Research performed in cooperation with the
Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No.
2. Government Accession No.
3. Recipient's Catalog No.
E 305001 4. Title and Subtitle
5. Report Date
AN EVALUATION OF THE KATY FREEWAY HOV LANE PRICING PROJECT
December 2000 6. Performing Organization Code
7. Author(s)
8. Performing Organization Report No.
William Stockton, Paula Hughes, Mark Hickman, Darryl Puckett, Quanta Brown, Alejandro Miranda, and Sung Woong Shin
Report E 305001
9. Performing Organization Name and Address
10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS)
Texas Transportation Institute The Texas A&M University System College Station, Texas 77843-3135
11. Contract or Grant No.
12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address
13. Type of Report and Period Covered
Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County P. O. Box 77208 Houston, TX 77208-1429
Final Report 09/15/97 – 09/15/99
Project No. E305001 Work Order #21
14. Sponsoring Agency Code
15. Supplementary Notes
Research performed in cooperation with the Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County (METRO). Research Project Title: QuickRide Evaluation Project This paper describes the QuickRide program on the Katy high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane in Houston, Texas. The QuickRide program allows two-person carpools to use the HOV lane during peak periods for $2.00 when the lane has a three or more person restriction. The use of QuickRide during its first year is discussed along with an analysis of the demand for the program and an analysis of the effectiveness of the program. QuickRide usage and before-and-after implementation data are used to analyze user travel patterns, observed travel time savings, and changes in person throughput in the Katy Freeway corridor. QuickRide usage, reported travel behavior, and demographic data are used to analyze user travel patterns, travel time savings, and users’ frequency of use. These results suggest: (1) the total demand for HOV2 value pricing may be limited in major travel corridors, despite large potential time savings; (2) substantial shifts in mode and time are possible with HOV2 value pricing; and, (3) household size and income are good indicators, but HOV lane use is a poor indicator, of the demand for HOV2 value pricing.
16. Abstract
17. Key Words
18. Distribution Statement
HOT Lane, Value Pricing, Congestion Pricing, HOV Lane, Express Lane
No Restrictions. This document is available to the public through NTIS: National Technical Information Service 5285 Port Royal Road Springfield, Virginia 22161
19. Security Classif.(of this report)
20. Security Classif.(of this page)
21. No. of Pages
Unclassified
Unclassified
64
Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72)
22. Price
Reproduction of completed page authorized
AN EVALUATION OF THE KATY FREEWAY HOV LANE PRICING PROJECT by William Stockton, P. E. Research Engineer Texas Transportation Institute Paula Hughes Associate LKC Consulting Services Mark Hickman Assistant Research Engineer Texas Transportation Institute Darryl Puckett Associate Research Scientist Texas Transportation Institute and Alejandro Miranda, Quanta Brown, and Sung Wong Shin Graduate Students Texas A&M University Report E 305002 Project Number E 305001 Work Order #21 Research Project Title: QuickRide Evaluation Project Sponsored by the Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County December 2000 TEXAS TRANSPORTATION INSTITUTE The Texas A&M University System College Station, TX 77843-3135
DISCLAIMER The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official view or policies of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and/or the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT), and/or the Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County (METRO). The engineer in charge of the project was William R. Stockton, Texas License # 41188.
v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This project is funded and cooperatively supported by the Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County (METRO). Also, the substantial data resources of the Houston Texas Transportation Institute (TTI) office are warmly appreciated. The authors offer special thanks for the support and assistance of Lloyd Smith and Chris Barnes of METRO, and Mike Ogden, Mike Vickich, and David Fenno, of TTI.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF FIGURES ...........................................................................................................................ix LIST OF TABLES.............................................................................................................................x INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................1 Background....................................................................................................................................1 Related Projects .............................................................................................................................2 The Value of Travel Time .............................................................................................................2 Purpose...........................................................................................................................................3 STUDY DESIGN...............................................................................................................................5 Objectives ......................................................................................................................................5 Evaluation Methods .......................................................................................................................5 ANALYSIS AND RESULTS OF APPLICATIONS AND SURVEY DATA .................................7 Characteristics of QuickRide Applicants.......................................................................................7 Where Do QuickRide Applicants Live? ....................................................................................7 Where Do They Enter the HOV Lane?......................................................................................8 Where Are They Destined? .......................................................................................................8 Survey of QuickRide Participants..................................................................................................9 Results of Participant Study.......................................................................................................9 With Whom Do You Share QuickRide? ...................................................................................14 Transponder Usage ....................................................................................................................14 Service Rating............................................................................................................................15 User Information........................................................................................................................17 User Comments .........................................................................................................................19 Participant Survey Conclusions.................................................................................................20 SURVEY OF NON-USERS OF QUICKRIDE.................................................................................21 Non-User Survey Results...............................................................................................................21 Driving Habits ...........................................................................................................................21 QuickRide Information..............................................................................................................24 Non-User Acceptance of QuickRide .........................................................................................29 Non-User Demographics ...........................................................................................................31 Non-User Comments and Suggestions ......................................................................................33 Non-User Survey Conclusions.......................................................................................................35 ANALYSIS AND RESULTS FROM OPERATIONS DATA .........................................................37 Aggregate Usage Patterns..............................................................................................................37 Total Daily Use..........................................................................................................................37 Use by Day of Week..................................................................................................................39 Use by Time of Day...................................................................................................................39 Travel Time Savings......................................................................................................................41 Person Throughput.........................................................................................................................43 vii
Disaggregate Demand Patterns......................................................................................................43 Changes in Mode and Time of Travel .......................................................................................43 Determinants of Frequency of Use ............................................................................................45 CONCLUSIONS................................................................................................................................51 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................................53
viii
LIST OF FIGURES Figure
Page
Figure 1. QuickRide Applicant Residence Location.................................................................... 7 Figure 2. QuickRide Applicant Residence Location.................................................................... 8 Figure 3. QuickRide Applicant Destination ................................................................................. 8 Figure 4. Number of Weekly Trips Made Driving Alone.......................................................... 10 Figure 5. Number of Trips Made in 2-Person Carpool on Freeway........................................... 10 Figure 6. Number of Weekly Trips Made in 2-Person Carpool on HOV Lane ......................... 11 Figure 7. Number of Weekly Trips Made in 3+ Person Carpool on HOV Lane ....................... 11 Figure 8. Number of Weekly Trips Made on METRO Bus on HOV Lane ............................... 12 Figure 9a. Trips During All Times Before Quick Ride ............................................................... 12 Figure 9b. Trips During all Times After Quick Ride.................................................................... 13 Figure 10. Users’ Age Ranges ..................................................................................................... 17 Figure 11. Users’ Family Sizes.................................................................................................... 18 Figure 12. Users’ Occupation ...................................................................................................... 18 Figure 13. Users’ Household Incomes......................................................................................... 19 Figure 14. Total Weekday Trips on Katy Freeway..................................................................... 22 Figure 15. Total Weekday Trips by Time Period ........................................................................ 22 Figure 16. Where Do You Usually Enter I-10 During Your AM Commute? ............................ 23 Figure 17. Where Do You Usually Enter I-10 During Your AM Commute .............................. 23 Figure 18. Where Do You Usually Enter I-10 During Your PM Commute? ............................. 24 Figure 19. Where Do You Usually Enter I-10 During Your PM Commute? ............................. 24 Figure 20. Have You Heard About QuickRide Before Today?.................................................. 25 Figure 21. How Did You Hear of QuickRide? ............................................................................ 25 Figure 22. What Have You Heard About QuickRide? ................................................................ 26 Figure 23. Do You Know the One-Way Fee?.............................................................................. 26 Figure 24. What Has Prevented Your Participation?................................................................... 27 Figure 25. QuickRide Participation – Other ................................................................................ 27 Figure 26. Why 2-Person Carpools Are Not Participating in QuickRide..................................... 29 Figure 27. Acceptance of QuickRide “Fair”................................................................................ 30 Figure 28. Acceptance of QuickRide “Effective”........................................................................ 30 Figure 29. Acceptance of QuickRide “Beneficial”...................................................................... 31 Figure 30. Non-Users’ Age Ranges ............................................................................................. 31 Figure 31. Non-Users’ Family Sizes............................................................................................ 32 Figure 32. Non-Users’ Occupation .............................................................................................. 32 Figure 33. Non-Users’ Household Incomes................................................................................. 33 Figure 34. Daily QuickRide Usage............................................................................................... 37 Figure 35. AM PM Use of QuickRide .......................................................................................... 38 Figure 36. Use By Day of Week.................................................................................................. 39 Figure 37. Use By Time of Day AM Peak.................................................................................... 40 Figure 38. Use By Time of Day PM Peak .................................................................................... 40 Figure 39. QuickRide Trips 1998 ................................................................................................. 45
ix
LIST OF TABLES Table
Page
Table 1. Changes in Total Trips................................................................................................... 13 Table 2. With Whom Do You Travel When You Use the QuickRide Service?.......................... 14 Table 3. Why Do You Not Leave Your Transponder on at All Times?...................................... 15 Table 4. Which Would Cause You to Use QuickRide More Often? ........................................... 16 Table 5. How Did You Find Out About the QuickRide Program?.............................................. 17 Table 6. Survey Comments from QuickRide Participants........................................................... 19 Table 7. Most Important Influences for Not Participating in QuickRide .................................... 28 Table 8. Non-User Comments and Suggestions .......................................................................... 33 Table 8 (cont’d.). Non-User Comments and Suggestions ........................................................... 34 Table 9. Average Speeds in HOV Lane During AM and PM Peak Times.................................. 41 Table 10. Average Travel Time Savings on HOV Lane............................................................... 42 Table 11. Mode and Time of Travel Shifts................................................................................... 44 Table 12. Average Frequency of Use by Demographic Categories............................................. 46 Table 13. Average Frequency of Use by Previous Users of HOV Lane ..................................... 48
x
INTRODUCTION Through a program initiated during the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) and continued in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has authorized a select number of “value pricing” projects in many urban areas around the country. These projects have been implemented in freeway corridors in which existing high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes are being underutilized during peak hours. On these facilities, the excess capacity in the HOV lanes can be used to increase person throughput in the travel corridor and to make more efficient use of the available roadway. This excess capacity is priced at a fee, in order to explore the value to drivers of having additional available roadway capacity (1). One such value pricing project is being conducted on the Katy Freeway in Houston, Texas. This project, called “QuickRide,” allows two-person carpools to use the HOV lane on the Katy Freeway during otherwise restricted hours, for a fixed fee of $2. The project was expected to affect some changes in travel and traffic patterns in the corridor. This paper summarizes the changes in travel patterns and demand that have been observed among participants in the program during the first year of operation. BACKGROUND The Katy HOV lane opened in 1984, and vehicle eligibility for the HOV lane gradually decreased from only transit and vanpools to all vehicles with two or more occupants. However, with eligibility at two or more persons per vehicle (HOV2+), growing travel demand led to high volumes, overcrowding, and slower speeds on the HOV lane during peak periods. In order to maintain a higher level of service for transit and vanpools, the Katy HOV lane was restricted to vehicles with three or more occupants from 6:45–8:00 am and 5:00–6:00 pm. However, this resulted in significant excess capacity in the HOV lane during these peak periods. In January 1998, the QuickRide program began. The primary goal of this program was to increase the person throughput on the Katy HOV lane and in the Katy freeway corridor (2). To this end, two-person carpools (HOV2s) could “buy into” the HOV lane during these morning and evening peak periods, for a fee of $2.00. This fee was charged electronically to participants displaying both a QuickRide hang tag in the vehicle and carrying a transponder for automatic vehicle identification (AVI). In this program, two-person carpools can reduce their travel time by paying a toll – hence the name QuickRide. The overall objectives of the QuickRide program are to (2): • • •
increase overall person throughput in the Katy Freeway corridor during peak periods, increase travel speeds on mixed-flow lanes during peak periods, assuming a number of vehicles currently using the general-purpose lane lanes will divert to the HOV lane, and efficiently manage demand without adverse operating impacts on both the HOV lane and the general-purpose lanes.
1
RELATED PROJECTS Value pricing, as applied in QuickRide, is a toll charged to allow access to a restricted traffic facility, in this case the HOV lane. Fielding and Klein introduced the concept of value pricing for underutilized HOV lanes. They suggest that HOV lane pricing will both increase the access to HOV lanes as well as increase public acceptance of pricing schemes for general purpose lanes (3). Since early 1995, several value pricing projects have been initiated, as described in several recent reports (1,4). The first pricing-like project, the State Route 91 (SR-91) Express Lanes in Orange County, opened on December 27, 1995. The four express lanes were added in the median and are essentially a toll road with priority given to HOVs. Intended as a means of providing additional capacity to all personal vehicles in the corridor, the Express Lanes charge a toll that varies by the time of day. Initially, vehicles with three or more occupants could use the facility free of charge; however, these vehicles now pay half of the toll (5). The evaluation of the SR-91 Express Lanes indicates that this project has successfully attracted travelers to pay tolls to avoid congestion in the general-purpose lanes. [However, the complete project impacts on traffic conditions and traveler behavior in the corridor have not yet been published (7,8).] The results are not likely to be comparable to the QuickRide results due to differences in vehicle occupancy requirements for the priced facility. The I-15 HOV lane pricing project (FasTrak) in San Diego opened in December 1996. Initially, for a flat monthly fee, single-occupant vehicles were allowed unlimited use of the HOV lane. After 15 months in operation, the pricing mechanism was changed. Currently, the electronic toll charged fluctuates, from $0.50 to $4.00 per trip, based on real-time traffic volumes and speeds, although a maximum fee of $8.00 per trip could be implemented (4). There is an ongoing evaluation of the FasTrak program, with some preliminary results to date (7,8). Again, because the project allows for single-occupant vehicles to buy into the HOV lane, the results are not directly comparable. The QuickRide program, in contrast to these two projects, focuses exclusively on HOV pricing, as only HOV2s, and not single-occupant vehicles, are eligible. Also, the price for QuickRide does not vary; the fee is $2.00 per trip. Finally, the time period for the HOV2 pricing is limited to 6:45 – 8:00 am and 5:00 – 6:00 pm; HOV2s may use the facility free of charge outside of these periods. THE VALUE OF TRAVEL TIME One important element in HOV lane value pricing is determining the toll at which the desired HOV lane demand is reached. In the QuickRide program, a toll that is too low will result in high HOV2 demand, degrading the level of service in the HOV lane. On the other hand, a toll that is too high will not result in greater person throughput. Because the primary motivation for using the HOV lane is time savings, travelers’ value of time can be used to determine a toll and to measure the benefits of the QuickRide program. The value of travel time can be expressed as the money value that people place on saving various forms of travel time (9). Fundamentally, drivers with a high value of travel time should be interested in paying money to save travel time because the HOV lane can provide shorter travel time than the general-purpose lanes. Estimating the value of time at which travelers will choose the HOV lane, however, is not 2
an easy task, a priori. The value of travel time is known to vary based on: (1) the variety of attributes of travel alternatives; (2) the socioeconomic attributes of the traveler, such as income, wage rate, age, sex, and car ownership; and (3) the trip purpose (9, 10, 11). For this reason, estimates of travelers’ value of time vary widely. Nonetheless, in the feasibility study for QuickRide, a value of travel time savings of $7.50 per hour per vehicle was investigated (1). With additional assumptions on the number of potential HOV2s and the distribution of the value of time among travelers, a toll of $2.00 was recommended. That toll was consistant with the per-mile cost of traveling on the Harris County Toll Road Authority (HCTRA) facilities, and therefore represented a locally acceptable toll. PURPOSE The purpose of this report is to describe travel behavior during the first year (the formal demonstration) of the QuickRide program. The report begins with a brief description of the methods employed in this evaluation, and then proceeds to describe the overall usage of QuickRide, the changes in travel behavior reported by QuickRide users, and the factors affecting frequency of use of QuickRide. Several conclusions are drawn from these analyses and are presented in the final section. Initially, the QuickRide evaluation study reviewed reported changes in travel behavior by QuickRide users as well as assessed the perceived benefits to the public of “pay to travel” under QuickRide. In addition, QuickRide users were asked what could be done to encourage additional participation in QuickRide. Origin and destination data compiled from QuickRide applicants was also reviewed for comparison purposes. Next, the study focused on non-user travel behavior in the corridor as well as their level of awareness and acceptance of the program. The following discussion provides a summary of data compiled from applications submitted for the QuickRide program, the findings for the QuickRide participant survey, and the findings for the QuickRide non-user survey.
3
STUDY DESIGN OBJECTIVES Because the QuickRide program has focused on the pricing of HOV2s in the Katy Freeway corridor, specific questions about travel behavior can arise: • • • • •
At a price of $2.00, how many HOV2s may be willing to use the HOV lane during the peak travel hours? How does demand on the facility vary by time of day and day of week? What incentive exists to encourage two-person carpools to use the HOV lane at a fee of $2.00? What is the implied value of time for those travelers? What shifts in travel mode and time of travel have been observed? How frequently are QuickRide participants using the HOV lane? Are there important travel and/or demographic characteristics that affect participants’ frequency of use?
The analyses in this paper answer these questions. Moreover, the answers to these questions suggest important implications for future HOV-based value pricing projects, both in the Houston area and across the country. EVALUATION METHODS To answer these questions, several analyses were undertaken. First, the overall patterns of usage of the QuickRide program were investigated using the AVI data of QuickRide participants. As participants passed a certain point on the HOV lane, their vehicle’s identification number and an electronic time stamp were collected. These data, in turn, were compiled to get the number of uses during the test, and to examine use by time of day and day of week. Since each vehicle’s identification number was available, the frequency of use of QuickRide for each individual could also be calculated. Because travel time savings is the primary incentive for participants to use the HOV lane, travel times in the HOV lane and in the freeway main lanes, and the resulting travel time savings for the HOV lane, were calculated. Travel time data in the corridor are tabulated using the AVI system, with resulting estimates of travel times and speeds over major freeway segments (12). The travel time savings were calculated for a representative sample of days during the year; specifically, on one day in each of February and December 1998, and on two days in each month from March through November 1998. In total, 20 days were sampled. To examine demographic and travel characteristics of users, the results of a survey of QuickRide participants were used. A mail-back survey of QuickRide participants was conducted in mid1998 to collect basic demographic data, as well as report travel patterns in the Katy Freeway corridor both before and during the QuickRide test. Demographic information included age, income, household size, and occupation, while the information on travel patterns included the user’s best estimate of the number of trips per week in the Katy corridor, classified by mode and time of travel, both before and during QuickRide. As a caveat, one must be somewhat cautious of the data, as they may exhibit some “behavioral justification” on the part of the respondents. Indeed, respondents had a higher observed frequency of use of QuickRide than the survey non5
respondents did. Nonetheless, of the 387 participants who were mailed a survey, 185 completed the survey (a 48percent response rate). These survey results were used in two ways. First, the reported travel patterns before and during QuickRide were analyzed to determine the reported mode and time shifts of QuickRide participants. Second, the demographic data and reported pre-QuickRide use was correlated with the participants’ actual use of QuickRide (from the AVI data). This was done to examine whether there were certain demographic or trip-making characteristics that are correlated with a propensity to use QuickRide.
6
ANALYSIS AND RESULTS OF APPLICATIONS AND SURVEY DATA This portion of the QuickRide evaluation focuses on the public’s response to QuickRide. The three groups considered were QuickRide applicants as a whole, a sample of QuickRide users, and a sample of Katy Freeway drivers that were not QuickRide users. Initially, the QuickRide evaluation study reviewed reported changes in travel behavior by QuickRide users as well as assessed the perceived benefits to the public of “pay to travel” under QuickRide. In addition, QuickRide users were asked what could be done to encourage additional participation in QuickRide. Origin and destination data compiled from QuickRide applicants was also reviewed for comparison purposes. Next, the study focused on non-user travel behavior in the corridor as well as their level of awareness and acceptance of the program. The following discussion provides: • a summary of data compiled from applications submitted for the QuickRide program, • the findings for the QuickRide participant survey, and • the findings for the QuickRide non-user survey. CHARACTERISTICS OF QUICKRIDE APPLICANTS Approximately 40,000 applications to join QuickRide were distributed and 387 applications were returned. The applications were mailed to residents along the Katy Freeway corridor and to other interested persons who requested one. The application form contained questions regarding where applicants reside, where they enter the Katy HOV lane, and where they are headed. The following provides a profile of QuickRide applicants, based on information obtained from the application forms. Where Do QuickRide Applicants Live? As Figure 1 shows, well over half (58 percent) of QuickRide applicants reside west of State Highway 6. Over a third (36 percent) live between Beltway 8 and State Highway 6. Only 6 percent of applicants reside within Beltway 8. Between Beltway 8 & Hwy. 6 36%
Inside Loop 610 2% Between Loop 610 Beltway 8
Beyond Hwy. 6
4%
58%
Figure 1. QuickRide Applicant Residence Location (n = 387). 7
Where Do They Enter the HOV Lane? Figure 2 indicates that when they used the Katy HOV lane prior to joining QuickRide nearly half (47 percent) of QuickRide applicants entered the Katy HOV lane west of State Highway 6. Addicks P%R 23%
Gessner 9% West of Hwy 6 47% N/A 21%
Figure 2. QuickRide Applicant Residence Location (n = 387). Where Are They Destined? Nearly a quarter (23 percent) entered at the Addicks Park & Ride, and only 9 percent enter at Gessner. A fifth of applicants (21 percent) who applied for QuickRide were not current users of the Katy Freeway HOV lane. As illustrated in Figure 3, about a third (32 percent) of QuickRide applicants are destined downtown. Other destinations frequently mentioned include Galleria/Post Oak (14 percent), Northwest Mall/Brookhollow (9 percent), Allen Parkway/American General (8 percent), the Medical Center (7 percent), Greenway Plaza (6 percent), and the Heights (6 percent). Greenway Plaza 6%
Heights 6%
Baytown 1% Medical Center 7%
Galleria/Post Oak 14%
Hobby 2% Memorial Park 3%
Katy Corridor 3%
Other 18% Downtown 32%
Memorial/Villages 4%
Other 4% Allen Parkway/American General 8%
NW Mall/Brookhollow 9%
Figure 3. QuickRide Applicant Destination. 8
Bellaire 1%
SURVEY OF QUICKRIDE PARTICIPANTS
The QuickRide Participant Survey examined the patterns of enrolled QuickRide participants to travel in the Katy HOV lane during periods otherwise restricted to 3+ occupancy. The objectives of the QuickRide Participant Survey were to: • • •
Identify changes in travel behavior. Assess the perceived benefits of “pay to travel” under QuickRide. Identify ways to encourage additional participation.
LKC Consulting Services (LKC), in close consultation with METRO and TTI, developed a survey of QuickRide participants. The survey instrument was mailed to 387 individuals who registered with QuickRide between January, 1998 and March, 1998. The surveys were mailed in April, and 185 were returned (postage paid) by the date of analysis. At nearly 50 percent, the actual response rate exceeded the expected response rate of 33 percent. Results of Participant Study
The following is a discussion of the data collected. In keeping with the organization of the survey instrument, the results are discussed in the following order: trip information, transponder information, service rating, user information, and user comments. A copy of the survey instrument is attached for reference. Trip Information
One of the primary objectives of priority pricing on the Katy HOV lane is to increase person movement. One of the desired outcomes of QuickRide is that more people are moved in the Katy HOV lane during the peak hour and the peak period, implying that cars have been removed from the general freeway lanes and congestion reduced. The questions in the trip information portion of the survey were designed to determine how travel for QuickRide users has changed, if at all, since the program began. Users were first asked two questions aimed at determining changes in travel patterns. These questions asked about weekly morning and afternoon travel behavior using several travel modes. The morning periods included AM shoulder (before 6:45 a.m. and after 8:00 a.m.) and AM peak (6:45 a.m. to 8:00 a.m.). The evening periods included PM shoulder (before 5:00 p.m. and after 6:00 p.m.) and PM peak (between 5:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m.). Results generally reveal desirable trends in travel pattern changes. Changes in Drive Alone
As indicated in Figure 4, the total number of weekly trips made by users driving alone has decreased from 281 to 173 during shoulder hours and from 295 to 109 during peak hours.
9
Total trips per week
300 250 200 150 100 50 0 AM Shoulder
AM Peak
PM Shoulder
PM Peak
Period Before QuickRide
With QuickRide
Figure 4. Number of Weekly Trips Made Driving Alone. Changes in Two-Person Carpools
A comparable, but less dramatic, trend holds true for the total number of weekly trips made by users in two-person carpools traveling on the main lanes of the Katy Freeway. As illustrated in Figure 5, the total number of weekly two-person carpool trips on the freeway has decreased from 159 to 112 during shoulder hours and from 179 to 96 during peak hours since QuickRide’s inception.
Total trips per week
150
100
50
0 AM Shoulder
AM Peak
PM Shoulder
PM Peak
Period Before QuickRide With QuickRide
Figure 5. Number of Trips Made in Two-Person Carpool on Freeway. As would be expected, the most dramatic change in travel behavior occurred among two-person carpools traveling on the HOV lane during peak hours (see Figure 6). The reported travel by two-person carpools on the HOV lane during the peak hours was illegal before QuickRide. Since QuickRide’s inception, the total number of weekly trips has increased from 4 to 550 — an 10
increase to 110 trips per day. There have also been marginal decreases in these users’ total weekly trips made on the freeway’s HOV lane during shoulder hours. 300
Total trips per week
250
200
150
100
50
0 AM Shoulder
AM Peak
PM Shoulder
PM Peak
Period
Before QuickRide
With QuickRide
Figure 6. Number of Weekly Trips Made in Two-Person Carpool on HOV Lane. Changes in 3+ Person Carpools
As illustrated in Figure 7, there have been marginal decreases in the number of users in carpools comprised of three or more people traveling on the HOV lane. This suggests that some 3+ person carpoolers are now traveling in two-person carpools.
Total trips per week
250 200 150 100 50 0 AM Shoulder
AM Peak
PM Shoulder
PM Peak
Period Before QuickRide
With QuickRide
Figure 7. Number of Weekly Trips Made in 3+ Person Carpool on HOV Lane.
11
Changes in Bus Ridership
The total number of weekly trips made by QuickRide users riding METRO buses on the HOV lane during every time period has decreased; however, the changes during the AM and PM shoulder hours were small compared to those during the AM and PM peak hours (see Figure 8). There has thus been a decrease in METRO bus ridership by users who gained the QuickRide option allowing them to participate in two-person carpools. Finally, only one respondent participated in a vanpool on the HOV lane before QuickRide, and he or she is no longer doing so. 300
Total trips per week
250 200 150 100 50 0 A M S h o uld e r
AM Peak
P M S h o u ld e r
P M Peak
P e rio d B efore Q u ick R id e
W ith Q u ick R id e
Figure 8. Number of Weekly Trips Made on METRO Bus on HOV Lane. Changes in Travel Mode
Figures 9a and 9b show how the respondents’ travel modes during all times changed after they began to use QuickRide. Carpool on HOV Lane 11%
Vanpool on HOV Lane METRO Bus 1% on HOV Lane 5% Other 2%
2-Person Carpool on HOV Lane 31%
Drive Alone 31%
2-Person Carpool on Freeway 19%
Figure 9a. Trips During All Times Before Quick Ride (n = 1,821).
12
METRO Bus on HOV Lane Vanpool on HOV 3% Lane 0%
Other 0% Drive Alone 16%
3+ Person Carpool on HOV Lane 11%
2-Person Carpool on Freeway 12%
2-Person Carpool on HOV Lane 58%
Figure 9b. Trips During All Times After Quick Ride (n = 1,770). The most significant changes are the near doubling of trips made by two-person carpools on the HOV lane and the halving of trips made by people driving alone. Another important change was the decrease of trips made by two-person carpools on the main lanes of the Katy Freeway. Finally, overall total trips made during all times by 3+ person carpools remained at 11 percent, suggesting that QuickRide did not cause larger carpools to break down into smaller carpools. Changes in Travel Time of Day
Table 1 indicates that trips made during AM shoulder hours have decreased by 118 (23 percent) while those made during the corresponding peak hour have increased by 87 (22 percent). A similar trend holds for PM hours. Total trips made during shoulder hours decreased by 90 (18 percent) while those made during peak hours increased by 70 (18 percent). Table 1. Changes in Total Trips. During AM & PM shoulder & peak hours
During shoulder & peak hours During AM & PM hours
Before QR
With QR
∆ in total
Percentage ∆
AM Shoulder
510
392
-118
-23.1 percent
AM Peak PM Shoulder P.M. Peak
403 509 399
490 419 469
87 -90 70
21.6% -17.7% 17.5%
1,019
811
-208
-20.4%
Peak
802
959
157
19.6%
AM
913
882
-41
-4.4%
908 1,821
888 1,770
-20 -51
-2.2% -2.8%
Shoulder
PM During all times of the day
13
Total trips made during shoulder hours decreased by 208 (20 percent) while the total number of trips made during both peak hours increased by 157 (20 percent). The last question in the trip information section of the survey asked users to identify who they travel with when using QuickRide. The results (listed in Table 2) indicate that users travel primarily with family members (49 percent) and co-workers (41 percent), followed by neighbors (6 percent). Under the “Other” option, several users indicated they travel with people they met at the bus stop or on the bus. With Whom Do You Share QuickRide?
Table 2. With Whom Do You Travel When You Use the QuickRide Service?
Number of Responses Percent
Co-workers
Neighbors
Adult Family Members
81
12
72
24
8
197
41%
6%
37%
12%
4%
100%
Children
Other
Total
Transponder Usage
Users were asked the number of QuickRide transponders they had requested. A follow-up question for users requesting more than one transponder was aimed at assessing whether or not there are two carpools formed from one household. Of the 174 responses given, more than half of the users (123) requested only one transponder and 51 users indicated they requested more than one QuickRide transponder. However, there were 59 reasons given in response to why they had done so. While some users requesting more than one transponder did not complete the second part of this question, others requesting only one or no transponder at all provided answers. These trends show users were not clear on when to respond to this question. The responses were as follows: •
Twenty-two users indicated they used one transponder for each household car, both of which could use QuickRide on the same day.
•
Twenty-eight users indicated they requested more than one transponder, because they used one for each household car that used QuickRide on alternate days.
•
Of the nine users who marked the “Other” option, four indicated they did not request a QuickRide transponder at all because they already possessed an EZ-Tag transponder from the Harris County Toll Road Authority.
In order to determine whether or not transponders are being displayed at the proper time to ensure proper billing, respondents were asked to indicate whether or not they leave their transponders mounted at all times. Seventy-eight users (42 percent) indicated they do leave their transponders mounted at all times. 14
The 102 users who do not leave the transponder mounted at all times gave multiple reasons for not doing so. As Table 3 indicates, the reasons cited for not leaving transponders permanently mounted were that they drive on the HOV lane during no-pay times or with three or more people, followed by transponders being shared between cars. Responses provided under the “Other” option cited lack of transponder use, fear of theft, and prior mounting of an EZ-Tag transponder as reasons for not leaving the QuickRide transponder mounted at all times. One user responded that he or she did not know whether or not to take the QuickRide transponder down at certain times. Table 3. Why Do You Not Leave Your Transponder on at All Times?
Interfere s with visibility
Share between cars
Drive with 3+ people
Drive during no-pay times
2
18
64
1%
10%
35%
Number of Responses Percent
Other
No Response
Total
84
13
4
185
45%
7%
2%
100%
Service Rating
Users were asked a series of questions to assess usage of QuickRide, to determine the impact of price as it relates to usage, and to determine which publicity resulted in the most awareness of QuickRide. Usage
Users were first asked to compare how often they actually use QuickRide with how often they thought they would use it. They were asked to gauge their responses on a scale from 1 to 5, with 1 indicating they use it more frequently and 5 indicating they use it less frequently. The mean response of 2.88 implies that users’ actual QuickRide usage falls at a level roughly consistent with their expectations. As an extension of the preceding question, users were asked to explain why they used QuickRide significantly more or less than anticipated. The following reasons were provided to explain lower than anticipated QuickRide usage: • • • •
A total of eight users indicated they no longer have a personal need for the service. Six users acknowledged they no longer had a carpooler. Poor customer service was listed by one user, who cited their dissatisfaction with the timeliness of monthly sticker arrival. Other responses included opting to ride the bus, commuting with others, and price.
The following reasons were provided for higher than anticipated QuickRide usage: •
Three users specifically cited saving time as an explanation for higher than anticipated QuickRide usage. 15
•
Sixteen users cited the program’s convenience as the reason they use QuickRide more often.
•
Other explanations included shifts in carpool size (both upward from drive alone to twoperson carpool and downward from 3+ person carpool to two-person carpool), increased personal need for the service, and traffic congestion on the main lanes of the Katy Freeway.
Price
Users were asked to rate the price of QuickRide on a scale from 1 to 5, with 1 being inexpensive and 5 being expensive. The mean response of 3.48 suggests that the average user feels QuickRide is moderately expensive. This could be interpreted to mean that the average user values their time saved using QuickRide less than the $2.00 required for a one-way trip. In extending the previous question, users were asked to rate how much the price of QuickRide factors into their use of the service on a scale from 1 to 5, with 1 indicating its not being a factor and 5 indicating it as being the greatest factor. The mean response of 2.64 with a 1.39 standard deviation indicates users are neutral regarding price as a factor affecting their QuickRide usage. Regarding whether or not they shared the price of QuickRide with the passenger in their carpools, nearly three-fourths of users indicated they do not do so. Thus, most surveyed users carry the financial burden of QuickRide, suggesting most users carpool with family members. For users traveling with co-workers and neighbors, it could be interpreted to mean that the coworker or neighbor is viewed as doing the QuickRide user a favor by joining the carpool, thus the cost is not shared. Increasing QuickRide Usage
Users were then asked what would cause them to use QuickRide more often. As Table 4 shows, users indicated that being allowed to drive alone on the HOV lane and reducing the price of QuickRide would have the greatest effect on encouraging them to use the service more often. Other less frequent responses included longer QuickRide hours and an increase in traffic congestion on the Katy Freeway’s main lanes. Among responses submitted under the “Other” option, a western extension and easier access to the HOV lane were the most popular reasons given by users in regard to what would cause them to use QuickRide more often. Table 4. Which Would Cause You to Use QuickRide More Often?
Number of responses Percent
Longer QuickRide hours
Allowed alone on HOV lane
Increased traffic on main lanes
Reduced price
Other
Total
32
142
34
77
12
297
11%
48%
11%
26%
4%
100%
16
Public Education
In an effort to gauge the success of the public education program, a final question under the service rating section asked users how they found out about QuickRide (see Table 5). Newspapers, direct mail, and to a somewhat lesser extent, television were the primary sources of information on QuickRide. Under the provided “Other” option, 11 users also noted radio as a source of information regarding QuickRide. Table 5. How Did You Find Out About the QuickRide Program?
Number of responses Percent
TV
Mail
Newspaper
Friend
Bus
Other
Total
33
60
87
19
5
16
220
15%
27%
40%
9%
2%
7%
100%
User Information
In order to develop a profile of QuickRide users, the last portion of the survey collected demographic data. Users were asked to state their age, household size, occupation, and household income. User Age
Figure 10 shows the majority of users fall within the 26 to 49 year-old range (81 percent), with most of these being within the 38 to 49 year-old range (56 percent).
65 and Over 3% 50 to 64 11%
No Response 2% 16 to 25 3%
26 to 37 25%
38 to 49 56%
Figure 10. Users’ Age Ranges (n = 185).
17
User Family Size
Users reported two predominant family sizes— those consisting of 3 to 4 people—made up a slightly greater proportion (45 percent) than those consisting of one to two people (39 percent) as seen in Figure 11.
7 or more 2%
No Response 3%
5 to 6 11% 1 to 2 39%
3 to 4 45%
Figure 11. Users’ Family Sizes (n = 185). User Occupation
Figure 12 shows the make-up of users’ occupations. Comprising over three-fourths of all occupations identified, professional/managerial jobs (76 percent) were the most widely held, followed by administrative/clerical (8 percent), and technical and sales jobs (8 percent). Other 2% Retired/Student 3%
No Response 3%
Admin./Cler. 8%
Tech./Sales 8%
Prof./Manag. 76%
Figure 12. Users’ Occupation (n = 185).
18
User Household Income
Twenty-five of the users refused to answer the question regarding household income. However, based on the responses received, the majority of the users have combined household incomes of $50,000 or more. As illustrated in the Users’ Household Income chart, 35 percent of users have household incomes greater than $100,000. See figure 13. $10,000 - $20,000 1% No Response 14%
$20,001 - $30,000 1% $30,001 - $50,000 9%
$50,001 - $75,000 18%
More Than $100,000 35%
$75,001 - $100,000 22%
Figure 13. Users’ Household Incomes (n = 185). User Comments
In order to identify issues not previously addressed on the survey, users were allowed to provide additional comments. Comments were coded and tabulated into general categories. As Figure 19 indicates, the comments overlapped some of the areas addressed in the survey, but also identified some issues, particularly relating to public acceptance, that were not examined elsewhere. There were many positive comments, but comments criticizing QuickRide’s customer service and the fact that users in two-person carpools have to pay anything at all stand out. QuickRide’s price and the western extension of the Katy Freeway HOV lane along with improved overall accessability to the HOV lane were other frequent comments. Seventeen surveys were received after the survey analysis was complete. Although the information derived from the general body of these surveys is not included in the survey results presented, open-ended comments on these 17 surveys were included in Table 6. Table 6. Survey Comments from QuickRide Participants. Comment
The program is great and/or beneficial and/or I’d like you to keep it Customer service for billing and sticker distribution 2-person carpools should be allowed on HOV lane at all times without having to pay 19
Number of Responses 16
6 6
Table 6. Cont’d.) Survey Comments from QuickRide Participants Comment
Extend HOV lane farther west and/or improve overall accessibility to it
Number of Responses 5
The price of QuickRide is too high
4
Allow SOVs to drive alone on HOV lane
4
METRO police are rude
3
We are charged during off-peak hours and when we have 3+ riders in vehicle Make the monthly stickers more visible to METRO police officers so they don’t have to stop us Address the free-rider problem
3
Consolidate QuickRide and EZ-Tag accounts
2
METRO Police could be more forgiving on QuickRide time restrictions QuickRide times should be extended on Friday afternoons and adopted on holidays QuickRide should be open to all those willing to pay the $2.00
1
Scanner should be permanently mounted, not hand-held by METRO police
1
3 3
1 1
Participant Survey Conclusions
The research results in the following conclusions: • • • • • • • •
Although there have been some shifts from 3-person carpools and the METRO bus in the peak hour, usage of the Katy HOV lane has increased during the peak hours. Users report QuickRide gives them flexibility in deciding when to travel because they are no longer restricted to using the Katy HOV lane only during non-peak hours. The number of weekly trips users made driving alone decreased from 31 percent to 16 percent. Responses by QuickRide users that requested two or more transponders suggest that two cars are used for the same carpool on different days, not that there are two carpools within the same household. The large number of QuickRide users who do not leave their transponders mounted at all times could be considered a contributing factor to missed revenue. Although many users are satisfied with QuickRide, improved customer service may increase satisfaction. Although price does not appear to be a determining factor, a lower price (or none at all) would induce more QuickRide use. QuickRide is viewed as a convenient, albeit costly, alternative to driving down the main lanes of the IH-10 Katy Freeway.
20
SURVEY OF NON-USERS OF QUICKRIDE The objectives of the QuickRide Non-User Survey were to: • • •
Determine awareness of QuickRide. Assess public acceptance of “pay to travel.” Identify ways to encourage additional participation .
LKC, in close consultation with METRO and TTI, developed a survey of QuickRide non-users. The non-user was identified using two strategies. METRO provided a list of individuals who requested information from Rideshare about QuickRide, but did not enroll in the program. One hundred and fifty-six individuals who requested information but are not registered for QuickRide were included in the sample of non-users. The license plates of more than 4,000 vehicles traveling eastbound on the Katy Freeway (IH-10) were recorded at the overpass between N. Post Oak and Loop 610. Approximately 2,350 drivers with license plates that are registered to addresses whose zip codes are three to five miles on either side of the Katy Freeway, beginning at the West Belt entrance and continuing out to Katy, were included in the sample. The survey instrument was mailed to 2,500 individuals who were confirmed not to have registered with QuickRide since the program began in January, 1998. The surveys were mailed August 14, and 289 were returned (postage paid). The actual response rate was 12 percent compared to an expected response rate of 10 percent. NON-USER SURVEY RESULTS
The following is a discussion of the data collected. In keeping with the organization of the survey instrument, the results are discussed in the following order: driving habits, QuickRide information, non-user acceptance of QuickRide, non-user demographics, and non-user comments and suggestions. A copy of the survey instrument is attached for reference. Driving Habits
The questions in the driving habits portion of the survey were designed to profile travel patterns for QuickRide non-users. Quick-Ride non-users were first asked a question aimed at determining travel patterns. This question asked about weekly morning and afternoon travel behavior using several travel modes. The morning periods included AM shoulder (before 6:45 a.m. and after 8:00 a.m.) and AM peak (6:45 a.m. to 8:00 a.m.) hours. The evening periods included PM shoulder (before 5:00 p.m. and after 6:00 p.m.) and PM peak (between 5:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m.) hours. Results reveal that of the 2,485 weekly trips recorded in this survey, 2,077 were made by respondents who drive alone on the Katy Freeway (84 percent). As Figure 14 indicates, twothirds of the respondents not driving alone travel on a METRO bus on the HOV lane (30 percent) or in a two-person carpool on the HOV lane (30 percent). A quarter of the respondents travel to work in a two-person carpool on the freeway (see Figure 14). 21
Bus on HOV 5%
2-Person Carpool on Fwy 5% Other 16%
3-Person Vanpool on HOV 1%
Drive Alone85% Vanpool on HOV
2. Government Accession No.
3. Recipient's Catalog No.
E 305001 4. Title and Subtitle
5. Report Date
AN EVALUATION OF THE KATY FREEWAY HOV LANE PRICING PROJECT
December 2000 6. Performing Organization Code
7. Author(s)
8. Performing Organization Report No.
William Stockton, Paula Hughes, Mark Hickman, Darryl Puckett, Quanta Brown, Alejandro Miranda, and Sung Woong Shin
Report E 305001
9. Performing Organization Name and Address
10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS)
Texas Transportation Institute The Texas A&M University System College Station, Texas 77843-3135
11. Contract or Grant No.
12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address
13. Type of Report and Period Covered
Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County P. O. Box 77208 Houston, TX 77208-1429
Final Report 09/15/97 – 09/15/99
Project No. E305001 Work Order #21
14. Sponsoring Agency Code
15. Supplementary Notes
Research performed in cooperation with the Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County (METRO). Research Project Title: QuickRide Evaluation Project This paper describes the QuickRide program on the Katy high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane in Houston, Texas. The QuickRide program allows two-person carpools to use the HOV lane during peak periods for $2.00 when the lane has a three or more person restriction. The use of QuickRide during its first year is discussed along with an analysis of the demand for the program and an analysis of the effectiveness of the program. QuickRide usage and before-and-after implementation data are used to analyze user travel patterns, observed travel time savings, and changes in person throughput in the Katy Freeway corridor. QuickRide usage, reported travel behavior, and demographic data are used to analyze user travel patterns, travel time savings, and users’ frequency of use. These results suggest: (1) the total demand for HOV2 value pricing may be limited in major travel corridors, despite large potential time savings; (2) substantial shifts in mode and time are possible with HOV2 value pricing; and, (3) household size and income are good indicators, but HOV lane use is a poor indicator, of the demand for HOV2 value pricing.
16. Abstract
17. Key Words
18. Distribution Statement
HOT Lane, Value Pricing, Congestion Pricing, HOV Lane, Express Lane
No Restrictions. This document is available to the public through NTIS: National Technical Information Service 5285 Port Royal Road Springfield, Virginia 22161
19. Security Classif.(of this report)
20. Security Classif.(of this page)
21. No. of Pages
Unclassified
Unclassified
64
Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72)
22. Price
Reproduction of completed page authorized
AN EVALUATION OF THE KATY FREEWAY HOV LANE PRICING PROJECT by William Stockton, P. E. Research Engineer Texas Transportation Institute Paula Hughes Associate LKC Consulting Services Mark Hickman Assistant Research Engineer Texas Transportation Institute Darryl Puckett Associate Research Scientist Texas Transportation Institute and Alejandro Miranda, Quanta Brown, and Sung Wong Shin Graduate Students Texas A&M University Report E 305002 Project Number E 305001 Work Order #21 Research Project Title: QuickRide Evaluation Project Sponsored by the Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County December 2000 TEXAS TRANSPORTATION INSTITUTE The Texas A&M University System College Station, TX 77843-3135
DISCLAIMER The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official view or policies of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and/or the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT), and/or the Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County (METRO). The engineer in charge of the project was William R. Stockton, Texas License # 41188.
v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This project is funded and cooperatively supported by the Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County (METRO). Also, the substantial data resources of the Houston Texas Transportation Institute (TTI) office are warmly appreciated. The authors offer special thanks for the support and assistance of Lloyd Smith and Chris Barnes of METRO, and Mike Ogden, Mike Vickich, and David Fenno, of TTI.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF FIGURES ...........................................................................................................................ix LIST OF TABLES.............................................................................................................................x INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................1 Background....................................................................................................................................1 Related Projects .............................................................................................................................2 The Value of Travel Time .............................................................................................................2 Purpose...........................................................................................................................................3 STUDY DESIGN...............................................................................................................................5 Objectives ......................................................................................................................................5 Evaluation Methods .......................................................................................................................5 ANALYSIS AND RESULTS OF APPLICATIONS AND SURVEY DATA .................................7 Characteristics of QuickRide Applicants.......................................................................................7 Where Do QuickRide Applicants Live? ....................................................................................7 Where Do They Enter the HOV Lane?......................................................................................8 Where Are They Destined? .......................................................................................................8 Survey of QuickRide Participants..................................................................................................9 Results of Participant Study.......................................................................................................9 With Whom Do You Share QuickRide? ...................................................................................14 Transponder Usage ....................................................................................................................14 Service Rating............................................................................................................................15 User Information........................................................................................................................17 User Comments .........................................................................................................................19 Participant Survey Conclusions.................................................................................................20 SURVEY OF NON-USERS OF QUICKRIDE.................................................................................21 Non-User Survey Results...............................................................................................................21 Driving Habits ...........................................................................................................................21 QuickRide Information..............................................................................................................24 Non-User Acceptance of QuickRide .........................................................................................29 Non-User Demographics ...........................................................................................................31 Non-User Comments and Suggestions ......................................................................................33 Non-User Survey Conclusions.......................................................................................................35 ANALYSIS AND RESULTS FROM OPERATIONS DATA .........................................................37 Aggregate Usage Patterns..............................................................................................................37 Total Daily Use..........................................................................................................................37 Use by Day of Week..................................................................................................................39 Use by Time of Day...................................................................................................................39 Travel Time Savings......................................................................................................................41 Person Throughput.........................................................................................................................43 vii
Disaggregate Demand Patterns......................................................................................................43 Changes in Mode and Time of Travel .......................................................................................43 Determinants of Frequency of Use ............................................................................................45 CONCLUSIONS................................................................................................................................51 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................................53
viii
LIST OF FIGURES Figure
Page
Figure 1. QuickRide Applicant Residence Location.................................................................... 7 Figure 2. QuickRide Applicant Residence Location.................................................................... 8 Figure 3. QuickRide Applicant Destination ................................................................................. 8 Figure 4. Number of Weekly Trips Made Driving Alone.......................................................... 10 Figure 5. Number of Trips Made in 2-Person Carpool on Freeway........................................... 10 Figure 6. Number of Weekly Trips Made in 2-Person Carpool on HOV Lane ......................... 11 Figure 7. Number of Weekly Trips Made in 3+ Person Carpool on HOV Lane ....................... 11 Figure 8. Number of Weekly Trips Made on METRO Bus on HOV Lane ............................... 12 Figure 9a. Trips During All Times Before Quick Ride ............................................................... 12 Figure 9b. Trips During all Times After Quick Ride.................................................................... 13 Figure 10. Users’ Age Ranges ..................................................................................................... 17 Figure 11. Users’ Family Sizes.................................................................................................... 18 Figure 12. Users’ Occupation ...................................................................................................... 18 Figure 13. Users’ Household Incomes......................................................................................... 19 Figure 14. Total Weekday Trips on Katy Freeway..................................................................... 22 Figure 15. Total Weekday Trips by Time Period ........................................................................ 22 Figure 16. Where Do You Usually Enter I-10 During Your AM Commute? ............................ 23 Figure 17. Where Do You Usually Enter I-10 During Your AM Commute .............................. 23 Figure 18. Where Do You Usually Enter I-10 During Your PM Commute? ............................. 24 Figure 19. Where Do You Usually Enter I-10 During Your PM Commute? ............................. 24 Figure 20. Have You Heard About QuickRide Before Today?.................................................. 25 Figure 21. How Did You Hear of QuickRide? ............................................................................ 25 Figure 22. What Have You Heard About QuickRide? ................................................................ 26 Figure 23. Do You Know the One-Way Fee?.............................................................................. 26 Figure 24. What Has Prevented Your Participation?................................................................... 27 Figure 25. QuickRide Participation – Other ................................................................................ 27 Figure 26. Why 2-Person Carpools Are Not Participating in QuickRide..................................... 29 Figure 27. Acceptance of QuickRide “Fair”................................................................................ 30 Figure 28. Acceptance of QuickRide “Effective”........................................................................ 30 Figure 29. Acceptance of QuickRide “Beneficial”...................................................................... 31 Figure 30. Non-Users’ Age Ranges ............................................................................................. 31 Figure 31. Non-Users’ Family Sizes............................................................................................ 32 Figure 32. Non-Users’ Occupation .............................................................................................. 32 Figure 33. Non-Users’ Household Incomes................................................................................. 33 Figure 34. Daily QuickRide Usage............................................................................................... 37 Figure 35. AM PM Use of QuickRide .......................................................................................... 38 Figure 36. Use By Day of Week.................................................................................................. 39 Figure 37. Use By Time of Day AM Peak.................................................................................... 40 Figure 38. Use By Time of Day PM Peak .................................................................................... 40 Figure 39. QuickRide Trips 1998 ................................................................................................. 45
ix
LIST OF TABLES Table
Page
Table 1. Changes in Total Trips................................................................................................... 13 Table 2. With Whom Do You Travel When You Use the QuickRide Service?.......................... 14 Table 3. Why Do You Not Leave Your Transponder on at All Times?...................................... 15 Table 4. Which Would Cause You to Use QuickRide More Often? ........................................... 16 Table 5. How Did You Find Out About the QuickRide Program?.............................................. 17 Table 6. Survey Comments from QuickRide Participants........................................................... 19 Table 7. Most Important Influences for Not Participating in QuickRide .................................... 28 Table 8. Non-User Comments and Suggestions .......................................................................... 33 Table 8 (cont’d.). Non-User Comments and Suggestions ........................................................... 34 Table 9. Average Speeds in HOV Lane During AM and PM Peak Times.................................. 41 Table 10. Average Travel Time Savings on HOV Lane............................................................... 42 Table 11. Mode and Time of Travel Shifts................................................................................... 44 Table 12. Average Frequency of Use by Demographic Categories............................................. 46 Table 13. Average Frequency of Use by Previous Users of HOV Lane ..................................... 48
x
INTRODUCTION Through a program initiated during the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) and continued in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has authorized a select number of “value pricing” projects in many urban areas around the country. These projects have been implemented in freeway corridors in which existing high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes are being underutilized during peak hours. On these facilities, the excess capacity in the HOV lanes can be used to increase person throughput in the travel corridor and to make more efficient use of the available roadway. This excess capacity is priced at a fee, in order to explore the value to drivers of having additional available roadway capacity (1). One such value pricing project is being conducted on the Katy Freeway in Houston, Texas. This project, called “QuickRide,” allows two-person carpools to use the HOV lane on the Katy Freeway during otherwise restricted hours, for a fixed fee of $2. The project was expected to affect some changes in travel and traffic patterns in the corridor. This paper summarizes the changes in travel patterns and demand that have been observed among participants in the program during the first year of operation. BACKGROUND The Katy HOV lane opened in 1984, and vehicle eligibility for the HOV lane gradually decreased from only transit and vanpools to all vehicles with two or more occupants. However, with eligibility at two or more persons per vehicle (HOV2+), growing travel demand led to high volumes, overcrowding, and slower speeds on the HOV lane during peak periods. In order to maintain a higher level of service for transit and vanpools, the Katy HOV lane was restricted to vehicles with three or more occupants from 6:45–8:00 am and 5:00–6:00 pm. However, this resulted in significant excess capacity in the HOV lane during these peak periods. In January 1998, the QuickRide program began. The primary goal of this program was to increase the person throughput on the Katy HOV lane and in the Katy freeway corridor (2). To this end, two-person carpools (HOV2s) could “buy into” the HOV lane during these morning and evening peak periods, for a fee of $2.00. This fee was charged electronically to participants displaying both a QuickRide hang tag in the vehicle and carrying a transponder for automatic vehicle identification (AVI). In this program, two-person carpools can reduce their travel time by paying a toll – hence the name QuickRide. The overall objectives of the QuickRide program are to (2): • • •
increase overall person throughput in the Katy Freeway corridor during peak periods, increase travel speeds on mixed-flow lanes during peak periods, assuming a number of vehicles currently using the general-purpose lane lanes will divert to the HOV lane, and efficiently manage demand without adverse operating impacts on both the HOV lane and the general-purpose lanes.
1
RELATED PROJECTS Value pricing, as applied in QuickRide, is a toll charged to allow access to a restricted traffic facility, in this case the HOV lane. Fielding and Klein introduced the concept of value pricing for underutilized HOV lanes. They suggest that HOV lane pricing will both increase the access to HOV lanes as well as increase public acceptance of pricing schemes for general purpose lanes (3). Since early 1995, several value pricing projects have been initiated, as described in several recent reports (1,4). The first pricing-like project, the State Route 91 (SR-91) Express Lanes in Orange County, opened on December 27, 1995. The four express lanes were added in the median and are essentially a toll road with priority given to HOVs. Intended as a means of providing additional capacity to all personal vehicles in the corridor, the Express Lanes charge a toll that varies by the time of day. Initially, vehicles with three or more occupants could use the facility free of charge; however, these vehicles now pay half of the toll (5). The evaluation of the SR-91 Express Lanes indicates that this project has successfully attracted travelers to pay tolls to avoid congestion in the general-purpose lanes. [However, the complete project impacts on traffic conditions and traveler behavior in the corridor have not yet been published (7,8).] The results are not likely to be comparable to the QuickRide results due to differences in vehicle occupancy requirements for the priced facility. The I-15 HOV lane pricing project (FasTrak) in San Diego opened in December 1996. Initially, for a flat monthly fee, single-occupant vehicles were allowed unlimited use of the HOV lane. After 15 months in operation, the pricing mechanism was changed. Currently, the electronic toll charged fluctuates, from $0.50 to $4.00 per trip, based on real-time traffic volumes and speeds, although a maximum fee of $8.00 per trip could be implemented (4). There is an ongoing evaluation of the FasTrak program, with some preliminary results to date (7,8). Again, because the project allows for single-occupant vehicles to buy into the HOV lane, the results are not directly comparable. The QuickRide program, in contrast to these two projects, focuses exclusively on HOV pricing, as only HOV2s, and not single-occupant vehicles, are eligible. Also, the price for QuickRide does not vary; the fee is $2.00 per trip. Finally, the time period for the HOV2 pricing is limited to 6:45 – 8:00 am and 5:00 – 6:00 pm; HOV2s may use the facility free of charge outside of these periods. THE VALUE OF TRAVEL TIME One important element in HOV lane value pricing is determining the toll at which the desired HOV lane demand is reached. In the QuickRide program, a toll that is too low will result in high HOV2 demand, degrading the level of service in the HOV lane. On the other hand, a toll that is too high will not result in greater person throughput. Because the primary motivation for using the HOV lane is time savings, travelers’ value of time can be used to determine a toll and to measure the benefits of the QuickRide program. The value of travel time can be expressed as the money value that people place on saving various forms of travel time (9). Fundamentally, drivers with a high value of travel time should be interested in paying money to save travel time because the HOV lane can provide shorter travel time than the general-purpose lanes. Estimating the value of time at which travelers will choose the HOV lane, however, is not 2
an easy task, a priori. The value of travel time is known to vary based on: (1) the variety of attributes of travel alternatives; (2) the socioeconomic attributes of the traveler, such as income, wage rate, age, sex, and car ownership; and (3) the trip purpose (9, 10, 11). For this reason, estimates of travelers’ value of time vary widely. Nonetheless, in the feasibility study for QuickRide, a value of travel time savings of $7.50 per hour per vehicle was investigated (1). With additional assumptions on the number of potential HOV2s and the distribution of the value of time among travelers, a toll of $2.00 was recommended. That toll was consistant with the per-mile cost of traveling on the Harris County Toll Road Authority (HCTRA) facilities, and therefore represented a locally acceptable toll. PURPOSE The purpose of this report is to describe travel behavior during the first year (the formal demonstration) of the QuickRide program. The report begins with a brief description of the methods employed in this evaluation, and then proceeds to describe the overall usage of QuickRide, the changes in travel behavior reported by QuickRide users, and the factors affecting frequency of use of QuickRide. Several conclusions are drawn from these analyses and are presented in the final section. Initially, the QuickRide evaluation study reviewed reported changes in travel behavior by QuickRide users as well as assessed the perceived benefits to the public of “pay to travel” under QuickRide. In addition, QuickRide users were asked what could be done to encourage additional participation in QuickRide. Origin and destination data compiled from QuickRide applicants was also reviewed for comparison purposes. Next, the study focused on non-user travel behavior in the corridor as well as their level of awareness and acceptance of the program. The following discussion provides a summary of data compiled from applications submitted for the QuickRide program, the findings for the QuickRide participant survey, and the findings for the QuickRide non-user survey.
3
STUDY DESIGN OBJECTIVES Because the QuickRide program has focused on the pricing of HOV2s in the Katy Freeway corridor, specific questions about travel behavior can arise: • • • • •
At a price of $2.00, how many HOV2s may be willing to use the HOV lane during the peak travel hours? How does demand on the facility vary by time of day and day of week? What incentive exists to encourage two-person carpools to use the HOV lane at a fee of $2.00? What is the implied value of time for those travelers? What shifts in travel mode and time of travel have been observed? How frequently are QuickRide participants using the HOV lane? Are there important travel and/or demographic characteristics that affect participants’ frequency of use?
The analyses in this paper answer these questions. Moreover, the answers to these questions suggest important implications for future HOV-based value pricing projects, both in the Houston area and across the country. EVALUATION METHODS To answer these questions, several analyses were undertaken. First, the overall patterns of usage of the QuickRide program were investigated using the AVI data of QuickRide participants. As participants passed a certain point on the HOV lane, their vehicle’s identification number and an electronic time stamp were collected. These data, in turn, were compiled to get the number of uses during the test, and to examine use by time of day and day of week. Since each vehicle’s identification number was available, the frequency of use of QuickRide for each individual could also be calculated. Because travel time savings is the primary incentive for participants to use the HOV lane, travel times in the HOV lane and in the freeway main lanes, and the resulting travel time savings for the HOV lane, were calculated. Travel time data in the corridor are tabulated using the AVI system, with resulting estimates of travel times and speeds over major freeway segments (12). The travel time savings were calculated for a representative sample of days during the year; specifically, on one day in each of February and December 1998, and on two days in each month from March through November 1998. In total, 20 days were sampled. To examine demographic and travel characteristics of users, the results of a survey of QuickRide participants were used. A mail-back survey of QuickRide participants was conducted in mid1998 to collect basic demographic data, as well as report travel patterns in the Katy Freeway corridor both before and during the QuickRide test. Demographic information included age, income, household size, and occupation, while the information on travel patterns included the user’s best estimate of the number of trips per week in the Katy corridor, classified by mode and time of travel, both before and during QuickRide. As a caveat, one must be somewhat cautious of the data, as they may exhibit some “behavioral justification” on the part of the respondents. Indeed, respondents had a higher observed frequency of use of QuickRide than the survey non5
respondents did. Nonetheless, of the 387 participants who were mailed a survey, 185 completed the survey (a 48percent response rate). These survey results were used in two ways. First, the reported travel patterns before and during QuickRide were analyzed to determine the reported mode and time shifts of QuickRide participants. Second, the demographic data and reported pre-QuickRide use was correlated with the participants’ actual use of QuickRide (from the AVI data). This was done to examine whether there were certain demographic or trip-making characteristics that are correlated with a propensity to use QuickRide.
6
ANALYSIS AND RESULTS OF APPLICATIONS AND SURVEY DATA This portion of the QuickRide evaluation focuses on the public’s response to QuickRide. The three groups considered were QuickRide applicants as a whole, a sample of QuickRide users, and a sample of Katy Freeway drivers that were not QuickRide users. Initially, the QuickRide evaluation study reviewed reported changes in travel behavior by QuickRide users as well as assessed the perceived benefits to the public of “pay to travel” under QuickRide. In addition, QuickRide users were asked what could be done to encourage additional participation in QuickRide. Origin and destination data compiled from QuickRide applicants was also reviewed for comparison purposes. Next, the study focused on non-user travel behavior in the corridor as well as their level of awareness and acceptance of the program. The following discussion provides: • a summary of data compiled from applications submitted for the QuickRide program, • the findings for the QuickRide participant survey, and • the findings for the QuickRide non-user survey. CHARACTERISTICS OF QUICKRIDE APPLICANTS Approximately 40,000 applications to join QuickRide were distributed and 387 applications were returned. The applications were mailed to residents along the Katy Freeway corridor and to other interested persons who requested one. The application form contained questions regarding where applicants reside, where they enter the Katy HOV lane, and where they are headed. The following provides a profile of QuickRide applicants, based on information obtained from the application forms. Where Do QuickRide Applicants Live? As Figure 1 shows, well over half (58 percent) of QuickRide applicants reside west of State Highway 6. Over a third (36 percent) live between Beltway 8 and State Highway 6. Only 6 percent of applicants reside within Beltway 8. Between Beltway 8 & Hwy. 6 36%
Inside Loop 610 2% Between Loop 610 Beltway 8
Beyond Hwy. 6
4%
58%
Figure 1. QuickRide Applicant Residence Location (n = 387). 7
Where Do They Enter the HOV Lane? Figure 2 indicates that when they used the Katy HOV lane prior to joining QuickRide nearly half (47 percent) of QuickRide applicants entered the Katy HOV lane west of State Highway 6. Addicks P%R 23%
Gessner 9% West of Hwy 6 47% N/A 21%
Figure 2. QuickRide Applicant Residence Location (n = 387). Where Are They Destined? Nearly a quarter (23 percent) entered at the Addicks Park & Ride, and only 9 percent enter at Gessner. A fifth of applicants (21 percent) who applied for QuickRide were not current users of the Katy Freeway HOV lane. As illustrated in Figure 3, about a third (32 percent) of QuickRide applicants are destined downtown. Other destinations frequently mentioned include Galleria/Post Oak (14 percent), Northwest Mall/Brookhollow (9 percent), Allen Parkway/American General (8 percent), the Medical Center (7 percent), Greenway Plaza (6 percent), and the Heights (6 percent). Greenway Plaza 6%
Heights 6%
Baytown 1% Medical Center 7%
Galleria/Post Oak 14%
Hobby 2% Memorial Park 3%
Katy Corridor 3%
Other 18% Downtown 32%
Memorial/Villages 4%
Other 4% Allen Parkway/American General 8%
NW Mall/Brookhollow 9%
Figure 3. QuickRide Applicant Destination. 8
Bellaire 1%
SURVEY OF QUICKRIDE PARTICIPANTS
The QuickRide Participant Survey examined the patterns of enrolled QuickRide participants to travel in the Katy HOV lane during periods otherwise restricted to 3+ occupancy. The objectives of the QuickRide Participant Survey were to: • • •
Identify changes in travel behavior. Assess the perceived benefits of “pay to travel” under QuickRide. Identify ways to encourage additional participation.
LKC Consulting Services (LKC), in close consultation with METRO and TTI, developed a survey of QuickRide participants. The survey instrument was mailed to 387 individuals who registered with QuickRide between January, 1998 and March, 1998. The surveys were mailed in April, and 185 were returned (postage paid) by the date of analysis. At nearly 50 percent, the actual response rate exceeded the expected response rate of 33 percent. Results of Participant Study
The following is a discussion of the data collected. In keeping with the organization of the survey instrument, the results are discussed in the following order: trip information, transponder information, service rating, user information, and user comments. A copy of the survey instrument is attached for reference. Trip Information
One of the primary objectives of priority pricing on the Katy HOV lane is to increase person movement. One of the desired outcomes of QuickRide is that more people are moved in the Katy HOV lane during the peak hour and the peak period, implying that cars have been removed from the general freeway lanes and congestion reduced. The questions in the trip information portion of the survey were designed to determine how travel for QuickRide users has changed, if at all, since the program began. Users were first asked two questions aimed at determining changes in travel patterns. These questions asked about weekly morning and afternoon travel behavior using several travel modes. The morning periods included AM shoulder (before 6:45 a.m. and after 8:00 a.m.) and AM peak (6:45 a.m. to 8:00 a.m.). The evening periods included PM shoulder (before 5:00 p.m. and after 6:00 p.m.) and PM peak (between 5:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m.). Results generally reveal desirable trends in travel pattern changes. Changes in Drive Alone
As indicated in Figure 4, the total number of weekly trips made by users driving alone has decreased from 281 to 173 during shoulder hours and from 295 to 109 during peak hours.
9
Total trips per week
300 250 200 150 100 50 0 AM Shoulder
AM Peak
PM Shoulder
PM Peak
Period Before QuickRide
With QuickRide
Figure 4. Number of Weekly Trips Made Driving Alone. Changes in Two-Person Carpools
A comparable, but less dramatic, trend holds true for the total number of weekly trips made by users in two-person carpools traveling on the main lanes of the Katy Freeway. As illustrated in Figure 5, the total number of weekly two-person carpool trips on the freeway has decreased from 159 to 112 during shoulder hours and from 179 to 96 during peak hours since QuickRide’s inception.
Total trips per week
150
100
50
0 AM Shoulder
AM Peak
PM Shoulder
PM Peak
Period Before QuickRide With QuickRide
Figure 5. Number of Trips Made in Two-Person Carpool on Freeway. As would be expected, the most dramatic change in travel behavior occurred among two-person carpools traveling on the HOV lane during peak hours (see Figure 6). The reported travel by two-person carpools on the HOV lane during the peak hours was illegal before QuickRide. Since QuickRide’s inception, the total number of weekly trips has increased from 4 to 550 — an 10
increase to 110 trips per day. There have also been marginal decreases in these users’ total weekly trips made on the freeway’s HOV lane during shoulder hours. 300
Total trips per week
250
200
150
100
50
0 AM Shoulder
AM Peak
PM Shoulder
PM Peak
Period
Before QuickRide
With QuickRide
Figure 6. Number of Weekly Trips Made in Two-Person Carpool on HOV Lane. Changes in 3+ Person Carpools
As illustrated in Figure 7, there have been marginal decreases in the number of users in carpools comprised of three or more people traveling on the HOV lane. This suggests that some 3+ person carpoolers are now traveling in two-person carpools.
Total trips per week
250 200 150 100 50 0 AM Shoulder
AM Peak
PM Shoulder
PM Peak
Period Before QuickRide
With QuickRide
Figure 7. Number of Weekly Trips Made in 3+ Person Carpool on HOV Lane.
11
Changes in Bus Ridership
The total number of weekly trips made by QuickRide users riding METRO buses on the HOV lane during every time period has decreased; however, the changes during the AM and PM shoulder hours were small compared to those during the AM and PM peak hours (see Figure 8). There has thus been a decrease in METRO bus ridership by users who gained the QuickRide option allowing them to participate in two-person carpools. Finally, only one respondent participated in a vanpool on the HOV lane before QuickRide, and he or she is no longer doing so. 300
Total trips per week
250 200 150 100 50 0 A M S h o uld e r
AM Peak
P M S h o u ld e r
P M Peak
P e rio d B efore Q u ick R id e
W ith Q u ick R id e
Figure 8. Number of Weekly Trips Made on METRO Bus on HOV Lane. Changes in Travel Mode
Figures 9a and 9b show how the respondents’ travel modes during all times changed after they began to use QuickRide. Carpool on HOV Lane 11%
Vanpool on HOV Lane METRO Bus 1% on HOV Lane 5% Other 2%
2-Person Carpool on HOV Lane 31%
Drive Alone 31%
2-Person Carpool on Freeway 19%
Figure 9a. Trips During All Times Before Quick Ride (n = 1,821).
12
METRO Bus on HOV Lane Vanpool on HOV 3% Lane 0%
Other 0% Drive Alone 16%
3+ Person Carpool on HOV Lane 11%
2-Person Carpool on Freeway 12%
2-Person Carpool on HOV Lane 58%
Figure 9b. Trips During All Times After Quick Ride (n = 1,770). The most significant changes are the near doubling of trips made by two-person carpools on the HOV lane and the halving of trips made by people driving alone. Another important change was the decrease of trips made by two-person carpools on the main lanes of the Katy Freeway. Finally, overall total trips made during all times by 3+ person carpools remained at 11 percent, suggesting that QuickRide did not cause larger carpools to break down into smaller carpools. Changes in Travel Time of Day
Table 1 indicates that trips made during AM shoulder hours have decreased by 118 (23 percent) while those made during the corresponding peak hour have increased by 87 (22 percent). A similar trend holds for PM hours. Total trips made during shoulder hours decreased by 90 (18 percent) while those made during peak hours increased by 70 (18 percent). Table 1. Changes in Total Trips. During AM & PM shoulder & peak hours
During shoulder & peak hours During AM & PM hours
Before QR
With QR
∆ in total
Percentage ∆
AM Shoulder
510
392
-118
-23.1 percent
AM Peak PM Shoulder P.M. Peak
403 509 399
490 419 469
87 -90 70
21.6% -17.7% 17.5%
1,019
811
-208
-20.4%
Peak
802
959
157
19.6%
AM
913
882
-41
-4.4%
908 1,821
888 1,770
-20 -51
-2.2% -2.8%
Shoulder
PM During all times of the day
13
Total trips made during shoulder hours decreased by 208 (20 percent) while the total number of trips made during both peak hours increased by 157 (20 percent). The last question in the trip information section of the survey asked users to identify who they travel with when using QuickRide. The results (listed in Table 2) indicate that users travel primarily with family members (49 percent) and co-workers (41 percent), followed by neighbors (6 percent). Under the “Other” option, several users indicated they travel with people they met at the bus stop or on the bus. With Whom Do You Share QuickRide?
Table 2. With Whom Do You Travel When You Use the QuickRide Service?
Number of Responses Percent
Co-workers
Neighbors
Adult Family Members
81
12
72
24
8
197
41%
6%
37%
12%
4%
100%
Children
Other
Total
Transponder Usage
Users were asked the number of QuickRide transponders they had requested. A follow-up question for users requesting more than one transponder was aimed at assessing whether or not there are two carpools formed from one household. Of the 174 responses given, more than half of the users (123) requested only one transponder and 51 users indicated they requested more than one QuickRide transponder. However, there were 59 reasons given in response to why they had done so. While some users requesting more than one transponder did not complete the second part of this question, others requesting only one or no transponder at all provided answers. These trends show users were not clear on when to respond to this question. The responses were as follows: •
Twenty-two users indicated they used one transponder for each household car, both of which could use QuickRide on the same day.
•
Twenty-eight users indicated they requested more than one transponder, because they used one for each household car that used QuickRide on alternate days.
•
Of the nine users who marked the “Other” option, four indicated they did not request a QuickRide transponder at all because they already possessed an EZ-Tag transponder from the Harris County Toll Road Authority.
In order to determine whether or not transponders are being displayed at the proper time to ensure proper billing, respondents were asked to indicate whether or not they leave their transponders mounted at all times. Seventy-eight users (42 percent) indicated they do leave their transponders mounted at all times. 14
The 102 users who do not leave the transponder mounted at all times gave multiple reasons for not doing so. As Table 3 indicates, the reasons cited for not leaving transponders permanently mounted were that they drive on the HOV lane during no-pay times or with three or more people, followed by transponders being shared between cars. Responses provided under the “Other” option cited lack of transponder use, fear of theft, and prior mounting of an EZ-Tag transponder as reasons for not leaving the QuickRide transponder mounted at all times. One user responded that he or she did not know whether or not to take the QuickRide transponder down at certain times. Table 3. Why Do You Not Leave Your Transponder on at All Times?
Interfere s with visibility
Share between cars
Drive with 3+ people
Drive during no-pay times
2
18
64
1%
10%
35%
Number of Responses Percent
Other
No Response
Total
84
13
4
185
45%
7%
2%
100%
Service Rating
Users were asked a series of questions to assess usage of QuickRide, to determine the impact of price as it relates to usage, and to determine which publicity resulted in the most awareness of QuickRide. Usage
Users were first asked to compare how often they actually use QuickRide with how often they thought they would use it. They were asked to gauge their responses on a scale from 1 to 5, with 1 indicating they use it more frequently and 5 indicating they use it less frequently. The mean response of 2.88 implies that users’ actual QuickRide usage falls at a level roughly consistent with their expectations. As an extension of the preceding question, users were asked to explain why they used QuickRide significantly more or less than anticipated. The following reasons were provided to explain lower than anticipated QuickRide usage: • • • •
A total of eight users indicated they no longer have a personal need for the service. Six users acknowledged they no longer had a carpooler. Poor customer service was listed by one user, who cited their dissatisfaction with the timeliness of monthly sticker arrival. Other responses included opting to ride the bus, commuting with others, and price.
The following reasons were provided for higher than anticipated QuickRide usage: •
Three users specifically cited saving time as an explanation for higher than anticipated QuickRide usage. 15
•
Sixteen users cited the program’s convenience as the reason they use QuickRide more often.
•
Other explanations included shifts in carpool size (both upward from drive alone to twoperson carpool and downward from 3+ person carpool to two-person carpool), increased personal need for the service, and traffic congestion on the main lanes of the Katy Freeway.
Price
Users were asked to rate the price of QuickRide on a scale from 1 to 5, with 1 being inexpensive and 5 being expensive. The mean response of 3.48 suggests that the average user feels QuickRide is moderately expensive. This could be interpreted to mean that the average user values their time saved using QuickRide less than the $2.00 required for a one-way trip. In extending the previous question, users were asked to rate how much the price of QuickRide factors into their use of the service on a scale from 1 to 5, with 1 indicating its not being a factor and 5 indicating it as being the greatest factor. The mean response of 2.64 with a 1.39 standard deviation indicates users are neutral regarding price as a factor affecting their QuickRide usage. Regarding whether or not they shared the price of QuickRide with the passenger in their carpools, nearly three-fourths of users indicated they do not do so. Thus, most surveyed users carry the financial burden of QuickRide, suggesting most users carpool with family members. For users traveling with co-workers and neighbors, it could be interpreted to mean that the coworker or neighbor is viewed as doing the QuickRide user a favor by joining the carpool, thus the cost is not shared. Increasing QuickRide Usage
Users were then asked what would cause them to use QuickRide more often. As Table 4 shows, users indicated that being allowed to drive alone on the HOV lane and reducing the price of QuickRide would have the greatest effect on encouraging them to use the service more often. Other less frequent responses included longer QuickRide hours and an increase in traffic congestion on the Katy Freeway’s main lanes. Among responses submitted under the “Other” option, a western extension and easier access to the HOV lane were the most popular reasons given by users in regard to what would cause them to use QuickRide more often. Table 4. Which Would Cause You to Use QuickRide More Often?
Number of responses Percent
Longer QuickRide hours
Allowed alone on HOV lane
Increased traffic on main lanes
Reduced price
Other
Total
32
142
34
77
12
297
11%
48%
11%
26%
4%
100%
16
Public Education
In an effort to gauge the success of the public education program, a final question under the service rating section asked users how they found out about QuickRide (see Table 5). Newspapers, direct mail, and to a somewhat lesser extent, television were the primary sources of information on QuickRide. Under the provided “Other” option, 11 users also noted radio as a source of information regarding QuickRide. Table 5. How Did You Find Out About the QuickRide Program?
Number of responses Percent
TV
Newspaper
Friend
Bus
Other
Total
33
60
87
19
5
16
220
15%
27%
40%
9%
2%
7%
100%
User Information
In order to develop a profile of QuickRide users, the last portion of the survey collected demographic data. Users were asked to state their age, household size, occupation, and household income. User Age
Figure 10 shows the majority of users fall within the 26 to 49 year-old range (81 percent), with most of these being within the 38 to 49 year-old range (56 percent).
65 and Over 3% 50 to 64 11%
No Response 2% 16 to 25 3%
26 to 37 25%
38 to 49 56%
Figure 10. Users’ Age Ranges (n = 185).
17
User Family Size
Users reported two predominant family sizes— those consisting of 3 to 4 people—made up a slightly greater proportion (45 percent) than those consisting of one to two people (39 percent) as seen in Figure 11.
7 or more 2%
No Response 3%
5 to 6 11% 1 to 2 39%
3 to 4 45%
Figure 11. Users’ Family Sizes (n = 185). User Occupation
Figure 12 shows the make-up of users’ occupations. Comprising over three-fourths of all occupations identified, professional/managerial jobs (76 percent) were the most widely held, followed by administrative/clerical (8 percent), and technical and sales jobs (8 percent). Other 2% Retired/Student 3%
No Response 3%
Admin./Cler. 8%
Tech./Sales 8%
Prof./Manag. 76%
Figure 12. Users’ Occupation (n = 185).
18
User Household Income
Twenty-five of the users refused to answer the question regarding household income. However, based on the responses received, the majority of the users have combined household incomes of $50,000 or more. As illustrated in the Users’ Household Income chart, 35 percent of users have household incomes greater than $100,000. See figure 13. $10,000 - $20,000 1% No Response 14%
$20,001 - $30,000 1% $30,001 - $50,000 9%
$50,001 - $75,000 18%
More Than $100,000 35%
$75,001 - $100,000 22%
Figure 13. Users’ Household Incomes (n = 185). User Comments
In order to identify issues not previously addressed on the survey, users were allowed to provide additional comments. Comments were coded and tabulated into general categories. As Figure 19 indicates, the comments overlapped some of the areas addressed in the survey, but also identified some issues, particularly relating to public acceptance, that were not examined elsewhere. There were many positive comments, but comments criticizing QuickRide’s customer service and the fact that users in two-person carpools have to pay anything at all stand out. QuickRide’s price and the western extension of the Katy Freeway HOV lane along with improved overall accessability to the HOV lane were other frequent comments. Seventeen surveys were received after the survey analysis was complete. Although the information derived from the general body of these surveys is not included in the survey results presented, open-ended comments on these 17 surveys were included in Table 6. Table 6. Survey Comments from QuickRide Participants. Comment
The program is great and/or beneficial and/or I’d like you to keep it Customer service for billing and sticker distribution 2-person carpools should be allowed on HOV lane at all times without having to pay 19
Number of Responses 16
6 6
Table 6. Cont’d.) Survey Comments from QuickRide Participants Comment
Extend HOV lane farther west and/or improve overall accessibility to it
Number of Responses 5
The price of QuickRide is too high
4
Allow SOVs to drive alone on HOV lane
4
METRO police are rude
3
We are charged during off-peak hours and when we have 3+ riders in vehicle Make the monthly stickers more visible to METRO police officers so they don’t have to stop us Address the free-rider problem
3
Consolidate QuickRide and EZ-Tag accounts
2
METRO Police could be more forgiving on QuickRide time restrictions QuickRide times should be extended on Friday afternoons and adopted on holidays QuickRide should be open to all those willing to pay the $2.00
1
Scanner should be permanently mounted, not hand-held by METRO police
1
3 3
1 1
Participant Survey Conclusions
The research results in the following conclusions: • • • • • • • •
Although there have been some shifts from 3-person carpools and the METRO bus in the peak hour, usage of the Katy HOV lane has increased during the peak hours. Users report QuickRide gives them flexibility in deciding when to travel because they are no longer restricted to using the Katy HOV lane only during non-peak hours. The number of weekly trips users made driving alone decreased from 31 percent to 16 percent. Responses by QuickRide users that requested two or more transponders suggest that two cars are used for the same carpool on different days, not that there are two carpools within the same household. The large number of QuickRide users who do not leave their transponders mounted at all times could be considered a contributing factor to missed revenue. Although many users are satisfied with QuickRide, improved customer service may increase satisfaction. Although price does not appear to be a determining factor, a lower price (or none at all) would induce more QuickRide use. QuickRide is viewed as a convenient, albeit costly, alternative to driving down the main lanes of the IH-10 Katy Freeway.
20
SURVEY OF NON-USERS OF QUICKRIDE The objectives of the QuickRide Non-User Survey were to: • • •
Determine awareness of QuickRide. Assess public acceptance of “pay to travel.” Identify ways to encourage additional participation .
LKC, in close consultation with METRO and TTI, developed a survey of QuickRide non-users. The non-user was identified using two strategies. METRO provided a list of individuals who requested information from Rideshare about QuickRide, but did not enroll in the program. One hundred and fifty-six individuals who requested information but are not registered for QuickRide were included in the sample of non-users. The license plates of more than 4,000 vehicles traveling eastbound on the Katy Freeway (IH-10) were recorded at the overpass between N. Post Oak and Loop 610. Approximately 2,350 drivers with license plates that are registered to addresses whose zip codes are three to five miles on either side of the Katy Freeway, beginning at the West Belt entrance and continuing out to Katy, were included in the sample. The survey instrument was mailed to 2,500 individuals who were confirmed not to have registered with QuickRide since the program began in January, 1998. The surveys were mailed August 14, and 289 were returned (postage paid). The actual response rate was 12 percent compared to an expected response rate of 10 percent. NON-USER SURVEY RESULTS
The following is a discussion of the data collected. In keeping with the organization of the survey instrument, the results are discussed in the following order: driving habits, QuickRide information, non-user acceptance of QuickRide, non-user demographics, and non-user comments and suggestions. A copy of the survey instrument is attached for reference. Driving Habits
The questions in the driving habits portion of the survey were designed to profile travel patterns for QuickRide non-users. Quick-Ride non-users were first asked a question aimed at determining travel patterns. This question asked about weekly morning and afternoon travel behavior using several travel modes. The morning periods included AM shoulder (before 6:45 a.m. and after 8:00 a.m.) and AM peak (6:45 a.m. to 8:00 a.m.) hours. The evening periods included PM shoulder (before 5:00 p.m. and after 6:00 p.m.) and PM peak (between 5:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m.) hours. Results reveal that of the 2,485 weekly trips recorded in this survey, 2,077 were made by respondents who drive alone on the Katy Freeway (84 percent). As Figure 14 indicates, twothirds of the respondents not driving alone travel on a METRO bus on the HOV lane (30 percent) or in a two-person carpool on the HOV lane (30 percent). A quarter of the respondents travel to work in a two-person carpool on the freeway (see Figure 14). 21
Bus on HOV 5%
2-Person Carpool on Fwy 5% Other 16%
3-Person Vanpool on HOV 1%
Drive Alone85% Vanpool on HOV
