avego.com and zimride.com provide information on ridesharing, but not on transit. The need for both ridesharing and transit information in the same trip planner is only accented by the current modal participation in commute alternatives i.e., ridesharing participation is much higher than transit participation. 4. Users need to be provided with a full range of alternatives including access mode alternatives. Transit trip planners generally focus on walk access to transit, although Google has recently added a drive/taxi to transit function; but for many users drive access is much more convenient. Current transit trip planners do not, in general, provide information on the full range of alternatives available to a potential transit user. For example, the Commute Connection website provides information on park and ride lots, but the Google Transit trip planner currently used for trip planning does not include that information. For example, if a Tracy resident wanted to drive to a park and ride lot at the ACE station, this option is currently not displayed. Similarly, information on ridesharing

50 | San Joaquin Council of Governments Needs Assessment

should include information on alternative access points to ridesharing such as nearby park and ride lots. 5. Users need to be fully informed of tradeoffs between different modal alternatives. This is closely related to the previous item. Even on systems where users can find out about transit and ridesharing, there is no means of providing a direct comparison on critical characteristics that affect mode choice such as comparative travel times and costs. A further selling point for alternatives to driving alone would be information on comparative environmental costs of modal alternatives such as greenhouse gas emissions. 6. Transit trip planning needs to provide information on access modes, including services provided by private companies. In particular the interview with ACE revealed that although there are a lot of privately provided connecting services to ACE service at the employer end such as last mile shuttle services, there is currently no online information available on these services. Similarly, taxi service, which provides significant connector capability to some train stations, is not recognized by current trip planners. 7. Information on transit fares and direct purchase of transit fare instruments should be included in an online trip planning web site. Several transit operators expressed the need for this type of service. Some sites such as Bay Area 511 provide information on transit fares for individual trip legs, while others such as Google provide no fare information at all. Transit operators are also seeking to provide better access to their fare instruments such as multi-ride ticket books, monthly passes, and smart cards. Current traveler information systems do not provide for direct purchase of transit fare instruments. 8. Traveler information systems must provide for increasing use by mobile devices. Some operators interviewed noted that access to their web sites by mobile devices is now greater than access by desktop computers. In particular, users want to be able to get up-to-date information on travel conditions such as transit departure times, service alerts, and road incidents. Providing such information would require real-time provision developed from data feeds by CHP, transit operators, and local traffic agencies. 9. Personalized trip planning is a new feature of some trip planning systems. Some systems such as New York 511 provide for personalized registration on their system to allow users to receive automatic text messages on transit service alerts or adverse road conditions. Market penetration of smart phones continues to increase, making it increasingly important that these devices be explicitly provided for in an MMTP. 10. Social media can provide useful information for trip planning. Private ridesharing sites such as zimride.com make it a point to collect information on individual users so that those travelers who are thinking about ridesharing users can feel more comfortable with potential ridesharing partners. Organizations such as ridenow.org maintain blogs on casual carpooling sites so that users can share their experiences and avoid potentially unpleasant drivers or passengers. 11. Supplementary information such as information on guaranteed ride home programs and tax benefits for use of alternative modes should be provided along with trip planning information. Guaran- teed ride home programs are an essential safety net for those who choose to commute by transit or ridesharing. 1Commute Connection currently provides information on a guaranteed ride home program. But for interregional trips more information is needed on existing guaranteed ride home programs and how these can be used as a safety net for interregional trips by transit or ridesharing. Federal tax benefits and other subsidies for use of alternative commute modes will help commuters make more informed decisions on choice of mode. 1 In a study of vanpooling in the Seattle region the presence of a guaranteed ride home program was equivalent to almost a $40/month reduction in vanpool fare in its effect on propensity for commuters to use vanpools.

Interregional Multimodal Commute Trip Planning Study | 51 12. MMTPs should provide for uploads of new and updated information from service providers. Most MMTPs in use require service providers to submit information to those who maintain the system, who then add the new data to the service. This time-consuming process can be greatly shortened if service providers – including transit operators, vanpool providers, and employers who provide shuttle connectors to transit – have automated access for submitting their information to the MMTP. 13. Open data access should be a key feature of any traveler information system. The Open511 initiative by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission in the Bay Area (MTC) is designed to provide information to third-party developers of specialized transportation information applications. The system also allows continuous downloads of data for planning agencies that may want to collect historical data for further analysis. Data formats should follow currently accepted standards in the IT world. XML is currently the dominant format for open data exchange; MTC is also using JSON as a standard. As noted above, providing a protected user interface for service providers such as transit agencies and vanpool providers to upload their data can greatly reduce the administrative burden on the operator of the MMTP. Having a well-defined data standard is essential to providing for uploads by different providers. 14. More than half of all respondents use a portable device (tablet or smartphone) to access the internet. Traditional web-access has been oriented toward desktop and laptop computers. The web survey showed that although over 90% of respondents use desktop or laptop computers to access the Internet, 55% use a smart phone and 25% use a tablet computer. Of those who have ever used an Internet trip planner, nearly 60% said that they used a smart phone to access the Internet. The increasing market penetration of smart phones and tablet computers combined with the growing number of third-party applications for these devices means that access to any new system should provide specifically for these devices as well as traditional computers. This finding from the survey supports the finding number 8 above from the stakeholders on the importance of providing spe- cially for access by mobile devices. 15. More than half of all survey respondents have used some type of trip planning tool on the Internet. Over 80% have used Google Maps or other mapping sites for trip planning; about 11% have used Commute Connection; 14% have used a transit operator web site. What is particularly interesting is that the use of private web sites such as Google appears to be much greater than use of public agency web sites such as Commute Connection and Bay Area 511. 16. Preferred trip planning tool features differ by current commute mode. Not surprisingly, the preferred features depend on the commute mode of the respondent: ▪▪Of all respondents, the highest-ranked feature was information on current traffic conditions. ▪▪Carpool and vanpool users desire the following features: current traffic conditions; ridesharing information including park/ride locations; commuting costs including mileage, fuel, and parking; and supplementary information including guaranteed ride home programs and financial benefits for commuters. ▪▪Transit users desire the following features: transit schedules, maps, and trip planning; information on guaranteed ride home programs; and on-line purchasing of transit fare instruments. 17. A substantial percentage of respondents spend two or more hours per day commuting. Over one- third of carpoolers/vanpoolers, over 25% of transit riders, and over 10% of those who drive alone spend two hours or more commuting. More than half of carpoolers/vanpoolers and transit users and nearly one-third of those who drive alone spend more than an hour a day commuting.

52 | San Joaquin Council of Governments Needs Assessment

5.3 SUMMARY This chapter has provided a MMTP needs assessment in three sections: ▪▪The status of existing trip planners for interregional trips from San Joaquin, Stanislaus, and Merced counties. ▪▪A synthesis of the key findings from the previous chapters on the regional profile, stakeholder interviews, case studies and online survey. The most important needs for a MMTP for San Joaquin, Stanislaus, and Merced counties is the ability to provide up-to-date information on options available for 167,000 inter-county and interregional work trips. Currently there is no one system that provides information on all modal alternatives for commuters going from the three-county San Joaquin area to the Bay Area and Sacramento. This information needs to be accessible on a number of different devices ranging from smartphones to desktop computers. Depending on the county, 76%-80% of commuters drive alone. However, for longer commutes, the participation in commute alternatives is higher, with 4% commuting by transit and 25% by ridesharing mode. Most trip planners today give driving, traffic, and transit information. Given the high use of ridesharing in the three-county area, it is also imperative to integrate carpool and vanpool options into a MMTP.

Interregional Multimodal Commute Trip Planning Study | 53

Systems Alternatives and Evaluation

SYSTEMS ALTERNATIVES 6 & EVALUATION

The needs assessment discussed in the previous chapter led to a determination of the most desirable features of a MMTP. Where possible, examples of other systems that have integrated the same or similar features were examined, and each is discussed in this chapter. The various features have been combined into several alternative packages with different implementation and governance structures. 6.1 MMTP FEATURES

6.1.1 Desired Features in an MMTP Based on the assessment of user needs, a number of features were identified that would be desirable in a modern-day MMTP for the San Joaquin region: ▪▪Area coverage. The purpose of a MMTP is to provide information for trip planning within the three-county region and between the three-county region and neighboring regions. The regional profile provided clear evidence that there is a substantial population commuting from the three-county region to the Bay Area and to Sacramento; interviews with stakeholders have confirmed this as well. Hence, it is essential that a MMTP cover not only services within the three-county area but the Bay Area and Sacramento as well, as these are the primary destinations for commute trips outside the San Joaquin region. ▪▪Modes. The regional profile showed that ridesharing is the most used modal alternative to driving alone for interregional trips originating in the three-county region; transit use is greatest for commuting from the three-county region to the Bay Area. To aid interregional commute trip planning, first priority should be given to those modes that serve interregional travel: regional bus routes, ACE service, carpools, and vanpools. Information on local transit service would be desirable, and could probably be included at little extra cost. Stakeholders expressed an interest in providing walk and bike access information; while this is important, the first priority should be given to providing basic information on transit and ridesharing. Information on walk and bike access is a feature that could be added later on if resource constraints do not allow it to be implemented in the initial system. ▪▪Modal comparisons. This was consistently expressed by stakeholders as an important element for an MMTP because it can highlight the cost benefits of alternative commute modes. Health benefits and environmental costs can probably be provided with little additional effort. ▪▪Interface. Traditional computer and voice access are staples of existing traveler information systems and should be a part of the new MMTP. But as expressed by stakeholders and revealed by the survey, smart phone access would also be essential for a MMTP. The literature review and the case studies indicated that social media are also important outlets for providing information on modal alternatives and on sharing experiences. Employer skins provide employers with a means providing employees access to the MMTP through their company web sites; the company provides the interface, but the MMTP engine provides the traveler information; having an employer “skin” into the MMTP could be a checklist item in the future for Rule 9410 compliance for employers with 100 or more employees. ▪▪Data access and feeds. Interviews with stakeholders revealed that the market for third- party applications for trip planning has continued to grow with the increasing market Interregional Multimodal Commute Trip Planning Study | 55 penetration of smart phones. Providing open access using a well-defined standard such as XML is essential to fostering the development of third-party applications that can help meet specialized needs of commuters from the three-county region. Providing for automated feeds by transit agencies and vanpool providers can greatly reduce the administrative burden of the MMTP. Employer feeds are also a desirable feature, but may require special security measures to ensure the integrity of the system. ▪▪Supplementary information. Previous studies of commute behavior indicate that a guaranteed ride home program is an essential safety net for users of alternate commute modes. Results from the survey support this finding: having information on as a guaranteed ride home was rated highly important by survey respondents who used ridesharing or transit. Hence, providing information on guaranteed ride home programs is a first-priority feature of any MMTP. Other supplementary information is also desirable, such as information for employers on Rule 9410. ▪▪Individual needs, trip alerts. The wide use of mobile phones makes it feasible to provide individual alerts to users provided that there is a way for the system to allow personalization through allowing users to define their own favorite trips. Examples of such features were identified in both the literature review and the case studies. Real-time transit departure times are now being provided for more and more operators in the Bay Area, and are a good way to provide users with a comfort level by adding more certainty to individual trip planning; but this feature requires that transit operators have vehicles equipped with automatic vehicle location equipment, which may not be the case for some operators in the three-county region. ▪▪Fare payments. Several stakeholders expressed an interest in having the capability to buy fare instruments online through the MMTP. As a first step, it is recommended that the MMTP at least provide links to transit operators who currently allow on-line fare instrument purchases. ▪▪Feedback. Feedback is seen by stakeholders as an important feature of any MMTP. Users need the capability to provide feedback to service providers. And collecting information on characteristics of trips that are planned can help inform service providers on how to tailor their services to user needs. ▪▪Flexibility and expandability. Last, but far from least, a traveler information system must have the capability to grow and adapt to changing user needs. Current information needs from a traveler information system are very different now from what they were 10 – 15 years ago when the first web-based traveler information systems were being developed. It is expected that future developments in technology will require further system adaptation and expansion of a traveler information system.

6.1.2 Integrating Carpools and Vanpools into an MMTP As discussed above, ridesharing needs to be explicitly considered in the design of an MMTP. As is the case in California and the rest of the U.S., ridesharing is the most used commuting alternative to driving alone. Design of an MMTP that includes vanpooling needs to take into account the main factors for success from the viewpoint of the main stakeholders: commuters, employers, and vanpool providers. Commuters who are considering ridesharing need to be presented with side-by-side information on comparative costs of carpooling and vanpooling so that they can make informed choices about which mode to use. This subsection is explicitly devoted to carpools and vanpools because of their importance in a multimodal trip planning system. As noted in Chapter 2, ridesharing is the main commuting alternative to driving alone in the San Joaquin region, as it is in most of California and in the U.S. as a whole. Hence, a

56 | San Joaquin Council of Governments Systems Alternatives and Evaluation careful consideration of features that address ridesharing is essential to development of a multimodal traveler information system. Current Practice of Segregation of the Rideshare Trip Planning On Commute Connection’s home page, the user can select Google Transit for a transit trip or request a match list if they are interested in carpooling or vanpooling. The match list is provided by RidePro, a product of Trapeze, Inc. If the user clicks on the carpool/vanpool page of Commute Connection, they find out more information on ridesharing options, including a list of vanpools with available seats. -Car pools and vanpools are completed segregated from transit travel options. In the case studies conducted for this study, the segregation of transit and ridesharing information on existing trip planners is very common. In the NY511 site, the home page has a “Transit Trip Planner” Banner as well as “Rideshare Banner.” The rideshare matching requires separate registration. For GoTransit for Triangle Transit, the home page provides a transit trip planner, and the user can find a list of available vanpools by following the “rideshare” tab. For the same origin and destination pairs, the users must find potential ridesharing partners or transit options in three separate searches and processes. Go511 in Los Angeles has a transit trip planner under “Buses and Trains” and interested carpool and vanpool participants are directed to a separate website for the Southern California area, CommuteSmart. info. Individuals can search for vanpools by including their origin and destination zip codes. Carpools and vanpool trip planning is segregated from transit and driving options. Recently however, there has been a positive trend of side-by- side comparison of driving and transit trip planning in major metropolitan areas. The Bay Area 511 enhanced trip planner provides users with a BETA set of options for providing side-by-side comparison of driving, drive plus transit, and transit only options.2 The advanced features allow users to select a combination of rail, bus and ferry modal options. Carpool and vanpool options are provided in a completely separate section of the Bay Area 511 web site. None of the multimodal trip planner sites reviewed as part of this project provide a side-by-side comparison that would include vanpool or carpool opportunities into the trip planner. There are justifiable reasons for this. Auto and transit trip information have established single mode data feeds. Significant work went into the development and adoption of the GTFS feed by transit agencies. Ridesharing is typically not a walk up option and available to the general public. In Google Transit function, open access is a key feature. The bottom line is that regular data feeds are provided on highway traffic and transit travel options. Carpools and vanpools have separate databases and similar data feeds are not available for carpools and vanpools. Ridesharing agencies have historically been charged with developing their own databases and protect- ing the privacy of registrants. These have historically been closed, tightly controlled systems. With the recent advent of social media and smartphone technology, ridesharing applications have been developed that have enabled a greater degree of self-selection and employer based ridematching options. The use of social media provides a “comfort” level to employees seeking a carpool or vanpool option at their worksite. It enables them to get insight into prospective ridesharing partners and helps to overcome riding with complete strangers. Zimride has been adopted, for example, by major employers and college campuses. UC Merced, for example, uses Zimride for carpool and vanpool matching. Access to the Zimride account requires Facebook registration. While this trend is very positive in terms of carpool and vanpool participation, it also segregates the transit and ridesharing multimodal trip planning.

2 http://enhancedtripplanner.transit.511.org/transitmmtp/tripplanner/index.aspx#ut=A

Interregional Multimodal Commute Trip Planning Study | 57 As will be described in the next section, the three-county region consisting of San Joaquin, Stanislaus, and Merced counties has trip patterns and current modal splits that point to a need to overcome the current barriers to greater integration of ridesharing modes into MMTP. Survey Results on Desired Trip Planning Features for Ridesharing Respondents to the web-based survey were asked to indicate their desired features for a trip planning system. Current carpool and vanpool users rated the following features as the most desired: ▪▪Current traffic conditions ▪▪Information on guaranteed ride home programs ▪▪Financial benefits and incentives for commuters who rideshare ▪▪Mileage, fuel, and parking cost information for vehicle trips Need for Side-By-Side Comparison of Mode Options Including Ridesharing Although the new multimodal interregional commute trip information system is likely to help those commuters who currently do not use transit because of lack of adequate information, ridesharing will remain an important alternative to driving alone for interregional commute trips from the three county area. In order for a MMTP to take advantage of the commute patterns in San Joaquin, Stanislaus and Merced counties, stakeholders interviewed would like to see carpool and vanpool options on the same level playing field as bus and rail options. As described above, this functionality is currently not provided. In discussion with stakeholders, the ideal solution would be to have a side-by-side comparison of the commute options available. A MMTP would show information for rail and bus options, but would provide the choice of a carpool and vanpool in the side-by-side comparison of mode choices. As the market research indicates, provision of information of guaranteed ride home information and financial incentives for all commute alternatives should be a very important feature. At a minimum, a MMTP would show existing vanpools and available seats between the origin and destination entered into the multimodal trip planner. This would require the vanpool providers to provide an open feed of their vanpools in operation which two of the three vanpool providers would be interested in providing. A MMTP could also show the number of origins and destinations for prospective carpoolers in the ridematching database. As one example of existing software that provides such an option, the employer based Zimride ridematching service currently shows the number of city origins of carpool applicants for the employer it is serving. This is important information for the prospective rideshare applicant. If only origin and destination information is provided from the ridematching database, it would protect the privacy of individual rideshare matching applicants. Providing a comparison of cost and average travel time would provide the commuter with information to make a more informed choice on commute options. Carpool and Vanpool Considerations Incorporating carpools and vanpools into a MMTP would be a new and innovative addition to trip planners. Providing vanpools and carpool opportunities into the mix makes the trip planner truly multimodal. While there are some considerations that are similar to transit, there is more of a confluence of benefits that a MMPT designer must be aware of. The following is a Venn Diagram to illustrate the mutual benefits that can accrue from a well-designed MMTP.

58 | San Joaquin Council of Governments Systems Alternatives and Evaluation

Figure 6-1. Vanpool stakeholders and key success factors

Vanpool System Feature Priorities Based on stakeholder interviews and the use cases presented above, the following is a list of vanpool features that might be considered in a MMTP. The features are rated as high, medium and low priority. This is a preliminary listing and would need further input from vanpool vendors and existing vanpool groups. Such market research is necessary before final priorities are established.

Interregional Multimodal Commute Trip Planning Study | 59 ID Description Priority High-level vanpool information for given origin / destination and radius of desired passenger pick 1 up at origin end and drop off at destination end Direct vanpool route: from given origin to given destination 1.1 High within a user defined radius at origin and destination end. 1.2 Map of available (green dots) and full (gray dots) vanpools Med Drive + Vanpool: commuter drives to a vanpool origin such as 1.3 High park and ride lot located within willingness-to-drive radius. For a given employer destination, show the distribution of 1.4 Med available vanpools by city origin 2 Detailed vanpool information for each vanpool Showing more detailed information for each available 2.1 High vanpool, when user clicks on a particular vanpool User can select up to 5 vanpools to retrieve a table showing 2.2 High side-by-side comparison of the available vanpools 3 Social media Require social media login (e.g. Facebook) if commuter wants 3.1 High to see who prospective ridesharing partners are Provide link to vanpool participants’ social media account 3.2 Med when potential joiner drill down into a particular vanpool Ensure privacy and information security of registered 3.3 High commuters 4 Booking and Payment For each vanpool, direct link to email, phone number, and/or 4.1 Low website for further inquiry, booking, and payment. 4.2 Integration to booking and payment engines (login required) Low Indication of interest for new vanpool - to join, or to drive 5 High (login required) 6 Allow waitlist to form for vanpools that are already full. High 7 Employers Employer skinning - branded homepage with specific 7.1 elements from the public website customized for internal High commute alternatives intranet site. Highlight “Guaranteed Ride Home” program if employer is 7,2 High registered 8 Personalized information Save Favorite Trips to user profile for quick retrieval of real- 8.1 High time travel info (login required) 8.2 Alerts during current vehicle trip - accidents, delays High Real time location info of your vanpool: estimated time to 8.3 departure / arrival time, service alerts (has departed, has Med arrived, late), and road accidents Commuter provides real time status update to vanpool 8.4 Low operator if “not riding work today” or “running late”

60 | San Joaquin Council of Governments Systems Alternatives and Evaluation

ID Description Priority 9 Incentives and promotions information Links to incentives and promotions information for particular 9.1 High vanpool vendor Links to incentives information from local / state / federal 9.2 High government Show estimated savings when incentives are applied to a 9.3 Med particular vanpool commute 10 Data Collection for Reporting, Monitoring, Planning Integration to automated vehicle location (AVL) systems or 10.1 mobile app with GPS capability to collect trip information Low data Service consumed: log unlinked passenger trips (UPT) 10.2 Low calculated estimate of passenger miles traveled (PMT) Service provided: vehicle use and payment integration to log 10.3 Low vehicle revenue miles (VRM) and vehicle revenue hours (VRH) 11 Integration to parking lot location and availability Med 12 Review and Rating (login required) User feedback and rating of vanpool driver, vehicle and fellow 12.1 Med commuters 12.2 Driver feedback and rating of vanpool vendor Low 13 Mobile Application Provide open source feeds of information that third party 13.1 applications can use to develop innovative mobility solutions High for users of the website Customize website vanpool trip planner to work for smaller 13.2 Med mobile app screen

Major Barriers and Constraints to Implementation The following is an initial assessment of the key barriers and constraints to including ridesharing into a multimodal trip planner. Additional market research is needed from vanpool providers and key stakeholders to better define the barriers, constraints and potential solutions. Initial observations are included below. ▪▪Problem: Vanpool providers (e.g. CalVans) are much smaller entities compared to public transit agencies (e.g. BART). As such their information technology budget may be limited. Whatever protocol is created to consume vanpool feeds has to be simple to generate critical mass adoption. In addition, the system might want to cater to vanpools that are operated by a single person. ▪▪ Solution: Information technology architecture design should keep in mind low-tech solution for procuring data (e.g. ftp and comma-delimited feed files are easiest), and ongoing maintenance (e.g. clear process for update). Web-based solutions are preferable to solutions that require software installation. ▪▪ Solution: Website form with automated entry validation for required data fields is easiest for small operators. ▪▪ Solution: Provide web-based data validation and update

Interregional Multimodal Commute Trip Planning Study | 61 ▪▪Problem: A common data format specification is necessary to allow different vanpool providers to feed their data into a traveler information system. There is no existing vanpool data format specification in General Transit Feed Spec or Open Trip Planner. One of the needs identified in Chapter 5 was for a capability for transit operators to automatically upload their data to a traveler information system. Just as such a capability should be available to multiple transit operators, so should such a capability be available to multiple vanpool operators. This capability would be similar to the open data capability currently being implemented for the Bay Area 511 system, where an open data format has been defined to allow transit operators and localities to upload real-time transit and road conditions. ▪▪ Solution: Find out if the three major vanpool providers already provide some feeds of their data for what purpose. Find out what fields are common across all providers. This could be the basis of creating a common feed that is extensible to other providers (perhaps even across other projects). ▪▪ Solution: Decide whether to model a data feed after General Transit Feed Specification (GTFS), and whether to submit feed spec to Open Transit Planner. Data format should follow currently accepted standards in information technology (IT) world such as XML or JSON.3 ▪▪ Solution: Also decide whether feed will be made public so third-party developers can build innovative applications based on the data. ▪▪ Solution: Clearly specify short, medium and long-term feed specification goals and implementation plan before attempting to define feed specification. ▪▪ Solution: Develop a basic pilot system (with a basic feed with only the most necessary information), before extending it to include medium and low priority items. User and developer feedback is necessary to ensure this new feed specification is extensible and maintainable long term. ▪▪Problem: Vanpool may add or remove stops depending on passenger needs ▪▪ Solution: Develop user-friendly web based tool that would enable the vanpool driver to easily update route and pick-up locations. ▪▪Problem: Vanpool that fills up cannot take more passengers ▪▪ Solution: Clearly define process around which a vanpool updates its seat availability status. The timeliness of updating a vanpool status to “Full” is critical for overall usefulness to commuters. ▪▪ Solution: Allow waitlist to form for “Full” vanpool ▪▪ Solution: Provide option for vanpool to not include the vanpool in ▪▪Problem: Real-time information is a desired feature for all modal options. The benefits and costs of providing this information to individual vanpool members is not currently known. ▪▪ Solution: This should be a low-priority item as other public vanpool features are a higher priority. ▪▪ Solution: At least one vanpool vendor already outfit their vans with automated vehicle location or GPS capability. Find out if these are already integrated with any software system and the software interfacing capability. ▪▪Problem: Searching for a vanpool match can be very time consuming with existing rideshare matching systems ▪▪ Solution: Allow search based on a radius around origin and destination, that shows, at-a- glance, number of vanpools in existence. Allow the search to zoom in progressively on this map, to avoid the perception of “finding a needle in a haystack”. 3 XML is the acronym for Extensible Markup Language, a general-purpose standard for data exchange. JSON stands for JavaScript Object Notation, a lightweight data-interchange format that has somewhat less capability than XML, but is less complex.

62 | San Joaquin Council of Governments Systems Alternatives and Evaluation

▪▪ Solution: Where there is no matching vanpool that fits the user’s parameter, allow user to indicate interest to join or form a vanpool. Make sure these indications of interest are current. 6.1.3 Look and Feel of an Ideal MMTP It is clear from the user needs assessment that there is a need for a traveler information system that at a minimum can provide the user with information on all commute alternatives in a convenient and timely fashion and that can display that information so that the user can make an informed choice between mode alternatives. Current available traveler information systems do not meet this need for several reasons: ▪▪Commute Connection can provide information on transit, carpooling, and vanpooling alternatives. But it is difficult to make comparisons between modes. Travel time information is available, but the user has to switch back and forth between different web pages to make the comparisons. And travel cost information is not available. Furthermore, Commute Connection only provides information on travel between a fixed residential and a fixed work location in the user profile; if the user wants to plan a trip between a different origin/ destination pair, he has to change his profile. Transit information is only as timely and accurate as the information provided to Google Transit by individual operators; in some cases we found that Commute Connection said that no transit schedule could be found for that trip, even when transit service was in fact available. ▪▪Alternative information systems such as Google Transit, avego.com, and zimride.com can provide information on individual modes. But these are limited to a single mode, and, in the case of Google Transit, do not provide cost information. If the user wants to compare travel times for transit vs. ridesharing he must switch between different web sites to make the comparison. ▪▪The following figures illustrate our concept of an ideal user interface for a MMTP showing a vanpooling example. The example is as follows: ▪▪The user first selects an origin and destination and desired travel times. The overview screen presents a list of modal alternatives showing times and costs for driving alone, carpooling, vanpooling, and transit. ▪▪The user then selects vanpooling. The system shows a list of all vanpools serving the desired origin and destination with summary information on each. ▪▪The user selects those vanpools that are of most interest. The system then shows more detailed information on each vanpool. The first figure shows an overview screen that a user would see once he specifies his trip origin and destination. The system would show the user the available mode alternatives for the trip – driving, vanpooling, carpooling, and transit – and the comparative travel times and costs of each mode. The overview screen would also provide a tab for each mode so that the user could get more detailed information on that mode. Optional trips are provided. In the example below, 2 driving routes are provided, as well as 3 vanpool options and 3 transit options. It also lets the user know there are 33 carpool registrants with same commute origin and destination.

Interregional Multimodal Commute Trip Planning Study | 63 Figure 6-2. User screen example: top-level comparison of mode alternatives

The next screen shows what the user would see if he clicked on the “vanpool” tab. The system identifies several possible vanpools showing the available number of seats in each vanpool or, if the vanpool is filled, the number of waitlisted persons. The screen would also show suggested routes where a vanpool does not currently exist, but where a sufficient number of users have indicated interest in a vanpool. The user could then select one or more vanpools to get more detailed information on each. Figure 6-3. User screen example: top-level comparison of vanpool alternatives

64 | San Joaquin Council of Governments Systems Alternatives and Evaluation

The next screen below shows a detailed side-by-side comparison of vanpools selected by the user. The comparison shows the following: ▪▪Schedule ▪▪Seat availability or, if the vanpool is filled, the number of persons on the wait list ▪▪Pickup locations ▪▪Cost ▪▪Potential financial incentives provided by Commute Connection, the air pollution control district, employers, or the vanpool company. Studies of vanpooling have shown that financial incentives can significantly increase participation in vanpools. ▪▪User reviews of the vanpool ▪▪Links to social media where users can provide more information about themselves and their opinions on each vanpool

Figure 6-4. User screen example: detailed comparison of selected vanpool alternatives

Interregional Multimodal Commute Trip Planning Study | 65 6.1.4 Detailed Features The table below shows a detailed list of desired features in a MMTP, recommended priorities for these features, and the sources of information for including and prioritizing each feature. There are a number of features that appear to be a high priority for a new MMTP given the results of the research described in the previous chapters. But if the system is to be truly multimodal it should at a minimum implement a user interface similar to the one shown in the previous section.

Figure 6-5. Detailed list of desired features, priorities, and sources Priority Source Features Regional Lit rev. / case Stake- First Second Survey profile studies holders SJCOG region (residential) x x x x x Geographic Bay Area (destination) x x x x x coverage Sacramento (destination) x x x x x SJCOG region (destination) x x x x x Regional bus transit (a) x x x x Local bus transit (b) x x x x ACE x x x x Carpools/ridesharing x x x Modes (route & Vanpools x x x schedule) Park/ride lots x x Walk access to transit x x x Bike routes x x x Employer-provided service x x Travel time x x x Modal Travel cost x x x comparison for Transfers x x x individual trip Health benefits x x x Environmental cost x x x Traditional computer x x x x Smart phone x x x x User interface Phone - voice x x x x Social media x x Employer "skins" (c) x x Downloads to third-party apps x x x Uploads from transit operators x x x Data access/feeds Uploads from vanpool providers x x Uploads from employers x x Guaranteed ride home x x x Supplementary Tax benefits x x x information Other incentives x x x User-defined page with favorite trips x x x Real-time transit departure times x x x Immediate trip planning (d) x x x x Personalization, Future trip planning (d) x x x x trip alerts Alerts during current vehicle trip x x x x Alerts during current transit trip x x x x Updates to favorite trips x x x On web site x x x Fare payments Link to transit operator site x x x x User-provided feedback to agency x x x User feedback Collect trip planning data for agency planning use x x x

(a) - Regional bus transit between SJCOG region and Bay Area or Sacramento or intercounty travel within SJCOG region (b) - Local bus service within single transit operator (c) - Interface to system through employer's web site (d) - Refers to following trip planning scenarios: Unknown mode/service/route Known mode/service/route Known mode, unknown service/route

66 | San Joaquin Council of Governments Systems Alternatives and Evaluation

6.2 IMPLEMENTATION ALTERNATIVES

6.2.1 MMTP System Alternatives The following are three system alternatives for implementing a new MMTP for the three-county region: ▪▪Enhance the existing Commute Connection web site ▪▪Host the MMTP in a neighboring traveler information system ▪▪Build a new MMTP Figure 6-6 presents the detailed list of the features identified in the above table and, for each system alternative, an assessment how difficult it would be to implement these features in each alternative as follows: ▪▪Feature already present or easily adaptable to three-county region. The feature is already present in the system, although some minor modifications might be necessary to tailor it to the three-county region. ▪▪Feature could be implemented or adapted to three-county region with moderate effort. Some aspects of the feature are present in the system, or the feature is not present, but it would take additional software development to provide the feature in full form at a moderate cost. ▪▪Feature not present; high cost to implement. The feature is not present in the system and it would require a significant amount of time and effort to implement the feature in the system. The figure includes an estimate of the comparative implementation costs of each alternative.

Interregional Multimodal Commute Trip Planning Study | 67 Figure 6-6. Detailed features, estimated implementation difficulty and cost for each system alternative Priority Alternative Host by Features Enhanced New First Second neighboring CC system system SJCOG region (residential) x Geographic Bay Area (destination) x coverage Sacramento (destination) x SJCOG region (destination) x Regional bus transit (a) x Local bus transit (b) x ACE x Carpools/ridesharing x Modes (route & Vanpools x schedule) Park/ride lots x Walk access to transit x Bike routes x Employer-provided service x Travel time x Side-by-side Travel cost x modal Transfers x comparison for Health benefits x individual trip Environmental cost x Traditional computer x Smart phone x User interface Phone - voice x Social media x Employer "skins" (c) x Downloads to third-party apps x Uploads from transit operators x Data access/feeds Uploads from vanpool providers x Uploads from employers x Guaranteed ride home x Supplementary Tax benefits x information Other incentives x User-defined page with favorite trips x Real-time transit departure times x Immediate trip planning (d) x Personalization, Future trip planning (d) x trip alerts Alerts during current vehicle trip x Alerts during current transit trip x Updates to favorite trips x On web site x Fare payments Link to transit operator site x User-provided feedback to agency x Users feedback Collect trip planning data for agency planning use x Adaptability/expandability Cost $$$ $$ $$

Feature is present or easily adaptable to three-county region. Feature could be implemented or adapted to three-county region with moderate effort. Feature not present; high cost to implement for three-county region.

68 | San Joaquin Council of Governments Systems Alternatives and Evaluation

6.2.2 Enhanced Commute Connection The current Commute Connection web site provides a number of the MMTP features identified in Section 3 including information on carpooling, vanpooling, and transit. Commute Connection provides information on benefits for commuters who use alternate modes and information on the current guaranteed ride home program. The system provides links to transit operators in the region and to some transit providers in neighboring regions. There are also links to social media where a user can put his profile on sites such as Facebook. As noted in the vignettes in Section 3, Commute Connection is tailored to provide information only between a user’s home and work; if a user desires information on other trip origin/destination pairs, he must “fake out” the system by changing his profile and entering a false home and/or work location. Travel time comparisons between modes are possible, but the process is cumbersome; and travel cost information is not readily available. As shown in the table, a number of desired features of an MMTP are already present in at least a limited form in Commute Connection. But an essential first step in enhancing Commute Connection would be to first completely redesign the user interface to provide direct comparisons between modes. Flexible inputs of trip origins and destinations is also a necessary step to make the system more usable. Given that Commute Connection is based on a proprietary software system, these costs could be quite high. ▪▪Advantages. The existing Commute Connection database is quite large, covering over 8,000 commuters in the San Joaquin region. The current system already provides information on available carpools and vanpools and provides some information on transit alternatives. ▪▪Disadvantages. The current system is implemented in proprietary software. It lacks many of the desired features for an interregional multimodal traveler information system. Cost information is not present and would have to be supplied. Side-by-side comparisons of mode alternatives would have to be added. SJCOG would have to either work with the software supplier to change the existing software or write an application that sits on top of the existing software; either of these alternatives could easily cost more than developing a new system.

6.2.3 Host by Neighboring System Because of the large number of trips from the San Joaquin region to the Bay Area and Sacramento, one possibility for an interregional MMTP would be to have it hosted by a neighboring system. Hosting by an existing system would allow the new MMTP to take advantages of features already present in existing systems. Bay Area 511 would be a logical choice given the large number of commuters from SJCOG to the Bay Area, but Bay Area 511 staff have indicated that this would be outside their mandate, and therefore not feasible. Bay Area 511 is, however, implementing a new Open 511 system that will allow any new MMTP in the San Joaquin region to access data feeds on transit routes and schedules, transit departure times, and real-time road conditions. SACOG is now beta testing a new traveler information system, River Region 511, that will eventually be integrated into the existing SACOG 511 system. The new system expands coverage of road information into San Joaquin County and also provides a tool for transit operators to automatically generate files for Google Transit in GTFS format. Discussions with SACOG have indicated that SACOG would be open to integrating transit information from the San Joaquin region into their system. The estimated cost would about $100,000 to $150,000 per county. We have therefore based our assessment for this alternative on the assumption that SACOG would host the system. The main issue with having SACOG host the MMTP system would be that the agencies in the three- county region might have limited say in designing the look and feel of the system. In particular, it would be desirable to have the multimodal user interface presented in Section 3, but this might require a Interregional Multimodal Commute Trip Planning Study | 69 wholesale redesign of the SACOG 511 system that SACOG might not be willing to accept. Similarly, inclusion of other features would require negotiation with SJCOG on which features to include and on how costs would be shared. ▪▪Advantages. This option would solve the problem of connecting San Joaquin residents to another region: Sacramento. SACOG is currently developing a new add-on system (River Region 511) that already includes driving information for some of San Joaquin County. SACOG has indicated that transit information from the three-county San Joaquin region could be incorporated into their system at relatively moderate cost. ▪▪Disadvantages. This would cover only a fraction of the interregional trips made by residents of the San Joaquin region; it would not, for example, cover the Bay Area. It would also require SACOG’s agreement on which features to implement; for example, the type of modal comparison user interface shown in the preceding section would require a substantial redesign of the current user interface.

6.2.4 New System Many multimodal traveler information systems that we reviewed in the literature search and the case studies were custom-built as new systems. There are now a number of resources available for helping to build new trip planning systems such as OpenTripPlanner (http://opentripplanner.com/) and Open- StreetMap (http://www.openstreetmap.org/), but based on what we have seen, development of a new custom-built system would cost in the range of $3 million to $5 million. One example of a new traveler information system is PATH2Go. PATH2Go is a new trip planning system designed by PATH at UC Berkeley and being implemented under a grant from Caltrans for the Los Ange- les region. The system can provide a web-based trip planner that will allow users to compare different modes of travel based on travel time, cost, and carbon footprint. The system will include traditional web-based and mobile phone applications. Travelers who are registered on the system will receive real- time updates on road conditions and on transit alternatives in the event of traveler alerts; changeable message signs on freeways will also point travelers to transit alternatives where they can park and ride. The system will also collect information on travel behavior by users (origin, destination, and mode) to support planning efforts. PATH2Go will go into beta testing in the Los Angeles region in July 2013. Caltrans and PATH have both indicated a high level of interest in implementing PATH2Go in other regions. Because of this interest, and because PATH2Go already contains a number of the features we have identified for an MMTP, we are basing our assessment of the “new system” alternative on the capabilities of PATH2Go. As mentioned above, PATH2Go is currently oriented toward transit; the system does not include ridesharing. We have met with Caltrans and PATH staff about implementing PATH2Go in the San Joaquin region. PATH staff have indicated that adding vanpools to PATH could be done at relatively low-cost, and that it would be feasible to add carpooling as well. A scope of work for adapting PATH2Go to the San Joaquin region and implementing the desired features of an MMTP could be developed upon request. As indicated in the table, PATH2Go already includes a number of desired features for an MMTP. Although modal comparisons are only provided for driving alone and transit, the addition of ridesharing information would allow PATH2Go to display travel times and costs for ridesharing alongside transit and driving alone options. The supplementary information features could also be provided at relatively low cost, either within PATH2Go or by providing a link to the information currently on the Commute Connection web site.

70 | San Joaquin Council of Governments Systems Alternatives and Evaluation

6.3 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS The earlier chapters in this report, which include a regional profile, literature review and case studies on traveler information systems, interviews with stakeholders, and a survey of residents in the three- county region, have indicated the following: ▪▪There are a large number residents in the San Joaquin region who work in the Bay Area and Sacramento. ▪▪Current information systems provide some, but not all, information on modal alternatives ▪▪Information on modal alternatives is not provided in a convenient form so that travelers can easily compare travel times and costs, and therefore make informed choices on travel mode. ▪▪Because of their importance as a commute mode, carpools and vanpools need to be integrated into an MMTP along with transit. ▪▪There are a number of additional features of a MMTP that would be highly desirable. These include a special smart phone interface, on-line transit fare payments, employer “skins”, and supplementary information on incentives. Enhancing the current Commute Connection system would require a major redesign of the user interface to make it able to provide side-by-side comparison of modal alternatives; and this would also require additional work to provide cost information for modal alternatives. The current RidePro feature of the Trapeze software used by Commute Connection may or may not be capable of providing side-by-side information on the alternatives. It may also be difficult to use the current software to incorporate other features such as providing for data uploads from transit operators and employers, having employer “skins” as interfaces, traveler alerts, personalization, and providing real-time transit departure information. Having a neighboring system such as SACOG 511 host the system would provide some of the interregional trip planning capability currently lacking in the current system. SACOG indicated a willingness to cooperate with SJCOG, and the beta version of the new 511 system already provides some information from the San Joaquin region such as road conditions. However, this would still require incorporating information from the Bay Area to make the system truly interregional and may prove administratively difficult to reach an agreement with SACOG on which features to implement in the new system. Based on the information presented herein, the preferred alternative for the three-county region would be to implement a new system that includes the desired features and user interface. PATH2Go, on which the new system assessment for this study was based, is a good example of a modern up-to- date traveler information system that could be adapted to the needs of the San Joaquin region. The PATH2Go system already has many of the desired features and could be adapted to provide most of the remaining high-priority features. But there are other systems and software tools available that may provide other means of implementing a new MMTP.

Interregional Multimodal Commute Trip Planning Study | 71

Summary and Recommendations

SUMMARY AND 7 RECOMMENDATIONS

This study has presented findings and recommendations for a MMTP that is geared toward the unique needs of commuters who reside in the three-county San Joaquin region. There is a need for an integrated MMTP in the three-county San Joaquin region that can help commuters make informed choices on means of travel to work: ▪▪The three-county San Joaquin region is different from most urbanized regions in California in that there an unusually high percentage of workers commuting to a county different from the one they reside in. ▪▪The region is designated as a severe air quality non-attainment area by EPA. Vehicle trip reduction is an essential strategy to help improve air quality in the region. ▪▪ The SJVAPCD e-TRIP (Rule 9410) Employer-Based Trip Reduction was adopted to reduce vehicle miles traveled by employees to and from work in order to limit air pollution emissions in the San Joaquin Valley. Rule 9410 requires large employers to participate in commute management activities. ▪▪ Implementation of a MMTP would provide an essential employer resource to help employees find workable options to commuting alone. It would also provide a single clearinghouse for commuter assistance services and a reliable vehicle to track and measure the region’s progress towards air quality attainment and peak period congestion management relief improvement. Such a system could provide better coordination not only within the three-county study area, but also with neighboring regions to the north, south, and west. ▪▪Current traveler information systems available to residents of the three-county San Joaquin region do not provide complete information on travel alternatives. ▪▪ Commute Connection provides information on carpools and vanpools, but transit information is sometime incomplete or lacking. ▪▪ Traveler information systems in neighboring regions provide traveler information only within their regions, and do not cover the three-county San Joaquin area. ▪▪ Google Maps can provide information on transit, but only if transit operators provide Google with timely information. Google Maps does not provide information on carpool and vanpool alternatives. ▪▪ Third-party sites for ridesharing such as zimride.com and avego.com provide information on ridesharing, but not transit. ▪▪ There is no MMTP currently available to residents of the three-county San Joaquin region that is both interregional and multimodal. ▪▪There is currently no MMTP in the US that provides side-by-side comparison of travel times and costs of all travel mode alternatives so that commuters can make informed decisions on how to get to work. ▪▪A number of features were identified that would be essential for a MMTP that meets the needs of commuters from the three-county San Joaquin region. These include the following: ▪▪Geographic coverage of the three-county San Joaquin region and neighboring regions, especially the Bay Area and Sacramento.

Interregional Multimodal Commute Trip Planning Study | 73 ▪▪Information on travel times and costs of all available travel modes presented side-by-side so that commuters can make informed choices. ▪▪Real-time highway and transit information. ▪▪Personalization features so that users can register their favorite trips and receive updates and real-time alerts for these trips. ▪▪Access to the system by mobile devices. ▪▪ Information on programs and incentives for carpools, vanpools, and transit. Three alternatives were identified for implementing a new traveler information system: 1) enhancing the current Commute Connection system, 2) hosting a new system on the traveler information system of a neighboring region, and 3) developing a completely new system. To best serve the unique interregional travel information needs of the three-county area encompassing Merced, Stanislaus and San Joaquin Counties, in the most cost effective way is to implement a new MMTP with the desired features documented as part of this study. The example “new system” used as a basis for comparison for this study was the Caltrans PATH2Go system. The PATH2Go system as well as others should be examined for adaptability to meet the identified system features, interoperability with neighboring systems, and ultimately implementation within the three-county area. As indicated in this report, not all features need be implemented in the new system at once. But the most essential features – coverage of neighboring regions and providing comparisons of all modes including carpooling and vanpooling – appear to be well within the reach of currently available technology. A new MMTP would provide significant benefits to commuters, employers, transit operators, and other public agencies in the San Joaquin region: ▪▪It would provide a centralized “one-stop shop” for commuters to get information on travel mode alternatives. ▪▪By providing commuters with the necessary information to make an informed choice of travel modes, a new system can help encourage commuters to switch to alternate, more efficient modes than driving alone such as carpooling, vanpooling, and transit. Switching to alternative modes would reduce congestion and improve air quality in the region, helping the region attain the desired air quality benefits under Rule 9401. ▪▪A new system can take advantage of modern technology such as smart phones and tablet computers to provide commuters with more convenient access to information on travel modes and road conditions.

74 | San Joaquin Council of Governments Appendix 1 LITERATURE REVIEW

Appendix

Existing Multimodal Commute Trip Planning Systems Biernbaum, Lee, Lydia Rainville, and Arlen Spiro. Multimodal Trip Planner System Final Evaluation Report. Federal Transit Administration, Washington, D.C., 2011. Abstract: “This evaluation of the Multimodal Trip Planning System (MMTPS) is the culmination of a multi-year project evaluating the development and deployment of a multimodal trip planner in the Chicagoland area between 2004 and 2010. The report includes an overview of this project, the state of the current trip planning environment, and a discussion of technical and institutional issues. The primary purpose of this evaluation was gathering information to share with the transit community and other stakeholders on these technical and institutional issues including Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) standards, communication, marketing, and the technical feasibility of integrating single-mode trip planning. The report concludes with lessons learned and recommendations related to the development of a door-to-door, multimodal trip planner system.” Barkman, Joakim, Helene Olofsson, Karl Bergkvist, and Johan Papp. “The Challenge of Creating a Multi- modal Travel Planner For Stockholm - Experiences and Lessons Learned.” 16th ITS World Congress and Exhibition on Intelligent Transport Systems and Services. ITS America, Washington, D.C., 2009. Abstract: “This paper describes how Trafiken.nu has created an online travel planner that com- pares different modes of transport in terms of travel time, cost and environmental impact. A new function – “plan commute” – offers users information about service frequency. Travel alternatives are presented as an overview in tables together with a map which has a central role in the online service. The estimated travel time by car has been supplemented with historical data from measurements and a recently completed bottleneck analysis. Tests show that users have noted and appreciate the travel alternatives presented.” William, Rexella S. 511 Travel Information Service Development & Documentation. New York State Department of Transportation, Albany, NY, 2011. Abstract: “511 New York was deployed as a free, comprehensive travel information system geared to meet the multimodal needs of commuters, long-distance and local travelers, tourists and commercial-vehicle operators. The up-to-the-minute, comprehensive transportation information available to customers through this new 511 system strengthens efforts to improve mobility, allowing people and goods to move efficiently through New York State. This report outlines the development and scope of the 511 New York Travel Information Service. The information can be used to understand the foundations of 511 New York as well as best practices used for establish- ing a statewide system offering real time traffic, transit and trip planner information.” Praspaliauskas, Giedrius. “Real Time Data Dissemination in a Regional Multimodal Trip Planner - The Bay Area Experience.” Proceedings. 18th ITS World Congress, Orlando, FL, 2011. Abstract: “There are multiple solutions that provide driving times while accounting for current traffic conditions acquired as real time data – trip planners, global positioning systems (GPS) devices with real time information, mobile applications, etc. At the same time real time transit and parking data dissemination are still in the initial stages with only a few solutions currently available, especially when it comes to multimodal or regional solutions. This paper will examine MTC’s 511.org, San Francisco/Bay Area data dissemination and trip planning tools and how real time transit/parking/traffic data is incorporated into information provided to the public. 511.org is a good case study as it covers a large geographical area (nine counties), with over 7 million people, served by more than 30 transit providers, and disseminates data using various channels and is currently working on incorporating real time transit and parking data in a multimodal trip planner.”

Interregional Multimodal Commute Trip Planning Study | 77 Aditjandra, Paulus Teguh, John D. Nelson, and Steve D. Wright. “A Multi-Modal International Journey Planning System: A Case Study of WISETRIP.” 16th ITS World Congress and Exhibition on Intelligent Transport Systems and Services. ITS America, Washington, D.C., 2009. Abstract: “The European Union (EU)-funded WISETRIP project aims to enhance existing journey planning services by developing a service for planning multi-modal journeys beyond the EU national borders. Previous projects show some relevance to the current-state-of-practice of multi-modal journey planning systems but gaps include varying approaches to market segmentation, data standardization and the incorporation of real-time information. The reported study in this paper looked at the current practice of Journey Planners (JPs) from a number of EU countries as well as China and Japan. The results show that current practice of JPs in Denmark, Germany and the Netherlands are more advanced than other countries.” Upper Great Plains Transportation Institute. Implementation of Advanced Technologies in Rural Transit Service for the State of North Dakota. Federal Transit Administration, Washington, D.C., 2009. Abstract: “This document, the final report for the Implementation of Advanced Technologies in Rural Transit Service for the State of North Dakota project, describes the motivation for, development and operation of, and lessons learned from an Internet-based trip planning system. The system was developed as an addition to an existing human service website, NDinfo.org. The new transportation module consisted of a searchable online database of transportation services available within North Dakota. The transportation module was available to online users from Novem- ber 29, 2004, until the spring of 2006. In the summer of 2006, project resources were transferred to the Small Urban & Rural Transit Center (SURTC), a program of the Upper Great Plains Transpor- tation Institute, at North Dakota State University. Under contract with the North Dakota Depart- ment of Transportation, SURTC redesigned the transportation module which remains operational. The final report is intended to meet a number of objectives. In addition to describing the effort and outcomes for reasons of accountability, the document is also meant to be an educational tool to provide information for those involved in Internet-based trip planning systems development as well as the broader Intelligent Transportation Systems and transit communities. The final report includes background information; a description of the project process and outcomes; and the evaluation framework, methods, and findings. The report should be of value to a wide range of transit industry professionals including federal and state program managers, transit agencies, and those involved in advanced public transportation systems engineering especially in small urban and rural communities.” Conceptual Multimodal Commute Trip Planning Systems Li, Jing-Quan, Kun Zhou, Liping Zhang and Wei-Bin Zhang. “A Multimodal Trip Planning System With Real-Time Traffic and Transit Information.” Journal of Intelligent Transportation Systems, Volume 16, Number 2. Taylor and Francis, 2010. Abstract: “Most transit trip planning systems are based on static schedules and generate trips that do not dynamically respond to delays in transit operation caused by traffic congestion or accidents. In addition, the driving-parking-then-transit travel mode is common in metropolitan areas. However, very few transit trip planners incorporate real-time transit data into this mode. This article describes a multimodal trip planning system for multiple modes: driving, transit, and driving-parking-then-transit. The system considers the real-time transit arrival time, which is estimated by a prediction model. Both Web-based and mobile phone-based clients are used to access the system. Case studies show that the multimodal trip planning system works well in real- life situations.”

78 | San Joaquin Council of Governments Appendix

Casey, B., A. Bhaskar, and E. Chung. “Data Requirements and Graph Data Structures for a Multi-modal, Multi-objective Trip Planner.” ARRB Conference, 25th. ARRB Group Limited, Victoria, Australia, 2012. Abstract: “A multi-modal and multi-objective trip planner provides users with various multi-modal options optimised on objectives that they prefer (cheapest, fastest, safest, etc.) and has a potential to reduce congestion on both a temporal and spatial scale. The computation of multi-modal and multi-objective trips is a complicated mathematical problem, as it must integrate and use a diverse range of large data sets, including both road network information and public transport schedules, as well as optimising for a number of competing objectives, where fully optimising for one objective, such as travel time, can adversely affect other objectives, such as cost. The relationship between these objectives can also be quite subjective, as their priorities will vary from user to user. This paper will first outline the various data requirements and formats that are needed for the multi-modal multi-objective trip planner to operate, including static information about the physical infrastructure within Brisbane as well as real-time and historical data to predict traffic flow on the road network and the status of public transport. It will then present information on the graph data structures representing the road and public transport networks within Brisbane that are used in the trip planner to calculate optimal routes. This will allow for an investigation into the various shortest path algorithms that have been researched over the last few decades, and provide a foundation for the construction of the multi-modal multi-objective trip planner by the development of innovative new algorithms that can operate the large diverse data sets and competing objectives.” Steinfeld, Aaron, John Zimmerman, Anthony Tomasic, Daisy Yoo, and Rafae Dar Aziz. “Mobile Tran- sit Information from Universal Design and Crowdsourcing.” Transportation Research Record, Number 2217. Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2011. Abstract: “Extensive interviews with riders of the Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, bus system revealed that, as the top priority, riders wanted to know the actual arrival time of buses. Following a universal design approach, a system called Tiramisu (tiramisu means “pick me up” in Italian) was created to foster a greater sense of community between riders and transit bus service providers. The design focused on acquisition of crowdsourced information for bus location and bus fullness. On the basis of that input, the system predicted the arrival time of buses and provided a convenient platform for reporting problems and positive experiences within the transit system. The intention was to create a community of riders that materially participated in the delivery of the transit service. Tiramisu also supported specific information and reporting needs for riders with disabilities and thereby provided greater independent mobility around the community. An early field trial of Tiramisu suggested that the approach was both feasible and potentially viable.” Flood, Gerry, and Jeff Granger. National Parks of New York Harbor Traveler Information System: Func- tional Requirements. Final Report. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, Cambridge, MA, 2011. Abstract: “The purpose of this planning project is to analyze alternatives and design a Traveler Information System (TIS) that will enhance the experience of visitors to the National Parks of New York Harbor (NPNH) parks and other sites managed by federal, state and local partners. The system will provide information to the traveler that will promote increased use of existing and future alternative transportation systems in the New York City metropolitan area that service the parks and other sites. While the alternative transportation systems in the area are highly developed and very efficient, they can be confusing and intimidating for visitors. This TIS will be designed to improve that situation by providing better pre-trip planning and enhanced real time assistance while in the area. A successful TIS will result in increased use of alternative transportation, increased visitation to NY harbor attractions and substantially improved visitor experience.”

Interregional Multimodal Commute Trip Planning Study | 79 Zhang, Liping, Jin-Quan Li, Kun Zhou, Somak Datta Gupta, Meng Li, Wei-Bin Zhang, Mark Miller, and James Misener. “Traveler Information Tool with Integrated Real-Time Transit Information and Multi- modal Trip Planning: Design and Implementation.” Transportation Research Record, Number 2215. Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2011. Abstract: “The chief objective of the PATH2Go multimodal traveler information application is to improve the accessibility and the quality of real-time traveler information and to make transit a known and viable choice for travelers. PATH2Go was developed as part of a field test on the US-101 corridor in the San Francisco Bay Area of California, with the primary hypothesis that travelers would benefit from real-time multimodal traveler information and therefore would be likely to consider using transit. PATH2Go integrates a web-based multimodal trip–planning tool that uses real-time transit, traffic, and parking information; a web-based search tool that finds real-time information about transit arrivals and schedules; and a mobile application that provides personalized en route transit trip information. PATH2Go integrates these major components of traveler information in one platform and makes real-time information easily accessible to travelers. The PATH2Go system architecture and major design considerations are described, and enabling technologies—including the Global Positioning System (GPS) fusing algorithm and a scenario-parsing algorithm based on GPS location data—are introduced.” Sun, Daniel, Zhong-Ren Peng, Xiaofang Shan, Weiya Chen, and Xiaoqing Zeng. “Development of Web- Based Transit Trip-Planning System Based on Service-Oriented Architecture.” Transportation Research Record, Number 2217. Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2011. Abstract: “The majority of transit trip planners exist as proprietary systems based on particular vendor products. With the incorporation of more functional components, system maintenance and regular transit information updates become burdensome tasks for transit agencies. In addition, the proprietary nature of the systems makes it difficult to take advantage of the rapid advancement of geospatial information and web technologies. The authors proposed an open and interoperable transit trip-planning system based on a service-oriented architecture, with the principle of reusing the existing modular resources, while providing user-friendly interfaces for expansion of functionality. The objective was to integrate geospatial services available online (such as Google Maps), open-source geospatial database technologies, and path-finding algorithms in a loosely coupled manner. The proposed system was developed with spatial and temporal transit data from Waukesha Metro Transit in Wisconsin. Research results were validated by comparing outputs from the existing South-East Wisconsin Transit Trip Planner and route schedule matching. Comparison results showed that the new service-oriented architecture provided a flexible, efficient mechanism for transit-trip planners. The architecture took advantage of rapidly changing online geospatial services, yet maintained the core functions of itinerary search that may be unique to each transit agency.” Klock, Ryan, David Owens, Henry Schwartz, and Robert Plencner. Integrated Intermodal Passenger Transportation System. National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Glenn Research Center, Cleve- land, OH, 2012. Abstract: “Modern transportation consists of many unique modes of travel. Each of these modes and their respective industries has evolved independently over time, forming a largely incoherent and inefficient overall transportation system. Travelers today are forced to spend unnecessary time and efforts planning a trip through varying modes of travel each with their own scheduling, pricing, and services; causing many travelers to simply rely on their relatively inefficient and expensive personal automobile. This paper presents a demonstration program system to not only collect and format many different sources of trip planning information, but also combine these independent modes of travel in order to form optimal routes and itineraries of travel. The

80 | San Joaquin Council of Governments Appendix

results of this system show a mean decrease in inter-city travel time of 10 percent and a 25 percent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions over personal automobiles. Additionally, a 55 percent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions is observed for intra-city travel. A conclusion is that current resources are available, if somewhat hidden, to drastically improve point to point transportation in terms of time spent traveling, the cost of travel, and the ecological impact of a trip. Finally, future concepts are considered which could dramatically improve the interoperability and efficiency of the transportation infrastructure.” Zhang, Liping, Kun Zhou, Jing-Quan Li, Somak Datta Gupta, Wei-Bin Zhang, Mark Miller, Meng Li, Matt Hanson, and Greg Larson. SafeTrip-21 Connected Traveler: Networked Traveler Transit and Smart Park- ing. University of California, Berkeley, CA, 2011. Abstract: “Networked Traveler Transit/Smart Parking (NT-T/SP) involves developing a real-time multi-modal trip planning and traveler information application for the US-101 corridor in the San Francisco Bay Area and conducting a field test and evaluation based this application. This tool is used as a platform to understand the distribution of real-time multimodal information and its effectiveness on traveler behavior, especially in terms of improving travelers’ perception of transit service and encouraging mode shift from single-occupancy vehicle driving to public transportation. A field test involving the first transit-based evaluation of a smart parking project in the U.S. examined the impact on travel behavior resulting from using the smart parking system at the Rockridge Station on the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) system.” Morfoulaki, Maria, Evangelos Mitsakis, Katerina Chrysostomou, and Iraklis Stamos. “The Contribution of Urban Mobility Management to Trip Planning and the Environmental Upgrade of Urban Areas.” The State of the Art in the European Quantitative Oriented Transportation and Logistics Research. 14th European Working Group on Transportation, 26th Mini Euro Conference, and 1st European Scientific Conference on Air Transport, 2011. Abstract: “The improvement of urban mobility has become a key concern to all institutions and researchers dealing with transport research. It was the vital need to change the “culture” of urban mobility promoting environmentally friendly modes of transport and the rational use of private car that forwarded Urban Mobility Centres in Greece and other countries. A modern and advanced Urban Mobility Centre for the city of Thessaloniki is under way and it is expected to offer to the citizens various services together with a Traffic Control Centre by the end of 2011. An innovativeness of the centre is the specialized service providing environmentally friendly routing, taking into account specific air pollutants, as the impact of the use of vehicles on the atmosphere, and existing - dynamically calculated - environmental conditions of the wider area. The paper deals with the need to organize such an Urban Mobility Centre. The approach to the problem, in order to design the centre’s services, is presented, as well as the expected contribution to the environmentally upgrading of the Metropolitan area of Thessaloniki.” Partnerships Cotton, Keith, Kathy Johnston, Kathy Leotta, and Seth Stark. “Washington State’s Commute Trip Reduc- tion Program: Reducing Emissions and Growing the Economy by Managing Transportation Demand.” TR News, Number 281. Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2012. Abstract: “Washington State’s Commute Trip Reduction program has built a foundation of partnerships for managing transportation demand, has improved transportation system performance, and has benefited the economy, the environment, and communities by reducing air pollutants, greenhouse gas emissions, and fuel consumption. This article presents key lessons learned from this program and concludes with an outline of research needs and comments on the program’s method of leveraging resources by fostering partnerships that link economic development and transportation efficiency.” Interregional Multimodal Commute Trip Planning Study | 81 Technology Schweiger, Carol L. TCRP Synthesis 91: Use and Deployment of Mobile Device Technology for Real-Time Transit Information. Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2011. Abstract: “TCRP Synthesis 91 examines the use and deployment of real-time transit information on mobile devices. The report explores the underlying technology required to generate the information to be disseminated, the mobile technology used for dissemination, the characteristics of the information, the resources required to successfully deploy information on mobile devices, and the contribution of mobile messaging to an overall agency communications strategy, including ‘information equity.’” Frankenberg, Michael. “Next Generation of Journey Planners – Co-Modal Examples from Denmark and Sweden.” 16th ITS World Congress and Exhibition on Intelligent Transport Systems and Services. ITS America, Washington, D.C., 2009. Abstract: “Journey planners are quite popular, for cars as well as for public transport. The challenge for the next generation of these planners is not only to calculate routes, but to mix different modes of transport and to give co-modal answers. A journey planner based on real-time and historical data offers an up-to-date and realistic comparison, concerning times, frequency, costs and environmental impact of different modes of transport and their combination, e.g., by ‘park and ride.’ Today, journey planning is focused on specific dates and times. However, more general answers, especially for metropolitan areas, can be found when using special ‘plan commute’ functions, or when isochrones are computed and visualized. The paper describes the necessary technology for realizing these co-modal systems, based on the examples of projects in Stockholm and Denmark.” Crawford, David. “A New Initiative – Mobility on the Move.” Traffic Engineering and Control, Volume 53, Number 7. Hemming Group, Limited, 2012. Abstract: “This article describes how planning a trip for the elderly by public transport is about to be improved. A new initiative designed to keep older people mobile for longer so that they can maintain their independence was recently debuted. The 2012-2015 Aiding SuStainable Inde- pendent Senior TrAvelers to Navigate in Town (ASSISTANT) project will break new ground with its levels of personalization and customization. Building on the familiarity of many of the present generation of retirees with home computers, laptops and the internet, the intended app will give them an on-line method to plan in detail, an individual multi-stage, multi-modal journey by public transport. Once planned, the app will assist the seniors throughout the stages of the trip.” Amey, Andrew, and John Attanucci. “Real-Time Ridesharing: Opportunities and Challenges in Using Mobile Phone Technology to Improve Rideshare Services.” Transportation Research Record, Number 2217. Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2011. Abstract: “In recent years, an innovative ridesharing service relying heavily on advanced mobile phone technologies known as real-time ridesharing or dynamic ridesharing, has gained popularity in some groups: providers, organizations, and employers. Traditionally, rideshare arrangements between two or more unrelated individuals for commuting purposes have been relatively inflexible, long-term arrangements. Real-time ridesharing attempts to add flexibility to rideshare arrangements by allowing drivers and passengers to arrange occasional shared rides ahead of time or on short notice. The addition of this service innovation presents opportunities to- over come existing rideshare challenges but also leads to new challenges. The overall goal of this study was to provide a foundation for further real-time ridesharing research. The aims of the study were to identify, highlight, and discuss the potential benefits of and obstacles to real-time ridesharing and to point to the next steps to understand better and possibly advance this mode of travel. A

82 | San Joaquin Council of Governments Appendix

definition of real-time ridesharing was given, followed by a comprehensive categorization of challenges hindering greater rideshare participation. The information gathered suggested that rather than being a single challenge to be overcome, the rideshare challenge was a series of economic, behavioral, institutional, and technological obstacles to be addressed. Potential opportunities and obstacles created by real-time innovations were then highlighted. Several recommendations are provided toward next steps to understand further how rideshare participants use real-time services, focusing on the need for multiple, comprehensive trials of real-time rideshare.” Research in Progress: “Empowering Individuals to Make Environmentally Sustainable and Healthy Transportation Choices in Mega-Cities through a Smartphone App.” City College of the City University of New York. Funded by USDOT Research and Special Programs Administration. Description: “A paradox of industrialized society is the overreliance on unsustainable fossil fuel energy for transportation and insufficient use of sustainable bodily energy for more physically active modes of transport. Preference for sedentary travel mode such as car driving over physically active travel modes such as walking, biking and public transit which often involves walking has contributed to air pollution and the epidemic of obesity. Further, the public has a knowledge perception bias for energy consumption and efficiency that tend to underestimates carbon emission of day-to-day activities. The project hypothesizes that insufficient and inaccurate knowledge of energy use and bodily energy expenditure can be barriers for adopting more physically active and environmentally sustainable travel modes. The project proposes to conduct a randomized, controlled trial to assess impacts of a behavioral nudge, e.g., a new smartphone app, tentatively named iTransit, on the perception of commute-related energy use and expenditure. The existing smartphone app developed at Hunter College has the ability to detect travel modes using global positioning system (GPS) tracking on a remote geographic information system (GIS) server. It will be expanded to have the ability to report carbon avoidance and calories burned associated with each trip segment and travel mode. Participants of the Queens College Ultimate Transpor- tation Evaluation (QCUTE) surveys (2008-2012) will be randomly allocated to one of three groups (n=3x50): iTransit and car pool parking discount; iTransit only; and control. Knowledge about energy use and expenditure will be measured at baseline and endline. Intention of behavioral changes will be measured through a questionnaire. There will be about 28 public transit users, 20 drivers and 1 or 2 walkers or cyclists in each group, as per our previous QCUTE surveys. A subset of participants will be interviewed to probe further the decision making process of travel modes. The field testing of the iTransit at Queens College can pave the way for its wide application in regional travel surveys, the addressing of privacy concerns, and the solving of any technical difficulties. If improved knowledge of energy consumption and bodily energy expenditure is found to trigger intent to act, such an intervention approach is perhaps best understood as a preventive medicine to reduce the tendency to switch from public transit to car driving.” Data Hillsman, Edward L. and Sean J. Barbeau. Enabling Cost-Effective Multimodal Trip Planners through Open Transit Data. National Center for Transit Research, Tampa, FL, 2011. Abstract: “This study examined whether multimodal trip planners can be developed using open‐ source software and open data sources. OpenStreetMap (OSM), maintained by the non‐profit OpenStreetMap Foundation, is an open, freely available international repository of geographic data that individuals contribute about their communities. In the transit industry, Google’s offer of a free online transit trip planner based on the General Transit Feed Specification (GTFS) has made GTFS a de facto standard for describing transit systems and a platform for many other Web and mobile applications. Over 125 public transportation agencies in the U.S. have put their data into GTFS format. Bus stop locations can link OSM and GTFS data. OpenTripPlanner is an

Interregional Multimodal Commute Trip Planning Study | 83 open‐source multimodal trip planning software system with an active developer community. The study team set up an instance of OpenTripPlanner for Tampa, Florida, using biking and walking data from OSM, and GTFS data from local transit agencies, to examine the tool’s ability to route using multimodal data. The study team also recorded multimodal data for the Tampa region in OSM to examine the current OSM coding conventions and determine the coding system’s ability to support functions required of a multimodal trip planner, such as providing information on access to transit, wheelchair accessibility, or conditions that could affect the safety of a trip (e.g., intersection crossings). This study also investigated the use of opensource software to quickly increase the amount of multimodal data available in OpenStreetMap. The research team created GTFS‐OSM‐Sync (GO_Sync), a framework and open‐source software tool for synchronizing transit data between the transit agency’s official GTFS dataset and OSM. GO_Sync connects the wealth of data from GTFS datasets to the ability of the OSM community to augment and improve the data. During a test deployment of GO_Sync in Tampa, OSM users corrected 173 bus stop locations. The project demonstrated that it is feasible to implement a multimodal trip planner using open‐source software and open data sources. Based on existing practices regarding GTFS and OpenTripPlanner, transit schedule and route data are best obtained directly from transit agencies’ GTFS files. Data on infrastructure for walking and cycling can be obtained from OSM or from other locally available public‐domain data. This report suggests a few changes to the OSM coding conventions that would improve OSM’s ability to meet the needs of a multimodal trip planner. The principal barrier to developing a multimodal trip planner remains the availability of data and, when using OSM as a source of data, the relatively low participation of U.S. residents in the project, compared to Europe. The OSM community recognizes this as a problem, but additional research is needed on how best to overcome it. Additional research also is needed on how best to communicate results from a trip planner to users who may have varying skill and comfort levels when it comes to bicycling and walking.” Dow, C. R., J. C. Chiu, P. Hsuan, K. H. Chen, and S. J. Gaun. “Efficient Transit Planning Framework Using Service Composition and Hierarchical Aggregation Schemes.” IET Intelligent Transport Systems, Volume 5, Number 3. Institution of Engineering and Technology, 2011. Abstract: “Modern advanced public transportation systems (APTSs) mostly maintain their own regional service information in a closed, non-sharable fashion in order to provide path planning service. When processing large-scope cross-regional paths which would require data from two or more APTSs, the service would be difficult or impossible since there is scarcely protocol for crosssystem data exchanging. In addition, when planning a large scope trip, huge amount of services would take a long time to process. This work proposes NimbleTransit, an efficient web service-based transit planning framework using dynamic service composition and hierarchical aggregation schemes. In the framework, web service interfaces are specified for information exchanging, making it possible to integrally collect heterogeneous data from various APTSs and transportation enterprises. A dynamic service composition scheme is designed where the transit planning is performed between semantic and syntactic level to achieve scalability. The system prototype is implemented using web service-based data from Institute of Transportation in Tai- wan, and the results showed that the proposed scheme is indeed more effective and scalable than other schemes.” Jariyasunant, Jerald, Daniel Work, Branko Kerkez, Raja Sengupta, Alexandre Bayen, and Steven Gla- ser. “Mobile Transit Trip Planning with Real-Time Data.” 89th Annual Meeting Compendium of Papers. Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2010. Abstract: “In this article, we describe the development of a transit trip planner (TTP) for mobile devices called Transitr, and evaluate its performance. The system predicts the shortest paths between any two points in the transit network using real-time information provided by a third 84 | San Joaquin Council of Governments Appendix

party bus arrival prediction system, relying on GPS equipped transit vehicles. Users submit their origin and destination through a map-based iPhone application, or through a JavaScript enabled web browser. A server implementing a dynamic K-shortest paths algorithm with predicted link travel times returns personalized route directions for the user, displayed on a map. To assess the optimality and accuracy of the predicted shortest paths, an a posteriori comparison with a schedule-based transit trip planner and the GPS traces of the transit vehicles is performed on six-hundred origin destination pairs in San Francisco. The results show that routing using the predicted bus arrivals marginally increases the accuracy of the total travel time and the optimality of the route. Suggestions to improve the accuracy and optimality using real-time information are proposed.” Research in Progress: “Develop Dynamic Eco-Routing Systems.” Virginia Tech Transportation Institute. Funded by USDOT, Research and Innovative Technology Administration. Description: “This proposed study develops a dynamic eco-routing system that can be used to find an Eco-route using real-time traffic information and digital road map. The Eco-routing is not necessarily the shortest distance or the fastest route but is the most fuel and/or emission efficient route. Currently, there are a few commercial navigation systems and online trip planning programs that provide an Eco-routing option. However, most of those systems attempt to find an Eco-friendly route using simplified methodologies which may not suitable for the Eco-routing navigation system. Most of current Eco-routing navigation systems employ simple average fuel consumption/emission models which use a link average speed (typically speed limit of a link) as a single input variable to obtain an Eco-route. The average speed fuel consumption models are frequently criticized since the model can’t differentiate an uncongested arterial trip and a congested highway trip with a same average speed. Also the current systems mostly do not consider real-time traffic information. Since the traffic condition significantly affects vehicle fuel consumption and emission levels, real-time traffic information should be considered to find an accurate Eco-route. In order to overcome the shortcomings of those Eco-routing navigation systems, the proposed system will adapt real-time traffic information to find a fuel/emission efficient route. In particular, the system can provide dynamic routing information that vehicles can change its route as traffic conditions change using the latest information. Furthermore, the proposed system will estimate fuel consumption/emission based on real-time travel information instead of using a simple average speed fuel/emission model.” Research in Progress: “Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Open Data Issues.” Center for Urban Transportation Research (University of South Florida). Funded by FTA. Description: “This project seeks to identify characteristics of an open data policy for transit -ser vice information related to schedule, facility, real time arrival, and situational status (such as detours, event information, and passenger load) that are practical and suitable for transit agencies to implement. Transit agencies generate and collect a wide variety of data in order to manage rolling stock, facilities, and equipment. Technology plays a critical role in facilitating performance efficiencies and optimizing service, and it provides unprecedented visibility into daily transit oper- ations for higher levels of decision support. There is increased interest from other entities in using transit schedule and operational data to provide real-time trip-planning applications. Open data standards offer many potential benefits, such as providing access to transit service and performance information, reducing barriers to collecting and distributing service information, leveraging the costs of developing data exchange methods to support applications, and reducing the effort to collect and process actionable information for policy and decision makers. New sources of high-quality data could create commercial opportunities for new products and markets; in the past, open data has spawned multimillion dollar industries (such as Tiger files and the geospatial industry). This research will address technical requirements (standards, data systems, data feed, Interregional Multimodal Commute Trip Planning Study | 85 security, etc.) as well as institutional requirements, effectiveness, privacy, accessibility, relation to operational practices, costs to migrate, and more. The final product will serve as a guide for successful implementation of an open data policy for transit service data for both the public- and private-sector elements within the industry.” Modal Refinements Murray, Gail, Mark Chase, Eunice Kim, and Markie McBrayer. TCRP Synthesis 98: Ridesharing As a Com- plement to Transit. Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2012. Abstract: “TCRP Synthesis 98 explores current practices in using ridesharing to complement public transit and highlights ways to potentially enhance ridesharing and public transit.” Jariyasunant, Jerald, Daniel Work, Branko Kerkez, Raja Sengupta, Alexandre Bayen, and Steven Gla- ser. “Mobile Transit Trip Planning with Real-Time Data.” 89th Annual Meeting Compendium of Papers. Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2010. Abstract: “In this article, we describe the development of a transit trip planner (TTP) for mobile devices called Transitr, and evaluate its performance. The system predicts the shortest paths between any two points in the transit network using real-time information provided by a third party bus arrival prediction system, relying on GPS equipped transit vehicles. Users submit their origin and destination through a map-based iPhone application, or through a JavaScript enabled web browser. A server implementing a dynamic K-shortest paths algorithm with predicted link travel times returns personalized route directions for the user, displayed on a map. To assess the optimality and accuracy of the predicted shortest paths, an a posteriori comparison with a schedule-based transit trip planner and the GPS traces of the transit vehicles is performed on six-hundred origin destination pairs in San Francisco. The results show that routing using the predicted bus arrivals marginally increases the accuracy of the total travel time and the optimality of the route. Suggestions to improve the accuracy and optimality using real-time information are proposed.” Wigan, M., P. Grashoff, and F. van der Wouden. “Cooperative Web-Based Bicycle Routing Database for Trip Planning, Including Dynamic Weather Integration.” World Transport Policy and Practice, Volume 15, Issue 3, 2009. Abstract: “Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS) have been developed with powered vehicles - mainly cars, trucks and buses - in mind. In general, ITS requires three basic but different elements to be combined: Sensing, Computing, and Communications. These developments have proceeded taking into account standards for communication and computing, as well as geospatial standards and sensors that are either infrastructure based or vehicle based (sometimes both). Consequently, communications may be one way or bidirectional. Sensor information can be used to modify or inform driver or road manager behaviour or responses. In this sense, both human drivers and managers also include automated response systems that may have control of (for example) traffic lights which sense and respond to the type of vehicle approaching. This series of processes has in general neglected vulnerable road users, as they rarely carry sensors or are not yet amenable to automated response modification. Initial trials of intelligent speed management systems still require refinement to take full account of the driver-vehicle systems dynamics to move successfully from informative to active automated vehicle management. The distinction between information provision (on which ITS users may or may not act), and automated systems where active vehicle-vehicle and vehicle-infrastructure interactions may take place without driver intervention is critical for vulnerable road users and their very different movement and control dynamics.... Human powered transport has special needs that can be served by ITS approaches. The barriers to their creation and use are more similar to ITS for cars and trucks than is immediately apparent. The rapid success and takeup by governments of the Demis BicycleNetter bicycle routing and 86 | San Joaquin Council of Governments Appendix

planning system in the Netherlands – with its huge volume of user contributed improvements demonstrates that there is a real need to focus on human powered and vulnerable road user applications. The wider implications of breaking down the barriers to entry in planning and transport by crowd sourcing of data has wider implications for the balance of information and expert wider between community and government on a wider basis than cycling alone.” Traveler Behavior “Games of chance being used to lure travelers to off-peak hours: incentives being used to change commuter behavior in Silicon Valley and Singapore.” Urban Transportation Monitor, Volume 26, Number 5. 2012. From a related National Geographic article: “Two experimental transportation projects under way this year in Singapore and Silicon Valley aim to improve commutes through gaming.... Some urban areas, including London, Stockholm, and the capital of Singapore, have tried disincentives to discourage rush-hour driving. These congestion-pricing schemes have achieved some success, but problems persist. And implementing them is politically difficult; New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg abandoned his early effort to pare traffic in the Big Apple through commuter charges. But a growing number of transportation experts believe the same technology that enables cities to track cars and charge a fee when they enter designated congestion areas can be used to implement schemes that people will accept more readily. Rather than punishing old commuting habits, they reward new ones. For participants, opting to avoid rush-hour traffic means both saving time, and boosting their odds of winning a prize. Instead of buying lotto tickets, participants in the Sin- gapore program shift their commutes to off-peak hours to earn credits, which can be traded for chances to win cash. Participants earn one credit per kilometer traveled by rail, and three credits per kilometer for rail trips made during the hour before or after morning rush hour (7:30 to 8:30 a.m.). They can pick one “boost day” per week, when each kilometer traveled by rail earns five credits. At Stanford, where the project is supported by a $3 million U.S. Department of Transpor- tation grant, drivers who live off-campus and shift their commutes up to one hour outside the morning and evening rush hours can earn 10 cents per off-peak trip. That’s the boring, sure-fire option. Alternatively, they can use credits to play a simple online social game that randomly doles out cash prizes from $2 to $50. Cars are tracked using a small radio-frequency identification tag mounted to the windshield....” Guy, Ann Brody. “New Software Tool Links Travelers to Real-Time Transit Info: Changing Traveler Behav- ior with Timely, Trustworthy, and Mobile Information.” Berkeley Transportation Letter. University of California, Berkeley, CA, 2010. Abstract: “This article describes a project undertaken by the California Partners for Advanced Transit and Highways (PATH) at the University of California, Berkeley, to determine whether highly accurate transit information across multiple modes of transportation would help travelers make different decisions about how to get to their destinations. The Networked Traveler project blan- kets the U.S. 101 commute corridor in the Bay Area with real-time transit information based on GPS-identified locations of transit vehicles, updated vehicle counts at transit station parking lots, and real-time traffic conditions. The software tool features a trip planner that enables travelers to find the fastest routes: whether by car, transit, or bike. It also shows relative CO2-emission savings by mode. PATH2Go, the project’s mobile application, is also described.” Watkins, Kari Edison, Brian Ferris, and G. Scott Rutherford. “Explore: An Attraction Search Tool for Tran- sit Trip Planning.” Journal of Public Transportation, Volume 13, Number 4. University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, 2010. Abstract: “Publishing information about a transit agency’s stops, routes, schedules, and status in a variety of formats and delivery methods is an essential part of improving the usability of a Interregional Multimodal Commute Trip Planning Study | 87 transit system and the satisfaction of a system’s riders. A key staple of most transit traveler information systems is the trip planner, a tool that serves travelers well if the both origin and destination are known. However, sometimes the availability of transit at a location is more important than the actual destination. Given this premise, the authors developed an Attractions Search Tool to make use of an underlying trip planner to search online databases of local restaurants, shopping, parks and other amenities based on transit availability from the user’s origin. The ability to perform such a search by attraction type rather than specific destination can be a powerful aid to a traveler with a need or desire to use public transportation.” Vanoutrive, Thomas, Elien Van De Vijver, Laurent Van Malderen, Bart Jourquin, Isabelle Thomas, Ann Verhetsel, and Frank Witlox. “What Determines Carpooling to Workplaces in Belgium: Location, Organ- isation, or Promotion?” Journal of Transport Geography, Volume 22. Elsevier, 2012. Abstract: “Home to work travel remains the prime focus of mobility management policies, in which the promotion of carpooling is one of the main strategies. Besides governments, employers are key players in this strive for a more sustainable commute. However, commuting research tends to focus on individual commuters and their place of residence, rather than on workplaces and company-induced measures. Therefore, this paper takes the workplace as research unit to analyze the popularity of carpooling in Belgium. After an exploratory (spatial) data analysis, the authors incorporate three groups of factors in a multilevel regression model which predicts the share of carpooling at large workplaces: location (accessibility), organization (activity sector), and promotion (carpool-oriented mobility management measures). Higher levels of carpooling are found at less accessible locations, and in the activity sectors construction, manufacturing and transport. This analysis gives insight in the determinants of carpooling, and may thus contribute to the development of sustainable transport policies.” LaJeunesse, Seth, and Daniel Rodriguez. Mindfulness, Time Affluence, and Journey-Based Affect: Exploring Relationships.” Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, Volume 15, Number 2. Elsevier, 2012. Abstract: “Behavioral travel research has neglected to examine the role of mindfulness in the context of the work commute. Mindfulness is a psychological construct that has been associated with improvements to mental health, social engagement, and behavioral regulation. We examined ways in which users of different travel modes perceive their journey to work from an affective stance, their dispositional mindfulness, and time affluence. Using survey data from 786 university employees, we estimated a structural equation model capturing the direct and indirect relationships between mindfulness and the degree to which commuters find their work trip satisfying and peaceful (commute-related attunement), and related mediators. Bus users, walkers, and bicyclists reported significantly less stress than drivers. Walkers and bicyclists reported greater positive journey-based affect than drivers and bus users. Additionally, walkers and bus users maintained relatively greater perceptions of time affluence than drivers. Modeling results revealed that mindfulness directly, and operating through time affluence, competence, and stress, enhanced attunement to the commuting experience. The findings suggest that enhancing individual-level time affluence and sense of competence using non-motorized modes may encourage individuals to choose active transportation modes.” O’Fallon, Carolyn, and Ian Wallis. A Wider Look at How Travellers Value the Quality and Quantity of Travel Time. New Zealand Transport Agency, Wellington, New Zealand, 2012. Abstract: “In the context of transport policy, travel time is widely treated in purely economic terms, with the key aim of ‘saving’ or reducing what is seen as unproductive travel time. The current emphasis on travel time savings uses mean values for different modes, and assumes that people want to minimise (save) their travel time irrespective of what mode they use. This work

88 | San Joaquin Council of Governments Appendix

explored the possibility that some people value their travel time, particularly for commuting, and may not want to reduce it, irrespective of what mode they usually use. It examined a range of issues through data gathered from an online survey of approximately 500 Auckland- and Welling- ton-based commuters, including the following: 1. Does the bulk of commuters’ existing commute trip travel time lie above or below their ‘ideal’ commute travel time – what are the implications for the value used for travel time savings? 2. How do people use the time they spend commuting and do they value this time? Even if they ‘do nothing’ on their commute trip, do commuters value it for its ‘anti-activity’ nature? 3. Is how they value their commuting travel time related to the- pur pose for travel, their enjoyment of their current job or course of study, and/or to other attitudes about travel mode and the environment?” Habib, Khandker M. Nurul, Ana Sasic, and Hamid Zaman. “Investigating Telecommuting Considerations in the Context of Commuting Mode Choice.” International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, Vol- ume 6, Number 1-6. Taylor & Francis, 2012. Abstract: “This article applies an econometric model to investigate the determinants of telecommuting choices in the context of commute mode choices, based on a survey dataset from the City of Edmonton, Canada. The results indicate that attributes of different commuting modes have different cross elastic effects on the attitude toward telecommuting. However, the magnitudes of cross elasticity are very low. Time of start of work plays a major role in considering telecommuting as a feasible choice. Moreover, it is clear that complementary Travel Demand Management (TDM) policies are necessary to encourage a positive attitude towards telecommuting.” Zhang, Ming, and Binbin Chen. Understanding Emerging Commuting Trends in a Weekly Travel Decision Frame--Implications for Mega Region Transportation Planning. Southwest Regional University Trans- portation Center, College Station, TX, 2011. Abstract: “National transportation statistics have shown the rise of long-distance, trans-regional commute (LDC/TRC) in the US. Four societal factors contribute to the trend: increase in dual earner households, advance in information and communications technologies, new concept of arranging work time weekly, and people’s changing attitude towards travel. In the field of urban transportation planning, commuting has been studied in individual metropolitan areas in a one- day time frame. LDC/TRC traverse multiple metros and the commuting behavior cannot be better understood without going beyond the one-day convention. Studying LDC/TRC corresponds to the growing interest worldwide in planning for megaregions. Up to date, the phenomenon of weekly commuting has been explored only by a few European researchers in the fields of geography and sociology. This study analyzed LDC/TRC using national datasets available in the US. They are American Travel Survey, National Household Travel Survey, and Census Transportation Plan- ning Package. Further detailed analyses were conducted for the Texas Triangle megaregion. The national travel surveys are helpful in portraying large pictures of LDC/TRC but limited in offering insights into LDC/TRC behavior. Based on the preliminary study, the next phase of the study will conduct qualitative research by interviewing selected LDC/TRC individuals in the Texas Triangle megaregion.” Lawson, Catherine, Mary Ellen Mallia, Chris Franklin, Benjamin Fischer, David Hogenkamp, and Matt Ryan. Understanding Commuter Patterns and Behavior: An Analysis to Recommend Policies Aimed at Reducing Vehicle Use. New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, Albany, NY, 2010. Abstract: “The objective of the study was to make alternative transportation a more viable option by identifying commuting preferences and patterns in order to recommend policies aimed at reducing vehicle miles travelled. This study focused on the use of single occupancy vehicles by employee and student commuters at the University at Albany and the nearby Harriman Campus. The project team conducted a review of the existing alternative transportation options in the

Interregional Multimodal Commute Trip Planning Study | 89 Capital Region, developed Geographic Information Systems (GIS) maps of the commuting population’s home location, investigated the on-time performance of the main transit lines though GPS, created a survey on commuting behaviors and convened focus group discussions. The study revealed that the success of alternative transportation is hindered by limitations in scheduling, frequency of routes, length of trip, unavailable routes, the need for commuters to make additional trips outside their commute travel and a distrust of bus reliability during high stress periods (i.e. tests). Based on the analyses, the project team recommends the implementation of an automated vehicle location system, more aggressive marketing of services and a review of transit offerings in high density areas identified through the GIS mapping. Cost factors appear to have a large influence on the student demand for driving while opportunities to work from home is the most preferred option of the employees. The report includes a handbook for conducting a similar analysis at other institutions.” Rudloff, Christian, and Markus Ray. “Detecting Travel Modes and Profiling Commuter Habits Solely Based on GPS Data.” 89th Annual Meeting Compendium of Papers. Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2010. Abstract: “The Global Positioning System (GPS) has been gaining importance for travel surveys since the 1990s. While it is successfully used to collect accurate information about traveled routes and travel times, only little is known on extracting added information like transport modes and trip purposes. In this paper a system for collecting and profiling commuter data is presented. This includes all steps from determining the right GPS device to processing the GPS trajectories using a data driven approach without relying on geographic information systems (GIS) or user input. A participant’s habit in route choice, travel times, travel mode changes and travel modes is extracted and stored in a profile. Using this, at the beginning of a commute, routes that the commuter is likely to take are determined and used to provide personalized real-time time traffic information. Extracting the commuter profile includes pre-processing methods for the trajectories, detection methods for places of travel mode changes and segmentation of tracks into sin- gular travel modes. Also a detailed mode detection step is performed, comparing decision trees, logistic regression, multilayer perceptions and support vector machines as classification methods. Finally, the data is reduced to a network of prototypes using Growing Neural Gas (GNG), a self-or- ganizing-network algorithm. This in turn enables a more effective algorithm for detecting likely routes. The mode detection algorithms achieved a detection rate of about 84% on a test sample, while the commuting-routes were predicted correctly 80% of the time within five minute from the start of the commute.” Popuri, Yasasvi, Kimon Proussaloglou, Cemal Ayvalik, Frank Koppelman, and Aimee Lee. “Importance of Traveler Attitudes in the Choice of Public Transportation to Work: Findings from the Regional Transpor- tation Authority Attitudinal Survey.” Transportation: Planning, Policy, Research, Practice, Volume 38, Number 4. Springer, 2011. Abstract: “This paper examines public transit choice for commuters in the Chicago area. The study uses data from a recent attitudinal survey conducted by the Regional Transportation Authority in Northeastern Illinois. Factor analysis was used to condense scores on 23 statements related to daily travel into six factors. These factors included the need for reliable and stress-free commute, need for privacy and comfort, the complexity of trip making behavior, tolerance to waiting and walking, attitude towards public transportation and perceived safety of the travel environment. The factor scores on these six dimensions then were used together with traveler socioeconomics, travel times, and costs to estimate a binary logistic regression of public transit choice. Elasticities of transit choice to the six factors were computed, and the factors were ranked in decreasing order of these elasticities. Findings indicate that the attitudinal factors improved the intuitiveness and goodness-of-fit of the choice model. Since the perception of transit by the commuters or 90 | San Joaquin Council of Governments Appendix

their friends and family could have an impact on mode choice, an incentive program that sub- sidizes current transit riders for inducing others to ride transit could be effective in increasing ridership. The findings also indicate that marketing campaigns that emphasize that public transit is a reliable, stress-free and productive way to commute could be a successful way to attract new passengers.” Research in Progress: “Google Transit: Integrated Trip Planning & Performance Measurements for Small Urban, Rural and Frontier Transit Agencies (The Google Transit Trip Planner for Small and Midsized Tran- sit Agencies).” University of California, Berkeley. Funded by California Department of Transportation. Description: “This research identifies the best practices for communicating transit schedule, routes, and fare information to the traveling public. The first task of the proposed work will start with selecting about three to five agencies that are interested to publish their route and schedule data on the Google trip planner. The California Center for Innovative Transportation (CCIT) team will reach out to public transit organizations, including the California Transit Association, the California Association for Coordinated Transportation and the Rural Counties Task Force. A needs assessment will be conducted with each agency to determine the level of resources they require.... For each selected transit agency, CCIT will constitute a project team that will be charged with carrying out the GTFS implementation.... Once project teams have been assembled, project plans will be developed for each agency. While the data conversion itself may be a simple matter of code implementation, CCIT will be attentive that each project results in a sustainable procedure to post route and schedule updates, whether such procedure is operated by agency staff or external consultants. Demonstration plans will be drafted in coordination so that common tasks can be identified and carried out for all agencies at once.... Based on the plans produced in Task 4, each project team will implement the tools necessary to the publication of the agencies’ route, schedule and fare data to the Google Transit Trip Planner, coordinating as necessary.... Once the implementations are completed, the CCIT team will perform quality assurance to insure that the data for each agency has been correctly ported. The CCIT team will further coordinate with each agency to document the conversion process and validate that the Google Transit Trip Planner integration is functioning nominally.... The following tools will be used to evaluate the impact of the trip planner at one or more agencies: 1) counts of online visits to the trip planner will provide one measure of usefulness to the public, 2) an online survey will be conducted to collect feedback from users of the trip planner and, 3) ridership at the partnering transit agencies will be monitored and correlated with the results of the online survey to estimate the effect of the trip planner on transit use.... The need for any additional resources will be assessed to make GTFS implementations easier for small urban and rural transit agencies in California.... Based on the lessons learned and the exploration of partnerships, CCIT will organize a comprehensive set of resources into a deployment package and develop a roadmap for statewide assistance to small urban and rural transit agencies with GTFS implementations. The result of this task will be a deployment package developed in close consultation with Caltrans Division of Mass Transportation.... CCIT will develop a detailed plan for a technical assistance program that will help the agencies implement GTFS based on the evaluation of the GTFS implementations and the overall project success.”

Interregional Multimodal Commute Trip Planning Study | 91

Appendix 2 CASE STUDIES

Appendix

Research Triangle - Technological Case Study Trip planner: www.gotriangle.org Contact: Tierany Griffin Regional Data Technician 919-485-7442 [email protected] Through GoTriangle, travelers in the Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill region of North Carolina have access to a transit trip planner that integrates the multiple transit services in the region under one brand, takes advantage of multiple means of inputting and sharing data, and is supported by real-time transit information. The table below describes the trip planner. The information in the table is based on information available from the trip planner web site, reports, and conversations to date with staff responsible for developing and/or maintaining the trip planner. Italicized text in the table denotes study team comments on particular elements. Screen captures of the trip planner web site are provided in Appendix A.

Question(s) Answer(s) "GoTriangle is a partnership of public transportation agencies, and organizations funded to promote commuter benefits in the Triangle region of North Carolina. Together we form a “family of services” that provides public transportation, ridesharing, bicycling, and teleworking services, incentives, and resources. GoTriangle partners work together to provide viable commuting options that enhance the Who created the system? Who are the quality of life in the region and improve accessibility to our communities’ assets while reducing roadway partners? Why was it created? congestion, air pollution, and oil consumption." The partners are Capital Area Transit, Cary Transit, Chapel Hill Transit, Duke Transit, Durham Area Transit Authority, NCSU Wolfline, TRACS, and Triangle Transit, and 10 organizations that operate commuter services programs. How was the assessment of system alternatives funded? What did it cost? Is there a report? How were the features of the system selected? Were there screening criteria? Did you conduct research to learn about regional travelers' needs and preferences before you developed the trip planner? Is this research available? How was development of the preferred system funded? What did it cost? The real-time location component of the system was developed by TransLoc. It relies on GPS data. Its What platform is used? Is it an open direct web address is triangle.transloc.com. The user selects a route of interest first, and that route will source platform? Why was it selected? be displayed on the map, along with images showing buses' current locations. Clicking on a bus image Are specs available? What alternatives did pulls up more information. Alternatively, the user can zoom in on a route and select a specific bus stop. you consider? Selecting the bus stops shows which routes serve the stop and when the next bus on each route is arriving at that stop. What are the advantages and disadvantages of this platform? (accuracy, reliability, maintenance, etc.)

Interregional Multimodal Commute Trip Planning Study | 95 Question(s) Answer(s) To what extent do you use (or have you studied) crowdsourced data? What technical challenges were encountered as you developed the system? What institutional challenges were encountered as you developed the system? How long did it take to get from concept to implementation? What skills are needed to run the trip planner, and did you have to hire staff and/or train staff to provide those skills? Is the system integrated with 511 or other It is not integrated with 511. transportation information sources? Are all of the transportation providers "Today, the Triangle area has seven urban bus systems [and one rural bus system] that provide service to in the region under this trip planner's cities, towns, and campuses across the region, as well as the Research Triangle Park. GoTriangle provides umbrella? Is there one "brand" for information about each of these transit agencies together in one online location to make it easier for multimodal trip planning? users to learn about options." Is the system integrated with regional trip planners developed by adjacent regions? It is not integrated with adjacent regions' trip planners. If not, can it be integrated in its current form? Does the system include the ability to provide emergency travel information No. (e.g., road closures and detours)? To what extent does the system incentivize commuters to use it (e.g., provision of free bus passes, provision of GoTriangle does not offer incentives for using the trip planner. gasoline credits, prizes for the carpool of the month, and awards to the best on-site transportation coordinators)? To what extent does the system incentivize participation in TDM strategies GoTriangle does not offer incentives for participation in TDM strategies and programs, but some of its and programs (e.g., travel during off-peak partners do so independently. periods and/or use of non-auto modes)? By what means can trip information be 919-485-RIDE can be called for transit trip information. Callers should have information about their origin shared with users (e.g., phone, smart and destination available. phone, text, and on-line)? The TransLoc app and third-party apps are available for smart phones. Information is available by text messaging. An e-mail subscription is available through GoTriangle's blog and the News & Alerts page. How is the trip planner publicized? Local businesses appear to have participated in promotional efforts.

96 | San Joaquin Council of Governments Appendix

Question(s) Answer(s) What hardware and software are needed to run the trip planner? "There are several ways to search for locations without knowing the address. The easiest way is to simply type in the name of the location in the destination field. Alternatively, you can just type in the first few characters. The Trip Planner will then return a list of all matching place names from which you can select your destination. Another method is to look in the place index, where all known locations are listed, in this case under Transportation Facility. If you can't find the correct place name but you know its location, you can use the map search and select your destination by pointing on the map." The map approach works best if the user places the icons representing their origin and destination on a street, not on a building or landmark. If the icons are placed near a street, the icon will automatically be moved to the street. If the icons are too far from a street, the trip planner will not be able to identify the location. “The walking distances are calculated using a network of streets with associated walking data. The Trip What input data are needed to produce Planner does not know all possible shortcuts and paths which are not built and maintained by the cities.” route suggestions? “The suggested routes are calculated using the best available information about travel times and your search parameters.” A trip through a specific interim location can be specified in the advanced version of the trip planner (which has a map interface and customizable trip preference settings). The home page shows the basic version of the trip planner. To go directly to the advanced version from the home page, the user has to select Trip Planner from the Transit pull-down menu. The advanced version allows the user to change the walk speed and transfer margin. Transfer margin defaults to 0 minutes, but itineraries will still be shown. Itineraries will be shown even if parameters such as Max Walk Distance are exceeded. In some cases, a yellow triangle will flag itineraries wherein a desired setting is exceeded, but users need to carefully review the itineraries for such occurrences. Biking is included as a walk speed option. Where do the input data come from "The address database used by the Trip Planner is the best available data from the county planning (e.g., AVL and city GIS)? Are they of good offices. The index of places is collected from many different sources and updated manually, so it will quality? Why or why not? never be perfect." What algorithm is used to create itineraries? Are you satisfied with its accuracy? "All connections suggested by the Trip Planner are strictly time-specific. Starting at the time you entered, What parameters define a viable route the route with a transfer is the fastest way to get to your destination. If you search for a later time, the (e.g., max number of transfers and max direct connection may be fastest. You can select the advanced search option 'least transfers' to find direct travel time)? connections."

Interregional Multimodal Commute Trip Planning Study | 97 Question(s) Answer(s) “One benefit of the Trip Planner is the possibility to find new alternatives to your regular route. You can compare your regular route to the routes suggested by the Trip Planner to see if faster or easier options exist.” “The Trip Planner [map] uses lines to show travel routes and circles to show stops on the route. The colors signify the transit agency operating the route used on that part of the trip. Transfers between modes are shown as yellow circles, and the origin and destination are shown as yellow squares. The mode icons used in the list of route suggestions also use the same respective colors.” The route overlay on the itinerary map does not follow streets at this time; it connects interim stops with straight lines. GoTriangle has already been identified as a future area of improvement. What data are shared with users? The planner generates only one itinerary at a time. The user can shift the time window earlier or later, but he/she will have to adjust other parameters (including specific origin and destination locations) to see other options. Expanding the route details on the generated itinerary will show alternate bus stops on the route, which may help the user refine the itinerary. The transit itineraries generated by the trip planner include lists of interim bus stops. Links to timetables are available via the trip planner output map. The user can drop a stop location on the map and see all bus stops near that location. To do this, the user has to go to the advanced trip planner and click on “go to bus schedules” at the top of the page. (This is an example of a feature that is not immediately evident to the user.) The user cannot specify the radius in which stops will be shown. TransLoc offers the GoLive app for displaying real-time bus locations. Are apps available? Who developed the The real-time bus location data are not incorporated into the trip planner. The latter is based on bus apps? Who provides technical support schedules, which makes sense because the typical user of the trip planner wants an itinerary for a future for them? trip, not the next available bus. The real-time bus map is a separate tool. Third-party apps are also available. GoTriangle does not provide technical support for them. Do you use user trip data in other ways? The home page for GoTriangle has a link to a help page. The help page provides "starting points" by mode and links to other information resources via conventional text and animated slides. Context- What information do you provide to assist specific help is available by clicking on blue squares with question marks in various sections of the trip new users? planner. Help is also available by phone. An FAQ is provided. Many features are not immediately evident. A new user should click on everything and explore the web site thoroughly. The Commute Savings Calculator asks the user to input daily miles traveled, number of days traveled to work per week, monthly parking costs, employer subsidies for bus and carpool, cost of gasoline per How are commute costs calculated? What gallon, and average automobile mileage per gallon. The Calculator reports annual cost of owning and/or performance measures are used? Can operating an automobile, annual cost and savings associated with carpooling, biking to work, and riding users customize this calculation? transit to work. Some default values are provided to help the user estimate the inputs. The calculation cannot be customized beyond adjusting the inputs. Does the planner work in all common It appears to be available for all common browsers and smart phone platforms. browsers and smart phone platforms?

98 | San Joaquin Council of Governments Appendix

Question(s) Answer(s) “Under each listed route suggestion you can find links ‘Show route on the map’ and ‘Show stop listing’. The listing of all stops along your route can be printed and used to follow the progress of your trip. You can also first use the map feature and adjust the view to show the most critical part of your route. You can then open the stop listing under the map window and print the whole view on one page to take along.” The above approach is a quick way to determine if transit service is available anywhere near a given What information is available about origin or destination. It is quicker than entering the origin and destination and travel parameters in the specific stops? trip planner. Alternatively, one could view the service area by going to the real-time map and turning on routes in the appropriate city one-by-one to display them on the map. There is no one-click way to clear the map afterwards, though. Itineraries generated by the trip planner indicate whether or not stops have a bench and shelter. Bus stop photos are available for some locations by clicking on the route segment on the trip planner map. Does your system include parking data? Is The trip planner does not include parking data. it real-time data? “The advanced search options allow you to adjust several settings to your preference, including your walking speed.” “A bookmarked search will save all attributes for the original search including the time. You can update Can users save preferences, common the search to the current time by clicking the ‘Now’-link above the list of route suggestions.” trips, etc.? To what extent can they Users cannot create an account via which preferences can be saved. The ability to create an account personalize the system? might be a desirable feature for users given the current trends in social connectivity and the ability to personalize experiences. Accounts could increase the value of the system to users (e.g., a user could weight the terms in the travel cost calculation to reflect his/her specific needs and values). Who maintains the system? "Our work is funded through a combination of government grants (federal, state, and local), user fees, and private contributions, including Triangle J Council of Governments (grant administrator), North Who funds maintenance of the system? Carolina Department of Transportation, Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), and Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization." Who uses the system? To what extent? Can you share any user feedback (e.g., survey data)? Has the system been expanded (e.g., bandwidth) to support user demand? Do you have a privacy policy regarding use of user trip data? How do you measure the value of the system? How do you measure the benefits it provides? What other kinds of information media are used by the partners to share transportation information (e.g., web site, GoTriangle has a presence in common social media (e.g., Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest, and Foursquare) as radio/TV, monthly newsletter, changeable well as a blog and Youtube videos. Text messaging and an e-mail list are available. On-site coordinators message signs, text messaging, are available through some of the GoTriangle partners. e-mail lists, and on-site transportation coordinators)?

Interregional Multimodal Commute Trip Planning Study | 99 Question(s) Answer(s) By what other means is multimodal commuting promoted in the region? “We are working on major upgrades to the transit trip planner. These will include better address matching, a Web 2.0 map interface with drag-and-drop options for selecting starting and endpoints, and more complete directions in the results. The first changes are scheduled to be introduced in mid-October, What are your future plans for gotransit. with all improvements in place by the end of the year.” org (e.g., specific enhancements)? “At this time, the Trip Planner can only draw the stops along the route. The full shape of the route along the street it travels will be added later. Walking paths and distances are calculated using the street network, but at this time we can only show the walking connection with a direct dotted line.” Can the current platform support your future plans for gotransit.org? Eastern New York - Situational Case Study Trip planner: www.511ny.org Contact: Rexella William Office of Traffic Safety & Mobility NYS Department of Transportation 518-485-9525 office 518-391-0483 cell [email protected] Through www.511ny.org, travelers between various cities in New York State have access to a transit trip planner (which integrates multiple New York transit agencies' schedules, allows selection of origins and destinations by clicking on a map, and includes walk access directions) and an interactive statewide map of transportation and transit conditions. The map includes small portions of Pennsylvania and Connecticut as well as New York. The trip planner is not integrated with trip planners outside of New York, however, so it is intercity and intercounty only. The table below describes the trip planner. The information in the table is based on information available from the 511NY web site, reports, bid documents for an upcoming procurement (which will enhance the existing system), and very limited conversations with staff responsible for developing and/ or maintaining the trip planner. These staff are currently prohibited from speaking further while the procurement is active. Italicized text in the table denotes study team comments on particular elements. Screen captures of the trip planner web site are provided in Appendix B.

100 | San Joaquin Council of Governments Appendix

Question(s) Answer(s) “511 New York is the free, official one-stop, all-encompassing telephone and Web service offering information on transportation services and conditions throughout New York State. This information is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week.” “511 is the national three-digit phone number reserved for travel information. The phone service is an interactive voice system reachable by landline and cellular phones and driven by a user’s voice or phone keys.” “New York State’s 511 services aim to meet the specialized needs of commuters, long-distance and through travelers, tourists and commercial vehicle operators.” “With an easy way to find trip-planning resources, traffic conditions, weather updates and alternative Who created the system? Who are the transportation information, 511 NY helps you control your travel so you can travel smarter. Save time and partners? Why was it created? money and reduce stress.” “By making it simple for you to learn about and to start using alternative transportation options – such as carpools, vanpools, ride-sharing, buses, trains, ferries, bicycling and more; 511 NY can help to reduce overall traffic congestion, air pollution and energy use.” “Service became available statewide in June 2009, with a mobile website, mobile applications for the BlackBerry and Android, and the MY511NY enhancements announced in 2010.” “New York’s transportation agencies, who provide the information that drives the 511 NY system, have made this service possible. 511 NY was developed through the leadership of the New York State Department of Transportation.” NYSDOT has provided a vision document for 511NY. How was the assessment of system alternatives funded? What did it cost? Is there a report? On the 511NY web page, placing the mouse pointer on top of the “Transit Trip Planner” link pulls up a list of regions within the state. The user need not click on a specific region to use the transit trip planner, though. He/she need only click on “Transit Trip Planner.” Clicking on an regional name (e.g., Capital Region) merely focuses the statewide map (powered by Google) on the selected region. Users can click on the map to place their origin and destination, or they can enter an address, intersection, or landmark. It takes some practice to learn how to use the map input approach correctly. As the user types in a landmark, potential matches appear, which the user can then select. The planner indicates that park-and-ride lots can be considered explicitly in itinerary generation, but it is How were the features of the system not evident how this works. selected? Were there screening criteria? The transit trip planner generates a “best” itinerary and allows the user to move on to the “Next Best Itinerary” if they desire. Return trips can be planned with the click of a button. A walking map can be generated for the selected itinerary. A link to rideshare options for the selected itinerary opens up a new browser tab with the web site of the applicable ridesharing program manager. The walking map does not provide turn-by-turn walk directions. It is simply a map showing the trip endpoint or transit transfer point and the walk trip associated with accessing those points. There is no map showing the transit legs of the itinerary. See the specifications and performance requirements provided by NYSDOT for detailed information about system features. Did you conduct research to learn about regional travelers' needs and preferences before you developed the trip planner? Is this research available? How was development of the preferred system funded? What did it cost?

Interregional Multimodal Commute Trip Planning Study | 101 Question(s) Answer(s) Specifications and performance requirements have been provided by NYSDOT for the following components of 511NY: Data interfaces (e.g., “The 511NY XML Data Feed shall be provided to users free of charge, via secure web connection.) IVR system (e.g., “The 511 telephone system toll free number shall provide real-time Automatic Number Identification (ANI) to the IVR to identify the source of the call.”) Web site (e.g., “The 511 web site shall meet the following requirements for load testing: 300 concurrent virtual users for 30-second duration, rendering pages, on average, within 3 seconds.”) MY511NY (e.g., “When a caller enters the My511NY menu and has at least one defined trip for the current region, the system shall ask them to select their trip, or say ‘what are my choices’ for a list of trips in their current Region.”) Mobile requirements (e.g., “The 511NY Mobile Application shall authenticate via device PIN, eliminating What platform is used? Is it an open the need for id/password entry.”) source platform? Why was it selected? Twitter data feeds (e.g., “The system shall enable authorized users to manually send tweets to individual Are specs available? What alternatives did or all twitter feeds.”) you consider? Performance measurement, collection, and reporting (e.g., “The 511 web site shall be tested on an ongoing basis to test all functions of the system, including links to outside agencies.”) General requirements (e.g., “The 511NY Mobile Application shall be accessible via a working and supported mobile device, 24 hours per day, 7 days per week, and 365 days per year, where wireless data coverage is available.”) Non-functional requirements (e.g., “The system user interfaces shall comply with the NYS Information Technology Policy NYS-P08-005 (Accessibility of Web-Based Information and Applications). NYS-P08-005 can be viewed at: http://www.cio.ny.gov/policy/NYS-P08-005.pdf.”) Open architecture appears to be highly desired. NYSDOT has provided an inventory of existing hardware and software. This inventory identifies partners and vendors and their responsibilities (e.g., the CCTV images in NYSDOT Region 2 are provided by a company called Sercureserver.net). What are the advantages and disadvantages of this platform? (accuracy, reliability, maintenance, etc.) To what extent do you use (or have you studied) crowdsourced data? What technical challenges were encountered as you developed the system? What institutional challenges were encountered as you developed the system? How long did it take to get from concept "Implemented in the New York City Metro region in November 2008 and expanded Statewide June 2009 to implementation? (most comprehensive 511 system in the US)" What skills are needed to run the trip planner, and did you have to hire staff Maintenance and development of the system is contracted out. and/or train staff to provide those skills? Is the system integrated with 511 or other Yes. transportation information sources?

102 | San Joaquin Council of Governments Appendix

Question(s) Answer(s) Are all of the transportation providers "511 NY is groundbreaking in bringing together a multitude of transportation information available in the region under this trip planner's in New York State in one easy-to-use portal. With 511 NY, you no longer need many individual phone umbrella? Is there one "brand" for numbers and Web sites." multimodal trip planning? Is the system integrated with regional trip planners developed by adjacent regions? Adjacent regions' trip planners are not formally integrated with the 511NY system, but 511NY does extend If not, can it be integrated in its current into adjacent states in the New York City area. Also, call transfers are made to adjacent 511 systems. form? Does the system include the ability to Yes. Real-time road conditions information is available statewide, and it includes incident information. provide emergency travel information Transit incident information is limited to the New York City area. (e.g., road closures and detours)? To what extent does the system incentivize commuters to use it (e.g., provision of free bus passes, provision of gasoline credits, prizes for the carpool of the month, and awards to the best on-site transportation coordinators)? To what extent does the system incentivize participation in TDM strategies and programs (e.g., travel during off-peak periods and/or use of non-auto modes)? By what means can trip information be All of these are available. Multiple phone numbers can be tied to one account for phone access shared with users (e.g., phone, smart convenience. phone, text, and on-line)? NYSDOT envisions a promotion plan that includes local TV channels, cable news channels, insertion of the How is the trip planner publicized? 511NY logo in live feeds, outreach to other agencies, public service announcements, and social media. What hardware and software are needed See the specifications and performance requirements provided by NYSDOT for detailed information about to run the trip planner? system features. The trip planner uses schedules from multiple transit agencies to generate itineraries for a given trip. The What input data are needed to produce schedules are provided in Web Data Management System (WDMS) format or Schedule Data Profile (SDS)/ route suggestions? Google Transit Feed Specification (GTFS) format. “The information in the 511NY system comes from many transportation and police agencies in New York Where do the input data come from and surrounding states.” (e.g., AVL and city GIS)? Are they of good Regarding transit incident information, “The 511NY system currently receives incident information quality? Why or why not? predominantly from providers in the New York City metropolitan area.”

The TranStar itinerary engine creates the itineraries. NYSDOT is interested in retiring this engine and What algorithm is used to create replacing it with something that is “more robust, open and flexible.” It is not clear if accuracy is an issue itineraries? Are you satisfied with its with TranStar. accuracy? NYSDOT What parameters define a viable route (e.g., max number of transfers and max travel time)? What data are shared with users?

Interregional Multimodal Commute Trip Planning Study | 103 Question(s) Answer(s) Are apps available? Who developed the apps? Who provides technical support There are apps. A developer tools page is available, through which third parties can obtain a data feed. for them? Do you use user trip data in other ways? What information do you provide to assist new users? How are commute costs calculated? What performance measures are used? Can users customize this calculation? “Any computer that has access to the Internet, a compatible browser, and security settings to allow Does the planner work in all common cookies will be able to access the My511NY service on the web.” browsers and smart phone platforms? The web site is intended to support the Internet Explorer, Firefox, Safari, and Chrome browsers. The mobile interface is intended to support the Blackberry, Safari, Android, and Internet Explorer browsers. What information is available about A walking map can be generated for each itinerary, but information about bus stop amenities or specific specific stops? bus stop locations is not available. Does your system include parking data? Is The system does not include parking data at this time, but it is under consideration for future it real-time data? enhancements. It would likely take the form of parking lot occupancy percentages. For the transit trip planner specifically, users can specify basic trip preferences such as “Fewest Transfers.” Real-time camera views can be added to a personal home page. “Due to bandwidth issues, only camera image snapshots are currently available.” “My511NY is a free, personalized service on the phone, mobile apps, and web that allows you to customize 511NY, your way. With My511NY, you build your own 511NY.org home page or bypass phone menu options to go directly to your information.” “A personalized TransAlert subscription service provides notifications of major incidents and can be customized to give alerts by county.” “With MY511NY, you define and save up to six traffic trips and six transit trips, with names like ‘home to work’ or ‘work to gym.’ You can also sign up for up to six driving time trips for Long Island. Then you can access real-time highway and transit condition information for those trips on the 511NY phone service and 511NY.org.” “On the phone, MY511NY allows you to bypass menu prompts to go directly to current information Can users save preferences, common for your preferred trips. During registration, you can save up to three phone numbers that 511NY will trips, etc.? To what extent can they recognize. When calling 511NY, the phone system recognizes MY511NY users via caller ID and immediately personalize the system? asks for the name of a saved trip set-up during MY 511 registration (e.g. ‘home to work’). MY511NY will respond with current traffic and/or transit information for your trip.” “On the web, MY511NY allows you to create and view your very own MY511NY personalized home page. During registration, you set up and save your routes for traffic incident information and driving times, public transit trips, and traffic camera views. Once you verify your registration by responding to an e-mail that MY511NY sends you, you will see all your saved trips displayed on your new MY511NY personalized home page.” “511NY.org recognizes MY511NY users via a saved username and password. Once signed-in, you are taken directly to your personalized home page. If you choose to stay signed-in to MY511NY, you will automatically be taken to your personalized home page when you visit 511NY.org or MY511NY. There is no need to sign in each time.” “The frequency with which the current information is updated [can be specified] on your personalized home page.” Who maintains the system? Maintenance includes system backups, log monitoring, disk space cleanup, server load monitoring, etc. Who funds maintenance of the system?

104 | San Joaquin Council of Governments Appendix

Question(s) Answer(s) Who uses the system? To what extent? Can you share any user feedback (e.g., survey data)? Has the system been expanded (e.g., The current procurement includes expanding the coverage area to include other states. bandwidth) to support user demand? Do you have a privacy policy regarding 511NY has a privacy policy. The specifications for the system include encryption and secure use of user trip data? communications features as well. How do you measure the value of the Performance measures are contained in the specifications and performance requirements provided by system? How do you measure the NYSDOT. benefits it provides? What other kinds of information media are used by the partners to share transportation information (e.g., web site, radio/TV, monthly newsletter, changeable message signs, text messaging, e-mail lists, and on-site transportation coordinators)? By what other means is multimodal commuting promoted in the region? NYSDOT is currently planning enhancements to the system, and there is an on-line survey supporting this. Specifications for the enhanced system have been provided by NYSDOT and include integrating traffic, transit, and ridesharing; expanding performance reporting; accommodating more multi-state travel; expanding itinerary mapping to include incidents and accessibility information; and linking incident data to itineraries. NYSDOT is moving forward with implementation of a statewide ride-sharing program called 511NY Rideshare, which will integrate separate ridesharing companies under the 511 umbrella. Components of this system appear to be operational for Downstate New York but not for Upstate New York. What are your future plans for the system The vision document provided NYSDOT includes additional future items: (e.g., specific enhancements)? Inclusion of Amber Alerts Implementing location-based customization Developing new XML feeds and improving communications with XML feed developers Expanding integration of TDM programs, including the upstate ridesharing program Relying on Twitter feeds for transmission of alerts Integrating real-time traffic and transit information into ridesharing Providing maps and directions to replace the current Google maps and directions tools Adding transit services (e.g., PATH) and transportation providers such as taxis Creating links with new partners Can the current platform support your future plans for the system?

Interregional Multimodal Commute Trip Planning Study | 105 Southern California - Situational Case Study Trip planner: N/A Contact: Kent Epperson, Director SBCAG Traffic Solutions 805-961-8917 [email protected] Trip planner: go511.com Contact: Kali Fogel, Motorist Services Technical Administrator LA SAFE/Regional Integration of Intelligent Transportation Systems (RIITS) 213-922-2665 [email protected] Trip planner: go511.com Contact: Mauro Arteaga, Transportation Planning Manager IV LA SAFE/Southern California 511 213-922-2953 [email protected] This case study focuses on trip planners and travel information pertinent to the Santa Barbara-Santa Maria-Goleta-Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura MSAs in California. No existing trip planning tool covers this region completely and comprehensively. The different pieces of the regional commuting information picture in the region include the following: ▪▪Traffic Solutions (www.trafficsolutions.info) which provides information about TDM options, offers carpool matching, arranges vanpools, offers an Emergency Ride Home program, and offers real-time ridesharing in the Santa Barbara South Coast through http://smartride. org/. The real-time ridesharing program is a pilot program. The transit information available through Traffic Solutions consists of links to the web sites of 22 area transit operators. Participants can create an account and use it to track commute trips and calculate commute savings related to TDM program participation. Traffic Solutions is housed within the Santa Barbara Council of Governments (SBCAG). ▪▪SBRoads.com provides real-time roadway condition information. SBRoads is housed within SBCAG. Calling 800-427-7623 is another means of obtaining information about freeways and highways statewide. ▪▪The 511 site for the Los Angeles region (extending west to include Thousand Oaks and Oxnard) is www.go511.com. This site offers traffic, transit, carpool/vanpool, and weather information. A transit trip planner is provided, along with links to the transit providers in the Los Angeles region. If the 511 site's trip planner does not find the requested origin and/or destination, links to the Google trip planner and trip planners provided by Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) and Orange County Transit Authority (OCTA) are provided. Real-time transit arrival information is linked (and available by phone) for Metro. The Metro planner (socaltransport.org) states that it includes data from 69 regional transit partners. The Metro trip planner does not include complete transit options for the Santa Barbara area. The non-local phone number to reach go511 is 877-224-6511. www. go511.com is maintained by LA SAFE (an agency housed within Metro that is responsible for the 511 system and motorist aid services).

106 | San Joaquin Council of Governments Appendix

▪▪ The Santa Barbara Metropolitan Transit District (SBMTD, www.sbmtd.gov) uses the Google transit trip planner and offers a commute cost calculator. ▪▪ Santa Barbara Car Free is a partnership led by the Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District that offers information about non-auto travel options in the county. Registrants can get discounted train fares and information about other promotions. The table below describes go511 and the tools housed by SBCAG. The information in the table is based on information available from the respective web sites, reports, and conversations with staff responsible for developing and/or maintaining the tools. Italicized text in the table denotes study team comments on particular elements.

Question(s) Answer(s) go511 partners are LA SAFE, Metro, OCTA, VCTC, CHP, and CalTrans Districts 7, 8, and 12. go511 originated in the CalTrans 1-800-COMMUTE system in California. 1-800-COMMUTE was a phone- based system for travel information, and it was recognized from its onset that transit information would be provided. According to LA SAFE, the agency that houses and maintains go511.com, most regions do not include transit in their 511 systems because those systems are run by state agencies that focus on Who created the system? Who are the highways. go511 could not be created out of 1-800-COMMUTE because CalTrans did not have the resources partners? Why was it created? to accomplish it. (1-800-COMMUTE used a different funding source that was going away, and it was replaced with 511.) 1-800-COMMUTE was therefore shut down and replaced by go511.com. The go511 partners have an interest in transit and ITS because (a) investments in transit and ITS are more cost- effective than expanding freeways, (b) providing more information to the public about travel options is more cost-effective than conducting large capital projects, and (c) federal funding in the future may not be tied to congestion. How was the assessment of system alternatives funded? What did it cost? Is See below. there a report? LA SAFE staff hired a consultant (a systems architect) to look at other 511 systems nationwide. (The scope of work that includes this activity can be obtained via public records request at metro.net. 06SAFE035 is the contract number for go511.) New York State, the Bay Area, and Florida were cited as having good 511 systems. California has a problem with fragmentation of 511 systems, though. Right now, a 511 call in Santa Barbara 511 call could go to Southern California 511 (i.e., go511) or CalTrans 511 or Bay Area 511. CalTrans is trying to addresses this but there is a ways to go. An area that is looking to implement 511 on How were the features of the system its own would have to think about all of the partners/connections as they move forward with developing selected? Were there screening criteria? their 511 system; their partners could easily number more than 20. 511 is location-specific, so callers do not see which 511 system they are routed to, but each has a “backdoor” 511 number. The backdoor number makes it possible for counties that are currently part of a larger 511 system to break off and form their own 511 system. (800 numbers can be transported anywhere.) Regarding the phone-based 511 system, LA SAFE wanted the system to sound somewhat computer-like so that callers would not feel misled if they did not immediately realize they were interacting with an IVR system. Did you conduct research to learn about regional travelers' needs and preferences See above. before you developed the trip planner? Is this research available?

Interregional Multimodal Commute Trip Planning Study | 107 Question(s) Answer(s) The long-range transportation plan (LRTP) includes funding for go511.com as a congestion reduction strategy. AQMD and MSRC (air quality) funding is also available. go511 received a Veteran’s Transportation Community Living Initiative grant recently, which allowed LA SAFE to undertake modernization of the system. LA SAFE staff recommended obtaining the scope of work via a public records request, as it includes detailed cost data. (06SAFE035 is the contract number for go511.) They estimated a development cost of about $6.5M. The system has cost about $40M over 10 years. The cost is high, but go511 covers a lot of counties and a very large service area. It includes capacity for expansion to other counties, too, including How was development of the preferred Santa Barbara County. It might cost $50-100,000 to add Santa Barbara County, with most of that cost system funded? What did it cost? related to adding Santa Barbara County to the Interactive Voice Response (IVR) phone system and geocoding intersections and other transportation facilities. Regarding the phone system, go511.com does not use speech-to-text, so all new speech would have to be added to the system. There are three levels of IVR: a menu system (e.g., 1-800-COMMUTE, which was not advanced and not like browsing a web site) and two levels of Automatic Speech Recognition (ASR), which are automatic and text-to-speech. LA SAFE recommended downloading the WAZE app as an example. go511 records voice talent for the phone system.

Avego technology supports the real-time ridesharing program (which is a pilot program) in Santa Barbara County. “Avego technology helps riders and drivers to share the cost of commuting by automating a micro-payment based on the distance of the trip you take. Once the rider has been What platform is used? Is it an open dropped off, $1 plus $0.20 per mile traveled will be deducted from the rider’s Avego account and 85% of source platform? Why was it selected? that will be credited to the driver (capped at $0.55/mile). This makes payment safe, secure and fair.” Are specs available? What alternatives did go511 data are available on-line and by phone. The 511 transit trip planner and traffic map can be you consider? embedded on other sites or linked to from other sites. Metro’s NexTrip tool provides real-time transit information in the Los Angeles area. NexTrip is available for smart phones and via text messaging. LA SAFE staff stated that go511 is “platform-agnostic.” They do not care about the platform so long as their contractor can accomplish what is needed and the product looks the same to users. The IVR system is on Linux. go511.com is on Microsoft.net. RIITS is on Linux. What are the advantages and Open source platforms are not necessarily cheaper, since LA SAFE hires someone to do the programming disadvantages of this platform? (accuracy, for them. That programmer really needs to know what he/she is doing. The contractor can do the reliability, maintenance, etc.) programming regardless of the platform. Another caution about open source platforms is that they change a lot and there are a lot of them; you have to choose the platform carefully. LA SAFE likes both, but it does not ultimately matter to them, especially since open source products will work on Microsoft and Linux, too. None of the SBCAG tools or go511 currently use crowdsourced data, although SBCAG’s real-time ridesharing program depends on real-time user decision-making and solicits/shares user feedback about other participants in the program. According to LA SAFE staff, crowdsourced data applications are currently being explored through research To what extent do you use (or have you at UC-Berkeley and PATH. The research is being led by Wei-bin Zhang at Berkeley, who can be reached at studied) crowdsourced data? 510-847-8108. Work in this area is proceeding very carefully because privacy issues exist. Wei-bin trying to design an open source mobile app that is very multimodal. He is also trying to evaluate travelers’ behavior. The technology is definitely there, but it is unknown what kind of behavioral changes might result and the extent to which people would share data. LA SAFE noted that crowdsourcing is supposed to be something that people opt in to, but users might not get good information if they do not opt in.

108 | San Joaquin Council of Governments Appendix

Question(s) Answer(s) LA SAFE indicated that a key technical challenge was the initial setting of a target for the customer base. Southern California has a very high target. go511 was initially built assuming that expansion would occur eventually, and it was cheaper to build for that expansion now instead of waiting until later. Also, building for the expansion at the outset means there should be no delays in expanding later. A key lesson learned is that the contractor who builds the system initially effectively owns the system thereafter. No other contractor will touch it or bid on future expansions. Thus, an agency has to select its contractor very carefully and make sure that that contractor can maintain the system over the long term. Another key lesson learned is that a content management system should have been created initially. go511 is a system of web pages. The pages are not dynamically generated; the contractor has to change What technical challenges were them individually. LA SAFE gets updates every six months from the go511 partners, so updates of go511. encountered as you developed the com only occur every six months. This is not too bad for an update schedule, but it is a long enough cycle system? that go511 cannot accommodate many special promotions (e.g., Bike Commuter Week) and changes cannot be made on short notice. As an agency develops a 511 system or a trip planner, it must consider liability limits. State agencies have a cap in lawsuits, but a COG may not. The State of California is willing to run 511 programs for smaller counties right now. Call Nancy Chinlund at CalTrans.for more information. She is the Research and Innovation Chief and can be reached at 916-654- 9368. If SJCOG does not want to run a 511 system, due to cost or effort, the state might do it for them. Also, go511.com would offer to run programs for adjacent counties and Sacramento 511 or Bay Area 511 may be willing to expand. The key institutional challenge in developing go511 was politics. Partners are always afraid they will lose What institutional challenges were personnel and funding. LA SAFE runs RIITS.net as well as go511.com. RIITS is intended to get agencies encountered as you developed the to share transportation data, but little has been shared by the partners in the last 10 years due to time system? constraints and lack of interest and lack of local funding. How long did it take to get from concept It took two years to get from 1-800-COMMUTE to go511.com. It was very helpful to have RIITS in place to implementation? already to help address data issues between partners and connections. What skills are needed to run the trip Two planners were hired. One manages go511.com; this position is two levels below director. The other planner, and did you have to hire staff focuses on marketing. and/or train staff to provide those skills? The system is go511. go511 is an independent tool, although elements of it are designed to be embedded on or linked to from other sites. Partners for go511 data sources (“connections”) include RIITS, Metro, NextBus, local cities, and local transit Is the system integrated with 511 or other agencies. They all provide a variety of data (e.g. auto speeds), but it is not necessarily in a format that is transportation information sources? readily integrated. Data should be usable, for example, in both web and mobile applications. 511 can be used instead of 911, too. LA SAFE staff report that this capability is not well known, but it exists, and they have seen use increase during emergencies. Bay Area 511 provided information about this to go511 staff. Are all of the transportation providers in the region under this trip planner's There is no "one brand" or "one system" for multimodal trip planning in the region that includes both umbrella? Is there one "brand" for Santa Barbara and LA; it is a collection of pieces offered by different agencies. multimodal trip planning?

Interregional Multimodal Commute Trip Planning Study | 109 Question(s) Answer(s) go511’s trip planner is the “basic” version of Metro’s trip planner. It was developed for a 1-800-COMMUTE operator to use while helping travelers over the phone. If the basic version does not produce a viable itinerary, the user is directed to the Google transit trip planner and the “advanced” version of the Is the system integrated with regional trip Metro trip planner. If a user uses go511 for a trip that begins or ends in the Santa Barbara area, the only planners developed by adjacent regions? locations available in the Santa Barbara area are the Amtrak stations; the Google transit trip planner If not, can it be integrated in its current must be used for all other points in the Santa Barbara area. form? However, go511 was initially built to accommodate future expansions into other counties, including Santa Barbara County. Implementing this expansion would require geocoding intersections and transit stops and stations in Santa Barbara County, which would be a substantial effort, but go511 has the capacity to work with these new data. Does the system include the ability to go511 can provide emergency information roads, but not for transit routes. The transit agency must be provide emergency travel information contacted for information about route-specific conditions. (e.g., road closures and detours)? To what extent does the system incentivize commuters to use it (e.g., provision of free bus passes, provision of go511 does not offer such incentives, but the web site provides links to commuter programs that may gasoline credits, prizes for the carpool of offer incentives for participation in TDM programs. the month, and awards to the best on-site transportation coordinators)? The real-time ridesharing program in Santa Barbara County offers incentives for participation and runs To what extent does the system contests for credits and prizes. incentivize participation in TDM strategies Metro links to carpool-matching provided by www.commutesmart.info. CommuteSmart also offers a and programs (e.g., travel during off-peak commute cost calculator and links to the Los Angeles 511 program and Inland Empire 511 program (ie511. periods and/or use of non-auto modes)? org). Santa Barbara Car Free offers incentives for non-auto travel in the form of promotions. All offer on-line sharing of travel information. Most offer the other means as well. go511 offers transit trip planning and referrals to other agencies (e.g., city bicycle agency or specific By what means can trip information be transit agency) by phone. shared with users (e.g., phone, smart LA SAFE staff indicated that the phone system is very advanced but is still in its infancy. It has difficulty phone, text, and on-line)? with accents, background noises, and some voice pitches. The current phone interface appears to be quite robust. LA SAFE staff indicate that “a lot of” money is spent on marketing, but traditional marketing approaches are not very effective. An approach such as Google Adwords is cost-effective in terms of returns and How is the trip planner publicized? measurability, but it is difficult to work with Google because they require a credit card number to pay for the service and public agencies cannot audit credit card use. What hardware and software are needed See below. to run the trip planner?

110 | San Joaquin Council of Governments Appendix

Question(s) Answer(s) Regarding go511: “Transit trips are planned by matching your travel plan information against current transit schedules. The Trip Planner uses the schedules from over 60 transit agencies in Southern California to help you find the best route for your trip.” “Give 511 your trip’s start city and end city. 511 will ask if your start and end point is an Address, Intersection, or Landmark. Give 511 the day you want to travel. You can say something like ‘Today’ or ‘July 4th.’ To help pick the right schedule, tell 511 whether you want ‘Leave at a certain time” or “Arrive by a What input data are needed to produce certain time.’ Give 511 the time you want to travel. You can say something like ‘9 AM.’ 511 will give you route suggestions? your itinerary and fare information. You can control what you hear by saying ‘Next,’ ‘Previous,’ ‘Pause,’ ‘Repeat,’ or ‘Stop.’ “If the Trip Planner is not returning an itinerary, change your start/end points or time/day of travel. If the Trip Planner is still not returning an itinerary, simply ask for ‘General Transit Information’ at the top of the Public Transit menu. 511 will transfer you to an agency in your area that can help you plan your trip.” “Transit Departure Times [a phone tool] will not be able to provide you with transit arrival information if your bus or train route is not in operation at the time you enter all of the required information.” Where do the input data come from The go511 inputs come from very many sources, including local cities and local transit agencies. There are (e.g., AVL and city GIS)? Are they of good issues with data compatibility and updates. See below. quality? Why or why not? Regarding the go511 trip planner: “Some trips may have many possible solutions. It may take the Trip Planner more time to find the right trip to fit your travel plans.” What algorithm is used to create “Sometimes the Trip Planner will not be able to find an itinerary for your trip because no transit agencies itineraries? Are you satisfied with its serve your start and/or end points, the time/day you want to travel are outside of normal service accuracy? operation, [or] the trip planner is currently out of service. If the Trip Planner is not returning an itinerary, change your start/end points or time/day of travel. If the Trip Planner is still not returning an itinerary, simply ask for ‘General Transit Information’ at the top of the Public Transit menu. 511 will transfer you to an agency in your area that can help you plan your trip.” There are several approaches to sharing information for third-party apps. BART shares it. go511.com has What data are shared with users? not made the data available yet, but will do so soon. go511.com's link for app developer log-ins does not work yet. Metro.net has a developer website working, though. Are apps available? Who developed the apps? Who provides technical support See above. for them? Do you use user trip data in other ways? What information do you provide to assist The go511 web site has a help page, to which a link is provided on every other page, and the go511 phone new users? system has a help menu option. Commute cost calculators are provided by multiple agencies: SBMTD: The calculator requires commute distance, days of work/school per month, car fuel efficiency, and How are commute costs calculated? What monthly parking cost. It outputs monthly cost for driving alone and savings by taking transit. performance measures are used? Can CommuteSmart: The calculator requires commute distance, days of work/school per month, car fuel users customize this calculation? efficiency, gas price per gallon, and monthly parking cost. It outputs monthly and yearly costs for driving alone and carpooling. These calculators cannot be customized beyond adjusting the inputs. Does the planner work in all common browsers and smart phone platforms? What information is available about specific stops?

Interregional Multimodal Commute Trip Planning Study | 111 Question(s) Answer(s) Does your system include parking data? Is Parking data may be available for the City of Los Angeles already. it real-time data? Can users save preferences, common Traffic Solutions allows account creation, which supports personal calendars and trip tracking. trips, etc.? To what extent can they go511’s basic trip planner does not allow users to select options such as “Minimize transfers” or “Minimize personalize the system? walking distance.” Fare type can be chosen. LA SAFE maintains go511. LA SAFE staff indicated that you have to build up all of your static data and, at some point, someone has to locate cross streets, bus stops, etc. This may be a manual effort. LA SAFE Who maintains the system? is building up this database and updating it, too, according to a maintenance schedule. go511 includes about 3,500 bus stops. Over $1M annually is required to operate and maintain go511.com. LA SAFE staff indicated that smaller Who funds maintenance of the system? systems would not be so expensive to operate and maintain; go511 includes very many connections and data sources. Who uses the system? To what extent? go511 has a feedback option on the web site and in the IVR system. LASAFE staff stated that they tested the web and IVR interfaces before and after launching so as to facilitate improvements. The system was not in operation for long when the latter happened, however, and there were no focus groups. One of the top complaints received about go511 is voice recognition issues. When Metro implemented NexTrip (the real-time transit information system), it was discovered that ambient noise makes it difficult for the IVR to understand speech. Other transit agencies are starting to implement NexTrip, and this exacerbates the voice recognition problem. LA SAFE will be looking at filters and noise cancellation software to minimize this issue. Another complaint received deals with the auto speeds that the system reports for roadway segments. Can you share any user feedback (e.g., The reported speeds are averaged over segments, but speeds can vary quite a bit within a given survey data)? segment, and users complain if a spot speed does not match the average speed. LA SAFE will be looking to correct this by mapping loop detectors to a specific exit and providing a range of speeds for the segment. During inclement weather and road closures, more feedback is received. For example: The Grapevine is a major freeway into Los Angeles County. If it closes, drivers would like alternate route information, but go511 cannot support recommending alternative routes right now. It is possible that go511 will decide not to provide such recommendations, as it could result in political concerns (e.g., some communities saying that go511 is directing too much traffic onto their roads) or liability concerns. See the future plans discussion below. Customers have expressed a desire for a mobile app. LA SAFE is working on that, and it is about five to six months from completion. LA SAFE staff are not sure how useful IVR will be after this app is out, however. Has the system been expanded (e.g., Regarding go511, no such expansions have occurred. The system was initially built to a size that already bandwidth) to support user demand? accommodates future expansions. LA SAFE staff indicate that personal privacy is an issue with go511. The privacy policy is linked on each page. Users are more concerned about government use of their data than private use of their data. LA Do you have a privacy policy regarding SAFE staff recommend that every agency that offers a trip planner should have multiple links to their use of user trip data? privacy policy, plus terms of use. go511 has had to take steps to not capture users' cell phone location data. How do you measure the value of the system? How do you measure the benefits it provides?

112 | San Joaquin Council of Governments Appendix

Question(s) Answer(s) What other kinds of information media are used by the partners to share transportation information (e.g., web site, radio/TV, monthly newsletter, changeable message signs, text messaging, e-mail lists, and on-site transportation coordinators)? By what other means is multimodal commuting promoted in the region? Regarding go511: Additional transit agencies may be added to the go511 system. Additional landmarks will be added to the database. “Over time, 511 will provide more and more information to help you with your travel needs. One new feature will be ‘MY511’ where you will be able to enter your common routes of travel (‘to and from work,’ for example) and receive alerts and travel times for your custom routes without re-entering your information every time you visit the website.” “In the near future the [go511] website will show AMBER Alerts and general emergency information. 511 will also provide travel information for tourists and special events. Currently, Go511.com and the 511 phone service are available in English. In the near future all 511 services will be available in Spanish as well.” go511 is heading towards unified computing. They do not want to use a cloud, though, because some services require dedicated servers. go511 wants one data center (with backups). A unified computing platform is highly desired. This would consolidate all of the different computing systems, but the perceived loss of local ownership of data will need to be addressed. We all have to agree to work together. The unified platform help with speed and common standards issues. 06SAFE035 is the contract number for go511. Request a copy via public records request from Metro. It includes future plans, as well as costs. go511’s official name is Traveler Information. The partners wanted to make sure the system allowed for What are your future plans for the system all transportation options, since the 511 program is not mode-specific. It is not truly multimodal yet; (e.g., specific enhancements)? information about each mode is still siloed, and a go511 user has to pick one mode before entering his/ her origin and destination. Portland’s system is “truly multimodal,” and that is where go511 wants to be. go511 is moving away from congestion focus, too, as is the federal government. The economics of freeway travel has historically been tied to delay and congestion, but future federal funding may not be tied to congestion and the Los Angeles region wants to be ready for that. The go511 contract is broken up into two phases: development (which includes baseline requirements, near-term enhancements, and a white paper on strategies for the future) and maintenance. The near- term enhancements sub-phase includes personalization, restructuring the traffic report, adding airport and taxi information, and adding emergency and special events information. LA SAFE is looking into enhancing tools related to user-defined origins and destinations. Users would register on the web site and create a route for themselves that could cross multiple freeways, and go511 would report speeds, road conditions, incidents, closures, and/or travel times as pre-selected by the user. Users could set thresholds for the automatic generation of text messages (e.g., when speeds exceed X mph or to flag incidents on a specific route). Such tools have to be set up in advance; a user cannot do it on the fly. It would be difficult to support custom route definition currently, depending on data sources and degree of integration. LA SAFE’s director would ideally like go511 to recommend the “best” route for a given trip, inclusive of all modes, but this is a very difficult undertaking right now because go511’s near- term enhancements program is fixed and LA SAFE’s contractor cannot go beyond the program without more budget (which go511 does not have). Can the current platform support your For go511, yes. The system was intentionally initially built to accommodate future expansions. future plans for the system?

Interregional Multimodal Commute Trip Planning Study | 113

Appendix 3 SURVEY INSTRUMENT

Appendix

Godbe Research/KAI SJCOG - 2013 INTERREGIONAL MULTI-MODAL COMMUTE TRIP PLANNING INTERNET SURVEY

INTRODUCTION

[SURVEY LINK; USE TEXT: Take the SJCOG Travel Survey and Win Prizes] i. Survey Language [NOT IN SURVEY – TAKEN FROM VERSION SELECTED BY RESPONDENT]: English ------1 Spanish ------2

Thank you for your interest in taking our survey to help us evaluate the feasibility of a multimodal trip planning tool for San Joaquin, Stanislaus, and Merced Counties. All of your answers to the survey will be kept strictly anonymous and confidential. As a token of our appreciation for your time, participation and opinions, by completing the survey, you will have a chance to win one of: Six Bluetooth Headsets, Three $50 Gas Cards, and Twenty-Seven $25 Gas Cards. That’s more than 35 total prizes! The winner will be notified in late-March and you need to provide only your email at the end of the survey to be entered into the drawing. Again, all of your answers to the survey will be kept strictly anonymous and confidential. This survey will take about 12 minutes to complete, and it includes four sections: issues of importance; transportation habits; computer/device and trip planning tool use; and demographics.

Survey Instructions: Once you have answered all the questions on a page, click the “Next” button in the lower-left corner of the screen to continue. If you have any technical difficulties with the survey, please email: Technical Assistance or call 650-288-3031.

Interregional Multimodal Commute Trip Planning Study | 117

Questionnaire - Final February 25, 2013 Page 2 of 22 Godbe Research/KAI SJCOG - 2013 INTERREGIONAL MULTI-MODAL COMMUTE TRIP PLANNING INTERNET SURVEY

ISSUES OF IMPORTANCE

1. To start, on a scale of 0 to 4 with “0” being “not important and “4” being “extremely important”, please rate the importance of each issue in improving the future quality of life in your County of residence. Or, if you have no opinion, select that option.

RANDOMIZE 0 1 2 3 4 Not Ext. No Important Imp. Opinion A. Expanding highways ------0 ------1 ------2 ------3 ------4 ------99 B. Expanding public transportation, such as bus and train services ------0 ------1 ------2------3 ------4 ------99 C. Preserving open spaces ------0 ------1 ------2 ------3 ------4 ------99 D. Maintaining and improving parks and public lands ------0 ------1 ------2 ------3 ------4 ------99 E. Revitalizing older neighborhoods and business districts that are becoming rundown ------0 ------1 ------2 ------3 ------4 ------99 F. Preserving water resources ------0 ------1 ------2 ------3 ------4 ------99 G. Improving flood protection ------0 ------1 ------2 ------3 ------4 ------99 H. Reducing water pollution ------0 ------1 ------2 ------3 ------4 ------99 I. Preventing the loss of farm land to residential and commercial development ------0 ------1 ------2 ------3 ------4 ------99 J. Improving air quality ------0 ------1 ------2 ------3 ------4 ------99 K. Creating more high paying jobs ------0 ------1 ------2 ------3 ------4 ------99 L. Encouraging new businesses to relocate to the County in order to diversify the local economy ------0 ------1 ------2 ------3 ------4 ------99 M. Improving public education programs ------0 ------1 ------2 ------3 ------4 ------99 N. Creating more affordable housing ------0 ------1 ------2 ------3 ------4 ------99 O. Developing a variety of housing options with varying densities, including apartments, townhomes and condominiums ------0 ------1 ------2------3 ------4 ------99

2. Are you currently a member of the SJCOG Commute Connection Program? Yes ------1 [CONTINUE] No ------2 [GO TO Q35] Don’t know ------99 [GO TO Q35]

118 | San Joaquin Council of Governments

Questionnaire - Final February 25, 2013 Page 3 of 22 Appendix

Godbe Research/KAI SJCOG - 2013 INTERREGIONAL MULTI-MODAL COMMUTE TRIP PLANNING INTERNET SURVEY

TRANSPORTATION HABITS [COMMUTE CONNECTION MEMBERS ONLY, IF Q2 = 1]

3. Before you registered with Commute Connection, what type of transportation did you typically use to go to work, school, or other places you commute to most frequently? Please check all that apply. Bicycle ------1 [GO TO Q5] Carpool ------2 [GO TO Q5] Drive alone (car, truck, motorcycle, scooter) ------3 [CONTINUE] Public transit (bus, or train) ------4 [GO TO Q5] Vanpool ------5 [GO TO Q5] Walk ------6 [GO TO Q5] Other [Specify: ______] ------98 [GO TO Q5] Don’t Know ------99 [GO TO Q5]

4. [IF Q3 = 3, DRIVE ALONE] Again, before you registered with Commute Connection, how often did you take alternative transportation such as carpool or vanpool, buses or trains, biking or walking? More than once a week ------1 [CONTINUE] Once a week ------2 [CONTINUE] Few times a month ------3 [CONTINUE] Once a month ------4 [CONTINUE] Few times a year ------5 [CONTINUE] Never ------6 [CONTINUE] Don’t know ------99 [CONTINUE]

The next series of Questions has to do with your CURRENT transportation behavior. 5. In general how much time per day do you typically spend commuting to/from work or school? Less than 15-minutes ------1 [CONTINUE] 15 minutes to 29 minutes ------2 [CONTINUE] 30 minutes to 59 minutes ------3 [CONTINUE] One hour to 1 hour 59 minutes ------4 [CONTINUE] More than 2 hours ------5 [CONTINUE] I work or go to school from home ------6 [CONTINUE] I don’t work or go to school ------7 [CONTINUE] Don’t know ------99 [CONTINUE]

Interregional Multimodal Commute Trip Planning Study | 119

Questionnaire - Final February 25, 2013 Page 4 of 22 Godbe Research/KAI SJCOG - 2013 INTERREGIONAL MULTI-MODAL COMMUTE TRIP PLANNING INTERNET SURVEY

6. In general how much time per day do you BUDGET for commuting to/from work or school? Less than 15 minutes ------1 [CONTINUE] 15 minutes to 29 minutes ------2 [CONTINUE] 30 minutes to 59 minutes ------3 [CONTINUE] One hour to 1 hour 59 minutes ------4 [CONTINUE] More than 2 hours ------5 [CONTINUE] I work or go to school from home ------6 [CONTINUE] I don’t work or go to school ------7 [CONTINUE] Don’t know ------99 [CONTINUE]

7. What type of transportation do you typically use to go to work, school, or other places you commute to most frequently? Please check all that apply. Bicycle ------1 [GO TO Q16] Carpool ------2 [GO TO Q12] Drive alone (car, truck, motorcycle, scooter) ------3 [CONTINUE] Public transit (bus, or train) ------4 [GO TO Q16] Vanpool ------5 [GO TO Q12] Walk ------6 [GO TO Q16] Other [Specify: ______] ------98 [GO TO Q16] Don’t know ------99 [GO TO Q16]

8. [IF Q7 = 3, DRIVE ALONE] Again, thinking of your current transportation habits, how often do you take alternative transportation such as carpool or vanpool, buses or trains, biking or walking? More than once a week ------1 [GO TO Q10] Once a week ------2 [GO TO Q10] Few times a month ------3 [GO TO Q10] Once a month ------4 [GO TO Q10] Few times a year ------5 [GO TO Q10] Never ------6 [CONTINUE] Don’t know ------99 [GO TO Q10]

9. [IF Q8 = 6 NEVER] Are you aware of alternative transportation such as carpool or vanpool, buses or trains, biking or walking? Yes ------1 [CONTINUE] No ------2 [CONTINUE] Don’t know ------99 [CONTINUE]

120 | San Joaquin Council of Governments

Questionnaire - Final February 25, 2013 Page 5 of 22 Appendix

Godbe Research/KAI SJCOG - 2013 INTERREGIONAL MULTI-MODAL COMMUTE TRIP PLANNING INTERNET SURVEY

10. [IF Q7 = 3, DRIVE ALONE] In general, how many stops do you make between home and work on a given commute day when you drive alone (both directions)? No stops (just home to work and back home) ------1 [GO TO Q23] 1 to 2 ------2 [CONTINUE] 3 to 4 ------3 [CONTINUE] More than 4 ------4 [CONTINUE] Don’t know ------99 [CONTINUE]

11. [IF 7 = 3 DRIVE ALONE] How many days a week do you usually make a stop on the way from HOME to WORK or WORK to HOME for any purpose? Please check all that apply. From HOME to WORK From WORK to HOME 5 to 7 3 to 4 1 to 2 5 to 7 3 to 4 1 to 2 Days a Days a Days a Occa- Days a Days a Days a Occa- Week Week Week sionally Never Week Week Week sionally Never A. Pick-up or drop off a family member ------1 ------2 ------3 ------4 ------99 ------1 ------2 ------3 ------4 ------99 B. Personal errands ------1 ------2 ------3 ------4 ------99 ------1 ------2 ------3 ------4 ------99 C. Shopping ----- 1 ------2 ------3 ------4 ------99 ------1 ------2 ------3 ------4 ------99 D. Other purpose: (please specify) ______----- 1 ------2 ------3 ------4 ------99 ------1 ------2 ------3 ------4 ------99

[FOR ALL GO TO Q23]

12. [IF Q7 = 2 OR 5, CARPOOL OR VANPOOL] How long have you been in your carpool or vanpool group? Less than one month ------1 [CONTINUE] 1 month to less than 6 months ------2 [CONTINUE] 6 months to less than one year ------3 [CONTINUE] 1 year to less than 2 years ------4 [CONTINUE] 2 years or more ------5 [CONTINUE] Don’t know ------99 [CONTINUE]

13. [IF Q7 = 2 OR 5, CARPOOL OR VANPOOL] In general, how many days a week do you ride in this carpool or vanpool group? 5 or more days a week ------1 [CONTINUE] 3 to 4 days a week ------2 [CONTINUE] 1 to 2 days a week ------3 [CONTINUE] Few days a month but not weekly ------4 [CONTINUE] Once a month or less ------5 [CONTINUE] Don’t know ------99 [CONTINUE]

Interregional Multimodal Commute Trip Planning Study | 121

Questionnaire - Final February 25, 2013 Page 6 of 22 Godbe Research/KAI SJCOG - 2013 INTERREGIONAL MULTI-MODAL COMMUTE TRIP PLANNING INTERNET SURVEY

14. [IF Q7 = 2 OR 5, CARPOOL OR VANPOOL] In general, how do you spend your time while in your carpool or vanpool group? ______

15. [IF Q7 = 2 OR 5, CARPOOL OR VANPOOL] Did you meet any of your carpool or vanpool group members through Commute Connection? Yes ------1 [GO TO Q18] No ------2 [CONTINUE] Don’t know ------99 [CONTINUE]

16. [SKIP IF Q15 = 1, YES; ASK ALL OTHER RESPONDENTS] Since you registered with Commute Connection, have you ever used any of the carpool or vanpool matches that were provided through the service? Yes, carpool ------1 [CONTINUE] Yes, vanpool ------2 [CONTINUE] Yes, both carpool and vanpool ------3 [CONTINUE] No ------4 [GO TO Q22] Don’t know ------99 [GO TO Q23]

17. [IF Q16 = 1, 2, OR 3, YES] Do you still participate in a carpool or vanpool with members who were identified through Commute Connection? Yes ------1 [CONTINUE] No ------2 [GO TO Q18] Don’t know ------99 [GO TO Q23]

18. [IF Q15 = 1, YES] How long have you been in this carpool or vanpool group with Commute Connection members? Less than one month ------1 [CONTINUE] 1 month to less than 6 months ------2 [CONTINUE] 6 months to less than one year ------3 [CONTINUE] 1 year to less than 2 years ------4 [CONTINUE] 2 years or more ------5 [CONTINUE] Don’t know ------99 [CONTINUE]

122 | San Joaquin Council of Governments

Questionnaire - Final February 25, 2013 Page 7 of 22 Appendix

Godbe Research/KAI SJCOG - 2013 INTERREGIONAL MULTI-MODAL COMMUTE TRIP PLANNING INTERNET SURVEY

19. [IF Q15 = 1, YES] In general, how often do you ride in this carpool or vanpool with Commute Connection members? More than once a week ------1 [GO TO Q23] Once a week ------2 [GO TO Q23] Few times a month ------3 [GO TO Q23] Once a month ------4 [GO TO Q23] Few times a year ------5 [GO TO Q23] Never ------6 [GO TO Q23] Don’t know ------99 [GO TO Q23]

20. [IF Q17 = 2, NO] How long were you in this carpool or vanpool with Commute Connection members? Less than one month ------1 [CONTINUE] 1 month to less than 6 months ------2 [CONTINUE] 6 months to less than one year ------3 [CONTINUE] 1 year to less than 2 years ------4 [CONTINUE] 2 years or more ------5 [CONTINUE] Don’t know ------99 [CONTINUE]

21. [IF Q17 = 2, NO] Why did you stop participating in this carpool or vanpool with Commute Connection members? Please check all that apply. Costs too much ------1 [GO TO Q23] Did not feel safe ------2 [GO TO Q23] Did not like the people in the carpool ------3 [GO TO Q23] Need my car during the day ------4 [GO TO Q23] Prefer to drive ------5 [GO TO Q23] Work schedule changes too often ------6 [GO TO Q23] Other, please type your answer ------98 [GO TO Q23] Don’t know ------99 [GO TO Q23]

22. [IF Q16 = 4, NO] Why haven’t you used the carpool or vanpool matches that were provided through Commute Connection? Please check all that apply. Commute Connection could not find a match ------1 [CONTINUE] Called matches but they were not interested ------2 [CONTINUE] Costs too much ------3 [CONTINUE] Need my car during the day ------4 [CONTINUE] No matches live nearby ------5 [CONTINUE] No matches with the same destination ------6 [CONTINUE] No matches with the same hours or schedule ------7 [CONTINUE] Prefer to drive ------8 [CONTINUE] Work schedule changes too often ------9 [CONTINUE] Other, please type your answer ------98 [CONTINUE] Don’t know ------99 [CONTINUE]

Interregional Multimodal Commute Trip Planning Study | 123

Questionnaire - Final February 25, 2013 Page 8 of 22 Godbe Research/KAI SJCOG - 2013 INTERREGIONAL MULTI-MODAL COMMUTE TRIP PLANNING INTERNET SURVEY

23. Commute Connection provides information and schedules for public transportation, including ACE train, BART, and buses. Since you registered with Commute Connection, have you ever used any of this information to take public transportation? Yes ------1 [GO TO Q25] No ------2 [CONTINUE] Don’t know ------99 [GO TO Q25]

24. [IF Q23 = 2, NO] Why haven’t you used this information to take public transportation? Please check all that apply. Costs too much ------1 [Q30] Information was confusing/poor ------2 [Q30] Need my car during the day ------3 [Q30] Prefer to drive ------4 [Q30] Transit is not available near my home ------5 [Q30] Transit is not available near my work ------6 [Q30] Transit schedule is inconvenient ------7 [Q30] Work schedule changes too often ------8 [Q30] Other, please type your answer ------98 [Q30] Don’t know ------99 [Q30]

25. [If Q23 = 1, YES or 99 – DK/NA] If you have you taken public transportation for any purpose (work, school, leisure, etc.) over the past 12 months in the Counties of San Joaquin, Stanislaus, or Merced, which agencies did you use? Please check all that apply. Altamont Commuter Express (ACE) Train ------1 [CONTINUE] Amtrak ------2 [CONTINUE] BART (interregional bus service) ------3 [CONTINUE] BLAST Transit ------4 [CONTINUE] Ceres Area Transit ------5 [CONTINUE] ET Trans ------6 [CONTINUE] Galt South City Transit ------7 [CONTINUE] Manteca Transit ------8 [CONTINUE] Merced County Transit / THE BUS ------9 [CONTINUE] Modesto Area Express ------10 [CONTINUE] Rio Vista Delta Breeze ------11 [CONTINUE] Riverbank Oakdale Transit Authority Trolley ------12 [CONTINUE] San Joaquin Regional Transit ------13 [CONTINUE] The Lodi Grapevine ------14 [CONTINUE] The Tracy Tracer ------15 [CONTINUE] Other, please type your answer ------98 [CONTINUE] Don’t know ------99 [CONTINUE]

124 | San Joaquin Council of Governments

Questionnaire - Final February 25, 2013 Page 9 of 22 Appendix

Godbe Research/KAI SJCOG - 2013 INTERREGIONAL MULTI-MODAL COMMUTE TRIP PLANNING INTERNET SURVEY

26. In general, how often do you use public transportation? More than once a week ------1 [CONTINUE] Once a week ------2 [CONTINUE] Few times a month ------3 [CONTINUE] Once a month ------4 [CONTINUE] Few times a year ------5 [CONTINUE] Never ------6 [CONTINUE] Don’t know ------99 [CONTINUE]

27. When you use public transportation, how many times do you transfer within a transportation providers system (different bus, train in the same system)? I do not need to transfer ------1 [CONTINUE] Once ------2 [CONTINUE] Twice ------3 [CONTINUE] Three Times ------4 [CONTINUE] More Than Three Times ------5 [CONTINUE] Don’t know ------99 [CONTINUE]

28. When you use public transportation, how do you get to your station of origin? Bicycle ------1 [CONTINUE] Carpool ------2 [CONTINUE] Drive alone (car, truck, motorcycle, scooter) ------3 [CONTINUE] Public transit (bus, or train) ------4 [CONTINUE] Vanpool ------5 [CONTINUE] Walk ------6 [CONTINUE] Other [Specify: ______] ------98 [CONTINUE] Don’t know ------99 [CONTINUE]

29. In general, how do you spend your time while riding public transportation? ______

30. How did you first hear about Commute Connection? Advertised at a special event ------1 [CONTINUE] Brochure ------2 [CONTINUE] Employer/school ------3 [CONTINUE] Road sign ------4 [CONTINUE] Word of mouth, friends or family ------5 [CONTINUE] Other [Specify: ______] ------98 [CONTINUE] Don’t know ------99 [CONTINUE]

Interregional Multimodal Commute Trip Planning Study | 125

Questionnaire - Final February 25, 2013 Page 10 of 22 Godbe Research/KAI SJCOG - 2013 INTERREGIONAL MULTI-MODAL COMMUTE TRIP PLANNING INTERNET SURVEY

31. Why did you decide to join Commute Connection? Air quality/environmental issues/climate change --- 1 [CONTINUE] Cost of gas ------2 [CONTINUE] Do not own a motor vehicle/unreliable motor vehicle ------3 [CONTINUE] Medical problems do not allow me to drive ------4 [CONTINUE] Meet people ------5 [CONTINUE] Save time ------6 [CONTINUE] Traffic congestion ------7 [CONTINUE] Other [Specify: ______] ------98 [CONTINUE] Don’t know ------99 [CONTINUE]

32. Generally speaking are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the quality of services offered by Commute Connection? Very satisfied ------1 [CONTINUE] Somewhat satisfied ------2 [CONTINUE] Somewhat dissatisfied ------3 [GO TO Q34] Very dissatisfied ------4 [GO TO Q34] Don’t know ------99 [GO TO Q34]

33. [IF Q32 = 1 OR 2, VERY OR SOMEWHAT SATISFIED] What is the single MOST important reason you are satisfied with Commute Connection services? Easy to reach staff ------1 [GO TO Q50] Found a ride for me when I needed it ------2 [GO TO Q50] Helped me find a carpool/vanpool ------3 [GO TO Q50] Helped me get public transit passes/tickets ------4 [GO TO Q50] Helped me use public transit ------5 [GO TO Q50] Information was accurate, helpful ------6 [GO TO Q50] Received information quickly ------7 [GO TO Q50] Staff are helpful, courteous, polite ------8 [GO TO Q50] Staff called to follow-up on information ------9 [GO TO Q50] Other [Specify: ______] ------98 [GO TO Q50] Don’t know ------99 [GO TO Q50]

34. [IF Q32 = 3 OR 4, VERY OR SOMEWHAT DISSATISFIED] What is the single MOST important reason you are dissatisfied with Commute Connection services? Did not receive information ------1 [GO TO Q50] Information was incorrect ------2 [GO TO Q50] Information was not helpful ------3 [GO TO Q50] Need to better screen rideshare participants ------4 [GO TO Q50] Not enough matches to rideshare ------5 [GO TO Q50] Staff have not called back, never called ------6 [GO TO Q50] Staff were not courteous/polite ------7 [GO TO Q50] Other [Specify: ______] ------98 [GO TO Q50] Don’t know ------99 [GO TO Q50]

126 | San Joaquin Council of Governments

Questionnaire - Final February 25, 2013 Page 11 of 22 Appendix

Godbe Research/KAI SJCOG - 2013 INTERREGIONAL MULTI-MODAL COMMUTE TRIP PLANNING INTERNET SURVEY

TRANSPORTATION HABITS [NON-COMMUTE CONNECTION MEMBERS, IF Q2 = 2 OR 99]

35. In general how many hours per day do you typically spend commuting to or from work or school? Less than 15-minutes ------1 [CONTINUE] 15-minutes to 29-minutes ------2 [CONTINUE] 30-minutes to 59-minutes ------3 [CONTINUE] One hour to 1 hour 59-minutes ------4 [CONTINUE] More than 2 hours ------5 [CONTINUE] I work or go to school from home ------6 [CONTINUE] Don’t work or go to school ------7 [CONTINUE] Don’t know ------99 [CONTINUE]

36. In general how many hours per day do you BUDGET for commuting to or from work or school? Less than 15-minutes ------1 [CONTINUE] 15-minutes to 29-minutes ------2 [CONTINUE] 30-minutes to 59-minutes ------3 [CONTINUE] One hour to 1 hour 59-minutes ------4 [CONTINUE] More than 2 hours ------5 [CONTINUE] I work or go to school from home ------6 [CONTINUE] Don’t work or go to school ------7 [CONTINUE] Don’t know ------99 [CONTINUE]

37. What type of transportation do you typically use to go to work, school, or other places you commute most frequently? Please check all that apply. Bicycle ------1 [GO TO Q50] Carpool ------2 [GO TO Q42] Drive alone (car, truck, motorcycle, scooter) ------3 [CONTINUE] Public transit (bus, or train) ------4 [GO TO Q45] Vanpool ------5 [GO TO Q42] Walk ------6 [GO TO Q50] Other [Specify: ______] ------98 [GO TO Q50] Don’t know ------99 [GO TO Q45]

Interregional Multimodal Commute Trip Planning Study | 127

Questionnaire - Final February 25, 2013 Page 12 of 22 Godbe Research/KAI SJCOG - 2013 INTERREGIONAL MULTI-MODAL COMMUTE TRIP PLANNING INTERNET SURVEY

38. [IF Q37 = 3, DRIVE ALONE] Again, thinking of your current transportation habits, how often do you take alternative transportation such as carpool or vanpool, buses or trains, biking or walking? More than once a week ------1 [CONTINUE] Once a week ------2 [CONTINUE] Few times a month ------3 [CONTINUE] Once a month ------4 [CONTINUE] Few times a year ------5 [CONTINUE] Never ------6 [CONTINUE] Don’t know ------99 [CONTINUE]

39. [IF 38 = 6 NEVER or 99 DK/NA] Why haven’t you used public transportation? Please check all that apply. Costs too much ------1 [CONTINUE] Information was confusing/poor ------2 [CONTINUE] Need my car during the day ------3 [CONTINUE] Prefer to drive ------4 [CONTINUE] Transit is not available near my home ------5 [CONTINUE] Transit is not available near my work ------6 [CONTINUE] Transit schedule is inconvenient ------7 [CONTINUE] Work schedule changes too often ------8 [CONTINUE] Other, please type your answer ------98 [CONTINUE] Don’t know ------99 [CONTINUE]

40. [IF Q37 = 3, DRIVE ALONE] In general, how many stops do you make between home and work on a given commute day when you drive alone (both directions)? No Stops (just home to work and back home) ------1 [GO TO Q50] 1 to 2 ------2 [CONTINUE] 3 to 4 ------3 [CONTINUE] More than 4 ------4 [CONTINUE] Don’t know ------99 [CONTINUE]

128 | San Joaquin Council of Governments

Questionnaire - Final February 25, 2013 Page 13 of 22 Appendix

Godbe Research/KAI SJCOG - 2013 INTERREGIONAL MULTI-MODAL COMMUTE TRIP PLANNING INTERNET SURVEY

41. [IF Q37 = 3 DRIVE ALONE] How many days a week do you usually make a stop on the way from HOME to WORK or WORK to HOME for any purpose? Please check all that apply. From HOME to WORK From WORK to HOME 5 to 7 3 to 4 1 to 2 5 to 7 3 to 4 1 to 2 Days a Days a Days a Occa- Days a Days a Days a Occa- Week Week Week sionally Never Week Week Week sionally Never E. Pick-Up or Drop Off a Family Member ------1 ------2 ------3 ------4 ------99 ------1 ------2 ------3 ------4 ------99 F. Personal Errands ------1 ------2 ------3 ------4 ------99 ------1 ------2 ------3 ------4 ------99 G. Shopping ----- 1 ------2 ------3 ------4 ------99 ------1 ------2 ------3 ------4 ------99 H. Other purpose: (please specify) ______----- 1 ------2 ------3 ------4 ------99 ------1 ------2 ------3 ------4 ------99

[SKIP TO Q50]

42. [IF Q37 = 2 OR 5, CARPOOL OR VANPOOL] How long have you been in your carpool or vanpool group? Less than one month ------1 [CONTINUE] 1 month to less than 6 months ------2 [CONTINUE] 6 months to less than one year ------3 [CONTINUE] 1 year to less than 2 years ------4 [CONTINUE] 2 years or more ------5 [CONTINUE] Don’t know ------99 [CONTINUE]

43. [IF Q37 = 2 OR 5, CARPOOL OR VANPOOL] In general, how many days a week do you ride in this carpool or vanpool group? 5 or more days a week ------1 [CONTINUE] 3 to 4 days a week ------2 [CONTINUE] 1 to 2 days a week ------3 [CONTINUE] Few days a month but not weekly ------4 [CONTINUE] Once a month or less ------5 [CONTINUE] Don’t know ------99 [CONTINUE]

44. [IF Q 37 = 2 OR 5, CARPOOL OR VANPOOL] In general, how do you spend your time while in your carpool or vanpool group? ______

Interregional Multimodal Commute Trip Planning Study | 129

Questionnaire - Final February 25, 2013 Page 14 of 22 Godbe Research/KAI SJCOG - 2013 INTERREGIONAL MULTI-MODAL COMMUTE TRIP PLANNING INTERNET SURVEY

45. [If Q37 = 4 – PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION or 99 – DK/NA] If you have you taken public transportation for any purpose (work, school, leisure, etc.) over the past 12 months in the Counties of San Joaquin, Stanislaus, or Merced, which agencies did you use? Please check all that apply. Altamont Commuter Express (ACE) Train ------1 [CONTINUE] Amtrak ------2 [CONTINUE] BART (interregional bus service) ------3 [CONTINUE] BLAST Transit ------4 [CONTINUE] Ceres Area Transit ------5 [CONTINUE] ET Trans ------6 [CONTINUE] Galt South City Transit ------7 [CONTINUE] Manteca Transit ------8 [CONTINUE] Merced County Transit / THE BUS ------9 [CONTINUE] Modesto Area Express ------10 [CONTINUE] Rio Vista Delta Breeze ------11 [CONTINUE] Riverbank Oakdale Transit Authority Trolley ------12 [CONTINUE] San Joaquin Regional Transit ------13 [CONTINUE] The Lodi Grapevine ------14 [CONTINUE] The Tracy Tracer ------15 [CONTINUE] Other, please type your answer ------98 [CONTINUE] Don’t know ------99 [CONTINUE]

130 | San Joaquin Council of Governments

Questionnaire - Final February 25, 2013 Page 15 of 22 Appendix

Godbe Research/KAI SJCOG - 2013 INTERREGIONAL MULTI-MODAL COMMUTE TRIP PLANNING INTERNET SURVEY

46. In general, how often do you use public transportation? More than once a week ------1 [CONTINUE] Once a week ------2 [CONTINUE] Few times a month ------3 [CONTINUE] Once a month ------4 [CONTINUE] Few times a year ------5 [CONTINUE] Never ------6 [CONTINUE] Don’t know ------99 [CONTINUE]

47. When you use public transportation, how many times do you transfer within a transportation providers system (different bus, train in the same system)? I do not need to transfer ------1 [CONTINUE] Once ------2 [CONTINUE] Twice ------3 [CONTINUE] Three Times ------4 [CONTINUE] More Than Three Times ------5 [CONTINUE] Don’t know ------99 [CONTINUE]

48. When you use public transportation, how do you get to your station of origin? I Bicycle ------1 [CONTINUE] Carpool ------2 [CONTINUE] Drive alone (car, truck, motorcycle, scooter) ------3 [CONTINUE] Public transit (bus, or train) ------4 [CONTINUE] Vanpool ------5 [CONTINUE] Walk ------6 [CONTINUE] Other [Specify: ______] ------98 [CONTINUE] Don’t know ------99 [CONTINUE]

49. In general, how do you spend your time while riding public transportation? ______

Interregional Multimodal Commute Trip Planning Study | 131

Questionnaire - Final February 25, 2013 Page 16 of 22 Godbe Research/KAI SJCOG - 2013 INTERREGIONAL MULTI-MODAL COMMUTE TRIP PLANNING INTERNET SURVEY

INTERNET/DEVICE AND TRIP PLANNING TOOL USE

50. What devices do you primarily use to access the Internet? Please check all that apply.

Desktop Computer ------1 [CONTINUE] Laptop Computer ------2 [CONTINUE] iPad or other tablet ------3 [CONTINUE] Smartphone ------4 [CONTINUE] TV ------5 [CONTINUE] None ------6 [GO TO Q56] Other, please type your answer ------98 [CONTINUE]

51. How many hours a day do you access the Internet? Please consider all your devices in your response. 11 or more hours ------1 [CONTINUE] 9 to 10 hours ------2 [CONTINUE] 7 to 8 hours ------3 [CONTINUE] 5 to 6 hours ------4 [CONTINUE] 3-4 hours ------5 [CONTINUE] 1-2 hours ------6 [CONTINUE] Less than 1 hour ------7 [CONTINUE] Don’t know ------99 [CONTINUE]

52. What are your top two devices to access the Internet in order of use or preference? 1) ______2) ______

53. Have you ever used an Internet -based trip planning tool, trip planning application, or trip planning web site? Yes ------1 [CONTINUE] No ------2 [GO TO Q56] Don’t know ------4 [GO TO Q56]

132 | San Joaquin Council of Governments

Questionnaire - Final February 25, 2013 Page 17 of 22 Appendix

Godbe Research/KAI SJCOG - 2013 INTERREGIONAL MULTI-MODAL COMMUTE TRIP PLANNING INTERNET SURVEY

54. What trip planning tools or web sites have you used in the past? Please check all that apply. Commute Connection ------1 [CONTINUE] MTC 511.org ------2 [CONTINUE] Google Maps ------3 [CONTINUE] Sacramento 511.org ------4 [CONTINUE] Yahoo! Maps ------5 [CONTINUE] Apple Maps ------6 [CONTINUE] MapQuest ------7 [CONTINUE] Transit operator web site, please specify ------8 [CONTINUE] Other, please type your answer ------98 [CONTINUE]

55. What are the top things like you liked about the specific trip planning tool or tools that you have used? 1) ______2) ______

3) ______4) ______

56. In general, how useful do you envision the following tools, features, and information to be for your trip planning needs throughout the Counties of San Joaquin, Stanislaus, and Merced?

RANDOMIZE Extremely Very Somewhat Not At No Useful Useful Useful Useful Opinion A. PUBLIC TRANSIT: local and regional public transportation trip planner, schedules and route maps ------1 ------2 ------3 ------4 ------99 B. TRAFFIC: current traffic conditions maps and traffic information ------1 ------2 ------3 ------4 ------99 C. RIDESHARE: carpooling and vanpooling information, and park and ride information ------1 ------2 ------3 ------4 ------99 D. BICYCLING AND WALKING: bike and walking maps and general biking and walking information ------1 ------2 ------3 ------4 ------99 E. TELECOMMUTING: information on services for telecommuting and employers who participate ------1 ------2 ------3 ------4 ------99 F. GUARANTEED RIDE HOME: information on services for guaranteed rides home for frequent rideshare users ------1 ------2 ------3 ------4 ------99 G. FINANCIAL BENEFITS FOR COMMUTERS: information on tax and other financial benefits and costs for various commute options ------1 ------2 ------3 ------4 ------99 H. MILEAGE, FUEL AND PARKING COSTS: information on mileage and fuel costs for vehicle trips, and parking costs at destinations ------1 ------2 ------3 ------4 ------99

Interregional Multimodal Commute Trip Planning Study | 133

Questionnaire - Final February 25, 2013 Page 18 of 22 Godbe Research/KAI SJCOG - 2013 INTERREGIONAL MULTI-MODAL COMMUTE TRIP PLANNING INTERNET SURVEY

I. DRIVING VS. PUBLIC TRANSIT CALCULATOR: information on time and cost comparisons for driving vs. public transit ------1 ------2 ------3 ------4 ------99 J. WEATHER: information on weather conditions that could impact mode choice ------1 ------2 ------3 ------4 ------99 K. ENVIRIONMENTAL AND HEALTH BENEFITS: information on impact on productive time, calories burned, fuel used, and other health and environmental information ------1 ------2 ------3 ------4 ------99 L. PURCHASING OPTIONS: information on how to purchase transit passes online ------1 ------2 ------3 ------4 ------99 M. INTERREGIONAL INTEGRATION: integration with other regional transportation planning web sites and trip planning tools, such as Bay Area 511 and Sacramento 511 ------1 ------2 ------3 ------4 ------99

134 | San Joaquin Council of Governments

Questionnaire - Final February 25, 2013 Page 19 of 22 Appendix

Godbe Research/KAI SJCOG - 2013 INTERREGIONAL MULTI-MODAL COMMUTE TRIP PLANNING INTERNET SURVEY

C. DEMOGRAPHICS SECTION

There are just a few more questions that will only be used for statistical comparisons.

A. Do you or someone in your household currently own your own motor vehicle? Yes ------1 No ------2 Don’t know ------99

B. Alternatively, do you or someone in your household have access to a motor vehicle for commuting purposes? Yes ------1 No ------2 Don’t know ------99

C. What is your gender? Male ------1 Female ------2 Prefer not to respond ------99

D. What is your age? Under 18 ------1 18 to 24 ------2 25 to 34 ------3 35 to 44 ------4 45 to 54 ------5 55 to 59 ------6 60 to 64 ------7 65 to 74 ------8 75 to 84 ------9 85 and over ------10

E. Which of the following best describes your working status? Full-time ------1 Part-time ------2 Self-employed ------3 Unemployed ------4 Homemaker ------5 Retired ------6 Student ------7

Interregional Multimodal Commute Trip Planning Study | 135

Questionnaire - Final February 25, 2013 Page 20 of 22 Godbe Research/KAI SJCOG - 2013 INTERREGIONAL MULTI-MODAL COMMUTE TRIP PLANNING INTERNET SURVEY

F. What is the last grade or level you completed in school? Less than 12th grade, no diploma ------1 High school graduate (includes equivalency) ------2 Technical/vocational school ------3 Some college, no degree ------4 Associate’s degree ------5 Bachelor’s degree ------6 Some graduate or professional school ------7 Graduate or professional degree ------8 Prefer not to respond ------99

G. What ethnic group do you consider yourself a part of or feel closest to? African-American/Black ------1 Asian ------2 Caucasian/White ------3 Latino(a)/Hispanic ------4 Native American ------5 Pacific Islander ------6 Two or more races ------7 Other ------98 Prefer not to respond ------99

H. How many adults 18+ live in your household, including you? One ------1 Two ------2 Three ------3 Four ------4 More than Four ------5

I. What is your zip code of your home residence? Please type your Response______] Prefer not to respond ------99

J. What is your zip code of your work or school location? Please type your Response______] Prefer not to respond ------99

136 | San Joaquin Council of Governments

Questionnaire - Final February 25, 2013 Page 21 of 22 Appendix

Godbe Research/KAI SJCOG - 2013 INTERREGIONAL MULTI-MODAL COMMUTE TRIP PLANNING INTERNET SURVEY

K. What is the approximate annual income (before taxes) for your household? (If you live with a roommate/housemate, only count your own income.) Less than $10,000 a year ------1 $10,000 - $14,999 ------2 $15,000 - $24,999 ------3 $25,000 - $34,999 ------4 $35,000 - $49,999 ------5 $50,000 - $74,999 ------6 $75,000 - $99,999 ------7 $100,000 - $149,999 ------8 $150,000 or more ------9 Prefer not to respond ------99

L. Remember to enter your name and email address below, so we can contact you if you’ve won a prize. Prizes include your choice of one of the following: Six Bluetooth Headsets, Three $50 Gas Cards, and Twenty-Seven $25 Gas Cards. That’s more than 35 total prizes! One prize per winner. All contact information will be kept strictly confidential.

Name: ______Email Address: ______

Those are all of the questions -- thank you very much for participating!

To reach the San Joaquin Council of Governments, Commute Connection, Merced Council of Governments, or Stanislaus Council of Governments websites, please click the appropriate link below:

San Joaquin Council of Governments http://www.sjcog.org/ Commute Connection http://www.commuteconnection.com/ Merced Council of Governments http://www.mcagov.org/ Stanislaus Council of Governments http://www.stancog.org/

[APPEND DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION FROM COMMUTE CONNECTION FILE [PLEASE INCLUDE ALL FIELDS FROM SAMPLE FILE FOR RESPONDENT FOR COMMUTE CONNECTION MEMBERS AND VOTER FILE SAMPLE]

Interregional Multimodal Commute Trip Planning Study | 137

Questionnaire - Final February 25, 2013 Page 22 of 22

Appendix 4 SURVEY REPORT

Appendix

SURVEY MEMORANDUM

May 23, 2013 – Administrative Draft #2

TO: David Reinke, Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Anthony Zepeda, San Joaquin Council of Governments

FR: Charles Hester, Vice President, Godbe Research

RE: Final Multi‐Modal Commute Trip Planning Study Internet Survey Report

Background: The San Joaquin Council of Governments (SJCOG), through Kittleson & Associates, Inc. (KAI), commissioned Godbe Research to conduct a survey of residents in the counties of San Joaquin, Stanislaus, and Merced to evaluate a variety of topics related to evaluating the potential feasibility of an interregional multi-modal commute trip planning tool for the tri-county region. Godbe Research is pleased to present the final survey results to KAI, SJCOG, and other project stakeholders.

Methodology: The survey to support the interregional multi-modal commute trip planning tool (MMCTP) study was developed and implemented using an Internet survey methodology, given the time and budget for the survey portion of the overall project. Respondents for the survey were selected from the SJCOG Commute Connection program database as well as the State voter file in the Counties of San Joaquin, Merced, and Stanislaus based on an email sampling design and self-reported/provided email addresses. Commute connection members were recruited via email by SJCOG staff where potential respondents from the voter file were recruited via email by Godbe Research.

A total of 704 (n=704) total respondents were surveyed, and the survey was fielded from March 14, 2013 to April 17, 2013, when a final data file was downloaded for review, processing, and analysis. Data for the survey was not weighted to any data source, and the overall margin of error for Internet survey is +/- 3.7 percent at the 95% confidence level based on a tri-county population of approximately 1,468,342 (2011 ACS estimates) residents. The survey was approximately 50 total questions in length, based on being a self-reported Commute Connection or Non-Commute Connection member (or not knowing), as well as by self-reported modes of primary commute mode. Respondents were also given the choice of taking the survey in either English or Spanish. To increase response rates and potential participation among a broad range of tri-county residents, a contest with fifteen various prizes, including gas cards and BlueTooth headsets was included as part of the overall survey process.

Interregional Multimodal Commute Trip Planning Study | 141 Conventional rounding rules apply to the percentages shown in the narrative of this report. 0.5 or above was rounded to the next whole number, and 0.4 and below was rounded down to the previous number. As a result, percentages may not add up to 100 percent in some of the narrative. In addition, several survey questions allowed for respondents to choose multiple options (e.g. mode choice, devices used to access the Internet, etc.). As a result, the percentages will add up to more than 100% for these specific questions. Questions of this type have been called out in the narrative for these specific questions.

Mean score values were also used in the Preferred Trip Planning Tool Features section of this report so that results could be interpreted more meaningfully among the various potential trip planning tool features being tested in the survey. Using mean score formatting, 0 = Not Useful at All, 1 = Somewhat Useful, 2 = Very Useful, and 3 = Extremely Useful. The tables in the Preferred Trip Planning Tool Features section that feature mean score formatting have also been called out in the narrative in this section. Finally, the raw survey data file, complete crosstabulations for all survey questions, and a topline report have also been provided to both KAI and SJCOG as part of our reporting and for their review and analytical needs.

Within this report of survey findings, we have highlighted key segmentation analysis by the following sections:

• County of Residence

• County of Work or School

• Area of Commute

• Preferred Commute Modes

• Time Spent Commuting to/from Work/School

• Time Budgeted for Commuting to/from Work/School

• Number of Stops Made for Respondents Who Drive Alone

• Primary Internet Access Devices

• Previous Usage of Trip Planning Tools

• Preferred Trip Planning Tool Features

• Respondent Demographics

142 | San Joaquin Council of Governments Appendix

County of Residence:

County of Residence

Merced County 19%

San Joaquin County 40%

Stanislaus County 24%

Other 9%

Prefer not to respond 8%

0% 20% 40% 60%

Survey results indicate broad participation between the three counties of interest for residency. County of residence was determined by Question I (What is the zip code of your home residence?) and then formatted from zip codes provided to actual counties.

Based on those results, 19 percent of respondents indicated there are from Merced County, 40 percent indicated they are from San Joaquin County, and 24 percent indicated they are from Stanislaus County. Almost 9 percent indicated a County other than one in the tri-county area, and approximately 8 percent of respondents preferred not to provide an answer to this specific question.

County of Work/School:

County of Work or School

Merced County 21%

San Joaquin County 30%

Stanislaus County 14%

Other 24%

Prefer not to respond 10%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

Interregional Multimodal Commute Trip Planning Study | 143 Results from the table above indicate that survey respondents overwhelmingly travel within the tri-county region to commute to work or school. Slightly less than two-thirds (65 percent) of all respondents travel to work or school in the Counties of Merced, San Joaquin, or Stanislaus. Of the slightly less than one-quarter (24 percent) of respondents that commute to work or school outside of the tri-county region, the largest non-tri county area reported was Alameda County with 53 total respondents (8 percent) commuting to various work/school zip codes throughout Alameda County.

Although not show in the chart above, 15 percent of all respondents (106 total respondents) indicated that they commuted to work or school in one of the following Bay Area Counties (Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, or Santa Clara). Only 4 total respondents indicated commuting to work or school in Fresno or Madera County zip codes, and only 2 total respondents indicated commuting to zip codes in Sacramento County.

Area of Commute:

County of Residence San Joaquin Stanislaus Prefer not to Total Merced County Other County County respond Total 704 133 282 171 63 55 148 109 4 23 11 1 Merced County 21.0% 82.0% 1.4% 13.5% 17.5% 1.8% San Joaquin 214 1 154 20 26 13 County 30.4% .8% 54.6% 11.7% 41.3% 23.6% County of Work 98 3 9 80 3 3 or School Stanislaus County 13.9% 2.3% 3.2% 46.8% 4.8% 5.5% 172 10 96 37 21 8 Other 24.4% 7.5% 34.0% 21.6% 33.3% 14.5% Prefer not to 72 10 19 11 2 30 respond 10.2% 7.5% 6.7% 6.4% 3.2% 54.5%

This specific table provides insight into County of Residence compared to County of Work or School. As stated previously, results from the table above indicate that survey respondents overwhelmingly travel within the tri-county region to commute to work or school from their home county. Moreover, respondents from Merced County were most likely to work within their county of residence (Merced County) in comparison to respondents from Stanislaus and San Joaquin County respondents. Alternatively, San Joaquin and Stanislaus County respondents were the most likely to commute to work/school outside the tri-county region (Other).

144 | San Joaquin Council of Governments Appendix

Preferred Commute Modes:

County of Residence

Merced San Joaquin Stanislaus Prefer not Total Other County County County to respond

Total 704 133 282 171 63 55 75 17 34 17 2 5 Bicycle 10.7% 12.8% 12.1% 9.9% 3.2% 9.1% 258 18 116 67 32 25 Carpool/Vanpool 36.6% 13.5% 41.1% 39.2% 50.8% 45.5% 440 107 159 112 35 27 Drive alone 62.5% 80.5% 56.4% 65.5% 55.6% 49.1% Mode Choice (multiple 73 13 37 14 5 4 responses accepted) Public transit 10.4% 9.8% 13.1% 8.2% 7.9% 7.3% 45 14 18 7 3 3 Walk 6.4% 10.5% 6.4% 4.1% 4.8% 5.5% 401021 Other .6% .0% .4% .0% 3.2% 1.8% 100100 Don't know .1% .0% .0% .6% .0% .0%

The survey results above represent preferred Mode Choice by County of Residence, with the Carpool and Vanpool categories collapsed into one category. Not surprisingly, given the nature of the Commute Connection and listed sample used, Drive Alone was the most popular commute mode among all respondents with Carpool/Vanpool second, and Bicycle and Public Transit being the third most popular commute mode options (there were no statistical difference between Bicycle and Public Transit).

Results indicate that Merced County respondents were much more likely to Drive Alone than respondents in either San Joaquin County or Stanislaus County. However, this could be due to the use of the Commute Connection sample, the fact that Merced County respondents have shorter self-reported commute times, and/or tend to commute more inter-county than respondents from other areas.

Time Spent Commuting to/from Work/School:

County of Residence

Merced San Joaquin Stanislaus Prefer not Total Other County County County to respond

Total 704 133 282 171 63 55 100 45 38 12 1 4 Less than 15-minutes 14.2% 33.8% 13.5% 7.0% 1.6% 7.3% 137 29 54 42 2 10 15-minutes to 29-minutes 19.5% 21.8% 19.1% 24.6% 3.2% 18.2% 158 27 70 36 12 13 Time Spent Commuting 30-minutes to 59-minutes 22.4% 20.3% 24.8% 21.1% 19.0% 23.6% to/from Work or School 281 20 114 73 47 27 60 minutes + 39.9% 15.0% 40.4% 42.7% 74.6% 49.1% I work or go to school from 842200 home 1.1% 3.0% .7% 1.2% .0% .0% 2084611 Don’t work or go to school 2.8% 6.0% 1.4% 3.5% 1.6% 1.8%

Interregional Multimodal Commute Trip Planning Study | 145 Above is a table that depicts the average daily time Spent Community to/from Work or School by County of Residence. As previously stated, results indicate that respondents in Merced County spend less time commuting than their counterparts in San Joaquin or Stanislaus Counties, with more than half (56 percent) of Merced County respondents commuting less than a half-hour daily to/from work or school. Alternatively, slightly less than two thirds of residents in both San Joaquin (65 percent) and Stanislaus Counties (64 percent) spend a half-hour or more or more per day commuting to and from work or school. Moreover, at least 40 percent of respondents in San Joaquin County (40 percent) and Stanislaus County (43 percent) commute an hour or more each day.

Mode Choice Carpool / Public Total Bicycle Drive alone Walk Vanpool transit Total 699 75 258 440 73 45 99 24 10 83 1 15 Less than 15-minutes 14.2% 32.0% 3.9% 18.9% 1.4% 33.3% 137 21 35 99 86 15-minutes to 29-minutes 19.5% 28.0% 13.6% 22.5% 11.0% 13.3% 158 16 58 100 12 7 Time Spent Commuting 30-minutes to 59-minutes 22.4% 21.3% 22.5% 22.7% 16.4% 15.6% to/from Work or School 279 9 153 135 48 11 60 minutes + 39.9% 12.0% 59.3% 30.7% 65.8% 24.4% I work or go to school from 840734 home 1.1% 5.3% .0% 1.6% 4.1% 8.9% 181 2161 2 Don’t work or go to school 2.8% 1.3% .8% 3.6% 1.4% 4.4%

The table above depicts the daily Time Spent Commuting to/from Work or School for all respondents in the survey by Mode Choice. Again, Carpool and Vanpool categories were collapsed into one category and the Other and Don’t Know categories removed completely (5 total responses). Not surprisingly, respondents who Carpool/Vanpool or who take Public Transit have longer commute times than respondents with other preferred commute modes.

Almost two-thirds (66 percent) of Public Transit Users commute one-hour or more for their daily commute. In addition, slightly less than 60 percent (59 percent) of Carpool/Van pool users have a commute of one-hour or more. In comparison, of respondents who Drive Alone, slightly less than two-thirds (64 percent) have an average daily commute of less than one-hour.

146 | San Joaquin Council of Governments Appendix

Time Budgeted for Commuting to/from Work/School:

County of Residence

Merced San Joaquin Stanislaus Prefer not Total Other County County County to respond

Total 704 133 282 171 63 55 92 33 34 18 2 5 Less than 15-minutes 13.1% 24.8% 12.1% 10.5% 3.2% 9.1% 129 37 48 34 0 10 15-minutes to 29-minutes 18.3% 27.8% 17.0% 19.9% .0% 18.2% 144 22 59 40 10 13 30-minutes to 59-minutes 20.5% 16.5% 20.9% 23.4% 15.9% 23.6% Time Budgeted for Commuting 299 26 130 71 49 23 to/from Work or School 60 minutes + 42.5% 19.5% 46.1% 41.5% 77.8% 41.8% I work or go to school from 1033202 home 1.4% 2.3% 1.1% 1.2% .0% 3.6% 2194611 Don’t work or go to school 3.0% 6.8% 1.4% 3.5% 1.6% 1.8% 934011 Don’t know 1.3% 2.3% 1.4% .0% 1.6% 1.8%

Above is a table that depicts total Time Budgeted for Commuting to/from Work or School on a daily basis by County of Residence. Not surprisingly, after reviewing actual commute times, results indicate that respondents in Merced County budget less time for commuting than their counterparts in San Joaquin or Stanislaus Counties. Slightly more than half (53 percent) of Merced County respondents budget less than a half-hour per day for commuting purposes. Alternatively, slightly more than two-thirds (67 percent) of respondents from San Joaquin County and slightly less than two-thirds (65 percent) of respondents from Stanislaus County budget more than a half-hour per day to commute to/from work or school.

Number of Stops Made by Respondents Who Drive Alone:

Total Total 432

Number of Stops Made No stops (just home to work 250 Between Home/Work (both and back home) 57.9% directions) 182 1 Stop or More 42.1%

Respondents who indicated in survey Question 7 or 37 (What type of transportation do you typically use to go to work, school, or other places you commute most frequently?) that they Drive Alone, were then asked a follow-up question about the total daily Number of Stops Made between Home and Work on a given commute day. Surprisingly, more than half of respondents to this question did not make any stops during their commute day, and an assumption could be made that number of stops does not have a major impact on a given commuters decision to Drive Alone.

Interregional Multimodal Commute Trip Planning Study | 147 Primary Internet Access Devices:

Primary Internet Devices

Desktop/Laptop/TV 91%

iPad/Tablet 25%

Smartphone 55%

Other 1%

None 0%

0% 50% 100%

To aid in analyzing the data for Question 50 (What devices do you primarily use to access the Internet?), we consolidated response codes by device type and experience. This was to allow for a better analysis of the types of ways commuters might access an interregional multi-modal commute trip planning tool (e.g. application vs. web site) and screen size (tablet vs. Smartphone).

More than 90 percent (91 percent) of respondents indicated that they primarily use a Desktop/Laptop/TV to primarily access the Internet. More than 50 percent (55 percent) of respondents indicated they use a Smartphone to primarily access the Internet, and one-quarter (25 percent) of respondents indicated that they use a tablet/iPad to primarily access the Internet. For the specific question, respondents could chose more than one device type or specific device. Thus, the sum of the percentages is greater than 100 percent.

Previous Usage of Trip Planning Tools:

Previous Use of Trip Planner

4% 27%

Yes No 70% Don’t know

148 | San Joaquin Council of Governments Appendix

More than two-thirds (70 percent) of all respondents indicated that they had used an Internet-based Trip Planning Tool, Trip Planning Application, or Trip Planning Web Site previously. Less than one-third (30 percent) of respondents indicated that they had not previously used an Internet-based Trip Planning Tool, Trip Planning Application, or Trip Planning Web Site, or did not know if they had used one. Respondents that indicated use of a previous trip planning tool (488 total respondents) were then routed to a question on which specific tools they had used in the past (Q 54 – What trip planning tools or web sites have you used in the past?).

Previously Used Trip Planners

Google Maps 84% MapQuest 71% Yahoo! Maps 40% Transit Operator Web Site 14% Other 12% Commute Connection 11% Apple Maps 10% MTC 511.org 4% Sacramento 511.org 2%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

As stated above, the 488 respondents that indicated having previously used an Internet- based Trip Planning Tool, Trip Planning Application, or Trip Planning Web Site were then asked a follow-up question on which specific ones they had previously used. Results indicate that private sector trip planning tools/web sites/applications are far more popular among respondents than government provided trip tools, with Google Maps (84 percent) and MapQuest (71 percent) being by-far the most popular of any trip planning tool/application/web site used among respondents.

Surprisingly, MTC’s 511.org and Sacramento 511 were the two least frequently used trip planning tools used among respondents who had previously used a trip planning web site/tool/application with 4 percent and 2 percent of respondents having used these sites, respectively. It should be noted that within the response category of Other, there were not enough responses to specific other trip planning tools to be able to code these responses although Other comprised 12 percent of all responses. Respondents for this specific question could chose more than one previously used trip planning tool, application, or website. Thus, the sum of the percentages is greater than 100 percent.

Interregional Multimodal Commute Trip Planning Study | 149 Used Internet Trip Planner Previously Total Yes No Don’t know Total 701 488 186 27 642 448 170 24 Desktop/Laptop/TV 91.6% 91.8% 91.4% 88.9% 179 151 25 3 Primary Internet Access iPad/Tablet 25.5% 30.9% 13.4% 11.1% Devices 387 292 83 12 Smartphone 55.2% 59.8% 44.6% 44.4% 10 8 1 1 Other 1.4% 1.6% .5% 3.7%

Finally, as illustrated in the table above, it is also important to note that of those respondents who had or had not used a trip planning tool/web site/application in the past, respondents who had not previously used a trip planner were much less likely to access the Internet via an iPad/Tablet or Smartphone, where their Desktop/Laptop/TV usage is roughly the same as those respondents who had used a trip planner and all respondents. Conversely, respondents who had used a trip planner were slightly more likely to use a Smartphone or iPad/Tablet to access the Internet as a primary device. Thus, the argument can be made that functionality on multiple devices in important to potential users of any MMCTP tool under consideration.

Again, for the specific question, respondents could chose more than one device type or specific device. Thus, the sum of the percentages is greater than 100 percent.

150 | San Joaquin Council of Governments Appendix

Preferred Trip Planning Tool Features: