On-Board Passenger Survey Report CUMTD City and

Transcription

On-Board Passenger Survey Report
CUMTD City and Campus Routes
Surveys and report prepared by:
Dr. Hugh M. Clark, CJI Research Corporation
In cooperation with
Selena Barlow, MBA, Transit Marketing, LLC
CUMTD Onboard City and Campus Route Surveys, 2006
2
Table of Contents
Table of Contents .......................................................................................................................................................................3
List of tables and figures.............................................................................................................................................................6
Introduction.................................................................................................................................................................................9
CUMTD User Profile .................................................................................................................................................................13
Frequency of using MTD in Champaign/Urbana ...................................................................................................................15
Collapsed User Categories................................................................................................................................................17
Number of one-way bus trips ................................................................................................................................................19
Modal choice.........................................................................................................................................................................21
Duration of ridership..............................................................................................................................................................23
Anticipated future use of MTD...............................................................................................................................................25
Demographics ..........................................................................................................................................................................27
Employment of city route riders.............................................................................................................................................29
Employment and frequency of using MTD among city route riders ...................................................................................31
Detailed view of employment on city routes ......................................................................................................................33
Average number of trips made by the employment groups ...............................................................................................35
Number of employed persons in the households of city route riders .................................................................................37
Demographics of campus route riders ..................................................................................................................................39
Student/non-student status of campus route riders ...........................................................................................................41
Employment and frequency of using MTD among campus route riders ............................................................................43
Where campus route riders work.......................................................................................................................................45
Gender and use of MTD........................................................................................................................................................47
Age and use of MTD .............................................................................................................................................................49
City and campus routes – age and frequency of using MTD .............................................................................................49
Age and frequency of using MTD ......................................................................................................................................51
City routes – mean and standard deviation of age of the several defined employment groups within the city route
ridership.............................................................................................................................................................................53
Campus routes - Mean and standard deviation of age of the several defined student/non-student groups within the
campus route ridership ......................................................................................................................................................55
Income ..................................................................................................................................................................................57
Income and frequency of using MTD.................................................................................................................................59
Varied characteristics of the four primary campus routes .....................................................................................................61
Students and non-students................................................................................................................................................61
Age of the riders on the four primary campus routes.........................................................................................................63
3
Trip purposes on the four primary campus routes .............................................................................................................65
Trip Profile ................................................................................................................................................................................67
City route trip profile ..............................................................................................................................................................69
Origin – city routes.............................................................................................................................................................69
Origin by frequency of using MTD .....................................................................................................................................71
Final destination – city routes ............................................................................................................................................73
Destination by frequency of riding MTD.............................................................................................................................75
Matrix of origins and destinations – city routes..................................................................................................................77
Inferred trip purpose ..........................................................................................................................................................79
Trip purpose by frequency of using MTD...........................................................................................................................81
Trip purposes of students and non-students on city routes ...............................................................................................83
Campus route trip profile.......................................................................................................................................................85
Origin – Campus routes.....................................................................................................................................................85
Destination – campus routes .............................................................................................................................................87
Inferred trip-purpose – campus routes...............................................................................................................................89
Matrix of origins and destination – Campus routes............................................................................................................91
Trip and rider characteristics measured only in the city route survey .......................................................................................93
Times to and from the bus stop.............................................................................................................................................95
Time to and from the bus stop among discretionary riders................................................................................................97
Bicycles on the buses ...........................................................................................................................................................99
Transfers.............................................................................................................................................................................101
Fare payment......................................................................................................................................................................103
Conditions affecting the use of MTD for commuting to work ...............................................................................................105
Conditions affecting commuting by MTD by frequency of use.........................................................................................107
Using the MTD website .......................................................................................................................................................109
Trip and rider characteristics measured only in the campus route survey ..............................................................................111
Where do riders live who use the campus routes? .............................................................................................................113
On or off campus .............................................................................................................................................................113
Off campus residents using campus MTD routes – where they live ................................................................................115
Off campus residents using campus MTD routes – how they get to campus ..................................................................117
Campus route users using MTD service to travel outside of the campus area................................................................119
Use of off-campus routes by campus route riders ...........................................................................................................121
Frequency of using off-campus routes ............................................................................................................................123
Trip purposes of campus route users using off-campus routes .......................................................................................125
Alternative modes: Driving, bicycling, and walking..............................................................................................................127
Factors that could increase use of bicycles .....................................................................................................................131
Factors that may increase bicycle use by frequency of MTD use....................................................................................133
4
Satisfaction with MTD services...............................................................................................................................................135
Satisfaction of city route users with MTD services ..............................................................................................................137
All city route users ...........................................................................................................................................................137
Satisfaction differences among the city route rider frequency segments.........................................................................139
Service satisfaction ratings among student and non-student users of city routes ...........................................................143
Service improvements desired ........................................................................................................................................145
Visualizing the distribution of the overall service improvement ratings ............................................................................147
Service improvements differences among the rider frequency segments .......................................................................149
Details of service improvement ratings by frequency group using descriptive statistics (mean, median, standard
deviation) to show distributions .......................................................................................................................................151
Details of service improvement ratings by frequency group, using percentages to show distributions............................152
Student / non-student service improvement priorities......................................................................................................157
Service satisfaction ratings among campus route users .....................................................................................................159
Satisfaction differences among the campus route rider frequency segments..................................................................161
Details of satisfaction ratings on campus routes .............................................................................................................163
Appendix A: Questionnaires ...................................................................................................................................................165
Appendix B: Service Satisfaction Tables – City Routes..........................................................................................................172
Appendix C: Service Satisfaction Tables – Campus Routes ..................................................................................................175
Appendix D: Comments Offered by City Route Riders about MTD Service............................................................................177
5
List of tables and figures
Figure 1 City and campus routes - Frequency of using MTD....................................................................................................14
Figure 2 City and campus routes - Collapsed user categories .................................................................................................16
Figure 3 City and campus routes - Number of separate bus trips on day of the survey ...........................................................18
Figure 4 City and campus routes - Mode choice ......................................................................................................................20
Figure 5 City routes – Years of ridership ..................................................................................................................................22
Figure 6 City routes - Expected continuation of riding ..............................................................................................................24
Figure 7 City and campus routes - Employment and student status of city and campus route riders.......................................28
Figure 8 City routes - Employment and frequency of riding ......................................................................................................30
Figure 9 City routes - Detail of employment and student status ...............................................................................................32
Figure 10 City routes - Percent of riders in each employment type and the mean number of trips they make per week..........34
Figure 11 City routes - Number of employed persons in the household ...................................................................................36
Figure 12 Campus routes - University/non-university characteristics .......................................................................................38
Figure 13 Campus routes - Student / non-student characteristics ............................................................................................40
Figure 14 Campus routes - Employment and frequency of using MTD ....................................................................................42
Figure 15 Campus routes - Location of employment in or out of the campus area...................................................................44
Figure 16 City and campus routes - Gender and frequency of using MTD ...............................................................................46
Figure 17 City and campus routes - Rider age and frequency of using MTD ...........................................................................48
Figure 18 City and campus routes - Age of riders ....................................................................................................................50
Figure 19 City routes - Mean age and standard deviation of detailed employment groups ......................................................52
Figure 20 Campus routes - Average age by student/non-student status..................................................................................54
Figure 21 City routes - Income and frequency of using MTD....................................................................................................56
Figure 22 City routes - Income, student status, and frequency of using MTD ..........................................................................58
Figure 23 Campus routes - Student and non-student use of the four primary campus routes..................................................60
Figure 24 Campus routes - Age of riders on the four primary campus routes ..........................................................................62
Figure 25 Campus routes - Trip purposes on the four primary campus routes.........................................................................64
Figure 26 City routes - Origin....................................................................................................................................................68
Figure 27 City routes - Trip origin by frequency of riding ..........................................................................................................70
Figure 28 City routes - Destinations .........................................................................................................................................72
Figure 29 City routes - Destination of trip, by frequency of using MTD.....................................................................................74
Figure 30 City routes - Origin/destination matrix......................................................................................................................76
Figure 31 City routes: Trip purposes, inferred from origin and destination (multiple responses accepted)...............................78
Figure 32 Trip purpose, inferred from where riders were coming from or going to, other than home (multiple responses
accepted)..................................................................................................................................................................................80
6
Figure 33 City routes - Trip purposes of students and non-students using the city routes .......................................................82
Figure 34 Campus routes - Origin ............................................................................................................................................84
Figure 35 Campus routes - Destination ....................................................................................................................................86
Figure 36 Campus routes - Trip purpose ..................................................................................................................................88
Figure 37 Campus routes - Origin/destination matrix ...............................................................................................................90
Figure 38 City routes - Times to and from bus stop, by rider frequency segments...................................................................94
Figure 39 City routes - Times to and from the bus stop, by discretionary ridership ..................................................................96
Figure 40 City routes - Bringing a bicycle on the bus ...............................................................................................................98
Figure 41 City routes - Number of buses used for the trip ......................................................................................................100
Figure 42 City routes - Fare payment, by frequency of using MTD ........................................................................................102
Figure 43 City routes - Conditions affecting the commute to work (Percentages based on only those who are employed) ...104
Figure 44 City routes - Conditions affecting commuting to employment, by frequency of using MTD (Percentages based on
only those who are employed)................................................................................................................................................106
Figure 45 City routes - Accessing the MTD website ...............................................................................................................108
Figure 46 Campus routes - Where campus route riders live...................................................................................................112
Figure 47 Campus routes - Residence of those living off campus..........................................................................................114
Figure 48 Campus routes - How off-campus student MTD users get to campus....................................................................116
Figure 49 Campus routes - Use of MTD outside the campus area.........................................................................................118
Figure 50 Campus routes - Frequency of using each of several off-campus routes...............................................................120
Figure 51 Campus routes - Frequency of using off-campus routes by campus route riders...................................................122
Figure 52 Campus routes - Multiple purposes of off-campus MTD trips .................................................................................124
Figure 53 Campus routes - Frequency of using modes other than MTD ................................................................................126
Figure 54 Campus routes - Use of modes other than MTD for local travel .............................................................................128
Figure 55 Campus routes - Factors that could encourage further use of bicycles ..................................................................130
Figure 56 Campus routes - Factors that could encourage further use of bicycles, by frequency of using MTD .....................132
Figure 57 City routes - Satisfaction ratings .............................................................................................................................136
Figure 58 City routes - Satisfaction ratings, by frequency of using MTD ................................................................................138
Figure 59 City routes - Satisfaction ratings shown as mean, median, and standard deviation ...............................................140
Figure 60 City routes - Service satisfaction ratings among students and non-students..........................................................142
Figure 61 City routes - Rating the priority of service improvements .......................................................................................144
Figure 62 Visualization of the distribution of service improvement priorities...........................................................................146
Figure 63 City routes - Rating the priority of service improvements, by frequency of using MTD...........................................148
Figure 64 City routes - Service improvement ratings shown as mean, media, and standard deviation ..................................150
Figure 65 Perceived importance of improving selected elements of service (all ratings in percentages) ...............................152
Figure 66 City routes - Service improvement ratings among students and non-students using city routes ............................156
Figure 67 Campus routes - Satisfaction ratings......................................................................................................................158
Figure 68 Campus routes - Service satisfaction ratings by frequency of using MTD..............................................................160
7
Figure 69 Campus routes - Service satisfaction ratings shown as mean, media, and standard deviation..............................162
Figure 70 Campus route questionnaire (single page) .............................................................................................................166
Figure 71 City route questionnaire (2 pages, English version) ...............................................................................................168
Figure 72 City route questionnaire (2 pages Spanish version) ...............................................................................................170
8
Introduction
Two surveys were conducted onboard MTD buses serving the cities of Urbana and Champaign, and the campus of the
University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign (UIUC). Two questionnaires were used, one for routes that primarily serve the
cities and the other for routes that primarily serve the UIUC campus. These are referred to throughout the report as “City
Routes” and “Campus Routes.”
There were two reasons for using different questionnaires on the city and campus routes. Typical trips on the campus routes
are often so brief that people would not have an opportunity to complete a survey as lengthy as that needed to provide a full
profile of those who use city routes. Also, the needs, concerns, and characteristics of the campus route users – primarily
university students – differ from those of the users of the city routes.
Although the sample was separated into campus and city routes, there is no a priori reason to assume that the campus route
sample will include only students or that the city route sample would include only non-students. To avoid confusion while
reading the results, it is important to keep the following facts in mind:

The city route sample includes both students (64%) and non-students (36%). The high proportion of students was
surprising to some observers who perceive that the city route buses often carry substantial numbers of people who
appear not to be students. This difference between perception and reality probably results from several characteristics of
the riders and from the fact that some routes designated by MTD as “city routes” run through the campus of UIUC1.
First, “student” should not be equated with UIUC students: 51% are UIUC students, of whom 32% are UIUC students only
and 19% are UIUC students who are also employed (and who may appear not to be students on many of their work trips).
Other students include 9% Parkland College students, of whom 3% are also employed and 6% who are not. There are
also 4% high or middle school students2. There are indeed many non-students on the buses (36%) and the non-students
contain a variety of employed persons, including 9% UIUC faculty/staff. It is also true that students may be somewhat
overrepresented in the sample. One reason for which students were more likely to fall into the sample is that they ride
MTD somewhat more often, perhaps because their hours are less regular than those of some others such as those who
are employed in 8 – 5 positions, and because many are both students and employed and have diverse trips to make
1
See Figure 9, page 32 for date referred to here.
School trippers were intentionally excluded. In addition, surveyors were instructed not to approach children who appeared to be younger than 15 or
16. Thus both high and middle school students are no doubt under-represented. To have represented them fully, however, would have required use of
surveyor resources for trippers and would also have raised questions about the quality of household level reporting (e.g. income) on the part of young
students.
2
9
weekly. Finally, students are accustomed to completing surveys and are by definition, literate (one hopes), characteristics
not always valid for all riders.

City routes
Sample
size
Yellow
Red
Lavender
Blue
Green
Orange
Grey
Orchard Downs
Brown
Silver
24 Scamp-25 Loop
Routes: Gold, U Link, Airr bus
Total
301
298
74
86
184
141
186
147
254
190
113
81
2055
Campus routes
Sample
size
21 Quad
244
22 Illini
204
23 Shuttle
193
26 Pack
183
Total
824
The campus route sample, when weighted, consists almost entirely (96%) of
students. To gain full representation of routes, the shuttle route was
“oversampled.” While it provides a relatively small proportion of campus
route riders, it provides almost one-fourth of the campus route sample.
Therefore, when the data are weighted to properly represent the total
ridership with correct proportions by route, the unique rider characteristics of
the shuttle service are largely subsumed under the weight of the other
routes, especially #22, which carry far more riders. For this reason, two
special tables are presented later in this report detailing the age and
employment circumstances of the campus routes sample, broken by route.
Many of the charts in the report will compare the city and the campus samples.
Some charts will break the city route sample into students and non-students. It
is important to notice in reading the charts which sample and sub-sample is
being used in the chart.
The samples were random samples of runs, adjusted somewhat to assure
adequate representation of all major routes. Data used in this report were
weighted to represent the proper proportion of ridership on each route on
weekdays and weekend days.
Questionnaires were self-administered. A survey worker handed out a
numbered survey questionnaire and a pencil to every person entering a bus,
and collected the questionnaire before the rider left the bus. The numbering
enabled the research team to track the specific route on which the
questionnaire was being completed.
A total of 3,948 questionnaires were distributed, and 2,879 were returned with sufficient information to utilize in the full
analysis, for a rate of 73% completions among those who began the survey. In addition, 1,301 persons refused to accept the
survey. Some of those may have refused because they had already completed the survey previously. However, if we
assume that all refusals were for other reasons, then there were 5,249 attempts to complete a questionnaire, of which 2,879
were successful, for an overall effective cooperation rate of 55%.
10
A total of 824 questionnaires were completed on the campus routes and 2,055 on the city routes. A simple random sample of
824 has a sample error of +3.4 at the 95% level of confidence, while a sample of 2,055 has a sample error of +2.2% at the
95% level.
Lists of campus and city routes and their corresponding sample sizes are shown in the inset tables.
11
12
CUMTD User Profile
13
Frequency of Using MTD
(Source: CUMTD City and Campus routes - 2006)
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
City routes
Campus routes
One day
6%
4%
two days
6%
5%
Three days
7%
7%
Four days
11%
10%
Five days
31%
22%
Six days
11%
12%
Seven days
29%
39%
In the past seven days, how many days have you ridden on an MTD bus (including this bus, today?
Figure 1 City and campus routes - Frequency of using MTD
14
Frequency of using MTD in Champaign/Urbana
Those who use campus routes tend to be more frequent users than those who use city routes. For example, while 29% of
city route users said they use MTD seven days a week, 39% of campus route users said they use MTD that often. Also, only
22% of the campus route users ride five days a week, but 31% of the city route users do so. This obviously suggests a
greater use of the city routes for weekday work trip commuting, while the needs of campus users are different.
15
Collapsed Categories for Further
Analysis
(Source: CUMTD City and Campus routes - 2006)
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
City routes
Campus routes
Up to 3 days
19%
16%
4 or 5 days
42%
32%
6 or 7 days
40%
51%
Figure 2 City and campus routes - Collapsed user categories
16
Collapsed User Categories
For purposes of analysis, the riders of both the city and campus systems were broken into three groups according to their
frequency of using MTD. The three groups are shown separately for the city and the campus routes in the chart above, to
distinguish the relative intensity of their use of MTD. These three frequency-of-use segments will be compared and
contrasted in charts through the remainder of the report.
17
Number of One-way Bus Trips Taken on the Day of
the Survey, by Frequency of Using MTD
(City and Campus Routes)
(Source: CUMTD Onboard Survey - City and Campus Routes, 2006)
City routes
Campus routes
City and campus
routes
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Up to 3
days a
week
4 or 5
days a
week
6 or 7
days a
week
Up to 3
days a
week
4 or 5
days a
week
6 or 7
days a
week
Four or more
4%
9%
19%
3%
21%
43%
13%
31%
Three
6%
7%
13%
8%
18%
18%
9%
16%
Two
55%
70%
54%
36%
46%
30%
61%
36%
One
35%
13%
14%
53%
14%
9%
17%
17%
City
Campus
Routes routes
Figure 3 City and campus routes - Number of separate bus trips on day of the survey
18
Number of one-way bus trips
The intensity of use of MTD services is reflected in both the days per week riders use the bus and in the number of trips per
day they make. These two variables are positively related: r=.240 in the city route data and .437 in the campus route data,
both significant at .001 level. In other words, those who ride MTD more days each week, also make more trips each day.
The relationship can be seen in the charts which compare the two variables in the two samples. Take, for example, campus
route riders. Of those who ride MTD six or seven days a week, 43% said they make four or more trips per day, but only 3%
of those who use the campus routes three or fewer times each week make that many trips per day.
The same relationship exists among the city route riders, but it is not as pronounced. Among city route riders, 19% of sixseven day per week riders make four or more trips per day but among those using MTD three or fewer days a week, only 4%
make that many trips in a day.
What does all this mean in a practical sense? To begin, it is obvious that intensity of use is a product of both the days per
week one uses MTD and the number of trips per day one makes. What is not obvious, but what the table above shows
clearly, is that those who use MTD more times a week also use it more times a day. Thus these individuals account for a
disproportionate number of riders on MTD buses. Taking only the campus routes (because it is there this reinforcing effect is
most pronounced) we find that the riders using MTD up to three days a week make an average of 4 trips per week; those who
use MTD four or five days per week make 12 trips, but those who use it six or seven days a week make 21 trips.
If every rider were like the least frequent riders – they make an average of only 1.62 trips a day – then the total trips per week
would have been very different: The riders using MTD three days or less would, of course, stay the same, but the four or five
day riders would make only 8 trips per week, and the six or seven day riders would make only 11 trips per week. Thus
ridership numbers are driven not only by the days a week people ride but by the fact that the more days people ride, the more
they come to rely on the bus and trips they make per day.
19
Availability of A Vehicle
City routes
Campus routes
Up to 3 4 or 5 6 or 7
days a days a days a
week week week
Up to 3 4 or 5 6 or 7
week week week
City and Campus
routes
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
City
Camp
us
No vehicle available
59%
47%
68%
59%
62%
81%
57%
72%
Vehicle available
41%
53%
32%
41%
38%
19%
43%
28%
Figure 4 City and campus routes - Mode choice
20
Modal choice
Many of the city route riders (43%) have a vehicle they could have used for the trip on which they were surveyed, but they
chose to use MTD. For the 57% of those who lack the alternative of a private vehicle, MTD is providing a vital source of local
mobility for getting to work or other functions.
Fewer (28%) of the campus route riders have a private vehicle alternative. One reason for their lower rate of discretionary
ridership on the campus routes is that so many of them are freshmen (45%, see Figure 12) whose ability to have a car on
campus is extremely limited by university regulations and parking availability3. Thus, in their case, MTD is providing a crucial
service to a significant population which otherwise would either lack an alternative mode or would likely have to pressure the
university for rules changes (if even possible) which would probably lead to a truly major increase in automotive congestion.
3
The director of Facilities and Services at UIUC, commented that the high percentage of freshmen in the ridership was not surprising. She said,
“Since the freshman have to live in certified housing, generally the only parking available to them is in one of the remote storage facilities on
Florida/Kirby Avenue.” (e-mail 16-Jan, 2007)
21
Years of MTD ridership
10%
26-49 years, 100%
7-10 years, 89%
6 years, 83%
4 years, 74%
3 years, 66%
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
% using MTD this long
Cumulative %
50%
40%
Cumulative percent
15%
2 years, 55%
20%
1 year, 43%
25%
This year, 28%
Percent of users saying they began riding MTD this many
years ago
30%
5 years, 78%
(Source: CUMTD Onboard Survey - City Routes, 2006)
11-25 years, 97%
(City routes)
30%
20%
5%
10%
28%
15%
12%
11%
8%
4%
6%
6%
8%
3%
0%
0%
This
year
1 year
2
3
4
5
6
7-10 11-25 26-49
years years years years years years years years
Figure 5 City routes – Years of ridership
22
Duration of ridership
One important characteristic of ridership is its duration. A high percentage of riders with short duration of ridership indicates a
high level of turnover within the ridership. For a campus market, turnover is obviously high because of the brief duration of
the college years. For this reason, the question was not relevant to the campus route market and was not asked.
The chart above (Figure 5) is a Pareto chart. Such charts show not only the percentages of persons who fall into discrete
categories, but also the cumulative percentage as each category is added. In the case of MTD city routes, 43% of the
respondents said they had been using the service for one year or less, and 55% for two years or less.
Duration of ridership - student/nonstudent
We shall see later that even on the city routes, a high proportion of riders are
students, a fact that increases the tendency toward brief tenure of ridership as shown
Student
Non-student
Began in 2006
35%
16% in the inset table. Notice in that table how the non-students have a high proportion of
1 year
19%
8% long-term riders who have used MTD for six years or more. But among students the
2 years
13%
10% use of MTD is brief. This is only to be expected of college student users, of course.
3 years
4 years
5 years
6 years
7-10 years
11-25 years
26-49 years
13%
8%
4%
3%
3%
2%
0%
10%
9%
4%
10%
11%
18%
4%
23
A Year from Now, Do You Expect to…
(City Routes)
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Up to 3 days a
week
4 or 5 days a
week
6 or 7 days a
week
All respondents
Keep using MTD
56%
69%
60%
63%
Get a car but keep using MTD
also
28%
16%
23%
21%
Get a car and stop using MTD
10%
11%
14%
12%
6%
4%
3%
4%
Stop using MTD for other
reason
Figure 6 City routes - Expected continuation of riding
24
Anticipated future use of MTD
Another way to consider rider turnover is to simply ask riders whether they expect to continue using MTD in the coming year.
Among all city route riders, almost two-thirds (63%) said they expected to continue using MTD next year, a fact that,
conversely, means that 37% expect to cease using MTD.
Student or not a student?
Student
A year
from now,
do you
expect to..
.
Not a student
Keep using MTD
65%
59%
Get a car but keep using MTD
also
20%
23%
Get a car and stop using MTD
11%
14%
4%
4%
Stop using MTD for other
reason
The inset chart compares the responses of students
and non-students on the city routes. It is interesting
to note that the percentage does not differ greatly
between the students and non-student riders.
Surprisingly, the student riders are somewhat less
likely to say they expect to cease using MTD. This is
perhaps because of the one-year horizon coupled
with the greater degree of transit dependency among
students, most of whom are not in their final year of
school.
25
26
Demographics
27
Employment Characteristics of City and Campus
Route Riders
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
City routes
Campus routes
Retired
1%
0.3%
Disabled - Not employed
1%
0.1%
Homemaker
2%
0.0%
Employed for pay in your home
2%
0.3%
Unemployed
2%
1%
Employed for pay outside home
24%
2%
Student and employed
24%
30%
Student
42%
66%
Figure 7 City and campus routes - Employment and student status of city and campus route riders
28
Employment of city route riders
It would be easy to fall into the practice of thinking of MTD’s city routes as having primarily non-student riders and campus
routes having only student riders. It is true that the campus routes are close to being used exclusively by students. However,
the city routes have a combination of student and non-student riders.
Of campus route riders, 96% identified themselves either as students (66%) or as employed students (30%). Of city route
riders, 66% identified themselves either as students (42%) or employed students (24%). Thus, while the campus routes are
characterized by an almost homogeneous student ridership, most of the city route riders are also students. The balance of
the city route riders consists primarily of persons employed outside the home (24%) and a small percentage of persons in
each of the several other categories shown in the chart above.
The fact that only 2% of the campus route riders identified themselves as employed for pay outside the home suggests that
even with the free service offered to faculty and staff of the university, that very few use the campus routes4.
4
On the other hand, we will show later that on the city routes 10% are faculty or staff of UIUC (see Figure 9).
29
Employment and Frequency of Using MTD
(City Routes)
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Up to 3 days a week
4 or 5 days a week
6 or 7 days a week
All respondents
4%
1%
1%
1%
Retired
1%
1%
1%
1%
Unemployed
3%
1%
2%
2%
Homemaker
5%
2%
2%
2%
Disabled - Not employed
5%
1%
2%
2%
17%
28%
23%
24%
Employed for pay outside your
home
24%
25%
24%
24%
Student
41%
40%
45%
42%
Figure 8 City routes - Employment and frequency of riding
30
Employment and frequency of using MTD among city route riders
Among the three rider frequency groups using the city routes, the only important difference in employment is that the least
frequent rider category is more likely to include some homemakers, unemployed persons and others. All three groups are
dominated by students and include about one quarter who are employed non-students.
31
Detail of Employment and Student Status
(City Routes)
17 or younger not in
school
0.7%
(Source: CUMTD Onboard survey - City Routes, 2006)
High school student and
employed
0.6%
Employed for pay at
home
1.0%
Homemaker
1.2%
Student but cannot
otherwise be classified
1.2%
UIUC student
32.7%
Parkland student and
employed
3.1%
HS or MS student
3.2%
UIUC Student and
employed
19.7%
Unemployed or retired
5.6%
Parkland student
6.1%
UIUC staff or faculty
9.9%
Employed outside the
home and not a student
15.0%
Figure 9 City routes - Detail of employment and student status
32
Detailed view of employment on city routes
A more detailed picture of riders’ employment characteristics is shown above5. Here we can see that 52.4% of the city route
riders are UIUC students, of whom 32.7% are simply students, and 19.7% are students who are also employed. Another
9.2% are Parkland College students, of whom 6.1% are simply students and 3.1% are both students and employed. In
addition, a few, 3.8%, are high or middle school students who are just students (3.2%), or who are both high school students
and employed (.6%). A few others (1.2%) indicated they were students, but their level in school was unclear in their
response.
Non-students also use the city routes. These include 25.9% who are employed, including 15% who are employed outside the
home, but not at UIUC, 9.9% UIUC faculty or staff, and 1% employed at home. In addition to these, 5.6% characterized
themselves as retired, 1.2% as homemakers, and handful .7%) said they were 17 or younger but not currently attending
school.
5
Unlike most of the charts in this report, these results are not rounded to the nearest whole percentage because rounding in this case causes the pie
chart not to reflect the percentages in the data themselves. For those interested in the origin of these data in the questionnaire, the detailed
employment figures are inferred from a composite of question 15 (employment), 1 (origin), 5 (destination), 13 (age), and 12 (fare payment method).
33
Percent of Riders in each Employment Type, Showing
also Mean Number of Trips per Week
(Source: CUMTD Onboard City Route Survey, 2006)
12.1
35%
12.0
11.9
11.7
14.0
11.4
11.4
10.7
30%
25%
10.5
10.3
12.0
9.4
10.0
33%
20%
7.4
20%
8.0
15%
15%
6.0
10%
10%
6%
4.0
6%
3%
5%
3%
1%
1%
1%
1%
re
tir
e
d
or
st
a
C
IU
U
H
ig
h
sc
ho
o
ls
tu
d
st
u
oy
e
ne
m
pl
d
ff
or
en
fa
17
ta
cu
or
nd
lt y
yo
em
un
pl
ge
oy
rn
ed
ot
in
sc
ho
ol
H
om
em
ak
er
t
de
n
om
e
or
M
S
U
H
ed
S
pa
y
C
IU
U
at
h
st
u
de
n
t
en
t
d
rk
la
n
Pa
fo
r
no
d
an
st
ud
t.
..
d
oy
e
Em
pl
oy
ed
Em
pl
oy
ou
ts
id
e
th
e
nt
ho
an
m
e
d
em
pl
em
pl
oy
nd
St
ud
e
C
IU
U
2.0
0.0
ed
0%
en
ta
st
ud
d
rk
la
n
Pa
12.0
Mean # MTD trips per week
Average (mean) number of MTD trips per week
Percent of riders in each employment type
% of MTD city route riders
Figure 10 City routes - Percent of riders in each employment type and the mean number of trips they make per week
34
Average number of trips made by the employment groups
Figure 10 indicates two things, the percent of city route riders in each employment group and the average number of trips
they make per week, approximated as trips per day times days per week they use MTD. Categories are arranged in
descending order by the number of trips made per week.
Notice that the most intensive users are Parkland students who are also employed (12.1 trips). However, they are also few in
number (3%). The high presence in the sample of UIUC students is accounted for not only by their sheer numbers, but also
because they are fairly intensive MTD users (12 trips for those who are also employed, and 11.7 trips for those who are not.)
Those who are employed outside the home and not students (15% of city route riders) make 12 trips a week.
35
Number of Employed Persons in the Household,
by Frequency of Using MTD (City Routes)
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Up to 3 days a week 4 or 5 days a week 6 or 7 days a week All respondents
How many people in your household are employed?
5 or more
4%
3%
3%
3%
Four
4%
5%
5%
5%
Three
14%
8%
13%
11%
Two
43%
39%
33%
38%
One
35%
45%
45%
43%
Figure 11 City routes - Number of employed persons in the household
36
Number of employed persons in the households of city route riders
Only City Route riders were asked the number of employed persons in the household.

In more than half (57%) of MTD rider households there are two or more employed persons.
Nearly one in five households has three or more workers.
37
University/Non-University Characteristics
of Campus Route Riders
(Source: CUMTD Onboard survey - Campus Routes, 2006)
MTD rider passing
through University
District
0.1%
UIUC visitor
1.9%
Other
1.1%
UIUC faculty
0.3%
Freshman
45.3%
UIUC staff
1.3%
Grad Student
5.4%
Senior
11.3%
Junior
12.5%
Sophomore
20.8%
Figure 12 Campus routes - University/non-university characteristics
38
Demographics of campus route riders
Campus route ridership is made up almost entirely of UIUC students, with freshmen and sophomores making up 66.1% of all
campus route riders compared to less than half that number (23.8%) for juniors and seniors. It is likely that the rites of
passage and growing independence through college years lead many students to purchase cars.
The consulting team was surprised by the very high proportion of students. One might have expected that with their free
fares, faculty and staff would have had more of a presence for purposes of mobility on campus.
39
Student Non-student Characteristics of Campus
Route Riders, by Frequency of Using MTD
(Source: CUMTD Onboard Survey - Campus Routes, 2006)
100.0%
90.0%
80.0%
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
Up to 3 days a
week
4 or 5 days a
week
6 or 7 days a
week
All respondents
Staff/visitor/passing
through/other
8%
3%
2%
4%
Grad Student
5%
10%
3%
5%
Senior
15%
14%
9%
11%
Junior
11%
16%
11%
13%
Sophomore
19%
25%
20%
21%
Freshman
42%
32%
56%
45%
Figure 13 Campus routes - Student / non-student characteristics
40
Student/non-student status of campus route riders
The predominance of students on the campus routes does not vary greatly with the frequency of using MTD. However, for
some reason the percentage of sophomores and graduate students is greater and the percentage of freshman smaller
among the 4 or 5 day-per-week riders.
41
Employment and Frequency of Using MTD
(Campus routes)
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Up to 3 days a
week
4 or 5 days a week 6 or 7 days a week
All respondents
Retired
1.8%
0.0%
0.0%
0.3%
Homemaker
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1.9%
0.0%
0.0%
0.3%
Unemployed
2.4%
0.0%
0.2%
0.8%
4%
3%
1%
2%
25%
35%
28%
30%
Student
65%
62%
70%
66%
Employed for pay outside your
home
Figure 14 Campus routes - Employment and frequency of using MTD
42
Employment and frequency of using MTD among campus route riders
Regardless of frequency of using MTD, the campus route ridership is completely dominated by students, either employed or
not. Among the least frequent rider groups, there are a handful of non-students but their numbers are too few for meaningful
analysis as a separate group.
43
Location of Employment
(Campus Routes)
(Source: CUMTD Onboard Survey - Campus Routes, 2006 - Employed persons only)
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
If you are employed, are
you employed in the
campus area, outside the
campus area or both?
10%
0%
Up to 3 days a
week
4 or 5 days a
week
6 or 7 days a
week
All employed
respondents
Both
7%
5%
4%
5%
Employed outside the campus
area
48%
24%
26%
29%
Employed in the campus area
45%
71%
70%
66%
Figure 15 Campus routes - Location of employment in or out of the campus area
44
Where campus route riders work
This question was asked only on the campus routes. In the chart above, the 32% of campus route users who are employed
are broken down in terms of where they work. Most of them, 66%, work only in the campus area, but another 29% work
outside of the campus area and a few, 5%, work in both areas.
Those who use MTD least often are more likely than more frequent MTD riders to work outside the campus area.
45
Gender and Frequency of Using MTD
City routes
Campus routes
City and campus routes
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Up to 3 4 or 5 6 or 7
week
week
week
Up to 3 4 or 5 6 or 7
week
week
week
All
All
respon respon
dents dents
Female
56%
48%
52%
70%
53%
48%
51%
53%
Male
44%
52%
48%
30%
47%
52%
49%
47%
Figure 16 City and campus routes - Gender and frequency of using MTD
46
Gender and use of MTD
More of the ridership of both city and campus routes is female than male, but the difference is small. Between city and
campus routes there is a slightly greater tendency for the city route ridership to be male (49%) compared to campus routes
(47%), but the difference is trivial.
The most interesting relationship appears within the campus route ridership. The more frequent the use of campus routes,
the more likely the rider is to be male. Of those using MTD campus routes up to three days a week, only 30% are male.
However, of those using MTD six or seven days a week, 52% are male. This relationship does not hold for the city route
riders.
47
Rider Age and Frequency of Using MTD
City routes
City and campus routes
Campus routes
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Up to 3
days a
week
4 or 5
days a
week
6 or 7
days a
week
Up to 3
days a
week
4 or 5
days a
week
6 or 7
days a
week
City
routes
Campus
routes
75 or older
1%
1%
1%
0%
0%
0%
1%
0.0%
65 thru 74
1%
1%
1%
0%
0%
0%
1%
0.0%
55 thru 64
3%
3%
4%
0%
1%
0%
3%
1%
45 thru 54
6%
6%
7%
3%
4%
1%
6%
3%
35 thru 44
11%
9%
11%
9%
5%
1%
10%
4%
25 thru 34
26%
38%
28%
9%
17%
5%
34%
11%
18 thru 24
48%
39%
43%
76%
71%
90%
41%
80%
Under 18
4%
4%
5%
3%
1%
2%
4%
2%
Figure 17 City and campus routes - Rider age and frequency of using MTD
48
Age and use of MTD
City and campus routes – age and frequency of using MTD
The tendencies shown in the descriptive statistics regarding age discussed above are reflected in the percentage chart in the
figure above. The age distribution for the city routes is much more dispersed than that of the campus routes. Notice, for
example, that 91% of those using the campus routes are between the ages of 18 and 34 while 75% of those using the city
routes fall into that category.
49
Rider Age and Frequency of Using MTD
Age - Descriptive statistics
City routes
Rider frequency segments
Up to 3 days a week
4 or 5 days a week
6 or 7 days a week
All city route riders
Median
24
26
25
25
Mean
29
29
29
29
20
21
19
20
23
24
20
22
Std. Deviation
13
12
13
12
Campus routes
Up to 3 days a week
4 or 5 days a week
6 or 7 days a week
All campus route riders
7
9
5
7
Figure 18 City and campus routes - Age of riders
50
Age and frequency of using MTD
Regarding age and ridership, notice the following tendencies. These tendencies are not at all surprising given the more
extensive student presence among the campus route users.

Campus route riders are younger, with a median age of 20 compared to 25 for city route riders.
Similarly, the mean age of the campus route users is 22 compared to the mean of 29 among city route users.
Campus route riders have a narrower age range, with a standard deviation in age of 7 years compared to 12 years for the
city routes.
51
Average Age of City Route Riders, by
Detailed Employment Group
(Primary bar indicates mean age and the inset bar, the standard deviation.)
Figure 19 City routes - Mean age and standard deviation of detailed employment groups
52
City routes – mean and standard deviation of age of the several defined employment groups within the city
route ridership
The average age and the standard deviation of age vary considerably and predictably among the several employment groups
defined by the data. High or middle school students are clearly the youngest. Those who are employed outside the home
are considerably older than any of the students. UIUC students (a category that includes graduate students) average 23.9
years old. Employed students are somewhat older than non-employed students at both UIUC and Parkland College, and in
each of those categories, Parkland students are somewhat older than UIUC students.
The inset standard deviation6 bars suggest that, as one would expect, the age range of staff and faculty and other nonstudent employed persons is considerably greater than that of the students. The range of student ages is somewhat greater
among Parkland College students than among UIUC students, probably a reflection of the so-called non-traditional student
population.
6
Standard deviation is simply a measure of variability. As a rule of thumb, we can consider that approximately 68% (or roughly two-thirds) of
respondents fall within the one standard deviation shown by the inset bar. This is simply a way to visualize most of the age range among the riders.
53
Average Age of Campus Route Riders, by
Student/non-student Status
(Primary bar indicates mean age and the inset bar, the standard deviation.)
Figure 20 Campus routes - Average age by student/non-student status
54
Campus routes - Mean and standard deviation of age of the several defined student/non-student groups
within the campus route ridership
The average ages and age ranges of the students and non-students follow the pattern one would expect, gradually
increasing in both the mean and standard deviation from freshmen through faculty and staff. The few MTD riders passing
through campus are the oldest group.
55
Income and Frequency of Using MTD
(City Routes)
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Up to 3 days a week 4 or 5 days a week
6 or 7 days a week
All respondents
$100,000 or more
6%
5%
3%
4%
$75,000 to $99,999
6%
3%
3%
4%
$50,000 to $74,999
13%
9%
5%
8%
$40,000 to $49,999
11%
8%
6%
7%
$30,000 to $39,999
12%
15%
8%
12%
$20,000 to $29,999
9%
13%
11%
11%
$13,000 to $19,999
20%
17%
18%
18%
Less than $13,000
25%
30%
46%
36%
Figure 21 City routes - Income and frequency of using MTD
56
Income
City route patrons were asked their household income7. Most city route riders indicated they have household incomes of less
than $20,000. This was especially true of those who are the most intensive users of MTD. Among that segment, 46%
reported household incomes of less than $13,000 and another 18% incomes from $13,000 to just below $20,000.
On the following page, a chart displays the income differences between students and non-students who use the city routes.
7
It was assumed that students would either be unable to respond meaningfully to this question or that their income statistics would lack much meaning
since they would be merely a temporary indicator of financial status.
57
Income and Frequency of Using MTD
(City Routes)
Students
Non-students
Students and
Non-students
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Up to 3
days a
week
4 or 5
days a
week
6 or 7
days a
week
Up to 3
days a
week
4 or 5
days a
week
6 or 7
days a
week
Student
Not a
student
$100,000 or more
5%
4%
3%
8%
7%
2%
3%
5%
$75,000 to $99,999
4%
3%
2%
7%
4%
4%
3%
5%
$50,000 to $74,999
12%
5%
5%
14%
16%
5%
7%
11%
$40,000 to $49,999
8%
6%
6%
13%
11%
5%
6%
9%
$30,000 to $39,999
10%
14%
7%
14%
16%
11%
10%
14%
$20,000 to $29,999
10%
13%
10%
7%
14%
12%
11%
11%
$13,000 to $19,999
15%
20%
14%
24%
11%
23%
17%
19%
Less than $13,000
37%
35%
51%
13%
21%
37%
42%
26%
Figure 22 City routes - Income, student status, and frequency of using MTD
58
Income and frequency of using MTD
The chart above makes it clear that students using the city routes tend to estimate their household incomes as quite low,
probably an indication that they are considering only what they believe they earn and spend in a year apart from tuition.
These data are not especially useful because the student status is temporary and current income, even if accurately
estimated, is not a good indicator of income in a few years’ time.
Nevertheless, income as reported by the students is associated with the frequency with which they use MTD. Similarly the
frequency of use is also inversely related to income among the non-students. In short, as is typical of bus transit riders
throughout the United States, the lower the income, the more intensely transit is used.
The income data for the non-students show a strong tendency to be below $40,000. They also show a clear pattern of
income being inversely related to the frequency of using MTD. For example, while 37% of those non-students who use MTD
six or seven days a week said they have household incomes below $13,000, only 13% of the non-students who ride three
days a week or less said they have incomes this low.
59
Campus Routes - Student/non-student, by Route
(Source: CUMTD Campus Route Onboard Survey - 2006)
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
21 QUAD
22 ILLINI
26 PACK
23 SHUTTLE
Other
1.2%
1.0%
0.0%
1.6%
UIUC visitor
0.4%
3.4%
0.0%
1.0%
MTD rider passing through University
District
0.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.5%
UIUC faculty
0.0%
0.5%
0.0%
2.1%
UIUC staff
0.4%
0.0%
1%
25%
Grad Student
4%
4%
4%
41%
Senior
10%
11%
15%
10%
Junior
9%
12%
18%
13%
Sophomore
20%
18%
31%
3%
Freshman
55%
51%
31%
3%
Figure 23 Campus routes - Student and non-student use of the four primary campus routes
60
Varied characteristics of the four primary campus routes
Students and non-students
In Figure 23 above, we can see the distinctive characteristics of the four primary campus routes in terms of the student status
of the riders. For example:

The 26 PACK carries fewer freshmen and a higher proportion of sophomores, juniors and seniors than either the 21
QUAD or the 22 ILINI.
The 23 shuttle carries a much higher proportion of graduate students and UIUC staff than the other routes.
Clearly, the 23 shuttle and the 26 PACK reflect very different transit markets than the other two routes.
61
Campus Routes – Age of Riders
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
21 QUAD
22 ILLINI
26 PACK
23 SHUTTLE
23+
8%
5%
8%
73%
21 - 22
14%
16%
18%
16%
20 - 20
12%
15%
21%
6%
19 - 19
21%
23%
27%
4%
<= 18
45%
41%
26%
2%
Figure 24 Campus routes - Age of riders on the four primary campus routes
62
Age of the riders on the four primary campus routes
Age reflects the various functions and student status characteristics of the riders. The riders of 26 PACK are slightly older
than those of the 21 QUAD and 22 ILINI, but are much more likely to be younger than those who use the 23 shuttle.
63
Campus Routes - Trip Purpose
180%
160%
(Source: CUMTD Campus Route Onboard Survey, 2006)
140%
120%
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
21 QUAD
22 ILLINI
26 PACK
23 SHUTTLE
Sorority-fraternity trip
0%
1%
1%
0%
Parking shuttle trip
0%
1%
0%
13%
Church trip
0%
2%
0%
0%
McKinley trip
1%
1%
0%
1%
Union trip
2%
3%
2%
0%
Recreation trip
2%
15%
5%
1%
Other trip
2%
15%
3%
5%
Shopping or restaurant trip
4%
16%
4%
3%
Library trip
4%
5%
4%
8%
Office trip
6%
1%
4%
23%
Work trip
10%
13%
9%
74%
Class trip
81%
27%
79%
41%
Figure 25 Campus routes - Trip purposes on the four primary campus routes
64
Trip purposes on the four primary campus routes
The trip purposes vary by campus route as one would expect, given the student/non student status and age data. Because
people have multiple trip purposes, the percentages may exceed 100%.

The ridership of the 23 Shuttle is especially varied in its trip purposes and has many more multi- purpose trips.
The 23 Shuttle carries a much higher percentage of work trips (74%) than the other routes which range from 9% to 13%
work trips.
The 22 ILLINI has many more riders than the other routes, but carries a smaller percentage of class trips (27%), and a
much higher percentage of trips for recreation, shopping, and other purposes.
65
66
Trip Profile
In this section, the report deals with the specific trip during which the respondent was surveyed. This section treats the city
route and the campus route surveys separately.
67
Origin (City Routes)
Other bus or mode
0.3%
Errands
0.8%
Church
0.3%
Restaurant
0.1%
Where were you
before you went
to the bus for this
trip?
Library
0.1%
Doctor/medical
0.8%
Home
57.1%
Other
1.0%
Social visit or
recreation
3.0%
Shopping
5.0%
Work
10.5%
School/college
21.0%
Figure 26 City routes - Origin
68
City route trip profile
Origin – city routes
Respondents were asked where they were before they went to catch the bus. As one would expect, most (57.1%) said they
were at home, while another 21% said they were at “school or college” before leaving for the bus. Another 10.5% said they
had been at work. Other riders were at the usual various sites such as medical visits, running errands and so forth.
69
Origin of the Trip by Frequency of Using MTD
(City Routes)
(Source: CUMTD City Route Onboard Survey - 2006)
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
Where were you
before you went to
the bus for this trip?
10%
0%
Up to 3 days a
week
4 or 5 days a
week
6 or 7 days a
week
All respondents
Other
5%
2%
4%
3%
Social visit or recreation
6%
1%
3%
3%
10%
3%
5%
5%
9%
11%
11%
11%
School/college
21%
23%
19%
21%
Home
50%
60%
57%
57%
Shopping
Work
Figure 27 City routes - Trip origin by frequency of riding
70
Origin by frequency of using MTD
The points of origin varied somewhat among the rider frequency groups. Specifically, fewer of the least frequent riders (50%)
said they were coming from home, and somewhat more said they were coming from shopping or social visits.
71
Destinations (City Routes)
Car/Parking lot
0.4%
Restaurant
0.5%
What is your final
destination for this trip?
Other bus or mode
0.3%
Home
31.3%
Library
0.2%
Errands
0.6%
Church
0.6%
Other
1.6%
Doctor / medical
1.8%
Social visit or
recreation
3.7%
Shopping
10.3%
School / college
26.9%
Work
21.8%
Figure 28 City routes - Destinations
72
Final destination – city routes
Home was the location most often cited as the final destination of the trip (31.3%) with school/college second, at 26.9%, work
third at 21.8%, and shopping fourth at 10.3%. With relatively minor variation, that order applied to the four to five day and the
six or seven day riders as well (see next page).
73
Destination of Trip, by Frequency of Riding
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Up to 3 days a
week
4 or 5 days a week
6 or 7 days a week
All respondents
Other
6%
2%
6%
4%
Doctor / medical
3%
2%
1%
2%
Social visit or recreation
5%
2%
5%
4%
Shopping
19%
6%
11%
10%
Work
20%
25%
19%
22%
School / college
16%
32%
27%
27%
Home
32%
32%
31%
31%
Figure 29 City routes - Destination of trip, by frequency of using MTD
74
Destination by frequency of riding MTD
Those who use MTD on three or fewer days were more likely than the other groups to cite shopping and less likely to cite
school or college as their destinations. Other than that, the destinations were quite similar.
75
Matrix of Origins/Destinations
(City Routes. “Table %” percentages are based on entire sample as denominator.)
Origin (reduced set )
Destination
(reduc ed
set)
Home
Home
Work
Shopping
Sc hool /
college
Table %
Table %
Table %
Table %
Social v isit /
recreation
Ot her
Table %
Table %
4.1%
6.4%
3.3%
12.0%
1.4%
1.9%
18.7%
1.7%
.1%
1.4%
.0%
.3%
5.8%
.8%
.6%
2.2%
.5%
.4%
22.9%
.4%
.5%
3.6%
.5%
.4%
Social v isit / recreation
2.6%
.1%
.1%
.2%
.3%
.1%
Ot her
3.6%
.3%
.4%
1.2%
.3%
.6%
Work
Shopping
Sc hool / college
Figure 30 City routes - Origin/destination matrix
76
Matrix of origins and destinations – city routes
The percentages in the table above indicate the percentages of the entire city route survey sample that fall into each cell. For
example, 22.9% of all city route riders surveyed said they were going from home to school / college while another 18.7% said
they were going from home to work. Because the percentages are based on the entire sample, they are additive.
77
Trip Purpose
(Inferred primarily from origin and destination)
45%
41%
40%
33%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
15%
10%
6%
3%
5%
2%
2%
1%
0.60% 0.60% 0.40% 0.40%
or
k
Sh
tri
op
p
pi
or
ng
re
tr
cr
ip
ea
tio
n
tri
p
O
th
er
Tr
tr
an
M
ip
sf
ed
er
ic
R
re
un
al
d
tr
ni
fr
ip
ng
om
e
rr
ot
an
he
ds
rb
C
hu
us
rc
or
h
To
tr
ot
ip
or
he
fro
rm
m
od
a
e
r
C
es
om
ta
ur
in
an
g
Li
fr
t
om
br
ar
or
y
tri
go
p
in
g
to
ca
r
So
ci
al
W
Sc
ho
ol
tri
p
0%
Figure 31 City routes: Trip purposes, inferred from origin and destination (multiple responses accepted)
78
Inferred trip purpose
By dropping trips to or from home from the analysis, and focusing on the origins and destinations, we can infer the trip
purpose from information about the point of origin or the destination. For example, if a person was coming from work or
going to work, the trip was considered a work trip. A few people had multi-purpose trips such as going from school to work, a
fact that results in the sum of the percentages of trip purposes exceeding 100%.
Among all respondents in the city route survey, getting to school or college was the most frequent trip purpose cited (41%),
while work trips were the second most frequent trips (33%). Shopping is fairly common at 15% and social or recreation trips
at 6%. Others were very minor.
79
Trip Purposes, by Frequency of Using MTD
(Inferred primarily from origin and destination)
120%
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Up to 3 days a
week
4 or 5 days a
week
6 or 7 days a
week
All respondents
School trip
29%
48%
41%
41%
Work trip
29%
38%
31%
33%
Shopping trip
28%
9%
15%
15%
Social or recreation trip
10%
3%
8%
6%
Medical trip
4%
2%
2%
2%
Running errands
3%
0%
2%
2%
Other
2%
2%
5%
3%
Figure 32 Trip purpose, inferred from where riders were coming from or going to, other than home (multiple responses accepted)
80
Trip purpose by frequency of using MTD
School and work trips were most frequent among the four or five day riders (48% and 38% respectively) while, as one would
expect, shopping trips were most frequent among the occasional (3 day or less) riders.
There are no surprising patterns here.
81
Trip Purposes of Students and Non-students
(City routes)
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Student
Not a student
School trip
65%
0%
Work trip
17%
61%
Shopping trip
14%
15%
Social or recreation trip
5%
8%
Medical, errands, church
3%
9%
Other trip
2%
6%
To or from a restaurant
1%
1%
Transfer from other bus or other
mode
1%
1%
Figure 33 City routes - Trip purposes of students and non-students using the city routes
82
Trip purposes of students and non-students on city routes
The trip purposes of students and others using the city routes differ greatly, with 65% of students indicating that their origin or
destination involved school, while 61% of the non-students indicated it involved work. Other rates, for shopping and other
purposes, were similar in frequency between the two groups.
83
Origin by Frequency of Using MTD
(Campus Routes)
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
Where were you before
10%
you went to the bus for
this trip?
0%
Up to 3 days a week
4 or 5 days a week
6 or 7 days a week
All respondents
Residence hall or apartment
48%
47%
53%
51%
Class
12%
29%
20%
21%
home (off-campus)
11%
11%
7%
9%
A store or restaurant
12%
4%
8%
8%
Library
3%
2%
3%
3%
Recreation facility
5%
0%
2%
2%
Off-campus job
0%
1%
1%
1%
Office
3%
2%
1%
1%
Other
8%
3%
3%
4%
Figure 34 Campus routes - Origin
84
Campus route trip profile
Origin – Campus routes
Most riders surveyed on campus routes were coming from their campus area homes whether residence halls, apartments
(51%), or off-campus homes (9%). Another 21% said they were coming from class.
Of the six or seven day riders, a slightly higher percentage (53%) than of the other rider frequency segments said they were
coming from residence halls or apartments as opposed to off-campus dwellings. The four or five day riders are the group
most likely to say they were coming from class.
Thus the points of origin most frequent users tend to be slightly more concentrated on campus than less frequent riders.
85
Final Destination of the Trip by Frequency of
Using MTD (Campus Routes)
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
Your final destination for 10%
this trip?
0%
Up to 3 days a week
4 or 5 days a week
6 or 7 days a week
All respondents
42%
33%
45%
41%
Class
27%
41%
31%
33%
Recreation facility
7%
7%
6%
7%
2%
2%
3%
3%
Home (off-campus)
4%
4%
2%
3%
Office
2%
4%
3%
3%
Library
2%
3%
2%
2%
Shuttle lot
0%
1%
1%
1%
Work
1%
0%
1%
1%
Other
11%
7%
8%
8%
Figure 35 Campus routes - Destination
86
Destination – campus routes
For campus route riders, the final trip destination was more often the residence hall or on campus apartment (41%) than any
other destination. Getting to class was the second most frequent destination, with 33%. Very few (3%) said they were going
to an office.
The four or five day riders were unlike the others in that they were more likely (41%) to be going to class than they were to be
going to a residence hall (33%) on the trip during which they completed the survey.
87
Trip Purposes, by Frequency of Using MTD (Campus Routes)
60.0%
(Source: CUMTD Onboard Campus Route Survey, 2006)
51.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
14%
10.0%
10.0%
9.0%
5.0%
5.0%
4.0%
2.0%
1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.0%
or
k
re
tri
st
p
au
ra
nt
R
tr
ec
ip
re
at
io
n
tr
ip
O
th
er
tr
ip
L
ib
O
ffi
ra
ce
ry
tri
tr
ip
p
(n
ot
w
or
k)
So
U
ro
ni
rit
on
ytr
fr
ip
at
e
rn
Pa
ity
rk
in
tri
g
p
sh
ut
tle
tr
M
ip
cK
in
le
y
tri
p
C
hu
rc
h
tr
ip
Sh
op
pi
ng
or
C
W
la
ss
tr
ip
0.0%
Figure 36 Campus routes - Trip purpose
88
Inferred trip-purpose – campus routes
When trips to or from residences are dropped from the analysis, it is clear that campus route users use the bus primarily to
travel to and from class (51%). The campus routes do other kinds of trips, however, including 14% trips to or from work, 10%
for shopping (or restaurants), 9% recreation, and various other kinds of trips.
“Office” was not an option listed in the survey instrument, but a write-in that was later coded. It initially seemed likely that
those who said they were going to an office were also making work trips. However, the 4% represented in the chart were
graduate students and freshmen, and some other undergraduates and visitors, all of whom indicated they were not employed
full or part time outside the home. Thus they must have been going to an “office” for other reasons or, as grad students, had
an on-campus office.
89
Matrix of origins/destinations
(Campus Routes. “Table %” percentages are based on entire sample as denominator.)
1.8%
0.5%
0.3%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.3%
0.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
All campus
respondents
Socializing
0.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
FratermitySorority
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
McKinley
Health Center
0.9%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
On-campus
job
Off-campus
job
Other
0.6%
0.0%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Shuttle lot
6.2%
0.3%
0.2%
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.5%
Union
1.7%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
A store or
restaurant
1.8%
0.2%
0.3%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Recreation
facility
0.4%
0.3%
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
Other
0.3% 15.1%
0.1% 1.0%
4.3% 2.1%
1.5% 0.3%
0.6% 0.1%
0.5% 0.7%
0.2% 0.2%
0.3% 0.0%
0.3% 0.0%
0.4% 0.2%
0.0% 0.8%
0.0% 0.0%
0.0% 0.0%
0.3% 0.0%
0.0% 0.0%
0.0% 0.0%
0.0% 0.3%
Library
Class
11.7%
0.5%
24.6%
1.1%
1.0%
5.5%
1.9%
0.6%
0.4%
0.4%
0.0%
0.4%
0.4%
0.5%
1.3%
0.5%
0.0%
home (offcampus)
home (off-campus)
Class
Office
Library
Recreation facility
Off-campus job
Other
Union
Shuttle lot
On-campus job
McKinley Health Center
Fratermity-Sorority
Church
Socializing
Other campus building
Office
Where are you
going on this
bus? (choose
one)
Campus routes
Residence hall
or apartment
Where did you come from before getting on this bus?
0.0% 40.9% 43.9%
0.0% 2.9% 3.4%
0.0% 32.5% 33.1%
0.0% 3.3% 3.4%
0.0% 1.9% 1.9%
0.0% 6.7% 6.7%
0.0% 2.7% 2.7%
0.0% 0.9% 0.9%
0.0% 1.0% 1.3%
0.0% 1.3% 1.7%
0.0% 1.0% 1.0%
0.0% 0.4% 0.4%
0.0% 0.7% 1.0%
0.0% 0.8% 0.8%
0.0% 1.3% 1.3%
0.3% 0.8% 1.1%
0.0% 0.9% 0.9%
Figure 37 Campus routes - Origin/destination matrix
90
Matrix of origins and destination – Campus routes
The table above indicates the percentage of the campus route survey sample citing the specific origin-destination
combination. For example, of all campus route riders surveyed, 24.6% said they were going from their campus residence to
class while another 15.1% said they were going from class to their residence. Because the percentages are based on the
entire sample, they are additive.
91
92
Trip and rider characteristics measured only in the city route survey
93
Times to and from bus stop, by
Frequency Segments (City Routes)
Times to and from bus stop expressed in minutes and rounded to the nearest whole
minute
Up to 3 days a week Mean
Median
Std. Deviation
How many minutes
will it take you to get
How many minutes
where you are going
did it take you to get
after you get off the
to the bus stop?
bus at your final
stop?
6
7
4
4
8
9
4 or 5 days a week Mean
Median
Std. Deviation
4
2
4
6
4
9
Median
Std. Deviation
5
3
6
8
5
11
5
3
6
7
5
10
All respondents
Mean
Median
Std. Deviation
Figure 38 City routes - Times to and from bus stop, by rider frequency segments
94
Times to and from the bus stop
Among all respondents, the mean time to get to the bus stop was five minutes, and to get to the final destination from the final
bus, was seven minutes. The medians were three and five minutes respectively. The standard deviations were greater than
the mean, indicating that there are some extreme cases in which respondents claim exceptionally long walks. That is in fact
the case. For example, sixteen respondents reported having to walk sixty minutes or more to get from their bus to their final
destination. From a focus group conducted with riders during this project we know that in some cases, where service is
limited (Savoy, for example) rather long walks are required.
As the chart below indicates, most riders live very close to their stops. However, a few, 2% of riders, said their walk to the
stop of origin was very long, ranging from twenty to sixty minutes.
Minutes to and from the Bus Stop (City routes)
30%
27%
25%
22%
23%
21%
19%
20%
17%
16%
15%
13%
10%
10%
7%
8%
7%
5%
3%
0%
4%
2%
1%
At the stop One minute
Two
To stop from origin
Three or
four
Five to nine
Ten to
fourteen
Fifteen to
twenty
Twenty-one
or more
To destination from final stop
95
Times to and from Bus Stop,
by Discretionary Ridership (City routes)
Times to and from bus stop expressed in minutes and rounded to the nearest whole
minute
Could you have used a car (or
truck or motorcycle) to make
this trip?
Yes, vehicle available Mean
Median
Std. Deviation
How many minutes
will it take you to get
How many minutes
where you are going
did it take you to get
after you get off the
to the bus stop?
bus at your final
stop?
4
6
2
4
5
8
No, no vehicle available Mean
Median
Std. Deviation
5
3
6
8
5
11
Total Mean
Median
Std. Deviation
5
3
6
7
5
9
Figure 39 City routes - Times to and from the bus stop, by discretionary ridership
96
Time to and from the bus stop among
discretionary riders
30%
26%
25%
25%
25%
One indication of the factors that make
discretionary riders willing to use transit is the
time they are willing to spend getting to the
bus stop and from the final stop to their
destinations. The table above (Figure 39)
displays the differences in times to and from
the bus stops for persons who have a vehicle
available and those who do not. It is clear
that the discretionary rider spends less time
at each end of the trip. Not only are the
means of minutes to and from the bus stops
smaller for the discretionary riders, but the
median and standard deviations are also
smaller. Yet, except at the margins, the
differences are not great. For example there is
a median of two minutes walk-time to the bus
stop for those with modal choice versus a three
minute walk for those without modal choice.
The charts at the right on this page display the
contrasting distributions.
19%
19%
20%
19%
Time to Stop
15%
10%
10%
6%
6%
5%
1%
1%
0%
Stop is
origin
1%
2%
2%
One minute
Two
minutes
35%
Three or Five to nine
four minutes minutes
Ten to
fourteen
minutes
Fifteen to
twenty
minutes
Twenty-one
or more
minutes
29%
30%
25%
25%
20%
17%
20%
Yes, vehicle
available
No, no vehicle
available
20%
18%
16%
15%
16%
15%
Time from Stop
12%
12%
8%
10%
8%
5%
8%
5%
4%
5%
1%
0%
Stop is at One minute
destination
Two
minutes
Three or
Five to nine
four minutes
minutes
Ten to
fourteen
minutes
Fifteen to
twenty
minutes
Twenty-one
or more
minutes
97
Bike on the Bus, by Frequency of Using MTD
(City Routes)
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Up to 3 days a
week
Brought bike on bus
Did not
4 or 5 days a
week
6 or 7 days a
week
All respondents
3%
1%
3%
2%
97%
99%
97%
98%
Figure 40 City routes - Bringing a bicycle on the bus
98
Bicycles on the buses
Only 2% of all riders said they had brought a bicycle on the bus on the day they were surveyed.
99
Number of Buses Used for the Trip, by
Frequency of Using MTD (City Routes)
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Up to 3 days 4 or 5 days a 6 or 7 days a
All
a week
week
week
respondents
three or more buses
6%
1%
3%
3%
two buses
32%
20%
31%
27%
One bus
62%
78%
66%
70%
Figure 41 City routes - Number of buses used for the trip
100
Transfers
Most riders (70%) use only one bus for their trips. Conversely, 30% transfer. That rate compares favorably with many
systems for which data are available, where the percent of riders making trips requiring them to transfer is often 50% or more.
In Eugene (OR) for example, 76% of LTD riders said in 2004 that they had to use more than one bus. CUMTD’s percent of
riders using transfers is at the low end of the range of rider transfer rates among the systems studied recently by CJI
Research. For example our recent
Could you have used a car (or
studies have found transfer rates
truck or motorcycle) to make this
ranging from LAVTA’s (“Wheels”,
trip?
Livermore, CA) rate of 47% (2002) to
Yes, vehicle
No, no vehicle
54% in Anchorage (in 2002) and 59%
All respondents
available
available
in both Elgin (IL) (2003) and Savannah
How many buses will you
One bus
77%
66%
70%
(GA) (2001), and 68% in Bakersfield’s
use to complete this
one-way trip? For example,
Golden Empire Transit system (2002).
two buses
going from home to work is a
It is even below the 44% reported in
22%
30%
27%
one-way trip even if you
Olympia (WA) in 2005.
have to change buses. The
return trip home counts as a
separate one-way trip
three or more buses
All respondents
1%
4%
3%
100%
100%
100%
Student
How many buses will you
use to complete this
one-way trip? For example,
going from home to work is a
one-way trip even if you
have to change buses. The
return trip home counts as a
separate one-way trip
All respondents
Not a student
All respondents
80%
53%
70%
18%
42%
27%
2%
5%
3%
100%
100%
100%
As is usually the case, the transfer rate
is lowest among the most routine
transit users – those who use transit
four or five days a week. The use of
transfers is also lower among
discretionary riders and among
students, as the inset tables indicate.
One bus
two buses
three or more buses
101
Fare Payment by Frequency of Using MTD
(City Routes)
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Up to 3 days a week
4 or 5 days a week
6 or 7 days a week
All respondents
UIUC ID
49%
72%
60%
62%
Cashfare
32%
14%
14%
18%
Dash Pass
5%
3%
8%
5%
Annual Pass
3%
4%
5%
4%
Token
3%
2%
6%
4%
Seasonal Pass
0%
3%
4%
3%
Day pass
7%
1%
1%
2%
HS Student pass
0%
1%
1%
1%
Other
1%
0%
1%
1%
Figure 42 City routes - Fare payment, by frequency of using MTD
102
Fare payment
The city routes are heavily used by UIUC students, a fact that accounts for the very high percentage (62%) of all MTD city
route riders who boarded their buses by showing their UIUC IDs. The fact that fewer of the occasional riders (three or fewer
days a week) are students accounts for the fact that among occasional riders almost one-third (32%) pay a cash fare.
103
Conditions Affecting the Commute to Work
(City Routes)
60%
50%
40%
48%
Percent shown is percent of the 48% of riders who are employed.
It is not a percentage of all riders. For example 19% of the 48%
who are employed have to work after 6:00 PM, or 9% of all riders.
30%
20%
19%
16%
13%
10%
5%
3%
0%
...work
...use MTD ...work after
6:00 PM?
Saturdays?
to commute
to work?
...work
Sundays?
Do you
have more
than one
job?
...need to
pick up or
drop off
children on
the way to
or from
work?
Figure 43 City routes - Conditions affecting the commute to work (Percentages based on only those who are employed)
104
Conditions affecting the use of MTD for commuting to work
Of all city route riders who are employed outside the home (48%)8, almost half (48%) said they use MTD to commute to work.
The chart shows the characteristics of their employment.
Of the 48% of city route riders who are employed:

8
Some employed riders have to work evenings (19%) or weekends (16% Saturdays and 13% Sundays)
A few (5%) hold more than one job
A small number (3%) have to pick up or drop off children on the way to or from work
Including all students who are also employed
105
Conditions Affecting Commuting to Employment,
Percentages may exceed 100% because multiple responses are included.
140%
120%
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Up to 3 days a week
4 or 5 days a week
6 or 7 days a week
All respondents
8%
2%
3%
3%
Do you have more than one job?
5%
5%
7%
5%
...work Sundays?
12%
12%
15%
13%
...work Saturdays?
13%
16%
20%
16%
...work after 6:00 PM?
18%
19%
20%
19%
...use MTD to commute to work?
34%
52%
53%
48%
Do you usually...
...need to pick up or drop off children on
the way to or from work?
Figure 44 City routes - Conditions affecting commuting to employment, by frequency of using MTD (Percentages based on only those who
are employed)
106
Conditions affecting commuting by MTD by frequency of use
Figure 44 shows how the various conditions affecting the commute relate to the frequency of using MTD. Because multiple
conditions may apply to an individual, the sum of the percentages may exceed 100%.
Conditions Affecting Commuting to Employment,
Percentages are of all MTD riders or rider segments. Multiple responses included.
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Up to 3 days a
week
4 or 5 days a week 6 or 7 days a week All respondents
...need to pick up or drop off
children on the way to or from
work?
4%
1%
1%
1%
Do you have more than one job?
2%
3%
3%
2%
...work Sundays?
5%
6%
7%
6%
...work Saturdays?
6%
8%
9%
8%
...work after 6:00 PM?
8%
10%
9%
9%
15%
27%
24%
23%
...use MTD to commute to work?
Notice that the major difference is that the
most frequent riders are more likely to use
MTD to commute to work. In addition, the
most frequent riders are somewhat more
likely to have to work on Saturday and/or
Sunday.
.
In the previous two charts, the percentages
are shown as percentages of those who are
employed. For reference, the inset chart and
table shown at the left show the same data
expressed as percentages of all MTD city
route riders.
107
Accessing the MTD Website
(City Routes)
Internet access and use of the MTD website
Do you access the Internet, and if so, where?
Up to 3 days a week
At home
At work
Both
No access
4 or 5 days a week
6 or 7 days a week
All respondents
32%
6%
52%
9%
37%
10%
37%
16%
36%
8%
43%
14%
40%
6%
37%
17%
If you have access, how often have you visited the MTD website in the past 6 months?
Up to 3 days a week
4 or 5 days a week
6 or 7 days a week
Never
Less than once a month
Once a month
More than once a month
No access
35%
13%
18%
17%
17%
28%
21%
11%
30%
9%
33%
14%
12%
26%
16%
All respondents
31%
17%
13%
25%
14%
Figure 45 City routes - Accessing the MTD website
108
Using the MTD website
Respondents were asked whether they have Internet access and if so, where. Only 14% of city route users said they lacked
Internet access.

Approximately one-third (36%) access the Internet at home.
Only 8% access it only at work.
43% access it both at home and at work.
Access is greatest (90%) among four or five day users.
Accessing the MTD website is quite widespread.

A total of 55% said that they had accessed it at least once in the past six months.
Access is most frequent among the heaviest users of MTD service.
o Of those riding four or five days a week, 30% said they have accessed the MTD site more than once a month
for the past six months.
o Of those riding MTD six or seven days a week, 26% said they have accessed the MTD site more than once a
month for the past six months.
109
110
Trip and rider characteristics measured only in the campus route survey
111
Where Campus Route Riders Live
(Campus Routes)
(Source: CUMTD Onboard Survey - Campus Routes, 2006 - all respondents)
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
Do you live in a
dormitory, on
campus apartment,
or off-campus?
10%
0%
All
a week
week
week
respondents
Off campus
16%
16%
6%
12%
On-campus apartment
32%
32%
23%
27%
Dormitory
52%
51%
70%
61%
Figure 46 Campus routes - Where campus route riders live
112
Where do riders live who use the campus routes?
On or off campus
An overwhelming percentage (88%) of those students who use the campus routes live on campus9, 61% in dormitories, and
27% in on-campus apartments. Only 12% of the campus route riders live off campus.
These tendencies are related to the intensity of using MTD. For example, 70% of the six or seven day users, but only 52% of
the three or fewer day users, live in dormitories.
Conversely, more of the infrequent student riders (16%)
Distribution of Campus Route Riders among
than of the most frequent student riders (6%) live offThree Types of Residences
campus.
(Percentages are of all riders of campus routes and sum, to 100% among all cells)
The inset chart on this page shows the responses to the
same questions, but in this chart the percentages are based
on the entire sample, not on the number of respondents in
each ridership frequency segment. Thus we can see the
dominance of the dormitory dwellers – more than one-third
of the campus route riders said they ride six or seven days
a week and live in dorms.
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Off campus
On-campus apartment
Dormitory
9
Up to 3 days a
week
4 or 5 days a
week
6 or 7 days a
week
3%
5%
5%
10%
3%
12%
9%
16%
36%
The campus routes are obviously designed to serve the
student body where they live and attend class. For these
reasons, it was deemed useful to limit the analysis of the
questions on residence (Figure 47 through Figure 48) in the
following section to students only.
Recall that 97% of campus route users are students.
113
Where Do Student Riders Live Who Do
Not Live on Campus? (Campus Routes)
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
In what area
do you live?
0%
Up to 3 days a
week
4 or 5 days a week 6 or 7 days a week
All respondents
Other - Where?
2%
2%
1%
2%
Savoy
0%
1%
0%
0%
Urbana
48%
31%
50%
44%
Champaign
31%
49%
30%
36%
University District
18%
17%
20%
18%
Figure 47 Campus routes - Residence of those living off campus
114
Off campus residents using campus MTD routes – where they live
Students who live off-campus tend to live in the primary cities, Champaign (36%) or Urbana (44%), or in the University district
itself (18%). The reader is cautioned that relatively few people fell into the sample (n=246) who are students, live off-campus,
and use the campus routes. We know from the city route survey data that many students use the city routes, a fact that may
account for the scarcity of off-campus dwelling students in the campus route sample.
Distribution of "Other" places of off-campus residence
Percent of off-campus
residents living here
MAHOMET
RURAL CHAMPAIGN
combine
SIDELL
BLOOMINGTON
RANTOUL
DECATUR
CHARLESTON
ST JOSEPH
VILLA GROVE
ODGEN
BENET
BONDVILLE
DAWNS IL
MANSFIELD
MONTICELLO
PESOTUM
PIATT COUNTY-MANSFIELD
SADORUS
SEYMOUR
TOLENO
TUSCOLA
WHITE HEATH IL
0.84%
0.84%
0.74%
0.68%
0.68%
0.52%
0.33%
0.33%
0.33%
0.32%
0.16%
0.16%
0.16%
0.16%
0.16%
0.16%
0.16%
0.16%
0.16%
0.16%
0.16%
0.16%
Also, note that some routes occupy a gray area, not
entirely campus and not entirely city routes. These
include some of Green, 24 SCAMP, and 24 Loop which
were considered city routes for this survey.
The inset table shows, as percent of all riders who said
they live off-campus, the persons who comprise the
“Other” in the chart above.
115
Off-Campus Student Residents
Mode to Campus (Campus routes)
(Caution. The n=246. This subsample is too small to be considered reliable. Results are
suggestive, not definitive.)
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
If you live off
campus, how did 20%
you get to campus10%
today?
0%
Up to 3 days a
week
4 or 5 days a
week
6 or 7 days a
week
Eligible
Respondents
Bicycled
0%
5%
0%
2%
Got a ride
1%
0%
1%
3%
Walked
39%
17%
23%
24%
Drove
33%
36%
12%
26%
MTD bus
27%
41%
64%
45%
Figure 48 Campus routes - How off-campus student MTD users get to campus
116
Off campus residents using campus MTD routes – how they get to campus
The fact that the survey respondents are all MTD riders does not mean that they get to campus via MTD buses. However, of
the small sample of off-campus students using MTD, more used MTD (45%) to get to campus than drove (26%) or walked
(24%). A few (2%) bicycled or got a ride (3%) to campus. For obvious reasons there is a close relationship between the
frequency of using MTD in general as shown in the “ridership frequency groups,” and the tendency to use MTD to get to
campus. For example, 64% of the 6-7 day riders living off-campus use MTD to get to campus, while only 27% of the “up to 3
day” riders use MTD to get to campus.
The breakdown of the results into the rider frequency segments suggests that perhaps the infrequent riders are more likely
than others to access campus by bicycle, but the sample of off-campus student users of the campus routes is too small to
treat this as anything more than a hypothesis.
117
Use of MTD Outside the Campus Area
(Campus Routes)
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
All
a week
week
week
respondents
Does not use MTD to
travel outside the
campus area
43%
38%
64%
53%
Uses MTD to travel
outside of campus area
57%
62%
36%
47%
Figure 49 Campus routes - Use of MTD outside the campus area
118
Campus route users using MTD service to travel outside of the campus area
Of all campus route users, 47% said they use MTD routes not only to travel on campus but also off campus. It is interesting
to note that the rider frequency segment least likely to use the off-campus MTD services is the most frequent campus route
riders. Only 36% of the six or seven day riders use the off campus routes, while 57% or more of each of the other groups use
them.
119
Frequency of Using Each Off-Campus Route
(Campus Routes)
(Source: CUMTD Survey - Campus Routes, 2006)
28%
Yellow
27%
Red
16%
Green
Blue
11%
Orchard Downs
11%
5%
Brown
4%
Gold
5%
Silver
3%
Orange
Lavender
1%
Grey
1%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
Figure 50 Campus routes - Frequency of using each of several off-campus routes
120
Use of off-campus routes by campus route riders
The chart includes all campus route riders, not only students.

The Yellow (28%) and red routes (27%) are used by more of the campus-route users than any other routes.
The green (16%), Blue (11%) and Orchard Downs routes (11%) form a second tier of utilization.
121
Frequency per Week of Using Off-Campus Routes Among
Campus Route Riders
(Source: CUMTD Onboard Survey - Campus Routes, 2006
Only respondents who use MTD off campus (i.e. 47% of respondents))
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
How many days a
week do you usually
use the off-campus
routes?
0%
6 or 7 days a
week
All respondents
who say they use
MTD off campus
Seven
7%
4%
Six
2%
1%
Up to 3 days a
week
4 or 5 days a
week
Five
5%
5%
4%
Four
2%
2%
2%
Three
5%
1%
4%
4%
Two
7%
10%
11%
10%
One
7%
14%
15%
13%
Less than once a week
81%
68%
54%
62%
Figure 51 Campus routes - Frequency of using off-campus routes by campus route riders
122
Frequency of using off-campus routes
Although many campus route users use the off-campus routes, most of them do so infrequently. Of all respondents in the
campus route survey who use off-campus routes, 62% said they use them less than once a week. To translate this to the
entire ridership, 47% said they use off-campus routes. Thus approximately 29% use the off-campus routes but do so less
than once a week.
We saw in Figure 49 that the most intensive users of the campus routes were the least likely to use the off-campus routes.
This suggests that the use of city or campus routes is to some extent, mutually exclusive. However, almost half of campus
route riders (47%) said they also use city routes. Figure 51 shows that among these dual-users, the more often they use the
campus routes, the more often they use the city routes as well.
123
Purposes for which Campus Route Users
Use Off-Campus Routes
(Source: CUMTD Onboard Survey - Campus Routes, 2006 - all respondents who say they use
MTD for off-campus travel)
160%
140%
120%
100%
80%
60%
40%
When you travel
outside the campus
on MTD buses, what
are the most common
purposes of your
trips? (Multiple
responses accepted)
20%
0%
Other
Medical appointments
Off campus job
Up to 3 days a week
4 or 5 days a week
6 or 7 days a week
All respondents who
say they use MTD off
campus
11%
10%
8%
8%
3%
1%
5%
3%
17%
10%
13%
12%
8%
22%
17%
16%
Recreation
23%
30%
26%
25%
Shopping
63%
68%
72%
66%
Home
Figure 52 Campus routes - Multiple purposes of off-campus MTD trips
124
Trip purposes of campus route users using off-campus routes
Shopping and recreation are the most common trip purposes for those who use the off campus routes. This is consistent
with the infrequent use most campus route riders make of the off-campus service.
125
Using Modes Other than MTD
(Campus Routes)
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
For traveling to
campus, work, 30%
shopping or 20%
any other
10%
purpose, on
how many days 0%
in the past
week did you...
Drive a car
Ride a bicycle
Walk to a destination
(Without also using car or
bike)
Seven days
6%
3%
44%
Six days
1%
0%
5%
Five days
3%
1%
11%
Four days
6%
2%
9%
Three days
8%
3%
11%
Two days
8%
4%
6%
One day
10%
2%
3%
Not at all
59%
85%
11%
Figure 53 Campus routes - Frequency of using modes other than MTD
126
Alternative modes: Driving, bicycling, and walking
Campus route riders were asked whether they walk, drive or bicycle for various purposes. For walking, it was specified that
the trip not include a bicycle or car.

Most campus route riders (a total of 60%) indicated they walk to a destination on five or more days a week.
However, only 15% indicated they had used a bicycle at all in the past week (the survey was conducted in warm weather
in the fall of 2006).
59% of campus route riders said they had not driven in the past week, and most others indicated they had driven on only
a few days. Of those who had not driven a car in the past week, the vast majority (93%) said they had had no vehicle
available.
We do not know the proportion of all UIUC students who use MTD and thus we do not know to what extent the combination
of MTD, walking and bicycling are displacing driving in the general campus population. However, it is clear that among those
who use MTD’s campus routes, there is minimal use of the car.
127
Use of Modes Other than MTD for Local Travel
(Campus routes)
Use of local travel modes other than MTD
Use MTD Up to 3
buses days a
In the past week on how many days
week
did you…
...drive a car? Seven days
10%
Six days
3%
Five days
3%
Four days
8%
Three days
9%
Two days
8%
One day
14%
Not at all
45%
4 or 5
days a
week
9%
1%
6%
7%
10%
11%
11%
45%
6 or 7
days a
week
3%
0%
1%
5%
6%
6%
8%
72%
...ride a bicycle? Seven days
9%
1%
2%
Six days
Five days
Four days
Three days
Two days
One day
Not at all
1%
2%
1%
6%
5%
0%
77%
0%
1%
1%
3%
3%
4%
86%
0%
1%
3%
2%
4%
1%
87%
...walk to a destination (without also
using a bike or car?) Seven days
Six days
Five days
Four days
Three days
Two days
One day
Not at all
57%
4%
6%
4%
8%
4%
1%
16%
35%
6%
12%
10%
12%
8%
3%
14%
45%
4%
11%
10%
12%
5%
4%
9%
Figure 54 Campus routes - Use of modes other than MTD for local travel
128
How does use of modes other than MTD relate to the frequency of using MTD bus service? The infrequent three day or fewer
bus riders are more likely to have:

Driven a car for a local trip
Ridden a bicycle
Walked to a destination without also using a car or bicycle
This obviously makes sense if we assume that the infrequent MTD users have similar local mobility needs as others, and
thus must be using other modes than MTD for many trips. What is interesting is that although as a group they are more likely
to have driven a car, they are also the group most likely to have walked or used a bicycle. Thus they may comprise the
portion of the local mobility market most likely to use expanded bike paths or walking opportunities.
Use of modes other than MTD
During the past week,
on how many days did
you…
Up to 3 days a week Mean
Median
Std. Deviation
walk to a destination
(without also using a
ride a bicycle?
bike or car?)
1.1
5.0
0.0
7.0
2.2
2.7
drive a car?
1.9
1.0
2.4
Median
Std. Deviation
1.9
1.0
2.3
0.4
0.0
1.2
4.4
5.0
2.5
Median
Std. Deviation
0.8
0.0
1.6
0.5
0.0
1.4
4.8
5.0
2.4
Total Mean
Median
Std. Deviation
1.4
0.0
2.1
0.5
0.0
1.5
4.7
5.0
2.5
The inset table further illustrates the
differences among the rider frequency
segments by presenting mean,
median and standard deviations for
each group and mode.
129
Factors that May Increase Use of Bicycles
(Campus Routes)
Would you use a
bicycle for more trips
on or near campus if...
(Percent responding “Yes.”)
Bike paths went more
places to avoid traffic
41%
If campus bike paths
were safer,
34%
There were more bike
racks at locations I go
to
33%
Bikes stationed around
campus were easy to
rent or borrow
32%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
Figure 55 Campus routes - Factors that could encourage further use of bicycles
130
Factors that could increase use of bicycles

Of all campus route users, 41% said that if there were bike paths that “…went more places so I could avoid street traffic”
they would use a bicycle for more trips on or near campus. Having improved bike paths was clearly the primary issue.
Roughly one-third indicated that one or more of the other three improvements would encourage them to ride more:
“Other” Factors that May Increase Use of Bicycles
à
(Campus Routes)
à
(Source: CUMTD Survey - Campus Routes, 2006
Q19 "Other" responses only as a percent of all respondents)
No bike
à
3.6%
Weather
1.6%
would not ride
0.8%
Theft/vandalism
0.4%
Better bike paths
0.4%
Better bus connections
0.2%
Disability
0.1%
0.0%
0.5%
33% if bike racks were more
plentiful.
32% if “…bikes stationed
around campus were easy to
rent or borrow.”
In addition a few respondents had
other comments as shown in the
inset chart. Having no bicycle was a
reason for 3.6% of all campus route
riders, while concerns with the
weather were mentioned by 1.6%.
0.7%
If more convenient
34% said they would use a
bike for more trips if the
“…campus area bike paths
were safer.”
1.0%
1.5%
2.0%
2.5%
3.0%
3.5%
4.0%
131
Factors that May Increase Use of Bicycles
(Campus Routes)
Would you use a
bicycle for more trips
on or near campus if...
40%
Bike paths went more
places to avoid traffic
41%
44%
31%
If campus bike paths
were safer,
34%
41%
30%
There were more bike
racks at locations I go to
32%
41%
34%
Bikes stationed around
campus were easy to
rent or borrow
6 or 7 days a week0%
4 or 5 days a week
Up to 3 days a week
27%
32%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
Figure 56 Campus routes - Factors that could encourage further use of bicycles, by frequency of using MTD
132
Factors that may increase bicycle use by frequency of MTD use
For three of the four improvements related to bicycle use, it is more often the infrequent users of MTD service who are
interested. This is consistent with the findings shown in Figure 54 that indicate the heavier use of modes other than the bus
by those who presently use MTD least often.
133
134
Satisfaction with MTD services
Service satisfaction was measured differently in the city route and campus route surveys. In the city route survey, riders were
asked to rate eleven aspects of MTD service. They were also asked to indicate the importance of making various
improvements in services.
In the campus route survey, which was by necessity much more brief, riders were asked only to rate their satisfaction with six
aspects of service.
The results are presented in the following sections, with city route results first, and then campus route results
135
Satisfaction Scores
All City Route Riders
Service Ratings
Percentage rating service positively, defined as ratings of 5, 6 or 7 on scale from 1 - 7
MTD service overall
80%
Availability of schedule information
84%
STOPwatch information signs
72%
Total travel time for your trip
71%
Directness of your route
70%
Frequency of service on weekdays
69%
Connections at transfer points
67%
Buses running on time
64%
Shelters and benches at stops
57%
Frequency of weekend service
52%
Time buses stop running in the evening
46%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Figure 57 City routes - Satisfaction ratings
136
Satisfaction of city route users with MTD services
All city route users
Figure 57 indicates the percent who indicated they were satisfied with MTD services in the sense that they rated the services
as 5, 6, or 7 on a scale from one to seven where seven was the most positive score. A score of 4 is “Neutral,” and scores
from 1 – 4 are considered “negative.” Only the positive scores are shown10.
Notice first that overall satisfaction is high, with 80% indicating some level of satisfaction. It is interesting that the 80%
percent answering positively to the question “How do you rate MTD service overall?” is higher than any of the percentages
rating specific aspects of service as positive, with the exception of the availability of schedule information (84% positive).
This situation often occurs in satisfaction studies because from the consumer’s point of view, the whole is, in effect, greater
than the sum of its parts. Why is this? People rely on transit, and even like using it, but at the same time, find fault with
specific aspects of service. This is true of all consumer satisfaction research.
Notice that the highest scoring aspects of service are two elements involving information – the availability of schedule
information (84% positive) and the STOP-watch signs (72% positive). Both are important because they reduce the
uncertainty inherent in bus travel. When is the bus coming? And where is the bus going? These items resolve those issues.
The total travel time the trip takes is a crucial variable in mode choice. Seventy-one percent (71%) of current city route riders
offered positive scores in this respect.
The three lowest scoring aspects of service, each of which receives fewer than 60% positive ratings, involve shelters, level of
weekend service and hours of evening service. This is a fairly typical pattern for those who currently use bus transportation
for local mobility needs. They already use transit services and would like to have them made more comfortable and more full
in scope. For only one of these (evening hours of service) is the percent rating the service positive below 50%. Generally
from the consumer’s point of view, service at the margins of the day provides certainty more than it provides a service that
will be used consistently. That is, the fact that many riders apparently would like additional evening hours does not
necessarily mean that usage would be high. Instead it probably means that longer hours would provide assurance of a return
trip on those occasions when the bus was used in the evening.
10
Transit requires very high scores to compete and retain customers in competition with private vehicles. The detail of the scores and how they break
down within the positive and negative categories is provided in Appendix B, page 172.
137
Satisfaction Scores – Rider Segments
(City Routes)
Service Ratings
79%
82%
79%
MTD service overall
76%
72%
75%
65%
70%
59%
83%
87%
77%
68%
74%
64%
69%
70%
65%
66%
69%
61%
62%
64%
66%
57%
59%
55%
50%
6 or 7 days a week
51%
55%
4 or 5 days a week
47%
44%
Up to 3 days a week
48%
0%
10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Figure 58 City routes - Satisfaction ratings, by frequency of using MTD
138
Satisfaction differences among the city route rider frequency segments
Breaking the satisfaction scores down by the rider frequency groups, we can see that:
•
The rank order of ratings is similar for the three rider frequency segments. As with the total ridership, each
segment gives the highest percent positive ratings to the information components of service and the lowest to
creature comfort at bus stops, and the level of service at non-peak times.
•
In general, the four or five day users are slightly more likely than others to give positive scores. Their trips tend to
be for commuting and thus are very routine - the same trip day after day. This means fewer difficulties with
schedule and less uncertainty about routing. Clearly if the service were not satisfactory, commuters would not rely
on it unless they were highly transit dependent.
•
The largest difference among the segments is in the rating of total time for the trip. On this dimension, the least
frequent riders are the least likely to offer positive scores. This is a clue to the reason for which they do not ride
MTD as often as the other segments. This is a result typical of many transit rider studies.
139
Satisfaction ratings
(City Routes)
Descriptive statistics related to service satisfaction ratings
(City Routes. Scale from 1 - 7 where 7 means "Excellent" and 1 means "Poor")
Up to 3 days a week
4 or 5 days a week
6 or 7 days a week
Mean
Median
5.6
6
1.6
5.9
6
1.3
5.9
6
1.4
5.8
6
1.4
MTD service overall
5.4
6
1.4
5.5
6
1.2
5.4
6
1.4
5.5
6
1.3
5.2
6
1.6
5.5
6
1.4
5.5
6
1.6
5.4
6
1.5
Mean
Median
Std.
Deviation
Mean
All respondents
Std.
Deviation
Median
Std.
Deviation
Mean
Median
Std.
Deviation
5.1
6
1.7
5.4
6
1.5
5.2
6
1.7
5.3
6
1.6
4.9
5
1.8
5.4
6
1.4
5.2
5
1.6
5.2
6
1.6
5.0
5
1.8
5.2
5
1.5
5.2
6
1.8
5.2
6
1.7
5.0
5
1.6
5.1
5
1.4
5.1
6
1.6
5.1
5
1.6
5.0
5
1.8
4.9
5
1.6
4.9
5
1.7
4.9
5
1.7
4.8
5
1.8
4.7
5
1.6
4.7
5
1.8
4.7
5
1.7
4.7
5
1.8
4.4
5
1.8
4.3
4
2.0
4.4
5
1.9
4.4
4
2.0
4.1
4
1.8
4.2
4
2.1
4.2
4
1.9
Figure 59 City routes - Satisfaction ratings shown as mean, median, and standard deviation
140
Figure 59 expands on the results shown in the previous two charts by presenting descriptive statistics that show the means
and distributions of the results. The same information about distributions is presented in percentage tables in Appendix B.

The lowest rating is for the hour in the evening when service ceases to run. The median score for all respondents and for
each of the three rider frequency groups is 4, meaning that half of the respondents scored it below and half above four on
a scale from one to seven.
The standard deviations fall in a fairly narrow range from 1.3 to 1.9, an indication that no one aspect of service has an
unusually wide range of scores which would indicate a widely varied or polarized set of views among riders.
The scores of the three rider frequency segments are similar for most aspects of service, but there are exceptions to this.
The most notable exception is total travel time for the trip. These scores are high among the four to five day users, with a
median score of 6 and a mean of 5.4. The occasional users, however score it considerably lower at a median of 5 and a
mean of 4.9. This low rating may account in part for their infrequent use of MTD.
141
Service Satisfaction Ratings among Students and
Non-students (City routes)
Service Ratings of students and non-students.
78%
81%
MTD service overall
79%
86%
68%
73%
69%
73%
68%
71%
67%
70%
62%
69%
63%
64%
53%
59%
53%
51%
49%
45%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Not a student
Student
80%
90%
100%
Figure 60 City routes - Service satisfaction ratings among students and non-students
142
Service satisfaction ratings among student and non-student users of city routes
Students appear to be slightly more satisfied with service than other riders, with two exceptions. For most of the service
elements measured, more students than non-students give a positive score to MTD service.
• For overall service, while 81% of students gave it a positive rating, slightly fewer, 78% of non-students, did so.
•
Similarly, for most individual elements of service, more students gave the service positive ratings than did nonstudents.
•
The exceptions were on the ratings of the time buses stop running in the evening and frequency of weekend
service. This suggests that because many student users of MTD depend on the bus service at all hours and every
day, maximizing all elements of service would give them the greatest local travel capability, and would increase
overall customer satisfaction.
143
Service Improvement Ratings (City Routes)
Importance of improving selected services (first of two charts). Percentage saying it is "Very
Important" to improve this aspect of service.
41%
Longer hours for bus service on Sundays
40%
Later evening bus service on community bus routes
36%
Improved lighting on neighborhood streets
A small shuttle bus that would connect the stores and shopping
centers in the Marketplace Mall and North Prospect area
31%
Additional routes that run directly back and forth on major streets
like University, Neil, Prospect and others
29%
Express bus service between downtown Urbana, UIUC and
downtown Champaign
28%
A monthly or weekly MTD pass that would be good for unlimited
rides
26%
25%
Improved sidewalks to make getting to bus stops easier
21%
Faster routes that stop only once or twice on the UI campus
20%
Bus service to and within Savoy
16%
Service to and from Rantoul
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
Figure 61 City routes - Rating the priority of service improvements
144
Service improvements desired
Given the satisfaction ratings just discussed, it is not surprising that longer hours on Sunday (41%) and later evening service
on community bus routes (40%) are the service improvements desired by the most riders.
Two other improvements are also rated as “very important” by more than 30% of riders: improved lighting on neighborhood
streets (which fits well with a desire for longer evening service), and a small shuttle bus that connects the major shopping
areas.
Services to Savoy and Rantoul receive the fewest high ratings as improvement priorities. This is typical of existing riders on
most transit systems. Existing riders use the services that exist because they fit their travel needs. They typically want
extensions of existing service in the form or hours, shelters and so forth. If there is extensive demand for service to new
areas, it would be found in the non-rider community.
One improvement that would apply very differently to student and non-student riders is the unlimited ride pass. Given that
the student ID serves as such a pass, it seems unlikely that students would rate it a high priority for improvement, but that
others might. That is in fact the case, as the inset table shows: 42% of
the non-students rate this as a very important improvement, compared to
Student
Not a student
only 17% of the students.
A monthly or
weekly MTD
pass that
would be
good for
unlimited
rides
Not important at all
41%
21%
2
7%
4%
3
5%
3%
4
9%
10%
5
10%
7%
6
10%
12%
Very important
17%
42%
We will see in a later chart that the non-students are more likely than
students to rate all of the aspects of service improvement as very
important.
145
Distribution of Importance-to-Improve Ratings
50%
Sun service longer
PM service
Lighting
Shopping shuttle
Back/forth on main sts
X-press among d'towns
Monthly pass
Sidewalks
Faster routes
Savoy
Rantoul
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Not important
at all
2
3
4
5
6
Very
important
Figure 62 Visualization of the distribution of service improvement priorities
146
Visualizing the distribution of the overall service improvement ratings
It is often useful to plot the service improvement ratings so that the distribution of scores can be visualized. The chart above
presents a line-graph view of the distributions among all respondents without showing statistics. (They will be shown in later
figures.) Notice the following features:

For the most part riders were in agreement on the importance (or lack of importance) of these improvements. For
example, longer Sunday service, later evening service, better lighting at stops, all receive high percentages rating them as
very important and low percentages rating them as not important.
On the other hand, services to Rantoul and Savoy are generally considered not important at all, as one would expect
given the small populations of those areas. Such service may, of course, be very important to those riders who need to
travel to these locations, as is implied by the relatively small percentage rating these as very important improvements.
Supplementary analysis can determine whether it was they or others who rated the service as very important to improve.
The major exception to these tendencies is in the item shown here in abbreviated fashion as “faster routes.” The full
question read “Faster routes that stop only once or twice on campus.” On this item there is a fairly equal balance between
“very important” and “not important at all.” (See questionnaire in appendix or Figure 61 for full wording of each item). The
coupling of “faster routes” with limited campus stops suggests that there may be some difference between students and
non-students in their priorities for this improvement. We will see later (Figure 66) that non-students do consider this more
important than do students, but that this improvement is not a high priority even for non-students.
A monthly pass as a service improvement also produced a somewhat divided result, probably because there were so
many students in the sample, and they already ride for a flat fee embedded in their university fees.
147
Service Improvement Ratings (City Routes)
Ratings of the importance of improving aspects of service (Second of two charts). Percentage saying it
is "very important" to improve the service (Source: CUMTD Onboard Survey - City Routes, 2006)
58%
27%
39%
49%
33%
39%
47%
28%
33%
43%
21%
Additional routes that run directly back and forth on major streets like
University, Neil, Prospect and others
21%
27%
38%
26%
38%
Express bus service between downtown Urbana, UIUC and downtown
Champaign
22%
24%
35%
17%
A monthly or weekly MTD pass that would be good for unlimited rides
29%
35%
17%
24%
28%
17%
18%
26%
6 or 7 days a week
4 or 5 days a week
Up to 3 days a week
14%
22%
22%
8%
21%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Figure 63 City routes - Rating the priority of service improvements, by frequency of using MTD
148
Service improvements differences among the rider frequency segments
The rank order of service improvements is very similar among the three rider frequency groups. For the most part, the
priorities of each of the groups are the same as for all MTD riders shown in the previous chart.
The one major exception is that, for reasons easily inferred, the four or five day riders are less likely to consider longer hours
of service on Sunday as very important than they are to consider later evening service on community bus routes as very
important. Other than that, the order of priorities is similar among the segments.
For each of the improvements studied, the most frequent transit users were the most likely to rate the improvement as very
important. Presumably this attitude is related to their relatively intensive use of MTD.
149
Service improvement ratings
(City Routes)
Importance to improve various aspects of service
Up to 3 days a week
4 or 5 days a week
6 or 7 days a week
Mean
Median
5.2
6
2.0
5.1
6
1.9
5.6
6
1.8
5.3
6
1.9
4.9
6
2.1
4.9
5
1.9
5.6
6
1.8
5.2
6
1.9
5.1
6
2.0
4.5
5
2.2
5.8
7
1.8
5.1
6
2.1
4.7
5
2.0
4.7
5
1.9
5.4
6
1.8
4.9
5
1.9
4.6
5
2.1
4.5
5
2.1
5.2
6
2.0
4.8
5
2.1
4.6
5
2.1
4.2
5
2.2
5.5
6
1.9
4.7
5
2.2
4.4
5
2.1
4.2
4
2.1
5.1
6
2.0
4.6
5
2.1
3.9
4
2.2
3.8
4
2.2
4.4
5
2.3
4.0
4
2.3
A monthly or weekly MTD pass that would be good for unlimited rides
4.0
4
2.5
3.4
3
2.4
4.3
5
2.5
3.9
4
2.5
3.7
3
2.4
3.2
2
2.3
4.1
4
2.4
3.6
3
2.4
3.4
3
2.4
2.6
1
2.1
3.5
3
2.4
3.1
2
2.3
Additional routes that run directly back and forth on major streets like
University, Neil, Prospect and others
Express bus service between downtown Urbana, UIUC and downtown
Champaign
A small shuttle bus that would connect the stores and shopping centers in
the Marketplace Mall and North Prospect area
Mean
Median
Std.
Deviation
Mean
Total
Std.
Deviation
Median
Std.
Deviation
Mean
Median
Std.
Deviation
Figure 64 City routes - Service improvement ratings shown as mean, media, and standard deviation
150
Details of service improvement ratings by frequency group using descriptive statistics (mean, median,
standard deviation) to show distributions
Figure 64 expands on the previous charts by showing the descriptive statistics for each item. It slightly modifies our view of
the priorities for service improvement. Notice that whereas the top percentage approach to prioritization placed the increase
of Sunday service at the top of the list, the mean score approach (which by definition, of course, takes in all of the scores not
just the top score) places later evening service on community routes at the top of the priority list with better lighting on
neighborhood streets second. These two priorities have an obvious practical relationship and perhaps should be approached
as a package of services to improve.
This is not to say that Sunday service recedes to a low level. It remains a high priority using the mean scores as a guide,
ranking third in the list in descending order of the mean score for all respondents.
151
Perceived importance for MTD to improve selected aspects of service (1 of 3)
Up to 3 days a 4 or 5 days a
week
week
6 or 7 days a
week
All
respondents
A monthly or weekly MTD
pass that would be good
for unlimited rides
2
3
4
5
6
Very important
30%
8%
6%
9%
12%
7%
29%
41%
8%
4%
11%
9%
10%
17%
30%
4%
4%
9%
7%
12%
35%
34%
6%
4%
10%
9%
11%
26%
Faster routes that stop
only once or twice on the
UI campus
2
3
4
5
6
Very important
25%
10%
9%
13%
12%
13%
18%
25%
11%
10%
15%
10%
12%
17%
21%
7%
8%
11%
11%
15%
28%
23%
10%
9%
13%
10%
13%
21%
Additional routes that run
directly back and forth on
major streets like
University, Neil, Prospect
and others
2
3
4
5
6
Very important
12%
5%
10%
14%
14%
18%
26%
10%
6%
8%
16%
21%
17%
21%
7%
3%
6%
9%
17%
19%
38%
10%
5%
8%
13%
18%
18%
29%
A small shuttle bus that
would connect the stores
and shopping centers in
the Marketplace Mall and
North Prospect area
2
3
4
5
6
Very important
11%
11%
11%
13%
14%
14%
27%
22%
11%
4%
12%
17%
14%
21%
9%
3%
4%
10%
11%
20%
43%
14%
8%
5%
11%
14%
16%
31%
Details of service
improvement ratings by
frequency group, using
percentages to show
distributions
On the following three pages
there is a single table which
shows the details of
importance ratings for the
several rider segments and
for all city-route respondents.
However, unlike the table
above of descriptive statistics,
this table shows percentages.
Here we can see in detail the
various levels of agreement
and disagreement among the
riders. For example, among
all respondents there was
roughly as much
disagreement as there was
agreement that a monthly
pass is needed. Similarly,
there was as much
disagreement as agreement
on the need for faster routes
that stop only once or twice
on campus.
Figure 65 Perceived importance of improving selected elements of service (all ratings in percentages)
152
week
week
Service to and from
Rantoul
2
3
4
5
6
Very important
35%
12%
11%
8%
7%
5%
21%
53%
11%
6%
10%
6%
7%
8%
6 or 7 days a
week
All
respondents
37%
9%
8%
10%
8%
6%
22%
43%
10%
8%
10%
7%
6%
16%
Bus service to and within
Savoy
2
3
4
5
6
Very important
30%
12%
10%
8%
9%
8%
22%
43%
9%
6%
9%
11%
8%
14%
29%
6%
7%
9%
11%
12%
26%
35%
9%
7%
9%
11%
9%
20%
Express bus service
between downtown
Urbana, UIUC and
downtown Champaign
2
3
4
5
6
Very important
13%
9%
13%
8%
12%
21%
24%
14%
9%
8%
13%
16%
18%
22%
11%
3%
4%
11%
15%
18%
38%
13%
7%
7%
12%
15%
19%
28%
Longer hours for bus
service on Sundays
2
3
4
5
6
Very important
9%
5%
10%
9%
12%
16%
39%
16%
9%
8%
11%
13%
15%
27%
7%
3%
3%
6%
7%
17%
58%
11%
6%
7%
9%
10%
16%
41%
This division of opinion
does not mean that it is
inherently unimportant
to offer these
improvements. It does
mean that they would
appeal to smaller
portions of the ridership
than some other
improvements.
In supplementary
analysis outside of this
report, these priorities
can be broken down
still further to determine
who it is that considers
these things to be a
high priority. If it is
intense users who ride
not only many days a
week but also many
times a day, it may be
worth considering to
serve a market that
contributes
disproportionately to
ridership.
On the other hand
there were more
service improvement
priorities on which
there was general
agreement. For
153
week
week
6 or 7 days a
week
All
respondents
2
3
4
5
6
Very important
8%
7%
6%
9%
14%
16%
39%
9%
6%
4%
11%
16%
21%
33%
8%
2%
4%
9%
11%
18%
49%
8%
5%
4%
10%
14%
19%
40%
Improved sidewalks to
make getting to bus stops
easier
2
3
4
5
6
Very important
14%
9%
11%
12%
18%
12%
24%
16%
11%
8%
15%
18%
15%
17%
9%
6%
7%
11%
14%
18%
35%
13%
9%
8%
13%
17%
15%
25%
Improved lighting on
neighborhood streets
2
3
4
5
6
Very important
12%
7%
10%
9%
13%
17%
33%
10%
5%
7%
12%
19%
19%
28%
6%
3%
5%
9%
15%
15%
47%
9%
5%
6%
10%
16%
17%
36%
Later evening bus service
on community bus routes
example – to take only
two illustrations – there
was a general tendency
for the riders to agree
that extended Sunday
service is important and
that later evening
service on community
bus routes is very
important.
For each service
improvement it was the
most frequent riders who
were most likely to rate
the improvement as very
important. They were
followed by the least
frequent riders who, in
turn, were followed by
the four or five day
riders.
This greater acceptance
of services as they are
among the four or five
day riders is typical of
this commuter market in
such surveys. The reason is that they have routinized their use of the service. It functions well for their highly routine trips,
and they are less likely than infrequent or more frequent users to see need for change.
154
(This page intentionally left blank)
155
Service Improvement Ratings among
Students and Non-students (City routes)
Service improvements. Percentage saying the service improvement is "very important"
50%
36%
44%
38%
43%
32%
42%
A monthly or weekly MTD pass that would be good for unlimited
rides
17%
40%
25%
38%
Additional routes that run directly back and forth on major streets
like University, Neil, Prospect and others
23%
35%
20%
33%
13%
32%
26%
29%
Express bus service between downtown Urbana, UIUC and
downtown Champaign
8%
Not a student
Student
28%
17%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Figure 66 City routes - Service improvement ratings among students and non-students using city routes
156
Student / non-student service improvement priorities
Student users of the city routes have somewhat different service improvement priorities than non-students. The chart in
Figure 66 indicates the difference in the percent of students and non-students in the city route survey who consider the
specific service improvements to be very important.
Because of the greater tendency of the non-student trips to be work-related (See Figure 33) one would expect that the nonstudents would be more demanding and would desire more service improvements than would students. That is, in fact, the
case.
In terms of service improvement priorities, the greatest contrasts between student and non-student MTD users are for the
unlimited ride pass which was already discussed (see page 145), and for service to Savoy and Rantoul. The item on which
the students (38% very important) and non-students (44% very important) are nearly in agreement is on later evening service
on community routes. They are also similar in their ratings of the need to provide express service among downtown Urbana,
UIUC, and Champaign (26% students, 32% non-students), but the percent stipulating this as a high priority is much lower.
157
Satisfaction Ratings (Campus Routes)
Rate total travel time for
your MTD trip
73%
68%
STOPwatch information
signs
67%
Connections at transfer
points
64%
Rate MTD shelters and
benches at bus stops
53%
Time buses stop running
in the evening
46%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Figure 67 Campus routes - Satisfaction ratings
158
Service satisfaction ratings among campus route users
We now turn to satisfaction ratings on the campus routes.
The student users of MTD appear generally satisfied with service. Total travel time is a crucial element of service, and
almost three-fourths of the students rated that aspect of service positively. Two thirds, or close to two-thirds, rated most of
the other aspects of service measured positively also. The exceptions were shelters and benches at bus stops (53%
positive) and the time buses stop running in the evening (46%)11.
11
The interested reader may also wish to refer to Appendix C, page 175, in which the full tables of satisfaction scores are given.
159
Service Satisfaction Ratings (Campus Routes)
68%
75%
77%
Rate total travel time for your MTD trip
68%
68%
71%
69%
65%
66%
60%
69%
59%
Rate MTD shelters and benches at bus stops
51%
54%
60%
46%
42%
55%
6 or 7 days a week
4 or 5 days a week
Up to 3 days a week
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
Figure 68 Campus routes - Service satisfaction ratings by frequency of using MTD
160
Satisfaction differences among the campus route rider frequency segments
Breaking down the positive scores by frequency of using the campus routes, we find that the rank order of the ratings is
similar among the three segments.
One of the major differences among the segments is that the four or five day campus route riders are more likely than the
other segments to rate connections at transfer points positively. This is typical of four or five day riders in other systems. The
reason is that their trips tend to be so routine that they are very accustomed to them and make their connections easily
because of their familiarity with the characteristics of the trip.
In several respects, the percent of the six or seven day riders rating the service “Excellent” is somewhat lower than the
percent of the less frequent MTD riders. For example, total travel time for the trip is rated positively by more than two-thirds
(68%) of the 6 or 7 day riders, but by more than three-fourths of the of the four or five day riders and “up to three day” riders.
This is unlike the city route findings. It suggests that the occasional user of the campus routes is relatively well satisfied with
the trip duration, and must have other reasons for not using the bus more frequently, perhaps more alternatives (e.g. walking,
bicycling) within the comparatively compact area served by campus routes.
161
Descriptive statistics related to service satisfaction ratings
(Campus Routes. Scale from 1 - 7 where 7 means "Excellent" and 1 means "Poor")
Up to 3 days a week
Mean
Std.
Median Deviation
4 or 5 days a week
Mean
Std.
Median Deviation
6 or 7 days a week
Mean
Std.
Median Deviation
Total
Mean
Std.
Median Deviation
5.1
5
1.3
5.2
5
1.2
5.0
5
1.2
5.1
5
1.2
5.0
5
1.5
5.0
5
1.6
5.2
5
1.5
5.1
5
1.5
5.1
5
1.4
4.9
5
1.5
4.9
5
1.4
5.0
5
1.5
4.8
5
1.3
5.1
5
1.3
4.9
5
1.3
4.9
5
1.3
4.7
5
1.5
4.6
5
1.6
4.4
5
1.4
4.5
5
1.5
4.9
5
1.5
4.4
4
1.6
4.4
4
1.8
4.5
5
1.7
Figure 69 Campus routes - Service satisfaction ratings shown as mean, media, and standard deviation
162
Details of satisfaction ratings on campus routes
The table of descriptive statistics adds little except detail to what has already been said. Notice that:

All but two of the medians are five on the scale of 1 – 7.
The standard deviations range only from 1.2 to 1.7 for all respondents, suggesting a fairly narrow range of responses.
The means are close to the median scores.
These data reinforce the observation that these ratings are really quite uniform among the rider segments.
163
(Page intentionally left blank)
164
Appendix A: Questionnaires
165
Figure 70 Campus route questionnaire (single page)
166
(Page intentionally left blank)
167
Figure 71 City route questionnaire (2 pages, English version)
168
169
Figure 72 City route questionnaire (2 pages Spanish version)
170
171
Appendix B: Service Satisfaction Tables – City Routes
The following tables are provided as a supplement because the charts in the body of the document provide only summary
statistics. These tables provide the reader with more detailed information.
Rider frequency
segments
Frequency of service on
weekdays
All city
route
riders
Up to 3
days a
week
4 or 5
days a
week
6 or 7
days a
week
Not satisfied at all
2
3
4
5
6
Very satisfied
3%
12%
8%
11%
20%
21%
25%
4%
2%
6%
13%
15%
23%
23%
18%
2%
4%
7%
11%
16%
20%
22%
20%
5%
3%
8%
11%
14%
21%
22%
20%
3%
2
3
4
5
6
Very satisfied
2
3
4
5
6
Very satisfied
8%
10%
13%
16%
20%
28%
3%
9%
11%
18%
16%
17%
26%
4%
8%
15%
21%
28%
21%
2%
2%
7%
12%
23%
34%
21%
7%
7%
12%
13%
25%
31%
4%
4%
8%
13%
21%
26%
24%
6%
8%
14%
17%
26%
26%
3%
4%
8%
13%
21%
27%
23%
172
Rider frequency
segments
Time buses stop running in the
evening
Availability of schedule
information
All city
route
riders
Up to 3
days a
week
4 or 5
days a
week
6 or 7
days a
week
2
3
4
5
6
Very satisfied
4%
9%
11%
21%
16%
15%
24%
10%
5%
5%
11%
20%
25%
21%
13%
10%
7%
7%
11%
19%
18%
20%
19%
15%
5%
6%
11%
20%
20%
20%
17%
12%
2
3
4
5
6
Very satisfied
2
3
4
5
6
Very satisfied
10%
14%
18%
15%
12%
21%
3%
5%
10%
21%
20%
18%
23%
2%
13%
15%
17%
17%
18%
10%
2%
4%
5%
19%
23%
30%
17%
1%
9%
14%
15%
13%
16%
19%
4%
3%
9%
18%
16%
25%
25%
1%
11%
14%
17%
15%
16%
15%
3%
4%
8%
19%
19%
26%
21%
1%
2
3
4
5
6
Very satisfied
3%
7%
12%
12%
24%
40%
1%
4%
7%
15%
32%
41%
2%
4%
10%
12%
24%
46%
2%
4%
9%
13%
27%
43%
173
Rider frequency
segments
MTD service overall
2
3
4
5
6
Very satisfied
2
3
4
5
6
Very satisfied
2
3
4
5
6
Very satisfied
2
3
4
5
6
Very satisfied
All city
route
riders
Up to 3
days a
week
4 or 5
days a
week
6 or 7
days a
week
6%
10%
10%
19%
16%
19%
19%
3%
6%
12%
16%
14%
24%
26%
3%
4%
9%
20%
14%
22%
29%
2%
3%
6%
10%
22%
32%
24%
7%
10%
13%
18%
18%
23%
11%
1%
5%
8%
13%
18%
30%
26%
1%
2%
5%
17%
18%
30%
27%
1%
1%
2%
14%
25%
39%
19%
14%
10%
13%
14%
16%
16%
18%
5%
3%
8%
17%
14%
24%
29%
3%
3%
6%
15%
15%
21%
36%
2%
2%
6%
11%
23%
33%
22%
10%
10%
12%
17%
17%
19%
15%
3%
4%
8%
15%
16%
27%
27%
2%
3%
6%
17%
16%
25%
31%
2%
2%
4%
12%
24%
35%
21%
174
Appendix C: Service Satisfaction Tables – Campus Routes
Up to 3 days a
4 or 5 days a
week
week
Poor
2
3
4
5
6
Excellent
Poor
2
3
4
5
6
Excellent
Poor
2
3
4
5
6
Excellent
Poor
2
3
4
5
6
Excellent
1%
3%
0
15%
36%
25%
17%
1%
6%
13%
20%
29%
19%
12%
9%
19%
17%
19%
26%
11%
1%
10%
30%
30%
16%
13%
1%
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.1
2%
8%
12%
24%
27%
16%
11%
7%
10%
15%
26%
19%
15%
8%
1%
0%
6%
23%
34%
23%
13%
Table Total
6 or 7 days
a week
1%
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.1
4%
9%
14%
23%
32%
11%
8%
9%
10%
15%
19%
17%
17%
12%
2%
2%
8%
29%
26%
23%
11%
1%
2%
0
18%
34%
25%
14%
3%
8%
13%
23%
29%
15%
10%
7%
10%
16%
22%
18%
17%
11%
1%
1%
8%
27%
29%
22%
12%
175
Poor
2
3
4
5
6
Excellent
Poor
2
3
4
5
6
Excellent
Up to 3 days a
4 or 5 days a
week
week
1%
3%
2%
3%
13%
8%
14%
18%
26%
27%
24%
20%
20%
21%
2%
3%
3%
4%
12%
6%
16%
22%
21%
22%
24%
22%
21%
21%
Table Total
6 or 7 days
a week
2%
4%
11%
14%
31%
24%
13%
2%
3%
10%
16%
22%
25%
22%
2%
3%
10%
16%
29%
22%
18%
3%
3%
8%
19%
22%
23%
22%
176
Appendix D: Comments Offered by City Route Riders about MTD Service
(Under separate cover)
177