NBSIR 75-689

The Shirley Highway Express

Bus-on-Freeway Demonstration

Project/A Study of Park-and-Riding

James T. McQueen and Gerald K. Miller with Carol Harrison

National Bureau of Standards

Technical Analysis Division

Urban Systems Program Area

Washington. D. C. 20234

March 1975

Interim Report 6

Prepared for

Urban Mass Transportation Administration

Department of Transportation

Washington, D. C. 20591

NBSIR 75-689

THE SHIRLEY HIGHKKAY EXPRESS

BUS-ON-FREEHAY DEMONSTRATION

PROJECT/A STUDY OF PARK-AND-RIDING

James T. McQueen and Gerald K. Miller with Carol Harrison

National Bureau of Standards

Technical Analysis Division

Urban Systems Program Area

Washington. D. C. 20234

March 1975

Interim Report 6

Prepared for Urban Mass Transportation Administration

Department of Transportation

Washington, D. C. 20591

U S. DB>ARTMENT OF COMMERCE. Rog«r8 C B. Morton. Secrwtary

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS. Richard «. RotMrt*. OWctm

Preface

The authors wish to acknowledge the guidance and support of the following

individuals:

Mr. Theodore H. Saks and Mr. David M, Levinsohn of the Technical Analysis Division

for their assistance in processing the survey data;

Mr. Ronald J. Fisher of the Urban Mass Transportation Administration for direction

and assistance throughout the study; and

Mrs. Dorothy Wood for the preparation of the final draft.
ABSTRACT

Ihc nuirket for fixed route transit operations is not limited to travelers within walkiiii; dist;mce of transit stops. Ihis was demonstrated by the Shirley Highway iixpress-Huson-lrceway Project, as project pronsoted |xirk- and -ride ojierations led to sizable increases in bus (xitronage. I'ark-and- riders , corrmntcrs who traveled by auto to a bus stop and then by

bus to work, greatly expanded the nuirket for the fixed route bus service in the Shirley

Highway Corridor area.

Ihis reiwrt presents results of a study of the successful park-and-ride oix'ration

within the Sliirley Higltway Corridor area: suburban fringe parking lots coupled with tlR- high s|x>ed buses of the Shirley Highway Ijtpress- Bus -on -Freeway Project. l>emogra[>liic

characteristics of the [xnk-:uid- riders as well as characteristics of their present park-andride and previous conmute trips arc examined, factors inqx>rtant in the comraiters'

dcvisions to park-and-ride are identified. The report al.so describes the survey procedures

used in the study.

i i
TABLE OF OONreNTS

Page

1. IfirRDOXTION 1

2. MAJOR FINDINGS . . . 5

3. PARK-AND-RIDE WITHIN THE SnRLEY HIOWAY CORRIDOR 7

4. WHAT INFLUENCED AIH'O OCmnBlS TO CHANGE TO BUS SERVICE AT

PARK-AND-RIDE LOTS 11

5. HOW TRAVEL TIME AND PARKING COSTS SAVINGS INFLUBCE AUTO OCM^JTERS

TO CHANGE TO PARK-AND-RIDE 17

APPENDICIES

A. Park-and-Ride Survey Questionnaire Forms 21

B. Characteristics of Park-and-Riders at Official Lots CFebruary 1973). . 31

C. Detailed Responses of Former Auto Users to February 1973 Park-and-Ride

Survey 35

D. Demographic Stratifications of Survey Responses of Former Auto Users

at Backlick Lot (February 1973) 41

E. Siranary of Responses from March 1973 Park-and-Ride Survey 47

iii
Lisrr OF i iaiw.s

Hagc

1. Shirley Highway lixpress Bus Service Area 2

2. Access to I'ark- and -Ride lx)ts from Shirley llij;hway and Capitol Beltway .... 4

5. Origins (Inboioul Trip) to Ikicklick I'ark-aiKJ Kide lx>t iO

4. Importance Versus Satisfaction Responses of l-ormer Auto Users at Backlick • • ^5

5. Importance Versus Satisfaction Responses of Former Auto Users at Springfield

Flaza 16

t). Imjxjrtance Responses of Hormer Auto Users at Backlick 56

7. Importajice Responses of Former /\uto Users .it Springfield Plaza . 37

8. Satisfaction Responses of Former Auto Users it Kicklick J8

9. Satisfaction Responses of Former Auto Users at Springfield Plaza J9

LIST OF T/\Bi.US

1. Distributions of Selected Demographic Qiaracteristics of Corridor Com&iters . . 8

2. Sunmary of Importance Responses from February 1973 Park-aml-Ride Survey. ... 12

5. SkJinmary of Satisfaction Responses from Febru.-iry 1973 Park-»vd-Ride Survey . . 13

4. Reported Travel Times of Former ,Auto Conmutcrs at Backlick Lot 18

5. Distribution of Door-to-Door Travel Time Savings . . * 1£

6. Reported Parking Costs of Former Auto Cornnuters U

7. Demographic Characteristics of Surveyed lx>t Users 52

8. Selected Trip Characteristics at Surveyed lx)ts J-"*

9. Conwute Nkxie Prior to Using Lot ^

10. Users' Reactions to Advertising and When Began Using Lot ^

11. Sumnary of Importance Responses by Income (lass ^'

12. Sunmary of Importance Responses by Age and St-x 4-">

13. Sunmary of Satisfaction Responses by Incc»ne Class 4^

14. Siflimary of Satisfaction Responses by Ago and !^)ex 4S

15. Sunmary of Importance Responses from Second l^ark- and -Hide .Survey {>kirch 1973) .

16. Siaimary of Satisfaction Responses from Second l';irk .mj IviJr Survey (Mfucli

iv
1. IhrrRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND

As traffic congestion and the demand for parking in the downtown sections of many large

metroplitan areas have increased in recent years, alternatives to auto coranuting to and

from work have become more fwpular. Mich of this increased demand for alternatives to the

auto has come from low density suburban areas with limited public transit service. This has

led to an increase in the demand for transit trips for which an auto is used to travel to the transit stop. Trips where a comnuter drives or is drivwi by sotoeone else to the

transit stop are called park-and-ride trips. (Conmuters wlw park-and-ride will be referred

to as park-and-riders. ) Park-and-ride trips include parking in fringe parking lots which

have been officially developed as park-and-ride lots, as well as trips by coomuters casually

parking on residential streets. After parking, these conmuters board transit vehicles

lAich proceed to destinations in downtcMi areas and other employment centers.

One of the major project elements of the Shirley Highway Express -Bus -on -Freeway

Danonstration Project is residential fringe parking coordinated with new transit service on the exclusive bus lanes. These well planned park-and-ride facilities provide geographic

flexibility for the transit operator by extending the market area of the bus system. Service at the lots can also increase operating efficiency by minimizing the slower collection

portion of the trip.

Park-and-riders comprise an inqxjrtant portion (about 25 percent) of bus conmuters

traveling within the Shirley Highway Corridor. Figure 1 indicates the area of influence

of the bus -on -freeway project and the relative locaticms of the major park-and-ride lots.

The lined area depicts the primary service area of the project routes. After the auto

access trip, these ccmmuters board express buses which travel over the exclusive lanes to destinations in downtown Washington, D.C. , the Pentagon or Crystal City, Virginia. The

performance of park-and-ride at the major lots within the Corridor and the conmuters using

it are the subject of this report.

1.2 RRPOSE OF REPORT

A major objective of the Shirley Highway Express -Bus -on -Freeway Demonstration Project

is to learn more about the factors which determine a comnuter's choice of transf)ortat ion to and from work.^ Some knowledge exists of factors v^ch influence a comnuter's decision to park-and-ride rather than use some other mode to travel to and from work.^ The primary

purpose of this report is to determine the factors which have been found to influence

Siirley Highway Corridor conmuters' mode choice decisions when f>ark- and -ride is developed as

as element in a comprehensive transit service improvement using exclusive bus lanes. It is

hoped that this experience will be of use to transportation planners in the design of

strategies to meet the growing demand for coniniter transit service from distant suburban

communities.

See "The Shirley Highway Express-Bus-on-Freeway Demonstration Pro iect/ Second Year Results.

Interim Report 4" (Report UMTA/DCrr4), November 1973. Available from NTIS, Springfield,

Virginia, CCM-74-10, $4.00.

See "Locating and Operating Bus Rapid Transit Park -and "Ride Lot D.M. Gatens, Transportation Researcn Record 505, 1974 ; Transportatiwi Research Board, Washington, D.C, 1974.

1

1 , 3 SCOPE OF REPORT

This report covers peak period park-and-ride operations in the Shirley Highway Corridor

between 1971 and 1973. Objectives are to:

1) Docunent park-and-ride performance in attracting Corridor auto conmuters

and describe the park-and-riders.

2) Examine the factors which have influenced coinrauting motorists to switch

to the Corridor park-and-ride service.

Data from three ccHimuter surveys have been used in this study: 1) a major study of

all Corridor auto and bus ccnmuters (including park-and-riders) in October 1971; 2) a survey

of bus commuters boarding at the aajor park-and-ride lots (Backlick and Springfield Plazaj

in February and March 1973; and 3) a survey of all Corridor bus commuters (including parkand-riders) in Nov«nber 1973.

1.4 SURVEY OF PARK-AND-RIDERS

To obtain information about the influence of selected features of the park-and-ride

service on ccmuters' mode choice decisions, surveys were conducted during the first week of

February 1973 at the two major lots, Backlick and Springfield Plaza. (A second park-andride survey was conducted in Nlarch 1973 after the bus service was modified at the two lots.)

The Backlick lot is located near the intersection of Industrial and Backlick Roads and the

Springfield lot is in the Springfield Plaza Shopping Center near the intersection of Keene

Mill and Backlick Roads. See Figure 2 for the location of these lots relative to Shirley

Highway and Capitol Beltway.

• The first 47 passengers boarding each bus departing the two park-and-ride lots were

given questionnaires and asked to complete and return them before leaving the bus. Of the

approximately 430 people boarding at the two lots, 420 were given survey forms, and 328

returned them.

i Two different questionnaires were used- -otic for fonneribus users and one for fonner

auto users, (park-and-riders were asked by the perscnmel distributing th« forms how they

coninuted before using the p)ark- and -ride bus.) Former all-auto users were given a yellow

form 'and the all -bus comraaters were handed a green questionnaire.

The survey form consisted of four sections printed on a stiff paper folder for easier

writing on board a bus. After coispleting the introductory segment that established the

details of the previous mode, the park-and-rider opened the folder to the main section of

the questionnaire. (A copy of each form is presented in Appendix A.) The second section

focused on what factors people consider when first deciding to change the way they coimute

to work. The questicm asked the park -aiui- rider to assign an importance rating to each of a

list of factors.^

This was accomplished by asking the following questions of former auto commuters (a

similar question was asked of fonner users of the preexistant bus service):

In terras of importance to you , how important was each of these factors when you

first decided to change from auto commuting and begin using bus service from

this park-and-ride lot?

'The order of the lists of factors was reversed on half of the questionnaires to minimize

any respondents tendency to rate the first features higher than the last.

3
I
BESIDE EACH OF THE FACTORS BELOW,

FLALL ONE OF TfCTOLlXMING "IMPORTANCE" NIWBERS.

1 « of Highest Ii^jortance

2 Very Important

3 Important

4 * Slightly Important

5 = Lhimportant or Didn't Consider it

The next section solicited user satisfaction ratings of the same list of bus service

related features by asking the following question:

How satisfied are ycxi with each of the following features of bus service from

this park- and- ride lot?

BESIDE EACH OF THE FEMURES LISTED BELOW,

PLACE ORTCt THE "SATISFACTION" NUMBERS.

1 » Very Satisfied

2 - Satisfied

3 - Neutral

4 * Unsatisfied

5 " Very Unsatisfied

The fourth secticm of the survey foxw requested detailed trip time and cost information, demograp*iic data, and asked how the user first heard of the dus service at the lot.

2. MAJOR FINDINGS

2.1 SIM4ARY OF MAJOR FINDINGS

1. The coordinated development of f)ark- and -ride facilities with express bus lanes and

high quality transit service has extended the transit market area and substantially increased transit ridership within the Shirley Highway Corridor. TTie mjiijer of daily park-andriders has increased from an estimated 4,100 in October 1971 to 5,500 in October 1973.

These bus conmuter surveys have shown that park-and-riders represent about 25 percent of the

Corridor bus ridership.

2. Although the majority of Corridor corinuters are from higher income, multiple auto

households which are usually associated with all auto commuting , Dus service from the parkand-ride lots is attracting these types of suburban coranuters. Over 60 percent of the

former all -auto coranuters drove alone before using the official lots. Alwut 30 percent

carpooled before taking the bus.

5
^. siirviys :it tlu two lots suggest the foUoMing cons iJe rat ion tor the planning

ativl aivilu(>iiniit ol sulxirbiui |»ark -and -ride facilities:

a I rhe lot should be served by a hl^ quality bus service which encourages the use of transit. These include bus service features such as schedule reliabilit

convenience of arrival and departure times, and seat availability.

h) ITie lot location together with high tjuality bus service tnust Ik- per- ceived by the new user as reducing the level of stress and fnistration

of conmuting, and it must provide convenient piirking. (There were no

p;irking charges at the Corridor lots.)

c) Ibr tlic relatively affluent comnuters in this area, the perceived

travel time difference between auto and bus is more imfwrtant tlian the

daily cost difference.

d) At these two lots, the least importiuit itetns were convenience items

such as bus shelters, walking dist.ince, car security, and the availability of later evening bus serviceI. Ihe perceived satisfaction rat inj^s for various features of the park -and-ridc ser- vicc indicate that the former all-auto commuters are very satisfied with the bus service

features that are import;int to thvm. This favorable condition cwild explain the success uf

the lots in attracting and retaining bus patrons.

S. Silt isfact ion responses of (xirk -and- riders differed according to their former mode.

Fon.ier auto ccwinuters were less sensitive to parking arnmgeaents at the lot and mpre

sensitive to the availability of a seat than were users of the previously existine bus

service.

(). Commuters' reactions to the park-and-r idc service did not appear to depend upon

age, sex, or income.

2 . 2 I t nKl U S ON Wnm-. RhSLVRO I

Ihis study hiis focused on the perceived reactions of new users to park-and-ride bus

service. An additional approach should survey non users to obtain their preferences alx)ut [xirk-;uid-ride as a commuting mode. An analysis of both assessments should provide consider

able insight into mode choice decisions.

Many factors arc im|.xnt.int t people when they cliange modes, and the t>-]x? of survey

data obtained in such a stiidv might be used to develop a practical quantitative m(^del . A

piirk -anil- ride mode choice iikkIcI leased upon user preferences for various transit service

features in addition to tune and cost savings would provide a valuable planning t(K)l for

locating and developing future lots.

See "I'ark- and -Ride Policy as a Mode ^lift Planning Tool/' by G. R. Brown, a paper prepared

for presentation at the Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, January 1975.

()
3. PARK-AND-RIDE WITOIN THE SHIRLEY HIGHWAY CORRIDOR

A coordinated development of park-and-ride facilities with the express bus lanes and

expanded transit service has substantially increased transit ridership vdthin the Shirley

Highway Corridor.^ The number of daily park-and-riders has grown from an estimated 4,100 in

October 1971 to 5,300 in October 1973. While AM peak period bus patronage within the

Corridor increased from about 16,400 in October 1971 to about 21,000 in October 1973, the

park-and-ride percentage (taken from bus comnuter surveys in October 1971 and Novarfjer 1973)

remained constant, at approximately 25 percent.

Corridor park-and-ride services have been very successful in attracting auto commuters.

Of the 900 park-and-riders responding to the November 1973 survey of Corridor bus commuters,

about 65 percent indicated that they had coramted by auto prior to using park-and-ride.

(About 50 percent had driven alone.) This means that in 1973, an estimated 3,445 of the

5,300 park-and-riders had formerly conmuted to work by auto.

Many transit planners contend that very few suburban coianuters will use bus service if

they are from multiple auto or high income families. This is not true for the park-and-ride

bus coninuters in the Shirley Corridor as can be seen from an examination of selected demograi^iic characteristics in Table 1. Coniauters who park-and-ride have family incomes that are comparable to those of auto coomuters and substantially higher than those of walk-on bus

ccraDDuters. Similarly, Corridor park-and-riders are from families owning about the same

nui±>er of cars as auto coninuters and considerably more than bus coninuters. Also park-andriders and walk-on bus coninuters exhibited lower age distributions than the auto commuters

which indicates that younger persons are more likely to use the bus service. TTiis is true even in the case of the park-and-riders who have similar income distributions to auto users.

There are many locations where Corridor coranuters par-and-ride. However, only three

lots have been developed as part of the project by the Northern Virginia Transportation

Conmission (NVTC) as park-and-ride locations. TV(o are in large shopping centers (Springfield

Plaza aiui Shirley Plaza) and the other called Backlick, is a pennanent parking facility built

specifically to serve park-and-riders. (Backlick is the location of a future Metro stop.)

Casual parking locations include parking lots of small shopping centers, residaitial streets,

and other ad hoc arrangements."

There is a shortage of official park-and-ride facilities. While the nunber of daily

conruter park-and-riders increased by approximately 1,200 between 1971 and 1973, the number

of parking spaces in designated park-and-ride lots increased by only 400, (These spaces

are in the permanent park-and-ride lot which opened in October 1972.) This continuing

increase in park-and-riders has resulted in a study of additional sites for park-and-ride

lots by the Virginia Department of Hig}ways and Transportation.

3.2 DESCRIPTION OF SERVICE AT THE SURVEYED LOTS

Although both the Backlick and Springfield lots are official park-and-ride lots, they

are quite different with respect to the quality of service which they provide to bus users. The Backlick lot opened in October 1972, is located away from shoRJing development and has

a bus stop inside the lot. It has a 400 auto capacity, a kiss-and-ride drop-off area, a bicycle rack and a public teleiAone. However, the locatiOT of this lot is somewhat

inaccessible for Shirley Highway and Beltway motorists (see arrows in Figure 2, page 4) and

the average walk from vrfiere cars are parked to the bf^ boarding point is about 60 yards.

See "Second Year Results Report," Section 3.

*A comparison of the demographic characteristics of park-and-riders at an official lot

with park-and-riders who casually parked on residential streets did not find any substantial difference between the groups.

7
Table I

Distributlws of Solectcd Hcmograi^hic

Characteristics of (brridor Coonutcrs

tiLMUirn-iusTic P/\RK-AND-Rinii (BUS)^ Alfll)^

f\nnu:il Household Inccine

Source

a

WALK-OJ UUJS

Under $ 5,000 _

1 $5 001 - $15 000 19 28 34 $15,001 - $30,000 66 56 S3

Over $30,000 15 14 12 Total rso 105 To5

Autos per Household

0 1 2 10

1 35 37 63

2 52 50 23

3 or B»re 12 u 4 Total 100 l5o 100

Mean auto/household 1.78 1.72 1.31

Age (years)

Under 21 4 1 3 21-39 60 44 60

40-65 36 54 36 Over 65 0 1 1 Total Too 100 100

Sex

Males 62 73 56

F*'emales 38 27 54 Total 100 100 100

Niunber ot' i)bscrvat ions 910 3.130 2,400

November 1973 survey of bus coimnuters in the Shirley Highway Corridor.

^Xrtober 1971 survey of auto coonuters in the Shirley Highway Corridor.

J
The Springfield park-and-ride lot opened in June 1971 and comprises a designated portion of the Springfield Plaza Shopping Center parking lot. The lot is accessible from the

Shirley Highway (1-95) and the Capital Beltway (1-495) via the Springfield exit, and the

hdisi boarding point i» near t^»c designated park and -ride spaces.

Both of these park-and-ride lots are served by the sane bus route, Washington

Metropolitan Transit Authority Metrobus rcxite 18X. At the time the survey was conducted

(February 1973), route 18X began at the Backlick lot and picked up passengers at the

^ringfield Plaza lot before getting onto the Shirley Higturay at the Springfield entrance.

Thus, Backlick riders were assured of a seat while soiae riders at Springfield had to stand.

(This route was modified in March 1973, reversing the sequence of service at the two lots).

Service was provided by new buses with special interior features (wider seats, carpeted

walls and floors, etc.).' Bus headways in February 1973 averaged 15 minutes (service was offered only during peak periods) ; and travel tiroes betweoi Farragut Square in downtown

Washington, D.C. and the Springfield Plaza and Backlick park-and-ride lots averaged 32 and

39 minutes respectively. (Trip lengths are 14.7 miles and 15.9 miles.)

5.3 CHARACTERISTICS OF PARK-AND-RIDERS AT OFFICIAL LOTS

The suivey provides considerable information about the demographic characteristics and

trip-making behavior of the park-and-riders. Highlights of the information are presented

here^ and the complete tabulations are in Tables 6, 7, 8,and 9 in ^>pendix B.

The demographic characteristics of the former all -auto conmuters and bus riders

are quite similiar at both official lots and are not substantially different from the total

Corridor distributions presented in Table 1. In addition, it seems that the official lots are not attracting a different type of coranuter than the unofficial and casual parking areas throughout the Corridor.

Access to the two lots are primarily by auto - about 70 percent drive alone while about

10 percent drive with passengers and only four percent kiss-and-ride. Over 10 percent park near the lots v^ich may indicate some people can obtain shorter walking distances there than

in the lots.

About 80 percent of the park-and-riders indicated that they use the lots five days per

week. The major destination at Springfield is downtown Washingtcm, (88 percent) vrfiile the

Pentagon and downtown Washington share the market at Backlick with 45 and 41 percent,

respectively.

About 60 percent of the fonner all-auto conaiters drove alone before using the lots,

while over 30 percent carpooled before taking the bus. A third of the former bus coranuters walked to a bus boarding point ^Qid alinotst a third parked near a bus stop before using the

lots.

The Backlick lot was opened in October 1972 with a concerted advertising campaign including newspaper ads and mass mailings to the service area. Almost one third of the users at the lot indicated that the mail advertisements were how they first heard of the service.

This was about the same as indicated "word of mouth." Seventeen percent saw the newspaper

ads vdiile 10 percent saw the roadway signs indicating the location of the lot. Over half

began using the lot vAen it of)ened,with 22 percent starting in the first month and about

10 percent each following month.

See "The SJiirley Highway Express Bus -on -Freeway Demmstration Project --Users' Reaction to

Innovative Bus Features," Interim Report 3, June 1973.

9
10
3.4 LOT SERVICE AREA AND ACCESS TIMES

The origins of the park- and -riders at Backlick are indicated in Figure 3. Each dot on

the map shows a comnuter's origin. The spatial distribution of the trip origins shows how

far the bus market can be extended in a suburban area through the use of park-and-ride lots.

For the majority of the ustrs of the bus service fram this park-and-ride lot, the distance

bctvieen tone aaui the lot was greater than two miles. For 20 percent of the park- and -riders

this distance was as much as five miles.

Even with this large market area, the access travel time from home to the lot averaged

only 13.1 minutes and almost 60 percent traveled less than 10 minutes. The access time was about 25 percent of the total door-to-door time (see Section 5.1). In suburban areas, auto access can thus extend bus service aver large areas with small time penalities for the

comriiter.

4. mkl INFLUENCED AUTO OGMUTERS TO OIANGE TO BUS SERVICE

AT PARK-AND-RIDE LOTS

4.1 THE IMPORTANCE OF FEATURES

Many factors are unportant to people when they change their mode of conmuting to work.

The development of a high quality park-and-ride service at the two lots provided an opportunity to examine new park-and-ride comiiters' assessments of factors that were iirportant

vAen they first decided to change frcn all-auto coranuting to using bus service at the lots.

This study of mode choice behavior relied on the users 'perceived values of numerous characteristics of the available modes. No attenpt was made to develop a quantitative model

of park-and-ride mode choice, but the results do provide considerable insist into what

variables should be considered when developing siuiurban park-and-ride facilities.

Table 2 presents the ranking of the features based vpon the percentage or respondents

indicating either "of highest iB|)ortance" or "very inportant." Details of all ratings are indicated graphically in Appendix C.

Former auto comnuters at Backlick and Springfield Plaza are in graieral agreement on the

relative importance of the twelve features cited. About 80 perc«it rated the same three

features very highly (either "of highest inqaortance" or "very mportant"): 1) stress and

frustration of conmuting, 2) schedule reliability and 3) coivrauence of arrival and departure tunes. Over SO percent rated parking convenience and the difference in door-to-door

travel time very high. Seat availability was ranked fifth by the Backlick lot users and

seventh at Springfield.

Fonner auto users at the two lots differ in their assessment of "difference in total

daily ccranuting cost." Springfield riders rank it sixth and Backlick riders ninth. This

may reflect the destinations of the users^with about 95 percent of the Springfield riders

and only 40 percent of the Backlick riders working in downtown Washington where parking

charges are high. (See paragraph 5.2 for a further investigation of parking costs.)

Chily 40 percent of the former all-auto ccnmuters rated availability of evening bus

service and security of the parking lot very hig^y. Riders at both lots rated the same three features very lowly: 1) making auto available to other members of hcRisehold,

2) difference in the amount of walking required and 3) shelter at boarding point.

Variations among the ijiportance responses of different sex, age and income groi^ings

of fonner auto users at Backlick were investigated (see Tables 7 and 8 in Appendix B) . The

analysis indicated that the rankings of the response*; of each groi^j were similar to those

of its counterpart (e.g., rankings of responses of male commuters followed a trend similar

to that of female ccnmuters)

.

It is interesting to note that the former all-bus users are in a general agreement witii the former all -auto ccnmuters on the relative importance of the twelve features. At least

in this si4)urban area with relatively high quality bus service, the in?x)rtance of factors

influencing ccnmuters to use park-and-ride doesn't vary between former auto and bus users.

11
0-

D

T5

03

X!

a>

/)uC

a'A

I

oc

a ;5

by R

0> r~ O

in lo

00 00 r4 C7i O r--> O «^ O

\0 STi <j0 O »

^ r-t O •-» 00 OV

>0 trt r^i (SI c^l I—

lA r-- 00 CT- O r-< fsi

O OQ

30 r- •o '1 m F-i r-i —i

c

8

5

o

"So

o

o

re

a

O

x:

o5

-3

2

I

1/1 X C

4) </)

2

-g

-3 O

12
1—

I

to

O00 00 ^ at 00 00 00 ^ o

t-l

f-ir^iO'OOooaor-i

0\ CO 00 0»r>ao'eoi/)i/>iAr<i

(-1 (Nl K>

r-t O uT) LTi •tt rsi rj- cy\ cft CO 00 00 00 t*^ ^ Q Ok O <0 LO lO

4)U

15
In tcnns of developing suburban park-and-riJc facilities to iittract lorroLT auto users,

tl»e roUowinj; planning consideration are suggested by this survey: His service at the lot should be high quality :md therefore, encourage the use of tr;uisit. Bus service features

such as schedule reliability, convenience of arrival and departure times, and scat availability are all very importajit to a potential park -and -rider. Ihe lot location together

with the high quality bus service must be perceived by the new users as reducing the level

of stress ai>d frustration and, providing convenient parking. For affluent coBBUters, the

|x;rceived travel time difference is store iaportant than the daily cost difference. (Sec

Section S.2 for more detailed examination of the time and cost savings.) KLurh less iapoTtaiit for new park-and-riders are lot convenience items such as bus shelters and walking

distance, car security, and the availability of later evening bus service.

4.2 SATIS! ALT l(»l RBSPONSliS TP FEATURES

The satisfaction responses constitute a subjective assessm^t of the t^lity of the

service (as reflected by the 11 features appearing in the survey form) provided at the parkand-ride lots. These responses are, therefore, affected by the service provided at the lots

(e.g., actual bus adherence to schedules tines) and by the perceptions of the perscsis

surveyed

A siraaary of the satisfaction re^>oases of the fbnaer auto i»ers and users of the preexistent bus service is presented in Table 3, (Details of the responses of former auto users

are presented in Appendix C,) Except for seat availability and parking convenience, park-andriders at the Backlick lot are in general agreenent about their satisfaction with the parkand-ride service. The former bus users were less critical of seat availability, periuips

because they are more accustomed to crowded buses than former auto users (who had previously

enjoyed the spaciousness of their autos). Similarly, fomer auto coonuters, accustomed to the ptarking situation in downtown Washington, can a^^reciate the availability of parking at the lot more so than the former bus users.

Rankings of satisfaction responses of former auto users at Springfield Plaza differ

from those of their counterparts at Backlick. In contrast to the relatively high degree of

satisfaction with schedule reliability and seat availability reported by the former auto users at Backlick, former auto users at Springfield reported less satisfaction with the

reliability of the bus service provided them and substantially less satisfaction with the

availability of seats. Another difference involved the lower satisfaction with the walking

distance to the boarding point displayed by former auto users at Backlick. The differences

in the satisfaction responses of former auto users are consistent with the differences in

the service provided at the two park-and-ride lots (refer to paragra;^ 3.2). An analysis

of the rankings of the satisfaction responses (see Tablcs9 and 10 in Appendix B) found only

a slight variation with age, sex or income.

4.3 SATISFAaiQN VERSUS IMPORTA.\CE RESPONSHS

Comrajter satisfaction axKi importance ratings were related in order to further investigate actions that might prove effective in attracting auto conmuters to bus service at the

park-and-ride lots. The satisfaction and importance responses can be interpreted in the

following way:

(1) If bus comuters indicated that a feature was relatively unimportant,

then any related Lnprovement should be assigned a low priority even

if the conmuters have expressed dissatisfaction.

(2) If bus conwjters express dissatisfaction with a f ature and place

relatively high importance on it, then a situation exists which may

not be conducive to retaining the present patrons or attracting new

riders; related improvements should be assigned high priorities.

14
<

O

IM

M

O

5

h

M

O

•«a

a

H

O

S

?^ iO

M <

80 —

70 -

aM

S

m

•4H

«

H

3

a

At

40 -

SO -

M —

10 —

0 -

Stress and

Frustrstioft

SehsduU Rsliability

Arrival and Dsparturs Timss

TrsTsl Tims

Bus Shsltsr

Seat

Availability

' Parking

C!onvenience

Evening Bus

^ Serriee

Cost

Car Seeurity

Walking Diatanee

10 40 70 80 90 100

PKSCXNT STATDfO THAT THBT WKBB "VBBT SATISnXD'

"SATUFIXD" WITB TBB FIATUKBS

OR

- SATISFACTION

HGURE 4. Importance Versus Satisfaction Respcnscs of J^nner Auto Users at Backlick

15
ato

M

O

m

o

100-

90-

80-1

70-

H

OBM

H

H

« a< soS«h«dttU Reliability

Stress and

Frustration • •

Arrival and

Departure Times

Travel Time

a

< 9

5

»

H

O

asS

80-

80

Parking Convenience

Cost

Evening Bus

Service

Seat Availability Car Security

Walking

Distance

Bus Skelter

10

I \ I III I I 10 80 SO 40 SO 00 70 80

PXSCBNT STATING THAT THBY WEBB "VEBY SATISFIED" OB

"SATI8FIBD" WITH THB FEATURES

00 100

SATISFACTION

FIGURh 5. Iiqportance Versus Satisfaction Responses of Fomer Auto Users ai Sprintificld Plaza
(3) If the importance and satisfaction responses for a feature are high,

this suggests the existence of favorable conditions for retaining

and attracting bus patrons.

The relationship of satisfacticHi and importance responses of former auto users at the

Backlick and Springfield Plaza parking lots are presented in Figures 4 and 5. Points in the

lower left correspond to features v^ich were rated as unimportant and with which coiimuters were dissatisfied. Points in the upper right hand comer correspond to features which were

rated as highly important and with which comnuters were quite satisfied.

In general, the former auto users are very satisfied with bus service features that arc

importiint to thera. This probably indicates why the high quality bus service park-and-ride

lots are successful throughout the Corridor.

The largest patronage increases are likely to result from strategies directed at (2)

above. For example, at the time of the February 1973 survey, former auto users at Springfield were dissatisfied with seat availability, which they rated high in importance.

At that time, cars parking in the Springfield and Backlick lots during the peak period

numbered about 125 and 250 respectively. In March 1973, the order of the bus service at the two lots was changed (buses started at Springfield and then proceeded to Backlick). As

a result, seat availability and schedule adherence were improved for riders boarding at the

Springfield lot and travel time was reduced for riders boarding at the Backlick lot (from

39 to 35 minutes). Travel time was increased for riders boarding at Springfield (from 32 to 44 minutes).

A second survey identical to the first one was conducted at the two lots during the

week of March 26, 1973. Satisfaction responses at Springfield (persons surveyed during the

first park-and-ride survey were not included) indicated a marked change in the bus riders'

approval of the situation with respect to the availability of seats and bus schedule

reliability. Satisfaction with bus schedule reliability did not change at the Backlick lot,

and satisfaction with the availabilitv of seats declined slightly. (See Appendix E for the

results.) By June 1974, the nunber of cars parking in the Springfield lot during the peak

period had grown to more than 325. Peak period parking at the Backlick lot has remained

constant, at approximately 250 cars.

Some of the increase in the utilization of the Springfield lot can be attributed to improvements in schedule adherence and seat availability. However, it is also likely that some of the increase at Springfield has occured because the lot is visible frcm the Shirley

Highway and more accessible to the southern part of the Corridor. (See Figure 2.)

5. HOH' TRAVEL TIME AND PARKIN(] COST SAVINGS INFLUENCE AUTO

CCKfUTERS TO QiVNGE TO PARX-AND-RIDE

5.1 TRAVEL TIME SAVINGS FOR FORMER AUTO USERS

Most inquiries into travel behavior have found that cgnmuters consider travel time and

cost as important factors in their modal choice decisions.^ A recent study found that a reduction in travel cost was the main reason vihy auto commuters shifted to park-and-ride.^

In this section, a comparison of the times and parking costs by auto with the present parkand-ride experiences will provide some insight into the significance of these factors.

'See D. Brand 'Travel Demand Forecasting: Sone Foundations and a Review in Urban Travel

Demand Forecasting," Special Report 143, Transportation Research Board, 1973.

'g. R. Brown, "Park and Ride Policy as a Mode Shift Planning Tool," prepared for the annual

meeting of the Transportation Research Board, January 1975.

17
IIm.' iKixei ved travel tistc Uistrilmt lotis li»r the various caai{X)i>eiit s o( the (MtMiit |>.nk aiKl-i iilc cDnwute trip aiKi t\\c former auto trip for the Backlick lot arc pri'scntod in lahlc \. I f c distributions were alamt iJcnticul at Springfield.) Most of tlw |».irk aiulf iJers take less tluui JO miiuitcs to drive to the lot, wait less thitn 10 miitutos lor a Ixis aiul spend less thui 30 miiuitcs oil the hws. The average total time is 4«.»,7 roiiuitc^. lYovioiisly, they drove aiul ptirkcd in an averajje of 4(>.9 ninutcs. The walkiii>t time ti> tin: ot iice was about six minutes from bus stc^> or piirked car. llius on an avcrajjc tin' door-to

iloor time savings is only three minutes for a !>0 minute trip.

A iiK)rL- detailed picture ol tla? tnivel tiae savings can be obtaiih.'d lor liolh l'..K^,iK^

.dkI Spriniifield users in I'ablc S. Sixty-eight jwrcent at both lots have a |K"rceivvil tiuu savings for the same trip time while the remainder hove prcs«it travel times tlujt were

t;reater thiui timesby their previous auto trip.

Re|X5rted travel times of the "Travel rime Conscious Croup" (survey resiKMuleni-^ who

lateil travel time is either "of highest iaportanc-e" or "very important"] art* also piesenteil

in Table S. liven for this grou|), about 30 percent are losing time.

ivthcr factors siich as stress and frustration and b«is service quality were iKMveiveJ is very import:uit by most of park-and-ridcrs. Nooetlu-'less, travel time savings are significant

lor a majority and should not be neglected when di'veloping park -and- ride facilities.

Table 4 Report^ Travel Tiaes of l-i>fiaer '\uto ijcnnuters at Backlick lx>t

mn. - ' myii TfM^. (MiNimis)

O-IO 11-20 21-30 31-4S 40-WJ

Percent of KesixHhlents

bl -7S 75

Present Park -iUttl- Ride trip

Ifcime to Hus Stop 58 29 10 Waiting for Bus 98 2 Line Ikuil 2 3b 42 r

Walk to Work 3 2 IVx>r-tc>-lk)or - 9 40 32 IS 4

loniKM- .Auto Iri]) Home to l0K)rk (Park) I 2 16 3K 3

4 I Walk to Work 90 9 I lXx)r-to-l)oor I 8 28 V.» It) S

AVlStv;i mwiii.

TlMliS (Minutes

13.

4.'t

2(»._'

5.5> 49."

40. 'I

0.(1

52.')

Source

'12 Kes|K)ntlents

Kebniary 1973 Park and- Ride Survey

lA
Table 5

Distribution of Door-to-Door Travel Tiine Savings

(Previous Auto Minus Present Park -and -Ride)

... ^_ r- Ti Lcrr

r

i MINimS LOST AVERAGE

30 20-11 10-1 0 1-10

Percent of Respcmdents

11-20 21

TIME

SAVINGS

^Minutes ) Backlick

1

All (92) 5 8 10 34 11 17 10 S 3.2

Travel Time Conscious (49) 8 12 14 33 4 16 6 6 7.9

Springfield

All (33) 9 15 IS 18 12 b 24 1,3

Travel Time Ccsiscious (23) 9 22 9 22 9 9 22 2.5

(•) Nimber of Respondents

Source: February 1973 Park-and-Ride Survey

5.2 PARXING COST SAVINGS FOR FOfMER AUTO CCMiirrERS

Since parking is free at the park-and-ride lots, auto commuters save parking charges

when they use them. Table 6 presents the distributicms of the parking costs of the former

auto ccomuters. Almost two-thirds of the Backlick riders previously parked free and the

average cost for those who did pay was $28.70 per month. At ^ringfield, only 29 percent

had parked free, and the rest paid an average of $29.38 per month. For oaqparison, the

montnly bus fare is about $29.00

As discussed in Secticm 5, the difference in daily cost to comnute was rated iiKire important for the Springfield riders than the Backlick users. In addition, the reported

parking costs of the "Cost Conscious (iroup" (survey respond«its vrtio rated difference in

total daily conruting costs as "of highest importance" or "very important") are also shown

in Table 6. At both lots, these grcxips saved more in parking charges than other, less cost

sensitive park-and-riders.

Table 6

Reported Nksnthly Parking Costs of Former Auto Conmuters

LOT

Free 0-$10

COST PER mm\

$11-20 $21-30 $31-40

THAN

$41

AVERAGE

COST

Backlick Lot

All 64 12 2 6 8 8 $28.70

Cost Conscious Group (49) 17 23 15 23 28 35.97

Springfield Lot

All (33) 29 14 11

\

11 20 IS $29.38

Cost Conscious Group (16) 8 15 23 38 16 31.35

1

(•) Number of respondents

Source February 1973 Park-and-Ride Survey
20
APPE>©IX A

Park-and-Ride Survey Questionnaire Forms

Former Bus Conimjter

Forraer Auto Cosiiiiter

21
22
FORMER BUS (XMUTER

Form Approved

Dear Commuter: 415 72113

"Park and Ride" lots are just beginning to be used as a way of making "^wi]* It fiaflier for more people to use buses. The opinions of new users of

a parV/rl4tt lot, ou'h aa yourH«lf, will be useful In lAprovlng this

idea. In this questionnaire we are asking about two main factors:

(1) Why did you decide to use this park/ride lot in the first place,

and (2) What are your reactions and suggestions about this particular

park/ride lot. Please take a few minutes to help us improve your bus

service by filling in this questionnaire.

(Please answer all questions. If you are not certain, please make

your best estimate.)

1. How do you usually get to this park/ride lot in the morning? (CHECK ONE

ANSWER BEljOW)

Drive by myself and park in the lot.

Drive myself and passenger(s) and park in the lot.

Passenger in a car which parks in the lot.

Passenger in a car and am dropped off at lot.

Drive or ride in a car that parks near but not in the lot.

Other (please specify)

2. How many days a week do you usually use this lot? DayCs)

3. Before using bus service from this park/ride lot , how did you get

to the bus stop you were then using? (Check usual means)

Drove my car and parkod at another park/ride lot.

Was driven to bus stop by another person.

Drove my car and parked on street near bus stop.

Walked from home to bus stop.

Other (please specify)

4. A. Which bus route did you use previously?

(Route) (Bus Company)

B. Did you usually get a seat?

| j Yes

| | no

5. A. Are you now livinf^ in the same location as you were when you commuted

to work by the means checked in Question 3 above?

No

B. Are you now working in the same location as you were vhen you commuted

to work by the means checked in Question 3 above?

v.,

nation as you wer

est ion 3 above? - J Survey Conducted by

National Bureau of Standards

Sponsored by Department of Transportation 'MFASK OPEN

23
6. Below is a list of some of the factors people consider when deciding

to change the way they get to work. In terms of importance to you

how important was each of these factors when you first decided to use this park/ride lot?

BESIDE EACH OF THE FACTORS BELOW,

PLACE ONE OF THE FOLLOWING "IMPORTANCE" NUMBERS

1 « Of Highest Importance

2 = Very Important

3 « Important

^ Slightly Important

5 = Unimportant or Didn't Consider It

DECISION

"IMPORTANCE"

NUMBER

Availability of evening bus service (after 6 P.M.) to this lot.

Security of car parked at this lot.

Shelter at bus boarding point. '

The difference in total daily cost to commute from this lot.

The difference in total door-to-door travel time (from your

front door to your office).

Convenience of parking at this lot.

The difference in the level of stress and frustration of commutir

Availability of a seat on the bus.

The difference in the total amount of walking required.

Schedule reliability of bus service from this park/ride lot.

Convenience of bus arrival and departure times from this lot.

What other factors influenced your decision to use bus service from

this park/ride lot?

CONTINUE

24
7. How satisfied are you with each of the following features of bus service

from this park/ride lot?

'SATISFACTION"

NUMBER

BESIDE EACH OF THE FEATURES LISTED BELOW,

PLACE ONE OF THE "SATISFACTION" NUMBERS.

1 - Very Satisfied

2 » Satisfied

3 - Neutral

4 - Unsatisfied

5 - Very Unsatisfied

Shelter at bus boarding point.

Distance required to walk from parking area to bus boarding point

Hours of bus service at this lot.

Level of stress and frustration of ccomutlng.

Total daily cost to commute.

Availability of a seat on the bus.

Convenience of bus arrival and departure times at this lot.

Schedule reliability of bus service.

Total door-to-door travel time (home to office).

Security of car at this lot.

Convenience of parking.

What other features are you especially satisfied with at this park/ride

lot?

What other features are you especially dlssatlsf led with?

8. Concerning your bus commute prior to using this park/ride lot:

How much time did you usually spend:

A. Getting from your home to ^i^e bus stop? Minutes

B. Waiting for the bus to arrive? ^Minutes

C. From the time you got on the bus until you arrived at your final

Dus stop? ^Minutes

D. From your final bus stop to your place of work?

What was your total one-way bus fare? c PLEASE TURN PAGE

25

Minutes
9. When going to work from this park/ride lot , how much time do you

usually spend:

A. Getting from your home to the bus boarding point ? Minutes

a. Waiting tot the bus to arrive? Minutes

C. From the time you get on the bus until you arrive at your

final bus stop? Minutes

D. From your final bus stop to your place of work? Minutes

10. Where did you begin your trip today? (Home address)

(Nearest Intersection

or Street Address)

(City and ZIP Code)

11. Where is your final destination?

j I Pentagon

| j Southwest

j | Dovntovn

| j Other (specify)

12. For our STATISTICAL SUMMARIES, please indicate your:

Under 21 ^40 ^Over

21 rjto 39 rjto 65 rj 65

B. SEX : Q^Male ["^Female

C. NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN HOUSEHOLD NUMBER OF AUTOS IN HOUSEHOLD

D. TOTAL ANNUAL HOUSEHOLD INCOME ;

I |$0 to $5,000 Q$15,001 to $30,000

Q]$5,001 to $15,000 Qover $30,000

13. When did you first begin using this park/ride lot? month ^

ear

14. How did you first hear of bus service from this park/ride lot? (CHECK ONE)

I } Newspaper Advert is anents j | Mail Advertisements I i Roadvay Signs

[_ jword of Mouth I } Radio I l other(specifv)

Any Comments?

THANK YOU, WE HOPE YOU

ENJOY OUR SERVICE

26
rom.L mo cat-wn u

Dear Commuter: _ 4].s7^1J4

^ '•'It "I'ark and Ride" lots are just beglnninjj; tv) be used as> a wav ot making

it easier for more people to use buses. Tlie opinions i)t new users ot a park/ride lot, such as yourself, will be useful in improving this

idi-a. In this quest iof'.na i re we are asking about two main faitors:

(1) Why did you decide to use this park/ride lot In the first {ilace.

and (2) What are your reactions aiKi suggestions about this particular

park/ride lot. Please take a few minutes to help us Lmprovt your bus

servile iiy filling in this questionnaire.

(['Itase answer all questions. If you are not certain, pli-ase make

vour best estimate.)

1. How do you usua 1 ly get to this park/ride lot in the morning'? (CHFCK ' )N i- ANSWER BELOW)

'

Drive by myself and park in the lot.

Drive mvselt aiui passenger (s) and park in the lot.

Passenger in a car which parks in ttie lot.

Passenger in a car and am dropped off at lot.

Drive or ride in a car tiiat parks near but not in the lot.

Other (pleast- specifv)

2. How many days a week do you usua 1 1 y use tliis lot? i)iiv(s)

3. Before using bus service from this park/ride lot , how did you usually

commute to work? ^JHECK ONE ANSWER BELOW)

Drove alone.

Drove with passenger(s) Was usually the driver

Auto passenger - Almost n.'vcr drove.

Alternated between being a passenger and the driver - (.arpool.

Other (please specify)

Are you now 1 i v i ng in the same location as you were when vou commuted

to work by the means checked in Question 3 above? ___

^Yes

[ I No

Are you now working in the same location as you were when you c onu: to work by the means checked in Question 3 aHove?

No

Survey Conducted by

Natiotial Bureau ot Staiulards

Sponsored by Department of Ir a nsp ort a t i on

?7

8*
5. Below is a list of some of the factors people consider when deciding

to change the way they get to work. In terms ol importance to you

how important was each of these factors when you first decided to change fron

auto commuting and be^Jn usinp buB m-rvice at this park/ride lot?

BESIDE EACH OF THE FACTORS BELOW,

! PLACE ONE OF THE FOLLOWING "IMPORTANCE" NUMBERS.

! 1 = Of Highest Importance i

2 = Very Important I

^

'

' I ! 3 = Important j 4 = Slifehtly Important '

5 = Unimportant or Didn't Consider It

1 . : DECISION

•IMPORTANCE"

NUMBER

Convenience of bus arrival and departure tiroes from this lot.

Schedule reliability of bus service from this park/ride lot.

The difference in the total amount of walking required.

Availability of a seat on the bus.

The difference in the level of stress and frustration of commuting,

Convenience of p.irking at this lot.

The difference in total door-co-door travel time (from your

front door to your office).

The difference in total daily cost to coramuti- from this lot.

Shelter at bus boarding point.

Security of car parked at this lot.

Availability of evening bus service (af^er b ''.M.' ti^ this lot.

Making auto available to other members of your household.

What other factors influenced your derision to use bus servic. from

this park/ride lot?

ON'Tl NL!

28
How sat is f led are vou with each of the following features of bus

survirf frcTTii tliis park /ride lot?

'SATISFACTION"

NUMBER

PLACE ONE Of mE "SATISFACTION" NL'MBERS .

1 = Very Satisfied

2 = Sat isf ied , ,

3 = Neutral

A = Unsat isf ied

5 = Verv I'nsatisfied

Convenience of parking.

Securitvofcaratthislot

lotal door-to-door travel time (home to office)

Schedule reliability of bus service.

Convenience of bus arrival and departure times at this lot.

Avdilabililv of a seat on the bus.

Total dHily cost to commute

level of stress and frustration of commuting

Hours (>t bu.-. servivi' .u this lot

Distance required to walk from parking ar«.-a to bus boarding point

Shelter at bus boarding pointWhat other features are vou especially satisfied with at this park/ride

lot''

Wliat other features are you especial I;/ d issat isf ied with''

7. Before using bus service from this park/ride lot, how much time

did you usua 1 1 y spend:

A. Traveling from home- unti] you left the car near work? Minutes

Walking from the car 1 vour place of work? Minutes

I ] Did not commute

H. Before using bus service from this park/ride lot, how much did

vou usual ly pay for parking?

S per

I I Parked Free.

| | Did not commute

'LKASr TURN PAGE

29
9. When going to work from this parl:/ridc lot , hew much lime do yoi; usua 1 ly spend

A. Getting from yv)ur home to the bus boarding point '^ ^Minutis

!'i . Wjiiilnj^ Jor th<- bus to arrr/e'; Minutes

C. From the time you get on the bus until you arrive .it your

f inal bus stop? Minutes

D. From your final bus stop to your place of work.' ^Minutes

10. Where did you begin your trip today? (Home address)

(Nearest Intersection

o"" Street Address)

(City and ZIP Code)

11. Where is your final destination?

Pentagon j jsouthwest

[ jDovmtown I jother fspecifv)

» ' (D.C.) '

' (D.C-.) '

'

12. For our STATISTICAL SUMMARIES, please indicate your:

Under ^21 UO ^Over

A. AGE: 21 \__J^° LJ

C. Nl'MBKK OF PEOPLE IN HOUSEHOLD N^fBHR OF AUTOS IN HOUSEHOLD _

D. TOTAL ANNUAL HOUSEHOLD INCOME ;

I I $0 to $5»000 []]]si5,nO] to $30,000

Q]$5.00I to $15,000 QJover SKJ.OOO

13. When did you first begin using this park /ride lot'? montii \'ear

lA. How did vou f irst hear of bus servi^t- from this park/ride lot? (CHECK ONE)

[ } Newspaper Advertisements | \ Ma i 1 Advertisements [^^Road'.av Signs

{ } word of Mouth [ | Radio 1 | o t her ( spec i fv)

Any C»>mments?

THANK YOU, WL HOI'b. YOU

KN.IOY OUR SKRVIOF

30
APPENDIX B

Characteristics of Park -and- Riders at Official Lots (February 1973)

31
Table 7

Demographic Characteristics of Surveyed Lot Users'

LOT

BACKLICK SPRINGFIEI.D

TOTAL

USERS

PERCEOT

FORMER BUS

USERS

PERCENT

YCmeR AUTO

USERS

PERCENT

USERS

PERCENT

Annual Household Income

$ 0 - S.OOO 0 0 0 0 5,000-15,000 16 15 19 21 15,000-50,000 69 69 70 66

Over -30,000 14 16 11 13

Total yy Too lOU 100

Autos Per Household

0 2 1 4 2

1 26 23 29 11

2 62 64 59 73

3 or more 10 12 _8 14 Total 100 100 100 100

Mean Autos/Household 1.82 1.91 1.72 1.91

Age (years)

Under 21 3 2 3 0

21-39 52 51 56 54 40-65 45 47 41 43

Over 65 0 0 0 3 Total 100 100 100 100

Sex

Male 73 75 70 74

Female 27 25 30 26

Total 100 100 100 100

Number of Observations 270 145 125 58

1 Former Bus Users Not Surveyed.

32
Table 8

Selected Trip Characteristics at Surveyed Lots'

cHARaCMIStics LOT

BACKLrCK SPRINGFIELD

TOTAL KSWER AUTO FORMER BUS_ FORMER AUTO

USERS USERS USERS USERS

PERCENT PERCEOT PERCENT PERCENT

Access Mode

Drive Alwie 64 66 59 86

Drive vd.th Passenger 11 12 10 6

Kiss - Ride 4 3 6 0 rarK r^iear uoz 13 16 11 6

i/tner 8 3 14 2 Total IM IM IM TU5

Days Use Lot

1 3 3 3 0

2 3 3 4 6

3 3 3 4 15

A4 8 5 10 0

c 83 84 79 79

IM IW vss Tm

Trip Destination

Downtown Washington 41 40 42 88

Pentagcm 45 45 44 3 S.W. Washington 10 11 10 9

Other 4 4 4 0 Total im TM IM im

Number of Observations 270 145 125 58

1 Former Bus Users Not Surveyed

33
Table 9

Conmute Mcxie Prior To Using Lot

CCmfTE TO WORK \m LOT

PERCH^r PERCENT

Former Auto Users

Drove Alone 55 60

Drove with Passengers 8 9

Passenger 8 3 Carpool 21 23

utfier 8 5 Total m ToU

Number of Observations 145 58

Former Bus Users

Drove and Parked at Other Lot 14 Kiss - Ride at Bus Stop 14 Parked Near Bus Stop 31

Walked 31

Other 10

Total m

Nunber of Observaticms 125

Table 10

User Reaction to Advertising and Wien Began

Using Backlick Lot

HOW FiftsT LEARNED OF SEWICE FORMER mo mm

PERCENT

FORMER BUS USERS

PERCENT

Newspaper Ads 17 17

Nfail Ads 33 31

Roadway Signs 10 11 Word of Mouth 32 27

Radio 2 Flyer 3 3

Other 5 9

Total IW im

WHEN BEGAN USING

When Opened 53 54

1 Month after opening 22 15

2 Months after opening 12 15

3 Months after opwiing 13 16

Number of Observations 203 125

34
APPENDIX C

Detailed Responses of Former Auto Users

to February 1973 Park-and-Ride Survey

55
STRESS AND FRUSTRATKM SCHEDULE RELUBHITY

dWVCWENeE OF BUS AMIVAL AM DEPARTURE TWES

TRAVEL TIME

J-1 I— Mm

SCAT AVAILABILITY PARKM6 CQM\«MEHCE CAR SECURITY EVEHIM BUS SERVICE

I I . I U 111 r

TOTAL DAILY COST

TO COMMUTE

AMOUNT OF WAUINS

REQUMfO

•ttS SMELTER HAKIMfi AUTO AVAIUBLE

TO OTHERS

80 -

60 -

f4 f++4

12 3 4 12 3 4 12 3 4 12 3 4 RATIH6

1-Or NI«NEST WfOITAHCC

2- VftT MfOITAMT

4- UIMnv WfMTANT

5- MWfMTAMT

SI DIM'T COISnCt IT

FIGURl: 6. Importance Responses of Former Auto -Users at Backlick

36
STRESS AilO FRUSTRATION CONVEMENCC OF BUS

ARRIVAL AND DCPARTURC

TMCS

SCMEDUli RELIABILITY TRAVEL TIME

J L

I I .

TOTAL DAILY COST

TO COMMUTE

PARKM6 CONVENCNCE CAR SECURITY SEAT AVAILABILITY

Ll JL-i. ii

EVEMNfi BUS SERVICE AMOUNT OF WALXMfi

RCQMREO

BUS SHELTER MAKM6 AUTO AVAILABLE TO OTHERS

r-^

1 2 3 3 4 5 1 2 3

RATIN6

1 - or MI6HEST IHPOtrmE

2- VEIY mpeiTAMT

3- l«MtTAIT

4- UttltTLY WfOtTAHT

5-UIINfOITANT

01 DIDN'T COasnU IT

FfGURE 7. Iii5X)rtance Responses of Fomt-r .Auto Users at Springfield Plaza

3"
STRESS AMD FRUSTRATION

DIFFERENCE IN TRAVEL TtllES

CONVENIENCE OF BUS

ARRIVAL AND DEPARTURE

TIMES

>—^ 20

It: 0 1-1

SCHEDULE RELIAUUTY SEAT AVAILAM.ITY EVCWNS BUS Sf RVCC CAR SECURITY

a 10 S 60 t 40

UJa 20

I I

I I , TOTAL DAILY COST

TO CQBHiUTE

10 ^ 60

m

S 20

1 2 3

AMOUNT OF VMilING

REQUIRED

BOS SMELTER 1 2 3

3 4 1 2 3

RATING

IHMV SATBfB

2-$ATWB

i-mnm.

»-«Brr HMATBTID

FIGURE 8. Satisfaction Responses of Former Auto Users at Backlick
PtMMC CMVEimCE

a.

: 40 ^ 20

it!

. 0

AMOUNT OF WAUUN6

KQUMED

STVCSS MO FRUSTRATION

DIFFERENCE IN TRAVEL TIMES

' '

'

SCHEDULE RELIABILiTY CAR SECURITY EV0NH6 BUS SERVICE CONVENIENCE OF BUS

ARRIVAL AND DEPARTURE TMES

80 2

wu 60 : 40 zUJ^ 20 J_U

TOTAL DAI.Y COST

TO COMMUTE

^ 60

40

20

3 4

SEAT AVAJLAM.ITY BUS SHELTER

f4 12 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 RATING

1 -vary sawo

2-UTBnD

4-ueAnsyo

5-WOTIMUTBFa

MdURi. y. Satisfaction Responses of iC'iTtt^r Auto Users at Spr inj_'f ield Plaza
40
APPMNDIX D

Demographic Stratifications of Survey Responses of Former

Auto Users at Backlick Lot (February 1973)

41
OO <y\ r-i

4>

\0 r-~

00

00 (7> O r-H rsi

r-40<Tiirtr-trsjaooo^O

r-jooLOrroovDOi-HOf^j

O o

00 oo oo

•3>

4) t-

•tH •>-) U

•9

to

o a>

§1

CO (4 >-> ^ ^ ^ 5 cyo§-c?52i^'3o^(a'^

^ I .s B > *j ^ C

Q 4-» -H ^ ^ I

:i2 ^ o

>

of

tag

o rH

«>

*-> on

l/i a> u XDO

•Hx:

0)

42
r-t l~0 LTl 1/1 OO r fT, —i <Z>

0000 r>-i/>i-nr-vOO^«MTt

O fO i-H K)

00 1/1 o o cy> K) rH .-< »-t

(^J>0^l/)00r-OFH0%rM

00

00 ^ (M «M iHOO to r-~ O ^ O 00 TT 00 Kj fsa 1^ ^

to >—l^OLOr-^a^oOrHOrsl

ooo oocTiaoKivOt—*x>f>oo

t-l (/) rH < |i

M

J

CO

St

S2.

3

4>

4> 4) U U

g P

•H .3 ^

^

U V U ^ 3^ 6

° -3

s

o

3 C

O

S 1-

4) 5

4^
44
r- o

a.

i/i oII/;

1

c

re 5

in

03c

i)u

I/)

uJ3 £o

re

45
I

46
APPENDIX E

Suinnary of Responses frcm the Mjirch 1973 Park -and -Ride Survey

47
2^

00 O 0% >D lT. ^ t—< rj ,—

Oi t^. (T. \0 ^ O vC f—> r - O". ^

^ I—< rj iTi r-- oc f—i oo O-i

o o o

TT 1—

r^. in

W.

•J C

j\ E

(/•. (/, o y. J c 0£ X c *-> 1/. C

i/i o u o 3

X: 1 X

o Of. 8

i

4-1 oc .5

oc o

UT .5 1 o > u

»—

C

*—

o

> a to u o

o c

1/, o 8 D -C c <-> v< 4-- O

> o (/) c

CT3 3 c c c -^ > > O -J o <^ o

u

c3

4-' >. c c c p o<. m 1- c ^- re c •—1 u o o 0) 3 •yj V- *-<

(4-1 o re u (1 < 00 CO c~ c

occ

I-. >. I 5

re

•H c -I

c

4;

I. 3

x:

re>

"i

re3

c

(l< 3 o re > a c o

.Q

48
(/I 0^

trt COC</)

t

J5

"3

(«

vO O

r-l U

4) c3^

CO

a. Cm

cc Z ct

i

00

r-. CT»

c1

3

z

u

.5

Xi

x:

CD

00

0000 Ci a.

r- o ttion

9 oc 5 oc

ra D 4-" <—

t

X> *-> M, V.'

r> va 50 2 1

.5 rr c c'.-1 XI f—

<

ev

*-t ty X) <-»

CO

.—4

ave O I—

1

o u O (- >. u c x: 3 o

*-i *-> « <—

(

oo yi U (- 3

#—

4

C « T3 U- PS n 1> Xi u o -0 > x: C

rt o J

<—

<

rv

(/, o

CO > V. *-> «

Av

1/1 Le o To Co a 5

C

•H

BjD.

t/l x:J

u-io

)-3

c

o

u

c

uc

o

>

c

o

oM

c

«

"3

t/l

«-> cC

y)

>

o

m

oo

CO

'l-l c

a;u

^c

•t-j it) 0)oo

Vrt

(/•;

<L>

tr, C x: ^

o

D.

tr. x: c

O 4-> o

c x:

1- g 1- 3 3

(1> t: ^

x:

il -a

lb c

x: S H i03

49
MBS-IMA («Ev. 7-73)

U.S. DEPT. OF COMM. ]. HUlU.K ATION OR RKPORT NO. 2. Gov't Accession

BiDLIOORArnIC DATA

SHEET NBSIR - 75-689

3. Recipient's Accession No.

4. TITLE AND SUBTITl.F

The Shirley Highway Express-Bus-on-Freeway Demoiistration

Project/A Study of Park- and- Riding

S. Publ 1. ai ion Date March 1975

6. Performing Organization < ode

/. AU 1 HUKtS) rerlorming Urgan. Kepori No.

9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS

NATIONAL BUREAU Of STANDARDS

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

WAdnlNwlON, U>C

10. Proieti Task Work Unit No. 4314552

11. ( ontract /Grant No.

IXJI -AI -40018

12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Complete Address (Street, City. Sial<f, ZIP)

Urban Mass Transportation Administration

Department of Transportation

i.r 1* ^ r\ ^ ^ r\ r r\'\ Washington, D.C. 20591

13. Type of Report tic Period

( ovrred Interim Report 7

15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

16. ABSTRACT (A 200-word or leas factual summary of nto&t ai0yHicanl ittlomalion. H document includes a aiQpidcant

bibliography or literature survey, mention it here ) The market for fixed route transit operation.'* is not limited to travelers within

walking distance of transit stops. This was demonstrated by the Shirley Highway

Express-Bus-on-Freeway Project as project prainote<l park-and-ride operations led to

sizable increases in bus patronage: Park-and-ridors, coranuters who traveled by auto

to a bus stop and then by bus to work, greatly exi>anded the market for the fixed route

bus service in the Shirley Highway Corridor area. This report presents results of a study of the successful park-and-ride operation

within the Shirley Highway Corridor area: suburban fringe parking lots coupled with

the high spjeed buses of the Shirley Highway Expres s- Bus Freeway Project.

Demographic characteristics of the park -and -riders as well as characteristics of their

present park-and-ride and previous commute trips are examined. Factors important in

he conmuters' decisions to park-and-ride are identified. The report also describes

the survey procedures used in the study.

17. KEY WORDS (six to twelve entries; alphabetical order: capitalite only the tirat tetter ot the lir&t key word unless a proper name; separated by semicolons

Park-and-ride; bus -on-freeway operations; mode choice decisicnns; conmuter surveys;

Shirley Highway; and transportation planning.

18. AVAILABILITY |X] Unlimited 19. SECURITY CLASS

'THIS REPORT)

21. NO. OF PAGES

1 1 For Official Distribution. Do Not Release to NTIS UNCL ASSIFIED

56

Order From Sup. of Doc, U.S. Government Printing Washinaton. D.C. 20402. SD Cat. No. CI}

Officr 20. SECURITY CLASS

'THIS PAGE)

22. Price

Order From National Technical Information Service

Springfield, Virginia 221^1 (NTIS) UNCLA&.SIJ IKD $4.25

USCOMM-OC 2S042-P74