NYSERDA/ NYSDOT Final Presentation · 2018-04-23 · NYSERDA/ NYSDOT Final Presentation Understanding Commuter Patterns & Behavior; An Analysis to Recommend Policies Aimed at Reducing

NYSERDA/ NYSDOT Final Presentation

Understanding Commuter Patterns & Behavior; An Analysis to Recommend Policies Aimed at Reducing Vehicle Use

Agreements 11108, C012668, C-08-30, & PIN R.021.27.881

September 16th 2010

Availability of Alternative Transportation

• Main finding on accessibility and availability of alternative transportation.– Unless on a CDTA line, it is difficult for a UAlbany

commuter to take bus transportation.– While there are bus lines that do make stops at UAlbany,

their schedule is incompatible with the majority of the worker’s and student’s schedule.

– Most buses make one stop on campus between 7 and 7:30 am and pick up around 4 pm.

– There is an abundance of information and resources available as to bus routes and park and rides via the CDTC. However, it is difficult to get commuters to take advantage of their services.

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


• Current conditions: Parking fees are very low – ($20 – 100)

• The campus population has access to CDTA lines and the UAlbany shuttle for free.

The following steps have beentaken by the University in thelast year:• Participating in IPool2. • Participating in the vanpool

program • Hired Zipride to coordinate a ride

share program. • Offering Universal Access to CDTA

bus lines • Contracted with Connect by Hertz

to provide a car share program• Graduate planning studio Master

Bike Plan


• Overview of GIS analysis was performed on parking permit data – Able to identify clusters of commuting population to

encourage and identify carpool and vanpool opportunities.– Able to identify commuting commonalities between UAlbany

and Harriman campus employees.– About half of employee commuters living in Albany,

Rensselaer and Schenectady counties are being served by a CDTA bus line within a 1/4 mile of their home.

– Less than 20% from Saratoga county are being served by a CDTA line

Top postal codes of faculty commutersZip Code Name COUNT

12203 Albany 200 (13%)

12054 Delmar 152

12208 Albany 96

12309 Schenectady 94

12159 Slingerlands 59


12065 Clifton Park 51

12084 Guilderland 49

12186 Voorheesville 42

12211 Albany 36

12210 Albany 33

12866 Latham 33

12205 Albany 31

12009 Altamont 27

out of 1,502 permits

Top postal codes of staff commutersZip Code Name COUNT

12203 Albany 276 (11%)

12205 Albany 130

12208 Albany 116



12054 Delmar 98


12180 Troy 76

12020 Ballston Spa 76

12110 Latham 73



12144 Rensselaer 62

12206 Albany 55


Top postal codes of student commutersZip Code Name COUNT

12203 Albany 507 (5%)


12208 Albany 336

12180 Troy 277


12205 Albany 241

12110 Latham 189



12054 Delmar 141

12210 Albany 134


12866 Saratoga Springs 130



Harriman: 60 mile buffer from UAlbanyHarriman

Zip Code Name COUNT

12065 Clifton Park 169 (5%)

12205 Albany 160

12203 Albany 159

12180 Troy 130



12110 Latham 105

12144 Rensselaer 89

12208 Albany 81

12010 Amsterdam 81

12189 Watervliet 76



Harriman with UA Faculty & Staff

Zip Code Name COUNT

12203 Albany 635 (9%)


12205 Albany 321

12054 Delmar 319

12208 Albany 293



12180 Troy 233

12110 Latham 211



12144 Rensselaer 163


out of 3,105 permits out of 7,106 permits

How far from the bus stop?

Jurisdiction Walking Distance

[Maryland] Mass Transit Administration 1500 ft. (0.28 mi.)

[Kansas City, Missouri] Mid-America Regional Council 1500 ft. (0.28 mi.)

[New Jersey] New Jersey Transit 0.25 – 0.5 mi.

[Ontario, Canada] Ontario Ministry of Transportation 0.25 mi.

[NY, CT, NJ, Tri-metro] Regional Plan Association 1000 ft. (0.19 mi.)

[Snohomish City, Washington] Snohomish County Transportation Authority

1000 ft (0.19 mi.)

• Determine how many people are serviced by public transportation by analyzing bus stop coverage.

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

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

Access to Bus Routes

County

2008 Faculty – Access to Bus Routes

Permits in CountyPermits within 0.25 mile bus stop buffer

Percentage Served

Albany 842 470 56%

Rensselaer 84 30 36%

Saratoga 130 25 19%

Schenectady 126 56 44%

Total: 1,182 581 49%

County

2008 Staff – Access to Bus Routes


Percentage Served

Albany 1,127 627 53%


Saratoga 298 23 8%


Total: 2,012 914 45%

Access to Bus Routes

County

2008 Students – Access to Bus Routes


Percentage Served

Albany 2,407 1,530 64%


Saratoga 889 102 11%


Total: 1,182 581 50%

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

permits distributed listing an Albany County address.

• The highest density of students is within two Albany communities (12203, 12208) and Clifton Park (12065).

• Albany zip codes of 12203, 12205 and 12208 have the highest density of staff commuters.

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

• Clifton Park (12065) and two Albany communities (12205, 12203) have the highest concentration of Harriman commuters.

• Approximately 45 to 50% of UAlbany commuters live within a quarter mile of a CDTA bus stop

On-Time Performance Analysis

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

the University at Albany

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d2/CDTA_I-Ride_Gillig.jpg/800px-CDTA_I-Ride_Gillig.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.cannonsuites.com/Transportation&usg=__M5aB32jVrL7nhMgGKx-1nE0qnVQ=&h=600&w=800&sz=136&hl=en&start=6&sig2=UL1RRhMNq6tfSZltoAcTog&zoom=1&itbs=1&tbnid=oYFVI3KI5gphIM:&tbnh=107&tbnw=143&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dcdta%2Bbus%26hl%3Den%26gbv%3D2%26tbs%3Disch:1&ei=C--OTP63G4H68AaenuSSDQ



BackgroundThe current body of literature on Transportation Demand Management (TDM) and evaluating on-time performance of transit systems was reviewed.

• Use of GPS allows for time and spatial analysis

• Schedule adherence of departures used as performance metric

• Use multiple timing points as posted in transit schedule to conduct ride check

• For each time point along route determine if bus is early, on-time, or late

• On-time performance is the difference between scheduled and actual departure time of bus from time point

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

MethodologyDefinition of Departures:• Early- Actual departure occurred

before scheduled time• On-time- Actual departure occurred 0-

5 minutes after scheduled time• Late- Actual departure occurred more

than 5 minutes after scheduled time

Defining Level of Service(LOS):• The LOS definitions are derived from a

manual produced by the Florida Department of Transportation that details how to conduct a comprehensive operational analysis of transit

• Based on the on-time percentage it is possible to grade the LOS provided by the transit agency

On-Time Percentage

Level of Service (LOS)

95.0 – 100.0% A

90.0 – 94.9% B

85.0 – 89.9% C

80.0 – 84.9% D

75.0 – 79.9% E

<75.0% F

On-time Performance LOS

Unit of Analysis• The transit routes under

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

• The map shown on the right illustrates CDTA route 12

• The blue line indicates the path the bus traveled and the red dots are timing points

Map of CDTA Route 12

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

fall semester

• A total of nineteen student workers were trained to ride the bus routes being studied and collect GPS data

• The GPS data has been post-processed and converted to a file format compatible with Microsoft Excel for analysis

• An analysis template has been developed in excel that converts the GPS time to seconds past midnight, reports the on-time percentage of departures and grades the level of service provided by the transit agency

On time percentage and reliability

• Mean provides on time percentage of bus route

• Standard deviation indicates reliability of route

• Low s.d. indicates a consistent level of service

Statistical Analysis of Routes

On time percentages

Mean Stand. Dev.

• CDTA Route 11 71.4% 8.90

• CDTA Route 12 65.8% 17.20

• UAlbany- Madison 64.8% 9.90

• UAlbany- Western 60.2% 7.90

On time performance• Routes: CDTA 11 and 12

• Both routes experienced a large percentage of early departures (leaving prior to scheduled departure)

• UAlbany shuttle: Western and Madison routes

• Both routes experienced a large percentage of early departures (leaving prior to schedule departure)

On time performance

GPS analysis summary

• Both transit operators were found to have approximately 65 percent of departures on-time

• The percentage of late departures was found to be minimal and not problematic

• Approximately 33 percent of departures for both transit operators were found to be early

• Both transit agencies need to address the high percentage of early departures in order to provide a higher level of service

• The use of an Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL) system is the recommended method of conducting future on-time performance studies

Survey Overview• Survey of entire campus administered by

Institutional Research during fall semester.

• Approximately 815 employees and 1265 students participated in the survey.

• Sample provided a good representation of the campus composition with a slight overrepresentation of females.

Survey Overview

Employee sample:

• 30% teaching faculty, 70% staff

• 57% female, 43% male

• Majority have worked at University for over 5 years (72%)

• Most work on uptown campus (91%)

Student sample:• 66% undergraduate, 34% graduate

• 14% Freshman, 14.5% sophomores, 19% junior, 17% senior, 19% masters, 13% doctorate

• 87% full time, 13% part time

• 5% from Alumni, 6% Colonial, 6% Dutch, 6% Empire Commons, 3% Freedom, 9% Indian, 6% State

• 62% female, 38% male

• 90% spend most of their time on the uptown campus

Survey Results: Employee Commuting Modes

• 40% commute between 3 and 15 miles

• 16% commute over 30 miles

• Average time of commute is 21 – 30 minutes

• 89% use car when travelling from campus to campus

3%1%2%4%

3%

3%

73%

Drive alone

Carpool (driver)

Carpool (rider)

Take CTDA

Take UAlbanyShuttleBike

Walk

Survey Results: Student Commuting Modes

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

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

Survey Results: Top problems in commuting

Big problem Severe Total

Availability of bike lanes 26 22 48

Safety while biking 21 15 36

Availability of parking 20 14 34

Big problem Severe Total

Availability of parking 21 30 51

Availability of bike lanes 14 13 27

Safety while biking 15 9 24

Availability of bus service 11 11 22

Employees

Students

Survey Results: Top reasons preventing people from using alternative transportation

Driving is the most convenient option 82

Live too far to walk 77

Have to travel to other places on way to and from work 65

Live too far to bike 55

Do not feel safe biking 50

Live too far to walk 68

Driving is the most convenient option 60

Have to travel to other places on way to and from work 50

Bus does not come frequently or at right time 48

Live too far to bike 46

I do not know a person with whom I can carpool 44

Em

plo

ye

es

Stu

de

nts

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

Length of commute by bus similar to car commute 25

Bus stop within 5 minutes of home 18

Bus ran on more frequent schedule 18

Emergency transportation service available 16

Parking costs more or less available 7

Bus ran on more frequent schedule 32

Length of commute by bus similar to car commute 28

Bus stop within 5 minutes of home 27

Emergency transportation service available 19

Parking costs more or less available 15

Em

plo

ye

es

Stu

de

nts

Likelihood of employees using servicesDefinitely would Very likely would Total

Ability to work from home 39 26 65

Compressed work week 29 22 51

Free taxi rides home in an emergency 21 21 42

Rewards to taking transit 15 19 34

Free access to all CDTA bus routes 14 16 30

Preferred parking for hybrid/fuel efficient cars 9 13 22

Preferred parking for carpoolers 8 14 22

Carpooling program 6 16 22

Pre-tax bus pass purchases 8 13 21

Ride sharing 6 15 21

Assistance in finding carpool partners 6 14 20

Vanpooling 4 11 15

Bicycle amenities 5 8 13

Car sharing 4 9 13

Bike sharing 2 4 6

Likelihood of students using services

Definitely would Very likely would Total

Free access to all CDTA bus routes 39 18 57

Rewards to taking transit 22 24 46

Preferred parking for carpoolers 13 21 34

Carpooling program 8 16 24

Ride sharing program 8 15 23

Assistance in finding carpool partners 9 13 22

Preferred parking for hybrid/fuel efficient cars 9 12 21

Vanpooling program 7 13 20

Bicycle amenities 7 11 18

Car sharing program 6 11 17

Bike sharing program 6 7 13

Survey Results: Most desired bus services

Faster service (express buses, fewer stops)

63

More direct service (no transfers)

62

Shorter waiting time between buses

51

More convenient location of stops

47

Free access to all CDTA routes 42

Better and larger waiting shelters

29

Better security 22

More comfortable buses 13

More appealing look 3

Employees

Free access to all CDTA routes 63

Shorter waiting time between buses

63

Faster service (express bus and less stops)

62

More direct service (no transfers)

43

Better and larger waiting shelters

39

More convenient location of stops

37

Better security 32

More comfortable buses 22

More appealing look 6

Students

Survey Results: Top areas of connection

Downtown Albany 42

Rensselaer Train station 38

Albany Airport 36

Employees

Downtown Albany 67

Crossgates 55

Albany Airport 43

Rensselaer train station 43

Students

Survey Results: Do you know where toget information on:

Faculty Students

Yes No Yes No

Parking on campus 92 8 68 38

Taking transit to campus 54 46 62 32

Walking and biking to campus 26 74 24 76

Finding a carpool partner 21 79 11 89

Focus groups• Focus groups gathered to provide more in depth response

to commuting patterns.

• Total of six stakeholder focus groups were formed.

– 4 student groups, 1 faculty, 1 staff

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

• Conducted during a two week span between March 15th and

24th 2010.

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

and faculty into using alternative transportation?

• How exactly can biking be made safer, what kinds of amenities are most desired?

• Are there other reasons besides “lack of potential carpool partners” that keep students and employees from using carpools?

• What locations do respondents need to “make trips to and from campus”, for which their car is more “convenient”?

• Are there any other alternative transportation problems or solutions that respondents wish to have expressed but were not able to due to the closed answer-system of quantitative surveys?

Main points from the employee focus groups Faculty/staff are generally positive about current parking options

at Uptown campus.

Peak hour parking is a concern at Uptown

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

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

Valet parking, additional costs for parking, preferred parking for certain vehicles all disliked by faculty/staff.

Bus service is unavailable in certain locations, inconvenient, often full, and has security concerns.

Northway Express option is considered to be "expensive".

Main points from the employee focus groups

Improvement to bus service should include:

Higher frequency, free routes (advertise).

Internet on buses and hybrid buses didn't test well in terms of lowering SOV use

Carpooling efforts must include more incentives if it is to outweigh the negatives (loss of "alone time", inconvenient, less dependable)

Biking is not as important of a concern to faculty/staff as indicated on survey.

General improvements offered included: telecommuting, improved access to daycare on campus, rewards for transportation behavior, rail.

Main points taken from the student focus groups

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

Internet on bus and hybrid buses mixed reception by students.

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

signage, preferential parking. Cost and convenience major disincentives to using alternative

transportation. Bus service generally liked.

Problems listed: too many stops, frequency, consistency, schedule confusion, bus service doesn't exist where students live, buses are too full.

Main points taken from the student focus groups The idea of carpooling is liked by students although flexibility, safety,

logistical concerns were expressed.

Ideas to improve carpooling include: website, rewards, and standards.

Preferred parking, car sharing, and subsidized hybrids didn't test well.

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

Reasons why students don't bike: weather, lack of amenities (storage, showers), location of campus in relation to home.

Additional suggestions: offer more on-campus entertainment, shopping options, graduate housing, improve safety around neighborhoods for walking and biking.

Added insight garnered from Focus Groups• Prevalence of driving for students due to convenience, home

travel, mall access

• Low use of alternative transportation and carpooling among faculty and staff due to daycare access, preference for personal/alone time in car

• Specific areas of concern for safe bicycle access: Washington, Western, Central Avenues, and State Office Campus

• Supported rewards for using alternative transportation included gift and food certificates, podium money, and reduced student fees

• Reasons behind non-use of transit: distrust of

bus reliability during high stress periods (such as tests)

New suggestions from Focus Groups

• Parking garages

• Parking lot shuttles

• Expanded on-campus daycare

• Graduate housing on campus

• Real-time bus tracking

• Dormitory-led bus-education programs

• Expanded on-campus entertainment and dining options to reduce student off campus travel

Recommendations

• GIS Suggestions• Review permit data collection system to ensure it can:

• Provide a baseline of the current population with accurate data

• Allow for continuity of data formatting from year to year

– Allow updating of data to allow for changes in commuter classification (i.e. faculty to staff, student to staff)

– Flag households where multiple vehicles are registered

to one commuter

– Format should allow:

• Breakdown by type of commuter

• Breakdown data by type of vehicle to allow for a fleet mix study

• Student address database must include the primary local address based on residence, not work address

Recommendations

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

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

• Survey and Focus Group Analysis Suggestions• Suggested changes in wording of survey

• Begin the recruitment of focus group participants at least 1 month in advance of the meeting

• Broaden scope to include any member on the campus community rather than just survey respondents

Recommendations• Improve UAlbany coordination of marketing programs

– Pair information on alternative transportation with information about parking, send information in the annual email notice to renew parking permits.

– Set up point person at Harriman campus to coordinate efforts

– Market IPool2 more aggressively to off-campus student commuters

– Promote new universal access to CDTA routes by UAlbany community

• Obtain usage data from CDTA to analyze usage to improve coordination of marketing.

Suggestions for future research• Research the participants that are

already using IPool2 to analyze their usage and location.

• Identify potential rewards, both monetary and nonmonetary, that can be administered to provide incentives to use alternative transportation.

• Continue to re-administer the survey on a regular basis to assess changes in commuting patterns.

• Look into partnership opportunities beyond Harriman Campus (i.e. Patroon Creek, NanoTech Complex).

• Explore options to increase the price of parking to act as a deterrent for SOV use.

• Consider adding a fuel efficient/hybrid vehicle category as a separate color coded parking permit.

• Explore whether it is feasible to register employees and students up for carpooling and ridesharing programs when applying for parking permits.

• Research alternative work arrangements.

– Telecommuting

– Compressed work-week

Questions?

Documents

NYSERDA/ NYSDOT Final Presentation · 2018-04-23 · NYSERDA/ NYSDOT Final Presentation Understanding Commuter Patterns & Behavior; An Analysis to Recommend Policies Aimed at Reducing