Citation
Impacts of Transportation Demand Management Policies and Temporary Campus Transit Use on the Permanent Transit Habits and Attitudes of University of Florida Alumni

Material Information

Title:
Impacts of Transportation Demand Management Policies and Temporary Campus Transit Use on the Permanent Transit Habits and Attitudes of University of Florida Alumni
Copyright Date:
2008

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
College students ( jstor )
Data types ( jstor )
Fees ( jstor )
Parking ( jstor )
Public transit ( jstor )
Ridership ( jstor )
Transit systems ( jstor )
Transits ( jstor )
Transportation ( jstor )
Universities ( jstor )
City of Gainesville ( local )

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Embargo Date:
5/1/2005

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text











IMPACTS OF TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT POLICIES
AND TEMPORARY CAMPUS TRANSIT USE ON THE PERMANENT TRANSIT
HABITS AND ATTITUDES OF UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA ALUMNI










By

ALEXANDER BOND


A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF
FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS IN URBAN AND REGIONAL PLANNING

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


2005



























In Memory of Andrew Factor, Christopher Zeiss and Premal Dagly














ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS


I would like to thank the following people for their support of my thesis research.

Special thanks to my thesis committee chair, employer and advisor Professor Ruth L.

Steiner. Her guidance, support and advice have gone above and beyond the call of duty.

The other members of my thesis committee deserve thanks as well. Professor Joshua

Comenetz and Dr. Linda Crider have lent their expertise and advice at critical moments

through this process, and their input has been very valuable. Professor Paul Zwick, Linda

Dixon of UF Campus Facilities Planning and Construction, Doug Robinson of the

Regional Transit System, and Bob Miller, Vice President for UF Finance and

Administration, have also assisted this project in several ways.

This project was an expensive one, and without in-kind support the cost would

have been prohibitive. The Urban and Regional Planning Department generously

supplied me with thousands of letterhead and return mail envelopes, significantly

reducing the cost of the project.

Members of my family were also integral to the process. Special thanks go to my

sister Carly Bond for her effort at the start of this project. Without her work, this project

would have ended before it began. My parents, Carolyn and Tony Bond, have given me

their undying love and support throughout my time at the University of Florida.
















TABLE OF CONTENTS




A C K N O W L E D G E M E N T S ............................................................................................... iii

LIST OF TABLES ................................................... vii

LIST OF FIGURES ....................................... ........... ............................ ix

A B S T R A C T ........................................................................................................ ........... x

1 INTRODUCTION ..................................... .......... .......................... 1

2 L ITER A TU R E R E V IEW ................................................................... ................. 4
Transportation Demand Management....................................................................... 4
Public T ransit In A m erica. ..................................................................... .............. 12
T ran sit R id ersh ip ....................................................................................................... 12
M o d a l S p lit .............................................................................................................. .. 12
T ran sit F u n d in g ......................................................................................................... 15
F lorida T ransit Funding .. ................................................................... .............. 16
B u s T ran sit ............... .. .. ... ... ......................................................................... 17
Bus Fare Elasticity and Free-Fare Transit ............... ... .............. 18
Other Service Characteristics to Build Transit Ridership................................... 20
N on-U ser Studies .... .. ...... ............. .......................................................... .......... 25
U university Transportation .. .................................................................... .............. 26
C am pu s P parking .................................................. .............................................. 2 7
C am pu s T ran sit ............... ... .................................................................................... 2 9
Unlimited Access and Fare Structure ................................................. 31
C am pus T ransit C ase Studies................................................................ .............. 33
Permanent Effects of Temporary Transit Use ........................................................ 37

3 M E T H O D O L O G Y ............................................................................. .............. 39
Survey A dm inistration ...... .. ................................................................. .............. 39
S u rv ey S c o p e ............................................................................................................... 4 0
Freshman Survey ................................ .. ......... .................................... 41
A lu m n i S u rv ey .............................................................................................................. 4 2
L im ita tio n s ................................................................................................................. ... 4 3
O their R research M ethods... ..................................................................... .............. 43



iv









4 BACKGROUND .................................................. .......................... 45
T he U university of F lorida.. ..................................................................... .............. 45
R regional T ransit Sy stem ........................................................................... ............. 52
Cam pus Transit Service A greem ent ......................................................... .............. 56
T transportation A access F ee ........................................ ......................... .............. 58
Service E nhancem ents .... ................................................................ .............. 62
Stan d ard C ity R ou tes ....... .. ...................................... ........................ .............. 6 3
C am pus C irculator R outes ................................................................. .............. 65
L after G ator ........................................................................................................ 66

5 RESULTS AND DISCU SSION .................................. ....................... .............. 68
T ran sp o rtatio n H ab its................................................................................... .............. 6 8
Transportation B before A attending UF .................................................... .............. 69
Transportation W while Enrolled .................................... ...................... .............. 70
Transportation A after G raduation........................................................... .............. 71
Transit A attitudes and K now ledge ............................................................. .............. 73
Transportation Demand Management and Public Policy ....................................... 77
Self-Selection for T ransit U se........................................ ........................ .............. 81
F lorida R residency ....................................................................... ......... ..... ... 8 1
M ultifam ily and Single Fam ily residents.............................................. .............. 83
D isc u s sio n ..................................................................................................................... 8 5
T transportation H abits... ...................................................................... .............. 85
Transit A attitudes and K now ledge ......................................................... .............. 87
T D M and P public P olicy .. ...................................................................... .............. 89
Self-Selection for Transit U se..................................... ....................... .............. 89

6 C O N C L U SIO N S .................................................... ............................................... 92
Conclusions ................................................. ................. 92
P olicy R ecom m endations.. ..................................................................... .............. 95
R T S R ecom m endations .......................................... ........................... .............. 96
City of G ainesville Recom m endations ................................................. .............. 98
U university of Florida Recom m endations.............................................. .............. 99
Recommendations for Future Research...... ........ .................... 100

APPENDIX

A INFORMED CONSENT PROTOCOL.............. .................... 103

B INCOMING FRESHMEN SURVEY ...... ........ ...... .................... 104

C A L U M N I SU R V E Y ................................................. ............................................ 108

D FRESHM EN RAW SURVEY DATA ...................................................... .............. 112

E ALUM N I RAW SURVEY D A TA ............................................................ .............. 140



v









R E F E R E N C E S ........................................................................................ ................... 17 2

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .................................................................. .............. 178














LIST OF TABLES
Table page

1 TD M Strategies O organized by A spect..................................................... .............. 6

2 United States, Means of Transport to Work 2000 ............................................ 14

3 Transit System Characteristics by University and City Size............................. 30

4 Parking and D ecal Sales, 2003................................... ...................... .............. 51

5 T otal R idership 1995 to 2003 .................................... ...................... .............. 55

6 Campus Circulator Route Ridership 1995 to 2003 .......................................... 55

7 Student Subsidy/Transportation Access Fee Growth ....................................... 61

8 2004-2005 Standard City Routes and Funding Levels ..................................... 64

9 Funding and Frequency of Campus Circulator Routes..................................... 66

10 2004-2005 Later Gator Route Funding and Service Characteristics ................. 67

11 Parents' M ode of Travel to W ork ..................................................... .............. 70

12 Transit Service U se at U F ...................................... ........................ .............. 71

13 A lum ni Travel to W ork M ode Split.................................................. .............. 72

14 Frequency of Transit U se....................................... ........................ .............. 73

15 Attractive RTS Service Factors for Alumni.................................................... 73

16 Willingness to Ride Direct Transit Route to Work................................ 74

17 W willingness to U se Transit...................................... ....................... .............. 76

18 R regular vs. F are Free Transit............................................................ .............. 77

19 Behavioral Response to Parking Restriction................................................... 78

20 Transit Reduces Traffic Congestion ................................................. .............. 79









21 Willingness to Vote for a Pro-Transit Political Candidate ............................. 80

22 TDM Policies and Their Impact on Willingness to Bike and Walk ..................... 80

23 W ish Transit W as a B better O ption.................................................... .............. 81

24 Florida and Out-of-State Alumni Respondents to Transit Frequency .................. 82

25 Florida and Out-of-State Alumni Respondents' Mode of Travel to Work........... 83

26 Florida and Out-of-State Alumni Respondents' Willingness to Use Transit ....... 83

27 Multifamily and Single Family Residents' Transit Frequency.......................... 84

28 Multifamily and Single Family Mode of Travel to Work............................... 85

29 Multifamily and Single Family Willingness to Use Transit.............................. 85














LIST OF FIGURES


Figure page

1 Percent of Transit Trips Taken (Transit Modal Split) ...................................... 13

2 Nationwide Total of Transit Agency Funding 1991-2001................................ 15

3 All Campus Parking Facilities and Core Campus Area.................................... 49

4 U F P ark and R ide F facilities ...................................... ....................... .............. 50

5 R T S R oute System ..... .. .................................. ........................... .............. 54

6 Campus and Total RTS Ridership Growth....................................................... 56

7 Hometown Housing of Incoming Freshmen..................................................... 69

8 Knowledge of Transit System Information......................................... .............. 75
















Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in
Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in Urban and
Regional Planning

IMPACTS OF TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT POLICIES AND
TEMPORARY CAMPUS TRANSIT USE ON THE PERMANENT TRANSIT HABITS
AND ATTITUDES OF UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA ALUMNI

By Alexander Bond

May 2005

Chairperson: Ruth L. Steiner
Major Department: Urban and Regional Planning

The University of Florida began financially supporting the Regional Transit

System in 1998, allowing students to ride busses without paying a fare and substantially

improving service characteristics such as frequency and hours of operation. Students

have responded by shifting their commuting patterns away from single occupant

automobiles, and have played the pivotal role in boosting RTS' ridership by 284% in the

first six years of the program.

Students at the University of Florida are provided with high-quality, free-fare

transit during their period of attendance. Students are also subjected to a comprehensive

set of transportation demand management (TDM) policies intended to curb their use of

automobiles and shift their commutes toward alternative modes of transportation. After

graduation, most move away from the City of Gainesville to find employment. Alumni

must make new transportation choices, based on their new environs. The purpose of this









project is to understand how temporary exposure to TDM policies and high-quality transit

impacts permanent transit habits and attitudes.

Two mail surveys were administered, mimicking a time-series survey. Incoming

freshmen to the University were surveyed prior to their arrival at UF. Recent alumni

were surveyed as well, and the alumni responses can be compared to the freshmen

responses. Respondents were asked questions about transit use, transit system

knowledge, attitudes toward transportation policies, and attitudes toward TDM policies.

Survey results show a slight increase in transit ridership among alumni. Despite

the increase in ridership, alumni indicate they are less willing to ride transit than

freshmen. Upon deeper investigation, two "self-selection" factors for transit use were

identified: non-Florida residency and living in multifamily housing. The most important

factors for influencing transit use were fare cost and parking restriction.

This project concludes that people of all ages and backgrounds will ride transit

under certain circumstances. Those circumstances are parking pricing or restriction and

high-frequency transit. Low cost or free-fare transit may also be valuable if target users

are low-income or otherwise transportation disadvantaged. Prior automobile use does not

preclude the user from riding transit. Similarly, temporary transit use does not translate

into permanent habits once the users' life circumstances change. The decision on

whether to use transit is based on the transportation environment, which is largely shaped

by transportation demand management policies. This study concludes that TDM systems

in most cities-particularly those in Florida-are not comprehensive enough to influence

automobile users to change modes to transit.
















CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

The bulk of communities throughout the nation have failed to create a modal shift

toward transit because they have failed to implement a variety of complementary

transportation demand management (TDM) policies. TDM policies are those that

discourage single occupant automobile use and promote the use of alternative modes.

Universities are better equipped and more motivated than their surrounding communities

to implement comprehensive TDM programs. For many universities, increasing public

transit's mode share is the primary goal of their TDM programs.

Universities across the country are partnering with their communities' public

transit agencies to provide enhanced transit service to their campuses (Brown et al. 2003).

Schools hope to increase the number of students and staff that commute to campus by

bus, thus reducing the demand for parking on campus. Some schools offer unlimited

access, which allows users to board the bus without paying a fare. Many universities

improve the frequency, amenities and operating hours of transit routes serving the

campus.

The University of Florida is one university that has partnered with its local transit

agency to provide unlimited access, high frequency service. The partnership has been

very successful, increasing the system-wide number of transit riders 284% since its

inception in 1998. In 2004, the Gainesville Regional Transit System (RTS) carried

8.2 million riders per year, the majority of whom are students. RTS is now the 4th largest









transit system in the State of Florida despite serving the 17th largest county. Alachua

County now has the highest ratio of riders per capital of any county in Florida (NTD

2003/Census 2000)

The high rate of transit use in Gainesville (and Alachua County) stands in stark

contrast to the rest of the state. Florida is one of the most automobile dependent states in

the nation (Census 2000). Most of Florida was developed using suburban urban design,

the least transit-supportive pattern. Eighty five percent of the student population at the

University of Florida are in-state students, and as such have been raised in an

environment where private automobiles are the mode of choice for all trips. Since the

University of Florida has adopted a variety of TDM policies-including enhanced transit

service-students have been prompted to break their pre-conceived notions about using

alternative modes. Some students choose to walk or bike. Some choose to ride the bus.

Many students that persist in driving use busses to reach the core of campus from parking

facilities.

For many students riding the bus to, from and around the University of Florida

campus will represent their first sustained experience with bus transit. Seventy eight

percent of alumni report that they used RTS busses during their time at UF. It is clear

that students are amenable to riding the bus while in attendance at UF. But what happens

after they graduate? Most students will leave Gainesville, and most of those who stay

will no longer commute to campus. Will alumni continue to ride public transit in their

new communities? The purpose of this project is to explore how temporary transit use

impacts permanent transit habits and attitudes.









To answer questions about transit use after graduation, two mail surveys were

administered. The first survey was sent to incoming freshmen to establish "baseline"

data about transit habits and attitudes before arriving at the University. The second

survey was sent to alumni and asked many of the same questions. Data from the alumni

survey can be compared to the freshman survey, exposing any changes in transit habits or

attitudes toward public transportation.

Research questions. Three principal research questions are asked during this

project. The research questions are

1) Do alumni of the University of Florida ride public transit more frequently
than before they attended UF?

2) Do attitudes and perceptions about bus transit change after using busses on
and around the University of Florida Campus?

3) Which, if any, Transportation Demand Management policies are perceived
as being most effective by freshmen and alumni?

There are also some subsidiary research questions. These questions are:

1) What characteristics of bus transit and ancillary TDM policies at the
University of Florida make busses an attractive commuting option?

2) How educated are students and alumni on transit options?

3) Do students and alumni take transportation factors into consideration when
choosing where to live before and after graduation?

4) Which TDM policies are supported by students/alumni?
















CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW

This section contains a review of the existing literature on a variety of topics that

relate to public transportation, building bus ridership, and university transportation.

Public transit has many benefits for its community including lower traffic congestion,

lower air pollution, increased transportation equity and lower cost of living. Increasing

transit's share of passenger trips is an important goal of many metropolitan areas.

This section begins with a discussion of Transportation Demand Management

(TDM), which uses a variety of policy measures to create a more balanced transportation

system. A summary of current trends in transit ridership and administration follow. An

important component of TDM strategies is the enhancement of transit services, and a

section is included that discusses various service enhancements that have been proven to

build ridership. Transit systems that serve universities are covered in depth in the final

part.


Transportation Demand Management

Transportation Demand Management (TDM) is a package term for a variety of

planning strategies that promote the more efficient use of transportation resources.

Efficient use of the transportation system is becoming increasingly important as

widespread automobile use strains the existing road infrastructure, and available

government monetary resources cannot keep up with the demand for new roadway






5


capacity. The broad use of automobiles also has negative impacts on air quality, urban

design, and creates hardships to transportation disadvantaged persons such as the elderly,

poor or handicapped.

TDM strategies seek to reduce or mitigate the negative aspects of automobile

travel including congestion, air quality, and transportation inequity. They also seek to

build upon positive aspects of a balanced transportation system including economic

development, expanded housing choices, and a reduction in capital expenditure on

transportation infrastructure. Some TDM strategies include: more transportation mode

choices, improved convenience of alternative modes, efficient pricing and other financial

incentives, marketing of alternative modes, and land use changes that improve access and

reduce automobile dependency (Litman 2003).

TDM policies fall into three broad categories- positive, mixed and negative.

Positive TDM policies expand transportation options and access for all users and include:

Transit service improvements, flextime work hour scheduling, and carpool/vanpool

programs. Mixed TDM strategies expand options and access for only one segment of the

population, but do not adversely impact those who are not in the target group. Mixed

TDM strategies include: high occupant vehicle lanes, fare-free transit programs, and

traffic calming. Negative TDM strategies reduce options or increase costs. Negative

TDM strategies include: fuel tax increases, parking pricing, or auto-free zones (Victoria

Transportation Policy Institute [VTPI] 2004).

Erik Ferguson (1990) identifies TDM as a complementary strategy to

Transportation Supply Management (TSM). TSM strives to increase transportation

system capacity on all modes by forecasting infrastructure needs. TDM complements









TSM because it maximizes the use of all built transportation infrastructure. Ferguson

identifies five aspects of travel that can be altered to maximize the efficiency of the

existing transportation system: 1) Trip Generation, 2) Trip Distribution, 3) Mode Choice,

4) Route Selection (spatial), and 5) Route Selection (temporal). The five aspects of travel

and proven strategies to alter that aspect are summarized in Table 1 below:

Table 1-TDM Strategies Organized by Aspect
Aspect of Travel TDM Objective Selected Strategies
Trip Generation Eliminate trips -Growth management
-Telecomuting
Trip Distribution Move trips to less -Increased density
congested destination -Promote trip chaining
Mode Choice Move trips to higher -Bike/Ped amenities
occupancy modes -Parking pricing
-Ridesharing
-Transit enhancement
Route Selection Move trips to a less -Traffic calming
(spatial) congested route -Intelligent transportation systems
Route Selection Move trips to less -Alternative work schedules
(temporal) congested time period -Jobs/Housing mix
Source: Ferguson (1990)

Individual TDM strategies have a modest impact on the transportation system as a

whole. However when multiple strategies are applied in concert, the impact on the

system can be substantial. When multiple strategies are applied at the same time, the

negative impacts on individual users are mitigated (Litman 1999). For example, if

parking pricing is instituted it may reduce vehicle travel by 3%. The increase in prices

will likely cause lower income users to end their automobile commutes, impacting them

substantially. If parking prices are increased, AND transit service is improved, vehicle

travel could be reduced by 8-10%. Lower income users who were priced out of parking

will find the transit system meets their needs, and higher income users will choose to ride

the transit system because it is more cost-effective.









TDM has been criticized for "forcing" people into using alternative modes,

particularly individuals with low income or educational attainment levels. These

criticisms view modes other than the automobile as inferior (Pisarksi 1999). Proponents

counter that TDM is in fact a market-based system that provides additional options and

price points to users. TDM balances accessibility with mobility. Few TDM strategies

actually force people to change their transportation habits. Most strategies create

financial, convenience or time incentives to reduce automobile use (Litman 1999).

Comprehensive TDM programs have gained their broadest support in Europe,

particularly the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Belgium. TDM policies are built

into the national transportation policies of these European nations. This stands in stark

contrast to the United States, where TDM policies vary from locality to locality (Cleland

and Cooper 2003). There are three themes of European TDM that deserve particular

attention when discussing TDM in a college/university setting. First, utilizing TDM

transportation alternatives is marketed as the socially responsible norm in European

countries. In the United States, TDM-friendly behavior is marketed as an alternative to

the automobile-dependent culture. Second, many European cities were founded and

substantially built prior to widespread automobile ownership. The opposite is true of

many US cities, but many universities were established prior to the automobile-era

(including the University of Florida). Last, recent European TDM programs have been

negative TDM programs that increase costs or reduce automobile accessibility. Road

pricing has recently been instituted in inner London, Singapore and Rome. These

"negative" TDM strategies have not been given serious consideration by most American

cities, however they have been employed by some universities. Colleges and









universities-like dense urban areas-must reduce single occupant vehicle use, promote

an alternative mode oriented environment, and employ negative TDM policies as the

norm, more closely resembling a European TDM model.

Published literature focuses mostly on decreasing automobile dependence

(Hodgson and Tight 1999) and best practice discussions (Vuchic 2001). The literature

does not fully address the unique transportation environment found on a university

campus. Universities have a mixed population who commute on irregular schedules-

classes and other activities are scheduled throughout the day. They also function as a

distinct community, and value interpersonal contact. Universities often have written

TDM policies promoting bicycle and pedestrian trips over automobiles (Balsas 2002).

Balsas does not go into much detail about transit-promoting TDM measures; however he

found that universities value a pedestrian environment-often having written bicycle and

pedestrian capital improvement plans and education programs.

An important component of any TDM plan is the control, restriction and pricing

of parking resources. Restricting the unlimited supply of parking creates a disincentive

for travel by single occupant car, thus reducing congestion. Universities have a dual need

for controlling the parking supply on campus. Beyond the obvious benefit of lower

congestion, universities have limited space and financial resources to dedicate to parking

infrastructure. By implementing TDM parking policies, universities can save substantial

amount of already scarce space and money-and apply those resources to its mission of

education.

Parking regulation and pricing is a powerful TDM strategy. Charging fees for

parking where public transit is available would cause a rise in ridership. If no public









transit is available, parking pricing would stimulate more ridesharing (Downs 1992).

The parking situation on university campuses stands in strong contrast to their

surrounding communities. Keniry (1995) joking states that a "University is a group of

faculty, students and administrators held together by a common grievance over parking."

This jesting comment underscores how conditioned the American population is to the

suburban parking environment, and how university students (and faculty) must adapt

their travel behavior to the university setting. Suburban automobile users expect a free,

reserved parking space close to, or at, their destination (Beyard et al. 2003).

Contemporary urban planning mandates dedicated parking spaces for each land

use. Minimum parking requirements are a form of government intervention that

circumvents what would otherwise be a market system of paid parking. Ninety nine

percent of American automobile trips terminate in a free parking space (Shoup 1999).

Richard Willson (1995) surveyed planning directors in 144 cities and found that the

minimum parking requirements were based on either a) the parking standards of

neighboring cities or b) the Institute of Transportation Engineers' Parking Generation

Handbook. Most, if not all, minimum parking requirements are thus based on ITE

standards. In practice, peak parking demand has very little correlation with the standards

listed in the ITE handbook.1

Parking requirements in cities throughout the United States inflate the supply and

virtually eliminate the price of parking. But minimum parking requirements do not

eliminate the cost of parking. The cost of parking is built into the total expense of the



1 Shoup (1999) cites an example from the ITE Parking Generation Handbook. ITE studies on fast food
restaurants show a range from 3.55 to 15.92 spaces per 1,000 square feet of floor space. The majority of
localities use the standard of 9.95 spaces per 1,000 square feet, even though the ITE handbook shows that
only 4% of the peak parking demand is attributable to floor square footage variance.









development. The cost of the free parking is then absorbed by the landowner or passed

along to consumers (Shoup 1999). Constructing parking spaces can be quite expensive,

and the cost varies greatly based on the value of the land it is built on. Above or below

grade (structured) parking spaces cost between $10,000 and $25,000 per space. Surface

spaces cost $2,000-$3,000 each. Universities are in a peculiar position when it comes to

parking facility construction. They are non-profit entities, and cannot "mark up" the

price of goods to cover parking facility costs. Universities must charge students and

faculty who use parking spaces to recover at least a portion of the costs associated with

facility construction and maintenance (Shoup 1999). Since universities are unable or

unwilling to provide free parking, it follows that universities should incorporate parking

pricing into their TDM plans. By applying ancillary TDM programs- such as ridesharing,

enhanced transit services, and bike/ped capital improvements universities can capitalize

on the necessary parking pricing to create a comprehensive TDM program. The multiple

TDM strategies applied in concert could have the effect of stimulating substantial

transportation behavioral changes.

Morrall and Bolger (1996) found a strong inverse correlation between the

available proportion of parking spaces and transit's share of peak-hour commuters. In

places with fewer available parking spaces (and presumably priced parking), transit use

was high. In places with an excess of parking spaces, transit use was low. The

correlation is weaker in United States cities and stronger in Canada. This study also

found that more people used transit when the ratio of jobs to the number of parking

spaces was lower.









A TCRP study (Kuzmayak et al. 2003) found that transit tends to be competitive

in dense areas such as central business districts [or university campuses] for several

reasons. First, motorists face long walks after parking their vehicles. After parking in a

CBD, motorists were found to walk between 500 and 950 feet to their end destination.

The walking leg of the trip is shorter or equal if transit is used instead of an automobile.

Second, travelers must decide on a cost/convenience tradeoff. Riding public transit costs

less money than operating and parking a vehicle. However travelers are bound by the

transit provider's schedule and route network. Third, dense areas possess multiple

potential destinations within one area. This reduces the necessity of an automobile for

midday trips and promotes trip chaining. Fourth, at the extreme parking is simply not

available, legal, or its price point is too high for most users.

One study conducted in The Hague, Netherlands looked at the users of a 200

space high-demand CBD parking lot before and after its closure. The number of transit

trips taken during the week after lot closure went from 22 to 80, a 224% increase.

Transit's mode share increased from 5% to 19%. Previously, all 200 cars were single

occupant vehicles. After the lot closure, 4% of the displaced persons chose to carpool.

The bicycle/pedestrian modal share did not change, remaining at 4%. Despite the shift

toward public transit, single occupant vehicle commuting remained the overwhelming

majority at 74% (Gantvoort 1984). Automobile commuters chose to park at a more

distant location. The finding of this study has some mitigating factors. All of the

'before' trips taken were single occupant vehicular commuters. Work commuters have

very little choice as to the timing of their trip, and cannot choose whether or not to make

the trip. Public transit was already in place, yet the subjects of the study were choosing









not to avail themselves of it. Universities are somewhat different in that students have

a moderate amount of control over the timing of their trip, and often whether or not to

make the trip. Students also have a more limited budget than commuters to a major

European urban center.


Public Transit In America


Transit Ridership

Public transit has been experiencing a moderate resurgence in recent years. The

decade from 1985-1995 was one of ridership stagnation or decline. Public transit

ridership has been growing since, rising 18.7% between 1995 and 2001. In 2001,

9.5 billion riders took public transit. Since 2001, transit gave up a small percentage of its

gains, dropping to 9.2 billion riders in 2003.2 The number of bus riders has increased

every year since 1996, rising by 12.2% to 5.2 billion bus riders per year in 2001 (APTA

2003). Despite the ridership gains, busses carry less than 2% of all trips nationwide, and

most of those trips are work-related (Brown, et al. 2001).


Modal Split

Busses have been declining in their share of the transit rides. The reason for the

decrease in busses' share of trips is that other modes have been adding more route miles

to their systems or attracting new riders. Demand response/paratransit, heavy rail and

vanpool systems have each added significant amounts of route miles since 1995.

Figure 1 demonstrates the national modal split in 2001.


2 Data from 2002 and 2003 are preliminary. The term 'public transit' covers several modes of intra-city
travel including bus, light rail, subway, trolley, heavy rail, commuter rail, vanpool, demand
response/paratransit, ferries and other motorized alternative modes.










70.0

60.0 5-

50.0 -

40.0 -
o -:0 ],
_- 30.0 -

20.0 -

10.0 -
4 46
0 1 U 2 25
0.0 0
Bus Light Rail Commuter Heavy Rail Vanpool Demand Other
Rail Response

Figure 1-Percent of Transit Trips Taken (Transit Modal Split)
Source: 2001 National Transit Summaries and Trends


Busses remain the "workhorse" of the public transit system, carrying 57.9% of all

transit riders. Busses carry nearly all of the able-bodied transit riders in small and

medium-sized communities, where rail modes generally do not exist. Heavy rail has the

second largest ridership share with 30.3%. Other modes carry a very small share of

public transport riders (NTD/FTA 2002).

All of the discussion to this point has been growth and modal split ii i/hi/n the

broad category of transit. Cars remain by far the most dominant mode of travel,

particularly for travel to work. Transit accounts for a small portion of the total

transportation system. Table 2 shows the modal split for travel to work from the

2000 Census.









Table 2-United States, Means of Transport to Work 2000
Mode USA Users Percent of US Florida Users Percent of FL
Total Total
Single Occupant 97,102,050 75.7% 5,445,527 78.8%
Car
Carpool 15,634,051 12.2% 893,766 12.9%
Home Work 4,184,223 3.3% 207,089 3.0%
Walk 3,758,982 2.9% 118,386 1.7%
Bus 3,206,682 2.5% 108,340 1.6%
Subway/Elevated 1,885,961 1.5% 6,851 0.1%
Commuter Rail 658,097 0.5% 3,638 0.05%
Bicycle 488,497 0.38% 14,967 0.2%
Taxicab 200,144 0.16% 8,708 0.1%
Motorcycle 142,424 0.11% 14,967 0.2%
Streetcar3 72,713 0.0005% 954 0.01%
Ferry 44,106 0.0003% 629 0.009%
Other 901,298 0.70% 207,089 3.0%
Total 12,8279,228
Source: 2000 US Census with calculation

Automobiles have an 87.9% modal share for travel to work. This figure is even

higher in small communities where transit options are limited or simply unavailable. The

share of commuters that travel by bus is 2.5%, and that share is even eclipsed by walkers.

Florida's commuters use automobiles at a 3.1% higher rate. Walking and bus riding are

less common in Florida than nationwide. In fact, Florida commuters use all alternative

modes at a lower rate than nationwide commuters. Long commutes occupy valuable time

that could be devoted to work, family or civic activities. Long commutes also drive up

personal transportation costs because of increased expenditures on fuel and depreciation

of automobiles. The average American takes 25.5 minutes each way to get to work,

while Floridians spend an average of 26.2 minutes (Census 2002).





3 The choices presented on the census form do not contain a clear choice for light rail or vanpool. Light rail
users could think they should enter Streetcar or Subway/Elevated. Vanpool users could think they should
enter Bus or Carpool.










Transit Funding


With little demand for public transit, agencies have had to subsidize their

operation with outside sources of money. Transit agencies across the nation depend on a

variety of sources to subsidize their operation. Figure 2 below shows the sources of

transit agency operating expenses in 2001. The largest source of transit funding remains

local government subsidy. However the local government contribution to public transit

has been decreasing, falling from 29.3% in 1991 to 24.9% in 2001. Federal assistance

also fell by more than 3%.4 The finance of public transit has shifted toward farebox

recovery and "other" sources of funds. Those categories rose 2.3% and 5% respectively

between 1991 and 2001. The rise in receipts from the farebox is attributable to the rise in

the total number of riders. "Other" sources of funding include advertising sales,

development partnerships and employer-based subsidy.

35

30-

25

20

5 15

10

5


Local State Federal Fare Other
[11 29.3 20.4 20.3 20.6 9.4
M2001 24.9 20.7 17.2 22.9 14.4

Figure 2-Nationwide Total of Transit Agency Funding 1991-2001
Source: National Transit Summary and Trends, 2002

4 The Federal government's role in funding transit operations is relatively small, however the Federal
government plays the largest role in providing start-up capital for fleet acquisition and infrastructure
construction, particularly for rail projects.











The amount subsidized per passenger has also been increasing, but only at or near

the rate of inflation. Subsidy per ride was $1.55 in 2001, up 27% over the previous

decade. Inflation over that period was approximately 30%. However, small and medium

urban areas subsidized riders at a higher rate. Small urban areas subsidize up to $2.42 for

each ride (NTD 2002).


Florida Transit Funding

The State of Florida contributes less than comparably sized states toward transit

operation. In 2001 the state appropriated $92 million to fund transit operation and capital

improvement. This ranks Florida as the twelfth largest supporter of public transit in

terms of dollars spent. Florida is the fourth largest state in the union with about

17 million residents. In terms of per capital spending on transit, Florida ranks eighteenth

of the fifty states (Cambridge Systematics 2003).

Florida collects approximately $2.2 billion annually from fuel taxes,

license/title/registration fees, and rental car taxes. Eighty five percent of this amount is

spent on road construction and maintenance. The remaining fifteen percent is divided

among other modes, with public transit receiving approximately four percent of the total.

Of the $92 million spent on public transit, $64.2 million is allocated to local transit

agencies through formula-based State Transit Bloc Grants. Local governments may

spend this money on public transit however they see fit.5 Another $9 million is allocated

to the Urban Transit Capital program, which is earmarked to address the backlog of

planned transit capital improvements in major urban areas. The Transit Corridor

5 Fifteen percent of the State Transit Bloc Grant funds are earmarked for the Transportation Disadvantaged
Trust Fund (Cambridge Systematics, 2003).









Program allocates $7.1 million for state-designated corridors. The Public Transit Service

Development Program spends $5.1 million a year on short-term pilot and trial programs.6

Another $6.2 million is spent through 3 programs to fund research, development and

special projects (Cambridge Systematics 2003). Most of the Federal and State transit

operational assistance goes to support bus transit.


Bus Transit

As discussed in the transit ridership section, busses continue to carry the majority

of public transit passengers in the United States. Public transit riders can be divided into

two broad categories- Transportation Disadvantaged and Choice Riders. Transportation

Disadvantaged riders are dependent on public transit for mobility because they do not

have ready access to an automobile. Transportation disadvantaged persons account for

the majority of riders on busses, particularly in small urban areas. Choice riders have

access to automobiles, but choose to ride transit for certain trips because of time, cost or

other advantages that the mode offers.

Among Florida transit users, sixty two percent are female. Ridership is highest

among people of prime working age (30-49). When more automobiles are available to

the household, fewer transit trips are taken. Households that do not own automobiles

account for twenty percent of riders in Florida, below the national figure of thirty one

percent. Households with lower income also tend to ride transit more often than higher

income individuals. People with an annual income of less than $15,000 account for 40%

of transit riders in Florida. Nationwide the figure is much smaller (12%). This is

likely due to high-income transit users in large metropolitan areas nationwide. Transit

6 RTS received $150,000 between 2000 and 2001 under the Public Transit Service Development Program.
These funds helped with the start-up of the Later Gator program.









users-particularly in Florida-are likely to be minorities. Nationwide, white users account

for forty three percent of all riders. In Florida this percentage drops to nineteen percent.

Florida's black riders account for thirty one percent, close to the national average. The

disparity in ethnic makeup of riders in Florida can be attributed to Hispanic and two-race

riders (Thompson et al. 2002).


Bus Fare Elasticity and Free-Fare Transit

Fare elasticity is the concept that ridership will change according to the fare

charged. The industry standard known as the Simpson-Curtain rule sets fare/ridership

elasticity at -0.3. The rule states that if fares are increased 10%, ridership will decline by

3%. According to the Simpson-Curtain rule, if fares are reduced 100%, ridership should

increase by 30%. In practice, systems that institute free-fare transit experience ridership

gains closer to 50% (Hodge et al. 1994).

Theoretically, there are advantages to instituting a fare-free policy. Automobile

riders could be enticed to use transit, thereby reducing traffic congestion and emissions.

Transit systems would experience lower costs because there would be no need to collect

and account for fare funds. Busses would load and unload faster because fares would not

be collected and paper transfers would not need to be printed. The system would be

easier to use because users could not be confused over fares and passes. For small

agencies, collecting fares may be a revenue neutral exercise, because the farebox

recovery rate7 is sometimes less than 10%. Accounting, equipment and security

costs can easily exceed farebox receipts. However large transit agencies could suffer


7 Farebox recovery rate refers to the percentage of annual operations that are paid for through income
generated by fare-paying customers. Cash fares and bus pass sales are both included in the dollar figure of
income produced at the "Fare box."









substantial losses of revenue. In large agencies, farebox recovery can be as high as 35

percent.

Jennifer Perone (2000) claims that fare-free policies could be advantageous for

small systems, but not for large ones. Small systems such as Logan, UT and Commerce,

CA have had success with fare-free transit programs, and continue to offer it to their

communities. Amherst, MA, is a medium sized system that carries 6 million passengers

a year. All riders board fare-free, in part because the system's budget is supplemented by

funds from 5 local colleges and universities. There have been three attempts at

eliminating fares on an entire transit system in a large city. Denver, CO and Trenton, NJ

instituted a fare-free policy throughout their systems in the late 1970s. Austin, TX

attempted the same in 1989/1990. All three programs were discontinued within one year,

despite a dramatic rise in ridership. After the programs were discontinued, ridership

returned to its previous levels. These systems found that they were not attracting choice

riders and were having little impact on overall traffic congestion. Instead of taking

people out of cars, more trips were being taken by transportation disadvantaged riders.

Vandalism, vagrancy and rowdiness skyrocketed. The costs to maintain and repair transit

vehicles and bus stop infrastructure went up dramatically. The savings promised by

removing the farebox paled in comparison to the costs being expended on maintenance.

Additional busses were needed to meet peak demand (Perone 2002).

The key to increasing transit ridership is not necessarily tied to the fare. One

study found service frequency was valued nearly twice as much as the cost (Perone 2000

citing Cervero 1990). The Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR) found that

customer satisfaction of riders in Florida depended more on "frequency, routing and on-









time performance" (24%) than cost (10%). Eliminating fares is not enough to attract and

satisfy riders of public transit. Service characteristics must be improved as well (Cleland

and Thompson 2000).


Other Service Characteristics to Build Transit Ridership

Every time a person makes a trip, he or she must make decisions about which

mode best suits the trip. Each mode offers advantages over others. Users must decide on

tradeoffs between cost, convenience, comfort and time amongst other factors.

Automobiles offer distinctive advantages over busses under the prevailing transportation

system. However, certain attributes of bus transit can be changed to close the gap

between bus and car, thus helping busses gain modal share. Making transit more

attractive will help recruit "choice riders"-those with access to an automobile.

The scheduling of busses is the most often-cited factor for improving ridership.

Scheduling consists of the hours of operation, frequency of busses, and ease of transfer.

Choice transit riders take into consideration the time needed to complete their trip, and

compare the time savings to using an automobile. Since wait time is a component of total

travel time, transit is already at a substantial disadvantage. Improvements to bus

frequency reduce the wait time of patrons. Patrons arriving randomly to board a bus that

runs on 30 minute frequencies can expect to wait an average of 15 minutes but no more

than 30. As frequencies are shortened, the convenience of bus transit improves. A patron

arriving at random for a 10 minute frequency bus can expect to wait an average of 5

minutes or a maximum of 10 (Li 2003). Travelers tend to feel their total travel time is

longer than the actual travel time, particularly if there is an idle waiting period. Agnes

Moreau (1992) blamed travel "time drag" on several factors including transit users being









unoccupied, alone, anxious, and their travel delay being unexplained. Hess, Brown and

Shoup (2003) found that persons waiting for transit perceived their wait time to be nearly

twice as along as the actual wait time.

Increased frequency of busses causes a rise in ridership (and vice versa). The

ridership to service frequency elasticity averages +0.5. For every 10% reduction in

frequency, ridership increases by 5%. Ridership increases the most when routes change

from low frequency (30 minutes or more) to high frequency (less than 20 minutes).

When frequency is already medium or high, shortening the frequency has less of an

impact on ridership. For example, when a bus changes its frequency from 60 minutes to

20 minutes, ridership elasticity can improve by a factor exceeding +1.0. Patrons may

shift from other low-frequency routes to the new high frequency route. Walkers may be

attracted to very high frequency transit. However for a bus changing its frequency from

20 minutes to 10 minutes, the ridership elasticity will be far lower, and in some cases

negligible (Evans IV 2004).

Fare cost and bus frequency are the two most commonly cited service

characteristics that attract choice riders. The literature does not conclude which is more

effective at building ridership. Ridership gains are maximized when the two strategies

are applied in concert. A study in Dallas, TX found that inner city residents are more

sensitive to the cost of transit, while suburban residents are more sensitive toward bus

frequency. Presumably inner city residents were poor or transportation disadvantaged,

and preferred low-cost mobility. Suburban residents were choice transit riders who

desired convenient service. A fare decrease in Dallas of 29 percent along with a 16









percent increase in frequency yielded a 50 percent increase in ridership system-wide over

a three year period (Allen 1991).

Students riding the bus from graduate student apartments to the UCLA campus

have two transit options- one free bus and one that costs 75 cents. Both busses operate on

10-12 minute frequencies. Eighty six percent of students bypass the bus requiring a fare,

preferring to wait for the next free bus. The average wait time for those who chose to

wait was 5.3 minutes. This translates to the subjects valuing their time at a rate equal to

$8.50 per hour. Most people value their commute time at up to half of their hourly wage.

The bus requiring a fare payment was considered the most comfortable, yet the cost was

the overwhelming concern for students (Hess et al. 2003).

Flexibility (or convenience) is an important factor when deciding whether to use

transit. Automobile users value two flexible aspects of car travel. Temporal flexibility

allows drivers to depart at the time of day they choose without regard to schedules.

Spatial flexibility allows drivers to choose their path and arrive at destinations not served

by transit (Evans IV 2004). Abdel-Aty et al. (1996) found that California commuters

who needed to make multiple trips during work hours or those who worked in multiple

locations were far less likely to take transit. A study in Oslo, Norway found that transit

riders are willing to wait an extra 8-10 minutes or pay 33 cents [currency conversion

calculated] to avoid a bus transfer. Patrons were concerned about service reliability,

weather and a confusion of the procedures and costs of transferring busses (Evans IV

2004 citing Stangeby 1993). Transit can improve its flexibility by lengthening service

hours, reducing frequencies and adding new route miles. Transit systems can also offer









jitney busses and "guaranteed rides home" on taxis. However transit's ability to compete

with automobiles in terms of flexibility/convenience is limited (Evans IV 2004).

Safety associated with transit use can be a concern for some riders. Bus Rapid

Transit (a type of express bus service that runs in segregated right-of-way) riders in

Florida reported that after travel time, personal safety was the most important reason for

choosing private automobiles over public transit (Baites 2003). Most of the concern over

personal safety stems from waiting at stops. Evans et al. (1997) found that one aspect of

safety dealt with the transit patron's (now a pedestrian) interaction with street traffic and

the elements. High speed vehicular traffic, poor intersection design and the lack of

sidewalks contributed to the perception of danger. Bus stops that had sidewalks, shelters

and seating helped mitigate the sense of danger- and actual danger-of patrons waiting

for busses. Another aspect of safety deals with violent crime while waiting for the bus.

In some circumstances the perceived risk of violent crime is very real. In the urban core

of Los Angeles, one third of transit users reported being the victim of violent or property

crime while making a transit trip. The risk of crime was highly focused in the inner city

and at stops with hiding places (Loukaitou-Sideris and Liggett 2000). Suburban users

have a somewhat different experience. Reed et al. (1999) found that transit users

generally feel safe using transit, but their perceived fear of crime increased with longer

wait times. Reed also found that non-users think that transit is more dangerous than users

do.

Every transit trip begins and ends with a pedestrian trip. The origin and

destination points of a person's trip must both be within reasonable walking distance of

the transit route. There is a growing movement to develop high-density land uses in









proximity to transit routes. This movement-commonly known at Transit Oriented

Development (TOD)-seeks to place land uses close to transit routes. The urban design

of the area around the transit stop is also important. The urban environment must be

appealing and pedestrian-friendly (Cervero 2001). Potential users must be within one

quarter mile of the transit stop to be realistically expected to walk to the transit stop.

Some users will walk (or bike) a longer distance, but choice riders generally will not walk

more than 14 mile (Johnson 2003). Longer walks add considerably to the user's out of

vehicle wait time (Li 2003).

Social acceptability can also be an important factor when deciding whether to

drive or take transit. Reese et al. (1980, cited in Thompson et al. 2002) found that social

stigmas exist toward users of public transit. People expressed concerns about the social

acceptability of busses. The perceived bias stigmatized transit users as being from a

lower socio-economic class. Reese's study also found that busses were the least

acceptable for evening activities. Users felt that transit was more socially acceptable than

non-users.

Improving transit's amenities can help attract and retain choice riders or

infrequent riders. Additional amenities can also help raise the level of customer

satisfaction. A transit system with amenities generally has a better public image. Bus

stop amenities include infrastructure such as seating, lighting and even retail such as

newsstands. On-board amenities include low floor busses, courteous drivers, bike racks

and comfortable seats. Cleanliness both on-board and at stops is essential (PPS 1999).

A common perception is that consumers prefer rail transit to bus transit. The

social stigma holds that white-collar workers use rail transit, whereas blue-collar workers









frequent bus transit. Moshe Ben-Akiva (2002) refutes this perception using mathematical

models that prove bus rapid transit has an equal preference to rail transit. People slightly

preferred rail over bus transit that operates in the same right of way as automobiles

because busses realized no time savings over driving.

One aspect of transit amenities is the ease of information dissemination. The

availability of information is critical in attracting new riders. The public is generally

uneducated about transit. Bus routes are difficult to recognize and wait times are very

uncertain (Ben-Akiva 2002). Abdel-Aty et al. (1996) found that transit non-users are one

third more likely to use transit if they are given advanced information such as point-to-

point routing instructions, travel time estimates and single-route maps. Many people do

not intuitively understand transit and are unable to choose the correct routes, estimate

travel time, or decipher fare structures (Thompson et al. 2002 citing Hardin 2001).


Non-User Studies

Studies that focus on non-users of public transit are often very valuable to transit

researchers and planners. The goal is to build ridership, and non-users are the market that

transit seeks to attract. In a study of non-users in seventeen US cities, the relative

attractiveness of the automobile was cited as the reason for not using public transit.

Transit was viewed as having no clear advantage, while cars were viewed as having

flexibility and travel time advantages. However when non-users were presented with a

set of hypothetical service changes, 50% said they would ride transit under those

circumstances. The most popular hypothetical service changes were: dedicated bus lanes,

direct transit routes from home to work, and increased frequency (Thompson et al. 2002

citing Mierzejewski and Ball 1990).









Employer-based programs can help build transit ridership among non-users.

Oram and Stark (1996) found that employers who provided free or discounted individual

ride tickets showed a moderate increase in ridership among employees. Employees did

not generally switch their daily commute to transit. Instead they rode transit relatively

infrequently. Employees found it easier to use transit without committing to it entirely,

and employers saved considerable amounts of money by not purchasing monthly passes.

Employer-based programs have the effect of making transit non-users into infrequent

users. Employer-based programs can add 8-9% to the total number of riders on a transit

system (Conklin et al. 2001).

Employer-based transit programs are very similar to programs offered by colleges

and universities. Both employers and universities seek to reduce their costs associated

with parking, and give their constituents additional fringe benefits of attendance or

employment. Employers that reduce or eliminate their subsidy of free parking will be

able to use those funds to increase profits or reinvest in the company. Universities that

discontinue subsidized parking are able to use those funds to support the school's primary

missions of academic instruction and research. From the transit agency's point of view,

large employment sites and universities are substantial trip generators that need transit

service and have the potential to increase total ridership on the system.


University Transportation

Universities have a different set of transportation needs than their surrounding

communities. Universities value a walkable, green campus where buildings are in close

proximity to foster academic collaboration. Parking takes up valuable space that could be

devoted to classrooms or laboratories. Universities are major trip attractors. Students









commute on irregular schedules, since classes begin throughout the day. Cities expect

spikes in transportation demand during rush hours, while universities can expect a fairly

steady flow throughout the day. Finally, universities are experiencing rising costs for

constructing and administering transportation infrastructure, which detracts from the

university's primary mission of academics (Balsas, 2002). Universities are in an

excellent position to experiment with and implement transportation policy changes.

Universities have complete control over the road network, parking facilities and land uses

on their campus. Cities do not possess absolute power over these factors (Miller 2001).

Universities have begun to address their transportation needs in ways similar to

their municipal counterparts. A study by Gutkowski and Daggett (2003) found that 91

percent of surveyed universities maintained a campus master plan, and that 70 percent of

schools had a dedicated transportation section. But only 57 percent of universities

incorporate public transit into their campus plans.

Exposing students to alternative modes could have lasting impacts on the nation's

transportation system. Rodney Tolley (1996) makes the claim that creating a "green",

sustainable and multimodal transportation system on a university campus could make

lasting impacts on the travel behavior of graduates. His claim depends heavily on

students being environmentally conscious, and argues that graduates will keep the earth

in mind when deciding how to commute to their first jobs.


Campus Parking

The parking situation on campuses varies, but restricting parking is always an

integral part in effecting a modal shift. Universities usually have fewer parking spaces

(supply) than the number of commuters who wish to park on campus (demand).









Universities usually track the demand for parking by the number of requests received for

parking passes each year. The demand to supply ratio of parking spaces at sampled

universities varied from 0.70 to 4.00 with a mean of 1.70. To help fund parking facility

construction, operation and maintenance, all universities charge for parking passes. This

process-known as "parking pricing"-also serves to discourage commuters from

parking on campus, and to encourage them to carpool or utilize alternative modes. The

cost of parking passes in a recent sample ranged from $14 to $300 per semester, with a

mean of $83.43 (Gutkowski and Daggett, 2003).

The pricing of parking is an essential step in promoting transit use. Even though

the University of Florida prices its parking, the price point remains below other

comparable schools. The annual price of decals for students is cheaper at UF ($94/yr)

than other comparable universities such as the University of Wisconsin-Madison ($200-

834), the University of California-Davis ($204), and the University of Minnesota ($537)

(Siegel 2000). Even at schools with more expensive parking, universities are not pricing

parking to recover 100 percent of its costs. The monetary costs of parking to a university

include salaries for parking personnel, accounting, construction costs, and loss of

available land- which at some point in the future could necessitate the purchase of

campus annexes (Tolley 1996). A discussion of parking on the University of Florida

campus can be found in Chapter 4 of this report.

Peripheral parking lots (sometimes known as 'park-and-ride' lots) have not been

shown to increase transit's modal share. In general, periphery parking is not intended to

induce travelers to change their modal choice. They are intended to capture vehicular

traffic before it enters the congested central core. However if priority parking spaces









within the core are awarded for carpools, peripheral lots can help increase ridesharing.

Peripheral parking is commonly used by major employers, hospitals and universities that

are unwilling or unable to supply on-site parking (Kuzmayak 2003).

Universities have adopted parking management policies to promote transit use

and alleviate parking demands in the center of campus. The University of Maryland at

College Park operates peripheral parking lots linked by shuttle busses. UM's park-and-

ride service moves 750,000 people annually from the parking lots to the center of campus

by shuttle bus. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology does not sell parking passes to

students who live within the transit system's operating area. Similarly, UCLA prices its

parking passes based on the student's address and its proximity to campus and the transit

system (Kuzmayak 2003)

In an interesting side observation it was noted that in eight US cities with

periphery lots, many users chose to walk the last leg of their trip instead of using busses.

Unfortunately this phenomenon was not studied in depth, and the pedestrian's reasoning

for choosing walking over transit is not known (Kuzmayak, 2003 citing Pratt and Copple,

1981).


Campus Transit

Transit service on university campuses varies from school to school. Among

colleges with 10 or more transit vehicles serving the campus, roughly half of the systems

are operated under contract by the local community transit provider (Gutkowski and

Daggett 2003 and Miller 2001). The rest are operated by the university administration.

Campus transit services are targeted toward four types of service: 1) Home to school









trips; 2) Intra-campus trips; 3) Remote parking shuttles; and 4) General service routes

that treat the campus as a special generator of trips (Gutkowski and Daggett 2003).

The mission of the transit system dictates the ownership and financial situation of

the transit provider. Table 3 below summarizes the prevailing ownership, financial, and

targeted trips of all four types of campus transit systems. Systems on small campuses

(less than 8,000 students) are generally university-owned. University-owned systems are

cheaper to operate because of non-unionized employees (often students) and smaller,

more efficient vehicles. Small transit systems tend to target intra-campus trips and

remote parking facilities. Schools in larger communities usually enter into contractual

service agreements with local transit providers. Local agency transit service is more

expensive, but the more complex route system allows busses serving the campus to

extend far into the surrounding community. This opens up housing options to students

(Miller 2001). Even though the annual cost is more expensive for larger systems, smaller

systems are usually more expensive on a per-ride basis.

Table 3-Transit System Characteristics by University and City Size
Large University / Small City Large University / Large City
Owner/Operator: City Owner/Operator: City
Target Users: Intra-Campus and Home to School Target Users: Home to School Trips
Finances: Expensive Finances: Very Expensive
Small University / Small City Small University / Large City
Ownership: University Ownership: University
Target Users: Intra-Campus and Parking Shuttles Target Users: Intra-Campus and Parking Shuttles
Finances: Inexpensive Finances: Inexpensive
Source: Gutkowsky and Daggett (2003) and Miller (2001)

About 40 percent of contractual service agreements allow the university

administration or student leadership to dictate service changes. The remainder of systems

depend on the transit agency's judgment (Gutkowski and Daggett, 2003). An









increasingly popular service change is the implementation a free-fare system, where

students do not pay cash fares each time they board the bus.


Unlimited Access and Fare Structure

The idea of unlimited access transit (also known as fare-free transit) has been

practiced on university campuses since the late 1970s (Miller 2001). As of 1998, thirty

five universities offered unlimited access transit. That year, total of 875,000 students

receive unlimited access benefits from their universities (Brown et al. 2001). The

number of schools offering unlimited access has grown since 1998, but no literature was

located that cited a precise number.

Unlimited access transit is not free transit. It is a different way of paying for

transit service. A third party pre-pays the transit provider to carry members of a

constituent group without charging them a fare. The transit provider usually receives an

annual lump sum payment from the university (Brown et al. 2001). Through a method

similar to group health insurance, fares are substantially discounted because so many

fares are being purchased (Miller 2001). Transit passes are distributed, or identification

cards double as passes. Users are allowed to ride free on all transit system routes,

irregardless if they connect with the university.8

Currently, passengers occupy only 27% of available seats on busses nationwide.

The enormous number of empty seats drives up the needed operating subsidy. Transit

systems want riders to fill those seats, and universities want to discourage automobile

commuters to campus. Through university payments to transit systems, new riders can



8 Some universities provide free-fare transit only on routes that intersect with campus (Brown et al. 2003).
This model is more typical of employer-based transit programs.









be brought to the transit system while at the same time relieving the parking demand on

campus (Brown et al. 2001).

Unlimited access programs offer multiple advantages to the university and its

students: 1) Unlimited access reduces demand for parking on campus. Consequently the

university divests itself of the capital expenditure costs of constructing new parking. 2)

Unlimited access transit reduces the cost of attendance for students, while at the same

time increasing mobility options. Students do not need to buy and maintain a car, which

can save an individual up to $4,000 a year. For students who continue to own cars,

slower depreciation and gas expenses can save the owner $800-1,000 a year. 3) Students

have better access to housing and employment. Students living on campus do not need a

car for off campus social or shopping trips. Students off campus do not need a car to

commute to campus, and can also use transit for social and shopping trips although

their options may be limited. 4) Unlimited access can help a university attract and retain

students (Brown et al. 2001).

There are substantial advantages for the transit agency as well. Unused seats are

occupied, optimizing the bus' operation. The agency also receives a stable source of

income less subject to political whims. State and Federal assistance is often based on

formulas that take into account ridership. Simply by putting people in seats, the transit

agency can garner a larger share of state and federal assistance (Brown et al. 2003).

Among schools that have a fare-free transit system, approximately 20 percent

have an unlimited access fare structure similar to the University of Florida. Students,

faculty and staff ride without paying a fare because the university administration or

student fees have prepaid their fares. Fifty three percent of schools have systems where









the general public rides fare-free, however the bulk of those are campus-only systems.

The remainder of free transit systems are park-and-ride shuttles only.

Both the local transit agency and the university can reap benefits from contractual

service agreements. Universities are able to divest themselves of the administrative and

fiscal burden of operating on-campus busses, even if the school makes substantial

payments to the transit provider. Schools that choose to use student fees can further

reduce the school's contribution. University-operated transit systems are not eligible to

receive most types of Federal and State matching funds. Thus partnering with the local

transit provider makes the system eligible for operating assistance and start-up funds. For

local transit agencies, partnering with local universities also provides a reliable revenue

stream in a period of declining government subsidy (Miller 2001).


Campus Transit Case Studies

Each university pursues the goal of building transit ridership differently. This

section presents three case studies of enhanced transit service on university campuses.

Each school used a different model to approach the issue of bringing about a mode shift

toward public transit. These three case studies are selected to demonstrate principles of

college/city joint transit service that are not embodied at the University of Florida. An in-

depth case study of the University of Florida transit program can be found in Chapter

Four of this report.

Clemson University- Clemson, SC. Clemson, SC is located in Pickens County

(pop. 105,000). Until the mid-1990s, there was no municipal transit system in Clemson.

Partnering with the city and county, Clemson University pledged $350,000 toward the

joint project that had previously funded on-campus parking shuttles. The new source of









funding allowed the city/county to create a transit agency and avail itself of state and

federal matching funds that were previously unavailable to the university. The small,

efficient system operates on a fare-free basis for all riders, student or otherwise. As

ridership increased, the transit agency was able to secure additional operating assistance

from federal rural transit assistance funds (also known as Section 5311 funds). The State

of South Carolina also pledged additional operating assistance, in part due to Clemson

Area Transit's (CAT) contribution to state ridership totals which boosted South

Carolina's share of federal block grants. Thus the city/county added a transit system

where one had been lacking, and the university was able to shift people from single

occupant cars to public transit. In 1999/2000, CAT operated 10 routes carrying 666,000

passengers annually at a cost of $782,000. CAT also operates late evening busses to

shuttle patrons to bars and other evening activities. (TCRP 2003)

Clemson's experience is an example of how small college towns can partner with

the university to create a transit system where there previously was none. A small

community benefits by creating transportation options, lowering traffic congestion, and

opening access to housing. All transit systems can learn from CAT's example how to

leverage state and federal funding sources to maximize operating assistance. Funding

arrangements vary from state to state, and South Carolina's local assistance framework is

what made the CAT system possible. One drawback of instituting a no-fare system is

that the cost of expanding route miles is prohibitive, since there is no dedicated source of

funding for capital improvements (Miller 2001).

University of California at Berkeley- Berkeley, CA. AC Transit, the bus

service provider in Alameda (Oakland) and Contra Costa Counties, California operates









154 routes, seventeen of which intersect the University of California campus. The

University of California has only 4,000 parking spaces for 32,000 students. The impetus

for change came in 1998 when the City of Berkeley relaxed its rent control laws, creating

a market for student housing outside of walking distance to campus. In 1998-the year

before the program began-one thousand eight hundred students purchased transit passes

at a cost of $60 per semester. A rider study found approximately 700 other students who

paid cash fares on a regular basis. Student leadership wanted to increase access to

additional housing stock, and the university wanted to ease its parking demand. In April

of 1999, UC students voted by an 89 percent margin to establish a student fee of $10 per

semester to create the "TransitClass" program. The transit agency receives at least

$320,000 each semester to provide unlimited access service, more if the number of passes

requested was high. Through a process known as distributive cost pricing, the individual

cost of a transit pass is much lower since the total cost is spread across the whole

constituency of students attending the university. The concept of distributive cost pricing

is similar to group insurance rates or taxation, where the cost per person of the program is

very small, yet the benefits to individuals who utilize the program is substantial.

Under the TransitClass program, students receive unlimited access on AC Transit

routes. Students must sign up to receive a transit pass. Over 23,000 of the 32,000

eligible students signed up to receive one during the first semester the program was

offered, twelve times the number who purchased passes before the start of the program.

The large number of student passes distributed and the approval rate of the referendum

were the result of a successful marketing program. The marketing program exposed

students to the financial, environmental, and institutional benefits of transit use.









There are several attributes of the UC-Berkeley program that demonstrate models

of campus transit. The University of California/AC Transit partnership is a successful

example of a university unlimited access program integrating into a large urban transit

system. It is also an example of utilizing student fees in the partnership- the university

administration does not contribute any funds to the transit system. Even though all

students are entitled to a free transit pass, each student who wants to ride must interact

with a third party to receive benefits. This is one variant of a distributive cost pricing

model. All students must pay the fee, but not all students will sign up for a pass.

Students must decide to sign up for the unlimited access program before arriving at the

bus stop. By requiring students to sign up, it creates a roadblock to infrequent or

occasional riders. However, the fee is being utilized to pay for the number of passes

requested, not unlimited access for all students. Some students will not sign up for a

pass. From the transit agency's perspective this is a more efficient model to implement

(Levin 2000).

University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA)- Los Angeles, CA. The

University of California at Los Angeles is served by 5 routes of the Santa Monica

Municipal Bus Lines. Students, faculty and staff are allowed to ride fare-free on those 5

routes. Passengers must swipe their university ID card to board. UCLA's administration

pays Santa Monica Bus Lines 45 cents per ride. The University pays about $80,000

monthly.

There has been a marked modal shift among student commuters. Student

commutes by transit increased 43%. Twenty nine percent of the student riders were new









to using public transit. The number of drivers fell by 33%. The rise in student ridership

increased further during subsequent years of the program (Brown et al. 2003).

UCLA's transit agreement is a good example of a university administration

paying for transit service. UCLA's administration pays for the entire cost of providing

unlimited access transit. The university is divesting itself of the expense of constructing

parking infrastructure, but more institutional money could be saved by instituting student

fees. Instead of applying a distributive cost pricing model, the school pays for each

individual ride. From the transit provider's perspective this is advantageous, since a

ridership increase will result in increased revenue. Under a fixed-payment scheme,

ridership gain does not cause an increase in revenue.


Permanent Effects of Temporary Transit Use

What happens to people's behavior once they have been exposed to transit? It is

clear that people will use transit under certain circumstances (Crane 1999). The decision

to use transit is in part based on the level of service in each mode (Hensher and Button

2000). The decision to use transit is also based on the habits, attitudes and beliefs of the

user. Experience with high level of service transit may influence future behavior, since

psychologically the experience was a positive one (Verplanken et al. 1994).

The existing literature is largely lacking for experiments that examine the lasting

effects of temporary transit use. One experiment performed by Fujii and Kitamura

(2002) gave automobile users in Japan a free bus pass for one month. People who

received transit passes continued to use the bus after the one month period ended.

Ridership within the experimental group rose by 20 percent. The study also concluded

that automobile users had a general negative perception of public transit which was









refuted after using transit temporarily. This important concept indicates that a temporary

change in transportation habits can alter a person's permanent routine. The authors

suggest a temporary period of free-fare transit may help increase ridership in the long

term.

The literature is lacking in studies that ask if users of high frequency, unlimited

access transit continue their transit use after they move to a new city. In fact, there is a

lack of studies asking questions about the overall reasoning of choice riders who use

transit. Further, there is no previous record of studies that focus on whether the

transportation system at a university has any lasting effects on the habits or attitudes of

former students.















CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY

A natural experiment exists for evaluating the lasting effects of using bus transit

while at the University of Florida. The experiment involves sampling students before

they arrive on campus (incoming freshmen), and then sampling students soon after

graduation (recent alumni). Responses can be compared between the two groups to

uncover changes in habits and attitudes toward alternative modes. It is assumed that any

changes observed are attributed to the respondents' common experience of commuting to

and from the University of Florida campus.

Time constraints prohibited the administration of a true time-series survey to the

incoming freshman of 2003 and surveying the cohort again in 2008 after graduation. It

was necessary to survey the 2003 incoming freshmen class and a group of alumni during

the same year. This research project assumes that the responses given by the alumni

surveyed would be substantially similar to responses that would be collected in 2008 if

time constraints did not apply.


Survey Administration

To analyze the impact that multimodal transportation to campus has changed the

habits and attitudes of University of Florida students, two surveys were taken. Both

surveys were administered by mail using address lists maintained by the University. The

data collection period ran from July through November of 2003.









Survey Scope

Both surveys asked questions in the following general areas, although questions

were not grouped together in consecutive order:

Demographics- Questions about gender, race, marital status and zip code. These

questions were asked so that other responses could be put into social and spatial

context.

Transportation Habits- This section included questions concerning commute time,

automobile ownership, modal choice and maximum preferred walking/biking

distance. Some questions were asked twice, with one question asking about

habits while at the University and the other asking about habits in their current

location. These questions were asked to determine the respondents' actual

transportation habits. Their responses can be compared to other groups within the

survey or to state and national datasets.

Housing- This question set asked about housing choice and desirable attributes of

housing. These questions were asked in an attempt to determine how important

transportation factors were considered in the respondents' decision-making

process when choosing where to live. Some of these questions were asked twice,

with one question asking about college housing and one asking about current

housing. In the case of the alumni group, respondents were directed to answer

questions about their collegiate housing choice based upon where they lived

during their senior year only.

Alternative Mode Use- These questions were asked to gauge the willingness of

respondents to use alternative modes. Additional questions were asked to gauge









the level of education the respondent possesses about public transit in their current

city. Some questions asked about the usage of public transportation during all

four years of undergraduate work.

Public Policy- These questions ask respondents to rate their level of agreement

with transportation public policy measures. These questions asked participants to

rate their level of agreement with statements on a scale from 1 to 5 (or Strongly

Disagree to Strongly Agree).


Freshman Survey

The first survey consisted of 45 closed response questions. It was randomly

mailed to 697 incoming freshmen during the summer of 2003. These incoming freshmen

were not yet enrolled at the University. Addresses were obtained from a list of admitted

fall-semester students maintained by the University of Florida Office of Admissions.

Only addresses from the 50 United States and the District of Columbia were included.

The size of the admitted freshman population was 7,296.

Of the 697 surveys mailed, it was expected that up to 34% of the recipients were

ineligible to take the survey. This was due to two factors. Persons under the age of 18

(approximately 17% of the incoming class) were not allowed to take the survey due to

concerns over parental consent. Recipients under the age of 18 were instructed not to

complete the survey. The mailing list also included persons who had been admitted to

UF but were not planning to enroll-approximately 20 percent of the sample. 1





1 The Office of Admissions reported 7,296 admitted freshmen. The University Registrar reported 5,830
enrolled freshmen for the Fall 2003 semester. The difference between the two figures is 20.1%.









One hundred and twenty three valid freshman surveys were returned. This is a

raw response rate of 17.6%. Taking into account the recipients who were not permitted

to respond, the response rate was 30.4%. A copy of the freshman survey can be found in

Appendix B. Raw data from the freshman survey can be found in Appendix D.


Alumni Survey

A second survey was taken to determine the multimodal behaviors and attitudes

of recent alumni of the University. Responses on the alumni survey can be compared to

the freshman survey to determine if the multimodal environment of the university campus

had caused any changes. Six hundred and fifteen surveys were mailed to randomly

selected addresses from a database maintained by the University of Florida Alumni

Association. Only students who graduated with their bachelors degree in 2001 and 2002

were selected. Alumni who received only graduate degrees or who were still enrolled

were not included. The total potential population represented 12,376 people.2 These

limiting factors were chosen because: a) Alumni who graduated in 2000 or before would

have limited exposure to enhanced transit services; b) Alumni would have at least one

full year to settle into a transportation routine post-graduation; c) Alumni holding only

graduate degrees have an unknown background since high school graduation, and d)

Alumni who hold a bachelors degree but were still enrolled at the University are still

commuting to the same multimodal environment found during their undergraduate years.

The survey that was mailed to alumni had 49 closed response questions. Of

those, 24 questions were exact duplicates of questions asked of the freshmen. An

2 The alumni population 12,376 represents the number of addresses that are on file with the University of
Florida Alumni Association minus the percentage of graduate and professional degrees awarded each year
by the University. The Alumni Association is a membership organization, and some alumni choose not to
join.









additional 11 questions were substantially similar, and to a varying degree they can be

compared using statistical tests. One hundred and fifty four valid alumni surveys were

returned. This represents a 25 percent response rate. A copy of the alumni survey can be

found in Appendix C. Raw data from the alumni survey can be found in Appendix E.


Limitations

Both surveys qualify as large samples, and it can be assumed that the confidence

level of sampling error is p = 0.05 or 95%. Using this confidence level, the margins of

error for scalar data can be calculated. For the Freshmen, the margin of error is +/- 8.74.

For the Alumni, the margin of error is +/- 7.85.

Other limitations exist on the survey data. The alumni surveyed graduated in

2001 and 2002. Since 2002, expenditure on bus transit by UF has more than doubled.

The alumni sample did not experience the same transit environment that the incoming

freshmen will. Further, some alumni will have experience with high-quality transit

outside of Gainesville. Alumni may have moved to or visited cities with high quality

transit (including rail transit) or comprehensive TDM policies. Any changes found in

habits or attitudes can be attributed to temporary transit use.


Other Research Methods

Interviews were conducted with several key informants. An interview was

conducted in April 2003 with the UF Campus Master Planner Linda Dixon to investigate

the scope and intent of the campus' TDM policies. Bob Miller, UF Vice President for

Finance and Administration was interviewed in July of 2004 to discuss University









funding of the RTS system. Finally, Doug Robinson, transit planner with the Regional

Transit System was interviewed by email and telephone.

Other research methods were employed during this project. The author of this

project was appointed a voting member of the 2004/05 Transportation Access Fee

Committee. Through membership on the committee, the author gained familiarity with

the process and the responsible parties. Documents were reviewed from the UF Division

of Finance and Administration (publicly available) to compile information on monetary

payments for bus service. The Division of Finance and Student Government records

were obtained. These documents show the agreements, funding, and service agreements

between the University and RTS. The Regional Transit System provided ridership data

dating back to 1996. The UF Campus Master Plan was reviewed. Finally, the policies of

the Transportation and Parking Division were analyzed to establish the campus TDM

parking policies.















CHAPTER 4
BACKGROUND

This section contains an in-depth discussion of the transit-oriented environment at

the University of Florida and the City of Gainesville. In order to understand any changes

in habits and attitudes found in the survey, it is important to have a full understanding of

the transportation environment and TDM policies at the University. This section also

serves as a case study of bus transit at UF.


The University of Florida

The University of Florida had a total enrollment of 47,373 students in 2003/04.

Of that number, 28 percent are graduate or professional students and 72 percent are

undergraduates. UF is a residential school. Most of the student body moved to

Gainesville to attend classes, as relatively few students are native to Alachua County. In

addition to the student body, there are over 4,000 faculty and 8,000 other staff members.

Founded at its present site in 1905, the oldest part of campus is dense and is best

navigated on foot or bicycle. The core part of the campus is largely a pedestrian-only

zone during daylight hours and lacks parking resources. The core part of the campus and

Shands Hospital occupy roughly 600 acres, with the other 1050 acres devoted to less

dense uses such as agricultural research and conservation. At least some coursework is









required on the Gainesville campus to satisfy the requirements for all but a few1 of the

100+ undergraduate and 242 graduate programs. Accommodating the needs of 58,000+

regular commuters to the core of campus requires balancing the needs of diverse groups

and maintaining a comprehensive transportation demand management plan. University of

Florida Transportation Demand Management

Multiple TDM policies are maintained by the University of Florida. However, the

University does not maintain a stand-alone Transportation Demand Management plan.

TDM policies are distributed throughout the Campus Master Plan and in the regulations

of the Transportation and Parking Services Division.

The Campus Master Plan outlays the following major goals related to

transportation:

1) Build future parking facilities near campus gateways and other remote areas

2) Maintain a transportation fee that covers the costs of parking, circulation,

transit and non-vehicular transportation infrastructure

3) Build bike lanes and off-road trails to promote bicycle use

4) Provide fare-free transit to students, faculty and staff

5) Promote pedestrian behavior in the "Pedestrian Enhancement Zone" by
removing vehicle parking, restricting automobile access, and constructing
pedestrian infrastructure.

6) Enhance the service characteristics of bus transit, including on-campus
circulators

The campus plan seeks to increase the mode share of transit and non-motorized

modes for commuting to campus. The plan recognizes that not all students have the


1 Some degree programs in the fine arts can be obtained by taking classes only at the New World School of
the Arts in Miami. At least some Instruction in residence in at the Gainesville campus is required for all
undergraduate degree programs except those offered at the New World School of the Arts.









option of using alternative modes, so parking facilities construction is provided at remote

facilities. Automobile commuters would then transfer to alternative modes such as on-

campus busses, bicycles or walking. The plan puts heavy emphasis on capturing

automobile traffic in park-and-ride lots to lessen the impact on campus roadways and

entice cars to enter the campus at several different locations to mitigate their impact on

city roads. The plan also provides for a carpool program, with carpools receiving

preferential parking.

The core of the campus is designated a "Pedestrian Enhancement Zone". In effect

this is an auto-free zone, except it is accessible by busses, official business vehicles and

handicapped persons. One positive impact of the auto-free zone is that bus riders debark

close to classrooms, while automobile drivers face a long walk, bike ride or bus ride of

their own to reach the same point on campus.

The Transportation and Parking Services Division (TAPS) implements several

TDM policies. That office determines the requirements for different classes of parking

passes. They also issue parking decals and collect fees for their purchase. Stringent

parking enforcement is coordinated through the TAPS office. Thus the Transportation

and Parking Services Division implements the parking restriction and parking pricing

portion of the "TDM plan". The office also operates the University's carpool program,

which has been marginally successful (Siegel 2000).

Even without a formal TDM plan, the University is employing several TDM

strategies to foster a modal shift among students, faculty and staff. Below, UF's TDM

strategies are summarized according to the broad categories defined by Littman (1999).

Positive- Unlimited access transit, transit service characteristic improvements,
pedestrian/bicycle capital improvements










Mixed- Carpooling program with preferential space assignment, park-and-ride
facility construction, traffic calming

Negative- Parking pricing, parking restriction, auto-free zones, transportation fees

TDM seeks to reduce automobile dependence and its harmful impacts. The

positive, mixed and negative TDM policies work in concert to discourage the use of

single-occupant automobiles. Viable alternatives are presented to commuters. Unlimited

access, high quality transit is presented as the alternative for motorized travel to campus.

According to Ferguson (1990), TDM tackles the disparity in mode share by employing

five strategies. UF's TDM strategies are organized in the list below according to

Ferguson's categories.

Trip Generation- Transportation Fees

Trip Distribution- Parking Pricing, Parking Restriction, Park-and-Ride facilities

Mode Selection- Carpool program, Parking Restriction, Parking Pricing,
Unlimited Access Transit, Transit characteristic improvements,
Pedestrian/Bicycle Capital Improvements

Route Selection (spatial)- Auto-free zones, Traffic Calming

Route Selection (temporal)- Night and evening classes, Transit characteristic
improvements

Four of the most important TDM policies are discussed in the rest of this section.

The parking pricing, parking restrictions, bus transit service enhancement, and

transportation fees are all investigated in greater depth.

Parking demand far exceeds supply on the University of Florida campus,

although some limited parking facilities are available in neighborhoods adjacent to the

University. A total of 19,371 spaces are available on campus. The available spaces are

prioritized for certain groups' use: 5,094 are reserved for students who live on campus;







another 7,719 are reserved for faculty and staff. Only 6,558 spaces remain to
accommodate the approximately 9,600 students living off campus. Figure 3 below shows
all campus parking facilities.



A -- -


a4. n] :

App t,75 s l. Ao h

----iF-. "^ -
.







reserved for off campus students are located in the core area of campus, and are
designated "Commuter". Students with 90 credit hours (senior status) and graduate

students can park in these more centrally located commuter spaces, usually in structured
parking facilities. Other students must use park-and-ride spaces. Park-and-ride spaces
are found on the perimeter of campus, and users require a bus or bicycle ride to reach








50



most instructional facilities. Under the contractual UF-RTS agreement, RTS provides


dedicated park-and-ride busses at 10-20 minute intervals at a cost of $995,000 annually.


Figure 4 below shows the park-and-ride facilities only.


- -.- -a-


F.- -


Ij




:..^,_.._



/...



D ^"
o '



V


E.
L-J
a




a






A


Figure 4-UF Park and Ride Facilities
Source: UF Division of Transportation and Parking Services




Analyzing the purchases of parking decals can render useful information about


the demand for parking on campus. Table 4 below summarizes the number of spaces,


their cost, and the oversell ratio of decals.


I:


- I


U


-I-





k




L


v-f


S -



~1


d


- I









Table 4-Parking and Decal Sales, 2003
Decal Type Spaces Eligible Decals Decal Oversell
Purchasers Sold Cost Ratio
Faculty/Staff (Orange, 7,719 N/A2 11,351 Up to 1.47
Blue, Official Business) $636
On-Campus Residents 5,094 9,623 5,823 $94 1.14
(Red)
Commuter 3,393 -21,000 7,655 $94 2.73
Park and Ride 3,165 -26,300 2,837 $94 0.89
Total 19,371 -58,000 27,666 1.43


Source: UF Office of Parking and Transportation Services

UF Parking and Transportation Services does not limit the number of decals sold,

instead choosing to let the supply of parking spaces and the willingness of drivers to

search for spaces determine the number of decals sold. Table 4 above summarizes the

parking situation on campus. Holders of faculty/staff, on-campus, and commuter decals

are only allowed to park in spaces reserved for their respective category of decal.

Overall, the number of decals sold exceeds the number of spaces by a 1.43 : 1 ratio. Only

park-and-ride decals are sold at a rate lower than the number of available spaces,

although in practice this is not accurate since all other decal types are allowed to use

park-and-ride spaces.

Lower-division students have few options when it comes to parking on campus.

Those with junior status and under must use remote park and ride lots, which requires a

bus ride to reach their classrooms. Seniors and graduate students can park in close-in

facilities, but the number of decals sold in this category far exceeds the number spaces by

a 2.7 : 1 ratio.

Motorcycles and gas-powered scooters are treated very differently than

automobiles. Since two-wheeled vehicles require far less space to park, the decal cost is

2 The Faculty/Staff Category is broad and includes Faculty Staff (Orange) Official Business, Medical
Resident, Gated Reserved, Shands Hospital (Blue) and certain types of advanced students. Data is not
readily available to calculate the total number of eligible Faculty/Staff decal purchasers.









substantially reduced. Motorcycle/scooter decals cost $24 per year, compared with $94

for cars. Motorcycle decal sales are not prioritized according to credit hours. Further,

motorcycle parking is found in every major lot on campus, greatly improving the riders'

locational choice of parking. Bicycles also require very little parking space, and the

University maintains bike racks at or near every building on campus.

Many of the students commuting daily to campus must use alternative modes of

transportation to get to class. Some students will live close to campus and walk or bike to

class. Some who live farther away will use public transit. Since 1998, the University of

Florida has applied substantial monetary resources to the local transit system to make

riding the bus a more viable option for students to commute to campus. During the

period 1998-2004, the number of student riders has been increasing very rapidly. In

2004, the number of students arriving on campus each day by bus was more than double

the number of students who arrived by car.


Regional Transit System

Bus transit in the City of Gainesville is provided by the Regional Transit System

(RTS), a division of the Public Works Department of the City of Gainesville. In

2004/2005 RTS maintains a fleet of 92 diesel busses that operate on 21 standard city

routes, 9 campus-only routes, and 4 late night routes (Perteet Engineering 2002).

Paratransit for the city is contracted out to ATC/Intellitran. Many of the city routes

operate on a pulse system from the downtown transfer plaza. Under a pulse system,

many bus routes are timed to arrive at the transfer station at the same time. Busses wait 3

to 5 minutes, allowing passengers to transfer, before departing.









Three transfer points exist on the University of Florida Campus: the Reitz Union,

Shands Hospital and Turlington Plaza. The campus transfer points do not operate on a

pulse system, in part due to short frequencies and in part due to the congruence of

campus and city routes. Bus frequencies range from 60 minutes on some city routes to 8

minutes at peak times on high demand routes operating from student-heavy areas to

campus (Perteet Engineering 2002).

Ridership on the Regional Transit System (RTS) has increased each year since

1995. Please see Table 5 below for a summary of the ridership increase for the period

1995/1996 to 2002/2003. Over the study period, ridership increased 284%, to 8,106,964

boardings per year. RTS's annual ridership ranks 6th among state agencies behind

Miami-Dade (63.4 Million), Broward (31.8 Million), the Central Florida Regional

Transportation Authority (20.5 Million), Pinellas (10.1 Million), and Hillsborough (9.4

Million). This makes RTS the 6th largest transit system in the state, despite serving the

17th largest county (Census, 2000). Figure 5 below shows the RTS bus system and its

routes within the City of Gainesville.



































Figure 5-RTS Route System
Source: Regional Transit System

The growth in bus ridership on the Regional Transit System has outpaced

ridership growth nationwide. Nationwide, bus ridership has grown 15% to 5.27 Trillion

over the period 1995 to 2003 (NTST 2003). The disparity between ridership growth in

Gainesville and the nationwide total can be attributed to service changes at RTS, and to

the TDM policies of the University of Florida. RTS experienced the largest increases

during the two years when student subsidy of transit services began. Student subsidy

began in 1998/99 and resulted in substantial service improvements. Further, UF students

could ride the bus on a fare-free basis. Since 1999/2000, ridership increases have been

steadily increasing at more modest rates, although it is far out-distancing transit growth

nationwide.









Table 5-Total Ridership 1995 to 20033
Year Boardings Percent Increase over Previous Year
95/96 2,110,209 NA
96/97 2,174,840 3.1%
97/98 2,948,150 35.6%
98/99 4,412,773 49.7%
99/00 5,195,883 17.7%
00/01 6,306,241 21.4%
01/02 7,198,085 14.1%
02/03 8,106,964 12.6%
Increase '95-'03 5,996,755 284.1%
Source: Regional Transit System

Table 5 above demonstrates the overall growth in ridership. Segments of the total

ridership have grown at even faster rates. Ridership growth on campus routes has not

been as steady as other routes. Increases can be more closely attributed to new routes

being created, such as the Lakeside Apartments bus. Over the period 1995/96 to

2002/03, ridership on Campus Circulator routes has increased by 125 percent to

2,253,041 annually. However, the proportion of campus route riders to the total number

of riders has been steadily decreasing. Campus-only trips accounted for nearly half,

47.4%, of all RTS riders in 1995/96. That figure had decreased to 27.8% in 2002/03.

Please see table 6 below for a summary of ridership on campus circulator routes.

Table 6-Campus Circulator Route Ridership 1995 to 2003
Percent Increase Campus Riders as Percent of
Year Campus over Previous Year Total
95/96 999,236 NA 47.4%
96/97 945,963 -5.3% 43.5%
97/98 987,049 4.3% 33.5%
98/99 1,184,643 20% 26.8%
99/00 1,281,250 8.2% 24.7%
00/01 1,620,287 26.5% 25.7%
01/02 1,879,694 16% 26.1%
02/03 2,253,041 19.9% 27.8%
Increase '95-'03 1,253,805 125.5% --
Source: Regional Transit System


3 The RTS fiscal year begins on August 1st. This is meant to coincide with the beginning of the academic
year. Ridership counts also are recorded by fiscal year.











Figure 6 below demonstrates the separation between the number of riders using


campus circulators and the total number of riders. Total ridership growth has outpaced


campus-only growth, indicating that off-campus and special routes have been the source


of greater ridership growth.


9,000,000

8,000,000

7,000,000

6,000,000

g 5,000,000
.E --Total
ii ---Campus
S 4,000,000

3,000,000

2,000,000

1,000,000


95/96 96/97 97/98 98/99 99/00 00/01 01/02 02/03
Fiscal Year

Figure 6-Campus and Total RTS Ridership Growth
Source: Regional Transit System

Campus Transit Service Agreement


Prior to 1998, RTS operated as a small urban system. Busses covered the city by


circuitous routes at infrequent intervals. Nearly all riders on the system were


transportation disadvantaged. The system was experiencing declining community


support and ridership. Meanwhile the University of Florida had added over 8,000


students to its total enrollment during the previous decade. Previously students lived to


the north and east of the campus, but the off-campus housing pattern had shifted to the


southwest of the city into unincorporated Alachua County. The newer student apartment









complexes were 2-5 miles distant from the core campus. The outward sprawl of student

housing coupled with rising enrollment increased the demand for motorized transport to

campus. The University's Transportation Demand Management policies place an

emphasis on public transit rather than private automobile use. In this next section, the

sources of funding and mechanisms of coordination will be discussed.

The increase in ridership correlates closely to funding increases to the transit

provider. RTS realizes very little of its operating revenues from fare-paying customers.

In 2002, farebox revenues accounted for $714,183 of the agency's $9,462,631 budget.

This represents a farebox recovery rate of only 7.5%, less than half the State of Florida

average of 15.2%. Nationwide, farebox recovery averages 37.7%. However for small

urbanized areas, the ratio is around 20% (NTD 2002). In 1998 the University of Florida

entered into a contractual service agreement to provide enhanced transit service to the

University in lieu of a massive parking facility construction project. The City of

Gainesville made an ongoing commitment to fund the "baseline" levels of service found

on routes in 1997. Newly established routes would be city-funded to provide a level of

service consistent with routes operating in 1997, which operated with one or two busses

on 30 to 60 minute frequencies. Additional funds to provide higher frequency, unlimited

access transit would come from the University.

The Transportation and Parking Services Division and the Campus Facilities

Planning and Construction Office would pay a portion of the costs, principally to fund

on-campus routes and faculty/staff unlimited access. Each year the Transportation and

Parking Services Division gives $1 million dollars to RTS. All funds from

Transportation and Parking come from parking decal sales and parking fine revenue. The









Finance and Administration Division of UF (through the Campus Facilities Planning and

Construction Office) supports RTS service with $500,000 annually. These funds are

earmarked under the "Campus Development Agreement," a compact between the

University and the City to help mitigate the impact the school has on city infrastructure

(Miller, 2004).

The bulk of the funds came from a third source- a fee charged to students on a

per-credit hour basis, similar to fees charged for capital improvements or activities. The

funds that come directly from students pay for enhancements to the service characteristics

of selected bus routes. The University pays RTS $42.50 per additional bus operating

hour above and beyond the operating level of service paid for by the city.4 The cost of

constructing bus stop infrastructure is shared by RTS, the UF Transportation and Parking

Division and the Office of Campus Facilities Planning.5


Transportation Access Fee

The Transportation Access Fee is the discretionary and variable portion of the

payments to the Regional Transit System. Student funds are separate and distinct from

Administration funds. The University's interest in stimulating transit use comes from a

desire for less parking demand and improved walkability/bikability of the campus. The

University administration's share of the service contract pays for unlimited access to RTS

busses. Any improvements to service characteristics come from student funds. From



4 The per-operating-hour fee was raised to $46.75 in 2004-2005. The increase was the first since the
inception of the contract. The increase was necessary due to rising costs of fuel and labor.
5 Minutes of proceedings of the Transportation Access Fee Committee and Student Government Budget
and Appropriations Committees from 1998-2004. Official correspondence between City Commissioners,
UF representatives and RTS officials is also archived by the Business Services Division and Student
Government as official material pertaining to the student funding of transit services.









1998-2001, student funds were allocated from the Student Government budget. For the

period 2001-2004 funds came from the Transportation Access Fee.

The responsibility for collecting the Transportation Access Fee rests with the

University Financial Affairs Office. Students are required to pay the fee as if it were a

component of their tuition, and financial aid awards can be used to pay the fee. The

responsibility for setting the Transportation Access Fee and allocating the funds is

directed by a 7-member committee operating within the administrative structure of the

Division of Finance and Administration. Four voting members of the committee are

students, all of whom are appointed by the Student Body President and approved by the

Vice President for Student Affairs.6 One faculty member and two representatives of the

University Administration are also voting members. The Transportation Access Fee

Committee is authorized to charge a required fee to all students under Florida State

Statute 240.209.(3)(e)8 to "support the transportation infrastructure of the university for

the purpose of increasing student access to transportation services".

Student funds began to pay for enhanced bus services during academic year

1998/1999. Since a dedicated Transportation Access Fee had not yet been instituted by

the Florida Legislature, funds were budgeted as a portion of Student Government's

Activity & Service Fee, which also funds student organizations, recreation areas and

fitness centers. Table 7 below summarizes student payments to RTS. In academic year

98/99 $179,055 was paid to RTS, which translates to about fifteen cents per credit hour.

This first fee paid for frequency improvements to areas where critical shortages of bus

6 Only 29% of university transit agreements guarantee students a voting seat on advisory committees
(TCRP #39, 2001).

7 Florida State Statute 240.209,(3)(e)8 and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6C-7.003(34), authorizing
legislation of the transportation access fee, was passed in 2000.









space were occurring on a regular basis, specifically to three routes serving student-heavy

areas of southwest Gainesville. The first year of student subsidy of the transit system

proved to be a success, and it was renewed for a second year.

During the third year of student bus subsidy (2000/2001), the student contribution

increased to $282,290. Daytime bus service levels remained the same as in previous

years, costing $179,522. An additional $103,235 was spent to create a new late night bus

route known as Later Gator. The Later Gator program was also a success and was

expanded considerably during in coming years.

Students had begun to use busses in large numbers. Busses were often full, and

student housing complexes had continued to sprawl outside of the RTS coverage area.

Student Government could not increase its contribution to keep pace with rising demand.

The idea of a separate Transportation Access Fee for all State of Florida

Universities had been discussed as far back as 1996 (Salazar 1996). However creating a

separate Transportation Fee would require approval from the State of Florida Legislature

and the State University Board of Regents. This approval came during the 2000

legislative session. This allowed the establishment of a dedicated Transportation Access

Fee beginning in the Fall 2001 semester.

The Transportation Access Fee grew rapidly to keep pace with the rising demand

for transit service. Table 7 below outlines the fee and the amount raised from academic

year 98/99 through 04/05. The Fee amount has risen each year since its inception,

starting in Fall 2001 as a $2 per credit hour fee. In 2004/2005, the fee will be $4.10 per

credit hour. One hundred percent of Fee money is spent on motorized mass









transportation services. The Fee has been increased to provide service enhancements due

to congested busses, new residential construction, and rising student demand.

Table 7-Student Subsidy/Transportation Access Fee Growth
Academic Funding Source Fee Amount per Cost Per Student Funds
Year credit hour Per Year Raised
98/99 Student Government $0.15 8 $4.50 $179,055
99/00 Student Government $0.15 8 $4.50 $179,055
00/01 Student Government $0.24 9 $7.20 $282,290
01/02 Transportation Access $2.00 $60.00 $2,200,000
02/03 Transportation Access $3.00 $90.00 $3,940,000
03/04 Transportation Access $3.59 $107.70 $4,510,800
04/05 Transportation Access $4.10 $123.00 $5,264,500


Source: UF Business Services Division and RTS. Cost to students is based on 30 billed credits per
academic year

The Transportation Access Fee was not intended by the state legislature to be

solely a means to subsidize or improve bus transit services. Funds can be used to build

bike/pedestrian infrastructure, provide paratransit, jitney bus service, parking facilities, or

add roadway capacity. Other Florida universities have used Transportation Access Fee

Funds for all of these purposes. However at the University of Florida it remains

primarily a means to subsidize bus transit, as 96% of the funds realized are transferred to

the bus transit provider. However two other University transportation services are funded

using the Transportation Access Fee. The Student Nighttime Auxiliary Patrol (SNAP)

runs jitney van service on the UF Campus from 9PM to 2AM. SNAP was previously

funded by Student Government. SNAP's mission is to provide safe point-to-point

transport for on-campus residents and anyone on campus late at night. The program is

operated by the University Police Department. In academic year 2004/05, SNAP was


8 Fee amounts in 98/99, 99/00 and were allocated as a portion of the Activity and Service Fee. RTS also
benefited from several Department of Transportation grants during this period.

9 The fee amount in 00/01 continued service enhancements from the previous two years and funded the first
Later Gator late night service route. These fees were also budgeted and appropriated from Student
Government's Activity and Service Fee.









funded by $92,000 of Transportation Access Fee money. Paratransit around the UF

Campus is provided by the Handi-Van service. Before being funded by Transportation

Access Fee funds, the Handi-Van was funded and operated by the Transportation and

Parking Services Division. The Handi-Van services remains under the operational

control of Transportation and Parking Services, however all $120,000 of its funding

comes from the Fee. Sixteen cents of the $4.10 (or 4%) Fee goes to pay for SNAP and

Handivan services.


Service Enhancements

The Campus Transit Development Agreement has paid for several bus transit

improvements. The most important improvement was the creation of an unlimited

access, fare-free system for students, faculty and staff. Anyone possessing a valid

University of Florida Identification Card can board any RTS bus free of charge. The ID

Card, referred to as a Gator-1 Card, is presented to the driver upon boarding. There is no

need for riders to obtain passes or interact with a third party to gain access to free transit

services. This allows students to use bus transit services as frequently or infrequently as

they desire. This is an important factor since bus route enhancements are intended to

support a variety of different trips, some of which are used infrequently by patrons. The

unlimited access program began during the fall semester of 199810 and has continued

through 2004. Community and institutional support for the unlimited access program is

very high, and the arrangement will likely continue far into the future. Two other

constituent groups have started unlimited access programs in recent years. Beginning in

2001, an unlimited access program was started for city and county employees. In the

10 UF Faculty and Staff were given unlimited access benefits in 2000.









Spring 2004 semester, Santa Fe Community College Students received fare-free rides on

two routes that lead to that campus.11

The Service Contract provides three different services- Standard City Routes,

Campus Only Routes, and "Later Gator" Late Night Routes. The service characteristics,

funding arrangements and intended users differ for each type of bus route.


Standard City Routes

Standard city routes are identical to fixed bus routes found in cities throughout the

United States, except that select routes run on very short frequencies. They are planned

to connect residential areas (trip producers) with trip attractors such as employment or

institutional land uses. As discussed previously, the City of Gainesville agreed to

continue funding Standard City Routes at levels of service found in 1997. The University

made a priority of increasing frequency of busses to entice more students to use the bus

and to alleviate congestion on busses. Certain routes would have their operating hours

lengthened to accommodate the irregular schedule of college students. Of the city's 21

Standard Routes, 10 are supplemented by University funds. These routes connect student

housing to the University campus. This creates a disparity between the level of service

for UF-supplemented routes and routes operated only on city funds. Table 8 below

shows the 2004 routes offered by RTS including those supplemented by UF funds.









1 Funds to allow Santa Fe Community College students to ride fare-free on two bus routes serving that
campus come from the College's administration. At present, Florida Statutes do not allow a Transportation
Access Fee to be charged to community college students.









Table 8-2004-2005 Standard City Routes and Funding Levels
Route Number City Funding UF Funding Additional Peak
Service Hours Frequency
(minutes)
1 $561,711 $0 0 20
2 $196,724 $0 0 60
5 $412,391 $129,044 2,760 20
6 $199,342 $0 0 60
7 $202,932 $0 0 60
8 $562,982 $0 0 30
9 $175,182 $653,397 13,976 8
10 $178,996 $0 0 60
11 $199,342 $0 0 60
12 12 $0 $708,085 15,146 10
13 $140,026 $240,865 5,152 15
15 13 $180,918 $0 0 30
16 $187,187 $430,549 9,210 10
20 $348,026 $609,751 13,043 12
2112 $0 $190,142 4,067 20
24 $190,964 $0 0 60
34 12 $0 $540,028 11,551 20
35 $438,029 $232,011 4,963 12
36 12 $0 $175,574 3,756 20
43 13 $315,995 $0 0 60
75 $487,359 $0 0 30
Totals $4,978,066 $3,894,612 83,307 --


Source: Regional Transit System and UF Transportation Access Fee Committee.
bolded


UF-funded routes are


The sharing of costs for citywide fixed routes requires close coordination between

the University and the Regional Transit System. Transit planners for RTS monitor full

bus conditions and the locations of new student-oriented housing developments. They

present the information to the responsible parties at UF including the Transportation

Access Fee Committee and the Student Body President, who collectively appropriate

funding changes to alter the bus routes, schedules and hours to accommodate changes in

demand for transit service. Final approval of expenditures comes from the University

12 Routes 12, 21, 34 and 36 are reverse routes or spurs off other routes. Since these four routes closely
duplicate the service area of city-funded routes, UF is responsible for the entire cost.


13 Routes 15 and 43 are partially funded by Santa Fe Community College









President. In 2004/05, $3.02 of the $4.10 Fee goes toward supplementing service levels

on selected city routes.


Campus Circulator Routes

Campus Circulator Routes run on fixed routes on the UF Campus. Certain routes

leave the campus briefly, but only to complete loops when road connections and

configurations require completing a loop using city streets. They are intended to

facilitate the movement of UF students, faculty and staff around the campus. The

existence of Campus Circulator routes gives on-campus residents mobility within

campus. These routes also allow off-campus students to park once or arrive by off-

campus bus and move around to multiple destinations. The North/South Circulator, and

the East and West Circulators serve as the high frequency backbone of the campus

system. These routes run on 9-15 minute frequencies during peak hours. The Family

Housing and Lakeside routes serve to move on-campus residents that live in remote areas

to the center of campus. Three routes- Park & Ride 1, Park & Ride 2 and the Commuter

Lot Routes primarily transport patrons of remote parking facilities to the center of

campus.

The Campus Circulator Routes are funded entirely by the University, but are

operated by RTS. The total cost of operating the Campus Circulator Routes is

$2,272,005. The Campus Circulator Routes cost $48.54 per UF student per year. In

2004/2005, $1.61 ( or 39.5%) of the $4.10 per-credit hour fee is allocated to fund campus

circulator routes. The cost of each Campus Circulator Bus is summarized in table 9

below.









Table 9-Funding and Frequency of Campus Circulator Routes
Route UF Funding Daily Operating Peak Number Frequency
Schedule of Busses (minutes)
Park & Ride 1 $466,920 7am-7:30pm 5 8
Park & Ride 2 $193,975 7am-7pm 2 15
Commuter Lot $333,791 7am-7:30pm 3 10
West Circulator $344,061 7am-7:30pm 3 6
East Circulator $186,308 7am-7:30pm 2 10
E/W Circulator $213,004 5:30pm-2am 2 15
N/S Circulator $284,156 7:30am-2am 2 15
Family Housing $121,428 7am-5:30pm 1 30
Lakeside Apts. $107,454 9am-4:30pm 1 30
Lake Wauberg $20,907 Sat/Sun 9:30am-5:30pm 1 60
Totals $2,272,005 22
Source: Regional Transit System and UF Parking and Transportation Services


Later Gator

Later Gator busses operate on special routes from 8:30pm to 3:00am Wednesday

through Saturday evenings. These routes are intended to connect student residential areas

with evening activity centers, including downtown bars and restaurants. The mission of

the Later Gator program is threefold. First, it extends transit options into the late evening

hours, a time traditionally ignored by transit providers. This further contributes to the

ability of students to go about their daily lives with little or no automobile use. Second,

Later Gator seeks to reduce the frequency of driving under the influence of alcohol by

connecting student residential areas to popular bar and night club districts. Third, Later

Gator seeks to alleviate severe parking shortages along University Avenue and downtown

Gainesville, the two primary districts of late evening activity.

The first Later Gator route was instituted during the summer of 2000, by a special

appropriation from Student Government. This first trial year cost $103,276 to operate for

the fall and spring semesters from 9pm-2am on Thursday, Friday and Saturday nights.

The first route known as Later Gator A -continues to operate in a loop through the









University campus and downtown Gainesville, where many bars and night clubs are

found. The program proved extremely popular, and in 2001 the responsibility of paying

for Later Gator was moved to the Transportation Access Fee. Along with the greater

funding base, three new routes were created. During the period 2001-2004, routes were

added and deleted based on ridership and demand. In 2004-05, the Later Gator program

will offer 4 routes that operate Wednesday through Saturday from 8:30pm to 3:00am.

The service summary and cost of the Later Gator routes is outlined in table 10 below.

Thirty four cents (or 8.2%) of the $4.10 Transportation Access Fee goes to pay for Later

Gator Service.

Table 10-2004-2005 Later Gator Route Funding and Service Characteristics
Route Funding Busses Frequency
A $104,598 3 10
B $100,017 3 15
C $117,805 3 20
F $110,409 3 20
Totals $432,830 12 --
Source: UF Finance and Administration















CHAPTER 5
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

This chapter contains the results from both surveys administered during the

Summer/Fall of 2003. Beyond the numerical results of the survey, this section contains a

discussion of the findings. The results are presented and discussed in three broad areas:

1) Transportation Habits, 2) Transit Attitudes and Knowledge, and 3) TDM and Public

Policy.


Transportation Habits

Questions were asked on each survey to determine the transportation habits of

respondents before, during and after attending the University of Florida. This section

also covers respondent's housing and how transportation access impacts housing choices.

Incoming freshmen were largely suburban dwellers. Sixty eight percent of

incoming freshmen lived in a suburban single family house. Another 17% report being

raised in a single family house in a rural setting. Only 16% of incoming freshmen lived

in urban or multifamily settings. Figure 7 below demonstrates the disparity in housing of

incoming freshmen during their senior year of high school. It stands in strong contrast to

the type of housing freshmen live in during their freshman year of college.











80


70


60


50


40


30


20


10


Apartment Condominium Town House SF- Suburbs SF- Urban SF- Rural

Figure 7-Hometown Housing of Incoming Freshmen
Source: 2003 Freshman Survey

Respondents were allowed to give up to three responses to the question "Please

indicate the three most important factors when choosing a place to live." The most

popular response was "distance to campus" with 27%. The second most important factor

was "cost" with 22.8%. "Security", "Luxury", "Amenities" and "Social Life" were all

between 11 and 12%. Living close to a bus line came in last with only 3.3%. Only

eleven of 122 (or 9%) freshmen felt that living near a bus line was among their top three

factors.



Transportation Before Attending UF


Incoming freshmen's families show automobile dependence typical of most

American families. Their parents take an average of 25.1 minutes to get to work, slightly

less than the national average. Each household owns an average of 3.2 cars. Thirty four

percent of families own 4 or more cars.









Respondents were allowed to report two modes of parents' travel to work (one for

each parent if applicable). The automobile commanded 91.1% of the modal share- 88.9%

being single occupant vehicles. Only 2.2% carpooled to work, far below the national

figure of 12% (Census, 2000). Alternative modes carry a very small share of

transportation to work. Table 11 below shows the modal split for incoming freshmen

parents' travel to work.

Table 11-Parents' Mode of Travel to Work
Mode Number Percent
Drive Alone 119 88.8%
Other 4 3%
Carpool 3 2.2%
Bus 3 2.2%
Bike 3 2.2%
Subway/Elevated 1 0.7%
Walk 1 0.7%
Source: 2003 Freshman Survey

Incoming students were also automobile dependent for travel to high school,

although a substantial number carpooled. Sixty two percent drove to school alone.

Another 27.9% carpooled to school. School busses (5%), public transit (1.7%) and

walking (3.3%) account for less than 10% of the total.


Transportation While Enrolled

Incoming freshmen appear to be pragmatic about their options for commuting to

class. Eighty percent report they will live on campus, and all answers in this section must

consider that fact. Only 56.6% of incoming freshmen will have a car during their

freshman year, regardless of where they plan to live. Over seventy percent expect to get

to class by walking or biking. Twenty two percent expect to get to class by bus- 8% by

city bus and 14% by campus circulator bus. Only 8% expect to drive a car to class.









Alumni were asked to report how often they used transit each of the 4 types of

RTS service during their senior year (academic years 2000/01 or 01/02). Table 12 below

shows the frequency of use on city to campus, city to city, later gator and campus

circulator routes.

Table 12-Transit Service Use at UF
City to Campus City to City Later Gator Campus Circulator
Daily 56 (36%) 2 (1%) -1 49 (32%)
Weekly 19 (12%) 6 (4%) 12 (8%) 23 (15%)
Monthly 6 (4%) 2 (1%) 14 (9%) 7 (5%)
Infrequently 27(18%) 31 (20%) 47 (31%) 34 (22%)
Never 46(30%) 113 (73%) 81 (53%) 31 (20%)
Source: 2003 Alumni Survey

Eighty two percent of alumni report using at least one type of bus during their

senior year. Campus circulator busses have the highest frequency of ridership. Seventy

four percent of the sample reported using campus circulators during their senior year.

The highest daily ridership was on routes that connected student residential areas to

campus. Fifty six of the one hundred and fifty three respondents (36.6%) reported

commuting from off-campus homes to campus by bus during their senior year. City-only

routes experienced the lowest frequency of rides. Only 26% reported having used a city-

only route. Rides on city routes were also infrequent, as 5.2% rode city routes daily or

weekly.


Transportation After Graduation

Alumni show similar commuting patterns to their parents, although there is a

minor shift toward alternative modes. The average alumni took 22.8 minutes to get to

work. The average time to work is 2.8 minutes shorter than the national average and 2.3

minutes shorter than their parents.

1 Later Gator is only offered three days per week.









Alumni were asked the question "How do you get to work?." Eighty three

percent (83.4%) of alumni travel to work by single occupant automobile. Another 7.4%

of alumni travel in a carpool to work, whereas 3.3% of their parents used carpools.

Subway use and walking had minor increases over the modal share of parents. The

modal split is shown in Table 13 below.

Table 13-Alumni Travel to Work Mode Split
Mode Count Share Percent
Drive Alone 136 83.4%
Carpool 12 7.4%
Bus 2 1.2%
Subway 5 3.1%
Walk 6 3.7%
Bike 1 0.6%
Other 1 0.6%
Source: 2003 Alumni Survey

The rates of transit use change somewhat before and after graduation. Each group

was asked how frequently they had ridden transit in their current city. The percentage of

that reported never using transit declined from 81.9% (freshman) to 64.0% (alumni). The

percentage of people who used transit daily, weekly, monthly and infrequently all

increased. The largest change is in the "Infrequent" category, from a 14.8% share to

28.1% share. A Cramer's V test indicates a moderate statistical change between the

Alumni and Freshman groups for all responses,2 indicating that transit use changes

somewhat after graduation. Transit use is more common among alumni, although most

of the shift in responses came from "Never" to "Infrequently". Table 14 below shows

the frequency of responses about transit use among freshmen and alumni.




2 A Cramer's V test renders a value of 0.208 with an approximate significance of 0.018. Cramer's V varies
between 0 and 1 and is used to compare cross-tabulated nominal data when the table is greater than 2 by 2
squares.









Table 14-Frec uency of Transit Use
Transit Use Freshmen Fresh % Alumni Alumni %
Daily 2 1.6% 4 2.6%
Weekly 2 1.6% 5 3.3%
Monthly 0 0.0% 3 2.0%
Infrequently 18 14.6% 43 28.1%
Never 100 82.0% 98 64.1%
Source: 2003 Freshman and Alumni Surveys


Transit Attitudes and Knowledge

Alumni respondents were asked to give two factors (not ranked) that make the

RTS transit system an attractive option for student commuting. The results are shown in

Table 15 below. The most important factor for riding RTS busses was the lack of fare.

Difficulty in finding parking was second. A distant third was the frequency of busses.

Issues about social acceptability, hours of operation and traffic congestion were not a

consideration of many alumni.

Table 15-Attractive RTS Service Factors for Alumni
Factor Responses Percent
No Fare 107 35.3%
Parking Difficulty 96 31.7%
Frequency of Busses 44 14.5%
Convenience Factors 31 10.2%
Social Acceptability 10 3.3%
Hours of Operation 8 2.6%
Traffic Congestion 7 2.3%
Source: 2003 Alumni Survey

To determine if minimizing transfers was a concern of potential transit patrons,

both survey groups were asked the hypothetical question "There is a transit line in your

current city that runs directly from your home to work. Will you ride it?" Respondents

were given answer choices of "Yes", "No" and "Maybe." Table 16 below shows the

results from both surveys. Very few respondents outright rejected the idea of riding

transit. Only 3.3% of freshmen and 12.4% of alumni said they would not to ride a direct









transit line. A Cramer's V test confirms there is a shift in the responses between

freshmen and alumni.3 Alumni responded with more "maybe" and "no" answers. For

freshmen the most common response (the mode) was "yes", while for alumni it was

"maybe."

Table 16-Willingness to Ride Direct Transit Route to Work
Answer Freshmen Fresh % Alumni Alumni %
Yes 71 58.7% 65 42.5%
Maybe 46 38.0% 69 45.1%
No 4 3.3% 19 12.4%
Source: 2003 Freshman and Alumni Surveys

Respondents of both surveys were asked a series of questions about their

knowledge of the transit system in their current city. Respondents were asked if they

knew the: a) location of the nearest bus stop; b) the destinations of busses that stopped

there; c) the fare of the bus; and d) the timetable of the bus. An actual answer was not

required, simply a response of yes or no. Respondents were also asked if there was

public transit in their city, and results were only calculated from records where transit

service was present. Seventy five percent of incoming freshmen report living in a city

with public transit. while 93% for alumni report there is transit in their city. Additionally

30.2% of alumni live in a city with some form of rail transit.4

A graph of the results of the transit awareness question series can be found in

figure 8 below. Knowledge about the transit system on the whole is low. A majority

know where the closest bus stop is to their home. Seventy one percent of incoming

freshmen knew where the closest bus stop was in their hometown. Alumni are less aware

3 Cramer's V= 0.201

4 At the time of the survey rail transit operated in 5 Florida counties: Miami-Dade (Metrorail and Tri-Rail),
Duval (SkyTrain), Hillsborough (Light Rail/Streetcar), Broward (Tri-Rail), and Palm Beach (Tri-Rail).
Miami-Dade offers 4 routes, and the other 3 rail transit providers operate one route each. Given the small
scale of rail transit in Florida, questions were asked only about bus transit. Surveys were returned from
across the United States, including many metro areas with heavy, light and commuter rail service.










of the closest bus stop, and only 61% report they know where it is. In-depth knowledge

of the transit system is far less common. Twenty nine percent of freshmen and 21% of

alumni knew where the bus would take them. Even fewer knew how much the bus would

cost. Only a small fraction (4.3%) of each group knew the timetable of the bus nearest

their home. Alumni were consistently less knowledgeable about the transit system

operating in their current city.


80.0

70.0 -

60.0 -

50.0 -

7 Freshmen
o 40.0 -
A 6 Alumni
30.0 -

20.0 -

10.0 -

0.0
Bus Stop Destination Cost Schedule
0 Freshmen 70.7 29.3 22.8 4.3
MAlumni 61.3 21.1 14.8 4.2


Figure 8-Knowledge of Transit System Information
Source: 2003 Freshman and Alumni Surveys

Respondents were asked to rate their willingness to use public transit on a scale

from "Very Unwilling" to "Very Willing." Their responses were quantified on a scale

from 1 to 5. By converting their responses to scalar data, the means could be analyzed

using descriptive statistics and various statistical tests.5 The results of the 5 question



5 Responses were quantified using the following codes: "Very Unwilling" = 1; "Unwilling" = 2; "Neutral"
= 3; "Willing" = 4; and "Very Willing" = 5.









series are shown in table 17 below. The data is analyzed using three distinct groups: a)

all 274 records; b) all 122 freshmen records; and c) all 154 alumni records. The alumni

group had lower means for every question. Standard deviation for all questions and all

groups was between 1.2 and 1.3, indicating consistent moderate variance.

Table 17-Willingness to Use Transit
Question Freshmen Mean Alumni Mean
Willing to Ride Bus 3.80 3.01
Willing to Ride Rail 3.58 3.41
Willing to Carpool 3.73 3.49
Source: 2003 Freshman and Alumni Surveys

The mean for freshmen was 3.80, for Alumni 3.01. An independent sample t-test

confirms that means before and after attending UF are significantly different.6 Alumni

are less willing to use a bus than freshmen.

Willingness to use rail transit was not statistically significant between alumni and

freshmen. The results are similar regarding carpools. The mean responses for alumni

and freshmen were not statistically significant.8 There is no statistical difference between

the willingness of alumni and freshmen to use carpool or rail transit modes.

The entire population was analyzed for preferences between rail and bus modes.

The mean response for willingness to use busses was 3.36, and 3.48 for rail. There was







6 The Independent Sample t-test has a null hypothesis that the means are not significantly different. The
test renders a result oft= 5.401 at confidence level 0.05, and we can reject the null hypothesis. A t statistic
that is greater than 1.96 signals with 95% certainty that the means are significantly different.

7 Independent Sample t-test has a null hypothesis that the means are not different. The test renders a result
of t = 1.19. Since the t statistic is lower than 1.96, we fail to reject the null hypothesis and assume that the
means are not significantly different.

8 Independent sample t-test has a null hypothesis that the means are not different. The test renders a result
oft = 1.57. We fail to reject the null hypothesis and assume that the means are not significantly different.









no preference for rail transit over bus transit, or vice versa.9 Alumni preferred to use rail

over bus.

To determine if fare-free transit would increase the likelihood of public transit

use, respondents were asked to rate their willingness to use "public transit in general" and

free public transit. Results for the free fare vs. regular transit questions are shown in

table 18 below.

When the whole sample was split into groups according to classification, the

results change somewhat. Freshmen more strongly prefer free transit, and a paired t-test

confirms the observation.10 However alumni show almost no change between fare and

free-fare transit. A paired t-test confirms that the means are not significantly different.11

Table 18-Regular vs. Fare Free Transit
Question Freshmen Mean Alumni Mean
Willing to Ride Transit 3.73 3.18
Willing to Ride Free Transit 4.13 3.19
Source: 2003 Freshman and Alumni Surveys


Transportation Demand Management and Public Policy

A hypothetical question was posed to both survey groups to determine their

behavioral response to stringent parking restrictions found in many TDM policies,

including on the University of Florida campus. The question was asked: "You know

there is no parking at your shopping destination 3 miles away. What will you do?"

Responses to the hypothetical question are shown in Table 19 below. The top three

responses are bolded. For freshmen, the most common response was to take public

9 One Sample t-test for bus willingness on the mean for rail results in t = 1.59, failing to reject the null. A
test on rail transit willingness on the mean for bus results in t= 1.67, failing to reject the null.
10 A paired t-test is used to compare the means of a population before and after an event. In this case the
event is the application of the condition of fare-free transit. t = -3.49

11 t = -0.06









transit. Public transit fell to the 3rd most common response for alumni. The option to

drive to a more distant destination went from 4th for freshmen to 1st for alumni. Parking

far away and walking to the destination was the 2nd most popular response for both

freshmen and alumni. Fifteen percent of alumni responded that they would "not go" if

there was no parking at their shopping destination, up from 6.6% for freshmen.

Table 19-Behavioral Response to Parking Restriction
Behavioral Response Freshmen Freshmen Alumni Count Alumni
Count Percent Percent
Public Transit 42 34.7% 24 15.7%
Park Far Away 26 21.5% 39 25.5%
Get Dropped Off 18 14.9% 10 6.5%
Drive to a More 17 14.0% 50 32.7%
Distant Destination
Not Go 8 6.6% 23 15.0%
Bike 7 5.8% 2 1.3%
Taxi 2 1.7% 1 0.7%
Walk 1 0.8% 4 2.6%
Source: 2003 Freshman and Alumni Surveys

Respondents were asked to rate their level of agreement with public policy

statements. The 5 possible answers varied from "Strongly Disagree" to "Strongly

Agree", and the answers were coded from 1 to 5 to allow numerical analysis. First,

respondents were asked if they feel it is important for government to provide public

transit. Overall the group agreed with that statement. The mean response was 4.20, with

a low standard deviation of 0.82. The most frequent response was "Agree," and only 12

people (or 4.4%) answered "Strongly Disagree" or "Disagree." There is no statistical

difference between alumni and freshmen when the sample is broken down into separate

groups.

Respondents were also asked to rate their agreement with the statement "It is

important for government to provide more road improvements to deal with traffic." The









level of agreement with this statement was very high. The mean response was 4.45

(maximum 5), with a very low standard deviation of 0.66. The most frequent response

was "Strongly Agree." Four respondents (or 1.1%) disagreed with the statement. There

is no statistical difference between groups.

Respondents feel that government expenditure on road infrastructure is more

important than expenditure on transit. The mean responses for agreement with road

expenditure (4.45) and transit (4.20) were compared using a one-sample t-test. The t

statistic value was 6.21, confirming that respondents support road expenditures over

transit expenditures.

Alumni felt that "traffic congestion was a serious problem." An independent

sample t-test shows that the mean for alumni (4.27) is statistically different than the mean

for freshmen (4.02).12 The most common response was "Strongly Agree," and only 23

people (8.2%) disagreed that traffic congestion was a serious problem. Respondents also

believe that transit reduces traffic congestion, and they generally believe that transit is

effective at reducing traffic. The mean was 3.99, with a mode of 4 or "Agree." There

was no difference between freshmen and alumni groups. Table 20 below shows the

frequency of responses of agreement with the statements about traffic congestion.

Table 20-Transit Reduces Traffic Congestion
Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
Disagree Agree
Traffic is a Serious Problem 1 22 26 108 113
Mean = 4.16
Percent 0.4% 7.6% 9.6% 40.0% 41.9%
Transit Reduces Congestion 4 19 42 120 89
Mean = 3.99
Percent 1.4% 6.9% 15.2% 43.5% 32.2%
Source: 2003 Freshman and Alumni Surveys


12 t = -2.23









When asked if it was "critical to own a car," alumni agreed with the statement

more strongly than freshmen. Freshmen responded with a mean of 3.84, while the

alumni mean was 4.25. An independent samples t-test shows that alumni feel more

strongly that owning a car is important.13

Respondents were also asked if they would be willing to vote for a political

candidate who promises to spend more money on public transit. The mean response was

3.06, and the frequency of responses is show in table 21 below. The responses are nearly

normally distributed, with most respondents "neutral" on the issue. Statistically there is

no change in the responses between alumni and freshmen.

Table 21-Willingness to Vote for a Pro-Transit Political Candidate
Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
Disagree Agree
Vote for Pro-Transit Candidate 15 39 149 57 14
Source: 2003 Alumni Survey

Freshmen report that TDM measures such as bike lanes, auto-free zones, and

calmed traffic makes them more inclined to ride bicycles or walk. However alumni do

not value these TDM measures as much as freshmen when choosing whether to walk to

bike. Table 22 below shows the mean responses for alumni and freshmen, as well as the t

statistic of the independent t-test on the means. All three TDM policies were less popular

with alumni, as all three statements presented score statistically significantly lower

among graduates.

Table 22-TDM Policies and Their Impact on Willingness to Bike and Walk
Alumni Freshmen t statistic
Mean Mean
Auto-Free Zones Increases Willingness to Walk 3.15 3.48 2.62
Sidewalks Increases Willingness to Walk/Bike 3.61 3.88 2.34
Slow Traffic Increases Willingness to Walk/Bike 2.64 3.21 4.58
Source: 2003 Freshman and Alumni Surveys

13 t = -3.32









Finally, alumni and freshmen were asked rate their agreement with the statement

"I wish transit was a better option in my city." Table 23 below shows the frequency of

responses. Forty Seven percent of respondents agree that they wish transit was a better

option in their city. Only 16.% disagree, with 36% being neutral on the subject.

Table 23-Wish Transit Was a Better Option
Mean = 3.42 Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
Disagree Agree
Wish Transit was a Better Option 3 41 99 100 31
Source: 2003 Alumni Survey

Self-Selection for Transit Use

Certain groups may be more likely to ride public transit than others. The

literature suggests that inner city residents, those living in multifamily settings, and those

living in major metropolitan areas are more likely to use transit. Alumni make conscious

decisions about where and how they live after graduation. Some will choose to leave

Florida, others will stay. Many of those who leave Florida will move to large

metropolitan areas where transit is a better option. Some alumni will live in multifamily

settings, others will live in single family homes. Whether or not transit access is an

active concern for alumni moving to major metropolitan areas or to multifamily housing

is not known. However, these two lifestyle choices may create more opportunities to

travel by transit.


Florida Residency

One hundred, or 65 percent, of alumni live in Florida. Eighteen percent of

Florida-based alumni live in a city with some form of rail transit, all but 3 report living in

Miami-Dade County. The remaining 54 alumni respondents (35%) live outside of

Florida. Many out-of-state alumni are moving to major metropolitan areas, as indicated









by rail transit being present in 48 percent of their new cities. Fifty-five percent of out-of-

state alumni lived in the ten largest metropolitan areas of the United States. The most

popular metropolitan areas outside of Florida are: Atlanta, Washington, DC, and New

York City.

The transit ridership frequency for alumni inside and out of Florida is quite

different. The breakdown is shown in Table 24 below. Zero alumni in Florida use transit

on a daily, weekly, or monthly basis. Seventy-eight percent have not used transit at all

since graduation. Those living out-of-state used transit more frequently, a fact confirmed

by a Cramer's V value of 0.469. This indicates a moderate-to-strong correlation between

transit ridership and being a resident in a state other than Florida. Out-of-state residents

are more likely to use transit frequently, as 16 percent ride transit daily or weekly. A

larger proportion of out-of-state alumni use transit infrequently. The percentage of

alumni who have never used transit dropped from 78% for Florida residents to 39% for

out-of-state residents.

Table 24-Florida and Out-of-State Alumni Respondents to Transit Frequency
Frequency Florida Florida % Out of State Out of State %
Daily 0 0% 4 7%
Weekly 0 0% 5 9%
Monthly 0 0% 3 6%
Infrequently 22 22% 21 39%
Never 77 78% 21 39%
Total 99 54
Source: 2003 Alumni Survey

Alumni who live out-of-state are significantly more likely to use transit to

commute to work. The percentage of alumni who drive alone dropped from 90% for

Florida residents to 72% for out-of-state. Twenty three percent of out-of-state residents

used modes other than a car to get to work, while only 2% of Florida-based alumni use

non-automobile modes. Walking to work also increased substantially among those living









out-of-state, from 1 percent to 9 percent. Table 25 below shows the modal split for travel

to work for alumni.

Table 25-Florida and Out-of-State Alumni Respondents' Mode of Travel to Work
Mode Florida Florida % Out-of-State Out-of-State %
Drive Alone 94 90% 42 72%
Carpool 9 9% 3 5%
Walk 1 1% 5 9%
Bike 1 1% 0 0%
Bus 0 0% 2 3%
Subway 0 0% 5 9%
Other 0 0% 1 2%
Total 105 58
Source: 2003 Alumni Survey

Table 26 below summarizes the willingness of in-state and out-of-state residents

to use transit. Out-of-state respondents were more willing to use transit if it was free.

Out-of-state respondents were more willing to use rail transit than bus transit.14

Table 26-Florida and Out-of-State Alumni Respondents' Willingness to Use Transit
Willingness to use Florida Out-of-State Significant15
Transit 3.12 3.31 No
Free Transit 2.97 3.58 Yes
Bus 3.02 2.98 No
Rail 3.29 3.61 No
Carpool 3.55 3.39 No
Source: 2003 Alumni Survey


Multifamily and Single Family residents

To analyze if people living in multifamily housing are more likely to use public

transit, the alumni survey was split into two groups who reported living in single family

and multifamily housing. Possible multifamily responses included: apartments,

condominiums, townhomes and university housing. Single family homes included all


14t= 2.04
15 Using an Independent Sample t-test, the means of Transit, Bus, Rail, and Carpool for Florida and Out-of-
State were not significant. Free Transit was statistically preferred by alumni living out of state than those
living in-state. t = 2.74









other survey responses. Two respondents did not report the nature of their current home.

Eighty-four, or 55%, of alumni reporting living in multifamily homes, while 68 (or 45%)

lived in single family homes.

The frequency of transit use was higher among people living in multifamily

homes. A Cramer's V test renders a value of 0.251, indicating a moderate correlation

between living in multifamily housing and using transit frequently. Refer to table 27

below. Respondents living in single family housing did not report using transit daily,

weekly or monthly. Only 31% reported using transit infrequently, while 69% reported

never using transit.

Table 27-Multifamily and Single Family Residents' Transit Frequency
Frequency Multifamily Multi % Single Family Single %
Daily 4 5% 0 0%
Weekly 4 5% 0 0%
Monthly 3 4% 0 0%
Infrequently 23 27% 21 31%
Never 50 60% 47 69%
Total 84 68
Source: 2003 Alumni Survey

Living in a multifamily setting makes one more likely to commute by alternative

modes. Refer to table 28 below. Driving alone retains the largest modal share, with 81

percent of multifamily respondents, and 89% of single family respondents. The only

alternative mode utilized by single family respondents was walking, with 3%.

Carpooling was the second-highest utilized among both groups. Only multifamily

dwellers used bus and rail transit.









Table 28-Multifamily and Single Family Mode of Travel to Work
Mode Multifamily Multi % Single Family Single %
Drive Alone 73 81% 62 89%
Carpool 6 7% 6 9%
Walk 3 3% 2 3%
Bike 0 0% 0 0%
Bus 2 2% 0 0%
Subway 5 6% 0 0%
Other 1 1% 0 0%
Total 90 70
Source: 2003 Alumni Survey

Single family respondents and multifamily respondents do not differ significantly

from each other on willingness to use various types of transit. See table 29 below for

mean responses to willingness to use transit. Multifamily dwellers were not more willing

to ride free transit than fare-paying transit.16 Multifamily dwellers were not statistically

more willing to ride rail than bus.17

Table 29-Multifamily and Single Family Willingness to Use Transit
Willingness to use Multifamily Single Family Significant?
Transit 3.06 3.32 No
Free Transit 3.05 3.31 No
Bus 2.87 3.14 No
Rail 3.41 3.36 No
Carpool 3.40 3.58 No
Source: 2003 Alumni Survey


Discussion


Transportation Habits

The data supports the hypothesis that incoming students to the University were

brought up in automobile dependent homes. The suburban/rural setting of their homes,

high vehicle ownership rates, and low rates of alternative mode use suggest that incoming


16 t= 0.62
17 t = 1.74









students are highly conditioned to automobile travel. Low density suburban areas are

generally not supportive of public transit. Students will have to adapt their transportation

habits to conform with the TDM policies of the dense University of Florida Campus.

Some of the University's TDM policies are positive ones that will improve their

transportation options, such as bicycle/pedestrian improvements and transit investments.

Other TDM policies will force a modal shift away from cars. These "negative" TDM

policies include parking pricing, parking availability and auto-free zones.

Incoming students seem well educated about the TDM policies at the University,

and are pragmatic about their options for commuting to campus. Very few freshmen plan

to drive to class. Most expect to walk or bike to class, which is not surprising since so

many freshmen will live on campus. When choosing where to live during college years,

freshmen appear to be taking transportation into account. However they do not consider

access to transit to be very important when they arrive as freshmen.

While at the University of Florida it is clear that students are using busses. Eighty

two percent of alumni rode a bus at least one bus during their senior year. Walking and

Biking also drew a substantial modal share. According to Tolley (1996) and Balsas

(2002), alternative mode use while in school could have permanent impacts on

transportation habits. There is some evidence that transportation habits have changed

after graduation. Alternative modes have a small- but statistically significant- increase in

modal share. A full 36% of alumni used transit after graduation, but most of those were

infrequent users.









Transit Attitudes and Knowledge

On the whole alumni were far less willing to use busses than freshmen. Despite

the slight increase in ridership between freshmen and alumni, busses lose their appeal to

the broad population of alumni. This may signal a shift in the importance that alumni

place on service characteristics after graduation. It may also signify that transit satisfies

the transportation needs of only a small segment of the population.

Previous experiments have shown that consumers have no preference for rail

transit over bus transit. However in this study, alumni show a preference for rail transit

over bus transit. This seems to confirm the stereotype that rail transit is the choice of

white collar workers. Further, it may signal that some characteristics of rail transit are

preferred.

Free-fare transit was popular among freshmen, greatly increasing their willingness

to ride transit. However this was not a significant factor for alumni. This is further

evidence that the life circumstances of alumni are markedly different from freshmen.

Free fare transit may be successful at building ridership among lower income people, but

its benefits erode for those in higher income brackets.

Alumni reported that the most important factors about riding public transit to,

from, and around campus was the lack of a fare and difficulty parking on campus. Bus

frequency was the third most important factor. Alumni preference for fare-free transit

while in college did not translate into a preference for it after graduation. This likely

signals the higher income status of recent graduates.

A statistically higher number of alumni have used public transit, but most of them

only use it infrequently. This may signify that alumni have tried to use public transit, but









it is not meeting their daily transportation needs. It also suggests that the cost savings of

public transit mean less to alumni. Alumni show no preference for free-fare transit, while

freshmen strongly prefer it. The literature shows that people value their time at a rate

equal to half of their hourly salary (Hess et al. 2003). College graduates have a far

greater salary than college students, thus they place a higher dollar value on their

transportation time.

It is possible that cost is a concern for cash-strapped college students. Brown et

al. (2002) argues that unlimited access transit substantially reduces the cost of attending

college, particularly if students do not own a car. Unlimited access also increases the

viability of living on campus. These factors help explain why cost is the number one

factor for UF students choosing to ride the bus. Parking difficulties on campus are almost

as important as cost to UF students. This supports existing the existing literature on the

impact of parking restriction on transit use.

Convenience is also a factor for transit users. Convenience was the 4th most

important factor for UF students choosing to ride the bus. An important component of

convenience is the number of connections required. The literature shows that minimizing

connections will attract more riders. The survey data backed up other researchers' work,

showing that both alumni and freshmen strongly prefer direct bus routes. However,

alumni were more likely to reply "maybe" to the question about direct busses. This may

indicate that other service characteristics are more important.

Respondent's knowledge about the transit system in their town was poor. The

majority of people knew the location of the nearest bus stop, however in-depth

knowledge of the transit system dropped off significantly. Apparently very few









respondents had explored their options for public transit. Only 29% of freshmen and

21% of alumni knew where the bus would take them. Alumni were less aware of their

city's transit system than freshmen. Apparently exposure to public transit while in

college did not prompt graduates to investigate the transit options available to them after

graduation.


TDM and Public Policy

Transportation is a major concern for respondents of the survey. Both alumni and

freshmen feel strongly that traffic congestion is a serious problem. Respondents believe

that government can tackle the problem of traffic congestion both by building roads and

providing public transit. When it comes to funding priorities, respondents think that

government should focus available funds money on road improvements. While they also

value expenditure on transit, roads are their priority.

TDM policies may be able to shift people from automobiles to transit, but alumni

are less willing to use other alternative modes such as walking or biking than are

freshmen. Common bike/ped supportive TDM policies such as auto-free zones and

traffic calming did not make those modes more attractive to alumni than freshmen. This

may signal that alumni have concerns over time and convenience.


Self-Selection for Transit Use

The phenomena of "self-selection" involves people putting themselves in

situations where transit use is more likely. People may or may not consciously make

these life choices with transit in mind. This survey shows that some people choose their

housing based on transportation factors. Other people will make housing choices with




Full Text

PAGE 1

IMPACTS OF TRANSPORTATI ON DEMAND MANAGEMENT POLICIES AND TEMPORARY CAMPUS TRANSIT USE ON THE PERMANENT TRANSIT HABITS AND ATTITUDES OF UNIV ERSITY OF FLORIDA ALUMNI By ALEXANDER BOND A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS IN URBAN AND REGIONAL PLANNING UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2005

PAGE 2

In Memory of Andrew Factor, Ch ristopher Zeiss and Premal Dagly

PAGE 3

iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank the fo llowing people for their support of my thesis research. Special thanks to my thesis committee chai r, employer and adviso r Professor Ruth L. Steiner. Her guidance, support and advice ha ve gone above and beyond the call of duty. The other members of my thesis committee de serve thanks as well. Professor Joshua Comenetz and Dr. Linda Crider have lent their expertise a nd advice at critical moments through this process, and their input has been very valuable. Professor Paul Zwick, Linda Dixon of UF Campus Facilities Planni ng and Construction, Doug Robinson of the Regional Transit System, and Bob Miller Vice President for UF Finance and Administration, have also assisted this project in several ways. This project was an expensive one, and without in-kind support the cost would have been prohibitive. The Urban and Regional Planning Department generously supplied me with thousands of letterhead and return mail envelopes, significantly reducing the cost of the project. Members of my family were also integral to the process. Special thanks go to my sister Carly Bond for her effort at the start of this project. Without her work, this project would have ended before it began. My pare nts, Carolyn and Tony Bond, have given me their undying love and support throughout my time at the University of Florida.

PAGE 4

iv TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS...............................................................................................iii LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................................vii LIST OF FIGURES...........................................................................................................ix ABSTRACT....................................................................................................................... .x 1 INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................1 2 LITERATURE REVIEW...............................................................................................4 Transportation Demand Management.............................................................................4 Public Transit In America.............................................................................................12 Transit Ridership.......................................................................................................12 Modal Split................................................................................................................12 Transit Funding.........................................................................................................15 Florida Transit Funding............................................................................................16 Bus Transit.................................................................................................................... 17 Bus Fare Elasticity and Free-Fare Transit................................................................18 Other Service Characteristics to Build Transit Ridership.........................................20 Non-User Studies......................................................................................................25 University Transportation.............................................................................................26 Campus Parking........................................................................................................27 Campus Transit.........................................................................................................29 Unlimited Access and Fare Structure.......................................................................31 Campus Transit Case Studies....................................................................................33 Permanent Effects of Temporary Transit Use..............................................................37 3 METHODOLOGY.......................................................................................................39 Survey Administration..................................................................................................39 Survey Scope................................................................................................................40 Freshman Survey..........................................................................................................41 Alumni Survey..............................................................................................................42 Limitations.................................................................................................................... 43 Other Research Methods...............................................................................................43

PAGE 5

v 4 BACKGROUND..........................................................................................................45 The University of Florida..............................................................................................45 Regional Transit System...............................................................................................52 Campus Transit Service Agreement.............................................................................56 Transportation Access Fee........................................................................................58 Service Enhancements..............................................................................................62 Standard City Routes................................................................................................63 Campus Circulator Routes........................................................................................65 Later Gator................................................................................................................66 5 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION...................................................................................68 Transportation Habits....................................................................................................68 Transportation Before Attending UF........................................................................69 Transportation While Enrolled.................................................................................70 Transportation After Graduation...............................................................................71 Transit Attitudes and Knowledge.................................................................................73 Transportation Demand Manageme nt and Public Policy.............................................77 Self-Selection for Transit Use.......................................................................................81 Florida Residency.....................................................................................................81 Multifamily and Single Family residents..................................................................83 Discussion..................................................................................................................... 85 Transportation Habits................................................................................................85 Transit Attitudes and Knowledge.............................................................................87 TDM and Public Policy............................................................................................89 Self-Selection for Transit Use...................................................................................89 6 CONCLUSIONS...........................................................................................................92 Conclusions...................................................................................................................9 2 Policy Recommendations..............................................................................................95 RTS Recommendations............................................................................................96 City of Gainesville Recommendations.....................................................................98 University of Florida Recommendations..................................................................99 Recommendations for Future Research......................................................................100 APPENDIX A INFORMED CONSENT PROTOCOL.....................................................................103 B INCOMING FRESHMEN SURVEY........................................................................104 C ALUMNI SURVEY...................................................................................................108 D FRESHMEN RAW SURVEY DATA.......................................................................112 E ALUMNI RAW SURVEY DATA.............................................................................140

PAGE 6

vi REFERENCES...............................................................................................................172 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH..........................................................................................178

PAGE 7

vii LIST OF TABLES Table page 1 TDM Strategies Organized by Aspect......................................................................6 2 United States, Means of Transport to Work 2000..................................................14 3 Transit System Characteristics by University and City Size..................................30 4 Parking and Decal Sales, 2003................................................................................51 5 Total Ridership 1995 to 2003.................................................................................55 6 Campus Circulator Rout e Ridership 1995 to 2003................................................55 7 Student Subsidy/Transportation Access Fee Growth.............................................61 8 2004-2005 Standard City R outes and Funding Levels...........................................64 9 Funding and Frequency of Ca mpus Circulator Routes...........................................66 10 2004-2005 Later Gator Route Funding and Service Characteristics....................67 11 Parents Mode of Travel to Work.........................................................................70 12 Transit Service Use at UF.....................................................................................71 13 Alumni Travel to Work Mode Split......................................................................72 14 Frequency of Transit Use......................................................................................73 15 Attractive RTS Service Factors for Alumni..........................................................73 16 Willingness to Ride Dir ect Transit Route to Work 17 Willingness to Use Transit....................................................................................76 18 Regular vs. Fare Free Transit................................................................................77 19 Behavioral Response to Parking Restriction.........................................................78 20 Transit Reduces Traffic Congestion.....................................................................79

PAGE 8

viii 21 Willingness to Vote for a Pro-Transit Political Candidate...................................80 22 TDM Policies and Their Impact on Willingness to Bike and Walk.....................80 23 Wish Transit Was a Better Option........................................................................81 24 Florida and Out-of-State Alumni Respondents to Transit Frequency..................82 25 Florida and Out-of-State Alumni Re spondents Mode of Travel to Work...........83 26 Florida and Out-of-State Alumni Re spondents Willingness to Use Transit.......83 27 Multifamily and Single Family Residents Transit Frequency.............................84 28 Multifamily and Single Family Mode of Travel to Work.....................................85 29 Multifamily and Single Family Willingness to Use Transit.................................85

PAGE 9

ix LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 1 Percent of Transit Trips Taken (Transit Modal Split)............................................13 2 Nationwide Total of Transit Agency Funding 1991-2001......................................15 3 All Campus Parking Facilities and Core Campus Area..........................................49 4 UF Park and Ride Facilities....................................................................................50 5 RTS Route System..................................................................................................54 6 Campus and Total RTS Ridership Growth.............................................................56 7 Hometown Housing of Incoming Freshmen...........................................................69 8 Knowledge of Transit System Information.............................................................75

PAGE 10

x Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of th e University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for th e Degree of Master of Arts in Urban and Regional Planning IMPACTS OF TRANSPORTATION DEM AND MANAGEMENT POLICIES AND TEMPORARY CAMPUS TRANSIT USE ON THE PERMANENT TRANSIT HABITS AND ATTITUDES OF UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA ALUMNI By Alexander Bond May 2005 Chairperson: Ruth L. Steiner Major Department: Urban and Regional Planning The University of Florida began fina ncially supporting the Regional Transit System in 1998, allowing students to ride bus ses without paying a fa re and substantially improving service characteristics such as frequency and hours of operation. Students have responded by shifting their commuting patterns away from single occupant automobiles, and have played the pivotal role in boosting RTS ridership by 284% in the first six years of the program. Students at the University of Florida are provided with high-quality, free-fare transit during their period of attendance. Students are also subjected to a comprehensive set of transportation demand management (TDM ) policies intended to curb their use of automobiles and shift their commutes toward alternative modes of transportation. After graduation, most move away from the City of Gainesville to find employment. Alumni must make new transportation choices, based on their new environs. The purpose of this

PAGE 11

xi project is to understand how temporary expos ure to TDM policies a nd high-quality transit impacts permanent transit habits and attitudes. Two mail surveys were administered, mi micking a time-series survey. Incoming freshmen to the University were surveyed pr ior to their arrival at UF. Recent alumni were surveyed as well, and the alumni re sponses can be compared to the freshmen responses. Respondents were asked questi ons about transit us e, transit system knowledge, attitudes toward tran sportation policies, and attitudes toward TDM policies. Survey results show a slight increase in transit ridership among alumni. Despite the increase in ridership, alum ni indicate they are less wi lling to ride transit than freshmen. Upon deeper investigation, two sel f-selection factors for transit use were identified: non-Florida residency and living in multifamily housing. The most important factors for influencing transit use were fare cost and parking restriction. This project concludes that people of all ages and backgrounds will ride transit under certain circumstances. Those circumstan ces are parking prici ng or restriction and high-frequency transit. Low cost or free-fare transit may also be valuable if target users are low-income or otherwise transportation disadvantaged. Prior automobile use does not preclude the user from riding transit. Simila rly, temporary transit use does not translate into permanent habits once the users life circumstances change. The decision on whether to use transit is based on the transpor tation environment, which is largely shaped by transportation demand management policies. This study concludes that TDM systems in most citiesparticularly those in Florid aare not comprehensive enough to influence automobile users to change modes to transit.

PAGE 12

1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION The bulk of communities throughout the nati on have failed to create a modal shift toward transit because they have failed to implement a variety of complementary transportation demand management (TDM) policies. TDM policies are those that discourage single occupant automobile use a nd promote the use of alternative modes. Universities are better equipped and more motivated than their surrounding communities to implement comprehensive TDM programs. For many universities, increasing public transits mode share is the primary goal of their TDM programs. Universities across the c ountry are partnering with their communities public transit agencies to provide enhanced transit se rvice to their campuses (Brown et al. 2003). Schools hope to increase the number of student s and staff that commute to campus by bus, thus reducing the demand for parking on campus. Some schools offer unlimited access, which allows users to board the bus without paying a fare. Many universities improve the frequency, amenities and operating hours of transit routes serving the campus. The University of Florida is one university that has part nered with its local transit agency to provide unlimited access, high frequency service. The partnership has been very successful, increasing the system-wid e number of transit riders 284% since its inception in 1998. In 2004, the Gainesville Re gional Transit System (RTS) carried 8.2 million riders per year, the majority of whom are students. RTS is now the 4th largest

PAGE 13

2 transit system in the State of Florida despite serving the 17th largest county. Alachua County now has the highest ratio of riders per capita of any count y in Florida (NTD 2003/Census 2000) The high rate of transit use in Gainesv ille (and Alachua County) stands in stark contrast to the rest of the state. Florida is one of the most automobile dependent states in the nation (Census 2000). Most of Florida was developed using suburban urban design, the least transit-supportive pa ttern. Eighty five percent of the student population at the University of Florida are in-state students and as such have been raised in an environment where private automobiles are the mode of choice for a ll trips. Since the University of Florida has adopted a variety of TDM policies—including enhanced transit service—students have been prompted to br eak their pre-conceive d notions about using alternative modes. Some students choose to wa lk or bike. Some c hoose to ride the bus. Many students that persist in driving use busse s to reach the core of campus from parking facilities. For many students riding the bus to, from and around the University of Florida campus will represent their first sustained experience with bus transit. Seventy eight percent of alumni report that they used RTS busses during their time at UF. It is clear that students are amenable to riding the bus wh ile in attendance at UF. But what happens after they graduate? Most students will leav e Gainesville, and most of those who stay will no longer commute to campus. Will alumni continue to ride public transit in their new communities? The purpose of this project is to explore how temporary transit use impacts permanent transit habits and attitudes.

PAGE 14

3 To answer questions about transit us e after graduation, two mail surveys were administered. The first survey was sent to incoming freshmen to establish baseline data about transit habits a nd attitudes before arriving at the University. The second survey was sent to alumni and asked many of the same questions. Data from the alumni survey can be compared to the freshman surv ey, exposing any changes in transit habits or attitudes toward public transportation. Research questions. Three principal research questions are asked during this project. The rese arch questions are 1) Do alumni of the University of Fl orida ride public transit more frequently than before they attended UF? 2) Do attitudes and perceptions about bus transit change after using busses on and around the University of Florida Campus? 3) Which, if any, Transp ortation Demand Management policies are perceived as being most effective by freshmen and alumni? There are also some subsidiary resear ch questions. These questions are: 1) What characteristics of bus tran sit and ancillary TDM policies at the University of Florida make busses an attractive commuting option? 2) How educated are students and alumni on transit options? 3) Do students and alumni take transportation factors into consideration when choosing where to live before and after graduation? 4) Which TDM policies are supported by students/alumni?

PAGE 15

4 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW This section contains a review of the exis ting literature on a variety of topics that relate to public transportati on, building bus ridership, and university tr ansportation. Public transit has many benefits for its co mmunity including lower traffic congestion, lower air pollution, increased tr ansportation equity and lower cost of living. Increasing transitÂ’s share of passenger trips is an im portant goal of many metropolitan areas. This section begins with a discussi on of Transportation Demand Management (TDM), which uses a variety of policy measures to create a more balanced transportation system. A summary of current trends in tran sit ridership and administration follow. An important component of TDM strategies is the enhancement of transit services, and a section is included that discu sses various service enhancements that have been proven to build ridership. Transit systems that serve uni versities are covered in depth in the final part. Transportation Demand Management Transportation Demand Management (TDM) is a package term for a variety of planning strategies that promote the more efficient use of transportation resources. Efficient use of the transportation system is becoming increasingly important as widespread automobile use strains the ex isting road infrastructure, and available government monetary resources cannot k eep up with the demand for new roadway

PAGE 16

5 capacity. The broad use of automobiles also has negative impacts on air quality, urban design, and creates hardships to transportation disa dvantaged persons such as the elderly, poor or handicapped. TDM strategies seek to reduce or mitig ate the negative aspects of automobile travel including congestion, air quality, and tr ansportation inequity. They also seek to build upon positive aspects of a balanced transportation system including economic development, expanded housing choices, a nd a reduction in capital expenditure on transportation infrastructure. Some TDM strategies include: more transportation mode choices, improved convenience of alternative mo des, efficient pricing and other financial incentives, marketing of alternative modes, and land use changes that improve access and reduce automobile dependency (Litman 2003). TDM policies fall into three broad categoriespositive, mixed and negative. Positive TDM policies expand transportation options and access for all users and include: Transit service improvements, flextime work hour scheduling, and carpool/vanpool programs. Mixed TDM strategies expand optio ns and access for only one segment of the population, but do not adversely impact those who are not in the target group. Mixed TDM strategies include: high occupant vehicl e lanes, fare-free transit programs, and traffic calming. Negative TDM strategies re duce options or increase costs. Negative TDM strategies include: fuel tax increases, pa rking pricing, or auto -free zones (Victoria Transportation Policy Institute [VTPI] 2004). Erik Ferguson (1990) identifies TDM as a complementary strategy to Transportation Supply Management (TSM). TSM strives to increase transportation system capacity on all modes by forecasting infrastructure needs. TDM complements

PAGE 17

6 TSM because it maximizes the use of all built transportation infrastructure. Ferguson identifies five aspects of tr avel that can be altered to maximize the efficiency of the existing transportation system: 1) Trip Genera tion, 2) Trip Distribution, 3) Mode Choice, 4) Route Selection (spatial), a nd 5) Route Selection (temporal). The five aspects of travel and proven strategies to alter that as pect are summarized in Table 1 below: Table 1–TDM Strategies Organized by Aspect Aspect of Travel TDM Objective Selected Strategies Trip Generation Eliminate trips -Growth management -Telecomuting Trip Distribution Move trips to less congested destination -Increased density -Promote trip chaining Mode Choice Move trips to higher occupancy modes -Bike/Ped amenities -Parking pricing -Ridesharing -Transit enhancement Route Selection (spatial) Move trips to a less congested route -Traffic calming -Intelligent transportation systems Route Selection (temporal) Move trips to less congested time period -Alternative work schedules -Jobs/Housing mix Source: Ferguson (1990) Individual TDM strategies have a modest impact on the transportation system as a whole. However when multiple strategies are applied in concert, the impact on the system can be substantial. When multiple strategies are applied at the same time, the negative impacts on individual users are m itigated (Litman 1999). For example, if parking pricing is instituted it may reduce vehicle travel by 3% The increase in prices will likely cause lower income users to end their automobile commutes, impacting them substantially. If parking pr ices are increased, AND transit service is improved, vehicle travel could be reduced by 8-10%. Lower in come users who were priced out of parking will find the transit system meets their needs, and higher income users will choose to ride the transit system because it is more cost-effective.

PAGE 18

7 TDM has been criticized for “forcing ” people into using alternative modes, particularly individuals with low income or educational attainment levels. These criticisms view modes other th an the automobile as inferi or (Pisarksi 1999). Proponents counter that TDM is in fact a market-based system that provides additional options and price points to users. TDM balances accessibility with mobility. Few TDM strategies actually force people to change their transpor tation habits. Most strategies create financial, convenience or time incentives to reduce automobile use (Litman 1999). Comprehensive TDM programs have gain ed their broadest support in Europe, particularly the United Kingdom, the Netherla nds, and Belgium. TDM policies are built into the national transportation policies of thes e European nations. This stands in stark contrast to the United States, where TDM polic ies vary from locality to locality (Cleland and Cooper 2003). There are three themes of European TDM that deserve particular attention when discussing TDM in a college/university setting. First, utilizing TDM transportation alternatives is marketed as the socially responsible norm in European countries. In the United States TDM-friendly behavior is mark eted as an alternative to the automobile-dependent culture. Second, many European cities were founded and substantially built prior to widespread autom obile ownership. The opposite is true of many US cities, but many universities were established prior to the automobile-era (including the University of Florida). Last recent European TDM programs have been negative TDM programs that increase costs or reduce automobile accessibility. Road pricing has recently been instituted in inner London, Singapore and Rome. These “negative” TDM strategies have not been give n serious consideration by most American cities, however they have been employe d by some universities. Colleges and

PAGE 19

8 universities—like dense urban areas—must redu ce single occupant vehicle use, promote an alternative mode oriented environment, and employ negative TDM policies as the norm, more closely resembling a European TDM model. Published literature focuses mostly on decreasing automobile dependence (Hodgson and Tight 1999) and best practice discussions (Vuchic 2001). The literature does not fully address the unique trans portation environment found on a university campus. Universities have a mixed populat ion who commute on irregular schedules– classes and other activities are scheduled th roughout the day. They also function as a distinct community, and value interpersonal contact. Univer sities often have written TDM policies promoting bicycle and pedestrian trips over automob iles (Balsas 2002). Balsas does not go into much detail about tr ansit-promoting TDM measures; however he found that universities value a pedestrian environment–often having written bicycle and pedestrian capital improvement plans and education programs. An important component of any TDM plan is the control, rest riction and pricing of parking resources. Restricting the unlimite d supply of parking creates a disincentive for travel by single occupant car, thus reduc ing congestion. Universi ties have a dual need for controlling the parking supply on cam pus. Beyond the obvious benefit of lower congestion, universities have limited space and fi nancial resources to dedicate to parking infrastructure. By implementing TDM parking policies, universities can save substantial amount of already scarce space and money–and apply those resources to its mission of education. Parking regulation and pricing is a pow erful TDM strategy. Charging fees for parking where public transit is available woul d cause a rise in ridership. If no public

PAGE 20

9 transit is available, parki ng pricing would stimulate more ridesharing (Downs 1992). The parking situation on university campuses stands in strong contrast to their surrounding communities. Keniry (1995) joking states that a “University is a group of faculty, students and administrators held t ogether by a common grievance over parking.” This jesting comment underscores how cond itioned the American population is to the suburban parking environment, and how unive rsity students (and faculty) must adapt their travel behavior to the university setting. Suburban au tomobile users expect a free, reserved parking space close to, or at, th eir destination (Beyard et al. 2003). Contemporary urban planning mandates dedicated parking spaces for each land use. Minimum parking requirements are a form of government intervention that circumvents what would otherwise be a market system of paid parking. Ninety nine percent of American automobile trips terminate in a free parking space (Shoup 1999). Richard Willson (1995) surveyed planning di rectors in 144 cities and found that the minimum parking requirements were based on either a) the parking standards of neighboring cities or b) the Institu te of Transportation Engineers’ Parking Generation Handbook Most, if not all, minimum parki ng requirements are thus based on ITE standards. In practice, peak parking demand has very little correlation with the standards listed in the ITE handbook.1 Parking requirements in cities throughout the United States inflate the supply and virtually eliminate the price of parking. But minimum parking requirements do not eliminate the cost of parking. The cost of parking is built into the total expense of the 1 Shoup (1999) cites an example from the ITE Parking Generation Handbook ITE studies on fast food restaurants show a range from 3.55 to 15.92 spaces per 1,000 square feet of floor space. The majority of localities use the standard of 9.95 spaces per 1,000 sq uare feet, even though th e ITE handbook shows that only 4% of the peak parking demand is attributable to floor square footage variance.

PAGE 21

10 development. The cost of the free parking is then absorbed by the landowner or passed along to consumers (Shoup 1999). Constructing parking spaces can be quite expensive, and the cost varies greatly based on the valu e of the land it is built on. Above or below grade (structured) parking spaces cost between $10,000 and $25,000 per space. Surface spaces cost $2,000-$3,000 each. Universities are in a peculiar position when it comes to parking facility construction. They are non-profit entities, and cannot “mark up” the price of goods to cover parking facility cost s. Universities must charge students and faculty who use parking spaces to recover at least a portion of the costs associated with facility construction and ma intenance (Shoup 1999). Since universities are unable or unwilling to provide free parking, it follows th at universities should incorporate parking pricing into their TDM plans. By applying an cillary TDM programssuch as ridesharing, enhanced transit services, and bike/ped capit al improvements – universities can capitalize on the necessary parking pricing to create a comprehensive TDM program. The multiple TDM strategies applied in c oncert could have the effect of stimulating substantial transportation behavioral changes. Morrall and Bolger (1996) found a st rong inverse correlation between the available proportion of parking spaces and tran sit’s share of peakhour commuters. In places with fewer available parking spaces (and presumably priced parking), transit use was high. In places with an excess of parking spaces, transit use was low. The correlation is weaker in United States cities and stronger in Canada. This study also found that more people used transit when th e ratio of jobs to the number of parking spaces was lower.

PAGE 22

11 A TCRP study (Kuzmayak et al. 2003) found that transit tends to be competitive in dense areas such as central business di stricts [or university campuses] for several reasons. First, motorists face long walks after parking their vehicles. After parking in a CBD, motorists were found to walk between 500 and 950 feet to thei r end destination. The walking leg of the trip is shorter or equal if transit is used instead of an automobile. Second, travelers must decide on a cost/convenience tradeoff. Riding public transit costs less money than operating and parking a vehi cle. However travelers are bound by the transit provider’s schedule and route ne twork. Third, dense areas possess multiple potential destinations within one area. This reduces the ne cessity of an automobile for midday trips and promotes trip chaining. Four th, at the extreme parking is simply not available, legal, or its price point is too high for most users. One study conducted in The Hague, Neth erlands looked at the users of a 200 space high-demand CBD parking lot before and after its closure. The number of transit trips taken during the week after lot closure went from 22 to 80, a 224% increase. Transit’s mode share increased from 5% to 19%. Previously, a ll 200 cars were single occupant vehicles. After the lot closure, 4% of the displaced persons chose to carpool. The bicycle/pedestrian modal share did not ch ange, remaining at 4% Despite the shift toward public transit, single occupant vehicle commuting remained the overwhelming majority at 74% (Gantvoort 1984). Automob ile commuters chose to park at a more distant location. The finding of this study ha s some mitigating factors. All of the ‘before’ trips taken were si ngle occupant vehicular commuters. Work commuters have very little choice as to the timing of their tr ip, and cannot choose whether or not to make the trip. Public transit was already in place, yet the subj ects of the study were choosing

PAGE 23

12 not to avail themselves of it. Universities are somewhat different in that students have a moderate amount of control ov er the timing of their trip, and often whether or not to make the trip. Students also have a mo re limited budget than commuters to a major European urban center. Public Transit In America Transit Ridership Public transit has been experiencing a mode rate resurgence in recent years. The decade from 1985-1995 was one of ridership stagnation or decline. Public transit ridership has been growing since, rising 18.7% between 1995 and 2001. In 2001, 9.5 billion riders took public transit. Since 2001, transit gave up a small percentage of its gains, dropping to 9.2 billion riders in 2003.2 The number of bus riders has increased every year since 1996, rising by 12.2% to 5.2 bi llion bus riders per year in 2001 (APTA 2003). Despite the ridership gains, busses carry less than 2% of all trips nationwide, and most of those trips are work-re lated (Brown, et al. 2001). Modal Split Busses have been declining in their share of the transit rides. The reason for the decrease in busses share of trips is that other modes have been adding more route miles to their systems or attracting new riders. Demand response/paratransit, heavy rail and vanpool systems have each added significant amounts of route miles since 1995. Figure 1 demonstrates the national modal split in 2001. 2 Data from 2002 and 2003 are preliminary. The term public transit covers several modes of intra-city travel including bus, light rail, subway, trolley, heavy rail, commuter rail, vanpool, demand response/paratransit, ferries and other motorized alternative modes.

PAGE 24

13 57.9 3.7 4.6 30.3 0.1 0.9 2.5 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 BusLight RailCommuter Rail Heavy RailVanpoolDemand Response OtherPercent Figure 1Percent of Transit Trip s Taken (Transit Modal Split) Source: 2001 National Transit Summaries and Trends Busses remain the workhorse of the pub lic transit system, carrying 57.9% of all transit riders. Busses carry nearly all of th e able-bodied transit riders in small and medium-sized communities, where rail modes generally do not exist. Heavy rail has the second largest ridership share with 30.3%. Other modes carry a very small share of public transport ride rs (NTD/FTA 2002). All of the discussion to this poi nt has been growth and modal split within the broad category of transit. Cars remain by far the most dominant mode of travel, particularly for travel to work. Transit accounts for a small portion of the total transportation system. Table 2 shows th e modal split for travel to work from the 2000 Census.

PAGE 25

14 Table 2–United States, Means of Transport to Work 2000 Mode USA Users Percent of US Total Florida Users Percent of FL Total Single Occupant Car 97,102,050 75.7% 5,445,527 78.8% Carpool 15,634,051 12.2% 893,766 12.9% Home Work 4,184,223 3.3% 207,089 3.0% Walk 3,758,982 2.9% 118,386 1.7% Bus 3,206,682 2.5% 108,340 1.6% Subway/Elevated 1,885,961 1.5% 6,851 0.1% Commuter Rail 658,0970.5% 3,638 0.05% Bicycle 488,497 0.38% 14,967 0.2% Taxicab 200,144 0.16% 8,708 0.1% Motorcycle 142,424 0.11% 14,967 0.2% Streetcar3 72,7130.0005% 954 0.01% Ferry 44,106 0.0003% 629 0.009% Other 901,298 0.70% 207,089 3.0% Total 12,8279,228 Source: 2000 US Census with calculation Automobiles have an 87.9% modal share for travel to work. This figure is even higher in small communities where transit options are limited or simply unavailable. The share of commuters that travel by bus is 2.5%, a nd that share is even eclipsed by walkers. Florida’s commuters use automobiles at a 3.1% higher rate. Walki ng and bus riding are less common in Florida than nationwide. In fact, Florida commuters use all alternative modes at a lower rate than nationwide commuters. Long commutes occupy valuable time that could be devoted to work, family or ci vic activities. Long commutes also drive up personal transportation costs be cause of increased expenditu res on fuel and depreciation of automobiles. The average American ta kes 25.5 minutes each way to get to work, while Floridians spend an averag e of 26.2 minutes (Census 2002). 3 The choices presented on the census form do not contai n a clear choice for light rail or vanpool. Light rail users could think they should enter Streetcar or Subway/Elevated. Vanpool users could think they should enter Bus or Carpool.

PAGE 26

15 Transit Funding With little demand for public transit, ag encies have had to subsidize their operation with outside sources of money. Tr ansit agencies across the nation depend on a variety of sources to subsidize their opera tion. Figure 2 below shows the sources of transit agency operating expenses in 2001. Th e largest source of transit funding remains local government subsidy. However the local government contributi on to public transit has been decreasing, falling from 29.3% in 1991 to 24.9% in 2001. Federal assistance also fell by more than 3%.4 The finance of public tran sit has shifted toward farebox recovery and “other” sources of funds. Those categories ro se 2.3% and 5% respectively between 1991 and 2001. The rise in receipts from the farebox is attributable to the rise in the total number of riders. “Other” sources of funding include advertising sales, development partnerships and employer-based subsidy. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35Percent 1991 29.320.420.320.69.4 2001 24.920.717.222.914.4 LocalStateFederalFareOther Figure 2–Nationwide Total of Transit Agency Funding 1991-2001 Source: National Transit Summary and Trends, 2002 4 The Federal government’s role in funding transit operations is relatively small, however the Federal government plays the largest role in providing star t-up capital for fleet acquisition and infrastructure construction, particularly for rail projects.

PAGE 27

16 The amount subsidized per passenger has al so been increasing, but only at or near the rate of inflation. Subsidy per ri de was $1.55 in 2001, up 27% over the previous decade. Inflation over that period was approxi mately 30%. However, small and medium urban areas subsidized riders at a higher ra te. Small urban areas subsidize up to $2.42 for each ride (NTD 2002). Florida Transit Funding The State of Florida contributes less than comparably sized states toward transit operation. In 2001 the state appropriated $92 m illion to fund transit operation and capital improvement. This ranks Florida as the twel fth largest supporter of public transit in terms of dollars spent. Florida is the f ourth largest state in the union with about 17 million residents. In terms of per capita spe nding on transit, Florida ranks eighteenth of the fifty states (Cambridge Systematics 2003). Florida collects approximately $2.2 b illion annually from fuel taxes, license/title/registr ation fees, and rental car taxes. Ei ghty five percent of this amount is spent on road construction and maintenance. The remaining fifteen percent is divided among other modes, with public tr ansit receiving approximately f our percent of the total. Of the $92 million spent on public transit, $64.2 million is allocated to local transit agencies through formula-based State Tran sit Bloc Grants. Local governments may spend this money on public tr ansit however they see fit.5 Another $9 million is allocated to the Urban Transit Capital program, which is earmarked to address the backlog of planned transit capital improvements in ma jor urban areas. The Transit Corridor 5 Fifteen percent of the State Transit Bloc Grant fu nds are earmarked for the Transportation Disadvantaged Trust Fund (Cambridge Systematics, 2003).

PAGE 28

17 Program allocates $7.1 million for state-designate d corridors. The Public Transit Service Development Program spends $5.1 million a ye ar on short-term pilo t and trial programs.6 Another $6.2 million is spent through 3 pr ograms to fund research, development and special projects (Cambridge Systematics 2003). Most of the Federal and State transit operational assistance goes to support bus transit. Bus Transit As discussed in the trans it ridership section, busses cont inue to carry the majority of public transit passengers in the United States Public transit riders can be divided into two broad categoriesTransportation Disa dvantaged and Choice Riders. Transportation Disadvantaged riders are dependent on public transit for mobility because they do not have ready access to an automobile. Tran sportation disadvantaged persons account for the majority of riders on busses, particularly in small urban areas. Choice riders have access to automobiles, but choose to ride trans it for certain trips because of time, cost or other advantages that the mode offers. Among Florida transit users, sixty two pe rcent are female. Ridership is highest among people of prime working age (30-49). When more automobiles are available to the household, fewer transit trips are taken. Households that do not own automobiles account for twenty percent of riders in Flor ida, below the national figure of thirty one percent. Households with lower income also tend to ride transit more often than higher income individuals. People with an annual income of less than $15,000 account for 40% of transit riders in Florida. Nationwide the figure is much smaller (12%). This is likely due to high-income transit users in large metropolitan areas nationwide. Transit 6 RTS received $150,000 betw een 2000 and 2001 under the Public Tr ansit Service Development Program. These funds helped with the start-up of the Later Gator program.

PAGE 29

18 usersparticularly in Floridaare likely to be minorities. Nationwide, white users account for forty three percent of all riders. In Florid a this percentage drops to nineteen percent. Floridas black riders account for thirty one percent, close to the national average. The disparity in ethnic makeup of riders in Florid a can be attributed to Hispanic and two-race riders (Thompson et al. 2002). Bus Fare Elasticity and Free-Fare Transit Fare elasticity is the concept that ridership will change according to the fare charged. The industry standard known as the Simpson-Curtain rule sets fare/ridership elasticity at -0.3. The rule stat es that if fares are increased 10%, ridership will decline by 3%. According to the Simpson-Curtain rule, if fares are reduced 100%, ridership should increase by 30%. In practice, systems that in stitute free-fare transit experience ridership gains closer to 50% (Hodge et al. 1994). Theoretically, there are advantages to in stituting a fare-free policy. Automobile riders could be enticed to us e transit, thereby reducing tra ffic congestion and emissions. Transit systems would experience lower costs because there would be no need to collect and account for fare funds. Busses would load and unload faster because fares would not be collected and paper transfer s would not need to be printed. The system would be easier to use because users could not be confused over fares and passes. For small agencies, collecting fares may be a reve nue neutral exercise, because the farebox recovery rate7 is sometimes less than 10%. Accounting, equipment and security costs can easily exceed farebox receipts. However large transit agencies could suffer 7 Farebox recovery rate refers to the percentage of annual operations that are paid for through income generated by fare-paying customers. Cash fares and bus pass sales are both included in the dollar figure of income produced at the Fare box.

PAGE 30

19 substantial losses of revenue. In large agencies, farebox recovery can be as high as 35 percent. Jennifer Perone (2000) claims that fare -free policies could be advantageous for small systems, but not for large ones. Sma ll systems such as Logan, UT and Commerce, CA have had success with fare-free transit pr ograms, and continue to offer it to their communities. Amherst, MA, is a medium sized system that carries 6 million passengers a year. All riders board fare-free, in part because the system’s budget is supplemented by funds from 5 local colleges and universitie s. There have been three attempts at eliminating fares on an entire tr ansit system in a large city. Denver, CO and Trenton, NJ instituted a fare-free policy throughout thei r systems in the late 1970s. Austin, TX attempted the same in 1989/1990. All three prog rams were discontinued within one year, despite a dramatic rise in ridership. Af ter the programs were discontinued, ridership returned to its previous leve ls. These systems found that th ey were not attracting choice riders and were having little impact on overa ll traffic congestion. Instead of taking people out of cars, more trips were being ta ken by transportation di sadvantaged riders. Vandalism, vagrancy and rowdiness skyrocketed. The costs to maintain and repair transit vehicles and bus stop infrastructure went up dramatically. The savings promised by removing the farebox paled in comparison to th e costs being expended on maintenance. Additional busses were needed to meet peak demand (Perone 2002). The key to increasing transit ridership is not necessarily tied to the fare. One study found service frequency was valued nearly twice as much as the cost (Perone 2000 citing Cervero 1990). The Center for Urban Tr ansportation Research (CUTR) found that customer satisfaction of riders in Florid a depended more on “fre quency, routing and on-

PAGE 31

20 time performance” (24%) than cost (10%). E liminating fares is not enough to attract and satisfy riders of public transit. Service characteristics must be improved as well (Cleland and Thompson 2000). Other Service Characteristics to Build Transit Ridership Every time a person makes a trip, he or she must make decisions about which mode best suits the trip. Each mode offers advantages over others. Users must decide on tradeoffs between cost, convenience, comf ort and time amongst other factors. Automobiles offer distinctive advantages over busses under the prevailing transportation system. However, certain attributes of bus transit can be changed to close the gap between bus and car, thus helping busses ga in modal share. Making transit more attractive will help recruit “choice riders”— those with access to an automobile. The scheduling of busses is the most of ten-cited factor for improving ridership. Scheduling consists of the hours of operation, frequency of busses, and ease of transfer. Choice transit riders take into consideration the time needed to complete their trip, and compare the time savings to using an automob ile. Since wait time is a component of total travel time, transit is already at a subs tantial disadvantage. Improvements to bus frequency reduce the wait time of patrons. Pa trons arriving randomly to board a bus that runs on 30 minute frequencies can expect to wait an average of 15 minutes but no more than 30. As frequencies are shortened, the c onvenience of bus trans it improves. A patron arriving at random for a 10 minute frequency bus can expect to wait an average of 5 minutes or a maximum of 10 (Li 2003). Traveler s tend to feel their total travel time is longer than the actual travel time, particularly if there is an idle waiting period. Agnes Moreau (1992) blamed travel “time drag” on several factors includi ng transit users being

PAGE 32

21 unoccupied, alone, anxious, and their travel delay being une xplained. Hess, Brown and Shoup (2003) found that persons waiting for trans it perceived their wait time to be nearly twice as along as the actual wait time. Increased frequency of busses causes a rise in ridership (and vice versa). The ridership to service frequency elasticity averages +0.5. For every 10% reduction in frequency, ridership increases by 5%. Ridershi p increases the most when routes change from low frequency (30 minutes or more) to high frequency (less than 20 minutes). When frequency is already medium or high, shortening the frequency has less of an impact on ridership. For example, when a bus changes its frequency from 60 minutes to 20 minutes, ridership elasticity can improve by a factor ex ceeding +1.0. Patrons may shift from other low-frequency routes to th e new high frequency route. Walkers may be attracted to very high frequency transit. Ho wever for a bus changing its frequency from 20 minutes to 10 minutes, the ridership elastici ty will be far lower, and in some cases negligible (Evans IV 2004). Fare cost and bus frequency are the two most commonly cited service characteristics that attract choice riders. The literature does not conclude which is more effective at building ridershi p. Ridership gains are maximized when the two strategies are applied in concert. A study in Dallas, TX found that inner city residents are more sensitive to the cost of transit, while subur ban residents are more sensitive toward bus frequency. Presumably inner city resident s were poor or trans portation disadvantaged, and preferred low-cost mobility. Suburban re sidents were choice transit riders who desired convenient service. A fare decrease in Dallas of 29 percent along with a 16

PAGE 33

22 percent increase in frequency yielded a 50 pe rcent increase in ridership system-wide over a three year period (Allen 1991). Students riding the bus from graduate st udent apartments to the UCLA campus have two transit optionsone free bus and one that costs 75 cents. Both busses operate on 10-12 minute frequencies. Eighty six percent of students bypass the bus requiring a fare, preferring to wait for the next free bus. Th e average wait time for those who chose to wait was 5.3 minutes. This translates to the subjects valuing their time at a rate equal to $8.50 per hour. Most people value their commute time at up to half of their hourly wage. The bus requiring a fare payment was consider ed the most comfortable, yet the cost was the overwhelming concern for students (Hess et al. 2003). Flexibility (or convenience) is an importa nt factor when deciding whether to use transit. Automobile users value two flexible aspects of car travel. Temporal flexibility allows drivers to depart at the time of day they choose w ithout regard to schedules. Spatial flexibility allows driver s to choose their path and arrive at destinations not served by transit (Evans IV 2004). Abdel-Aty et al. (1996) found that California commuters who needed to make multiple trips during work hours or those who worked in multiple locations were far less likely to take transit. A study in Os lo, Norway found that transit riders are willing to wait an extra 8-10 minutes or pay 33 cents [currency conversion calculated] to avoid a bus transfer. Patrons were concerned about service reliability, weather and a confusion of the procedures and costs of transfe rring busses (Evans IV 2004 citing Stangeby 1993). Transit can impr ove its flexibility by lengthening service hours, reducing frequencies and adding new rout e miles. Transit systems can also offer

PAGE 34

23 jitney busses and “guaranteed rides home” on taxis. However transit’s ability to compete with automobiles in terms of flexibility/convenience is limited (Evans IV 2004). Safety associated with transit use can be a concern for some riders. Bus Rapid Transit (a type of express bus service that runs in segreg ated right-of-way) riders in Florida reported that after tr avel time, personal safety was the most important reason for choosing private automobiles over public transit (Ba ites 2003). Most of the concern over personal safety stems from waiting at stops. Ev ans et al. (1997) found that one aspect of safety dealt with the transit patron’s (now a pedestrian) interaction wi th street traffic and the elements. High speed vehicular traffic, poor intersection design and the lack of sidewalks contributed to the pe rception of danger. Bus stops that had sidewalks, shelters and seating helped mitigate the sense of danger— and actual danger—of patrons waiting for busses. Another aspect of safety deals with violent crime while waiting for the bus. In some circumstances the perceived risk of vi olent crime is very real In the urban core of Los Angeles, one third of transit users repor ted being the victim of violent or property crime while making a transit trip. The risk of crime was highly focused in the inner city and at stops with hiding places (Loukaito u-Sideris and Liggett 2000). Suburban users have a somewhat different experience. R eed et al. (1999) found that transit users generally feel safe using transit, but their perceived fear of crime increased with longer wait times. Reed also found that non-users thi nk that transit is more dangerous than users do. Every transit trip begins and ends with a pedestrian trip. The origin and destination points of a person’ s trip must both be within reasonable walking distance of the transit route. There is a growing movement to deve lop high-density land uses in

PAGE 35

24 proximity to transit routes. This move ment—commonly known at Transit Oriented Development (TOD)—seeks to place land uses cl ose to transit routes. The urban design of the area around the transit stop is also important. The urban environment must be appealing and pedestrian-frie ndly (Cervero 2001). Potentia l users must be within one quarter mile of the transit stop to be realisti cally expected to walk to the transit stop. Some users will walk (or bike) a longer distance, but choice riders generally will not walk more than mile (Johnson 2003). Longer walks add considerably to the user’s out of vehicle wait time (Li 2003). Social acceptability can also be an im portant factor when deciding whether to drive or take transit. Reese et al. (1980, c ited in Thompson et al. 2002) found that social stigmas exist toward users of public transit. People expressed con cerns about the social acceptability of busses. The perceived bias stigmatized transit users as being from a lower socio-economic class. Reese’s st udy also found that busses were the least acceptable for evening activities. Users felt that transit was more socially acceptable than non-users. Improving transit’s amenities can help attract and retain choice riders or infrequent riders. Additional amenities can also help raise the level of customer satisfaction. A transit system with amenitie s generally has a better public image. Bus stop amenities include infrastructure such as seating, lighting and even retail such as newsstands. On-board amenities include low fl oor busses, courteous drivers, bike racks and comfortable seats. Clean liness both on-board and at stop s is essential (PPS 1999). A common perception is that consumers prefer rail tran sit to bus transit. The social stigma holds that white-collar workers use rail transit, whereas blue-collar workers

PAGE 36

25 frequent bus transit. Moshe Ben-Akiva (2002) refutes this perception using mathematical models that prove bus rapid transit has an equa l preference to rail tran sit. People slightly preferred rail over bus transit that operates in the same right of way as automobiles because busses realized no time savings over driving. One aspect of transit amenities is th e ease of information dissemination. The availability of information is critical in attracting new riders. The public is generally uneducated about transit. Bus routes are di fficult to recognize and wait times are very uncertain (Ben-Akiva 2002). Abdel-Aty et al (1996) found that tran sit non-users are one third more likely to use transit if they ar e given advanced information such as point-topoint routing instructions, travel time es timates and single-route maps. Many people do not intuitively understand transit and are una ble to choose the correct routes, estimate travel time, or decipher fa re structures (Thompson et al. 2002 citing Hardin 2001). Non-User Studies Studies that focus on non-user s of public trans it are often very valuable to transit researchers and planners. The goal is to build ridership, and non-users are the market that transit seeks to attract. In a study of nonusers in seventeen US cities, the relative attractiveness of the automob ile was cited as the reason fo r not using public transit. Transit was viewed as having no clear advant age, while cars were viewed as having flexibility and travel time advantages. Ho wever when non-users were presented with a set of hypothetical service ch anges, 50% said they woul d ride transit under those circumstances. The most popular hypothetical service changes were: dedicated bus lanes, direct transit routes from home to work, and increased frequency (Thompson et al. 2002 citing Mierzejewski and Ball 1990).

PAGE 37

26 Employer-based programs can help build transit ridership among non-users. Oram and Stark (1996) found that employers who provided free or di scounted individual ride tickets showed a moderate increase in ridership among employees. Employees did not generally switch their daily commute to tran sit. Instead they rode transit relatively infrequently. Employees found it easier to use transit without co mmitting to it entirely, and employers saved considerable amounts of money by not purchasi ng monthly passes. Employer-based programs have the effect of making transit non-users into infrequent users. Employer-based programs can add 8-9% to the total number of riders on a transit system (Conklin et al. 2001). Employer-based transit programs are very similar to programs offered by colleges and universities. Both employers and univers ities seek to reduce their costs associated with parking, and give their constituents additional fringe benefits of attendance or employment. Employers that reduce or elim inate their subsidy of free parking will be able to use those funds to increase profits or reinvest in the compa ny. Universities that discontinue subsidized parking are able to use those funds to support the schoolÂ’s primary missions of academic instruction and research. From the transit agencyÂ’s point of view, large employment sites and univers ities are substantial trip ge nerators that need transit service and have the potential to incr ease total ridership on the system. University Transportation Universities have a different set of tr ansportation needs than their surrounding communities. Universities value a walkable green campus where buildings are in close proximity to foster academic collaboration. Pa rking takes up valuable space that could be devoted to classrooms or laboratories. Univer sities are major trip attractors. Students

PAGE 38

27 commute on irregular schedules, since classe s begin throughout the day. Cities expect spikes in transportation demand during rush hour s, while universities can expect a fairly steady flow throughout the day. Finally, univ ersities are experiencing rising costs for constructing and administering transportation infrastructure, which detracts from the university’s primary mission of academics (B alsas, 2002). Universities are in an excellent position to experime nt with and implement tran sportation policy changes. Universities have complete control over the ro ad network, parking faci lities and land uses on their campus. Cities do not po ssess absolute power over these factors (Miller 2001). Universities have begun to address their transportation needs in ways similar to their municipal counterparts. A study by Gutkowski and Daggett (2003) found that 91 percent of surveyed universitie s maintained a campus master plan, and that 70 percent of schools had a dedicated transportation sect ion. But only 57 percent of universities incorporate public transit into their campus plans. Exposing students to alternative modes c ould have lasting impacts on the nation’s transportation system. Rodney Tolley (1996) ma kes the claim that creating a “green”, sustainable and multimodal transportation sy stem on a university campus could make lasting impacts on the travel behavior of graduates. His claim depends heavily on students being environmentally conscious, and argues that graduates will keep the earth in mind when deciding how to co mmute to their first jobs. Campus Parking The parking situation on campuses varies, but restricting park ing is always an integral part in effecting a modal shift. Universities usually have fewer parking spaces (supply) than the number of commuters w ho wish to park on campus (demand).

PAGE 39

28 Universities usually track the demand for park ing by the number of requests received for parking passes each year. The demand to s upply ratio of parking spaces at sampled universities varied from 0.70 to 4.00 with a m ean of 1.70. To help fund parking facility construction, operation and maintenance, all uni versities charge for parking passes. This process—known as “parking pricing”—also serves to discourage commuters from parking on campus, and to encourage them to carpool or utilize alte rnative modes. The cost of parking passes in a recent sample ranged from $14 to $300 per semester, with a mean of $83.43 (Gutkowski and Daggett, 2003). The pricing of parking is an essential step in promo ting transit use. Even though the University of Florida prices its pa rking, the price point remains below other comparable schools. The annual price of d ecals for students is ch eaper at UF ($94/yr) than other comparable universities such as the University of Wisconsin–Madison ($200834), the University of California–Davis ($204) and the University of Minnesota ($537) (Siegel 2000). Even at schools with more expensive parking, univers ities are not pricing parking to recover 100 percent of its costs. The monetary co sts of parking to a university include salaries for parking personnel, accounting, construction costs, and loss of available landwhich at some point in the future could necessita te the purchase of campus annexes (Tolley 1996). A discussion of parking on the University of Florida campus can be found in Chapter 4 of this report. Peripheral parking lots (sometimes known as ‘park-and-ride’ lots) have not been shown to increase transit’s modal share. In general, periphery parking is not intended to induce travelers to change their modal choice They are intended to capture vehicular traffic before it enters the congested central core. However if priority parking spaces

PAGE 40

29 within the core are awarded for carpools, peri pheral lots can help increase ridesharing. Peripheral parking is commonly used by major employers, hospitals a nd universities that are unwilling or unable to supply onsite parking (Kuzmayak 2003). Universities have adopted parking mana gement policies to promote transit use and alleviate parking demands in the center of campus. The University of Maryland at College Park operates peripheral parking lots linked by shuttle busses. UMÂ’s park-andride service moves 750,000 people an nually from the parking lots to the center of campus by shuttle bus. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology does not sell parking passes to students who live within the transit systemÂ’s operating area. Similarly, UCLA prices its parking passes based on the studentÂ’s address and its proximity to campus and the transit system (Kuzmayak 2003) In an interesting side observation it wa s noted that in eight US cities with periphery lots, many users chose to walk the last leg of their trip inst ead of using busses. Unfortunately this phenomenon was not studied in depth, and the pedestrianÂ’s reasoning for choosing walking over transit is not known (Kuzmayak, 2003 citing Pratt and Copple, 1981). Campus Transit Transit service on university campuses varies from school to school. Among colleges with 10 or more transit vehicles se rving the campus, roughly half of the systems are operated under contract by the local community tran sit provider (Gutkowski and Daggett 2003 and Miller 2001). The rest are operated by the univers ity administration. Campus transit services are targeted toward four types of service: 1) Home to school

PAGE 41

30 trips; 2) Intra-campus trips; 3) Remote park ing shuttles; and 4) Ge neral service routes that treat the campus as a special generato r of trips (Gutkowski and Daggett 2003). The mission of the transit system dictates the ownership and fi nancial situation of the transit provider. Table 3 below summarizes the prevailing ownership, financial, and targeted trips of all four types of campus transit systems. Systems on small campuses (less than 8,000 students) are generally university-owned. Un iversity-owned systems are cheaper to operate because of non-unionized employees (often students) and smaller, more efficient vehicles. Small transit systems tend to target intra-campus trips and remote parking facilities. Schools in larger communities usually en ter into contractual service agreements with local transit provide rs. Local agency transit service is more expensive, but the more complex route system allows busses serving the campus to extend far into the surrounding community. This opens up housing options to students (Miller 2001). Even though the annual cost is more expensive for larger systems, smaller systems are usually more expensive on a per-ride basis. Table 3–Transit System Characteristi cs by University and City Size Large University / Small City Owner/Operator: City Target Users: Intra-Campus and Home to School Finances: Expensive Large University / Large City Owner/Operator: City Target Users: Home to School Trips Finances: Very Expensive Small University / Small City Ownership: University Target Users: Intra-Campus and Parking Shuttles Finances: Inexpensive Small University / Large City Ownership: University Target Users: Intra-Campus and Parking Shuttles Finances: Inexpensive Source: Gutkowsky and Daggett (2003) and Miller (2001) About 40 percent of contractual serv ice agreements al low the university administration or student leader ship to dictate service changes. The remainder of systems depend on the transit agency’s judgment (Gutkowski and Daggett, 2003). An

PAGE 42

31 increasingly popular service change is th e implementation a free-fare system, where students do not pay cash fares each time they board the bus. Unlimited Access and Fare Structure The idea of unlimited access transit (als o known as fare-free transit) has been practiced on university campuses since the late 1970s (Miller 2001). As of 1998, thirty five universities offered unlimited access tran sit. That year, total of 875,000 students receive unlimited access benefits from their universities (Brown et al. 2001). The number of schools offering unlimited access has grown since 1998, but no literature was located that cited a precise number. Unlimited access transit is not free transit. It is a different way of paying for transit service. A third pa rty pre-pays the transit provi der to carry members of a constituent group without charging them a fare The transit provider usually receives an annual lump sum payment from the univers ity (Brown et al. 2001). Through a method similar to group health insurance, fares ar e substantially discounted because so many fares are being purchased (Miller 2001). Tran sit passes are distribute d, or identification cards double as passes. Users are allowed to ride free on all transit system routes, irregardless if they connect with the university.8 Currently, passengers occupy only 27% of available seats on busses nationwide. The enormous number of empty seats drives up the needed operating subsidy. Transit systems want riders to fill those seats, a nd universities want to discourage automobile commuters to campus. Through university paymen ts to transit systems, new riders can 8 Some universities provide free-fare transit only on routes that intersect with campus (Brown et al. 2003). This model is more typical of employer-based transit programs.

PAGE 43

32 be brought to the transit system while at the same time relievi ng the parking demand on campus (Brown et al. 2001). Unlimited access programs offer multiple advantages to the university and its students: 1) Unlimited access reduces demand for parking on campus. Consequently the university divests itself of th e capital expenditure costs of constructing new parking. 2) Unlimited access transit reduces the cost of at tendance for students, while at the same time increasing mobility options. Students do not need to buy and maintain a car, which can save an individual up to $4,000 a year. For students who continue to own cars, slower depreciation and gas expenses can save the owner $800-1,000 a year. 3) Students have better access to housing and employmen t. Students living on campus do not need a car for off campus social or shopping trips. Students off campus do not need a car to commute to campus, and can also use tran sit for social and shopping trips – although their options may be limited. 4) Unlimited access can help a university attract and retain students (Brown et al. 2001). There are substantial advantages for the tr ansit agency as well. Unused seats are occupied, optimizing the bus’ operation. The ag ency also receives a stable source of income less subject to political whims. St ate and Federal assistance is often based on formulas that take into account ridership. Simply by putting people in seats, the transit agency can garner a larger share of state and federal as sistance (Brown et al. 2003). Among schools that have a fare-free tr ansit system, approximately 20 percent have an unlimited access fare structure similar to the University of Florida. Students, faculty and staff ride without paying a fare because the university administration or student fees have prepaid thei r fares. Fifty three percent of schools have systems where

PAGE 44

33 the general public rides fare-f ree, however the bulk of those are campus-only systems. The remainder of free transit system s are park-and-ride shuttles only. Both the local transit agency and the unive rsity can reap benefits from contractual service agreements. Universitie s are able to divest themselves of the administrative and fiscal burden of operating on-campus busses, even if the school makes substantial payments to the transit provider. Schools th at choose to use student fees can further reduce the schoolÂ’s contribution. University-ope rated transit systems are not eligible to receive most types of Federal and State matchi ng funds. Thus partnering with the local transit provider makes the system eligible fo r operating assistance and start-up funds. For local transit agencies, partnering with local universities also provi des a reliable revenue stream in a period of declining gove rnment subsidy (Miller 2001). Campus Transit Case Studies Each university pursues the goal of build ing transit ridership differently. This section presents three case studies of enha nced transit service on university campuses. Each school used a different model to appro ach the issue of bringi ng about a mode shift toward public transit. These three case studies are selected to dem onstrate principles of college/city joint transit service that are not emb odied at the University of Florida. An indepth case study of the Univers ity of Florida transit prog ram can be found in Chapter Four of this report. Clemson UniversityClemson, SC. Clemson, SC is located in Pickens County (pop. 105,000). Until the mid-1990s, there was no m unicipal transit system in Clemson. Partnering with the city a nd county, Clemson Univers ity pledged $350,000 toward the joint project that had previously funded oncampus parking shuttles. The new source of

PAGE 45

34 funding allowed the city /county to create a transit agency and avail itself of state and federal matching funds that were previously unavailable to the university. The small, efficient system operates on a fare-free basis for all riders, student or otherwise. As ridership increased, the transit agency was ab le to secure additional operating assistance from federal rural transit assistance funds (a lso known as Section 5311 funds). The State of South Carolina also pledged additional ope rating assistance, in part due to Clemson Area TransitÂ’s (CAT) contri bution to state ridership totals which boosted South CarolinaÂ’s share of federal block grants. Thus the city/county a dded a transit system where one had been lacking, and the univers ity was able to shift people from single occupant cars to public transit. In 1999/2000, CAT operated 10 routes carrying 666,000 passengers annually at a cost of $782,000. CA T also operates late evening busses to shuttle patrons to bars and other evening activities. (TCRP 2003) ClemsonÂ’s experience is an example of how small college towns can partner with the university to create a transit system where there previously was none. A small community benefits by creating transportati on options, lowering tr affic congestion, and opening access to housing. All transit systems can learn from CATÂ’s example how to leverage state and federal funding sources to maximize operating assistance. Funding arrangements vary from state to state, and South CarolinaÂ’s local assistance framework is what made the CAT system possible. One dr awback of instituting a no-fare system is that the cost of expanding route miles is prohibitive, since th ere is no dedicated source of funding for capital improvements (Miller 2001). University of California at BerkeleyBerkeley, CA. AC Transit, the bus service provider in Alameda (Oakland) and Contra Costa Counties, California operates

PAGE 46

35 154 routes, seventeen of which intersect th e University of California campus. The University of California has only 4,000 parking spaces for 32,000 students. The impetus for change came in 1998 when the City of Be rkeley relaxed its rent control laws, creating a market for student housing outside of wa lking distance to campus. In 1998—the year before the program began—one thousand eight hundred students purch ased transit passes at a cost of $60 per semester. A rider study found approximately 700 other students who paid cash fares on a regular basis. Student leadership wanted to increase access to additional housing stock, and the university wa nted to ease its parking demand. In April of 1999, UC students voted by an 89 percent marg in to establish a student fee of $10 per semester to create the “TransitClass” progr am. The transit agency receives at least $320,000 each semester to provide unlimited access service, more if the number of passes requested was high. Through a process known as distributive cost pr icing, the individual cost of a transit pass is much lower sin ce the total cost is spread across the whole constituency of students attend ing the university. The concept of distributive cost pricing is similar to group insurance rates or taxation, where the cost per person of the program is very small, yet the benefits to individuals who utilize the program is substantial. Under the TransitClass program, student s receive unlimited access on AC Transit routes. Students must sign up to rece ive a transit pass. Over 23,000 of the 32,000 eligible students signed up to receive one during the first semester the program was offered, twelve times the number who purchased passes before the start of the program. The large number of student passes distributed and the appr oval rate of the referendum were the result of a successful marketing program. The marketing program exposed students to the financial, environmental, a nd institutional benefits of transit use.

PAGE 47

36 There are several attributes of the UC-B erkeley program that demonstrate models of campus transit. The University of Calif ornia/AC Transit partne rship is a successful example of a university unlimite d access program inte grating into a large urban transit system. It is also an example of utilizing student fees in the partnershipthe university administration does not contri bute any funds to the trans it system. Even though all students are entitled to a free transit pass, each student who wants to ride must interact with a third party to receive be nefits. This is one variant of a distributive cost pricing model. All students must pay the fee, but not all students will sign up for a pass. Students must decide to sign up for the unlimited access program before arriving at the bus stop. By requiring students to sign up, it creates a roadblock to infrequent or occasional riders. However, the fee is be ing utilized to pay for the number of passes requested, not unlimited access for all student s. Some students will not sign up for a pass. From the transit agencyÂ’s perspective this is a more efficient model to implement (Levin 2000). University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA)Los Angeles, CA. The University of California at Los Angeles is served by 5 routes of the Santa Monica Municipal Bus Lines. Students, faculty and st aff are allowed to ride fare-free on those 5 routes. Passengers must swipe their university ID card to board. UCLAÂ’s administration pays Santa Monica Bus Lines 45 cents per ride. The University pays about $80,000 monthly. There has been a marked modal shift among student commuters. Student commutes by transit increased 43%. Twenty nine percent of the student riders were new

PAGE 48

37 to using public transit. The number of drivers fell by 33%. Th e rise in student ridership increased further during subsequent years of the program (Brown et al. 2003). UCLAÂ’s transit agreement is a good ex ample of a university administration paying for transit service. UCLAÂ’s administra tion pays for the entire cost of providing unlimited access transit. The university is di vesting itself of the expense of constructing parking infrastructure, but more institutional money could be saved by instituting student fees. Instead of applying a distributive cost pricing model, the school pays for each individual ride. From the tr ansit providerÂ’s perspective th is is advantageous, since a ridership increase will result in increased revenue. Under a fixed-payment scheme, ridership gain does not cause an increase in revenue. Permanent Effects of Temporary Transit Use What happens to peopleÂ’s behavior once they have been exposed to transit? It is clear that people will use transit under certa in circumstances (Crane 1999). The decision to use transit is in part based on the level of service in each mode (Hensher and Button 2000). The decision to use transit is also base d on the habits, attit udes and beliefs of the user. Experience with high level of service transit may influence future behavior, since psychologically the experience was a positive one (Verplanken et al. 1994). The existing literature is largely lacki ng for experiments that examine the lasting effects of temporary transit use. One experiment performed by Fujii and Kitamura (2002) gave automobile users in Japan a free bus pass for one month. People who received transit passes continued to use the bus after the one month period ended. Ridership within the experimental group rose by 20 percent. The study also concluded that automobile users had a general negative perception of public transit which was

PAGE 49

38 refuted after using transit temporarily. This important concept indicates that a temporary change in transportation habits can alter a personÂ’s permanent routine. The authors suggest a temporary period of free-fare transit may help in crease ridership in the long term. The literature is lacking in studies that ask if users of high frequency, unlimited access transit continue their trans it use after they move to a ne w city. In fact, there is a lack of studies asking questi ons about the overall reasoni ng of choice riders who use transit. Further, there is no previous r ecord of studies that focus on whether the transportation system at a university has any lasting effects on the habits or attitudes of former students.

PAGE 50

39 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY A natural experiment exists for evaluati ng the lasting effects of using bus transit while at the University of Florida. The experiment involves sampling students before they arrive on campus (incoming freshmen), and then sampling students soon after graduation (recent alumni). Responses can be compared between the two groups to uncover changes in habits and attitudes toward alternative modes. It is assumed that any changes observed are attributed to the res pondentsÂ’ common experience of commuting to and from the University of Florida campus. Time constraints prohibited the administra tion of a true time-series survey to the incoming freshman of 2003 and surveying th e cohort again in 2008 af ter graduation. It was necessary to survey the 2003 incoming fr eshmen class and a group of alumni during the same year. This research project assu mes that the responses given by the alumni surveyed would be substantially similar to responses that would be collected in 2008 if time constraints did not apply. Survey Administration To analyze the impact that multimodal transportation to campus has changed the habits and attitudes of University of Florid a students, two surveys were taken. Both surveys were administered by mail using addres s lists maintained by the University. The data collection period ran from July through November of 2003.

PAGE 51

40 Survey Scope Both surveys asked questions in the fo llowing general areas, although questions were not grouped together in consecutive order: Demographics Questions about gender, race, mar ital status and zip code. These questions were asked so that other respons es could be put into social and spatial context. Transportation Habits This section included questi ons concerning commute time, automobile ownership, modal choice and maximum preferred walking/biking distance. Some questions were asked twice, with one question asking about habits while at the University and the ot her asking about habits in their current location. These questions were asked to determine the respondentsÂ’ actual transportation habits. Their responses can be compared to othe r groups within the survey or to state and national datasets. HousingThis question set asked about housing choice and desirabl e attributes of housing. These questions were asked in an attempt to dete rmine how important transportation factors were considered in the respondentsÂ’ decision-making process when choosing where to live. Some of these questions were asked twice, with one question asking about college housing and one asking about current housing. In the case of the alumni group, respondents were directed to answer questions about their collegiate hous ing choice based upon where they lived during their senior year only. Alternative Mode Use These questions were asked to gauge the willingness of respondents to use alternative modes. A dditional questions were asked to gauge

PAGE 52

41 the level of education the respondent posse sses about public transi t in their current city. Some questions asked about the usage of public tran sportation during all four years of undergraduate work. Public PolicyThese questions ask respondents to rate their level of agreement with transportation public policy measures. These questions asked participants to rate their level of agreement with statem ents on a scale from 1 to 5 (or Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree). Freshman Survey The first survey consisted of 45 clos ed response questions. It was randomly mailed to 697 incoming freshmen during the su mmer of 2003. These incoming freshmen were not yet enrolled at the University. Addresses were obtained from a list of admitted fall-semester students maintained by the Un iversity of Florida Office of Admissions. Only addresses from the 50 United States and the District of Columb ia were included. The size of the admitted freshman population was 7,296. Of the 697 surveys mailed, it was expected th at up to 34% of the recipients were ineligible to take the survey. This was due to two factors. Persons under the age of 18 (approximately 17% of the incoming class) were not allowed to take the survey due to concerns over parental consent. Recipients under the age of 18 were instructed not to complete the survey. The mailing list also included persons who had been admitted to UF but were not planning to enroll–a pproximately 20 percent of the sample. 1 1 The Office of Admissions reported 7,296 admitted freshmen. The University Registrar reported 5,830 enrolled freshmen for the Fall 2003 semester. The difference between the two figures is 20.1%.

PAGE 53

42 One hundred and twenty three valid freshm an surveys were returned. This is a raw response rate of 17.6%. Taking into acc ount the recipients who were not permitted to respond, the response rate was 30.4%. A c opy of the freshman survey can be found in Appendix B. Raw data from the freshman survey can be found in Appendix D. Alumni Survey A second survey was taken to determine the multimodal behaviors and attitudes of recent alumni of the University. Responses on the alumni survey can be compared to the freshman survey to determine if the mu ltimodal environment of the university campus had caused any changes. Six hundred and fifteen surveys were mailed to randomly selected addresses from a database mainta ined by the University of Florida Alumni Association. Only students who graduated with their bachelors degree in 2001 and 2002 were selected. Alumni who received only grad uate degrees or who were still enrolled were not included. The total pote ntial population repr esented 12,376 people.2 These limiting factors were chosen because: a) Alumni who graduated in 2000 or before would have limited exposure to enhanced transit serv ices; b) Alumni would have at least one full year to settle into a transportation r outine post-graduation; c) Alumni holding only graduate degrees have an unknown backgr ound since high school graduation, and d) Alumni who hold a bachelors degree but were still enrolled at the University are still commuting to the same multimodal environment found during their undergraduate years. The survey that was mailed to alumni had 49 closed response questions. Of those, 24 questions were exact duplicates of questions asked of the freshmen. An 2 The alumni population 12,376 represents the number of addresses that are on file with the University of Florida Alumni Association minus the percentage of graduate and professional degrees awarded each year by the University. The Alumni Association is a membership organization, and some alumni choose not to join.

PAGE 54

43 additional 11 questions were substantially si milar, and to a varying degree they can be compared using statistical tests. One hundred and fifty four valid alumni surveys were returned. This represents a 25 percent respons e rate. A copy of the alumni survey can be found in Appendix C. Raw data from the al umni survey can be found in Appendix E. Limitations Both surveys qualify as large samples, and it can be assumed that the confidence level of sampling error is p = 0.05 or 95%. Us ing this confidence level, the margins of error for scalar data can be calculated. For th e Freshmen, the margin of error is +/8.74. For the Alumni, the margin of error is +/7.85. Other limitations exist on the survey data. The alumni surveyed graduated in 2001 and 2002. Since 2002, expenditure on bus transit by UF has more than doubled. The alumni sample did not experience the same transit environment that the incoming freshmen will. Further, some alumni will have experience with high-quality transit outside of Gainesville. Alumni may have m oved to or visited cities with high quality transit (including rail transit) or comprehensive TD M policies. Any changes found in habits or attitudes can be attribut ed to temporary transit use. Other Research Methods Interviews were conducted with severa l key informants. An interview was conducted in April 2003 with the UF Campus Master Planner Linda Dixon to investigate the scope and intent of the campusÂ’ TDM polic ies. Bob Miller, UF Vice President for Finance and Administration was interviewed in July of 2004 to discuss University

PAGE 55

44 funding of the RTS system. Finally, Doug R obinson, transit planner with the Regional Transit System was interviewed by email and telephone. Other research methods were employed dur ing this project. The author of this project was appointed a voting member of the 2004/05 Trans portation Access Fee Committee. Through membership on the committee, the author gained familiarity with the process and the responsible parties. Do cuments were reviewed from the UF Division of Finance and Administration (publicly ava ilable) to compile information on monetary payments for bus service. The Division of Finance and Student Government records were obtained. These documents show the agreements, funding, and service agreements between the University and RTS. The Regi onal Transit System provided ridership data dating back to 1996. The UF Campus Master Pl an was reviewed. Finally, the policies of the Transportation and Parking Division were analyzed to estab lish the campus TDM parking policies.

PAGE 56

45 CHAPTER 4 BACKGROUND This section contains an in-depth discu ssion of the transit-oriented environment at the University of Florida and the City of Ga inesville. In order to understand any changes in habits and attitudes found in the survey, it is important to have a full understanding of the transportation environment and TDM policie s at the University. This section also serves as a case study of bus transit at UF. The University of Florida The University of Florida had a tota l enrollment of 47,373 students in 2003/04. Of that number, 28 percent are graduate or professional students and 72 percent are undergraduates. UF is a residential sc hool. Most of the student body moved to Gainesville to attend classes, as relatively few students are native to Alachua County. In addition to the student body, there are over 4,000 faculty and 8,000 other staff members. Founded at its present site in 1905, the oldest part of campus is dense and is best navigated on foot or bicycle. The core pa rt of the campus is largely a pedestrian-only zone during daylight hours and lacks parking resources. The core part of the campus and Shands Hospital occupy roughly 600 acres, wi th the other 1050 acres devoted to less dense uses such as agricultural research and conservation. At least some coursework is

PAGE 57

46 required on the Gainesville campus to satis fy the requirements for all but a few1 of the 100+ undergraduate and 242 graduate program s. Accommodating the needs of 58,000+ regular commuters to the core of campus re quires balancing the needs of diverse groups and maintaining a comprehensive transportatio n demand management plan. University of Florida Transportation Demand Management Multiple TDM policies are maintained by the University of Florida. However, the University does not maintain a stand-alone Transportation Demand Management plan. TDM policies are distributed throughout the Ca mpus Master Plan and in the regulations of the Transportation and Pa rking Services Division. The Campus Master Plan outlays the following major goals related to transportation: 1) Build future parking facilities near campus gateways and other remote areas 2) Maintain a transportation fee that covers the costs of parking, circulation, transit and non-vehicular transportation infrastructure 3) Build bike lanes and off-road trails to promote bicycle use 4) Provide fare-free transit to students, faculty and staff 5) Promote pedestrian behavior in the “Pedestrian Enhancement Zone” by removing vehicle parking, restrictin g automobile access, and constructing pedestrian infrastructure. 6) Enhance the service characteristic s of bus transit, including on-campus circulators The campus plan seeks to increase the mode share of transit and non-motorized modes for commuting to campus. The plan recognizes that not al l students have the 1 Some degree programs in the fine arts can be obtained by taking classes only at the New World School of the Arts in Miami. At least some Instruction in residence in at the Gainesville campus is required for all undergraduate degree programs except those offered at the Ne w World School of the Arts.

PAGE 58

47 option of using alternative modes, so parking facilities constr uction is provided at remote facilities. Automobile commuters would then transfer to alternative modes such as oncampus busses, bicycles or walking. Th e plan puts heavy emphasis on capturing automobile traffic in park-and-ride lots to lessen the impact on campus roadways and entice cars to enter the campus at several di fferent locations to mitigate their impact on city roads. The plan also provides fo r a carpool program, with carpools receiving preferential parking. The core of the campus is designated a “P edestrian Enhancement Zone”. In effect this is an auto-free zone, except it is accessi ble by busses, official business vehicles and handicapped persons. One positive impact of the auto-free zone is that bus riders debark close to classrooms, while automobile drivers face a long walk, bike ride or bus ride of their own to reach the same point on campus. The Transportation and Parking Services Division (TAPS) implements several TDM policies. That office determines the re quirements for different classes of parking passes. They also issue parking decals and collect fees for their purchase. Stringent parking enforcement is coordinated through th e TAPS office. Thus the Transportation and Parking Services Division implements th e parking restriction and parking pricing portion of the “TDM plan”. The office also operates the University’s carpool program, which has been marginally successful (Siegel 2000). Even without a formal TDM plan, th e University is employing several TDM strategies to foster a modal shift among stude nts, faculty and staff. Below, UF’s TDM strategies are summarized according to the broad categories defined by Littman (1999). PositiveUnlimited access transit, transit serv ice characteristic improvements, pedestrian/bicycle capital improvements

PAGE 59

48 MixedCarpooling program with preferential space assignment, park-and-ride facility construction, traffic calming NegativeParking pricing, parking restriction, auto-free zone s, transportation fees TDM seeks to reduce automobile depe ndence and its harmful impacts. The positive, mixed and negative TDM policies work in concert to discourage the use of single-occupant automobiles. Viable alternat ives are presented to commuters. Unlimited access, high quality transit is presented as the alternative for motorized travel to campus. According to Ferguson (1990), TDM tackles the disparity in mode share by employing five strategies. UFÂ’s TDM strategies ar e organized in the list below according to FergusonÂ’s categories. Trip GenerationTransportation Fees Trip DistributionParking Pricing, Parking Restri ction, Park-and-Ride facilities Mode SelectionCarpool program, Parking Re striction, Parking Pricing, Unlimited Access Transit, Transit characteristic improvements, Pedestrian/Bicycle Capital Improvements Route Selection (spatial)Auto-free zones, Traffic Calming Route Selection (temporal)Night and evening classes, Transit characteristic improvements Four of the most important TDM policies ar e discussed in the rest of this section. The parking pricing, parking restrictions, bus transit service enhancement, and transportation fees are all inve stigated in greater depth. Parking demand far exceeds supply on the University of Florida campus, although some limited parking facilities are available in neighborhoods adjacent to the University. A total of 19,371 spaces are ava ilable on campus. The available spaces are prioritized for certain groupsÂ’ use: 5,094 ar e reserved for students who live on campus;

PAGE 60

49 another 7,719 are reserved for faculty and staff. Only 6,558 spaces remain to accommodate the approximately 9,600 students li ving off campus. Figure 3 below shows all campus parking facilities. Figure 3–All Campus Parking Fac ilities and Core Campus Area Source: UF Office of Parking an d Transportation Services Approximately 37,750 students live off ca mpus. About half of the spaces reserved for off campus students are locat ed in the core area of campus, and are designated “Commuter”. Students with 90 cr edit hours (senior status) and graduate students can park in these more centrally lo cated commuter spaces, usually in structured parking facilities. Other students must use park-and-ride spaces. Park-and-ride spaces are found on the perimeter of campus, and user s require a bus or bi cycle ride to reach

PAGE 61

50 most instructional facilities. Under the contractual UF-RTS agreement, RTS provides dedicated park-and-ride busse s at 10-20 minute intervals at a cost of $995,000 annually. Figure 4 below shows the park -and-ride facilities only. Figure 4–UF Park and Ride Facilities Source: UF Division of Transportation and Parking Services Analyzing the purchases of parking decal s can render useful information about the demand for parking on campus. Table 4 below summarizes the number of spaces, their cost, and the overs ell ratio of decals.

PAGE 62

51 Table 4–Parking and Decal Sales, 2003 Decal Type Spaces Eligible Purchasers Decals Sold Decal Cost Oversell Ratio Faculty/Staff (Orange, Blue, Official Business) 7,719 N/A2 11,351 Up to $636 1.47 On-Campus Residents (Red) 5,094 9,623 5,823 $94 1.14 Commuter 3,393 ~21,000 7,655 $94 2.73 Park and Ride 3,165 ~26,300 2,837 $94 0.89 Total 19,371 ~58,000 27,666 1.43 Source: UF Office of Parking and Transportation Services UF Parking and Transportation Services does not limit the number of decals sold, instead choosing to let the supply of parki ng spaces and the willingness of drivers to search for spaces determine the number of d ecals sold. Table 4 above summarizes the parking situation on campus. Holders of f aculty/staff, on-campus, and commuter decals are only allowed to park in spaces reserved for their respective category of decal. Overall, the number of decals sold exceeds th e number of spaces by a 1.43 : 1 ratio. Only park-and-ride decals are sold at a rate lower than th e number of available spaces, although in practice this is not accurate since all other de cal types are allowed to use park-and-ride spaces. Lower-division students have few options when it comes to parking on campus. Those with junior status and under must use remote park and ride lots, which requires a bus ride to reach their classrooms. Seniors and graduate students can park in close-in facilities, but the number of decals sold in this category far exceeds the number spaces by a 2.7 : 1 ratio. Motorcycles and gas-powered scooters are treated very differently than automobiles. Since two-wheeled vehicles requ ire far less space to park, the decal cost is 2 The Faculty/Staff Category is broad and includes Faculty Staff (Orange) Official Business, Medical Resident, Gated Reserved, Shands Hospital (Blue) and certain types of advanced students. Data is not readily available to calculate the total number of eligible Faculty/Staff decal purchasers.

PAGE 63

52 substantially reduced. Motorcycle/scooter decals cost $24 per year, compared with $94 for cars. Motorcycle decal sales are not prio ritized according to credit hours. Further, motorcycle parking is found in every major lot on campus, greatly improving the ridersÂ’ locational choice of parking. Bicycles also require very little pa rking space, and the University maintains bike racks at or near every building on campus. Many of the students commuting daily to campus must use alternative modes of transportation to get to class. Some students will live close to campus and walk or bike to class. Some who live farther away will use public transit. Since 1998, the University of Florida has applied substantial monetary res ources to the local transit system to make riding the bus a more viable option for st udents to commute to campus. During the period 1998-2004, the number of student riders has been increasing very rapidly. In 2004, the number of students arriving on campus each day by bus was more than double the number of students who arrived by car. Regional Transit System Bus transit in the City of Gainesville is provided by the Regional Transit System (RTS), a division of the Public Works Depart ment of the City of Gainesville. In 2004/2005 RTS maintains a fleet of 92 diesel busses that operate on 21 standard city routes, 9 campus-only routes, and 4 late night routes (P erteet Engineering 2002). Paratransit for the city is contracted out to ATC/Intellitran. Many of the city routes operate on a pulse system from the downtown transfer plaza. Under a pulse system, many bus routes are timed to arrive at the tran sfer station at the same time. Busses wait 3 to 5 minutes, allowing passengers to transfer, before departing.

PAGE 64

53 Three transfer points exist on the Univer sity of Florida Camp us: the Reitz Union, Shands Hospital and Turlington Plaza. Th e campus transfer point s do not operate on a pulse system, in part due to short frequenc ies and in part due to the congruence of campus and city routes. Bus frequencies range from 60 minutes on some city routes to 8 minutes at peak times on high demand rout es operating from student-heavy areas to campus (Perteet Engineering 2002). Ridership on the Regional Transit Syst em (RTS) has increased each year since 1995. Please see Table 5 below for a summary of the ridership increase for the period 1995/1996 to 2002/2003. Over the study period, ridership increased 284%, to 8,106,964 boardings per year. RTSÂ’ s annual ridership ranks 6th among state agencies behind Miami-Dade (63.4 Million), Broward (31.8 Million), the Central Florida Regional Transportation Authority (20.5 Million), Pine llas (10.1 Million), and Hillsborough (9.4 Million). This makes RTS the 6th largest transit system in the state, despite serving the 17th largest county (Census, 2000) Figure 5 below shows the RTS bus system and its routes within the City of Gainesville.

PAGE 65

54 Figure 5–RTS Route System Source: Regional Transit System The growth in bus ridership on the Regional Transit System has outpaced ridership growth nationwide. Nationwide, bus ridership has grown 15% to 5.27 Trillion over the period 1995 to 2003 (NTST 2003). The di sparity between ridership growth in Gainesville and the nationwide total can be attr ibuted to service changes at RTS, and to the TDM policies of the University of Florid a. RTS experienced the largest increases during the two years when student subsidy of transit services began. Student subsidy began in 1998/99 and resulted in substantial service improvement s. Further, UF students could ride the bus on a fare-free basis. Since 1999/2000, ridership increases have been steadily increasing at more modest rates, a lthough it is far out-distancing transit growth nationwide.

PAGE 66

55 Table 5–Total Ridership 1995 to 20033 Year Boardings Percent In crease over Previous Year 95/96 2,110,209 NA 96/97 2,174,840 3.1% 97/98 2,948,150 35.6% 98/99 4,412,773 49.7% 99/00 5,195,883 17.7% 00/01 6,306,241 21.4% 01/02 7,198,085 14.1% 02/03 8,106,964 12.6% Increase ‘95-‘03 5,996,755 284.1% Source: Regional Transit System Table 5 above demonstrates the overall grow th in ridership. Segments of the total ridership have grown at even faster rates. Ridership grow th on campus routes has not been as steady as other routes. Increases can be more closely attr ibuted to new routes being created, such as the Lakeside Apar tments bus. Over the period 1995/96 to 2002/03, ridership on Campus Circulator ro utes has increased by 125 percent to 2,253,041 annually. However, the proportion of cam pus route riders to the total number of riders has been steadily decreasing. Campus-only trips accounted for nearly half, 47.4%, of all RTS riders in 1995/96. That figure had decreased to 27.8% in 2002/03. Please see table 6 below for a summary of ridership on campus circulator routes. Table 6–Campus Circulator Route Ridership 1995 to 2003 Year Campus Percent Increase over Previous Year Campus Riders as Percent of Total 95/96 999,236 NA 47.4% 96/97 945,963 -5.3% 43.5% 97/98 987,049 4.3% 33.5% 98/99 1,184,643 20% 26.8% 99/00 1,281,250 8.2% 24.7% 00/01 1,620,287 26.5% 25.7% 01/02 1,879,694 16% 26.1% 02/03 2,253,041 19.9% 27.8% Increase ‘95-‘03 1,253,805 125.5% -Source: Regional Transit System 3 The RTS fiscal year begins on August 1st. This is meant to coincide with the beginning of the academic year. Ridership counts also are recorded by fiscal year.

PAGE 67

56 Figure 6 below demonstrates the separa tion between the number of riders using campus circulators and the total number of ri ders. Total ridership growth has outpaced campus-only growth, indicating that off-campus and special routes have been the source of greater ridership growth. 1,000,000 2,000,000 3,000,000 4,000,000 5,000,000 6,000,000 7,000,000 8,000,000 9,000,000 95/9696/9797/9898/9999/0000/0101/0202/03 Fiscal YearBoardings Total Campus Figure 6–Campus and Total RTS Ridership Growth Source: Regional Transit System Campus Transit Service Agreement Prior to 1998, RTS operated as a small ur ban system. Busses covered the city by circuitous routes at infre quent intervals. Nearly a ll riders on the system were transportation disadvantaged. The system was experiencing d eclining community support and ridership. Meanwhile the Univ ersity of Florida had added over 8,000 students to its total enrollment during the prev ious decade. Previously students lived to the north and east of the campus, but the o ff-campus housing pattern had shifted to the southwest of the city into unincorporated Alachua County. The newer student apartment

PAGE 68

57 complexes were 2-5 miles distant from the co re campus. The outward sprawl of student housing coupled with rising enrollment increas ed the demand for motorized transport to campus. The University’s Transportati on Demand Management policies place an emphasis on public transit rather than private au tomobile use. In this next section, the sources of funding and mechanisms of coordination will be discussed. The increase in ridership correlates closely to funding increases to the transit provider. RTS realizes very little of its ope rating revenues from fare-paying customers. In 2002, farebox revenues accounted for $714,183 of the agency’s $9,462,631 budget. This represents a farebox recovery rate of only 7.5%, less than half the State of Florida average of 15.2%. Nationwide, farebox recovery averages 37.7%. However for small urbanized areas, the ratio is around 20% (NTD 2002). In 1998 the University of Florida entered into a contractual service agreement to provide enhanced transit service to the University in lieu of a massive parking fac ility construction proj ect. The City of Gainesville made an ongoing commitment to fund the “baseline” le vels of service found on routes in 1997. Newly estab lished routes would be city-f unded to provide a level of service consistent with routes operating in 1997, which operated with one or two busses on 30 to 60 minute frequencies. Additional funds to provide higher frequency, unlimited access transit would come from the University. The Transportation and Parking Services Division and the Campus Facilities Planning and Construction Office would pay a po rtion of the costs, principally to fund on-campus routes and faculty/staff unlimited acc ess. Each year th e Transportation and Parking Services Division gives $1 milli on dollars to RTS. All funds from Transportation and Parking come from parking decal sales and parking fine revenue. The

PAGE 69

58 Finance and Administration Di vision of UF (through the Camp us Facilities Planning and Construction Office) supports RTS serv ice with $500,000 annually. These funds are earmarked under the “Campus Developmen t Agreement,” a compact between the University and the City to help mitigate the impact the school has on city infrastructure (Miller, 2004). The bulk of the funds came from a thir d sourcea fee charged to students on a per-credit hour basis, similar to fees charged for capital im provements or activities. The funds that come directly from students pay fo r enhancements to the service characteristics of selected bus routes. The University pays RTS $42.50 per additional bus operating hour above and beyond the operating level of service paid for by the city.4 The cost of constructing bus stop infrastructure is shared by RTS, the UF Transportation and Parking Division and the Office of Ca mpus Facilities Planning.5 Transportation Access Fee The Transportation Access F ee is the discretionary a nd variable portion of the payments to the Regional Transit System. St udent funds are separate and distinct from Administration funds. The University’s inte rest in stimulating tr ansit use comes from a desire for less parking demand and improved walkability/bikability of the campus. The University administration’s share of the serv ice contract pays for unlimited access to RTS busses. Any improvements to service charac teristics come from student funds. From 4 The per-operating-hour fee was raised to $46.75 in 2004-2005. The increase was the first since the inception of the contract. The increase was necessary due to rising costs of fuel and labor. 5 Minutes of proceedings of the Transportation A ccess Fee Committee and Stud ent Government Budget and Appropriations Committees from 1998-2004. Of ficial correspondence between City Commissioners, UF representatives and RTS officials is also archiv ed by the Business Services Division and Student Government as official material pertaining to the student funding of transit services.

PAGE 70

59 1998-2001, student funds were allocated from the Student Government budget. For the period 2001-2004 funds came from the Transportation Access Fee. The responsibility for co llecting the Transportation Access Fee rests with the University Financial Affairs O ffice. Students are re quired to pay the fee as if it were a component of their tuition, and financial aid awards can be used to pay the fee. The responsibility for setting the Transportati on Access Fee and allocating the funds is directed by a 7-member committee operating with in the administrative structure of the Division of Finance and Admi nistration. Four voting members of the committee are students, all of whom are appointed by th e Student Body President and approved by the Vice President for Student Affairs.6 One faculty member and two representatives of the University Administration are also voting members. The Transportation Access Fee Committee is authorized to charge a requi red fee to all students under Florida State Statute 240.209.(3)(e)8 to “support the transporta tion infrastructure of the university for the purpose of increasing student ac cess to transportation services”.7 Student funds began to pay for enhanced bus services during academic year 1998/1999. Since a dedicated Transportation Ac cess Fee had not yet been instituted by the Florida Legislature, funds were budgete d as a portion of Student Government’s Activity & Service Fee, which also funds student organizations, recreation areas and fitness centers. Table 7 below summarizes student payments to RTS. In academic year 98/99 $179,055 was paid to RTS, which translates to about fifteen cents per credit hour. This first fee paid for frequency improvement s to areas where critical shortages of bus 6 Only 29% of university transit agreements guara ntee students a voting seat on advisory committees (TCRP #39, 2001). 7 Florida State Statute 240.209,(3)(e)8 and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6C-7.003(34), authorizing legislation of the transportatio n access fee, was passed in 2000.

PAGE 71

60 space were occurring on a regular basis, specifically to three routes serving student-heavy areas of southwest Gainesville. The first y ear of student subsidy of the transit system proved to be a success, and it was renewed for a second year. During the third year of student bus s ubsidy (2000/2001), the student contribution increased to $282,290. Daytime bus service leve ls remained the same as in previous years, costing $179,522. An additional $103,235 was spent to create a new late night bus route known as Later Gator. The Later Ga tor program was also a success and was expanded considerably during in coming years. Students had begun to use busses in larg e numbers. Busses were often full, and student housing complexes had continued to sp rawl outside of the RTS coverage area. Student Government could not increase its c ontribution to keep pace with rising demand. The idea of a separate Transportation Access Fee for all State of Florida Universities had been discussed as far back as 1996 (Salazar 1996) However creating a separate Transportation Fee woul d require approval from the State of Florida Legislature and the State University Board of Rege nts. This approval came during the 2000 legislative session. This allowed the estab lishment of a dedicated Transportation Access Fee beginning in the Fall 2001 semester. The Transportation Access F ee grew rapidly to keep pace with the rising demand for transit service. Table 7 below outlines the fee and the amount raised from academic year 98/99 through 04/05. The Fee amount ha s risen each year since its inception, starting in Fall 2001 as a $2 per credit hour fee. In 2004/2005, the fee will be $4.10 per credit hour. One hundred percent of Fee money is spent on motorized mass

PAGE 72

61 transportation services. The F ee has been increased to provide service enhancements due to congested busses, new residential c onstruction, and rising student demand. Table 7–Student Subsidy/Tran sportation Access Fee Growth Academic Year Funding Source Fee Amount per credit hour Cost Per Student Per Year Funds Raised 98/99 Student Government $0.15 8 $4.50 $179,055 99/00 Student Government $0.15 8 $4.50 $179,055 00/01 Student Government $0.24 9 $7.20 $282,290 01/02 Transportation Access $2.00 $60.00 $2,200,000 02/03 Transportation Access $3.00 $90.00 $3,940,000 03/04 Transportation Access $3.59 $107.70 $4,510,800 04/05 Transportation Access $4.10 $123.00 $5,264,500 Source: UF Business Services Division and RTS. Cost to students is based on 30 billed credits per academic year The Transportation Access Fee was not in tended by the state le gislature to be solely a means to subsidize or improve bus tr ansit services. Funds can be used to build bike/pedestrian infrastructure, provide paratransit, jitney bus service, parking facilities, or add roadway capacity. Other Florida universities have us ed Transportation Access Fee Funds for all of these purposes. However at the University of Florida it remains primarily a means to subsidize bus transit, as 96% of the funds reali zed are transferred to the bus transit provider. However two other University transportati on services are funded using the Transportation Access Fee. The Student Nighttime Auxiliary Patrol (SNAP) runs jitney van service on the UF Campus from 9PM to 2AM. SNAP was previously funded by Student Government. SNAP’s missi on is to provide safe point-to-point transport for on-campus residents and anyone on campus late at night. The program is operated by the University Police Departme nt. In academic year 2004/05, SNAP was 8 Fee amounts in 98/99, 99/00 and were allocated as a portion of the Activity and Service Fee. RTS also benefited from several Department of Transportation grants during this period. 9 The fee amount in 00/01 continued service enhancements from the previous two years and funded the first Later Gator late night service route. These fees were also budgeted and ap propriated from Student Government’s Activity and Service Fee.

PAGE 73

62 funded by $92,000 of Transportation Access F ee money. Paratransit around the UF Campus is provided by the Handi-Van servi ce. Before being funded by Transportation Access Fee funds, the Handi-Van was funde d and operated by the Transportation and Parking Services Division. The Handi-Van services remains under the operational control of Transportation and Parking Se rvices, however all $120,000 of its funding comes from the Fee. Sixteen cents of the $4.10 (or 4%) Fee goes to pay for SNAP and Handivan services. Service Enhancements The Campus Transit Development Agreement has paid for several bus transit improvements. The most important improvement was the creation of an unlimited access, fare-free system for students, faculty and staff. Anyone possessing a valid University of Florida Identification Card can board any RTS bus free of charge. The ID Card, referred to as a Gator-1 Card, is pres ented to the driver u pon boarding. There is no need for riders to obtain passes or interact w ith a third party to gain access to free transit services. This allows students to use bus transit services as frequently or infrequently as they desire. This is an im portant factor since bus route enhancements are intended to support a variety of different tr ips, some of which are used infrequently by patrons. The unlimited access program began during the fall semester of 199810 and has continued through 2004. Community and in stitutional support for the unlimited access program is very high, and the arrangement will likely c ontinue far into the future. Two other constituent groups have started unlimited access programs in recent years. Beginning in 2001, an unlimited access program was started for city and county employees. In the 10 UF Faculty and Staff were given unlimited access benefits in 2000.

PAGE 74

63 Spring 2004 semester, Santa Fe Community Co llege Students received fare-free rides on two routes that lead to that campus.11 The Service Contract provides three di fferent servicesStandard City Routes, Campus Only Routes, and “Later Gator” Late Night Routes. The service characteristics, funding arrangements and intended users differ for each type of bus route. Standard City Routes Standard city routes are id entical to fixed bus routes found in cities throughout the United States, except that select routes run on very short freq uencies. They are planned to connect residential areas (tri p producers) with trip attrac tors such as employment or institutional land uses. As discussed previ ously, the City of Gainesville agreed to continue funding Standard City Routes at le vels of service found in 1997. The University made a priority of increasing frequency of busses to entice more students to use the bus and to alleviate congestion on busses. Cert ain routes would have their operating hours lengthened to accommodate the irregular schedule of college students. Of the city’s 21 Standard Routes, 10 are supplemented by Univer sity funds. These routes connect student housing to the University campus. This create s a disparity between the level of service for UF-supplemented routes and routes ope rated only on city funds. Table 8 below shows the 2004 routes offered by RTS includi ng those supplemented by UF funds. 11 Funds to allow Santa Fe Community College students to ride fare-free on two bus routes serving that campus come from the College’s administration. At pr esent, Florida Statutes do not allow a Transportation Access Fee to be charged to community college students.

PAGE 75

64 Table 8–2004-2005 Standard City Routes and Funding Levels Route Number City Funding UF Funding Additional Service Hours Peak Frequency (minutes) 1 $561,711 $0 0 20 2 $196,724 $0 0 60 5 $412,391 $ 129,044 2,760 20 6 $199,342 $0 0 60 7 $202,932 $0 0 60 8 $562,982 $0 0 30 9 $ 175,182 $ 653,397 13,976 8 10 $178,996 $0 0 60 11 $199,342 $0 0 60 12 12 $ 0 $ 708,085 15,146 10 13 $ 140,026 $ 240,865 5,152 15 15 13 $180,918 $0 0 30 16 $ 187,187 $ 430,549 9,210 10 20 $ 348,026 $ 609,751 13,043 12 2112 $ 0 $ 190,142 4,067 20 24 $190,964 $0 0 60 34 12 $ 0 $ 540,028 11,551 20 35 $ 438,029 $ 232,011 4,963 12 36 12 $ 0 $ 175,574 3,756 20 43 13 $315,995 $0 0 60 75 $487,359 $0 0 30 Totals $4,978,066 $3,894,612 83,307 -Source: Regional Transit System and UF Transportation Access Fee Committee. UF-funded routes are bolded The sharing of costs for citywide fixed routes requires close coordination between the University and the Regional Transit Syst em. Transit planners for RTS monitor full bus conditions and the locations of new st udent-oriented housing developments. They present the information to the responsible parties at UF includ ing the Transportation Access Fee Committee and the Student Body Pr esident, who collectively appropriate funding changes to alter the bus routes, schedules and hours to accommodate changes in demand for transit service. Final approval of expenditures comes from the University 12 Routes 12, 21, 34 and 36 are reverse routes or spurs off other routes. Since these four routes closely duplicate the service area of city-funded routes UF is responsible for the entire cost. 13 Routes 15 and 43 are partially funded by Santa Fe Community College

PAGE 76

65 President. In 2004/05, $3.02 of the $4.10 Fee goe s toward supplementing service levels on selected city routes. Campus Circulator Routes Campus Circulator Routes run on fixed r outes on the UF Campus. Certain routes leave the campus briefly, but only to co mplete loops when road connections and configurations require completing a loop usi ng city streets. They are intended to facilitate the movement of UF students, faculty and staff around the campus. The existence of Campus Circulator routes gives on-campus residents mobility within campus. These routes also allow off-campus students to park once or arrive by offcampus bus and move around to multiple destin ations. The North/S outh Circulator, and the East and West Circulat ors serve as the high frequency backbone of the campus system. These routes run on 9-15 minute fr equencies during peak hours. The Family Housing and Lakeside routes se rve to move on-campus residents that live in remote areas to the center of campus. Three routesPark & Ride 1, Park & Ride 2 and the Commuter Lot Routes primarily transport patrons of remote parking facilities to the center of campus. The Campus Circulator Routes are f unded entirely by the University, but are operated by RTS. The total cost of opera ting the Campus Circulator Routes is $2,272,005. The Campus Circulator Routes co st $48.54 per UF student per year. In 2004/2005, $1.61 ( or 39.5%) of the $4.10 per-credit hour fee is alloca ted to fund campus circulator routes. The cost of each Campus Circulator Bus is summarized in table 9 below.

PAGE 77

66 Table 9–Funding and Frequency of Campus Circulator Routes Route UF Funding Daily Operating Schedule Peak Number of Busses Frequency (minutes) Park & Ride 1 $466,920 7am-7:30pm 5 8 Park & Ride 2 $193,975 7am-7pm 2 15 Commuter Lot $333,791 7am-7:30pm 3 10 West Circulator $344,061 7am-7:30pm 3 6 East Circulator $186,308 7am-7:30pm 2 10 E/W Circulator $213,004 5:30pm-2am 2 15 N/S Circulator $284,156 7:30am-2am 2 15 Family Housing $121,428 7am-5:30pm 1 30 Lakeside Apts. $107,454 9am-4:30pm 1 30 Lake Wauberg $20,907 Sat/Sun 9:30am-5:30pm 1 60 Totals $2,272,005 22 Source: Regional Transit System and UF Parking and Transportation Services Later Gator Later Gator busses operate on special r outes from 8:30pm to 3:00am Wednesday through Saturday evenings. These routes are intended to connect stude nt residential areas with evening activity centers, including downt own bars and restaurants. The mission of the Later Gator program is threefold. First, it extends transit options into the late evening hours, a time traditionally ignored by transit providers. This further contributes to the ability of students to go about their daily live s with little or no automobile use. Second, Later Gator seeks to reduce the frequency of driving under the influence of alcohol by connecting student residential areas to popular bar and night club districts. Third, Later Gator seeks to alleviate severe parking s hortages along University Avenue and downtown Gainesville, the two primary distri cts of late even ing activity. The first Later Gator route was institu ted during the summer of 2000, by a special appropriation from Student Government. This first trial year cost $103,276 to operate for the fall and spring semesters from 9pm-2am on Thursday, Friday and Saturday nights. The first route – known as Later Gator A –continues to operate in a loop through the

PAGE 78

67 University campus and downtown Gainesv ille, where many bars and night clubs are found. The program proved extremely popular, and in 2001 the respons ibility of paying for Later Gator was moved to the Transpor tation Access Fee. Al ong with the greater funding base, three new routes were crea ted. During the period 2001-2004, routes were added and deleted based on ridership and de mand. In 2004-05, the Later Gator program will offer 4 routes that operate Wednesday through Saturday from 8:30pm to 3:00am. The service summary and cost of the Later Ga tor routes is outlined in table 10 below. Thirty four cents (or 8.2%) of the $4.10 Tran sportation Access Fee goes to pay for Later Gator Service. Table 10–2004-2005 Later Gator Route F unding and Service Characteristics Route Funding Busses Frequency A $104,598 3 10 B $100,017 3 15 C $117,805 3 20 F $110,409 3 20 Totals $432,830 12 -Source: UF Finance and Administration

PAGE 79

68 CHAPTER 5 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION This chapter contains the results fr om both surveys admi nistered during the Summer/Fall of 2003. Beyond the nu merical results of the surve y, this section contains a discussion of the findings. The results are pr esented and discussed in three broad areas: 1) Transportation Habits, 2) Transit Attitu des and Knowledge, and 3) TDM and Public Policy. Transportation Habits Questions were asked on each survey to determine the transportation habits of respondents before, during and af ter attending the Un iversity of Florida. This section also covers respondentÂ’s housing and how tr ansportation access impa cts housing choices. Incoming freshmen were largely suburb an dwellers. Sixt y eight percent of incoming freshmen lived in a suburban singl e family house. Another 17% report being raised in a single family house in a rural se tting. Only 16% of incoming freshmen lived in urban or multifamily settings. Figure 7 be low demonstrates the disparity in housing of incoming freshmen during their senior year of high school. It stands in strong contrast to the type of housing freshmen live in dur ing their freshman year of college.

PAGE 80

69 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 ApartmentCondominiumTown HouseSFSuburbsSFUrbanSFRuralPercent Figure 7–Hometown Housing of Incoming Freshmen Source: 2003 Freshman Survey Respondents were allowed to give up to three responses to the question “Please indicate the three most impor tant factors when choosing a place to live.” The most popular response was “distance to campus” with 27%. The second most important factor was “cost” with 22.8%. “Security”, “Luxury”, “Amenities” and “Soc ial Life” were all between 11 and 12%. Living close to a bus line came in last with only 3.3%. Only eleven of 122 (or 9%) freshmen felt that living near a bus line was among their top three factors. Transportation Before Attending UF Incoming freshmen’s families show automobile dependence typical of most American families. Their parents take an av erage of 25.1 minutes to get to work, slightly less than the national average. Each household owns an average of 3.2 cars. Thirty four percent of families own 4 or more cars.

PAGE 81

70 Respondents were allowed to report two mode s of parents’ travel to work (one for each parent if applicable). The automobile commanded 91.1% of the modal share88.9% being single occupant vehicl es. Only 2.2% carpooled to work, far below the national figure of 12% (Census, 2000). Alternativ e modes carry a very small share of transportation to work. Table 11 below shows the modal split for incoming freshmen parents’ travel to work. Table 11–Parents’ Mode of Travel to Work Mode Number Percent Drive Alone 119 88.8% Other 4 3% Carpool 3 2.2% Bus 3 2.2% Bike 3 2.2% Subway/Elevated 1 0.7% Walk 1 0.7% Source: 2003 Freshman Survey Incoming students were also automobile dependent for travel to high school, although a substantial number carpooled. Si xty two percent drove to school alone. Another 27.9% carpooled to school. School busses (5%), public transit (1.7%) and walking (3.3%) account for le ss than 10% of the total. Transportation While Enrolled Incoming freshmen appear to be pragma tic about their options for commuting to class. Eighty percent report th ey will live on campus, and all answers in this section must consider that fact. Only 56.6% of inco ming freshmen will have a car during their freshman year, regardless of where they plan to live. Over seventy percent expect to get to class by walking or biking. Twenty two pe rcent expect to get to class by bus8% by city bus and 14% by campus circul ator bus. Only 8% expect to drive a car to class.

PAGE 82

71 Alumni were asked to report how often th ey used transit each of the 4 types of RTS service during their senior year (academ ic years 2000/01 or 01/02). Table 12 below shows the frequency of use on city to cam pus, city to city, later gator and campus circulator routes. Table 12–Transit Service Use at UF City to Campus City to City Later Gator Campus Circulator Daily 56 (36%) 2 (1%) --1 49 (32%) Weekly 19 (12%) 6 (4%) 12 (8%) 23 (15%) Monthly 6 (4%) 2 (1%) 14 (9%) 7 (5%) Infrequently 27 (18%) 31 (20%) 47 (31%) 34 (22%) Never 46 (30%) 113 (73%) 81 (53%) 31 (20%) Source: 2003 Alumni Survey Eighty two percent of alum ni report using at least one type of bus during their senior year. Campus circulat or busses have the highest freq uency of ridership. Seventy four percent of the sample reported using cam pus circulators during their senior year. The highest daily ridership wa s on routes that connected st udent residential areas to campus. Fifty six of the one hundred and fifty three respondents (36.6%) reported commuting from off-campus homes to campus by bus during their senior year. City-only routes experienced the lowest frequency of ri des. Only 26% reported having used a cityonly route. Rides on city routes were also infrequent, as 5.2 % rode city routes daily or weekly. Transportation After Graduation Alumni show similar commuting patterns to their parents, although there is a minor shift toward alternative modes. Th e average alumni took 22.8 minutes to get to work. The average time to work is 2.8 minut es shorter than the national average and 2.3 minutes shorter than their parents. 1 Later Gator is only offered three days per week.

PAGE 83

72 Alumni were asked the question “How do you get to work?.” Eighty three percent (83.4%) of alum ni travel to work by single occ upant automobile. Another 7.4% of alumni travel in a carpool to work, wher eas 3.3% of their parents used carpools. Subway use and walking had minor increases over the modal share of parents. The modal split is shown in Table 13 below. Table 13–Alumni Travel to Work Mode Split Mode Count Share Percent Drive Alone 136 83.4% Carpool 12 7.4% Bus 2 1.2% Subway 5 3.1% Walk 6 3.7% Bike 1 0.6% Other 1 0.6% Source: 2003 Alumni Survey The rates of transit use change somewhat before and after graduation. Each group was asked how frequently they had ridden trans it in their current cit y. The percentage of that reported never using transit declined fr om 81.9% (freshman) to 64.0% (alumni). The percentage of people who used transit da ily, weekly, monthly and infrequently all increased. The largest change is in the “I nfrequent” category, fr om a 14.8% share to 28.1% share. A Cramer’s V test indicates a moderate statistical change between the Alumni and Freshman groups for all responses,2 indicating that transit use changes somewhat after graduation. Transit use is more common among alumni, although most of the shift in responses came from “Never” to “Infrequently”. Table 14 below shows the frequency of responses about tran sit use among freshmen and alumni. 2 A Cramer’s V test renders a value of 0.208 with an approximate significance of 0.018. Cramer’s V varies between 0 and 1 and is used to compare cross-tabulate d nominal data when the table is greater than 2 by 2 squares.

PAGE 84

73 Table 14–Frequency of Transit Use Transit Use Freshmen Fresh % Alumni Alumni % Daily 2 1.6% 4 2.6% Weekly 2 1.6% 5 3.3% Monthly 0 0.0% 3 2.0% Infrequently 18 14.6% 43 28.1% Never 100 82.0% 98 64.1% Source: 2003 Freshman and Alumni Surveys Transit Attitudes and Knowledge Alumni respondents were asked to give two factors (not ranked) that make the RTS transit system an attractive option for st udent commuting. The results are shown in Table 15 below. The most important factor for riding RTS busses was the lack of fare. Difficulty in finding parking was second. A di stant third was the frequency of busses. Issues about social acceptability, hours of operation and traffic congestion were not a consideration of many alumni. Table 15–Attractive RTS Service Factors for Alumni Factor Responses Percent No Fare 107 35.3% Parking Difficulty 96 31.7% Frequency of Busses 44 14.5% Convenience Factors 31 10.2% Social Acceptability 10 3.3% Hours of Operation 8 2.6% Traffic Congestion 7 2.3% Source: 2003 Alumni Survey To determine if minimizing transfers was a concern of potential transit patrons, both survey groups were asked the hypothetical question “There is a tr ansit line in your current city that runs directly from your home to work. Will you ride it?” Respondents were given answer choices of “Yes”, “No” and “Maybe.” Table 16 below shows the results from both surveys. Very few res pondents outright rejected the idea of riding transit. Only 3.3% of freshmen and 12.4% of al umni said they would not to ride a direct

PAGE 85

74 transit line. A Cramer’s V test confirms there is a shift in the responses between freshmen and alumni.3 Alumni responded with more “maybe” and “no” answers. For freshmen the most common response (the m ode) was “yes”, while for alumni it was “maybe.” Table 16–Willingness to Ride Dire ct Transit Route to Work Answer Freshmen Fresh % Alumni Alumni % Yes 71 58.7% 65 42.5% Maybe 46 38.0% 69 45.1% No 4 3.3% 19 12.4% Source: 2003 Freshman and Alumni Surveys Respondents of both surveys were aske d a series of questions about their knowledge of the transit system in their curre nt city. Respondents were asked if they knew the: a) location of the nearest bus stop; b) the destinations of busses that stopped there; c) the fare of the bus ; and d) the timetable of the bus. An actual answer was not required, simply a response of yes or no. Respondents were also asked if there was public transit in their city, and results we re only calculated from records where transit service was present. Seventy five percent of incoming freshmen report living in a city with public transit. while 93% for alumni report there is transit in th eir city. Additionally 30.2% of alumni live in a city wi th some form of rail transit.4 A graph of the results of the transit awareness question series can be found in figure 8 below. Knowledge a bout the transit system on the whole is low. A majority know where the closest bus stop is to thei r home. Seventy one percent of incoming freshmen knew where the closest bus stop wa s in their hometown. Alumni are less aware 3 Cramer’s V = 0.201 4 At the time of the survey rail transit operated in 5 Florida counties: Miami-Dade (Metrorail and Tri-Rail), Duval (SkyTrain), Hillsborough (Li ght Rail/Streetcar), Broward (Tri-Ra il), and Palm Beach (Tri-Rail). Miami-Dade offers 4 routes, and the other 3 rail tran sit providers operate one route each. Given the small scale of rail transit in Florida, questions were asked only about bus transit. Surveys were returned from across the United States, including ma ny metro areas with heavy, light and commuter rail service.

PAGE 86

75 of the closest bus stop, and only 61% report they know where it is. In-depth knowledge of the transit system is far less common. Tw enty nine percent of freshmen and 21% of alumni knew where the bus would take them. Even fewer knew how much the bus would cost. Only a small fraction (4.3%) of each group knew the timetable of the bus nearest their home. Alumni were consistently less knowledgeable about the transit system operating in their current city. 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0Percent Freshmen Alumni Freshmen 70.729.322.84.3 Alumni 61.321.114.84.2 Bus StopDestinationCostSchedule Figure 8–Knowledge of Transit System Information Source: 2003 Freshman and Alumni Surveys Respondents were asked to rate their w illingness to use public transit on a scale from “Very Unwilling” to “Very Willing.” Their responses were quantified on a scale from 1 to 5. By converting their responses to scalar data, the mean s could be analyzed using descriptive statistics a nd various statistical tests.5 The results of the 5 question 5 Responses were quantified using the following codes: “Very Unwilling” = 1; “Unwilling” = 2; “Neutral” = 3; “Willing” = 4; and “Very Willing” = 5.

PAGE 87

76 series are shown in table 17 below. The data is analyzed using three distinct groups: a) all 274 records; b) all 122 freshmen records; and c) all 154 alumni r ecords. The alumni group had lower means for every question. Stan dard deviation for a ll questions and all groups was between 1.2 and 1.3, indicating consistent moderate variance. Table 17–Willingness to Use Transit Question Freshmen Mean Alumni Mean Willing to Ride Bus 3.80 3.01 Willing to Ride Rail 3.58 3.41 Willing to Carpool 3.73 3.49 Source: 2003 Freshman and Alumni Surveys The mean for freshmen was 3.80, for Alumni 3.01. An independent sample t-test confirms that means before and after a ttending UF are significantly different.6 Alumni are less willing to use a bus than freshmen. Willingness to use rail transit was not sta tistically significant between alumni and freshmen.7 The results are similar regarding carpools. The mean responses for alumni and freshmen were not statistically significant.8 There is no statistical difference between the willingness of alumni and freshmen to use carpool or rail transit modes. The entire population was analyzed for pr eferences between rail and bus modes. The mean response for willingness to use busses was 3.36, and 3.48 for rail. There was 6 The Independent Sample t-test has a null hypothesis that the means are not significantly different. The test renders a result of t= 5.401 at confidence level 0. 05, and we can reject the null hypothesis. A t statistic that is greater than 1.96 sign als with 95% certainty that th e means are significantly different. 7 Independent Sample t-test has a null hypothesis that the means are not different. The test renders a result of t = 1.19. Since the t statistic is lower than 1.96, we fail to reject the null hypothesis and assume that the means are not signifi cantly different. 8 Independent sample t-test has a null hypothesis that the means are not different. The test renders a result of t = 1.57. We fail to reject the null hypothesis an d assume that the means are not significantly different.

PAGE 88

77 no preference for rail transit over bus transit, or vice versa.9 Alumni preferred to use rail over bus. To determine if fare-free transit woul d increase the likeli hood of public transit use, respondents were asked to rate their willin gness to use “public tr ansit in general” and free public transit. Results for the free fare vs. regular transit que stions are shown in table 18 below. When the whole sample was split into groups according to classification, the results change somewhat. Freshmen more strong ly prefer free transit, and a paired t-test confirms the observation.10 However alumni show almost no change between fare and free-fare transit. A paired t-test confirms that the means are not significantly different.11 Table 18–Regular vs. Fare Free Transit Question Freshmen Mean Alumni Mean Willing to Ride Transit 3.73 3.18 Willing to Ride Free Transit 4.13 3.19 Source: 2003 Freshman and Alumni Surveys Transportation Demand Management and Public Policy A hypothetical question was posed to bot h survey groups to determine their behavioral response to stringent parking restrictions found in many TDM policies, including on the University of Florida campus. The que stion was asked: “You know there is no parking at your shopping destin ation 3 miles away. What will you do?” Responses to the hypothetical question are s hown in Table 19 below. The top three responses are bolded. For freshmen, the most common response was to take public 9 One Sample t-test for bus willingness on the mean for rail results in t = 1.59, failing to reject the null. A test on rail transit willingness on the mean for bus results in t= 1.67, failing to reject the null. 10 A paired t-test is used to compare the means of a po pulation before and after an event. In this case the event is the application of the conditio n of fare-free transit. t = -3.49 11 t = -0.06

PAGE 89

78 transit. Public transit fell to the 3rd most common response for alumni. The option to drive to a more distant destination went from 4th for freshmen to 1st for alumni. Parking far away and walking to the destination was the 2nd most popular response for both freshmen and alumni. Fifteen percent of al umni responded that they would “not go” if there was no parking at their shopping de stination, up from 6.6% for freshmen. Table 19–Behavioral Response to Parking Restriction Behavioral Response Freshmen Count Freshmen Percent Alumni Count Alumni Percent Public Transit 42 34.7% 24 15.7% Park Far Away 26 21.5% 39 25.5% Get Dropped Off 18 14.9% 10 6.5% Drive to a More Distant Destination 17 14.0% 50 32.7% Not Go 8 6.6% 23 15.0% Bike 7 5.8% 2 1.3% Taxi 2 1.7% 1 0.7% Walk 1 0.8% 4 2.6% Source: 2003 Freshman and Alumni Surveys Respondents were asked to rate thei r level of agreemen t with public policy statements. The 5 possible answers vari ed from “Strongly Disagree” to “Strongly Agree”, and the answers were coded from 1 to 5 to allow numerical analysis. First, respondents were asked if they feel it is important for government to provide public transit. Overall the group agreed with that statement. The mean response was 4.20, with a low standard deviation of 0.82. The most frequent response was “Agree,” and only 12 people (or 4.4%) answered “Str ongly Disagree” or “Disagree.” There is no statistical difference between alumni and freshmen when the sample is broken down into separate groups. Respondents were also aske d to rate their agreement with the statement “It is important for government to provide more road improvements to deal with traffic.” The

PAGE 90

79 level of agreement with this statement was very high. The mean response was 4.45 (maximum 5), with a very low standard devi ation of 0.66. The most frequent response was “Strongly Agree.” Four respondents (or 1.1%) disagreed with the statement. There is no statistical difference between groups. Respondents feel that government expend iture on road infrastructure is more important than expenditure on transit. Th e mean responses for agreement with road expenditure (4.45) and transit (4.20) were compared using a one-sample t-test. The t statistic value was 6.21, confirming that re spondents support road expenditures over transit expenditures. Alumni felt that “traffic congestion wa s a serious problem.” An independent sample t-test shows that the mean for alumni (4.27) is statistically different than the mean for freshmen (4.02).12 The most common response wa s “Strongly Agree,” and only 23 people (8.2%) disagreed that tr affic congestion was a seriou s problem. Respondents also believe that transit reduces tr affic congestion, and they genera lly believe that transit is effective at reducing traffic. The mean wa s 3.99, with a mode of 4 or “Agree.” There was no difference between freshmen and al umni groups. Table 20 below shows the frequency of responses of agreement with the statements about traffic congestion. Table 20–Transit Reduces Traffic Congestion Strongly Disagree DisagreeNeutral Agree Strongly Agree Traffic is a Serious Problem Mean = 4.16 1 22 26 108 113 Percent 0.4% 7.6% 9.6% 40.0% 41.9% Transit Reduces Congestion Mean = 3.99 4 19 42 120 89 Percent 1.4% 6.9% 15.2% 43.5% 32.2% Source: 2003 Freshman and Alumni Surveys 12 t = -2.23

PAGE 91

80 When asked if it was “critical to own a car,” alumni agreed with the statement more strongly than freshmen. Freshmen responded with a mean of 3.84, while the alumni mean was 4.25. An independent sample s t-test shows that alumni feel more strongly that owning a car is important.13 Respondents were also asked if they would be willing to vote for a political candidate who promises to spend more money on public transit. The mean response was 3.06, and the frequency of responses is show in table 21 below. The responses are nearly normally distributed, with most respondents “neu tral” on the issue. Statistically there is no change in the responses between alumni and freshmen. Table 21–Willingness to Vote for a Pro-Transit Political Candidate Strongly Disagree DisagreeNeutral Agree Strongly Agree Vote for Pro-Transit Candidate 15 39 149 57 14 Source: 2003 Alumni Survey Freshmen report that TDM measures such as bike lanes, auto-free zones, and calmed traffic makes them more inclined to ride bicycles or walk. However alumni do not value these TDM measures as much as fr eshmen when choosing whether to walk to bike. Table 22 below shows the mean responses for alumni and freshm en, as well as the t statistic of the independent t-test on the mean s. All three TDM policies were less popular with alumni, as all three statements pres ented score statistically significantly lower among graduates. Table 22–TDM Policies and Their Impact on Willingness to Bike and Walk Alumni Mean Freshmen Mean t statistic Auto-Free Zones Increases Willingness to Walk 3.15 3.48 2.62 Sidewalks Increases Willingness to Walk/Bike 3.61 3.88 2.34 Slow Traffic Increases Willingness to Walk/Bike 2.64 3.21 4.58 Source: 2003 Freshman and Alumni Surveys 13 t = -3.32

PAGE 92

81 Finally, alumni and freshmen were asked rate their agreement with the statement “I wish transit was a better option in my c ity.” Table 23 below shows the frequency of responses. Forty Seven percent of respondents agree that they wish transit was a better option in their city. Only 16.% disagree, with 36% being neutral on the subject. Table 23–Wish Transit Was a Better Option Mean = 3.42 Strongly Disagree DisagreeNeutral Agree Strongly Agree Wish Transit was a Better Option 3 41 99 100 31 Source : 2003 Alumni Survey Self-Selection for Transit Use Certain groups may be more likely to ride public transit than others. The literature suggests that inner city residents, those living in multifamily settings, and those living in major metropolitan areas are more likel y to use transit. Alumni make conscious decisions about where and how they live af ter graduation. Some will choose to leave Florida, others will stay. Many of thos e who leave Florida will move to large metropolitan areas where transit is a better opt ion. Some alumni w ill live in multifamily settings, others will live in single family homes. Whethe r or not transit access is an active concern for alumni moving to major metropolitan areas or to multifamily housing is not known. However, these two lifestyl e choices may create more opportunities to travel by transit. Florida Residency One hundred, or 65 percent, of alumni liv e in Florida. Ei ghteen percent of Florida-based alumni live in a city with some form of rail transit, all but 3 report living in Miami-Dade County. The remaining 54 alum ni respondents (35%) live outside of Florida. Many out-of-state alumni are moving to major metropolitan areas, as indicated

PAGE 93

82 by rail transit being present in 48 percent of th eir new cities. Fiftyfive percent of out-ofstate alumni lived in the ten largest metropo litan areas of the United States. The most popular metropolitan areas outside of Florid a are: Atlanta, Washington, DC, and New York City. The transit ridership frequency for alum ni inside and out of Florida is quite different. The breakdown is shown in Table 24 below. Zero alumni in Florida use transit on a daily, weekly, or monthly ba sis. Seventy-eight percent ha ve not used transit at all since graduation. Those living ou t-of-state used transit more frequently, a fact confirmed by a Cramer’s V value of 0.469. This indicate s a moderate-to-strong correlation between transit ridership and bein g a resident in a state other than Florida. Out-of-state residents are more likely to use transit frequently, as 16 percent ride transit daily or weekly. A larger proportion of out-of-st ate alumni use transit infreque ntly. The percentage of alumni who have never used transit dropped from 78% for Florida residents to 39% for out-of-state residents. Table 24–Florida and Out-of-State Alum ni Respondents to Transit Frequency Frequency Florida Florida % Ou t of State Out of State % Daily 0 0% 4 7% Weekly 0 0% 5 9% Monthly 0 0% 3 6% Infrequently 22 22% 21 39% Never 77 78% 21 39% Total 99 54 Source: 2003 Alumni Survey Alumni who live out-of-state are signif icantly more likely to use transit to commute to work. The percentage of al umni who drive alone dropped from 90% for Florida residents to 72% for out -of-state. Twenty three percent of out-of-state residents used modes other than a car to get to wor k, while only 2% of Flor ida-based alumni use non-automobile modes. Walking to work al so increased substantially among those living

PAGE 94

83 out-of-state, from 1 percent to 9 percent. Table 25 below shows the modal split for travel to work for alumni. Table 25–Florida and Out-of-State Alumni Respondents’ Mode of Travel to Work Mode Florida Florida % Out-of-State Out-of-State % Drive Alone 94 90% 42 72% Carpool 9 9% 3 5% Walk 1 1% 5 9% Bike 1 1% 0 0% Bus 0 0% 2 3% Subway 0 0% 5 9% Other 0 0% 1 2% Total 105 58 Source: 2003 Alumni Survey Table 26 below summarizes the willingness of in-state and outof-state residents to use transit. Out-of-state respondents were more willing to use tr ansit if it was free. Out-of-state respondents were more willing to use rail transit than bus transit.14 Table 26–Florida and Out-of-State Alumni Respondents’ Willingness to Use Transit Willingness to use Florida Out-of-State Significant15 Transit 3.12 3.31 No Free Transit 2.97 3.58 Yes Bus 3.02 2.98 No Rail 3.29 3.61 No Carpool 3.55 3.39 No Source: 2003 Alumni Survey Multifamily and Single Family residents To analyze if people living in multifamily housing are more likely to use public transit, the alumni survey was split into tw o groups who reported living in single family and multifamily housing. Possible multifam ily responses included: apartments, condominiums, townhomes and university housi ng. Single family homes included all 14 t = 2.04 15 Using an Independent Sample t-test, the means of Tr ansit, Bus, Rail, and Carpool for Florida and Out-ofState were not significant. Free Tran sit was statistically preferred by alumni living out of state than those living in-state. t = 2.74

PAGE 95

84 other survey responses. Two respondents did no t report the nature of their current home. Eighty-four, or 55%, of alumni reporting liv ing in multifamily homes, while 68 (or 45%) lived in single family homes. The frequency of transit use was hi gher among people living in multifamily homes. A Cramer’s V test renders a valu e of 0.251, indicating a moderate correlation between living in multifamily housing and using transit frequently. Refer to table 27 below. Respondents living in single family housing did not report using transit daily, weekly or monthly. Only 31% reported us ing transit infrequently, while 69% reported never using transit. Table 27–Multifamily and Single Family Residents’ Transit Frequency Frequency Multifamily Multi % Single Family Single % Daily 4 5% 0 0% Weekly 4 5% 0 0% Monthly 3 4% 0 0% Infrequently 23 27% 21 31% Never 50 60% 47 69% Total 84 68 Source: 2003 Alumni Survey Living in a multifamily setting makes one more likely to commute by alternative modes. Refer to table 28 below. Driving al one retains the largest modal share, with 81 percent of multifamily responde nts, and 89% of single family respondents. The only alternative mode u tilized by single family respondents was walking, with 3%. Carpooling was the second-highest utilized among both groups. Only multifamily dwellers used bus and rail transit.

PAGE 96

85 Table 28–Multifamily and Single Family Mode of Travel to Work Mode Multifamily Multi % Single Family Single % Drive Alone 73 81% 62 89% Carpool 6 7% 6 9% Walk 3 3% 2 3% Bike 0 0% 0 0% Bus 2 2% 0 0% Subway 5 6% 0 0% Other 1 1% 0 0% Total 90 70 Source: 2003 Alumni Survey Single family respondents and multifamily respondents do not differ significantly from each other on willingness to use various t ypes of transit. See table 29 below for mean responses to willingness to use transit. Multifamily dwellers were not more willing to ride free transit than fare-paying transit.16 Multifamily dwellers were not statistically more willing to ride rail than bus.17 Table 29–Multifamily and Single Family Willingness to Use Transit Willingness to use Multifamily Single Family Significant? Transit 3.06 3.32 No Free Transit 3.05 3.31 No Bus 2.87 3.14 No Rail 3.41 3.36 No Carpool 3.40 3.58 No Source: 2003 Alumni Survey Discussion Transportation Habits The data supports the hy pothesis that incoming student s to the University were brought up in automobile dependent homes. The suburban/rural sett ing of their homes, high vehicle ownership rates, a nd low rates of alternative m ode use suggest that incoming 16 t = 0.62 17 t = 1.74

PAGE 97

86 students are highly conditioned to automobile travel. Low density suburban areas are generally not supportive of public transit. St udents will have to adapt their transportation habits to conform with the TDM policies of the dense University of Florida Campus. Some of the University’s TDM policies are positive ones that will improve their transportation options, such as bicycle/pedestrian improvement s and transit investments. Other TDM policies will force a modal shift away from cars. These “negative” TDM policies include parking pr icing, parking availability and auto-free zones. Incoming students seem well educated a bout the TDM policies at the University, and are pragmatic about their options for comm uting to campus. Very few freshmen plan to drive to class. Most expect to walk or bike to class, which is not surprising since so many freshmen will live on campus. When c hoosing where to live during college years, freshmen appear to be taking transportation into account. However they do not consider access to transit to be very important wh en they arrive as freshmen. While at the University of Florida it is clear that students are using busses. Eighty two percent of alumni rode a bus at least one bus during thei r senior year. Walking and Biking also drew a substantial modal share. According to Tolley (1996) and Balsas (2002), alternative mode use while in school could have permanent impacts on transportation habits. There is some eviden ce that transportation habits have changed after graduation. Alternative modes have a smallbut statistically sign ificantincrease in modal share. A full 36% of alumni used tran sit after graduation, but most of those were infrequent users.

PAGE 98

87 Transit Attitudes and Knowledge On the whole alumni were far less willi ng to use busses than freshmen. Despite the slight increase in ridershi p between freshmen and alumni, busses lose their appeal to the broad population of alumni. This may signal a shift in the importance that alumni place on service characteristics af ter graduation. It may also si gnify that transit satisfies the transportation needs of only a small segment of the population. Previous experiments have shown that consumers have no preference for rail transit over bus transit. Howe ver in this study, alumni show a preference for rail transit over bus transit. This seems to confirm the stereotype that rail transit is the choice of white collar workers. Further, it may signal that some characteristics of rail transit are preferred. Free-fare transit was popular among fresh men, greatly increasing their willingness to ride transit. However this was not a signi ficant factor for alumni. This is further evidence that the life ci rcumstances of alumni are markedly different from freshmen. Free fare transit may be successful at build ing ridership among lower income people, but its benefits erode for those in higher income brackets. Alumni reported that the most importa nt factors about ridi ng public transit to, from, and around campus was the lack of a fa re and difficulty parking on campus. Bus frequency was the third most important factor Alumni preference for fare-free transit while in college did not transl ate into a preference for it after graduation. This likely signals the higher income status of recent graduates. A statistically higher number of alumni ha ve used public transit, but most of them only use it infrequently. This may signify that alumni have tried to us e public transit, but

PAGE 99

88 it is not meeting their daily tran sportation needs. It also sugge sts that the cost savings of public transit mean less to alumni. Alumni s how no preference for free-fare transit, while freshmen strongly prefer it. The literature s hows that people value their time at a rate equal to half of their hourly salary (Hess et al. 2003). College graduates have a far greater salary than college students, thus they place a higher dollar value on their transportation time. It is possible that cost is a concern fo r cash-strapped college students. Brown et al. (2002) argues that unlimited access transit substantially redu ces the cost of attending college, particularly if students do not ow n a car. Unlimited access also increases the viability of living on campus. These factor s help explain why cost is the number one factor for UF students choosing to ride the bus Parking difficulties on campus are almost as important as cost to UF students. This supports existing the ex isting literature on the impact of parking restriction on transit use. Convenience is also a factor for transit users. Convenience was the 4th most important factor for UF students choosing to ride the bus. An important component of convenience is the number of connections requi red. The literature shows that minimizing connections will attract more riders. The surv ey data backed up other researchers’ work, showing that both alumni and freshmen strong ly prefer direct bus routes. However, alumni were more likely to reply “maybe” to the question about direct busses. This may indicate that other service charac teristics are more important. Respondent’s knowledge about the transit system in their town was poor. The majority of people knew the location of the nearest bus stop, however in-depth knowledge of the transit system dropped o ff significantly. Apparently very few

PAGE 100

89 respondents had explored their options for pub lic transit. Only 29% of freshmen and 21% of alumni knew where the bus would take them. Alumni were less aware of their city’s transit system than freshmen. Appa rently exposure to public transit while in college did not prompt graduate s to investigate the transit op tions available to them after graduation. TDM and Public Policy Transportation is a major concern for respondents of the survey. Both alumni and freshmen feel strongly that tr affic congestion is a serious problem. Respondents believe that government can tackle the problem of traffic congestion both by building roads and providing public trans it. When it comes to funding pr iorities, respondents think that government should focus available funds money on road improvements. While they also value expenditure on transit, roads are their priority. TDM policies may be able to shift people from automobiles to transit, but alumni are less willing to use other alternative m odes such as walking or biking than are freshmen. Common bike/ped supportive TD M policies such as auto-free zones and traffic calming did not make those modes more attractive to alumni than freshmen. This may signal that alumni have concer ns over time and convenience. Self-Selection for Transit Use The phenomena of “self-selection” in volves people putting themselves in situations where transit use is more likel y. People may or may not consciously make these life choices with transit in mind. This survey s hows that some people choose their housing based on transportation factors. Ot her people will make housing choices with

PAGE 101

90 other motivations, but later find that tran sit best suits (or does not suit) their transportation needs. The city where a gradua te relocates, the type of housing he or she chooses, and other factors may make transit us e far more likely. For example, a graduate who moves into an apartment in New York C ity may be choosing that lifestyle because of the easy transit connections and the cultural benefits a dens e metropolitan city brings. Another alumnus may choose to live in a si ngle family house in suburban Jacksonville, because he or she values a larger home and an automobile-oriented transportation environment. The individual who moved to New York City is “self-selecting” himself as a more likely candidate for tran sit use. Two self-selection choices were identified where alumni transit use was more likely–non-Fl orida residency and living in a multifamily dwelling unit. Florida-based alumni used transit rarely, if at all. Zero Florida-based alumni used transit daily, weekly or monthly. Zero Flor ida-based alumni commuted to work by riding transit. These are strong indications that transit systems in Florida do not meet the transportation needs of choice transit riders such as college graduates. The percentage of out-of-state alumni who use tr ansit to commute is at or above the national average for transit use. Three percent of out-of-stat e alumni commute by bus, near the national average. Subway/Heavy Rail use is higher than the national average, at 9%. While Florida is a populous state, as ther e are few dense metropolitan areas. Most of Florida is low-density suburban style de velopment, a very poor land use pattern for transit use. A person who wishes to live in a major metropolitan area must leave Florida to do so. In general, major metropolitan areas also implement more comprehensive TDM plans, which level the playing field between tr ansit and automobiles. This explains the

PAGE 102

91 disparity between transit use among alumni currently living in Florida and those living elsewhere. It is also in agreement with exis ting literature that large cities with developed TDM programs have higher rates of transit use (Litman 1999) (Kuzmayak et al. 2003). Alumni who chose to live in multifamily settings also showed a tendency toward transit use. This agrees with existing resear ch that claims transit is more likely to be utilized if it can be comfor tably accessed on foot (Cervero 2001) and if the density of users within easy walking di stance is large (Crane 1999). The two items are highly correlated, as all respondents who used transit daily, w eekly or monthly were both Florida residents and multifamily dwellers.

PAGE 103

92 CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSIONS This section contains the conclusions findings and recommendations of the proceeding five chapters. This project ha s covered an in-depth discussion of the literature, background research in to the transit system at the University of Florida, and the results of two surveys of UF freshmen and alumni. Conclusions The TDM policies of the University of Florida and the enhanced transit services of the Regional Transit System combine to create a transit-friendly environment for students in the City of Gainesville. By employing student fees the city-university partnership was able to provide an array of service enhancements including unlimited access. Through distributive cost pricing, all stud ents are able to use bus transit at a very low individual cost. Stringent parking rest riction forces students to make value-based decisions about which mode to use for commuting to campus. Many choose to commute by bus, and ridership on RTS busses has risen nearly threefold since the unlimited access programÂ’s inception in 1998. It is clear that riding the bus is a popular mode choice for motorized commuting to campus. People will choose transit over other modes under the right circumstances, and those circumstances have been created on campus. Public transit must give users a time, cost, convenience or comfort advantag e over using automobiles. This study concludes low fares or an unlimited access syst em are the best way to attract riders.

PAGE 104

93 Freshmen indicated that they are more will ing to use free-fare transit, and alumni reporting in hindsight agree th at the fare-free system was the most powerful reason for their transit use while in school. However, fa re cost is not the onl y factor related to transit ridership. Park ing pricing and restric tion is nearly as important. Alumni report that difficulty parking was the second most important reason for choosing transit for commuting. Respondents ranked transit as a top choice when presented hypothetical situations where parking is restricted. Furthe r, if the University of Florida had moved to unlimited access and parking restriction wit hout improving frequencies, the impressive ridership gains would not have materialize d. By coupling high frequency, low cost transit with parking restrict ion and pricing, a community can create a moda l shift away from automobiles. The proper environment to build transit ri dership exists in Gainesville and at the University of Florida. While enrolled, st udents were exposed to high-quality transit while at the same time discouraged from usi ng their automobiles. This study concludes that prior automobile use does not make a pe rson a lifelong automobile user. Similarly, prior transit use does not ma ke a person a lifelong trans it user. Across a personÂ’s lifespan, a number of transportation envi ronments will be encountered. Each transportation environment is unique, and users will make value-based judgments about which mode to use for their trip s. If the transportation environment is altered to level the playing field between automobiles and public tr ansit, people will use transit regardless of their previous experience. Th e transportation environment at the University of Florida is a good model of accomplishing a moda l shift toward transit.

PAGE 105

94 After college, alumni find themselves in different transportation environments– some more transit-supportive, most heavily favoring the automobile. Alumni who chose to live outside of Florida—ha lf of whom moved to major cities—showed a much higher frequency of transit ridership. Given th at major cities have more advanced TDM programs, this study concludes that the im plementation of multiple TDM policies is critical to building transit ridership. Furt her, TDM policies in Florida are weak or nonexistent, and have therefore stunted the abil ity of public transit to gain modal share among choice riders within the State. TDM systems in major metropolitan areas outside of Florida are far more develope d, and therefore effective. This project did not find broad changes in the transit habits or attitudes after graduation from the University of Florida. However, certain subtle changes were identified. Alumni as a whole showed higher rates of public transit use, but most rode it infrequently. Most of the alumni who had ri dden transit after college lived outside of the State of Florida or in multifamily housing. Th ese individuals self-selected themselves for transit use. Temporary transi t use does not automatically translate into permanent transit use. This study found that alumni do not place as high a value on free-fare transit, whereas freshmen do place a high value on it. Transportation disadvantaged or lowincome users—such as college students—consid er the cost of public transit to be very important Choice users—such as college gr aduates—are far less concerned with the cost of riding public transit. College gradua tes apparently place a greater emphasis on the convenience and time advantages of their chos en transportation mode. Despite their slightly higher ridership rates, alumni report a reduced willingness to ride transit. This is

PAGE 106

95 likely because public transit in most commun ities—particularly systems in Florida—does not meet the necessary standards for choice riders such as college graduates. All respondents were une ducated about transit options and local agencies can do a better job of marketin g their service. It is essential to market the available services and benefits to users if an agency wants to attr act choice riders. Student s in Gainesville have ready access to bus schedules, maps and on line routing information. The lack of knowledge about the transit system in al umnus’ new city is likely due to poor dissemination of information. Lack of knowle dge or confusion over fares, routes and schedules is another roadblock to building transit ridership. People will use public transit under the right circumstances, including when parking is restricted and the tr ansit level of service is high. However the transit level of service found in most communities is not sufficient for residents to leave their automobiles behind. Further, transit-suppor tive TDM policies are not being enacted and enforced to entice people out of the cars. When bus frequencies are improved, the fare is reduced (or eliminated), parking is priced or restricted, and other amenities are added, riding transit becomes a realisti c or even attractive option. Experience with transit while in college does not automatically translate in to sustained, permanent use of transit after graduation. However, if communities around the nation, and particularly Florida, enacted the TDM policies that produced hi gh transit ridership at the University of Florida, they would experience a similar rise in public transit ri dership. Policy Recommendations The lessons learned from this project’s research reveal polic y changes that would benefit transit agencies and local communities. This section presents recommendations

PAGE 107

96 to three groups: 1) the Regiona l Transit System; 2) the City of Gainesville; and 3) the University of Florida. RTS Recommendations The Regional Transit System has capita lized on a nationwide trend of colleges and universities offering enhanced transit servi ce to and from campus as an alternative to automobile commuting. However, several se rvice and administrative changes could enhance the efficiency of the transit network, leading to even higher ridership totals and revenue sources. RTS should examine expanding unlimited access programs to other groups in the Gainesville area. The most important is Sa nta Fe Community College. Presently, state statutes do not allow community colleges to charge a Transportation Access Fee. The State of Florida Legislature should amend th e statutes covering community colleges to allow for the fee. As a temporary or perman ent alternative, Santa Fe Community College could divert funds earmarked for parking f acilities—or funds raised by decal sales and parking citations—to RTS. These funds coul d pay for unlimited access on all Gainesville routes instead of just the two r outes that intersect the campus. RTS should also target major employers in the area for inclusion in unlimited access programs. The city and county governments employ thousands of workers in Gainesville’s downtown. As discussed in earlier sections, frequencies on busses to downtown are poor. By partnering with the local governments, th e service quality on busses to downtown could be substantially improved. Employees at Alachua General Hospital and the Veterans Administration Ho spital could also benefit from unlimited access programs. Employers could offer unlimited access as a portion of their benefits

PAGE 108

97 package, or as a less expensive option, offer it to employees if they give up subsidized parking spaces. Depending on the location of Alachua County Public Schools, unlimited access or route-specific passes could be dist ributed to teachers and students. School bus routes that duplicate city bus routes could be eliminated, saving the school system much needed funds. Other major employers in the Gainesville area are not likely to benefit greatly from transit service because of their location on the urban fringe, far from existing bus routes. Examples of these employers are: North Florida Re gional Medical Center, Tachachale Mental Health F acility, Hunter Marine, and Nationwide Insurance. Over the long term, RTS should explore th e possibility of moving to a completely fare-free route system. Other small cities —particularly those w ith university support— have had success with a completely free-fare system. Since fare collection accounts for only 7% of RTS’ budget, the agency would onl y need a small subsidy to replace those funds, and may actually be losing money in th e exercise of collecting and accounting for cash fares. A fare-free system would result in the faster loading of busses, less confusion over fares, and ridership gains. Finally, RTS can continue the slow pr ocess of expanding the route network to accommodate trips that do not involve commuting to work or school. Students and other transit riders will continue to use autom obiles for shopping, and social/recreational trips if their destinations are not served or serv ed by routes that requ ire a connection. Route expansion must be done in close coordinati on with City planners to ensure acceptable levels of ridership on these rout es. Greater levels of City subsidy will be required, since the enabling legislation of th e Transportation Access Fee does not allow for student funds to be used on transportation that doe s not directly involve the campus.

PAGE 109

98 City of Gainesville Recommendations Despite the large numbers of students commuting to campus by bus, there are still substantial numbers of students who continue to own a car. Cars are used for trips that do not involve commuting to the University. While Gainesville is more bicyclist/pedestrian friendly than most cities, part s of Gainesville cannot be safe ly or pleasurably navigated by walking or biking. There ar e precious few mixed-use or dense developments that allow residents to walk to common destinatio ns such as grocery stores, pharmacies, dry cleaners and restaurants. Dense development makes transit a more vi able option as well, particularly if it is designed around transit stops. The City should promote more Transit Oriented Development (TOD) through modi fications to the zoning ordinance and comprehensive plan. The area north and eas t of campus, which is within walking distance, are likely zoned for densities far t oo low for their market potential. Allowing denser development there would entice more bi cycle and pedestrian commuters. Housing developments in southwest Gainesville—home to 9,000 students, many of whom commute by bus regularly—are generally not designed around transit stops. Smaller developments more focused around transit st ops would help increase bus ridership. Allowing mixed-use development could also re duce car trips for soci al/recreational and shopping purposes. New transit corridors c ould be fostered along west University Avenue and north 13th Street. The RTS-UF partnership has successfully built a foundation on which to build a citywide transit system. While the Univ ersity’s financial commitment has grown by large amounts each year, the City’s contribu tion has remained stagnant. The largest portion of the University’s contribution comes from the Transportation Access Fee,

PAGE 110

99 which by law cannot be used to enhance transit service that does not directly intersect the campus. For the transit system to grow be yond a means to commute to campus, the City will have to increase its proporti on of transit system subsidy. University of Florida Recommendations The University of Florida Administ ration and Student Government have succeeded in supplying students with a viable alternative to automobile commuting. However, several policy changes could be more effective in promoting transit ridership. One step in eliminating the need for st udents to own automobiles is the provision of transportation for intercity tr ips. Students need to be able to travel out of town for recreational, academic or family purposes. Ot her than automobiles, Gainesville has very limited options for traveling to and from ot her cities. The University could establish intercity busses, or partner with existing companies to pr ovide regular intercity trips during weekends and holidays. Alternatively, th e University could part ner with car rental agencies to allow students weekend rentals. Long term, the University could play a financial or legislative role in fosterin g statewide intercity rail service. While the Transportation Access Fee shoul d continue to be charged, continued growth in the fee is not sustainable. Th e Fee has more than doubled between 2001/02 and 03/04. Student subsidy of transit service has increased twenty-nine fold since 1999. While this increase indicates a strong demand fo r transit service, it substantially outpaces tuition increases and growth of similar f ees over the same period. Continued rapid growth of the Transportation Access Fee will have a noticeable effect on the total tuition bill charged to students. In a period of risi ng tuition costs, the University administration and Student Government should be mindful of the additional burden placed on students.

PAGE 111

100 The University should identify additional source s of funds to continue increasing the total payment to RTS. Potential sources of inco me include parking citations, funds diverted from planned parking lots, and in creased decal sales prices. The University could more stringently implement TDM policies on campus. The most important of which is the pricing of park ing. Parking decal pri ces at the University of Florida remain far below the prices charged at comparable universities. The price of a decal should be raised substantially, or parki ng fees should be charged on a daily basis. If UF raised the price of pa rking, it would accomplish three goals. The first goal is to increase the disincentive to drive to ca mpus. By making parking on campus more expensive, more people will be compelled to us e transit or live close enough to campus to walk or bike. The second goal is to lessen the daily demand on existing parking resources. By reducing the number of outstandi ng decals, the ratio of decals to spaces is reduced. This makes it easier for those who must park on campus to do so. The third goal is to raise additional funds to apply to alternative modes of transportation. The University already applies most of the funds raised by decal sales to transit service. Additional funds could be applied to tran sit routes, new intermodal service, or bike/pedestrian infrastructure. Recommendations for Future Research This project raises several future re search questions about campus transit, transportation demand management, transporta tion policy and the permanent impacts of temporary transit use. The following research areas would yield valuable information to the existing body of knowledge:

PAGE 112

101 A true time series survey would do a bett er job of framing questions about aftereffects of temporary transit use. If a researcher is able to wait 4-5 years for incoming freshmen to graduate, original respondents could answer the second survey. This survey methodology could al so be used to study other aspects of transportation behavior such as bicycle/ pedestrian behavior and route choice. Campus transit may have broad impact s on the housing c hoices of current students or alumni. Current students may strongly prefer to live near a bus line, and could be willing to pay additional mone y to rent apartments or houses near a bus line to campus. Alumni may prefer to live in a multifamily or dense setting, which closely replicates their housing and transportation options while in college. Alumni may also choose housing based on transportation access to work or social/recreational sites, regardless of the mode used for travel. An in-depth analysis of transportation ha bits while in college would give insight into how people behave when high-qualit y transit is available to them. Many students use busses to commute to cam pus, but do students utilize busses for social/recreational trips a nd shopping? Other interest ing questions could be explored about which modes student s choose for intercity trips. An analysis of late-night bus systems w ould be a valuable addition to the body of knowledge on transit. The Later Gator syst em has had excellent ridership, but has it succeeded in its goals of reducing drivi ng under the influence of alcohol? Has it alleviated parking shortages or otherw ise assisted bars and restaurants to flourish in downtown?

PAGE 113

102 One positive aspect of building bus ridership through unlimited access is an increasing share of state and federal assistance dollars for the transit agency. An analysis of how campus tr ansit providers have levera ged additional federal and state funding sources would be an in teresting contribu tion to the body of knowledge on bus transit finance.

PAGE 114

103 APPENDIX A INFORMED CONSENT PROTOCOL

PAGE 115

104 APPENDIX B INCOMING FRESHMEN SURVEY Transportation Habits and Attitudes Survey DemographicsQuestions in this section are intended to provide information about your background so your responses to later questions can be put into the proper context. 1) What is your current city and zip code? ___________________________________________ 2) Check One: _____ Male ______ Female 3) Check all that apply: _____ Caucasian _____ African American _____ Hispanic or Latino _____ Asian _____ Native American or Hawaiian _____ Other 4) Please check one that best describes your current primary residence: ____ Apartment (rented) ___ Condominium (owned) ____ Town House or Duplex ___ Single Family house in a Rural Setting ____ Single Family House in the Suburbs ____ Single Family House in the Central City ____ University Housing or Other 5) How many cars does your family own right now: _____ Past Transportation HabitsQuestions in this section are being asked so we can understand the existing transportation habits of you and your family 6) How many minutes did it take your parents to commute to work? ___ minutes 7) How did your parents get to work? ( check up to two) ___ Drive Alone ___ Carpool ___ Bus ___ Streetcar or Trolley ___ Subway ___ Taxi ___ Walk ___ Bike ___ Other 8) How did you get to school after age 16? ( check one) ___ Walk ___ School Bus ___ Public Transit ___ Bike ___ Drive Alone ___ Drive with Parents or Friends 9) How often did you ride public transit in your hometown? ( check one) ___ Daily ___ Weekly ____ Monthly ___ I have use transit, but infrequently ____ Never 10) How frequently did you walk from home to your destination? ( check one) ___ Daily ___ Weekly ___ Monthly ___ I have walked, but infrequently ____ Never

PAGE 116

105 11) How frequently did you bike from home to your destination? ( check one) ___ Daily ___ Weekly ___ Monthly ___ I have biked, but infrequently ____ Never 12) Think about the transit system in your hometown. Check all that apply: ____ I know where the nearest bus stop is ____ I know where the bus will take me ____ I know how much the bus will cost ____ I know the timetable of the bus ____ There is no transit in my city Transportation and Accommodation in CollegeQuestions in this section are being asked so we can understand how you expect to live and get around while enrolled during college. 13) Will you have a car during your freshman year? ___ Yes ___ No 14) Will you live on campus? ___ Yes ___ No 15) How do you expect to get to class? ( check all that apply ) ___ Drive Alone ___ Carpool ___ Walk ___ Bike ___ Ride City Bus ___ Campus Circulator Bus ___ Park and Ride 16) Indicate which type of accommodation you plan to live in during your freshman year. ___ Communal Living ( Dorm, Fraternity/Sorority, or Scholarship House) ___ 1 Bedroom Apartment ___ Apartment with Roommates ___ House ___ Live with Parents 17) Please indicate the three (3) most importa nt factors when choosing a place to live ___ Good Social Life ___ Distance to Campus ___ Cost ___ Luxury ___ Amenities (pool, exercise room) ___ Located on a Bus Line ___ Security 18) What is the maximum amount of time you would be willing to commute to school? ___ Less than 15 minutes ___ 15-30 Minutes ___ 30-45 Minutes ___ Longer than 45 Minutes Alternative ModesQuestions in this section are being asked to gauge your willingness to use alternative types of transportation. Also, they are designed to help us understand the circumstances under which you would choose to get around without your car. 19) What is the maximum distance you would be willing to walk to a transit stop? ( check one ) ___ mile ___ mile ___ mile ___ Longer ___ I would not walk any distance to a transit stop 20) What is the maximum distance you would be willing to walk to campus? ( check one ) ___ mile ___ mile ___ mile ___ Longer ___ I would not walk to campus

PAGE 117

106 21) What is the maximum distance you would be willing to bike to campus? ( check one ) ___ mile ___ 1 mile ___ 3 miles ___ Longer ___ I would not bike to campus Please indicate how willing you are to ride each type of transportation Very Unwilling Unwilling Neutral Willing Very Willing 22) Public Transit in General (bus and rail) 23) Bus Transit 24) Rail Transit 25) Carpool HypotheticalThe following questions present you with a hypothetical situation. They are intended to measure how you would deal with different transportation conditions. 26) You know there is no parking at your shopping destination 3 miles away. What will you do? (check one) ____ Park far away and walk ____ Walk the whole distance ____ Bike the whole distance ____ Take public transit ____ Drive to a more distant destination with similar goods and services ____ Not go ____ Take a taxi ____ Have someone else drive me 27) There is a transit line in your current city that runs directly from your home to work. Will you ride it? _____ Yes _____ No ____ Maybe 28) If transit was free of charge in your current city, in dicate your willingness to ride it on a scale from 1-5, 5 being very willing: ____

PAGE 118

107 Public PolicyOn the following table, indicate your leve l of agreement with th e statement. These questions are designed to measure your support or opposition to a number of public policy measure regarding transportation. Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree 29) It is important for government to provide public transit 30) It is important for government to provide more road improvements to deal with traffic 31) Improved transit service will help lower traffic congestion 32) Public Transit costs too much to ride 33) Transit takes me where I want to go 34) Transit is not convenient enough 35) Transit does not fit with my self-image 36) It is not safe to take public transit 37) I wish I did not have to spend so much time driving 38) Having auto-free zones makes me more willing to walk 39) Having sidewalks and bike paths makes me more inclined to walk and bike 40) I would be willing to vote for a political candidate who promises to spend more money on public transit 41) I wish transit was a better option in my city 42) I have a better opinion of people who ride rail transit than bus transit 43) It is critical to own a car 44) Traffic congestion is a serious problem 45) Having slower moving traffic makes me more willing to ride my bike Thank you for taking the time to comple te this survey. I hope you have an enjoyable time here at UF, and as always, GO GATORS!

PAGE 119

108 APPENDIX C ALUMNI SURVEY Transportation Habits and Attitudes Survey DemographicsQuestions in this section are intended to provide information about your background so your responses to later questions can be put into the proper context. 1) What is your current city and zip code? ___________________________________________ 2) Check One: _____ Male ______ Female 3) Check all that apply: _____ Caucasian _____ African American _____ Hispanic or Latino _____ Asian _____ Native American or Hawaiian _____ Other 4) Please check one that best describes your current primary residence: ____ Apartment (rented) ___ Condominium (owned) ____ Town House or Duplex ___ Single Family house in a Rural Setting ____ Single Family House in the Suburbs ____ Single Family House in the Central City ____ University Housing or Other 5) How many cars are there in your household (not including parentsÂ’ cars): _____ 6) Are you married? ____ Yes ____ No Transportation Habits Questions in this section are being asked so we can understand your current transportation habits. 7) How many minutes does it take you to commute to work each way? ____ minutes 8) How do you get to work? (check up to two) ____ Drive Alone ____ Carpool or Vanpool _____ Bus ____ Streetcar or Trolley ____ Subway _____ Taxi ____ Walk ____ Bike _____ Commuter Rail 9) How often have you ridden public transit since graduation? (check one) ____ Daily ____ Weekly ____ Monthly ____ I have used transit, but infrequently ____ Never 10) How frequently have you walked from home to your destination since graduation? (check one) ____ Daily ____ Weekly ____ Monthly ____ I have walked, but infrequently ____ Never 11) How frequently have you biked from home to your destination since graduation? (check one) ____ Daily ____ Weekly ____ Monthly ____ I have biked, but infrequently ____ Never

PAGE 120

109 12) Think about the transit system in your city. Check all that apply: ____ I know where the nearest bus stop is ____ I know where the bus will take me ____ I know how much the bus will cost ____ I know the timetable of the bus ____ There is no transit in my city ____ My city has some form of rail transit in addition to busses (streetcar, light rail or subway) 13) What is the maximum amount of time you would be willing to commute to work? ____ Less than 15 minutes ____ 15-30 minutes ____ 30-45 minutes ____ Longer 14) Please indicate the three (3) most important f actors when choosing your first accommodation after graduation: ____ Good Social Life ____ Distance to work ____ Cost ____ Luxury ____ Amenities (pool, exercise room) ____ Located on a Transit Route ____ Security Transportation and Accomodation in College Questions in this section are being asked so we can understand your exposure to walking, biking and transit while in Gainesville. 15) What type of accommodation di d you live in while enrolled at UF? (check all that apply) ____ Communal Living (Dorm, Fraternity/Sorority, or Scholarship House) ____ 1 Bedroom Apartment ____ Apartment with Roommates ____ House ____ Lived with Parents 16) Please indicate the three (3) mo st important factors when choosi ng a place to live while at UF: ____ Good Social Life ____ Distance to campus ____ Cost ____ Luxury ____ Amenities (pool, exercise room) ____ Located on a Bus Route ____ Security Please indicate how frequently you used eac h type of transportation while at UF: Type Daily Weekly Monthly Infrequently Never 17) Campus Circulator Bus 18) RTS Bus to Campus 19) Other RTS Bus 20) Later Gator 21) During your senior y ear, what was your primary method of getting to campus? ____ Walk ____ Bike ____ City Bus ____ Drove Alone ____ Carpool ____ Lived on campus 22) During your senior year, approximately how far did you live from the central part of campus? ____ 1/2 mile or less ____ to 1 mile ____ 1-3 miles ____ more than 3 miles 23) What features of bus transit in Gainesville make it a viable option? (Choose up to 2) ____ Busses are free of charge ____ Busses arrive frequently

PAGE 121

110 ____ Other riders are from a similar age/income bracket ____ Hours of operation ____ Parking is difficult to find ____ Traffic Congestion ____ Busses drop off on campus at a central location Alternative Modes Questions in this section are being asked to gauge your willingness to use alternative types of transportation. Also, they are designed to help us understand the circumstances under which you would choose to get around without your car. 24) What is the maximum distance you would be willing to walk to transit stop? (check one) ____ mile ____ mile ____ mile ____ Longer 25) What is the maximum distance you would be willing to walk to your destination? (check one) ____ mile ____ mile ____ mile ____ Longer 26) What is the maximum distance you would be willing to bike to your destination? (check one) ____ mile ____ 1 mile ____ 3 miles ____ Longer Please indicate how willing you are to use each type of transportation: Very Unwilling Unwilling Neutral Willing Very Willing 27) Public Transit in General (bus and rail) 28) Bus Transit 29) Rail Transit 30) Carpool 31) You know there is no parking at your shopping destination 3 miles away. What will you do? (check one) ____ Park far away and walk ____ Walk the whole distance ____ Bike the whole distance ____ Take public transit ____ Drive to a more distant destination with similar goods and services ____ Not go ____ Take a taxi ____ Have someone else drive me 32) There is a transit line in your current city that runs directly from your home to work. Will you ride it? _____ Yes _____ No ____ Maybe 33) If transit was free of charge in your current city, in dicate your willingness to ride it on a scale from 1-5, 5 being very willing: ____

PAGE 122

111 Public Policy On the following table, indicate your leve l of agreement with th e statement. These questions are designed to measure your support or opposition to a number of public policy measures regarding transportation. Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree 34) It is important for government to provide public transit 35) It is important for government to provide more road improvements to deal with traffic 36) Improved transit service will help lower traffic congestion 37) Public Transit costs too much to ride 38) Transit takes me where I want to go 39) Transit is not convenient enough 40) Transit does not fit with my self-image 41) It is not safe to take public transit 42) I wish I did not have to spend so much time driving 43) Having auto-free zones makes me more willing to walk 44) Having sidewalks and bike paths makes me more inclined to walk and bike 45) I would be willing to vote for a political candidate who promises to spend more money on public transit 46) I wish transit was a better option in my city 47) I have a better opinion of people who ride rail transit than bus transit 48) It is critical to own a car 49) Traffic congestion is a serious problem 50) Having slower moving traffic makes me more willing to ride my bike Thank you for taking the time to complete this survey. Good luck to you in the future and as always, GO GATORS!

PAGE 123

112 APPENDIX D FRESHMEN RAW SURVEY DATA The following pages summarize the raw data rendered by the freshman survey. The following data are recorded, as appropriate: frequencies, measures of central tendency, standard deviation, and range. Questions th at appear on both surveys have the same variable name in both Appendix D and E. Variable Name: Zipcode Question: What is your current Zipcode? Available Responses (code): Open Response Valid N = 122 Data Type = Nominal Mode (N) = 33067 (4) Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent 041051 .8.8.8 076491 .8.81.6 078691 .8.82.5 087421 .8.83.3 115541 .8.84.1 193411 .8.84.9 207551 .8.85.7 218111 .8.86.6 220301 .8.87.4 240181 .8.88.2 275101 .8.89.0 276141 .8.89.8 303421 .8.810.7 320651 .8.811.5 320681 .8.812.3 320731 .8.813.1 322101 .8.813.9 322331 .8.814.8 323172 1.61.616.4 323441 .8.817.2 325361 .8.818.0 325781 .8.818.9 326181 .8.819.7 326431 .8.820.5 326531 .8.821.3 327081 .8.822.1 327461 .8.823.0 327571 .8.823.8 327731 .8.824.6 327791 .8.825.4 328261 .8.826.2 329071 .8.827.0

PAGE 124

113 329261 .8.827.9 330161 .8.828.7 330181 .8.829.5 330251 .8.830.3 330271 .8.831.1 330601 .8.832.0 330621 .8.832.8 330674 3.33.336.1 331331 .8.836.9 331341 .8.837.7 331421 .8.838.5 331431 .8.839.3 331491 .8.840.2 331651 .8.841.0 333161 .8.841.8 333221 .8.842.6 333261 .8.843.4 333311 .8.844.3 334141 .8.845.1 334351 .8.845.9 336473 2.52.548.4 337021 .8.849.2 337042 1.61.650.8 337561 .8.851.6 337591 .8.852.5 337641 .8.853.3 337652 1.61.654.9 337761 .8.855.7 337811 .8.856.6 337861 .8.857.4 338131 .8.858.2 338251 .8.859.0 338731 .8.859.8 338811 .8.860.7 339051 .8.861.5 339172 1.61.663.1 339351 .8.863.9 339571 .8.864.8 341021 .8.865.6 341041 .8.866.4 341051 .8.867.2 341161 .8.868.0 342071 .8.868.9 342151 .8.869.7 342191 .8.870.5 342281 .8.871.3 342331 .8.872.1 342401 .8.873.0 342861 .8.873.8 344711 .8.874.6 346011 .8.875.4 346081 .8.876.2 346771 .8.877.0 346841 .8.877.9 346851 .8.878.7 346893 2.52.581.1

PAGE 125

114 346951 .8.882.0 347341 .8.882.8 347481 .8.883.6 349521 .8.884.4 349571 .8.885.2 349721 .8.886.1 349941 .8.886.9 350071 .8.887.7 370271 .8.888.5 370661 .8.889.3 380161 .8.890.2 467411 .8.891.0 481301 .8.891.8 600051 .8.892.6 604621 .8.893.4 605401 .8.894.3 618211 .8.895.1 630171 .8.895.9 704611 .8.896.7 717301 .8.897.5 774781 .8.898.4 800311 .8.899.2 805171 .8.8100.0 Total122 100.0100.0

PAGE 126

115 Variable Name: Sex Question: Check One Available Responses (code): Male (1) Female (2) Valid N = 122 Data Type = Nominal Mode (N) = 1 (37) Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Male37 30.330.330.3 Female85 69.769.7100.0 Total122 100.0100.0 Variable Name: Race Question: Check all that apply Available Responses (code): Caucasian (1) Af rican-American (2) Hispanic or Latino (3) Asian (4) Native American or Hawaiian (5) Other (6) Valid N = 122 Data type = Nominal Mode (N) = 1 (92) Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent white92 75.475.475.4 black7 5.75.781.1 hispanic15 12.312.393.4 asian7 5.75.799.2 native1 .8.8100.0 Othe r 0 0.00.0100.0 Total122 100.0100.0

PAGE 127

116 Variable Name: Housing Type Question: Check all that apply Available Responses (code): Ap artment (1) Condominium (2) Town House or Duplex (3) Single Family House in Rural Setting (4) Single Family House in Suburbs (5) Single Family House in Central City (6) University Housing or Other (7) Valid N = 121 Data type = Nominal Mode (N) = 5 (82) Frequency Table: FrequencyPercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Apartment43.33.33.3 Condo43.33.36.6 Town House43.33.39.9 SF_Rural2016.416.526.4 SF_Suburbs8267.267.894.2 SF_Central75.75.8100.0 Othe r 00.00.0100.0 Total12199.2100.0 Missing1.8 122100.0 Variable Name: Cars Question: How many cars does your family own right now? Available Responses (code): Open Response Valid N = 120 Data type = Scalar Mean = 3.21 Median = 3 Mode (N) = 3 (49) Std. Dev = 1.12 Range = 6 Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent 15 4.14.24.2 225 20.520.825.0 349 40.240.865.8 427 22.122.588.3 510 8.28.396.7 63 2.52.599.2 71 .8.8100.0 Total120 98.4100.0 Missing2 1.6 122 100.0

PAGE 128

117 Variable Name: Min_Work Question: How many minutes does it take your parents to get to work? Available Responses (code): Open Response Valid N = 119 Data type = Scalar Mean = 25.12 Median = 20 Mode (N) =30 (22) Std. Dev = 17.72 Range = 89 Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent 15 4.14.24.2 21 .8.85.0 31 .8.85.9 41 .8.86.7 55 4.14.210.9 61 .8.811.8 83 2.52.514.3 1011 9.09.223.5 1521 17.217.641.2 2015 12.312.653.8 256 4.95.058.8 3022 18.018.577.3 352 1.61.779.0 406 4.95.084.0 458 6.66.790.8 502 1.61.792.4 605 4.14.296.6 651 .8.897.5 802 1.61.799.2 901 .8.8100.0 Total119 97.5100.0 Missing3 2.5 122 100.0

PAGE 129

118 Variable Name: Means_Work1 and Means_Work2 Question: How do your parents get to work? (check up to two) Available Responses (code): Drive Alone (1) Carpool (2) Bus (3) Streetcar or Trolley (4) Subway (4) Taxi (5) Walk (6) Bike (7) Other (8) Valid N = 134 Data type = Nominal Mode (N) = 1 (119) Frequency Table: MEANS_1 Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Drive Alone 117 95.995.995.9 Walk1 .8.896.7 Othe r 4 3.33.3100.0 Total122 100.0100.0 MEANS_2 Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Drive Alone 2 1.616.716.7 Carpool3 2.525.041.7 Bus3 2.525.066.7 Subway1 .88.375.0 Bike3 2.525.0100.0 Total12 9.8100.0 Missing110 90.2 122 100.0

PAGE 130

119 Variable Name: Sch_Means Question: How did you get to school after age 16? Available Responses (code): Walk (1) School Bus (2) Public Transit (3) Bike (4) Drive Alone (5) Drive with parents or friends (6) Valid N = 121 Data type = Nominal Mode (N) = 5 (75) Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Walk4 3.33.33.3 School Bus 6 4.95.08.3 Public Transit 2 1.61.79.9 Drive Alone 75 61.562.071.9 Drive w/Others 34 27.928.1100.0 Total121 99.2100.0 Missing1 .8 122 100.0 Variable Name: Freq_Transit Question: How frequently did you ride public transit in your hometown? Available Responses (code): Da ily (1) Weekly (2) Monthly (3) Infrequently (5) Never (6) Valid N = 122 Data type = Nominal Mode (N) = 6 (100) Frequency Table: FrequencyPercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Daily21.61.61.6 Weekly21.61.63.3 Infrequently1814.814.818.0 Neve r 10082.082.0100.0 Total122100.0100.0

PAGE 131

120 Variable Name: Freq_Walk Question: How frequently did you walk from home to your desination? Available Responses (code): Da ily (1) Weekly (2) Monthly (3) Infrequently (5) Never (6) Valid N = 122 Data type = Nominal Mode (N) = 6 (67) Frequency Table: FrequencyPercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Daily43.33.33.3 Weekly32.52.55.7 Monthly43.33.39.0 Infrequently4436.136.145.1 Neve r 6754.954.9100.0 Total122100.0100.0 Variable Name: Freq_Bike Question: How frequently did you bike from home to your desination? Available Responses (code): Da ily (1) Weekly (2) Monthly (3) Infrequently (5) Never (6) Valid N = 122 Data type = Nominal Mode (N) = 6 (74) Frequency Table: FrequencyPercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Daily21.61.61.6 Monthly1.8.82.5 Infrequently4536.936.939.3 Neve r 7460.760.7100.0 Total122100.0100.0

PAGE 132

121 Variable Name: Stop Question: Check if you know the location of the nearest bus stop Available Responses (code): Check ed/Yes (1) Not Checked/No (2) Valid N = 122 Data type = Nominal Mode (N) = 1 (65) Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Not Checked 57 46.746.746.7 Checked65 53.353.3100.0 Total122 100.0100.0 Variable Name: Destination Question: Check if you know where the bus will take you Available Responses (code): Check ed/Yes (1) Not Checked/No (2) Valid N = 122 Data type = Nominal Mode (N) = 2 (95) Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Not Checked 95 77.977.977.9 Checked27 22.122.1100.0 Total122 100.0100.0 Variable Name: Cost Question: Check if you know how much the bus will cost Available Responses (code): Check ed/Yes (1) Not Checked/No (2) Valid N = 122 Data type = Nominal Mode (N) = 2 (101) Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Not Checked 101 82.882.882.8 Checked21 17.217.2100.0 Total122 100.0100.0

PAGE 133

122 Variable Name: Time Question: Check if you know the timetable of the bus Available Responses (code): Check ed/Yes (1) Not Checked/No (2) Valid N = 122 Data type = Nominal Mode (N) = 2 (118) Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Not Checked 118 96.796.796.7 Checked4 3.33.3100.0 Total122 100.0100.0 Variable Name: None Question: There is no transit in my city Available Responses (code): Check ed/Yes (1) Not Checked/No (2) Valid N = 122 Data type = Nominal Mode (N) = 2 (92) Frequency Table: FrequencyPercentValid Percent Cumulativ e Percent ValidNot Checked 9275.475.475.4 Checked 3024.624.6100.0 Total 122100.0100.0

PAGE 134

123 Variable Name: Fresh_Car Question: Will you have a car during you freshman year? Available Responses (code): Yes (1) No (2) Valid N = 122 Data type = Nominal Mode (N) = 1 (69) Frequency Table: FrequencyPercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent ValidNo 5343.443.443.4 Yes 6956.656.6100.0 Total 122100.0100.0 Variable Name: On_Campus Question: Will you live on campus? Available Responses (code): Yes (1) No (2) Valid N = 122 Data type = Nominal Mode (N) = 1 (98) Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent No24 19.719.719.7 Yes98 80.380.3100.0 Total122 100.0100.0

PAGE 135

124 Variable Name: To_Class, To_Class_A, To_Class_B Question: How will you get to class? (check all that apply) Available Responses (code): Drive Alone (1) Carpool (2) Walk (3) Bike (4) Ride City Bus (5) Campus Circulator Bus (6) Park and Ride (7) Valid N = 265 Data type = Nominal Mode (N) = 3 (108) Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Drive Alone 7 5.75.85.8 Carpool7 5.75.811.6 Walk91 74.675.286.8 Bike5 4.14.190.9 City Bus6 4.95.095.9 Campus Circulato r 5 4.14.1100.0 Total121 99.2100.0 Missing1 .8 122 100.0 TO_CLA_A Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Drive Alone 1 .81.11.1 Carpool2 1.62.23.3 Walk11 8.210.914.1 Bike48 36.948.963.0 City Bus7 5.77.670.7 Campus Circulato r 27 22.129.3100.0 Total96 75.4100.0 Missing26 24.6 122 100.0 TO_CLA_B Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Walk6 4.911.511.5 Bike4 3.37.719.2 City Bus9 7.417.336.5 Campus Circulato r 37 25.459.696.2 Park and Ride 2 1.63.8100.0 Total58 42.6100.0 Missing64 57.4 122 100.0

PAGE 136

125 Variable Name: UFLIVING, UFLIVI_A, UFLIVI_B Question: Indicate the three most important factors when choosing a place to live Available Responses (code): Good Social Li fe (1) Distance to Campus (2) Cost (3) Luxury (4) Amenities (5) Located on Bus Line (6) Security (7) Valid N = 359 Data type = Nominal Mode (N) = 2 (97) Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Social Life43 35.235.235.2 Distance55 45.145.180.3 Cost5 4.14.184.4 Luxury14 11.511.595.9 Amenities4 3.33.399.2 Bus Line1 .8.8100.0 Total122 100.0100.0 UFLIVI_A Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Social Life1 .8.8.8 Distance39 32.032.533.3 Cost51 41.842.575.8 Luxury7 5.75.881.7 Amenities14 11.511.793.3 Security8 6.66.7100.0 Total120 98.4100.0 Missing2 1.6 122 100.0 UFLIVI_B Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Distance3 2.52.62.6 Cost26 21.322.224.8 Luxury21 17.217.942.7 Amenities22 18.018.861.5 Bus Line11 9.09.470.9 Security34 27.929.1100.0 Total117 95.9100.0 Missing5 4.1 122 100.0

PAGE 137

126 Variable Name: MAX_TIME Question: Indicate the maximum amount of ti me you are willing to commute to campus Available Responses (code): Less than 15 minutes (1) 15 to 30 minutes (2) 30 to 45 minutes (3) Longer than 45 minutes (4) Valid N = 122 Data type = Nominal Mode (N) = 2 (71) Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent 0-1541 33.633.633.6 15-3071 58.258.291.8 30-459 7.47.499.2 Longe r 1 .8.8100.0 Total122 100.0100.0 Variable Name: Walk_Transit Question: What is the maximum distance you would be willing to walk to a transit stop? Available Responses (code): Less than mi le (1) mile (2) mile (3) Longer (4) I would not walk any distan ce to a transit stop (5) Valid N = 121 Data type = Nominal Mean = Median = Mode (N) = 2 (56) Std. Dev = Range = Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent 1/4 mile35 28.728.928.9 1/2 mile56 45.946.375.2 3/4 mile17 13.914.089.3 Longe r 9 7.47.496.7 Not Any4 3.33.3100.0 Total121 99.2100.0 Missing1 .8 122 100.0

PAGE 138

127 Variable Name: Walk_Campus Question: What is the maximum distance you would be willing to walk to campus? Available Responses (code): Less than mi le (1) mile (2) mile (3) Longer (4) I would not walk any distan ce to a transit stop (5) Valid N = 121 Data type = Nominal Mode (N) = 2 (42) Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent 1/4 Mile15 12.312.412.4 1/2 Mile42 34.434.747.1 3/4 Mile31 25.425.672.7 Longe r 28 23.023.195.9 Not Walk5 4.14.1100.0 Total121 99.2100.0 Missing1 .8 122 100.0 Variable Name: Bike_Campus Question: What is the maximum distance you would be willing to bike to campus? Available Responses (code): Less than mile (1) 1 mile (2) 3 miles (3) Longer (4) I would not bike any distance (5) Valid N = 119 Data type = Nominal Mode (N) = 2 (40) Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent 1/2 Mile9 7.47.67.6 1 Mile40 32.833.641.2 3 Miles35 28.729.470.6 Longe r 18 14.815.185.7 Not Bike17 13.914.3100.0 Total119 97.5100.0 Missing3 2.5 122 100.0

PAGE 139

128 Variable Name: Will_Transit Question: Indicate your willingness to ride public transit in general (bus and rail) Available Responses (code): Very Unwilling (1) Unwilling (2) Neutral (3) Willing (4) Very Willing (5) Valid N = 121 Data type = Scalar Mean = 3.73 Median = 4 Mode (N) = 4 (54) Std. Dev = 1.14 Range = 4 Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Very Unwilling 10 8.28.38.3 Unwilling6 4.95.013.2 Neutral21 17.217.430.6 Willing54 44.344.675.2 Very Willing 30 24.624.8100.0 Total121 99.2100.0 Missing1 .8 122 100.0 Variable Name: Will_Bus Question: Indicate your willingness to ride bus transit Available Responses (code): Very Unwilling (1) Unwilling (2) Neutral (3) Willing (4) Very Willing (5) Valid N = 121 Data type = Scalar Mean = 3.8 Median = 4 Mode (N) = 4 (53) Std. Dev = 1.18 Range = 4 Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Very Unwilling 11 9.09.19.1 Unwilling6 4.95.014.0 Neutral15 12.312.426.4 Willing53 43.443.870.2 Very Willing 36 29.529.8100.0 Total121 99.2100.0 Missing1 .8 122 100.0

PAGE 140

129 Variable Name: Will_Rail Question: Indicate your willingness to ride rail transit Available Responses (code): Very Unwilling (1) Unwilling (2) Neutral (3) Willing (4) Very Willing (5) Valid N = 120 Data type = Scalar Mean = 4.2 Median = 4 Mode (N) = 4 and 5 (34) Std. Dev = 1.23 Range = 4 Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Very Unwilling 10 8.28.38.3 Unwilling12 9.810.018.3 Neutral30 24.625.043.3 Willing34 27.928.371.7 Very Willing 34 27.928.3100.0 Total120 98.4100.0 Missing2 1.6 122 100.0 Variable Name: Will_Carpool Question: Indicate your willingness to carpool Available Responses (code): Very Unwilling (1) Unwilling (2) Neutral (3) Willing (4) Very Willing (5) Valid N = 121 Data type = Scalar Mean = 3.73 Median = 4 Mode (N) = 5 (34) Std. Dev = 1.24 Range = 4 Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulativ e Percent Very Unwilling 11 9.09.19.1 Unwilling7 5.75.814.9 Neutral26 21.321.536.4 Willing37 30.330.666.9 Very Willing 40 32.833.1100.0 Total121 99.2100.0 Missing1 .8 122 100.0

PAGE 141

130 Variable Name: No_Parking Question: You know there is no parking at your s hopping destination 3 miles away. What will you do? Available Responses (code): Park far away and walk (1) Walk the whole distance (2) Bike the whole distance (3) Take public transit (4) Drive to a more distant location (5) Not Go (6) Take a Taxi (7) Have someone else drop me off (8) Valid N = 121 Data type = Nominal Mode (N) = 4 (42) Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Park Fa r Away 26 21.321.521.5 Walk Whole Way 1 .8.822.3 Bike Whole Way 7 5.75.828.1 Public Transit 42 34.434.762.8 Drive Elsewhere 17 13.914.076.9 Not Go8 6.66.683.5 Taxi2 1.61.785.1 Catch a Ride 18 14.814.9100.0 Total121 99.2100.0 Missing1 .8 122 100.0 Variable Name: Direct_Transit Question: There is a direct transit line from your home to your work. Will you ride it? Available Responses (code): Yes (1) No (2) Maybe (3) Valid N = 121 Data type = Nominal Mode (N) = 1 (71) Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulativ e Percent No4 3.33.33.3 Yes71 58.258.762.0 Maybe46 37.738.0100.0 Total121 99.2100.0 Missing1 .8 122 100.0

PAGE 142

131 Variable Name: Free_Transit Question: If transit was free of charge in your current city, indicate on a scale from 1-5 your willingness to ride it, 5 being very willing Available Responses (code): Very Unwilling (1) Unwilling (2) Neutral (3) Willing (4) Very Willing (5) Valid N = 121 Data type = Scalar Mean = 4.13 Median = 4 Mode (N) = 5 (60) Std. Dev = 1.06 Range = 4 Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulativ e Percent 14 3.33.33.3 25 4.14.17.4 322 18.018.225.6 430 24.624.850.4 560 49.249.6100.0 Total121 99.2100.0 Missing1 .8 122 100.0 Variable Name: Transit Question: Level of Agreement: It is important for government to provide public transit Available Responses (code): Strongly Disagree (1) Disagree (2) Neutral (3) Agree (4) Strongly Disagree (5) Valid N = 121 Data type = Scalar Mean = 4.15 Median = 4 Mode (N) = 4 (57) Std. Dev = 0.86 Range = 4 Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Strongly Disagree 2 1.61.71.7 Disagree4 3.33.35.0 Neutral13 10.710.715.7 Agree57 46.747.162.8 Strongly Agree 45 36.937.2100.0 Total121 99.2100.0 Missing1 .8 122 100.0

PAGE 143

132 Variable Name: Roads Question: Level of Agreement: It is important for government to provide more road improvements to deal with traffic Available Responses (code): Strongly Disagree (1) Disagree (2) Neutral (3) Agree (4) Strongly Disagree (5) Valid N = 120 Data type = Scalar Mean = 4.37 Median = 4 Mode (N) = 4 (57) Std. Dev = 0.697 Range = 4 Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Strongly Disagree 1 .8.8.8 Disagree1 .8.81.7 Neutral6 4.95.06.7 Agree57 46.747.554.2 Strongly Agree 55 45.145.8100.0 Total120 98.4100.0 Missing2 1.6 122 100.0 Variable Name: Congestion Question: Level of Agreement: Improved transit service will help lower traffic congestion Available Responses (code): Strongly Disagree (1) Disagree (2) Neutral (3) Agree (4) Strongly Disagree (5) Valid N = 121 Data type = Scalar Mean = 3.96 Median = 4 Mode (N) = 4 (53) Std. Dev = 0.93 Range = 4 Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Strongly Disagree 2 1.61.71.7 Disagree7 5.75.87.4 Neutral22 18.018.225.6 Agree53 43.443.869.4 Strongly Agree 37 30.330.6100.0 Total121 99.2100.0 Missing1 .8 122 100.0

PAGE 144

133 Variable Name: Cost Question: Level of Agreement: Public transit costs too much to ride Available Responses (code): Strongly Disagree (1) Disagree (2) Neutral (3) Agree (4) Strongly Disagree (5) Valid N = 119 Data type = Scalar Mean = 2.56 Median = 3 Mode (N) = 3 (63) Std. Dev = 0.766 Range = 4 Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Strongly Disagree 9 7.47.67.6 Disagree42 34.435.342.9 Neutral63 51.652.995.8 Agree2 1.61.797.5 Strongly Agree 3 2.52.5100.0 Total119 97.5100.0 Missing3 2.5 122 100.0 Variable Name: Where Question: Level of Agreement: Transit takes me where I want to go Available Responses (code): Strongly Disagree (1) Disagree (2) Neutral (3) Agree (4) Strongly Disagree (5) Valid N = 121 Data type = Scalar Mean = 2.98 Median = 3 Mode (N) = 3 (73) Std. Dev = 0.85 Range = 3 Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Strongly Disagree 6 4.95.05.0 Disagree20 16.416.521.5 Neutral73 59.860.381.8 Agree15 12.312.494.2 Strongly Agree 7 5.75.8100.0 Total121 99.2100.0 Missing1 .8 122 100.0

PAGE 145

134 Variable Name: Convenient Question: Level of Agreement: Transit is not convenient enough Available Responses (code): Strongly Disagree (1) Disagree (2) Neutral (3) Agree (4) Strongly Disagree (5) Valid N = 120 Data type = Scalar Mean = 3.22 Median = 3 Mode (N) = 3 (55) Std. Dev = 0.91 Range = 4 Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Strongly Disagree 4 3.33.33.3 Disagree18 14.815.018.3 Neutral55 45.145.864.2 Agree34 27.928.392.5 Strongly Agree 9 7.47.5100.0 Total120 98.4100.0 Missed2 1.6 122 100.0 Variable Name: Image Question: Level of Agreement: Transit does not fit with my self image Available Responses (code): Strongly Disagree (1) Disagree (2) Neutral (3) Agree (4) Strongly Disagree (5) Valid N = 121 Data type = Scalar Mean = 2.54 Median = 3 Mode (N) = 3 (37) Std. Dev = 1.07 Range = 4 Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulativ e Percent Strongly Disagree 22 18.018.218.2 Disagree37 30.330.648.8 Neutral43 35.235.584.3 Agree13 10.710.795.0 Strongly Agree 6 4.95.0100.0 Total121 99.2100.0 Missing1 .8 122 100.0

PAGE 146

135 Variable Name: Safe Question: Level of Agreement: It is not safe to take public transit Available Responses (code): Strongly Disagree (1) Disagree (2) Neutral (3) Agree (4) Strongly Disagree (5) Valid N = 121 Data type = Scalar Mean = 2.54 Median = 2 Mode (N) = 2 (50) Std. Dev = 0.88 Range = 4 Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulativ e Percent Strongly Disagree 12 9.89.99.9 Disagree50 41.041.351.2 Neutral42 34.434.786.0 Agree16 13.113.299.2 Strongly Agree 1 .8.8100.0 Total121 99.2100.0 Missing1 .8 122 100.0 Variable Name: Time Question: Level of Agreement: I wish I did not have to spend so much time driving Available Responses (code): Strongly Disagree (1) Disagree (2) Neutral (3) Agree (4) Strongly Disagree (5) Valid N = 121 Data type = Scalar Mean = 3.16 Median = 3 Mode (N) = 4 (42) Std. Dev = 1.13 Range = 4 Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Strongly Disagree 9 7.47.47.4 Disagree29 23.824.031.4 Neutral29 23.824.055.4 Agree42 34.434.790.1 Strongly Agree 12 9.89.9100.0 Total121 99.2100.0 Missing1 .8 122 100.0

PAGE 147

136 Variable Name: Autowalk Question: Level of Agreement: Having auto-free zones makes me more willing to walk Available Responses (code): Strongly Disagree (1) Disagree (2) Neutral (3) Agree (4) Strongly Disagree (5) Valid N = 120 Data type = Scalar Mean = 3.48 Median = 4 Mode (N) = 4 (48) Std. Dev = 0.98 Range = 4 Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Strongly Disagree 4 3.33.33.3 Disagree14 11.511.715.0 Neutral38 31.131.746.7 Agree48 39.340.086.7 Strongly Agree 16 13.113.3100.0 Total120 98.4100.0 Missing2 1.6 122 100.0 Variable Name: Paths Question: Level of Agreement: Having sidewalks and bike paths makes me more willing to walk and bike Available Responses (code): Strongly Disagree (1) Disagree (2) Neutral (3) Agree (4) Strongly Disagree (5) Valid N = 121 Data type = Scalar Mean = 3.88 Median = 4 Mode (N) = 4 (66) Std. Dev = 0.90 Range = 4 Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Strongly Disagree 1 .8.8.8 Disagree12 9.89.910.7 Neutral15 12.312.423.1 Agree66 54.154.577.7 Strongly Agree 27 22.122.3100.0 Total121 99.2100.0 Missing1 .8 122 100.0

PAGE 148

137 Variable Name: Vote Question: Level of Agreement: I would be willing to vote for a political candidate who promises to spend more money on public transit Available Responses (code): Strongly Disagree (1) Disagree (2) Neutral (3) Agree (4) Strongly Disagree (5) Valid N = 121 Data type = Scalar Mean = 3.07 Median = 3 Mode (N) = 3 (59) Std. Dev = 0.79 Range = 4 Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Strongly Disagree 5 4.14.14.1 Disagree15 12.312.416.5 Neutral72 59.059.576.0 Agree25 20.520.796.7 Strongly Agree 4 3.33.3100.0 Total121 99.2100.0 System1 .8 122 100.0 Variable Name: Option Question: Level of Agreement: I wish transit was a better option in my city Available Responses (code): Strongly Disagree (1) Disagree (2) Neutral (3) Agree (4) Strongly Disagree (5) Valid N = 121 Data type = Scalar Mean = 3.50 Median = 4 Mode (N) = 3 (49) Std. Dev = 0.85 Range = 3 Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Disagree15 12.312.412.4 Neutral44 36.136.448.8 Agree49 40.240.589.3 Strongly Agree 13 10.710.7100.0 Total121 99.2100.0 Missing1 .8 122 100.0

PAGE 149

138 Variable Name: Opinion Question: Level of Agreement: I have a better opinion of people who ride rail transit than bus transit Available Responses (code): Strongly Disagree (1) Disagree (2) Neutral (3) Agree (4) Strongly Disagree (5) Valid N = 121 Data type = Scalar Mean = 2.68 Median = 3 Mode (N) = 3 (67) Std. Dev = 0.93 Range = 4 Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Strongly Disagree 18 14.814.914.9 Disagree21 17.217.432.2 Neutral67 54.955.487.6 Agree12 9.89.997.5 Strongly Agree 3 2.52.5100.0 Total121 99.2100.0 Missing1 .8 122 100.0 Variable Name: Critical Question: Level of Agreement: It is critical to own a car Available Responses (code): Strongly Disagree (1) Disagree (2) Neutral (3) Agree (4) Strongly Disagree (5) Valid N = 121 Data type = Scalar Mean = 3.84 Median = 4 Mode (N) = 4 (50) Std. Dev = 1.05 Range = 4 Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Strongly Disagree 2 1.61.71.7 Disagree16 13.113.214.9 Neutral17 13.914.028.9 Agree50 41.041.370.2 Strongly Agree 36 29.529.8100.0 Total121 99.2100.0 Missing1 .8 122 100.0

PAGE 150

139 Variable Name: Problem Question: Level of Agreement: Traffic congestion is a serious problem Available Responses (code): Strongly Disagree (1) Disagree (2) Neutral (3) Agree (4) Strongly Disagree (5) Valid N = 121 Data type = Scalar Mean = 4.02 Median = 4 Mode (N) = 4 (47) Std. Dev = 0.97 Range = 3 Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Disagree13 10.710.810.8 Neutral16 13.113.324.2 Agree47 38.539.263.3 Strongly Agree 44 36.136.7100.0 Total120 98.4100.0 Missing2 1.6 122 100.0 Variable Name: Slowbike Question: Level of Agreement: Traffic congestion is a serious problem Available Responses (code): Strongly Disagree (1) Disagree (2) Neutral (3) Agree (4) Strongly Disagree (5) Valid N = 121 Data type = Scalar Mean = 3.21 Median = 4 Mode (N) = 4 (51) Std. Dev = 1.01 Range = 4 Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Strongly Disagree 7 5.75.85.8 Disagree24 19.719.825.6 Neutral33 27.027.352.9 Agree51 41.842.195.0 Strongly Agree 6 4.95.0100.0 Total121 99.2100.0 Missing1 .8 122 100.0

PAGE 151

140 APPENDIX E ALUMNI RAW SURVEY DATA Variable Name: Zipcode Question: What is your current zipcode? Available Responses (code): Open Response Valid N = 154 Data type = Nominal Mode (N) = 32607 (4) Frequency Table: Zipcode Frequency PercentValid Percent 021711 .6.6 033011 .6.6 070061 .6.6 070441 .6.6 100161 .6.6 100251 .6.6 112111 .6.6 112131 .6.6 126011 .6.6 191281 .6.6 201911 .6.6 217011 .6.6 222021 .6.6 222031 .6.6 282161 .6.6 282261 .6.6 283111 .6.6 296151 .6.6 301441 .6.6 303081 .6.6 303181 .6.6 303192 1.31.3 303271 .6.6 303292 1.31.3 303451 .6.6 306061 .6.6 307011 .6.6 320041 .6.6 320551 .6.6 320731 .6.6 320801 .6.6 321591 .6.6 321681 .6.6 321741 .6.6 322052 1.31.3 322551 .6.6 322571 .6.6 323081 .6.6 323091 .6.6

PAGE 152

141 324591 .6.6 325032 1.31.3 325041 .6.6 325781 .6.6 325791 .6.6 326011 .6.6 326031 .6.6 326052 1.31.3 326062 1.31.3 326074 2.62.6 326083 1.91.9 326091 .6.6 326151 .6.6 326181 .6.6 326431 .6.6 327011 .6.6 327711 .6.6 327891 .6.6 328041 .6.6 328111 .6.6 328171 .6.6 328221 .6.6 328251 .6.6 328261 .6.6 328351 .6.6 330201 .6.6 330291 .6.6 330681 .6.6 331291 .6.6 331301 .6.6 331562 1.31.3 331691 .6.6 331831 .6.6 331861 .6.6 33301 .6.6 333091 .6.6 333142 1.31.3 333172 1.31.3 333191 .6.6 334101 .6.6 334111 .6.6 334281 .6.6 334331 .6.6 334411 .6.6 334441 .6.6 334861 .6.6 335491 .6.6 335691 .6.6 336071 .6.6 336091 .6.6 336161 .6.6 336242 1.31.3 336251 .6.6 336291 .6.6 336472 1.31.3 337011 .6.6

PAGE 153

142 337041 .6.6 337071 .6.6 337701 .6.6 338091 .6.6 338251 .6.6 341191 .6.6 342121 .6.6 342211 .6.6 342361 .6.6 344421 .6.6 344791 .6.6 346771 .6.6 347111 .6.6 347611 .6.6 347721 .6.6 349521 .6.6 349832 1.31.3 379191 .6.6 483221 .6.6 532111 .6.6 594011 .6.6 606131 .6.6 618211 .6.6 660491 .6.6 685031 .6.6 701231 .6.6 701301 .6.6 722021 .6.6 750011 .6.6 761061 .6.6 786641 .6.6 787311 .6.6 787481 .6.6 787521 .6.6 803011 .6.6 806011 .6.6 844051 .6.6 891031 .6.6 921031 .6.6 944011 .6.6 982701 .6.6 996151 .6.6 Total154 100.0100.0

PAGE 154

143 Variable Name: Sex Question: What is your gender? Available Responses (code): Male (1) Female (2) Valid N = 154 Data type = Nominal Mode (N) = 2 (102) Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Male52 33.833.833.8 Female102 66.266.2100.0 Total154 100.0100.0 Variable Name: Race Question: Check your ethnicity Available Responses (code): Caucasian (1) African-American (2) Hispanic or Latino (3) Asian (4) Native American or Hawaiian (5) Other (6) Valid N = 154 Data type = Nominal Mode (N) = 1 (121) Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent white121 78.678.678.6 black7 4.54.583.1 hispanic19 12.312.395.5 asian4 2.62.698.1 NR3 1.91.9100.0 Total154 100.0100.0

PAGE 155

144 Variable Name: Housing_Type Question: Check one that describes your primary residence Available Responses (code): Apartment (1) Condominium (2) Town House or Duplex (3) Single Family House in Rural Setting (4) Single Family House in Suburbs (5) Single Family House in Central City (6) University Housing or Other (7) Valid N = 152 Data type = Nominal Mode (N) = 1 (63) Frequency Table: FrequencyPercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Apartment6340.941.441.4 Condo127.87.949.3 Town House106.56.655.9 SF_Rural95.85.961.8 SF_Suburbs5133.133.695.4 SF_Central74.54.6100.0 Total15298.7100.0 Missing21.3 154100.0 Variable Name: Cars Question: How many cars are there in your household? Available Responses (code): Open Response Valid N = 154 Data type = Scalar Mean = 1.69 Median = 2 Mode (N) = 2 (72) Std. Dev = 0.795 Range = 5 Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent 03 1.91.91.9 163 40.940.942.9 272 46.846.889.6 311 7.17.196.8 44 2.62.699.4 51 .6.6100.0 Total154 100.0100.0

PAGE 156

145 Variable Name: Married Question: Are you married? Available Responses (code): Yes (1) No (2) Valid N = 154 Data type = Nominal Mean = Median = Mode (N) = 2 (119) Std. Dev = Range = Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Yes35 22.722.722.7 No119 77.377.3100.0 Total154 100.0100.0 Variable Name: Min_Work Question: How many minutes does it take you to commute to work each way? Available Responses (code): Open Response Valid N = 152 Data type = Scalar Mean = 22.81 Median = 20 Mode (N) = 15 (24) Std. Dev = 16.41 Range = 90 Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent 04 2.62.62.6 25 3.23.35.9 31 .6.76.6 57 4.54.611.2 61 .6.711.8 74 2.62.614.5 81 .6.715.1 1016 10.410.525.7 123 1.92.027.6 131 .6.728.3 1524 15.615.844.1 181 .6.744.7 2020 13.013.257.9 221 .6.758.6 231 .6.759.2 2513 8.48.667.8 3022 14.314.582.2 355 3.23.385.5 402 1.31.386.8 4510 6.56.693.4 502 1.31.394.7 605 3.23.398.0 751 .6.798.7 902 1.31.3100.0 Total152 98.7100.0 Missing2 1.3 154 100.0

PAGE 157

146 Variable Name: Means_Work Question: How do you get to work? (check up to two) Available Responses (code): Drive Alone (1) Carpool (2) Bus (3) Streetcar or Trolley (4) Subway (4) Taxi (5) Walk (6) Bike (7) Other (8) Valid N = 163 Data type = Nominal Mode (N) = 1 (136) Frequency Table: MEANS_1 Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Drive Alone 136 88.390.190.1 Carpool5 3.23.393.4 Bus1 .6.794.0 Subway3 1.92.096.0 Walk5 3.23.399.3 Othe r 1 .6.7100.0 Total151 98.1100.0 Missing3 1.9 154 100.0 MEANS_2 Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Carpool7 4.558.358.3 Bus1 .68.366.7 Subway2 1.316.783.3 Walk1 .68.391.7 Bike1 .68.3100.0 Total12 7.8100.0 Missing142 92.2 154 100.0 Variable Name: Freq_Transit Question: How often have you ridden public transit since graduation? Available Responses (code): Da ily (1) Weekly (2) Monthly (3) Infrequently (5) Never (6) Valid N = 153 Data type = Nominal Mode (N) = 6 (98 Frequency Table: FrequencyPercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Daily42.62.62.6 Weekly53.23.35.9 Monthly31.92.07.8 Infrequently4327.928.135.9 Neve r 9863.664.1100.0 Total15399.4100.0 Missing1.6 154100.0 Variable Name: Freq_Walk

PAGE 158

147 Question: Available Responses (code): Da ily (1) Weekly (2) Monthly (3) Infrequently (5) Never (6) Valid N = 154 Data type = Nominal Mode (N) = 6 (97) Frequency Table: FrequencyPercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Daily106.56.56.5 Weekly95.85.812.3 Monthly42.62.614.9 Infrequently3422.122.137.0 Neve r 9763.063.0100.0 Total154100.0100.0 Variable Name: Freq_Bike Question: Daily (1) Weekly (2) Monthly (3) Infrequently (5) Never (6) Available Responses (code): Valid N = 154 Data type = Nominal Mode (N) = 6 (128) Frequency Table: FrequencyPercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Weekly31.91.91.9 Monthly63.93.95.8 Infrequently1711.011.016.9 Neve r 12883.183.1100.0 Total154100.0100.0

PAGE 159

148 Variable Name: Stop Question: Check if you know wh ere the nearest bus stop is Available Responses (code): Check ed/Yes (1) Not Checked/No (2) Valid N = 154 Data type = Nominal Mode (N) = 1 (87) Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Not Checked 67 43.543.543.5 Checked87 56.556.5100.0 Total154 100.0100.0 Variable Name: Desination Question: Check if you know where the bus will take you Available Responses (code): Check ed/Yes (1) Not Checked/No (2) Valid N = 154 Data type = Nominal Mode (N) = 2 (124) Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Not Checked 124 80.580.580.5 Checked30 19.519.5100.0 Total154 100.0100.0 Variable Name: Cost Question: Check if you know how much the bus will cost Available Responses (code): Check ed/Yes (1) Not Checked/No (2) Valid N = 154 Data type = Nominal Mode (N) = 2 (133) Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Not Checked 133 86.486.486.4 Checked21 13.613.6100.0 Total154 100.0100.0

PAGE 160

149 Variable Name: Time Question: Check if you know the timetable of the bus Available Responses (code): Check ed/Yes (1) Not Checked/No (2) Valid N = 154 Data type = Nominal Mode (N) = 2 (148) Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Not Checked 148 96.196.196.1 Checked6 3.93.9100.0 Total154 100.0100.0 Variable Name: None Question: Check if there is no transit in your city Available Responses (code): Checked/No Tran sit (1) Not Checked/Transit Present(2) Valid N = 154 Data type = Nominal Mode (N) = 2 (142) Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Not Checked 142 92.292.292.2 Checked12 7.87.8100.0 Total154 100.0100.0 Variable Name: Rail_City Question: Check if there is some form of rail transit in your city Available Responses (code): Checked/ Rail Present(1) Not Checked/No Rail (2) Valid N = 154 Data type = Nominal Mode (N) = 2 (111) Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Not Checked 111 72.172.172.1 Checked43 27.927.9100.0 Total154 100.0100.0

PAGE 161

150 Variable Name: Max_Time Question: What is the maximum time you would be willing to commute to work? Available Responses (code): Less than 15 minutes (1) 15 to 30 minutes (2) 30 to 45 minutes (3) Longer than 45 minutes (4) Valid N = 154 Data type = Nominal Mode (N) = 3 (72) Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent 0-155 3.23.23.2 15-3062 40.340.343.5 30-4572 46.846.890.3 Longe r 15 9.79.7100.0 Total154 100.0100.0

PAGE 162

151 Variable Name: Factor_Living Question: Check the three most important factors yo u considered when choosi ng a place to live after graudation? Available Responses (code): Good Social Li fe (1) Distance to Campus (2) Cost (3) Luxury (4) Amenities (5) Located on Bus Line (6) Security (7) Valid N = 438 Data type = Nominal Mode (N) = 3 (133) Frequency Table: FACTOR_A FrequencyPercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent ValidSocial Life 4428.628.828.8 Distance 8555.255.684.3 Cost 1711.011.195.4 Luxury 31.92.097.4 Amenities 31.92.099.3 Security 1.6.7100.0 Total 15399.4100.0 MissingSystem 1.6 Total 154100.0 FACTOR_B FrequencyPercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent ValidSocial Life 21.31.41.4 Distance 2717.518.419.7 Cost 8957.860.580.3 Luxury 74.54.885.0 Amenities 1610.410.995.9 Security 63.94.1100.0 Total 14795.5100.0 MissingSystem 74.5 Total 154100.0 FACTOR_C FrequencyPercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent ValidCost 2717.519.619.6 Luxury 1912.313.833.3 Amenities 138.49.442.8 Bus Line 42.62.945.7 Security 7548.754.3100.0 Total 13889.6100.0 MissingSystem 1610.4 Total 154100.0

PAGE 163

152 Variable Name: Accommodation_UF Question: What type of accommodation did you live in while enrolled at UF? Available Responses (code): Communal Living (1) 1BR Apartment (2) Apartment w/Roommates (3) House (4) Live w/ Parents (5) Valid N = 229 Data type = Nominal Mode (N) = 3 (104) Frequency Table: ACCOMODA FrequencyPercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Communal Living 5535.735.735.7 1 BR Apartment 1912.312.348.1 A pt w/roomates 5636.436.484.4 House2214.314.398.7 Live with Parents 21.31.3100.0 Total154100.0100.0 ACCOMO_A FrequencyPercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Communal Living 21.32.72.7 1 BR Apartment 42.65.38.0 A pt w / Roomates 4831.264.072.0 House2013.026.798.7 Live with Parents 1.61.3100.0 Total7548.7100.0 Missing7951.3 154100.0

PAGE 164

153 Variable Name: UFLiving Question: ) Please indicate the three (3) most importa nt factors when choosing a place to live while at UF Available Responses (code): Good Social Li fe (1) Distance to Campus (2) Cost (3) Luxury (4) Amenities (5) Located on Bus Line (6) Security (7) Valid N = 452 Data type = Nominal Mode (N) = 3 (134) Frequency Table: UFLIVING Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Social Life45 29.229.229.2 Distance86 55.855.885.1 Cost12 7.87.892.9 Luxury5 3.23.296.1 Amenities5 3.23.299.4 Bus Line1 .6.6100.0 Total154 100.0100.0 UFLIVI_A Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Social Life1 .6.7.7 Distance30 19.519.720.4 Cost88 57.157.978.3 Luxury9 5.85.984.2 Amenities16 10.410.594.7 Security8 5.25.3100.0 Total152 98.7100.0 Missing2 1.3 154 100.0 UFLIVI_B Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Distance2 1.31.41.4 Cost34 22.123.324.7 Luxury14 9.19.634.2 Amenities24 15.616.450.7 Bus Line27 17.518.569.2 Security45 29.230.8100.0 Total146 94.8100.0 Missing8 5.2 154 100.0

PAGE 165

154 Variable Name: Campus_Circulator Question: How frequently did you use: Campus Circulator Busses Available Responses (code): Daily (1) W eekly (2) Monthly (3) Infrequently (4) Never (5) Valid N = 154 Data type = Nominal Mode (N) = 1 (49) Frequency Table: FrequencyPercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Daily4931.831.831.8 Weekly2314.914.946.8 Monthly74.54.551.3 Infrequently3422.122.173.4 Neve r 4126.626.6100.0 Total154100.0100.0 Variable Name: RTS_to_Campus Question: How frequently did you use: RTS busses from City to Campus Available Responses (code): Daily (1) W eekly (2) Monthly (3) Infrequently (4) Never (5) Valid N = 154 Data type = Nominal Mode (N) = 1 (56) Frequency Table: FrequencyPercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Daily5636.436.436.4 Weekly1912.312.348.7 Monthly63.93.952.6 Infrequently2717.517.570.1 Neve r 4629.929.9100.0 Total154100.0100.0

PAGE 166

155 Variable Name: RTS_City_to_City Question: How frequently did you use: Other RTS bus Available Responses (code): Daily (1) W eekly (2) Monthly (3) Infrequently (4) Never (5) Valid N = 154 Data type = Nominal Mode (N) = 5 (113) Frequency Table: FrequencyPercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Daily21.31.31.3 Weekly63.93.95.2 Monthly21.31.36.5 Infrequently3120.120.126.6 Neve r 11373.473.4100.0 Total154100.0100.0 Variable Name: Later_Gator Question: How frequently did you use: Later Gator busses Available Responses (code): Daily (1) W eekly (2) Monthly (3) Infrequently (4) Never (5) Valid N = 154 Data type = Nominal Mode (N) = 5 (81) Frequency Table: FrequencyPercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Weekly127.87.87.8 Monthly149.19.116.9 Infrequently4730.530.547.4 Neve r 8152.652.6100.0 Total154100.0100.0

PAGE 167

156 Variable Name: ToClass Question: During your senior year, what wa s your primary method of getting to campus? Available Responses (code): Walk (1) Bike (2) City Bus (3) Drive Alone (4) Carpool (5) Lived on Campus (6) Valid N = 154 Data type = Nominal Mode (N) = 4 (63) Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Walk24 15.615.615.6 Bike14 9.19.124.7 City Bus42 27.327.351.9 Drove Alone 63 40.940.992.9 Carpool7 4.54.597.4 Lived on Campus 4 2.62.6100.0 Total154 100.0100.0 Variable Name: Distance Question: During your senior year, how far did you live from campus? Available Responses (code): 0-1/2 Mile (1) to 1 Mile (2) 1-3 Miles (3) 3+ Miles (4) Valid N = 154 Data type = Nominal Mode (N) = 3 (60) Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent 0-1/2 Mile26 16.916.916.9 1/2 to 1 Mile 20 13.013.029.9 1-3 Miles60 39.039.068.8 3+ Miles48 31.231.2100.0 Total154 100.0100.0

PAGE 168

157 Variable Name: Question: What features of bus transit in Gainesville make it a viable option? (choose 2) Available Responses (code): Free of charge (1) Frequency (2) Other Riders (3) Hours of Operation (4) Parking is Diffic ult to Find (5) Traffic Congestion (6) Busses drop off at a central location (7) Valid N = 303 Data type = Nominal Mode (N) = 1 (107) Frequency Table: VIABLE_A Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Free o f Charge 107 69.570.470.4 Frequency21 13.613.884.2 Othe r riders 5 3.23.387.5 Hours2 1.31.388.8 Parking17 11.011.2100.0 Total152 98.7100.0 Missing2 1.3 154 100.0 VIABLE_B FrequencyPercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Frequency2314.915.215.2 Other riders53.23.318.5 Hours63.94.022.5 Parking7951.352.374.8 Traffic Congestion 74.54.679.5 Central Dropof f 3120.120.5100.0 Total15198.1100.0 Missing31.9 154100.0

PAGE 169

158 Variable Name: Walk_Transit Question: What is the maximum distance you would be willing to walk to transit stop? Available Responses (code): mile (1) mile (2) mile (3) Longer (4) I would not walk any distan ce to a transit stop (5) Valid N = 153 Data type = Nominal Mode (N) = 1 (84) Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent 1/4 mile84 54.554.954.9 1/2 mile49 31.832.086.9 3/4 mile15 9.79.896.7 Longe r 4 2.62.699.3 Not Any1 .6.7100.0 Total153 99.4100.0 Missing1 .6 154 100.0 Variable Name: Walk_Destination Question: What is the maximum distance you would be willing to walk to your destination? Available Responses (code): mile (1) mile (2) mile (3) Longer (4) I would not walk any distance to my destination(5) Valid N = 153 Data type = Nominal Mode (N) = 2 (50) Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent 1/4 Mile22 14.314.414.4 1/2 Mile50 32.532.747.1 3/4 Mile38 24.724.871.9 Longe r 43 27.928.1100.0 Total153 99.4100.0 Missing1 .6 154 100.0

PAGE 170

159 Variable Name: Bike_Destination Question: What is the maximum distance you would be willing to bike to your destination? Available Responses (code): mile (1) 1 mile (2) 3 miles (3) Longer (4) I would not bike any distance (5) Valid N = 153 Data type = Nominal Mode (N) = 3 (65) Frequency Table: FrequencyPercentValid Percent Cumulativ e Percent Valid1/2 Mile 159.79.89.8 1 Mile 3925.325.535.3 3 Miles 6542.242.577.8 Longe r 3120.120.398.0 Not Bike 31.92.0100.0 Total 15399.4100.0 MissingSystem 1.6 Total 154100.0 Variable Name: Will_Transit Question: Indicate how willing you are to use public transit in general (bus and rail) Available Responses (code): Very Unwilling (1) Unwilling (2) Neutral (3) Willing (4) Very Willing (5) Valid N = 153 Data type = Scalar Mean = 3.19 Median = 4 Mode (N) = 4 (59) Std. Dev = 1.26 Range = 4 Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Very Unwilling 23 14.915.015.0 Unwilling22 14.314.429.4 Neutral30 19.519.649.0 Willing59 38.338.687.6 Very Willing 19 12.312.4100.0 Total153 99.4100.0 Missing1 .6 154 100.0

PAGE 171

160 Variable Name: Will_Bus Question: Indicate how willing you are to use bus transit Available Responses (code): Very Unwilling (1) Unwilling (2) Neutral (3) Willing (4) Very Willing (5) Valid N = 153 Data type = Scalar Mean = 3.01 Median = 3 Mode (N) = 4 (45) Std. Dev = 1.23 Range = 4 Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Very Unwilling 25 16.216.316.3 Unwilling24 15.615.732.0 Neutral44 28.628.860.8 Willing45 29.229.490.2 Very Willing 15 9.79.8100.0 Total153 99.4100.0 Missing1 .6 154 100.0 Variable Name: Will_Rail Question: Indicate your willingness to ride rail transit Available Responses (code): Very Unwilling (1) Unwilling (2) Neutral (3) Willing (4) Very Willing (5) Valid N = 153 Data type = Scalar Mean = 3.41 Median = 4 Mode (N) = 4 (54) Std. Dev = 1.21 Range = 4 Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Very Unwilling 17 11.011.111.1 Unwilling14 9.19.220.3 Neutral40 26.026.146.4 Willing54 35.135.381.7 Very Willing 28 18.218.3100.0 Total153 99.4100.0 Missing1 .6 154 100.0

PAGE 172

161 Variable Name: Will_Carpool Question: Indicate your willingness to carpool Available Responses (code): Very Unwilling (1) Unwilling (2) Neutral (3) Willing (4) Very Willing (5) Valid N = 153 Data type = Scalar Mean = 3.49 Median = 4 Mode (N) = 4 (51) Std. Dev = 1.24 Range = 4 Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Very Unwilling 14 9.19.29.2 Unwilling20 13.013.122.2 Neutral32 20.820.943.1 Willing51 33.133.376.5 Very Willing 36 23.423.5100.0 Total153 99.4100.0 Missing1 .6 154 100.0 Variable Name: No_Parking Question: You know there is no parking at your destination 3 miles away. What will you do? Available Responses (code): Park far away and walk (1) Walk the whole distance (2) Bike the whole distance (3) Take public transit (4) Drive to a more distant location (5) Not Go (6) Take a Taxi (7) Have someone else drop me off (8) Valid N = 153 Data type = Nominal Mode (N) = 5 (50) Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Park Fa r Away 39 25.325.525.5 Walk Whole Way 4 2.62.628.1 Bike Whole Way 2 1.31.329.4 Public Transit 24 15.615.745.1 Drive Elsewhere 50 32.532.777.8 Not Go23 14.915.092.8 Taxi1 .6.793.5 Catch a Ride 10 6.56.5100.0 Total153 99.4100.0 Missing1 .6 154 100.0

PAGE 173

162 Variable Name: Direct Transit Question: There is a transit line in your current city that runs directly from your home to work. Will you ride it? Available Responses (code): Yes (1) No (2) Maybe (3) Valid N = 153 Data type = Nominal Mode (N) = 3 (69) Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent No19 12.312.412.4 Yes65 42.242.554.9 Maybe69 44.845.1100.0 Total153 99.4100.0 Missing1 .6 154 100.0 Variable Name: Free_Transit Question: If transit was free of charge in your curre nt city, indicate your willi ngness to ride it on a scale from 1-5, 5 being very willing Available Responses (code): Very Unwilling (1) Unwilling (2) Neutral (3) Willing (4) Very Willing (5) Valid N = 151 Data type = Scalar Mean = 3.19 Median = 3 Mode (N) = 3 (46) Std. Dev = 1.34 Range = 4 Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent 122 14.314.614.6 223 14.915.229.8 346 29.930.560.3 425 16.216.676.8 535 22.723.2100.0 Total151 98.1100.0 Missing3 1.9 154 100.0

PAGE 174

163 Variable Name: Transit Question: It is important for government to provide public transit Available Responses (code): Strongly Disagree (1) Disagree (2) Neutral (3) Agree (4) Strongly Agree (5) Valid N = 153 Data type = Scalar Mean = 4.24 Median = 4 Mode (N) = 4 (63) Std. Dev = 0.78 Range = 3 Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Disagree6 3.93.93.9 Neutral14 9.19.213.1 Agree70 45.545.858.8 Strongly Agree 63 40.941.2100.0 Total153 99.4100.0 Missing1 .6 154 100.0 Variable Name: Roads Question: It is important for government to provide more road improvements to deal with traffic Available Responses (code): Strongly Disagree (1) Disagree (2) Neutral (3) Agree (4) Strongly Agree (5) Valid N = 153 Data type = Scalar Mean = 4.51 Median = 5 Mode (N) = 5 (86) Std. Dev = 0.62 Range = 3 Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Disagree2 1.31.31.3 Neutral4 2.62.63.9 Agree61 39.639.943.8 Strongly Agree 86 55.856.2100.0 Total153 99.4100.0 Missing1 .6 154 100.0

PAGE 175

164 Variable Name: Congestion Question: Improved transit service will help lower traffic congestion Available Responses (code): Strongly Disagree (1) Disagree (2) Neutral (3) Agree (4) Strongly Agree (5) Valid N = 153 Data type = Scalar Mean = 4.01 Median = 4 Mode (N) = 4 (67) Std. Dev = 0.95 Range = 4 Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Strongly Disagree 2 1.31.31.3 Disagree12 7.87.89.2 Neutral20 13.013.122.2 Agree67 43.543.866.0 Strongly Agree 52 33.834.0100.0 Total153 99.4100.0 Missing1 .6 154 100.0 Variable Name: Cost Question: Public Transit costs too much to ride Available Responses (code): Strongly Disagree (1) Disagree (2) Neutral (3) Agree (4) Strongly Agree (5) Valid N = 152 Data type = Scalar Mean = 2.68 Median = 3 Mode (N) = 3 (75) Std. Dev = 0.90 Range = 4 Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Strongly Disagree 17 11.011.211.2 Disagree39 25.325.736.8 Neutral75 48.749.386.2 Agree18 11.711.898.0 Strongly Agree 3 1.92.0100.0 Total152 98.7100.0 Missing2 1.3 154 100.0

PAGE 176

165 Variable Name: Where Question: Transit takes me where I want to go Available Responses (code): Strongly Disagree (1) Disagree (2) Neutral (3) Agree (4) Strongly Agree (5) Valid N = 152 Data type = Scalar Mean = 3.18 Median = 3 Mode (N) = 3 (71) Std. Dev = 0.94 Range = 4 Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulativ e Percent Strongly Disagree 7 4.54.64.6 Disagree22 14.314.519.1 Neutral71 46.146.765.8 Agree40 26.026.392.1 Strongly Agree 12 7.87.9100.0 Total152 98.7100.0 Missing2 1.3 154 100.0 Variable Name: Convenience Question: Transit is not convenient enough Available Responses (code): Strongly Disagree (1) Disagree (2) Neutral (3) Agree (4) Strongly Agree (5) Valid N = 152 Data type = Scalar Mean = 3.42 Median = 4 Mode (N) = 4 (57) Std. Dev = 1.05 Range = 4 Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Strongly Disagree 5 3.23.33.3 Disagree27 17.517.821.1 Neutral41 26.627.048.0 Agree57 37.037.585.5 Strongly Agree 22 14.314.5100.0 Total152 98.7100.0 Missing2 1.3 154 100.0

PAGE 177

166 Variable Name: Image Question: Transit does not fit with my self-image Available Responses (code): Strongly Disagree (1) Disagree (2) Neutral (3) Agree (4) Strongly Agree (5) Valid N = 151 Data type = Scalar Mean = 2.78 Median = 3 Mode (N) = 2 and 3 (46) Std. Dev = 1.15 Range = 4 Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Strongly Disagree 20 13.013.213.2 Disagree46 29.930.543.7 Neutral46 29.930.574.2 Agree25 16.216.690.7 Strongly Agree 14 9.19.3100.0 Total151 98.1100.0 Missing3 1.9 154 100.0 Variable Name: Safe Question: It is not safe to take public transit Available Responses (code): Strongly Di sagree (1) Disagree (2) Neutral (3) Agree (4) Strongly Agree (5) Valid N = 152 Data type = Scalar Mean = 2.79 Median = 3 Mode (N) = 2 (59) Std. Dev = 0.99 Range = 4 Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Strongly Disagree 9 5.85.95.9 Disagree59 38.338.844.7 Neutral46 29.930.375.0 Agree31 20.120.495.4 Strongly Agree 7 4.54.6100.0 Total152 98.7100.0 Missing2 1.3 154 100.0

PAGE 178

167 Variable Name: Time Question: I wish I did not have to spend so much time driving Available Responses (code): Strongly Disagree (1) Disagree (2) Neutral (3) Agree (4) Strongly Agree (5) Valid N = 152 Data type = Scalar Mean = 3.34 Median = 4 Mode (N) = 4 (50) Std. Dev = 1.21 Range = 4 Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Strongly Disagree 11 7.17.27.2 Disagree32 20.821.128.3 Neutral31 20.120.448.7 Agree50 32.532.981.6 Strongly Agree 28 18.218.4100.0 Total152 98.7100.0 Missing2 1.3 154 100.0 Variable Name: Autowalk Question: Having auto-free zones makes me more willing to walk Available Responses (code): Strongly Di sagree (1) Disagree (2) Neutral (3) Agree (4) Strongly Agree (5) Valid N = 151 Data type = Scalar Mean = 3.15 Median = 3 Mode (N) = 3 (49) Std. Dev = 1.08 Range = 4 Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Strongly Disagree 11 7.17.37.3 Disagree30 19.519.927.2 Neutral49 31.832.559.6 Agree47 30.531.190.7 Strongly Agree 14 9.19.3100.0 Total151 98.1100.0 Missing3 1.9 154 100.0

PAGE 179

168 Variable Name: Paths Question: Having sidewalks and bike paths makes me more inclined to walk and bike Available Responses (code): Strongly Disagree (1) Disagree (2) Neutral (3) Agree (4) Strongly Agree (5) Valid N = 153 Data type = Scalar Mean = 3.61 Median = 4 Mode (N) = 4 (73) Std. Dev = 0.98 Range = 4 Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Strongly Disagree 2 1.31.31.3 Disagree24 15.615.717.0 Neutral30 19.519.636.6 Agree73 47.447.784.3 Strongly Agree 24 15.615.7100.0 Total153 99.4100.0 Missing1 .6 154 100.0 Variable Name: Vote Question: I would be willing to vote for a political candidate who promises to spend more money on public transit Available Responses (code): Strongly Di sagree (1) Disagree (2) Neutral (3) Agree (4) Strongly Agree (5) Valid N = 153 Data type = Scalar Mean = 3.05 Median = 3 Mode (N) = 3 (77) Std. Dev = 0.94 Range = 4 Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Strongly Disagree 10 6.56.56.5 Disagree24 15.615.722.2 Neutral77 50.050.372.5 Agree32 20.820.993.5 Strongly Agree 10 6.56.5100.0 Total153 99.4100.0 Missing1 .6 154 100.0

PAGE 180

169 Variable Name: Option Question: I wish transit was a better option in my city Available Responses (code): Strongly Disagree (1) Disagree (2) Neutral (3) Agree (4) Strongly Agree (5) Valid N = 153 Data type = Scalar Mean = 3.36 Median = 3 Mode (N) = 3 (55) Std. Dev = 0.96 Range = 4 Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Strongly Disagree 3 1.92.02.0 Disagree26 16.917.019.0 Neutral55 35.735.954.9 Agree51 33.133.388.2 Strongly Agree 18 11.711.8100.0 Total153 99.4100.0 Missing1 .6 154 100.0 Variable Name: Opinion Question: I have a better opinion of people who ride rail transit than bus transit Available Responses (code): Strongly Disagree (1) Disagree (2) Neutral (3) Agree (4) Strongly Agree (5) Valid N = 153 Data type = Scalar Mean = 2.84 Median = 3 Mode (N) = 3 (74) Std. Dev = 0.91 Range = 4 Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Strongly Disagree 14 9.19.29.2 Disagree32 20.820.930.1 Neutral74 48.148.478.4 Agree30 19.519.698.0 Strongly Agree 3 1.92.0100.0 Total153 99.4100.0 Missing1 .6 154 100.0

PAGE 181

170 Variable Name: Critical Question: It is critical to own a car Available Responses (code): Strongly Disagree (1) Disagree (2) Neutral (3) Agree (4) Strongly Agree (5) Valid N = 153 Data type = Scalar Mean = 4.25 Median = 5 Mode (N) = 5 (82) Std. Dev = 1.00 Range = 4 Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Strongly Disagree 1 .6.7.7 Disagree15 9.79.810.5 Neutral10 6.56.517.0 Agree45 29.229.446.4 Strongly Agree 82 53.253.6100.0 Total153 99.4100.0 Missing1 .6 154 100.0 Variable Name: Problem Question: Traffic congestion is a serious problem Available Responses (code): Strongly Disagree (1) Disagree (2) Neutral (3) Agree (4) Strongly Agree (5) Valid N = 149 Data type = Scalar Mean = 4.27 Median = 4 Mode (N) = 5 (69) Std. Dev = 0.86 Range = 4 Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Strongly Disagree 1 .6.7.7 Disagree8 5.25.46.0 Neutral10 6.56.712.8 Agree61 39.640.953.7 Strongly Agree 69 44.846.3100.0 Total149 96.8100.0 Missing5 3.2 154 100.0

PAGE 182

171 Variable Name: Slowbike Question: Having slower moving traffic ma kes me more willing to ride my bike Available Responses (code): Strongly Disagree (1) Disagree (2) Neutral (3) Agree (4) Strongly Agree (5) Valid N = 152 Data type = Scalar Mean = 2.64 Median = 2 Mode (N) = 2 (65) Std. Dev = 1.03 Range = 4 Frequency Table: Frequency PercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent Strongly Disagree 15 9.79.99.9 Disagree65 42.242.852.6 Neutral39 25.325.778.3 Agree26 16.917.195.4 Strongly Agree 7 4.54.6100.0 Total152 98.7100.0 Missing2 1.3 154 100.0

PAGE 183

172 REFERENCES Abdel-Aty, M., Kitamura, R., and Jovanis, P. (1996) Investigating effect of advanced traveler information on commuter tendency to use transit. Transportation Research Record, Issue 1550: 65-72. American Public Transit Association. 2003. Public Transportation Fact Book. Washington, DC: The American Public Transportation Association. Selected portions available from: www.apta.com/research/stats/ridership Accessed 06/10/2004 Allen, J., (1991) Revenue and ridershi p impacts of DART service and fare adjustments. APTA Western Educat ion and Training Conference 1991: Austin, TX Baites, M., (2003) Statistical estimation of the importance pl aced on specific elements of bus rapid transit by customer s. Paper presented to the 82nd Annual Conference of the Transportation Re search Board: Washington, DC. Balsas, Carlos J. (2002). Su stainable transportation pla nning on college campuses. Transport Policy 10: 35-49. Ben-Akiva, M., and Morikawa, T. (2002) Co mparing ridership attraction of rail and bus. Transport Policy 9: 107-116. Beyard, M., Bond, A., and Pawluciewicz, M. Ten principles for rebuilding neighborhood retail. Washington, DC: ULIthe Urban Land Institute. 2003. Brown, J., Hess, D., and Shoup, D. (2001) Unlimited access. Transportation vol. 28, 3: 233-267. Brown, J. Hess, D., and Shoup, D. (2003) Fare-free transit at universities. Journal of Planning Education and Research 23: 60-82 Cambridge Systematics (2003) Characteristics of state funding for pub lic transportation2002. Research Results Digest, No. 60. (July 2003) Washington, DC: Transit Cooperative Research Program. Census 2000. United States Cens us Bureau. Available from http://www.census.gov Accessed 8/25/2004.

PAGE 184

173 Cervero, R. (1990). Transit pricing re search: A review and synthesis. Transportation vol. 17, 2: 117-139. Cervero, R. (2001) Walk-and-ride: factors infl uencing pedestrian access to transit. Journal of Public Transportation vol. 3, 4: 10-19. Cleland, F., and Cooper, T. TDM in Eur ope: A Synthesis of Research Findings. National Center for Transit Research. 2003. Available from www.nctr.usf.edu Accessed 6/14/2004. Cleland, F., and Thompson, B. (2000) 1999 Transit Customer Satisfaction Index. National Center for Transit Research. Available from www.nctr.usf.edu Accessed 6/23/2004 Conklin, J., Halvorsen, R., Fleishman, D., and Oram, R. (2001) Employer-based annual transit pass programs: A survey of cu rrent practice in the public transit industry. Paper presented to the 81st Annual Convention of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC. Crane, R. (1999) The impacts of urban form on travel: A critical review. Lincoln Institute of Land Policy Working Pa per, Product Code WP99RC1. Cambridge, MA. Dixon, Linda. Master Planner, University of Florida Office of Campus Facilities Planning. Gainesville, FL (2004, March 10) Personal Interview. Downs, A. (1992) Stuck in traffic: coping with peak-hour traffic congestion. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution. Evans IV, J. (2004) Transit cooperative rese arch program report #95Chapter 9 Transit scheduling and frequency. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board. Available from: www.trb.org Accessed 5/29/2004. Evans, J. Perincherry, V., and Douglas III, G. (1997) Transit friendliness factor: approach to quantifying transit access environment in transportation planning models. Transportation Research Record 1604: 32-39. Ferguson, E. (1990) Transportation demand management: Planning, development and implementation. Journal of the Americ an Planning Association Vol. 56, 4: 5274. Fujii, S., and Kitamura, R. (2002) What does a one month transit pass do to habitual drivers? An experimental analysis of habit and attitude change. Paper presented to the 81st Annual Conference of the Tran sportation Research Board: Washington, DC.

PAGE 185

174 Gantvoort, J. (1984) Effects upon modal choi ce of a parking rest raint measure. Traffic Engineering and Control, Vol. 25, No. 4. Gutkowski, R., and Daggett, J. (2003) Univ ersity transportation survey: Transportation in university communities. Paper presented to the 82nd Annual Conference of the Transportation Research Board. Hardin, J. (2001) Assessment of operational barriers and impediments to transit use: Transit information and scheduling for major activity centers. Tampa, FL: Center for Urban Transporta tion Research. Available from: http://www.cutr.usf.edu Accessed 7/20/2004 Hess, D., Brown, J., and Shoup, D. (2003) Waiting for the bus. Paper presented to the 82rd Annual Conference of the Tran sportation Research Board. Hensher, D., and Button, K. Handbook of Transport Modeling Vol. 1. Oxford: Pergamon. 2000. Hodge, D., Orrell III, J. and Strauss, T. (1994). Fare-f ree policy: Costs, impacts on transit service and attainment of tr ansit system goals. Washington State Department of Transportation. Report Number WA-RD 277.1. Hodgson, F., Tight, M., 1999. Raising awareness of transport issues : the potential to bring about behavioral change?. International Jour nal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology 6, 281-292. Johnson, A. (2003) Bus transit and land use: Illuminating the interaction. Journal of Public Transportation vol. 6, no. 3. Keniry, J., 1995. Ecodemiacampus environm ental stewardship at the turn of the 21st century. National Wildlife Federation, Washington, DC. K.T. Analytics, Inc., TDM status repor t: parking supply and management. Prepared for the Federal Transit Admi nistration, Washington, DC. 1995. Kuzmayak, J.R., Wienberger, R., Pratt, R., and Levinson, H. (2003) Transit cooperative research program report #95Chapte r 18 Parking management and supply. Washington, DC: Transporta tion Research Board. Levin, J. (2000). Distributive cost pricing: An effective strategy toward building transit ridership quickly among targeted markets. APTA 2000 Bus & Paratransit Transit Conference Proceedings Paper: Washington, DC. Li, Y. (2003). Evaluating the urban co mmute experience: A time perception approach. Journal of Public Transportation Vol. 6, No. 4.

PAGE 186

175 Litman, T. (1999). Reinventing transportation: Exploring the paradigm shift needed to reconcile sustainability a nd transportation objectives. Transportation Research Record 1670. Transportation Research Board Litman, T. (2003). The online TDM encyclopedia: Mobility management information gateway. Transport Policy Volume 10 Issue 3. Loukaitou-Sideris, A., and Liggett, R. (2000). On bus-stop crime. Access No. 16, Spring. Mierzejewski, E., Ball, W. ( 1990). New findings on factors related to transit use. Institute of Transportation Engineers Journal February: 34-39. Miller, Bob. Vice President for Finance a nd Administration, Univ ersity of Florida. Gainesville, FL (2004, July 17) Personal Interview. Miller, J.H. (2001). Transit cooperative rese arch program synthesis #39-Transportation on college and university campuses. Wa shington, DC: Transportation Research Board. Available from www.trb.org Accessed 5/10/2004. Moreau, A., (1992) Public transport wa iting times as experienced by customers: Marketing research involv ing the Grenoble system. Public Transport Internationa. vol. 41, no. 3. Morrall, J., and Bolger, D. (1996) The rela tionship between downtown parking supply and transit use. ITE Journal vol. 66, no. 2. National Transit Database [NTD]. (2002) 2001 National transit summaries and trends. Washington, DC: Federal Transit Administration. Available from www.ntdprogram.com Accessed 6/28/2004. Oram, R., and Stark, S. (1996) Infrequent riders: One key to new transit ridership and revenue. Transportation Research Record, Issue 1521: 37-41. Perone, J. Advantages a nd Disadvantages of Fare-Fre e Public Transit. CUTRNational Transportation Research Center, 2002. Available from www.nctr.usf.edu Accessed 5/28/2004. Perteet Engineering. (2002) Gainesville Regional Transit System comprehensive operational analysis. Prepared for th e Gainesville Regional Transit System. Available from www.go-rts.com Accessed 5/10/2004. Pisarski, Alan E. (1999). Cars, women and minorities: The democra tization of mobility in America. Competitive Enterprise Institute, Washington DC.

PAGE 187

176 Project for Public Spaces, In c. [PPS] and Multisystems, In c. (1999) Transit cooperative research program report #46The role of transit amenities and vehicle characteristics in building transit ridership Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board. Pratt, R.H., and Copple, J. (1981) Traveler response to transportation system changes, second edition. Prepared for the Fe deral Highway Administration, Washington, DC Pucher, J., Evans, T., and Wenger, J. (1998). Socioecomics of urban travel: Evidence from the 1995 NTPS. Transportation Quarterly 52 (3) Reed, T., Wallace, R., and Rodr iguez, D. (1999) Transit pe rceptions regarding transitrelated crime reduction measures. Transportation Research Record No. 1731 Reese, R., Daley, J., and Stanton, W. (1980) Differences in percepti ons and attitudes of bus riders and non-riders in a southern city. Logistics and Transportation Review vol. 17, 4: 416-427. Robinson, Doug. Transit Planner, Regional Transit System, Gainesville, FL. (2004, June 25) Personal Interview Salazar, C. (1996). “Busing Proposal to be Presented to [UF President] Lombardi” Independent Florida Alligator Newspaper, Available from http://www.alligator.org/edi t/issues/96-fall/961211/b08park.htm Accessed 7/20/2004. Siegel, J. (2000). An evaluation of the carpoo l program at the University of Florida. M.A.U.R.P. Final Project. University of Florida. Shoup, D. (1997) The high cost of free parking. Journal of the American Planning Association. 17 (1) 1-18. Shoup, D. (1999) The trouble with minimum parking requirements. Transportation Research Part APolicy and Practice, 33: 549-574. Stangeby, L., “The dream: A seat on a bus that is never late!” Norwegian Scheme for Public Transport (May 3, 1993). Thompson, B., Perone, J., and Gabourel, K. ( 2002). Transit non-user survey: Restful riding rather than stressful driving.” Tampa, FL: Cent er for Urban Transportation Research. Report to the Florida Department of Transportation. Tolley, R. (1996). Green campuses: Cutting th e environmental costs of commuting. Journal of Transport Geography vol. 4, no. 3.

PAGE 188

177 Verplanken, B., Aarts, H., Van Knippenbe rg, A., and Van Knippenberg, C. (1994) Attitude versus general habit: Antecedents of travel mode choice. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 24: 285-300. Willson, R. (1995) Suburban parking requirements: A tacit policy for automobile use and sprawl. Journal of the American Planning Association 61 (1): 29-42. University of Florida Office of the Vice President for Finance and Administration. Minutes of meetings of the Tran sportation Access Fee Committees 2001/02 through 2004/05. University of Florida Student Gove rnment, 1998/99 through 2001/2002 Budgets and Student Senate Meeting Minutes. Victoria Transport Policy Institute (2004) Online TDM Encyclopedia. Available at: www.vtpi.org/tdm Accessed 5/28/2004. Vuchic, V. (2001) Transportation for Livable Cities. New Brunswick: CUPR

PAGE 189

178 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Alexander Thomas Bond was born April 9, 1979, in St. Petersburg, FL. He graduated from St. Petersburg Senior High School in 1997 and moved to Gainesville to attend the University of Florida shortly thereaf ter. Alex graduated with a Bachelor of Arts degree from UF in December of 2001 with a major in geography and a minor in history. He enrolled in the urban and re gional planning program the following semester, completing all degree requirements in May of 2005. Alex has a long history of extra-curricular involvem ent at the University of Florida. Between 1997 and 1999, he was a Univ ersity of Florida cheerleader. Since 1999 he was active in Student Government, serv ing three times as a Student Senator and as Cabinet Director for Academic Affairs. Alex served in the Student Senate during the creation of the Later Gator program and late r served on the Transportation Access Fee Committee. He is a member of Florida Blue Key leadership honorary, Gamma Theta Upsilon Geography Honor Society and Phi Delta Theta fraternity. Alex plans on pursuing a Ph.D. in the near future. His research interests include transportationÂ’s implications with gr owth management, land use and economic development. He also has research interest s in transportation policy and the historical development cities.