An Analysis of New York Residents’ Views of Highway Travel · FEMALE = 90% confidence interval...

An Analysis of New York Residents’ Views of Highway Travel

Frank Southworth Oak Ridge National Laboratory

Tim Reuscher

MacroSys Research and Technology

July 6, 2004

Prepared for: the New York Department of Transportation

Albany, New York

Prepared by the OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY

Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37831-6073 managed by

UT-BATTELLE, LLC for the

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY under Contract No. DE-AC05-00OR22725

ORNL July, 2004

ii

CONTENTS

Page LIST OF FIGURES........................................................................................................... iv LIST OF TABLES.............................................................................................................. v ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS......................................................................... v EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................................... vi 1. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................1 1.1 Purpose................................................................................................................1 1.2 Report Organization ..........................................................................................1 2. THE TRAVEL SURVEYS AND THE QUESTIONS ASKED..............................3 2.1 The 1995 and 2001 Household Travel Surveys..............................................3 2.2 The Questions Asked.........................................................................................3

3. HOW NEW YORKERS VIEW AND RANK HIGHWAY TRAVEL CONCERNS..............................................................................................................5

3.1 Presentation of Findings .................................................................................. 5 3.2 Mean Responses, Response Profiles and Ranking of Concerns..................6 4. VARIATIONS IN RESPONSES BY TRAVELER CHARACTERISTICS.........11 4.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................11 4.2 Analysis of Negative Responses ....................................................................14 5. VARIATIONS IN RESPONSES BY METROPOLITAN AREA SIZE AND POPULATION DENSITY ....................................................................................33 5.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................33 5.2 Analysis of Negative Responses ....................................................................33 6. WITHIN-STATE REGIONAL VARIATIONS IN RESPONSES TO SPECIFIC CONCERNS...........................................................................................................40 6.1 Introduction .....................................................................................................40 6.2 Regional Traffic Congestion and Traveler Information Concerns ...........40 6.3 Regional Concerns over Pavement Condition and Lack of Walkways or Sidewalks ..................................................................................41 6.4 Regional Concerns over Driving Behavior...................................................41 6.5 Regional Concerns over Travel Safety ..........................................................42 6.6 Regional Concerns over the Price of Gasoline.............................................42

ORNL July, 2004

iii

Page 7. NEW YORK STATEWIDE RESULTS PLACED IN A REGIONAL AND NATIONAL CONTEXT .......................................................................................50 7.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................50 7.2 Discussion of the Empirical Results ..............................................................51 8. HAVE OPINIONS CHANGED IN RECENT YEARS? A COMPARISON OF 1995 AND 2001 RESPONSES ........................................................................61 8.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................61 8.2 Analysis of Negative Responses ....................................................................62 9. SUMMARY OF PRINCIPAL FINDINGS ...........................................................66 10. REFERENCES.........................................................................................................68 APPENDIX A. Description of Customer Satisfaction Questions............................69 APPENDIX B. Supporting Data Tables ......................................................................71 APPENDIX C. Multi-Way Analysis Using Logistic Regression ...........................85

ORNL July, 2004

iv

LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1 Mean Statewide Responses to 11 Customer Satisfaction Questions: 2001 NHTS ................................................................................................................6

2 Statewide Responses to Customer Satisfaction Questions: 2001 NHTS .........7 3 Mean Response Scores: New York State and Rest-of-Nation Samples..........10 4 Percentage of Travelers Indicating a Significant Problem, by Gender: 2001 NHTS.........................................................................................14 5 Statewide Large Problem Percentages by Age Group: 2001 NHTS ...............17 6 Statewide Large Problem Percentages by Family Income Group: 2001 NHTS .............................................................................................................21 7 Statewide Large Problem Responses by Education Group: 2001 NHTS ......25 8 Differences in Statewide Responses between Drivers and Non-Drivers: 2001 NHTS .............................................................................................................27 9 Large Problem Response Percentages based on Travel Time to Work: 2001

NHTS .......................................................................................................................29 10 Large Problem Response Percentages by Size of MSA Population 2001

NHTS .......................................................................................................................35 11 Large Problem Response Percentages based on Residential Population Density (Census Tract of Household Respondent) ..........................................39 12 Statewide, Regional and Rest of Nation Mean Scores......................................44 13 Map of US Census Divisions and the States they Contain ..............................50 14 Mean Response Scores by Region of the Country ............................................53 15 Percentage of Large Problem Responses by Region of the Country .............57 16 Percentage of Large Problem Responses, 1995 versus 2001, for (A) New York State , and (B) Rest of Nation....................................................63

ORNL July, 2004

v

List of Figures (Continued)…. 17 Percentage of Large Problem Responses, New York Regions ........................65

LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1 Socio-Demographic and Travel Characteristics, New York State: 2001 NHTS ..............................................................................................................12 2 Socio-Demographic and Travel Characteristics, New York State: 1995 NPTS ...............................................................................................................13 3 Correspondence between MSA Size Classes and New York Metropolitan Planning Organization Regions ...........................................................................33

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS Term Definition 90CI 90% Confidence Interval MSA Metropolitan Statistical Area CMSA Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization NHTS National Household Travel Survey NPTS Nationwide Personal Transportation Survey

ORNL July, 2004

vi

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report describes the results of an analysis of traveler survey data to determine how New York residents view the highway transportation services they receive within the state. The analysis uses data collected from a sample of New York households in calendar years 2001-2, as part of a state-specific add-on to the US Department of Transportation’s National Household Transportation Survey. The New York portion of the survey contained responses from over thirty thousand individuals, and provided a wealth of data with which to compare responses across not only different parts of New York State but also between New York and the rest of the nation. The statewide responses to the customer satisfaction questions are presented below.

Statewide Responses to 11 Customer Satisfaction Questions

The figure above shows the percentage of the state’s travelers who have a significant concern (= responses of “very much of a problem” or “a severe problem”) about a particular highway driving condition. Key Concerns Summarizing the results of the study, a majority of New York residents in 2001 had a positive view of highway travel in the state as we move into the twenty-first century. However, a significant number of residents, ranging from 17% (lack of walkways or sidewalks) to as high as 47% (aggressive drivers), did indicate more than minor problems on each of the eleven customer satisfaction questions posed to them. Chief among these concerns were the presence of aggressive and distracted drivers on the highways, a ranking also mirrored in the rest-of-nation

= 90% confidence intervals

38.3

17.1

37.531.828.8

38.7

47.3

36.3

27.033.529.4

0

20

40

60

HIGHWAY CONGESTION

NOT KNOWING ABOUTTRAFFICTIE-UPS

ROUGHPAVEMENTORPOTHOLES

LACK OF WALKWAYSORSIDEWALKS

SPEEDINGDRIVERS

LARGETRUCKS

DISTRACTEDDRIVERS

DRUNKDRIVERS

AGGRESSIVE DRIVERS

WORRYABOUTACCIDENTS

GASOLINEPRICE

% = 90% confidence intervals

38.3

17.1

37.531.828.8

38.7

47.3

36.3

27.033.529.4

0

20

40

60

HIGHWAY CONGESTION

NOT KNOWING ABOUTTRAFFICTIE-UPS

ROUGHPAVEMENTORPOTHOLES

LACK OF WALKWAYSORSIDEWALKS

SPEEDINGDRIVERS

LARGETRUCKS

DISTRACTEDDRIVERS

DRUNKDRIVERS

AGGRESSIVE DRIVERS

WORRYABOUTACCIDENTS

GASOLINEPRICE

%

ORNL July, 2004

vii

responses analyzed. Over 38% of the state’s travelers also had significant concerns over speeding drivers, while 37% had significant concerns over highway pavement condition, and over 36% were concerned about the price of gasoline. Questions addressing concerns over traffic congestion and traffic accidents produced roughly 29% and 27% negative responses respectively. One third of New York residents have significant concerns about drunk drivers, and some 30% are also concerned about the presence of large trucks in the traffic stream. Changes in Concerns between 1995 and 2001

Percentage of Travelers Indicating a Significant Problem (1): Statewide and Regional Responses in 1995 and 2001

Using data from the 1995 Nationwide Personal Transportation Survey, including a similar add-on survey for New York State, it was also possible to examine how travelers’ concerns about highway congestion, information on traffic tie-ups, poor pavement condition, lack of sidewalks or walkways, and worry about being in a traffic accident had changed between 1995 and 2001. Noticeable increases were found in the percentages of New York travelers finding highway

1995 2001 = 90% confidence intervals

New York MPO Areas

33.232.638.4

25.628.2

20.917.0

29.731.1

22.2

0

20

40

60

HIGHWAYCONGESTION

LACK OFWALKWAYS

NOTKNOWING

ABOUTTRAFFIC

POORHIGHWAY

PAVEMENT

WORRYABOUT

ACCIDENTS

% New York Non-MPO Areas

8.711.2

25.0

17.513.6

18.919.1

31.1

15.2

19.3

0

20

40

60

HIGHWAYCONGESTION

LACK OFWALKWAYS

NOTKNOWING

ABOUTTRAFFIC

POORHIGHWAY

PAVEMENT

WORRYABOUT

ACCIDENTS

%

New York Statewide(Numbers above bars = % of '4' and '5' responses

on a 1 (best) to 5 (worst) point scale)

20.5

28.8 29.1

17.120.1

27.024.8

37.5

30.331.8

0

20

40

60

HIGHWAYCONGESTION

LACK OFWALKWAYS

NOTKNOWINGABOUTTRAFFIC

POORHIGHWAY

PAVEMENT

WORRYABOUT

ACCIDENTS

%New York Metro Area

31.829.0

38.8

30.8

35.637.1

17.122.2

35.8

26.2

0

20

40

60

HIGHWAYCONGESTION

LACK OFWALKWAYS

NOTKNOWING

ABOUTTRAFFIC

POORHIGHWAY

PAVEMENT

WORRYABOUT

ACCIDENTS

%

19951995 2001 = 90% confidence intervals= 90% confidence intervals

New York MPO Areas

33.232.638.4

25.628.2

20.917.0

29.731.1

22.2

0

20

40

60

HIGHWAYCONGESTION

LACK OFWALKWAYS

NOTKNOWING

ABOUTTRAFFIC

POORHIGHWAY

PAVEMENT

WORRYABOUT

ACCIDENTS

% New York MPO Areas

33.232.638.4

25.628.2

20.917.0

29.731.1

22.2

0

20

40

60

HIGHWAYCONGESTION

LACK OFWALKWAYS

NOTKNOWING

ABOUTTRAFFIC

POORHIGHWAY

PAVEMENT

WORRYABOUT

ACCIDENTS

HIGHWAYCONGESTION

LACK OFWALKWAYS

NOTKNOWING

ABOUTTRAFFIC

POORHIGHWAY

PAVEMENT

WORRYABOUT

ACCIDENTS


8.711.2

25.0

17.513.6

18.919.1

31.1

15.2

19.3

0

20

40

60

HIGHWAYCONGESTION

LACK OFWALKWAYS

NOTKNOWING

ABOUTTRAFFIC

POORHIGHWAY

PAVEMENT

WORRYABOUT

ACCIDENTS


8.711.2

25.0

17.513.6

18.919.1

31.1

15.2

19.3

0

20

40

60

HIGHWAYCONGESTION

LACK OFWALKWAYS

NOTKNOWING

ABOUTTRAFFIC

POORHIGHWAY

PAVEMENT

WORRYABOUT

ACCIDENTS

HIGHWAYCONGESTION

LACK OFWALKWAYS

NOTKNOWING

ABOUTTRAFFIC

POORHIGHWAY

PAVEMENT

WORRYABOUT

ACCIDENTS

%



20.5

28.8 29.1

17.120.1

27.024.8

37.5

30.331.8

0

20

40

60

HIGHWAYCONGESTION

LACK OFWALKWAYS


POORHIGHWAY

PAVEMENT

WORRYABOUT

ACCIDENTS

% New York Statewide(Numbers above bars = % of '4' and '5' responses


20.5

28.8 29.1

17.120.1

27.024.8

37.5

30.331.8

0

20

40

60

HIGHWAYCONGESTION

LACK OFWALKWAYS


POORHIGHWAY

PAVEMENT

WORRYABOUT

ACCIDENTS

HIGHWAYCONGESTION

LACK OFWALKWAYS


POORHIGHWAY

PAVEMENT

WORRYABOUT

ACCIDENTS


31.829.0

38.8

30.8

35.637.1

17.122.2

35.8

26.2

0

20

40

60

HIGHWAYCONGESTION

LACK OFWALKWAYS

NOTKNOWING

ABOUTTRAFFIC

POORHIGHWAY

PAVEMENT

WORRYABOUT

ACCIDENTS


31.829.0

38.8

30.8

35.637.1

17.122.2

35.8

26.2

0

20

40

60

HIGHWAYCONGESTION

LACK OFWALKWAYS

NOTKNOWING

ABOUTTRAFFIC

POORHIGHWAY

PAVEMENT

WORRYABOUT

ACCIDENTS

HIGHWAYCONGESTION

LACK OFWALKWAYS

NOTKNOWING

ABOUTTRAFFIC

POORHIGHWAY

PAVEMENT

WORRYABOUT

ACCIDENTS

%

ORNL July, 2004

viii

congestion and poor pavement conditions (rough pavements or potholes) to be a significant problem. These increased concerns existed in both the built-up and more rural areas of the state (as reflected in both the MPO and non-MPO regions of the state shown in the diagrams above). To a lesser but still significant extent, more people statewide had concerns about being in a traffic accident in 2001 than in 1995. New York State Responses Compared to those in the Rest of the Nation Similar trends in responses are also found when comparing the statewide results for 1995 and 2001 with changes in the rest-of-nation responses.

Percentages of Travelers Indicating a Significant Problem (2):

Statewide and Rest-of-Nation Responses in 1995 and 2001 New York State Responses: Rest-of-Nation Responses:

Comparing New York travelers’ responses to those in the rest of the nation revealed a generally similar level of concern over the set of 11 issues put to them in 2001, based on both mean response scores and the percentage of responses indicating a significant problem. In 2001 New York travelers showed more concern over lack of information on traffic tie-ups, over poor pavement conditions, and over aggressive and drunk drivers than did respondents in the rest of the nation. In contrast, the state’s residents expressed a little less concern, on the average, over a lack of sidewalks or walkways, and over large trucks on the highways.

20.5

27.9

14.3

16.5

24.1

26.3

23.7

30.5

22.8

24.6

1995

2001

= 90%confidenceinterval

HIGHWAYCONGESTION

LACK OFWALKWAYS

NOT KNOWINGABOUT

TRAFFIC TIE-UPS

HIGHWAYPAVEMENTCONDITION

WORRYABOUT

ACCIDENTS

0 20 40 60Percent Responses

HIGHWAY CONGESTION

27.0

24.8

37.5

29.1

31.8

30.3

17.1

20.1

28.8

20.5

LACK OFWALKWAYS

NOT KNOWINGABOUT

TRAFFIC TIE-UPS


WORRYABOUT

ACCIDENTS

0 20 40 60


1995

2001

Percent Responses

20.5

27.9

14.3

16.5

24.1

26.3

23.7

30.5

22.8

24.6

1995

2001

1995

2001

1995

2001



HIGHWAYCONGESTION

LACK OFWALKWAYS

NOT KNOWINGABOUT

TRAFFIC TIE-UPS


WORRYABOUT

ACCIDENTS

HIGHWAYCONGESTION

LACK OFWALKWAYS

NOT KNOWINGABOUT

TRAFFIC TIE-UPS


WORRYABOUT

ACCIDENTS

0 20 40 600 20 40 60Percent Responses

HIGHWAY CONGESTION

27.0

24.8

37.5

29.1

31.8

30.3

17.1

20.1

28.8

20.5

LACK OFWALKWAYS

NOT KNOWINGABOUT

TRAFFIC TIE-UPS


WORRYABOUT

ACCIDENTS

0 20 40 60


1995

2001

HIGHWAY CONGESTION

27.0

24.8

37.5

29.1

31.8

30.3

17.1

20.1

28.8

20.5

LACK OFWALKWAYS

NOT KNOWINGABOUT

TRAFFIC TIE-UPS


WORRYABOUT

ACCIDENTS

0 20 40 600 20 40 60



1995

2001

1995

2001

1995

2001

Percent Responses

ORNL July, 2004

ix

(It should be noted that the differences between New York State responses and those reported in this study for the rest of the nation and for each of the nine Census Regions are likely to reflect the often significant differences in responses found to exist between the higher density, larger metropolitan areas and lower density and non-metropolitan areas within the state itself. Lacking data to adjust for such breakdowns within the rest of the nation dataset, caution is warranted in drawing other than broad comparisons between the New York State results and those presented for other regions of the country). Differences in Concerns across Socio-Demographic Groups The 2001 New York traveler responses were broken down along three lines: by socio-economic and demographic group, by the type and amount of travel residents engaged in, and by geographic location and nature of the urban environment.

Percentage of New Yorkers Indicating a Significant Problem, by Gender

New York travelers’ responses were often found to vary on the basis of gender, and also by age-group, education and family income, depending on the problem

Percentage of Negative Responses (= 4 or 5)0 20 40 60

Best -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Worst

MALE

FEMALE

= 90% confidenceinterval

Numbers at end of bars = % ofresponsesDRUNK

DRIVERS

TRAFFICTIE-UP INFO

CONGESTION

WORRY OVERACCIDENTS

GASOLINEPRICE

AGGRESSIVEDRIVERS

LACK OF WALKWAYS

LARGE TRUCKS

-

DISTRACTEDDRIVERS

PAVEMENT CONDITION

SPEEDINGDRIVERS

49.944.1

42.732.6

40.334.1

37.235.3

37.739.8

34.032.8

32.930.432.3

26.031.0

21.527.7

30.118.0

16.0


Best -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WorstPercentage of Negative Responses (= 4 or 5)

0 20 40 60

Best -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Worst

MALE

FEMALE



DRIVERS

TRAFFICTIE-UP INFO

CONGESTION

WORRY OVERACCIDENTS

GASOLINEPRICE

AGGRESSIVEDRIVERS

LACK OF WALKWAYS

LARGE TRUCKS

-

DISTRACTEDDRIVERS

PAVEMENT CONDITION

SPEEDINGDRIVERS

DRUNKDRIVERS

TRAFFICTIE-UP INFO

CONGESTION

WORRY OVERACCIDENTS

GASOLINEPRICE

AGGRESSIVEDRIVERS

LACK OF WALKWAYS

LARGE TRUCKS

-

DISTRACTEDDRIVERS

PAVEMENT CONDITION

SPEEDINGDRIVERS

49.944.1

42.732.6

40.334.1

37.235.3

37.739.8

34.032.8

32.930.432.3

26.031.0

21.527.7

30.118.0

16.0

ORNL July, 2004

x

area being captured by the surveys. Significant statistical differences between men and women (see figure) were associated with greater female concerns over speeding drivers, poor pavement conditions, the presence of large trucks on the highways, and being involved in an accident, and marginally over aggressive drivers. Men expressed greater concern over traffic congestion than did women. Driver versus Non-Driver Concerns

Percentage of Statewide Travelers with Significant Concerns:

Driver vs. Non-Driver Responses in 2001

New York residents who identified themselves as being drivers were found to be significantly more concerned about gasoline price than non-drivers. Drivers were also found to be more concerned about congestion and large trucks on the highways. They were less concerned about speeding and drunk drivers, and less worried about getting into traffic accidents, as well as a being marginally less concerned about the lack of sidewalks or walkways. As might be expected, travelers with longer journey to work times and distances, as well as those who

Numbers above bars = % responses 47.2

35.7

19.616.5

36.537.833.231.5

25.329.7

0

20

40

60

DriverNon-

Driver DriverNon-

Driver DriverNon-

Driver DriverNon-

Driver DriverNon-

Driver

CONGESTION NOT KNOWINGTRAFFIC

PAVEMENTCONDITION

LACK OFWALKWAYS

SPEEDINGDRIVERS

%


25.8

39.036.1

24.6

55.2

45.539.0

32.2

37.239.1

25.730.5

0

20

40

60

DriverNon-

Driver DriverNon-

Driver DriverNon-

Driver DriverNon-

Driver DriverNon-

Driver DriverNon-

DriverLARGE TRUCKS

DISTRACTEDDRIVERS

DRUNKDRIVERS

AGGRESSIVE DRIVERS

WORRYABOUT

ACCIDENTS

GASOLINEPRICE

%


35.7

19.616.5

36.537.833.231.5

25.329.7

0

20

40

60

DriverNon-

Driver DriverNon-

Driver DriverNon-

Driver DriverNon-

Driver DriverNon-

Driver


PAVEMENTCONDITION

LACK OFWALKWAYS

SPEEDINGDRIVERS

%

= 90% confidence intervals= 90% confidence intervals

25.8

39.036.1

24.6

55.2

45.539.0

32.2

37.239.1

25.730.5

0

20

40

60

DriverNon-

Driver DriverNon-

Driver DriverNon-

Driver DriverNon-

Driver DriverNon-

Driver DriverNon-

DriverLARGE TRUCKS

DISTRACTEDDRIVERS

DRUNKDRIVERS

AGGRESSIVE DRIVERS

WORRYABOUT

ACCIDENTS

GASOLINEPRICE

%

ORNL July, 2004

xi

drive a good deal more than the average (for all trip purposes, based on the previous twelve months of activity) were more likely to have concerns over traffic congestion. Some 40% of the state’s travelers who take more than 30 minutes to get to work on a daily basis considered highway congestion to be a significant problem in 2001. Metropolitan Area, Non-Metropolitan Area and Regional Concerns

Selected Statewide Responses by Metropolitan Area Size in 2001


CONGESTION(Numbers above bars = % of '4' and '5' responses

on a 1 (best) to 5(worst) point scale)

35.4

9.412.6 14.0

16.718.5

0

20

40

60

Not in MSAor CMSA

Less than250,000

250,000 -499,999

500,000 -999,999

1,000,000 -2,999,999

3,000,000or more

MSA SIZE CLASS (POPULATION)

%

WORRY ABOUT BEING IN AN ACCIDENT (Numbers above bars = % '4' and '5' responses


20.316.2 19.2 19.3 18.3

31.5

0

20

40

60

Not in MSAor CMSA

Less than250,000

250,000 -499,999

500,000 -999,999

1,000,000 -2,999,999

3,000,000 ormore


%

AGGRESSIVE DRIVERS

33.5

26.4

33.5

39.1 36.7

53.4

0

20

40

60

Not in MSAor CMSA

Less than250,000

250,000 -499,999

500,000 -999,999

1,000,000 -2,999,999

3,000,000 ormore


%




35.4

9.412.6 14.0

16.718.5

0

20

40

60

Not in MSAor CMSA

Less than250,000

250,000 -499,999

500,000 -999,999

1,000,000 -2,999,999

3,000,000or more


%



20.316.2 19.2 19.3 18.3

31.5

0

20

40

60

Not in MSAor CMSA

Less than250,000

250,000 -499,999

500,000 -999,999

1,000,000 -2,999,999

3,000,000 ormore


%

AGGRESSIVE DRIVERS

33.5

26.4

33.5

39.1 36.7

53.4

0

20

40

60

Not in MSAor CMSA

Less than250,000

250,000 -499,999

500,000 -999,999

1,000,000 -2,999,999

3,000,000 ormore


%

ORNL July, 2004

xii

Statewide responses for 2001 were also broken down according to the regions covered by State’s 12 Metropolitan Planning Organizations, as well as by its non-metropolitan areas. Responses to a number of questions were found to vary a good deal by size of metropolitan area and by residential density: and notably so in the case of traffic congestion. New York Metro Area residents expressed greater levels of concern over highway congestion, aggressive drivers, and worry about being in a traffic accident than did residents in other parts of the state. Some 38% of the state’s metropolitan area residents expressed significant concerns about pavement quality (rough pavement and potholes) in 2001, while some 31% of non-metropolitan area residents expressing similar concerns. Greater percentages of New Yorkers living in the state’s higher density residential areas (starting at 2,000 persons per square mile and up) expressed major concerns over traffic congestion, lack of traffic tie-up information, poor pavement condition, speeding, distracted, drunk and aggressive drivers, and worry over being involved in a traffic accident than did residents in the less built-up parts of the state. In contrast, concern over the price of gasoline topped the list of concerns reported by the non-metropolitan area residents of the state. Concern over a lack of walkways or sidewalks is also greatest within the lower density, including principally rural parts of the state. Comparison with Neighboring States A comparison of New York State results with those for the rest of the Mid-Atlantic Region, and with the other eight US Census Regions of the country, indicated generally similar levels of concern in response to the 11 questions put to travelers in the 2001 survey. A slightly higher percentage of New Yorkers expressed a significant concern over lack of information on traffic tie-ups, and both New York and surrounding states in the Middle Atlantic and New England regions expressed slightly greater levels of concern over the presence of aggressive and drunk drivers on the highways. More New Yorkers expressed significant concern over gasoline prices than did travelers from the rest of the Middle Atlantic region, but had less concern about large trucks on the highways. New Yorkers also expressed a little more concern over poor pavement condition that did their immediate neighbors in the Middle Atlantic region. In making these regional comparisons, however, it must be noted that no correction for the percentage of travelers living in densely developed metropolitan versus more sparsely developed non-metropolitan areas could be developed from the rest of nation data: hence only broad regional comparisons are in order.

ORNL July, 2004

1

1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose

The purpose of this report is to describe how New York residents view the highway transportation services they receive within the state. Collecting and understanding such responses is an important planning activity. Along with other quantitative data, such responses help staff within the New York State Department of Transportation better respond to traveler needs. The analysis presented in the report is based on data collected from a sample of New York households in calendar years 2001-2, as part of a state-specific add-on to the US Department of Transportation’s National Household Transportation Survey (NHTS). The New York portion of the survey contained responses from over thirty thousand individuals, and the data elements collected and the sampling procedures used mirrored the same elements and procedures used in the nationwide sample. The survey provided a wealth of data with which to compare responses across not only different parts of New York State but also between New York and the rest of the nation. Using data from the 1995 Nationwide Personal Transportation Survey (NPTS), including a similar add-on survey for New York State, it was also possible to examine how travelers’ responses to a number of questions changed between 1995 and 2001-2, within both the State and the nation as a whole. In addition to statewide responses, the data were broken down in a number of different ways, allowing an examination the attitudes of different types of travelers, operating in different travel environments, and in different parts of the state. Comparisons were also made between the responses of New York travelers and those living in other parts of the nation. While the questions asked by the surveys were presented as a search for attitudes towards presumed problem areas, the overall response of New York travelers was on the positive side, but with significant percentages of travelers concerned with specific problem areas. Statistically significant variations in response levels were found to exist both across the questions asked, and across different traveler sub-populations when looking at specific questions. 1.2 Report Organization Section 2 of the report describes briefly the survey instruments used in the analysis and the specific attitudinal questions asked on the 2001 survey. Sections 3 through 7 describe the 2001 survey results. Section 3 compares responses across all 11 of the customer satisfaction questions posed to respondents in the statewide survey, identifying mean responses and the percentage of respondents indicating little or no problem versus a large problem for each question asked. Comparison is also made

ORNL July, 2004

2

between the mean scores obtained from the New York households sampled and the households sampled in the rest of the nation. Sections 4 and 5 break down the New York responses to show how they differ by selected traveler characteristics, such as age and gender (Section 4), and by metropolitan area size and population density (Section 5). Regional detail is brought into the analysis in Section 6 by examining mean responses and their distributions across different regions within the state, examining the data on a question-by-question basis. This is followed in Section 7 by a similar question-by-question comparison of New York State’s results with the equivalent results from each of the nation’s nine US Census Divisions, as well as for the nation as a whole. In Section 8 a temporal dimension is introduced into the analysis, drawing comparisons between these 2001 New York and Rest of Nation responses and the traveler responses obtained from the 1995 statewide and national surveys, for the 5 questions that both survey instruments have in common. Section 9 summarizes the study’s major findings. The report also contains three appendices. Appendix A lists the survey questions as they were laid out in the 2001 NHTS and 1995 NPTS survey instruments used to supply this study’s data. Appendix B contains data tables that support each of the graphs presented in the body of the report. Appendix C describes an experiment in the use of logistic regression modeling to investigate further important associations among the different sets of descriptive variables found in the 2001 New York dataset. These models quantify the approximate odds of one group of travelers having greater concern over an issue than another group.

ORNL July, 2004

3

2. THE TRAVEL SURVEYS AND THE QUESTIONS ASKED 2.1 The 1995 and 2001 Household Travel Surveys The data used in this study are drawn from personal interviews of travelers sampled as part of the 2001 National Household Travel Survey (NHTS) and its predecessor, the 1995 National Personal Transportation Survey (NPTS). 1 For both of these surveys the New York State Department of Transportation funded an in-state add-on to the national surveys, allowing more in-depth analysis of New York travel patterns. The results presented in this report are drawn from a sample of 30,268 individual traveler responses obtained from New York residents in 2001-2, and from 24,981 individual responses obtained from in–state residents as part of the 1995 NPTS. Nationwide and rest-of-state results for the same years, as reported below, were based on a sample of 160,758 individual traveler responses in 2001-2 and 95,360 sampled responses in 1995. However, not all customer satisfaction questions were asked of all respondents, and not all respondents provided answers to the questions posed them. As a result, the number of sample responses used in this present study varied from some 4,350 to just over 18,100 individual New York traveler responses, depending upon question asked (see below). 2.2 The Questions Asked An important component of each survey was a set of questions geared to understanding traveler satisfaction with the highway system. Travelers interviewed in 2001-2 were asked the following eleven customer satisfaction questions: “Thinking about your day-to-day travel, please tell me how much of a problem each of the following issues is for you. Use a number between 1 and 5, where 1 means it is not a problem for you at all, and 5 means it is the worst travel problem it could be for you. On a scale from 1 to 5, how much of a problem is… “

1. Highway congestion? (CONGEST) 2. Not knowing about traffic tie-ups or road construction? (TIEUP) 3. Rough pavement or potholes? (PVPOT) 4. Lack of walkways or sidewalks? (NOWALK) 5. Aggressive drivers on the road? (RRAGE) 6. Drunk drivers on the road? (DRUNK) 7. Distracted drivers on the roads? (DISTRC) 8. Drivers speeding on the roads? (SPEED) 9. The number of large trucks on highways? (TRUCKS) 10. Worrying about getting into a traffic accident? (ACDT)

1 See http://nhts.ornl.gov/2001/index.shtml for details of both the 1995 and 2001 travel surveys

ORNL July, 2004

4

11. The price of gasoline? (GAS PRICE) The capitalized names in brackets after each question are the abbreviations used in the survey datasets (e.g. DISTRC is used for distracted driver concerns). Between them, these eleven questions capture traveler concerns over traffic delays (questions 1 and 2), highway infrastructure (questions 3 and 4), highway safety (questions 5 through 10), and the price of gasoline (question 11). The purpose of this report is to describe the responses obtained to each of these questions. In addition to asking how well or poorly we are performing in a specific area, a common question asked by policy-makers is whether conditions are getting better or worse as a result of recent efforts. Using data from the 1995 NPTS it was possible to assess this situation for five of the eleven questions listed above, where the same or a nearly identical question was also asked in 1995. The five questions common to both surveys covered the following topics:

1. Highway congestion (CONGEST) 2. Worry about traffic accidents (ACDT) 3. Poor (2001)/Lack of (1995) walkways or sidewalks (NOWALK) 4. Rough pavements or potholes (2001)/Rough pavement on highways and

Rough pavement on neighborhood streets (1995) (PVPOT) 5. Not knowing about traffic tie-ups or road construction (TIEUP)

Of note, the 1995 survey used a 3-point scale for quantifying responses. To accommodate this, the 5-point scale used in the 2001 survey was converted to a 3-point scale when making comparisons with 1995 survey responses (see Section 8).

ORNL July, 2004

5

3. HOW NEW YORKERS VIEW AND RANK HIGHWAY TRAVEL CONCERNS 3.1 Presentation of Findings In this and subsequent sections of the report a number of different looks are taken at the traveler response data extracted from the 2001 NHTS (and 1995 NPTS). Results are presented in two principal forms: as the percentage of responses falling into each of the five response categories described in Section 2, and as mean responses on a scale of 1 (least concern) to 5 (greatest concern). Throughout the analysis 90% confidence intervals (90%CI) are used to identify the extent to which the reported number of responses is likely to differ under repeated sampling, under identical conditions.2 These confidence intervals can then be used to identify significant differences in responses across different sub-samples within the statewide and national population. Confidence intervals are reported in the text as follows: a response shown as 41.1% (±2.3) indicates that we are 90% confident that the average response is somewhere between 43.4% ( = 41.1% + 2.3%) and 38.8% (= 41.1% - 2.3%). If mean response values for any two traveler groups or regions have clearly overlapping confidence intervals when comparing answers to a specific question, then the difference in their reported response percentages is unlikely to be significant at the 90% confidence level. Where such differences are termed significant in this report a statistical test based on the difference in any two mean responses values and their combined standard errors has been carried out. A similar test is also carried out when two proportions are being compared. In particular, the report focuses on the percentage of “negative” responses obtained, i.e. those responses indicating there to be “a severe problem ” or “very much of a problem” in a specific area. (These are the responses scoring a 5 or 4 on the 5-point scale used in the 2001 survey). To assist with interpretation of results both mean responses and percentage of responses obtained within a specific category are graphed in bar chart form, along with their respective confidence intervals, and with the mean score or response percentage shown above each column in the graph. All of the mean scores and percentages presented in the report are population weighted results, i.e. the raw sampled responses have been factored to reflect the expected number of responses had the there been a 100% sample of New York households. The weights used in each case are a function of the stratified random sampling design used by the 1995 and 2001 surveys.

2 i.e., the 90 % confidence interval means that 90% of possible samples, conducted under identical conditions, would produce an estimate within the range of values shown.

ORNL July, 2004

6

3.2 Mean Responses, Response Profiles and Ranking of Concerns While some of the more interesting policy-relevant issues may focus on the responses to specific questions, it is useful to first of all examine the overall nature of survey response, and how it varied across the set of concerns placed before the respondents. Figure 1 shows the mean scores (the averaged value of the responses) to each of the 11 questions asked in the 2001 survey, based on the entire New York household sample.

Figure 1. Mean Statewide Responses to 11 Customer Satisfaction Questions: 2001 NHTS3

Numbers above bars = population weighted average responses

2.562.61

2.76 2.98

2.02

2.98

2.65 2.65

3.033.27

2.88

1

2

3

4

5

CONGESTION

NOT KNOWIN

G ABOUT TIE

-UPS

PAVEMENT CONDITIO

N

LACK O

F WALK

WAYS

SPEEDING D

RIVERS

LARGE TRUCKS

DRUNK DRIV

ERS

DISTRACTED D

RIVERS

AGGRESSIVE D

RIVERS

WORRY ABOUT A

CCIDENTS

GASOLINE P

RICE

I =90% confidence interval

Mea

n Sc

ores

Best

-----

------

-----

------

------

-Wor

st

Mean scores are reported above each bar. Also shown are the 90% confidence intervals for each of these mean values. The lower the mean score, the more positive the average viewpoint reported (i.e. the lower the level of concern over the potential problem area). On a possible score of 1 through 5, the numbers range from a low of 2.02 (concern over the lack of walkways and sidewalks), to a high of 3.27 (concern over aggressive drivers on the road). We will see below that these two questions

3 Based on sample sizes of just over 18,100 responses to the questions about congestion and pavement condition; 15,144 responses to the question about gasoline price; some 7,331 responses to the worry over accidents question, and between 4,361 and 4,646 responses on the other seven questions posed.

ORNL July, 2004

7

tend to bound most findings even after disaggregation of travelers on the basis of personal or regional characteristics.

Figure 2. Statewide Responses to Customer Satisfaction Questions: 2001 NHTS.

52.7

18.212.0

8.7 8.4

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1 2 3 4 5

LACK OF WALKWAYSOR SIDEWALKS

26.820.1 21.3

14.217.5

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1 2 3 4 5

LACK OF INFORMATION ON TRAFFIC TIE-UPS

OR CONSTRUCTION

20.9 19.022.6

16.321.2

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1 2 3 4 5

ROUGH PAVEMENT OR POTHOLES

16.9 15.420.4 18.4

29.0

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1 2 3 4 5

AGGRESSIVE DRIVERS

Not a p

roblem

A little

prob

lem

Somew

hat o

f a pr

oblem

Very m

uch o

f a pr

oblem

A seve

re pro

blem

33.7

17.4 20.1

11.517.3

0

10

20

30

40

50

60CONGESTION

numbers over bars = % of population-weighted

responses

Perc

ent

28.0

14.5

21.2

13.8

22.6

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1 2 3 4 5

GASOLINE PRICE

Perc

ent

1 2 3 4 5

52.7

18.212.0

8.7 8.4

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1 2 3 4 5

LACK OF WALKWAYSOR SIDEWALKS

26.820.1 21.3

14.217.5

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 5

LACK OF INFORMATION ON TRAFFIC TIE-UPS

OR CONSTRUCTION

20.9 19.022.6

16.321.2

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1 2 3 4 5


16.9 15.420.4 18.4

29.0

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1 2 3 4 5

AGGRESSIVE DRIVERS

Not a p

roblem

A little

prob

lem

Somew

hat o

f a pr

oblem

Very m

uch o

f a pr

oblem

A seve

re pro

blem

Not a p

roblem

A little

prob

lem

Somew

hat o

f a pr

oblem

Very m

uch o

f a pr

oblem

A seve

re pro

blem

33.7

17.4 20.1

11.517.3

0

10

20

30

40

50

60CONGESTION


responses

Perc

ent

28.0

14.5

21.2

13.8

22.6

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1 2 3 4 5

GASOLINE PRICE

Perc

ent

1 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 5

ORNL July, 2004

8

Figure 2 (Continued)….

20.7 19.221.8

17.720.6

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1 2 3 4 5

SPEEDING DRIVERS

30.5

19.7 20.4

13.516.0

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1 2 3 4 5

LARGE TRUCKS

33.1

21.1 18.9

10.916.1

0

10

20

30

40

50

60ACCIDENTS

1 2 3 4 5

39.3

17.1

10.16.0

27.4

0

10

20

30

40

50

60 DRUNK DRIVERS


responses

Perc

ent

20.915.8

24.7

17.221.5

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1 2 3 4 5

DISTRACTED DRIVERS

Perc

ent

1 2 3 4 5

Not a p

roblem

A little

prob

lem

Somew

hat o

f a pr

oblem

Very m

uch o

f a pr

oblem

A seve

re pro

blem

20.7 19.221.8

17.720.6

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1 2 3 4 5

SPEEDING DRIVERS

30.5

19.7 20.4

13.516.0

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 5

LARGE TRUCKS

33.1

21.1 18.9

10.916.1

0

10

20

30

40

50

60ACCIDENTS

1 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 5

39.3

17.1

10.16.0

27.4

0

10

20

30

40

50

60 DRUNK DRIVERS


responses

Perc

ent

20.915.8

24.7

17.221.5

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 5

DISTRACTED DRIVERS

Perc

ent

1 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 5

Not a p

roblem

A little

prob

lem

Somew

hat o

f a pr

oblem

Very m

uch o

f a pr

oblem

A seve

re pro

blem

Not a p

roblem

A little

prob

lem

Somew

hat o

f a pr

oblem

Very m

uch o

f a pr

oblem

A seve

re pro

blem

ORNL July, 2004

9

Looking more closely at this data, Figure 2 (above) shows the distribution of responses in percentages terms for all 11 questions, again based on the entire New York household sample. For example, looking at the top left bar chart, marked CONGESTION, we find that some 33.7% of respondents reported no problem with congestion, 17.4% reported “little problem”, and 20.1% reported “somewhat of a problem”. Some 11.5% reported “very much of a problem” and 17.3% reported “a severe” problem with congestion. At least 40% of respondents reported little or no problem on all but two of the questions: aggressive and distracted drivers being the exceptions (pavement condition and speeding drivers were right on the 40% margin). Concerns over aggressive drivers (29.0%) and drunk drivers (27.4%) top the “severe” problems list. Concerns about aggressive drivers also head the list of topics receiving the highest percentage of responses in the “very much of a problem” plus “severe problem” categories (18.4 + 29.0 = 47.4%). At the other end of the spectrum, the lack of sidewalks and walkways elicited the lowest overall percentage negative responses among the 11 questions asked (8.7+8.4= 17.1%). Some differences in the distribution of responses are also evident across the questions asked. Concerns over distracted drivers, speeding drivers, poor pavement condition, and to a slightly lesser extent gasoline pricing and the lack of information about traffic tie-ups seem to be fairly evenly spread across the five response categories. In contrast, responses to drunk driver concerns are more polarized toward either the no problem or severe problem categories. Finally, we end this introductory section with a look at how New Yorkers compare to other Americans on these 11 indices. Figure 3 compares the mean response scores for the State with those obtained from the NHTS rest-of-the-nation sample. It shows New York respondents to be more concerned, on average, over a lack of information about traffic tie-ups and construction, poor pavement condition, and over aggressive and drunk drivers on the road, but a little less concerned than respondents in the rest of the country, on average, over large trucks and the price of gasoline. Significantly, both New York and rest-of-nation respondents ranked aggressive and distracted drivers as their two most significant concerns. Similarly, lack of walkways or sidewalks was of the least concern, on the average, to both groups.

ORNL July, 2004

10

Figure 3. Mean Response Scores: New York State and Rest-of-Nation Samples.

I Vertical lines at top of bars = 90% confidence intervals.

Rest-of-Nationmean scores

New York Statemean scores

Mea

n re

spon

ses

on a

sca

le fr

om 1

(bes

t) to

5 (w

orst

)B

est

-----

------

------

------

------

-----

------

-----

------

----

Wor

st

CONGESTION NOT KNOWING ABOUT TRAFFIC TIE-UPS

PAVEMENT CONDITION

LACK OFSIDEWALKSOR

WALKWAYS

SPEEDINGDRIVERS

LARGE TRUCKS

2.61 2.56

2.79

2.01

2.95

2.65

2.862.76

2.98

2.65

2.98

2.02

1

2

3

4

5





Mea

n re

spon

ses

on a

sca

le fr

om 1

(bes

t) to

5 (w

orst

)B

est

-----

------

------

------

------

-----

------

-----

------

----

Wor

st

CONGESTION NOT KNOWING ABOUT TRAFFIC TIE-UPS

PAVEMENT CONDITION

LACK OFSIDEWALKSOR

WALKWAYS

SPEEDINGDRIVERS

LARGE TRUCKS

2.61 2.56

2.79

2.01

2.95

2.65

2.862.76

2.98

2.65

2.98

2.02

1

2

3

4

5



Mea

n re

spon

ses

on a

sca

le fr

om 1

(bes

t) to

5 (w

orst

)Be

st -

------

------

-----

------

------

------

------

------

------

-W

orst

DISTRACTEDDRIVERS

DRUNKDRIVERS

AGGRESSIVEDRIVERS

WORRY ABOUTBEING IN ACCIDENTS

GASOLINE PRICE

2.49

3.08

2.52

3.023.03

2.65

3.273.04

2.88

2.56

1

2

3

4

5



Mea

n re

spon

ses

on a

sca

le fr

om 1

(bes

t) to

5 (w

orst

)Be

st -

------

------

-----

------

------

------

------

------

------

-W

orst

DISTRACTEDDRIVERS

DRUNKDRIVERS

AGGRESSIVEDRIVERS


GASOLINE PRICE

2.49

3.08

2.52

3.023.03

2.65

3.273.04

2.88

2.56

1

2

3

4

5





Mea

n re

spon

ses

on a

sca

le fr

om 1

(bes

t) to

5 (w

orst

)Be

st -

------

------

-----

------

------

------

------

------

------

-W

orst

DISTRACTEDDRIVERS

DRUNKDRIVERS

AGGRESSIVEDRIVERS


GASOLINE PRICE

2.49

3.08

2.52

3.023.03

2.65

3.273.04

2.88

2.56

1

2

3

4

5

ORNL July, 2004

11

4. VARIATIONS IN RESPONSES BY TRAVELER CHARACTERISTICS 4.1 Introduction In looking for important differences in responses across the state’s different traveler populations, a focus was placed on analyzing the percentage of clearly “negative” responses falling into the two significant problem categories, i.e. responses coded 4 or 5 on the five point scale, and indicating “ very much of a problem” or “a severe problem” respectively. Such responses are taken here to represent a significant area of concern. By focusing attention on those travelers most concerned (and by assumption, most impacted) by specific problems, this dichotomous approach (i.e. either there is or is not a significant problem according to the respondent) offers more insight for policymakers than simply comparing mean responses across different groups. Traveler responses were broken down according to a number of descriptive variables. After a preliminary analysis of the NHTS dataset in which simple statistical associations between variables were investigated, nine variables were selected for presentation and further analysis. These include four socio-economic-demographic variables: Gender Age group Household Income Formal Education and five variables reflecting the respondent’s day-to-day tripmaking characteristics: Driver status (yes/no) Usual means of transportation to work (drive private vehicle or take taxi versus public transit, walk or cycle) Annual miles driven in the past year Typical travel distance to work Typical travel time to work. Note that data for all of the above nine variables are based on responses received from those travelers interviewed (and who agreed to answer the question posed). For example, travelers were asked to estimate how many miles they had personally driven over the past twelve months. Tables 1 and 2 show how the New York traveling population was characterized on the basis of these variables, based on the population-weighted 2001 NHTS and 1995 NPTS data samples, respectively.

ORNL July, 2004

12

Table 1. Socio-Demographic and Travel Characteristics: New York State,

2001 NHTS.

Households 7,183,208 Public Transit Use Miles Driven/YearPersons 18,635,650 Two or more days a week 29.7% Less than 2000 20.0%

0-4 1,241,257 About once a week 6.1% 2,000 to 15,000 60.1%5-15 2,805,630 Once or twice a month 8.0% 15,000 to 30,000 15.2%16-19 992,404 Less than one a month 4.1% More than 30,000 4.7%20-29 2,295,066 Never 49.8% Persons 8,197,67030-39 3,060,249 Not available 2.3%40-49 2,764,736 Persons 14,476,21350-59 2,041,32560-64 726,627 Distance to Work Annual Family Income65+ 2,305,198 <=1 mile 12.5% <$15,000 12.5%Unreported 403,158 1- 5 miles 27.4% $15,000 - $30,000 18.9%

Persons 18,635,650 6 -15 miles 34.6% $30,000 - $50,000 22.7%Male 8,938,448 16 - 30 miles 17.6% $50,000 - $70,000 16.4%Female 9,697,202 31 -45 miles 5.0% $70,000 - $100,000 15.0%

Drivers 11,167,231 > 45 miles 2.9% Greater than $100,000 14.6%Male 5,729,689 Persons 7,428,961 Persons 17,209,823Female 5,437,541

Workers 9,645,253 Time to Work Highest level ofMale 5,061,833 Less than 15 minutes 37.2% Formal Education Female 4,583,420 15 to 30 Minutes 29.3% Up to High School 43.9%

Totals (000,000): 31 to 45 minutes 16.1% Some Post-HS to Graduate 42.1% Vehicle Trips (000,000) 10,886 46 to 60 minutes 9.8% Some Post-Graduate 13.9%Vehicle Miles of Travel 95,209 > 60 minutes 7.6% Persons 14,389,544 Person Trips 24,899 Persons 7,755,265Person Miles of Travel 194,513

Note: Numbers in the table represent weighted expansions of sampled data to provide statewide estimates. Persons reported under, for example,

distance to work, indicate the statewide populations represented by the sample.

ORNL July, 2004

13

Table 2. Socio-Demographic and Travel Characteristics: New York State,

1995 NPTS.

Households 6,311,955 Public Transit Use Miles Driven/YearPersons 16,806,988 Two or more days a week 27.3% Less than 2000 24.4%

0-4 About once a week 5.6% 2,000 to 15,000 58.0%5-15 3,001,540 Once or twice a month 6.6% 15,000 to 30,000 13.8%16-19 878,870 Less than one a month 3.7% More than 30,000 3.8%20-29 2,562,132 Never 39.2% Persons 9,879,00130-39 3,278,947 Not available 17.7%40-49 2,566,733 Persons 13,726,44250-59 1,744,79160-64 703,052 Distance to Work Annual Family Income65+ 2,070,923 <=1 mile 13.0% <$15,000 15.3%Unreported 1- 5 miles 29.5% $15,000 - $30,000 25.4%

Persons 16,806,988 6 -15 miles 33.7% $30,000 - $50,000 26.0%Male 8,135,143 16 - 30 miles 16.7% $50,000 - $70,000 15.6%Female 8,671,845 31 -45 miles 4.3% $70,000 - $100,000 10.6%

Drivers 10,469,256 > 45 miles 2.8% Greater than $100,000 7.2%Male 5,513,627 Persons 7,336,530 Persons 13,669,734Female 4,955,629

Workers 8,774,635 Time to Work Highest level ofMale 4,702,897 Less than 15 minutes 27.3% Formal Education Female 4,071,739 15 to 30 Minutes 42.4% Up to High School 46.6%

Totals (000,000): 31 to 45 minutes 15.4% Some Post-HS to Graduate 40.6%Vehicle Trips (000,000) 11,023 46 to 60 minutes 8.5% Some Post-Graduate 12.8%Vehicle Miles of Travel 95,571 > 60 minutes 6.4% Persons 13,637,331 Person Trips 23,810 Persons 7,717,482Person Miles of Travel 177,072

Note: Numbers in the table represent weighted expansions of sampled data to provide statewide estimates. Persons reported under, for example, distance to work, indicate the statewide populations represented by the sample.

ORNL July, 2004

14

A comparison of the statistics in Tables 1 and 2 indicates a better than doubling in the percentage of respondents with a family income of over $100,000 in 2001 versus 1995 (14.6% vs. 7.2%). A higher percentage of 2001 respondents indicated that they never use public transit (49.8% vs. 39.2%), but a much lower percentage indicated that transit was not available to them (2.3% in 2001 vs. 17.7% in 1995) .As a result 52.1% of respondents reported not using transit in 2001, down a little from 56.9% in 1995. In 2001 more respondents reported journey to work times under 15 minutes than between 15 and 30 minutes (37.2% vs. 29.3%). In 1995 this situation was reversed (27.3% vs. 42.4%). Another difference is an increase in the percentages of miles driven per year in each category in 2001 versus 1995, but with many fewer total respondents in 2001 compared to 1995, suggesting caution in making such a comparison. 4.2 Analysis of Negative Responses Differences in Responses by Gender. Figure 4 shows the percentages of negative responses to each customer satisfaction question broken down by gender.

Figure 4. Percentage of Travelers Indicating a Significant Problem, by Gender: 2001 NHTS


Best -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Worst

MALE

FEMALE



DRIVERS

TRAFFICTIE-UP INFO

CONGESTION

WORRY OVERACCIDENTS

GASOLINEPRICE

AGGRESSIVEDRIVERS

LACK OF WALKWAYS

LARGE TRUCKS

-

DISTRACTEDDRIVERS

PAVEMENT CONDITION

SPEEDINGDRIVERS

49.944.1

42.732.6

40.334.1

37.235.3

37.739.8

34.032.8

32.930.432.3

26.031.0

21.527.7

30.118.0

16.0


Best -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WorstPercentage of Negative Responses (= 4 or 5)

0 20 40 60

Best -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Worst

MALE

FEMALE



DRIVERS

TRAFFICTIE-UP INFO

CONGESTION

WORRY OVERACCIDENTS

GASOLINEPRICE

AGGRESSIVEDRIVERS

LACK OF WALKWAYS

LARGE TRUCKS

-

DISTRACTEDDRIVERS

PAVEMENT CONDITION

SPEEDINGDRIVERS

DRUNKDRIVERS

TRAFFICTIE-UP INFO

CONGESTION

WORRY OVERACCIDENTS

GASOLINEPRICE

AGGRESSIVEDRIVERS

LACK OF WALKWAYS

LARGE TRUCKS

-

DISTRACTEDDRIVERS

PAVEMENT CONDITION

SPEEDINGDRIVERS

49.944.1

42.732.6

40.334.1

37.235.3

37.739.8

34.032.8

32.930.432.3

26.031.0

21.527.7

30.118.0

16.0

ORNL July, 2004

15

The results in Figure 4 are sorted on the basis of the percentage of negative responses they received. Female responses were used in this ranking, as they were found to have higher negative response percentages than males on all but two of the questions. Taking into account the 90% confidence intervals shown in Figure 3, significant statistical differences between males and females were associated with greater female concern over speeding drivers, poor pavement conditions and potholes, large trucks, and worry about getting into an accident, and marginally over aggressive drivers. Men showed greater concern over traffic congestion and (only marginally) over distracted drivers on the highways. Differences in responses to drunk drivers, and to a lack of traffic information on tie-ups and construction were not statistically significant at the 90% level. The strongest statistical difference in the percentage of negative responses between the two sexes was associated with worrying about getting into a traffic accident, followed by greater female concerns over speeding drivers. Differences in Responses by Age Group. Figure 5 (below) shows the percentage of negative responses by age group, for each of the 11 questions asked, along with their 90% confidence intervals. Over 36% of respondents in the 22-36 age group show concerns over aggressive and distracted drivers and poor pavement condition. The 37-50 age group are especially concerned with aggressive drivers (at 50.8% of responses, ± 5.6%), and with distracted and speeding drivers, poor pavement condition and gasoline price (all over 38% ± roughly 2% to 5%). Respondents in the 51-64 age range are most concerned with aggressive and speeding drivers (49.8% ± 6.0% and 45.2% ± 6.5% respectively), and almost as concerned with pavement conditions (38.4%±2.8%) and gasoline prices (37.4%±3.2%). Respondents in the over 65 age group are most concerned with aggressive drivers (47.5%±7.7%) and with speeding drivers, large trucks and gas prices. The lowest age group (0-21) scores high on concern over lack of traffic tie-up information (over 42.3% indicate a problem), and, interestingly, on concerns over speeding, distracted, drunk and aggressive drivers. Statistical trends by age group were at best marginal. However some statistical differences between the two youngest versus the oldest age group were evident at the 90% confidence level. While all age groups are clearly concerned about aggressive driving, the 22-36 age group shows less concern for speeding drivers and large trucks than their older counterparts; while travelers in the 37-50 age group show a little more concern for gas prices than drivers in the younger and oldest age groups. Concerns over speeding and large trucks trend slightly upwards with age, while concerns over distracted and drunk drivers show a slight trend in the opposite direction. The two older age groups are also marginally less concerned over accidents than their younger counterparts.

ORNL July, 2004

16

Differences in Responses based on Household Income. Income is an often cited factor in traveler behavior. Figure 6 shows the percentage of negative (level 4 or 5) responses obtained on each question, broken down across six annual household (family) income groups. Of the four questions eliciting the largest percentage of negative responses on the statewide survey (aggressive, distracted and speeding drivers, and poor pavement conditions: cf. Figure 1), there were no strong differences between income groups, with the exception that travelers in the highest income group were a little less concerned with speeding drivers, and travelers in the two highest income groups a little less concerned with rough pavements. High levels of concern over aggressive drivers (ranging from 41.8% to 51.3%) and distracted drivers (37.8% to 40.0%), in particular, persisted across all groups. While concerns over lack of walkways or sidewalks and larger trucks show no obvious trends, travelers in the higher family income groups appear to be less concerned over lack of information on traffic tie-ups or highway construction. This may, perhaps, reflect their greater use of various traffic information sources. Respondents in the two highest income groups are also slightly less concerned with drunk drivers, or with being in accidents than respondents in the under $50,000 per year income groups. They are also marginally more concerned over traffic congestion (32.1% ± 3.0%) than those in the three lowest income groups. With the exception of the highest, $100,000 per year plus income group, concerns over gasoline price were expressed by 35% to 40% of respondents. Differences in Responses based on Level of Education. Respondents were also asked to report their highest level of educational achievement on the survey. These responses were grouped into three categories: respondents whose highest formal education ended with high school (including those with less formal education), respondents with some level of post high-school education, up to a college (bachelors) degree; and those respondents with some level of post-graduate or other professional schooling (whether leading to a higher degree or not).4 The results are shown in Figure 7. With the exception of concerns over traffic congestion, a higher percentage of negative responses to each question was obtained from respondents with less formal education. In all cases the differences were statistically significant at the 90% level when comparing those respondents with the most to those with the least formal education. Concern over aggressive drivers again elicited the largest percentage of negative responses from all groups, with 52.0% (± 5.1%) of the group with no formal education beyond high school finding this to be a significant problem.

4 Group 1 = NHTS original groupings 1 and 2; Group 2= NHTS original groupings 3 through 6; Group 3 = NHTS original groupings 7 and 8. (http://nhts.ornl.gov/2001/usersguide/APPENDIX%20B.pdf)

ORNL July, 2004

17

Figure 5. Statewide Large Problem Percentages by Age Group: 2001 NHTS.

CONGESTION(Numbers above bars = % '4' and '5' responses


25.830.531.1

27.925.9

0

20

40

60

0-21 22-36 37-50 51-64 65+

AGE GROUP

%


NOT KNOWING ABOUT TRAFFIC TIE-UPSOR CONSTURCTION

28.732.833.1

28.6

42.3

0

20

40

60

0-21 22-36 37-50 51-64 65+

AGE GROUP

%

PAVEMENT CONDITION (ROUGH PAVEMENT OR POT-HOLES)

31.1

38.440.136.738.9

0

20

40

60

0-21 22-36 37-50 51-64 65+

AGE GROUP

%

CONGESTION(Numbers above bars = % '4' and '5' responses


25.830.531.1

27.925.9

0

20

40

60

0-21 22-36 37-50 51-64 65+

AGE GROUP

%


NOT KNOWING ABOUT TRAFFIC TIE-UPSOR CONSTURCTION

28.732.833.1

28.6

42.3

0

20

40

60

0-21 22-36 37-50 51-64 65+

AGE GROUP

%

PAVEMENT CONDITION (ROUGH PAVEMENT OR POT-HOLES)

31.1

38.440.136.738.9

0

20

40

60

0-21 22-36 37-50 51-64 65+

AGE GROUP

%

ORNL July, 2004

18


LACK OF WALKWAYS OR SIDEWALKS(Numbers above bars = % '4' and '5' responses


17.9

15.317.1

18.9

16.4

0

20

40

60

0-21 22-36 37-50 51-64 65+

AGE GROUP

%


SPEEDING DRIVERS

39.9

45.2

38.6

30.6

41.7

0

20

40

60

0-21 22-36 37-50 51-64 65+AGE GROUP

%

LARGE TRUCKS

38.6

35.5

28.1

22.1

26.3

0

20

40

60

0-21 22-36 37-50 51-64 65+AGE GROUP

%

LACK OF WALKWAYS OR SIDEWALKS(Numbers above bars = % '4' and '5' responses


17.9

15.317.1

18.9

16.4

0

20

40

60

0-21 22-36 37-50 51-64 65+

AGE GROUP

%


SPEEDING DRIVERS

39.9

45.2

38.6

30.6

41.7

0

20

40

60

0-21 22-36 37-50 51-64 65+AGE GROUP

%

LARGE TRUCKS

38.6

35.5

28.1

22.1

26.3

0

20

40

60

0-21 22-36 37-50 51-64 65+AGE GROUP

%

ORNL July, 2004

19


DISTRACTED DRIVERS(Numbers above bars = % '4' and '5' responses


31.2

36.441.538.8

47.0

0

20

40

60

0-21 22-36 37-50 51-64 65+AGE GROUP

%


DRUNK DRIVERS

26.630.2

34.333.1

46.5

0

20

40

60

0-21 22-36 37-50 51-64 65+

AGE GROUP

%

AGGRESSIVE DRIVERS

47.549.850.8

41.245.4

0

20

40

60

0-21 22-36 37-50 51-64 65+

AGE GROUP

%

DISTRACTED DRIVERS(Numbers above bars = % '4' and '5' responses


31.2

36.441.538.8

47.0

0

20

40

60

0-21 22-36 37-50 51-64 65+AGE GROUP

%


DRUNK DRIVERS

26.630.2

34.333.1

46.5

0

20

40

60

0-21 22-36 37-50 51-64 65+

AGE GROUP

%

AGGRESSIVE DRIVERS

47.549.850.8

41.245.4

0

20

40

60

0-21 22-36 37-50 51-64 65+

AGE GROUP

%

ORNL July, 2004

20

Figure 5 (Continued)…


WORRY ABOUT BEING IN AN ACCIDENT(Numbers above bars = % '4' and '5' responses


22.9

28.326.326.7

34.8

0

20

40

60

0-21 22-36 37-50 51-64 65+

AGE GROUP

%

GASOLINE PRICE

35.537.439.7

34.031.5

0

20

40

60

0-21 22-36 37-50 51-64 65+AGE GROUP

%


WORRY ABOUT BEING IN AN ACCIDENT(Numbers above bars = % '4' and '5' responses


22.9

28.326.326.7

34.8

0

20

40

60

0-21 22-36 37-50 51-64 65+

AGE GROUP

%

GASOLINE PRICE

35.537.439.7

34.031.5

0

20

40

60

0-21 22-36 37-50 51-64 65+AGE GROUP

%

ORNL July, 2004

21

Figure 6. Statewide Large Problem Percentages by Family Income Group: 2001 NHTS.

CONGESTIONNumbers above bars = percentage of '4' or '5' responses

on a 1 (best) to 5 (worst) point scale

32.132.129.8

27.526.726.0

0

20

40

60

<15 15 - 30 30 - 50 50 - 70 70 - 100 > 100

ANNUAL INCOME RANGE (in $1,000)

%


NOT KNOWING ABOUT TRAFFIC TIE-UPS OR CONSTRUCTION

30.027.3

31.432.832.0

36.3

0

20

40

60

<15 15 - 30 30 - 50 50 - 70 70 - 100 > 100


%

PAVEMENT CONDITION(ROUGH PAVEMENT OR POTHOLES)

30.031.1

37.642.6

40.439.1

0

20

40

60

<15 15 - 30 30 - 50 50 - 70 70 - 100 > 100


%

CONGESTIONNumbers above bars = percentage of '4' or '5' responses

on a 1 (best) to 5 (worst) point scale

32.132.129.8

27.526.726.0

0

20

40

60

<15 15 - 30 30 - 50 50 - 70 70 - 100 > 100


%



30.027.3

31.432.832.0

36.3

0

20

40

60

<15 15 - 30 30 - 50 50 - 70 70 - 100 > 100


%

PAVEMENT CONDITION(ROUGH PAVEMENT OR POTHOLES)

30.031.1

37.642.6

40.439.1

0

20

40

60

<15 15 - 30 30 - 50 50 - 70 70 - 100 > 100


%

ORNL July, 2004

22


LACK OF WALKWAYS OR SIDEWALKS(Numbers above bars = percent of '4' or '5' responses


16.3

13.0

19.418.916.820.0

0

20

40

60

<15 15 - 30 30 - 50 50 - 70 70 - 100 > 100


%

SPEEDING DRIVERS

28.1

35.836.337.7

40.6

52.2

0

20

40

60

<15 15 - 30 30 - 50 50 - 70 70 - 100 > 100


%


LARGE TRUCKS

31.8

23.727.0

35.9

25.9

30.8

0

20

40

60

<15 15 - 30 30 - 50 50 - 70 70 - 100 > 100


%

LACK OF WALKWAYS OR SIDEWALKS(Numbers above bars = percent of '4' or '5' responses


16.3

13.0

19.418.916.820.0

0

20

40

60

<15 15 - 30 30 - 50 50 - 70 70 - 100 > 100


%

SPEEDING DRIVERS

28.1

35.836.337.7

40.6

52.2

0

20

40

60

<15 15 - 30 30 - 50 50 - 70 70 - 100 > 100


%


LARGE TRUCKS

31.8

23.727.0

35.9

25.9

30.8

0

20

40

60

<15 15 - 30 30 - 50 50 - 70 70 - 100 > 100


%

ORNL July, 2004

23



DISTRACTED DRIVERS(numbers above bars = '4' and '5' responses

on a 1 (best ) to 5 (worst) point scale)

37.8 39.5 38.8 38.1 39.640.0

0

20

40

60

<15 15 - 30 30 - 50 50 - 70 70 - 100 > 100


%

DRUNK DRIVERS

26.826.4

33.1

36.738.437.4

0

20

40

60

<15 15 - 30 30 - 50 50 - 70 70 - 100 > 100


%

AGGRESSIVE DRIVERS

41.843.344.147.0

51.350.8

0

20

40

60

<15 15 - 30 30 - 50 50 - 70 70 - 100 > 100


%


DISTRACTED DRIVERS(numbers above bars = '4' and '5' responses

on a 1 (best ) to 5 (worst) point scale)

37.8 39.5 38.8 38.1 39.640.0

0

20

40

60

<15 15 - 30 30 - 50 50 - 70 70 - 100 > 100


%

DRUNK DRIVERS

26.826.4

33.1

36.738.437.4

0

20

40

60

<15 15 - 30 30 - 50 50 - 70 70 - 100 > 100


%

AGGRESSIVE DRIVERS

41.843.344.147.0

51.350.8

0

20

40

60

<15 15 - 30 30 - 50 50 - 70 70 - 100 > 100


%

ORNL July, 2004

24


WORRY ABOUT BEING IN AN ACCIDENT(Numbers above bars = percent of '4' and '5' responses


18.219.8

26.228.929.5

35.8

0

20

40

60

<15 15 - 30 30 - 50 50 - 70 70 - 100 > 100


%


GASOLINE PRICE

25.7

36.940.338.738.7

35.3

0

20

40

60

<15 15 - 30 30 - 50 50 - 70 70 - 100 > 100

ANNUAL INCOME RANGE (In $1,000)

%

WORRY ABOUT BEING IN AN ACCIDENT(Numbers above bars = percent of '4' and '5' responses


18.219.8

26.228.929.5

35.8

0

20

40

60

<15 15 - 30 30 - 50 50 - 70 70 - 100 > 100


%


GASOLINE PRICE

25.7

36.940.338.738.7

35.3

0

20

40

60

<15 15 - 30 30 - 50 50 - 70 70 - 100 > 100

ANNUAL INCOME RANGE (In $1,000)

%

ORNL July, 2004

25

Figure 7. Statewide Large Problem Percentages by Educational Group: 2001 NHTS.

Group 1: Formal Education = High School or Less(Numbers above bars = % of responses)

31.1

36.631.9

39.0

52.0

39.4

26.4

34.540.1

19.3

44.5

0

20

40

60

CONGESTION

NOT KNOWIN

G ABOUT TIE

-UPS

PAVEMENT CONDITIO

N

LACK O

F WALK

WAYS

SPEEDING D

RIVERS

LARGE TRUCKS

DISTRACTED DRIV

ERS

DRUNK DRIVERS

AGGRESSIVE DRIVERS

WORRY ABOUT ACCID

ENTS

GASOLINE P

RICE

%

Group 2: Formal Education up to College Graduation

36.1

15.2

38.2

30.130.8

40.546.1

37.6

24.9

33.029.2

0

20

40

60

CONGESTION

NOT KNOW

ING A

BOUT TIE-U

PS

PAVEMENT CONDITIO

N

LACK O

F WALK

WAYS

SPEEDING D

RIVERS

LARGE TRUCKS

DISTRACTED DRIV

ERS

DRUNK DRIVERS

AGGRESSIVE DRIVERS

WORRY ABOUT ACCID

ENTS

GASOLINE P

RICE

%


Group 1: Formal Education = High School or Less(Numbers above bars = % of responses)

31.1

36.631.9

39.0

52.0

39.4

26.4

34.540.1

19.3

44.5

0

20

40

60

CONGESTION

NOT KNOWIN

G ABOUT TIE

-UPS

PAVEMENT CONDITIO

N

LACK O

F WALK

WAYS

SPEEDING D

RIVERS

LARGE TRUCKS

DISTRACTED DRIV

ERS

DRUNK DRIVERS

AGGRESSIVE DRIVERS

WORRY ABOUT ACCID

ENTS

GASOLINE P

RICE

%

Group 2: Formal Education up to College Graduation

36.1

15.2

38.2

30.130.8

40.546.1

37.6

24.9

33.029.2

0

20

40

60

CONGESTION

NOT KNOW

ING A

BOUT TIE-U

PS

PAVEMENT CONDITIO

N

LACK O

F WALK

WAYS

SPEEDING D

RIVERS

LARGE TRUCKS

DISTRACTED DRIV

ERS

DRUNK DRIVERS

AGGRESSIVE DRIVERS

WORRY ABOUT ACCID

ENTS

GASOLINE P

RICE

%


ORNL July, 2004

26


Differences in Responses based on Amount of Driving. In addition to socio-economic and demographic factors, the way and frequency with which a person makes use of the highways can also be expected to impact perceptions of highway system performance. To examine this issue the number of negative responses was computed on the basis of a traveler’s most common mode of transport to work, whether the traveler was usually a driver, the physical length and duration of his or her daily commute, and the amount of highway driving engaged in annually. As Figure 8 shows, respondents indicating that they were car drivers are found to be significantly more concerned about gasoline price than non-drivers, as well as being more concerned over congestion and large trucks on the roads. Drivers are less concerned about speeding and drunk drivers and much less worried about being in traffic accidents, as well as marginally less concerned about the lack of sidewalks or walkways. They are also less concerned about aggressive drivers: although a relatively large percentage of both drivers (45.5% ± 2.8%) and non-drivers (55.2% ± 9.5%) find this aggressive behavior to be a major concern. A significant percentage of non-drivers (47.2% ± 6.9%) expressed concern about speeding drivers.


Group 3: Formal Education includes Graduate or Professional Schooling

28.4

16.4

28.929.629.6

32.6

38.8

26.5

19.5

26.624.7

0

20

40

60

CONGESTION

NOT KNOW

ING A

BOUT TIE-UPS

PAVEMENT CONDITIO

N

LACK O

F WALK

WAYS

SPEEDING D

RIVERS

LARGE TRUCKS

DISTRACTED D

RIVERS

DRUNK DRIVERS

AGGRESSIVE DRIVERS

WORRY ABOUT A

CCIDENTS

GASOLINE P

RICE

%


Group 3: Formal Education includes Graduate or Professional Schooling

28.4

16.4

28.929.629.6

32.6

38.8

26.5

19.5

26.624.7

0

20

40

60

CONGESTION

NOT KNOW

ING A

BOUT TIE-UPS

PAVEMENT CONDITIO

N

LACK O

F WALK

WAYS

SPEEDING D

RIVERS

LARGE TRUCKS

DISTRACTED D

RIVERS

DRUNK DRIVERS

AGGRESSIVE DRIVERS

WORRY ABOUT A

CCIDENTS

GASOLINE P

RICE

%

ORNL July, 2004

27

Responses based on the mode of travel to work used in the week prior to the survey (those using a private auto or taxi versus those using public transit, walk, cycle or other mode) produced very similar results to those obtained from the driver/non-driver distinction, as might be expected.

Figure 8. Differences in Statewide Large Problem Response Percentages between Drivers and Non-Drivers: 2001 NHTS.


35.7

19.616.5

36.537.833.231.5

25.329.7

0

20

40

60

DriverNon-

Driver DriverNon-

Driver DriverNon-

Driver DriverNon-

Driver DriverNon-

Driver


PAVEMENTCONDITION

LACK OFWALKWAYS

SPEEDINGDRIVERS

%


25.8

39.036.1

24.6

55.2

45.539.0

32.2

37.239.1

25.730.5

0

20

40

60

DriverNon-

Driver DriverNon-

Driver DriverNon-

Driver DriverNon-

Driver DriverNon-

Driver DriverNon-

Driver

LARGE TRUCKS

DISTRACTEDDRIVERS

DRUNKDRIVERS

AGGRESSIVEDRIVERS

WORRYABOUT

ACCIDENTS

GASOLINEPRICE

%


35.7

19.616.5

36.537.833.231.5

25.329.7

0

20

40

60

DriverNon-

Driver DriverNon-

Driver DriverNon-

Driver DriverNon-

Driver DriverNon-

Driver


PAVEMENTCONDITION

LACK OFWALKWAYS

SPEEDINGDRIVERS

%Numbers above bars = % responses 47.2

35.7

19.616.5

36.537.833.231.5

25.329.7

0

20

40

60

DriverNon-

Driver DriverNon-

Driver DriverNon-

Driver DriverNon-

Driver DriverNon-

Driver


PAVEMENTCONDITION

LACK OFWALKWAYS

SPEEDINGDRIVERS

%


25.8

39.036.1

24.6

55.2

45.539.0

32.2

37.239.1

25.730.5

0

20

40

60

DriverNon-

Driver DriverNon-

Driver DriverNon-

Driver DriverNon-

Driver DriverNon-

Driver DriverNon-

Driver

LARGE TRUCKS

DISTRACTEDDRIVERS

DRUNKDRIVERS

AGGRESSIVEDRIVERS

WORRYABOUT

ACCIDENTS

GASOLINEPRICE

%


25.8

39.036.1

24.6

55.2

45.539.0

32.2

37.239.1

25.730.5

0

20

40

60

DriverNon-

Driver DriverNon-

Driver DriverNon-

Driver DriverNon-

Driver DriverNon-

Driver DriverNon-

Driver

LARGE TRUCKS

DISTRACTEDDRIVERS

DRUNKDRIVERS

AGGRESSIVEDRIVERS

WORRYABOUT

ACCIDENTS

GASOLINEPRICE

%

ORNL July, 2004

28

The effects of longer work trip times and distances had their clearest impacts on the response to highway congestion, with some 40% of the respondents who take more than 30 minutes to get to work reporting it to be a major problem, versus some 23% who travel 15 minutes or less. Some 27.4% ( ±3.3%) of respondents with a journey to work time in the 16-30 minutes range also find congestion to be a major concern. Figure 9 below shows the results of placing each respondent into one of five with work trip duration intervals (based on typical time spent traveling to work in the week prior to being interviewed). Many respondents also reported the estimated number of miles they drove in the previous 12 months. These results were used to create four categories of travelers: those traveling less than 2,000 miles in the year, those traveling between 2,000 and 15,000 miles, those traveling between 15,000 and 30,000 miles, and a group traveling over 30,000 miles. The major impact of this variable was again associated with the percentage of negative responses to highway congestion (increasing with miles driven from 27.9% ± 3.7 to 38.7% ± 5.5) and gasoline price (increasing with miles driven from 30.9% ± 4.0 to 46.8% ± 6.3) . Persons driving less than 2,000 miles per year were also significantly more concerned about being in accidents (29.5% ± 5.0) than other respondents (averaging around 21% of responses).

ORNL July, 2004

29

Figure 9. Large Problem Response Percentages by Travel Time to Work: 2001 NHTS


30.4

25.7

40.8

25.2

43.6

0

20

40

60

15 min or less 16-30 min 31-45 min 46-60 min 61+ min

TRAVEL TIME TO WORK

%


PAVEMENT CONDITION (ROUGH PAVEMENT OR POTHOLES)

36.7 36.340.3 39.0 38.7

0

20

40

60


TRAVEL TIME TO WORK

%


on a 1(best) to 5 (worst) point scale)

22.727.4

37.139.9 39.4

0

20

40

60


TRAVEL TIME TO WORK

%


30.4

25.7

40.8

25.2

43.6

0

20

40

60


TRAVEL TIME TO WORK

%



36.7 36.340.3 39.0 38.7

0

20

40

60


TRAVEL TIME TO WORK

%


on a 1(best) to 5 (worst) point scale)

22.727.4

37.139.9 39.4

0

20

40

60


TRAVEL TIME TO WORK

%

ORNL July, 2004

30


LACK OF WALKWAYS OR SIDEWALKS(Numbers above bars = % of '4' and '5' responses


15.8 15.0

17.0

10.3

16.5

0

20

40

60


TRAVEL TIME TO WORK

%


SPEEDING DRIVERS

31.5

39.9

31.9

37.8

47.4

0

20

40

60


TRAVEL TIME TO WORK

%

LARGE TRUCKS

27.8 27.829.6

18.9

36.1

0

20

40

60


TRAVEL TIME TO WORK

%

LACK OF WALKWAYS OR SIDEWALKS(Numbers above bars = % of '4' and '5' responses


15.8 15.0

17.0

10.3

16.5

0

20

40

60


TRAVEL TIME TO WORK

%


SPEEDING DRIVERS

31.5

39.9

31.9

37.8

47.4

0

20

40

60


TRAVEL TIME TO WORK

%

LARGE TRUCKS

27.8 27.829.6

18.9

36.1

0

20

40

60


TRAVEL TIME TO WORK

%

ORNL July, 2004

31


DISTRACTED DRIVERS

39.9 38.8

43.846.5

42.9

0

20

40

60


TRAVEL TIME TO WORK

%


DRUNK DRIVERS(Numbers above bars = % of '4' and '5' responses


35.0 34.629.2 27.7

19.5

0

20

40

60


TRAVEL TIME TO WORK

%

AGGRESSIVE DRIVERS

45.0 44.1

49.7 47.7

59.6

0

20

40

60


TRAVEL TIME TO WORK

%

DISTRACTED DRIVERS

39.9 38.8

43.846.5

42.9

0

20

40

60


TRAVEL TIME TO WORK

%


DRUNK DRIVERS(Numbers above bars = % of '4' and '5' responses


35.0 34.629.2 27.7

19.5

0

20

40

60


TRAVEL TIME TO WORK

%

AGGRESSIVE DRIVERS

45.0 44.1

49.7 47.7

59.6

0

20

40

60


TRAVEL TIME TO WORK

%

ORNL July, 2004

32


WORRY ABOUT BEING IN AN ACCIDENT(Numbers above bars = % of '4' and '5' responses


23.5 23.4

26.8 26.2

37.3

0

20

40

60


TRAVEL TIME TO WORK

%


GASOLINE PRICE

37.6 36.933.5

27.6 27.1

0

20

40

60


TRAVEL TIME TO WORK

%

WORRY ABOUT BEING IN AN ACCIDENT(Numbers above bars = % of '4' and '5' responses


23.5 23.4

26.8 26.2

37.3

0

20

40

60


TRAVEL TIME TO WORK

%


GASOLINE PRICE

37.6 36.933.5

27.6 27.1

0

20

40

60


TRAVEL TIME TO WORK

%

ORNL July, 2004

33

5. VARIATIONS IN RESPONSES BY METROPOLITAN AREA SIZE AND

POPULATION DENSITY 5.1 Introduction Population density and metropolitan area size are both known to influence travel activity. The denser the built environment the more likely one is to experience traffic congestion within an area, and the more intensively used are the roads; while the larger a metropolis, both area-wise and population-wise, the longer may be the daily commute. To capture some of these effects the responses of state residents were broken down along by metropolitan area size class and by residential population and employment density in the Census Tract where the household is located. All three variables produced some significant differences in the percentage of positive and negative responses across the majority of the 11 travel concerns put to them. 5.2 Analysis of Negative Responses Differences in Responses by Size of Metropolitan Area. Statewide responses were broken down on the basis of 5 Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) size classes plus a sixth class of respondents representing New Yorkers living outside either an MSA or a more broadly defined CMSA (Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area). The correspondence of these six MSA size classes with the state’s Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) regions is given in Table 3.

Table 3. Correspondence between MSA Size Classes and New York Metropolitan Planning Organization Regions.

MSA Size Class MPO Regions Under 250,000 Adirondack-Glens Falls, Elmira-Chemung 250,000-499,000 Herkimer-Oneida (Utica-Rome), Binghamton 500,000-1 million Capital District (Albany), Syracuse Metro Area 1 to 3 million Genesee (Rochester), Greater Buffalo-Niagara Over 3 million Poughkeepsie-Dutchess County, Newburgh-

Orange County, New York Metro Area Not in MSA or CMSA Ithaca-Tomkins Co., Rest of State Residents in different sized MSAs recorded some significant differences in both mean and percent positive/negative responses on a number of concerns, and notably concern over aggressive driving. Figure 10 shows the results of these regional breakdowns in the statewide responses. With the exceptions of concerns over drunk drivers, gasoline prices, and a lack of walkways and sidewalks, the

ORNL July, 2004

34

percentage of negative responses is generally higher in the largest, over 3 million MSA size class. These respondents are located in the most heavily urbanized southern portion of the state, covering the New York Metro area (including New York City), the Poughkeepsie, and the Newburgh-Orange County MPO regions. This group recorded a 53.4% (± 4%) negative response to aggressive drivers, much higher than that of the travelers in the other MSA size classes: versus, for example 33.5% (± 5.4%) of responses in the non-MSA/CMSA regions of the state. Negative responses in the over 3 million group were also higher with respect to speeding and distracted drivers, and they were much higher than responses in the other MSA groups with respect to highway congestion. Some 35.4% (± 1.7%) of residents in the 3 million plus MSA class find congestion to be a major concern, roughly four times the percentage of responses associated with non-MSA based residents (9.4% ±1.6%). In contrast, fewer residents in MSAs over 3 million had significant concerns over gasoline price (34.1%± 1.7%) than did their neighbors living in either smaller MSAs or in non-MSA areas (44.2% ± 4.0%) Similarly, worry about being in a traffic accident is much more common among residents in the largest MSA size class, at roughly double the percentage of responses recorded for MSAs under 250,000 population (31.5% ±3.0% versus 16.2%± 4.5%). In contrast, only 34.1% (± 1.7%) of responses in the largest MSA class indicated a major concern with the price of gasoline, versus 38.7 % to 44.2% (±2% to 4%) in the other five MSA size classes. This may reflect, at least in part, the much higher percentage of public transit riders in the New York Metro area than elsewhere in the state. Differences in Responses based on Residential Density. Breaking down responses on the basis of residential population and employment densities produced results consistent with the above MSA size-based findings. As Figure 11 shows for the case of residential density, there is a trend in responses across all 11 questions asked. Note that the residential densities used in Figure 11 are broken down into 5 highly non-linear categories. What this figure shows is a clear trend in residential areas with over 2,000 persons per square mile towards much greater concern among travelers over traffic congestion, over a lack of traffic tie-up/road construction information, poor pavement condition, speeding, distracted, drunk and aggressive drivers, and worry over the possibility of being involved in a traffic accident. In contrast, concern over the price of gasoline, and to a lesser extent a lack of walkways or sidewalks is greatest within low density, including principally rural parts of the state.

ORNL July, 2004

35

Figure 10. Large Problem Response Percentages by Size of MSA Population: 2001 NHTS.



35.2

31.0

22.117.3

26.2

17.8

0

20

40

60

Not in MSAor CMSA

Less than250,000

250,000 -499,999

500,000 -999,999

1,000,000 -2,999,999

3,000,000 ormore


%



35.4

9.412.6 14.0

16.718.5

0

20

40

60

Not in MSAor CMSA

Less than250,000

250,000 -499,999

500,000 -999,999

1,000,000 -2,999,999

3,000,000or more


%


32.036.6 38.2

32.5

39.9 38.3

0

20

40

60

Not in MSAor CMSA

Less than250,000

250,000 -499,999

500,000 -999,999

1,000,000 -2,999,999

3,000,000 ormore


%



35.2

31.0

22.117.3

26.2

17.8

0

20

40

60

Not in MSAor CMSA

Less than250,000

250,000 -499,999

500,000 -999,999

1,000,000 -2,999,999

3,000,000 ormore


%



35.4

9.412.6 14.0

16.718.5

0

20

40

60

Not in MSAor CMSA

Less than250,000

250,000 -499,999

500,000 -999,999

1,000,000 -2,999,999

3,000,000or more


%


32.036.6 38.2

32.5

39.9 38.3

0

20

40

60

Not in MSAor CMSA

Less than250,000

250,000 -499,999

500,000 -999,999

1,000,000 -2,999,999

3,000,000 ormore


%

ORNL July, 2004

36


LARGE TRUCKS

23.7

33.4

24.6 25.020.7

32.1

0

20

40

60

Not in MSAor CMSA

Less than250,000

250,000 -499,999

500,000 -999,999

1,000,000 -2,999,999

3,000,000 ormore


%


SPEEDING DRIVERS

25.2 26.4

32.0 33.830.5

42.3

0

20

40

60

Not in MSAor CMSA

Less than250,000

250,000 -499,999

500,000 -999,999

1,000,000 -2,999,999

3,000,000 ormore


%

19.3

11.1

18.7 19.4

12.0

17.6

0

20

40

60

Not in MSAor CMSA

Less than250,000

250,000 -499,999

500,000 -999,999

1,000,000 -2,999,999

3,000,000 ormore


% LACK OF WALKWAYS OR SIDEWALKS(Numbers above bars = % of '4' and '5' responses


LARGE TRUCKS

23.7

33.4

24.6 25.020.7

32.1

0

20

40

60

Not in MSAor CMSA

Less than250,000

250,000 -499,999

500,000 -999,999

1,000,000 -2,999,999

3,000,000 ormore


%


SPEEDING DRIVERS

25.2 26.4

32.0 33.830.5

42.3

0

20

40

60

Not in MSAor CMSA

Less than250,000

250,000 -499,999

500,000 -999,999

1,000,000 -2,999,999

3,000,000 ormore


%

19.3

11.1

18.7 19.4

12.0

17.6

0

20

40

60

Not in MSAor CMSA

Less than250,000

250,000 -499,999

500,000 -999,999

1,000,000 -2,999,999

3,000,000 ormore


% LACK OF WALKWAYS OR SIDEWALKS(Numbers above bars = % of '4' and '5' responses


ORNL July, 2004

37



DISTRACTED DRIVERS(Numbers above bars = % of '4' and '5' responses


31.3

22.9

29.134.3 33.0

41.9

0

20

40

60

Not in MSAor CMSA

Less than250,000

250,000 -499,999

500,000 -999,999

1,000,000 -2,999,999

3,000,000 ormore


%

DRUNK DRIVERS

27.2

37.8

28.232.5

35.5 33.9

0

20

40

60

Not in MSAor CMSA

Less than250,000

250,000 -499,999

500,000 -999,999

1,000,000 -2,999,999

3,000,000 ormore


%

AGGRESSIVE DRIVERS

33.5

26.4

33.5

39.1 36.7

53.4

0

20

40

60

Not in MSAor CMSA

Less than250,000

250,000 -499,999

500,000 -999,999

1,000,000 -2,999,999

3,000,000 ormore


%


DISTRACTED DRIVERS(Numbers above bars = % of '4' and '5' responses


31.3

22.9

29.134.3 33.0

41.9

0

20

40

60

Not in MSAor CMSA

Less than250,000

250,000 -499,999

500,000 -999,999

1,000,000 -2,999,999

3,000,000 ormore


%

DRUNK DRIVERS

27.2

37.8

28.232.5

35.5 33.9

0

20

40

60

Not in MSAor CMSA

Less than250,000

250,000 -499,999

500,000 -999,999

1,000,000 -2,999,999

3,000,000 ormore


%

AGGRESSIVE DRIVERS

33.5

26.4

33.5

39.1 36.7

53.4

0

20

40

60

Not in MSAor CMSA

Less than250,000

250,000 -499,999

500,000 -999,999

1,000,000 -2,999,999

3,000,000 ormore


%

ORNL July, 2004

38





20.316.2 19.2 19.3 18.3

31.5

0

20

40

60

Not in MSAor CMSA

Less than250,000

250,000 -499,999

500,000 -999,999

1,000,000 -2,999,999

3,000,000 ormore


%

GASOLINE PRICE44.2 43.7

41.738.7 40.6

34.1

0

20

40

60

Not in MSAor CMSA

Less than250,000

250,000 -499,999

500,000 -999,999

1,000,000 -2,999,999

3,000,000 ormore


%




20.316.2 19.2 19.3 18.3

31.5

0

20

40

60

Not in MSAor CMSA

Less than250,000

250,000 -499,999

500,000 -999,999

1,000,000 -2,999,999

3,000,000 ormore


%

GASOLINE PRICE44.2 43.7

41.738.7 40.6

34.1

0

20

40

60

Not in MSAor CMSA

Less than250,000

250,000 -499,999

500,000 -999,999

1,000,000 -2,999,999

3,000,000 ormore


%

ORNL July, 2004

39

Figure 11. Large Problem Response Percentages based on Residential Population Density (Census Tract of Household Respondent).

Persons per square mile:

0

20

40

60

CONGESTION

NOT KNOWING TRAFFIC

PAVEMENT CONDITIO

N

LACK O

F WALK

WAYS

SPEEDING D

RIVERS

LARGE TRUCKS

DISTRACTED DRIVERS

DRUNK DRIVERS

AGGRESSIVE DRIVERS

ACCIDENTSWORRY ABOUT

GASOLINE PRIC

E

Perc

enta

ges

of N

egat

ive

Res

pons

es (

= 4

or 5

)

0-100 (%)100-500500-20002000-10,00010,000+

ORNL July, 2004

40

6. WITHIN-STATE VARIATIONS IN RESPONSES TO SPECIFIC CONCERNS 6.1 Introduction In this section of the report the 2001 New York dataset is divided into subsets representing different geographic regions of the state. For all 11 customer satisfaction questions the response data were broken down according to the state’s 12 Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) boundaries. Given the high concentration of population in the southern part of the state, a further disaggregation of the data separates the New York Metropolitan Area into three further regions: (i) the Long Island counties of Nassau and Suffolk, (ii) the New York City (NYC) portion of the metropolis, including the counties of New York (Manhattan), the Bronx, Kings (Brooklyn), Queens and Richmond (Staten Island), and (iii) the counties of Westchester, Rockland and Putnam just to the North. (Of the over 18.6 million residents of the state in 2001, some 8 million resided in New York City, with over 3.75 million residents in Nassau and Suffolk counties combined, and over 1.3 million in the Putnam, Rockland and Westchester area). 5 Also summarized for comparative purposes, are the responses summed over all MPOs versus the non-MPO portion of the state, along with the statewide and rest-of-the nation responses. In all this represents 19 different “regional” numbers associated with each of the 11 questions posed by the survey. Figure 12 shows this series of results. Major findings are summarized below. 6.2 Regional Traffic Congestion and Traveler Information Concerns Of all the questions asked, the across-state variability in mean scores was greatest on concerns over highway congestion, a result that clearly reflects the metropolitan versus non-metropolitan distinction between regions. Travelers from the Nassau and Suffolk counties on Long Island returned a significantly higher score (3.19 ± 0.10) than any of the other regions, with the New York Metro Area showing a significantly higher average level of concern than the rest of the state. The strong positive relationship between size of metropolitan area and concern over congestion is evident. For example, metropolitan counties across the state averaged a score of 2.71 (± 0.04) versus a score of 1.91 (± 0.05) for non metropolitan areas. The statewide average response to traffic congestion concerns is very similar to that for the rest of the nation in 2001, falling just below it (2.61 vs 2.65). Four of the state’s less built-up MPO regions, Ithaca-Tomkins County, Adirondak-Glens Falls, Elmira-Chemung and Herkimer-Oneida also recorded similarly lower mean scores (of 1.90, 1.96, 1.98 and 1.94 respectively).

5 See http://www.nysegov.com/map-NY.cfm for a useful, interactive set of State and county maps.

ORNL July, 2004

41

Mean responses to lack of information on traffic tie-ups and road construction are more consistent across the regions, falling almost entirely with the 2.0 to 3.0 range. Compared with the national average, New York as a state has a higher mean score (2.76 ± 0.06 versus 2.56 ± 0.03), with the highest regional scores going to Nassau and Suffolk counties (3.02) and the Greater Buffalo-Niagara MPO region (3.03). At 2.0 (± 0.15), the Herkimer-Oneida has a significantly lower mean response on this traffic information question than the other regions. 6.3 Regional Concerns over Pavement Condition and Lack of Walkways or Sidewalks Concerns over poor highway pavement conditions (i.e. rough pavement or pot-holes) produced a statewide average response of 2.98 (± 0.03), a little higher than the score of 2.79 (±0.01) recorded by the rest of the nation. The Greater Buffalo-Niagara, Elmira–Chemung MPO regions recording the two highest scores (3.26 and 3.23), closely followed by Binghamton (3.14) and New York City (3.10). The Poughkeepsie and Ithaca-Tomkins County MPO regions fall just below the national average. Summing over all MPO regions in the state produced an average score of 3.00 (± 0.04) while the non-MPO regions of the state produced a mean score (at 2.82 ± 0.07) no different statistically from the rest of the nation result. The level of concern over a lack of walkways or sidewalks is generally lower across the state than the other ten concerns reported. The statewide mean score of 2.02 (± 0.06) is statistically identical to that for the rest of the nation. The results for most regions of the state fall close to this result, with only Newburgh-Orange County and Poughkeepsie with statistically higher mean scores (of 2.43 and 2.39 respectively), and with only Greater Buffalo-Niagara MPO travelers returning a noticeably lower one (1.74 ± 0.12).

6.4 Regional Concerns over Driving Behavior These results indicate no significant differences between average statewide and rest of nation responses to speeding and distracted drivers, but that New Yorkers are somewhat more concerned about aggressive and drunk drivers on the roads. The region of Long Island covered by Nassau and Suffolk counties scores highest on distracted driver concerns. The Greater Buffalo-Niagara region scores highest on concerns over drunk drivers. Among the MPO regions the New York Metro Area scores highest on concerns over aggressive and speeding drivers. With a score of 3.62 (± 0.14%) out of 5 associated with concerns over aggressive driving, the Long Island counties of Nassau and Suffolk provided the highest score

ORNL July, 2004

42

recorded across all questions for this set of regions. The state’s more rural, non-MPO areas reported significantly lower average levels of concern than their metropolitan area counterparts on the speeding, distracted and aggressive driver questions, while returning a slightly lower but statistically similar result on the drunk drivers question. Most, though not all regions record slightly higher average levels of concern over distracted, aggressive and speeding drivers than they do over drunk drivers. 6.5 Regional Concerns over Travel Safety Two additional questions asked on the 2001 survey pertain to traffic safety: worrying about getting into a traffic accident and concern over the number of large trucks on the highways: this latter question no doubt occasioned by the rapid growth in large truck miles of travel both statewide and nationwide in recent years. The results shown in Figure 12 indicate that New Yorkers recorded less concern over large trucks, on the average, than did travelers in the rest of the nation, summed over both metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas. However, both Nassau and Suffolk and Putnam, Rockland and Westchester sections of the New York Metro Area, along with the Newburgh-Orange County, Adirondack-Glens Falls, Elmira-Chemung and Binghamton MPO regions are all statistically indistinguishable from the rest of the nation average response. New Yorkers’ concerns about getting into a traffic accident are on the average statistically identical to those in the rest of the nation. However, within-state exceptions to this result are recorded by each of the three sub-regions within the New York Metro Area, with a significantly higher mean score (2.72 ± 0.07) on the accidents question than either the statewide (2.56 ± 0.05) or nationwide (2.52 ± 0.02) set of responses. In contrast, the more rural, non-MPO areas of the state returned a much lower mean response (of 2.22 ± 0.11) than the state’s metropolitan counties (2.61 ± 0.07). 6.6 Regional Concerns over the Price of Gasoline On a statewide basis the average concern over gasoline price is a little lower than within the rest of the nation (2.88 ± 0.04 vs. 3.02 ± 0.02). However, this result is due almost entirely to the average response attributed to the over 8 million New York City residents (2.58 ± 0.10), where a much higher percentage of public transit patrons, as well a much denser concentration of local activities can be expected to influence this result. In contrast, concern over gasoline price is higher than the rest of nation average within many of the other New York MPO regions, and especially so within the non-MPO part of the state. For these more rural, non-MPO parts of the state the gasoline price question elicited the greatest level of concern, on the

ORNL July, 2004

43

average, among all 11 of the customer satisfaction question asked on the 2001 survey.

ORNL July, 2004

44

Figure 12. Statewide, Regional and Rest-of-Nation Mean Scores.

CONGESTION

Mean scores between 1 (best) and 5 (worst)

1.90 1.96 1.98 1.94

2.262.45

2.19 2.282.46 2.52

2.84

3.19

2.822.71

1.91

2.61 2.652.562.74

1

2

3

4

5

Ithac

a-Tom

kins C

o.

Adiron

dack

-Glen

s Fall

s

Elmira

-Che

mung

Herkim

er-One

ida

Bingha

mton M

etro

Capita

l Dist

rict

Syracu

se M

etro

Genes

ee

Gt. Buff

alo-N

iagara

Newbu

rgh-O

range

Co.

Pough

keep

sie

New York

Metr

o Area

New Y

ork C

ity

Nassa

u & Suff

olk

Putnam

, Roc

kland

, Wes

tches

ter

All NY M

POs

NY Non

-MPO A

reas

NY Statew

ide

Rest-o

f-Nati

on

Mea

n Sc

ores

LACK OF INFORMATION ON TRAFFIC TIE-UPS OR CONSTRUCTION

2.81 2.762.56

2.882.64

2.302.20

2.00

2.52 2.432.55 2.58

2.28

2.60

3.022.78

3.03 2.88

2.59

1

2

3

4

5

Ithac

a-Tom

kins C

o.

Adiron

dack

-Glen

s Fall

s

Elmira

-Che

mung

Herkim

er-One

ida

Bingha

mton M

etro

Capita

l Dist

rict

Syracu

se M

etro

Genes

ee

Gt. Buff

alo-N

iagara

Newbu

rgh-O

range

Co.

Pough

keep

sie

New York

Metr

o Area

New Y

ork C

ity

Nassa

u & Suff

olk

Putnam

, Roc

kland

, Wes

tches

ter

All NY M

POs

NY Non

-MPO Area

s

NY Statew

ide

Rest-o

f-Nati

on

Mea

n S

core

s


CONGESTION


1.90 1.96 1.98 1.94

2.262.45

2.19 2.282.46 2.52

2.84

3.19

2.822.71

1.91

2.61 2.652.562.74

1

2

3

4

5

Ithac

a-Tom

kins C

o.

Adiron

dack

-Glen

s Fall

s

Elmira

-Che

mung

Herkim

er-One

ida

Bingha

mton M

etro

Capita

l Dist

rict

Syracu

se M

etro

Genes

ee

Gt. Buff

alo-N

iagara

Newbu

rgh-O

range

Co.

Pough

keep

sie

New York

Metr

o Area

New Y

ork C

ity

Nassa

u & Suff

olk

Putnam

, Roc

kland

, Wes

tches

ter

All NY M

POs

NY Non

-MPO A

reas

NY Statew

ide

Rest-o

f-Nati

on

Mea

n S

core

s

LACK OF INFORMATION ON TRAFFIC TIE-UPS OR CONSTRUCTION

2.81 2.762.56

2.882.64

2.302.20

2.00

2.52 2.432.55 2.58

2.28

2.60

3.022.78

3.03 2.88

2.59

1

2

3

4

5

Ithac

a-Tom

kins C

o.

Adiron

dack

-Glen

s Fall

s

Elmira

-Che

mung

Herkim

er-One

ida

Bingha

mton M

etro

Capita

l Dist

rict

Syracu

se M

etro

Genes

ee

Gt. Buff

alo-N

iagara

Newbu

rgh-O

range

Co.

Pough

keep

sie

New York

Metr

o Area

New Y

ork C

ity

Nassa

u & Suff

olk

Putnam

, Roc

kland

, Wes

tches

ter

All NY M

POs

NY Non

-MPO Area

s

NY Statew

ide

Rest-o

f-Nati

on

Mea

n S

core

s


ORNL July, 2004

45



2.79

3.10

2.632.84

3.233.00

3.14

2.873.00 3.08

3.26

2.63

2.992.77 2.72

3.002.82

2.982.79

1

2

3

4

5

Ithac

a-Tom

kins C

o.

Adiron

dack

-Glen

s Fall

s

Elmira

-Che

mung

Herkim

er-One

ida

Bingha

mton M

etro

Capita

l Dist

rict

Syracu

se M

etro

Genes

ee

Gt. Buff

alo-N

iagara

Newbu

rgh-O

range

Co.

Pough

keep

sie

New Y

ork M

etro A

rea

New Y

ork C

ity

Nassa

u & S

uffolk

Putnam

, Roc

kland

, Wes

tches

ter

All NY M

POs

NY Non

-MPO A

reas

NY Stat

ewide

Rest-o

f-Nati

on

Mea

n Sc

ores

LACK OF WALKWAYS OR SIDEWALKS


2.02 2.01 2.012.021.982.022.192.102.03

2.39

1.741.961.991.88 1.91

2.162.09 1.99

2.43

1

2

3

4

5

Ithac

a-Tom

kins C

o.

Adiron

dack

-Glen

s Fall

s

Elmira

-Che

mung

Herkim

er-One

ida

Bingha

mton M

etro

Capita

l Dist

rict

Syracu

se M

etro

Genes

ee

Gt. Buff

alo-N

iagara

Newbu

rgh-O

range

Co.

Pough

keep

sie

New Y

ork M

etro A

rea

New Y

ork C

ity

Nassa

u & Suff

olk

Putnam

, Roc

kland

, Wes

tches

ter

All NY M

POs

NY Non

-MPO A

reas

NY Statew

ide

Rest-o

f-Nati

on

Mea

n S

core

s



2.79

3.10

2.632.84

3.233.00

3.14

2.873.00 3.08

3.26

2.63

2.992.77 2.72

3.002.82

2.982.79

1

2

3

4

5

Ithac

a-Tom

kins C

o.

Adiron

dack

-Glen

s Fall

s

Elmira

-Che

mung

Herkim

er-One

ida

Bingha

mton M

etro

Capita

l Dist

rict

Syracu

se M

etro

Genes

ee

Gt. Buff

alo-N

iagara

Newbu

rgh-O

range

Co.

Pough

keep

sie

New Y

ork M

etro A

rea

New Y

ork C

ity

Nassa

u & S

uffolk

Putnam

, Roc

kland

, Wes

tches

ter

All NY M

POs

NY Non

-MPO A

reas

NY Stat

ewide

Rest-o

f-Nati

on

Mea

n Sc

ores



2.02 2.01 2.012.021.982.022.192.102.03

2.39

1.741.961.991.88 1.91

2.162.09 1.99

2.43

1

2

3

4

5

Ithac

a-Tom

kins C

o.

Adiron

dack

-Glen

s Fall

s

Elmira

-Che

mung

Herkim

er-One

ida

Bingha

mton M

etro

Capita

l Dist

rict

Syracu

se M

etro

Genes

ee

Gt. Buff

alo-N

iagara

Newbu

rgh-O

range

Co.

Pough

keep

sie

New Y

ork M

etro A

rea

New Y

ork C

ity

Nassa

u & Suff

olk

Putnam

, Roc

kland

, Wes

tches

ter

All NY M

POs

NY Non

-MPO A

reas

NY Statew

ide

Rest-o

f-Nati

on

Mea

n S

core

s


ORNL July, 2004

46



SPEEDING DRIVERSMean scores between 1(best) and 5 (worst)

2.952.98

2.64

3.033.16

3.033.113.002.812.672.78

2.962.912.692.64

2.442.66

3.122.97

1

2

3

4

5

Ithac

a-Tom

kins C

o.

Adiron

dack

-Glen

s Fall

s

Elmira

-Che

mung

Herkim

er-One

ida

Bingha

mton M

etro

Capita

l Dist

rict

Syracu

se M

etro

Genes

ee

Gt. Buff

alo-N

iagara

Newbu

rgh-O

range

Co.

Pough

keep

sie

New Y

ork M

etro A

rea

New Y

ork C

ity

Nassa

u & S

uffolk

Putnam

, Roc

kland

, Wes

tches

ter

All NY M

POs

NY Non

-MPO A

reas

NY Stat

ewide

Rest-o

f-Nati

on

Mea

n Sc

ores

LARGE TRUCKS

2.86

2.652.522.67

2.882.822.71

2.502.552.34

2.522.612.73

2.37

2.722.78

2.432.64

2.81

1

2

3

4

5

Ithac

a-Tom

kins C

o.

Adiron

dack

-Glen

s Fall

s

Elmira

-Che

mung

Herkim

er-One

ida

Bingha

mton M

etro

Capita

l Dist

rict

Syracu

se M

etro

Genes

ee

Gt. Buff

alo-N

iagara

Newbu

rgh-O

range

Co.

Pough

keep

sie

New Y

ork M

etro A

rea

New Y

ork C

ity

Nassa

u & S

uffolk

Putnam

, Roc

kland

, Wes

tches

ter

All NY M

POs

NY Non

-MPO A

reas

NY Stat

ewide

Rest-o

f-Nati

on

Mea

n Sc

ores


SPEEDING DRIVERSMean scores between 1(best) and 5 (worst)

2.952.98

2.64

3.033.16

3.033.113.002.812.672.78

2.962.912.692.64

2.442.66

3.122.97

1

2

3

4

5

Ithac

a-Tom

kins C

o.

Adiron

dack

-Glen

s Fall

s

Elmira

-Che

mung

Herkim

er-One

ida

Bingha

mton M

etro

Capita

l Dist

rict

Syracu

se M

etro

Genes

ee

Gt. Buff

alo-N

iagara

Newbu

rgh-O

range

Co.

Pough

keep

sie

New Y

ork M

etro A

rea

New Y

ork C

ity

Nassa

u & S

uffolk

Putnam

, Roc

kland

, Wes

tches

ter

All NY M

POs

NY Non

-MPO A

reas

NY Stat

ewide

Rest-o

f-Nati

on

Mea

n Sc

ores

LARGE TRUCKS

2.86

2.652.522.67

2.882.822.71

2.502.552.34

2.522.612.73

2.37

2.722.78

2.432.64

2.81

1

2

3

4

5

Ithac

a-Tom

kins C

o.

Adiron

dack

-Glen

s Fall

s

Elmira

-Che

mung

Herkim

er-One

ida

Bingha

mton M

etro

Capita

l Dist

rict

Syracu

se M

etro

Genes

ee

Gt. Buff

alo-N

iagara

Newbu

rgh-O

range

Co.

Pough

keep

sie

New Y

ork M

etro A

rea

New Y

ork C

ity

Nassa

u & S

uffolk

Putnam

, Roc

kland

, Wes

tches

ter

All NY M

POs

NY Non

-MPO A

reas

NY Stat

ewide

Rest-o

f-Nati

on

Mea

n Sc

ores

ORNL July, 2004

47

Figure 12 (Continued)…..


DISTRACTED DRIVERSMean scores between 1 (best) and 5 (worst)

3.043.03

2.76

3.063.13

3.363.103.063.08

2.952.882.962.832.732.682.622.71

3.023.09

1

2

3

4

5

Ithac

a-Tom

kins C

o.

Adiron

dack

-Glen

s Fall

s

Elmira

-Che

mung

Herkim

er-One

ida

Bingha

mton M

etro

Capita

l Dist

rict

Syracu

se M

etro

Genes

ee

Gt. Buff

alo-N

iagara

Newbu

rgh-O

range

Co.

Pough

keep

sie

New Y

ork M

etro A

rea

New Y

ork C

ity

Nassa

u & S

uffolk

Putnam

, Roc

kland

, Wes

tches

ter

All NY M

POs

NY Non

-MPO A

reas

NY Stat

ewide

Rest-o

f-Nati

on

Mea

n Sc

ores

DRUNK DRIVERS

2.482.66

2.50 2.342.59

2.352.50 2.58 2.51

2.672.90

2.472.68 2.80

2.52 2.662.55

2.652.49

1

2

3

4

5

Ithac

a-Tom

kins C

o.

Adiron

dack

-Glen

s Fall

s

Elmira

-Che

mung

Herkim

er-One

ida

Bingha

mton M

etro

Capita

l Dist

rict

Syracu

se M

etro

Genes

ee

Gt. Buff

alo-N

iagara

Newbu

rgh-O

range

Co.

Pough

keep

sie

New Y

ork M

etro A

rea

New Y

ork C

ity

Nassa

u & S

uffolk

Putnam

, Roc

kland

, Wes

tches

ter

All NY M

POs

NY Non

-MPO A

reas

NY Stat

ewide

Rest-o

f-Nati

on

Mea

n Sc

ores


DISTRACTED DRIVERSMean scores between 1 (best) and 5 (worst)

3.043.03

2.76

3.063.13

3.363.103.063.08

2.952.882.962.832.732.682.622.71

3.023.09

1

2

3

4

5

Ithac

a-Tom

kins C

o.

Adiron

dack

-Glen

s Fall

s

Elmira

-Che

mung

Herkim

er-One

ida

Bingha

mton M

etro

Capita

l Dist

rict

Syracu

se M

etro

Genes

ee

Gt. Buff

alo-N

iagara

Newbu

rgh-O

range

Co.

Pough

keep

sie

New Y

ork M

etro A

rea

New Y

ork C

ity

Nassa

u & S

uffolk

Putnam

, Roc

kland

, Wes

tches

ter

All NY M

POs

NY Non

-MPO A

reas

NY Stat

ewide

Rest-o

f-Nati

on

Mea

n Sc

ores

DRUNK DRIVERS

2.482.66

2.50 2.342.59

2.352.50 2.58 2.51

2.672.90

2.472.68 2.80

2.52 2.662.55

2.652.49

1

2

3

4

5

Ithac

a-Tom

kins C

o.

Adiron

dack

-Glen

s Fall

s

Elmira

-Che

mung

Herkim

er-One

ida

Bingha

mton M

etro

Capita

l Dist

rict

Syracu

se M

etro

Genes

ee

Gt. Buff

alo-N

iagara

Newbu

rgh-O

range

Co.

Pough

keep

sie

New Y

ork M

etro A

rea

New Y

ork C

ity

Nassa

u & S

uffolk

Putnam

, Roc

kland

, Wes

tches

ter

All NY M

POs

NY Non

-MPO A

reas

NY Stat

ewide

Rest-o

f-Nati

on

Mea

n Sc

ores

ORNL July, 2004

48



AGGRESSIVE DRIVERSMean scores between 1 (best) and 5 (worst)

3.01

3.40

2.67

2.87

2.722.96 2.99 3.20 3.10 3.15 3.10

3.233.45

3.623.41

3.34

2.74

3.273.08

1

2

3

4

5

Ithac

a-Tom

kins C

o.

Adiron

dack

-Glen

s Fall

s

Elmira

-Che

mung

Herkim

er-One

ida

Bingha

mton M

etro

Capita

l Dist

rict

Syracu

se M

etro

Genes

ee

Gt. Buff

alo-N

iagara

Newbu

rgh-O

range

Co.

Pough

keep

sie

New Y

ork M

etro A

rea

New Y

ork C

ity

Nassa

u & S

uffolk

Putnam

, Roc

kland

, Wes

tches

ter

All NY M

POs

NY Non

-MPO A

reas

NY Stat

ewide

Rest-o

f-Nati

on

Mea

n Sc

ores

WORRY ABOUT BEING IN AN ACCIDENT

2.48

2.73

2.08 2.15 2.172.32 2.34

2.302.36 2.34 2.36

2.572.72 2.68 2.74

2.61

2.22

2.56 2.52

1

2

3

4

5

Ithac

a-Tom

kins C

o.

Adiron

dack

-Glen

s Fall

s

Elmira

-Che

mung

Herkim

er-One

ida

Bingha

mton M

etro

Capita

l Dist

rict

Syracu

se M

etro

Genes

ee

Gt. Buff

alo-N

iagara

Newbu

rgh-O

range

Co.

Pough

keep

sie

New Y

ork M

etro A

rea

New Y

ork C

ity

Nassa

u & Suff

olk

Putnam

, Roc

kland

, Wes

tches

ter

All NY M

POs

NY Non

-MPO A

reas

NY Stat

ewide

Rest-o

f-Nati

on

Mea

n Sc

ores


AGGRESSIVE DRIVERSMean scores between 1 (best) and 5 (worst)

3.01

3.40

2.67

2.87

2.722.96 2.99 3.20 3.10 3.15 3.10

3.233.45

3.623.41

3.34

2.74

3.273.08

1

2

3

4

5

Ithac

a-Tom

kins C

o.

Adiron

dack

-Glen

s Fall

s

Elmira

-Che

mung

Herkim

er-One

ida

Bingha

mton M

etro

Capita

l Dist

rict

Syracu

se M

etro

Genes

ee

Gt. Buff

alo-N

iagara

Newbu

rgh-O

range

Co.

Pough

keep

sie

New Y

ork M

etro A

rea

New Y

ork C

ity

Nassa

u & S

uffolk

Putnam

, Roc

kland

, Wes

tches

ter

All NY M

POs

NY Non

-MPO A

reas

NY Stat

ewide

Rest-o

f-Nati

on

Mea

n Sc

ores


2.48

2.73

2.08 2.15 2.172.32 2.34

2.302.36 2.34 2.36

2.572.72 2.68 2.74

2.61

2.22

2.56 2.52

1

2

3

4

5

Ithac

a-Tom

kins C

o.

Adiron

dack

-Glen

s Fall

s

Elmira

-Che

mung

Herkim

er-One

ida

Bingha

mton M

etro

Capita

l Dist

rict

Syracu

se M

etro

Genes

ee

Gt. Buff

alo-N

iagara

Newbu

rgh-O

range

Co.

Pough

keep

sie

New Y

ork M

etro A

rea

New Y

ork C

ity

Nassa

u & Suff

olk

Putnam

, Roc

kland

, Wes

tches

ter

All NY M

POs

NY Non

-MPO A

reas

NY Stat

ewide

Rest-o

f-Nati

on

Mea

n Sc

ores

ORNL July, 2004

49



GASOLINE PRICEMean scores between 1 (best) and 5 (worst)

3.24

2.582.79

3.153.27 3.21

3.123.04

3.083.30

3.06 3.12

2.74

3.10 3.14

2.84

3.192.88

3.02

1

2

3

4

5

Ithac

a-Tom

kins C

o.

Adiron

dack

-Glen

s Fall

s

Elmira

-Che

mung

Herkim

er-One

ida

Bingha

mton M

etro

Capita

l Dist

rict

Syracu

se M

etro

Genes

ee

Gt. Buff

alo-N

iagara

Newbu

rgh-O

range

Co.

Pough

keep

sie

New Y

ork M

etro A

rea

New Y

ork C

ity

Nassa

u & S

uffolk

Putnam

, Roc

kland

, Wes

tches

ter

All NY M

POs

NY Non

-MPO A

reas

NY Stat

ewide

Rest-o

f-Nati

on

Mea

n Sc

ores


GASOLINE PRICEMean scores between 1 (best) and 5 (worst)

3.24

2.582.79

3.153.27 3.21

3.123.04

3.083.30

3.06 3.12

2.74

3.10 3.14

2.84

3.192.88

3.02

1

2

3

4

5

Ithac

a-Tom

kins C

o.

Adiron

dack

-Glen

s Fall

s

Elmira

-Che

mung

Herkim

er-One

ida

Bingha

mton M

etro

Capita

l Dist

rict

Syracu

se M

etro

Genes

ee

Gt. Buff

alo-N

iagara

Newbu

rgh-O

range

Co.

Pough

keep

sie

New Y

ork M

etro A

rea

New Y

ork C

ity

Nassa

u & S

uffolk

Putnam

, Roc

kland

, Wes

tches

ter

All NY M

POs

NY Non

-MPO A

reas

NY Stat

ewide

Rest-o

f-Nati

on

Mea

n Sc

ores

ORNL July, 2004

50

7. NEW YORK STATEWIDE RESULTS PLACED IN A REGIONAL AND NATIONAL CONTEXT

7.1 Introduction In this section of the report the 2001 NHTS results for New York State are compared with those of the nation’s nine Census Divisions6, along with a further geographic breakdown within the Census Division in which New York is located, the Middle Atlantic Division. Figure 13 provides a map of these nine divisions and the states contained within each. Results for both mean scores and percentage negative responses (i.e. responses of ‘4’ or ‘5’ on the NHTS 5-point scale) are presented, along with their 90% confidence intervals.

Figure 13 . Map of US Census Divisions and the States they Contain.

Note: The thick black lines delineate the 4 Census Regions (West, Mid-West, North-East and South).

6 See http://www.census.gov/geo/www/index.html and http://www.census.gov/geo/www/us_regdiv.pdf

ORNL July, 2004

51

Figure 14 shows the mean scores obtained on each of the 11 customer satisfaction questions. Results are shown for each Census Division, with the New York State and the Rest of the Middle Atlantic Division (i.e. the neighboring states of Pennsylvania and New Jersey) highlighted for ready comparison. Results for the nation as a whole are shown as the last bar to the right in each diagram. Figure 15 shows the percentage of negative responses obtained on each of the 11 questions asked, again with New York State and the Rest of the Middle Atlantic Division highlighted. The results shown in Figures 14 and 15 for the most part provide similar across-region rankings, and the placement of New York State within them. With this in mind, the following discussion draws on both the mean score and percent negative response indices when examining New York State’s responses relative to those in other parts of the country. In considering these diagrams and the numbers they represent, it is important to recognize that any regional division of the country brings with it its own somewhat arbitrary set of biases. In looking at concerns over highway congestion, for example, the percentage of a region’s population residing in large cities is likely to impact the results along the lines discussed in Section 6 above. It is not clear, for example, how other, separate state-specific rankings perform in relation to those of New York State. Care should be taken, therefore, in drawing other than broad conclusions about the “ranking” of New York statewide concerns from these results. 7.2 Discussion of the Empirical Results The greatest regional variability in both mean scores and percentage of negative responses is most evident in responses to highway congestion, a result we might expect given the link between congestion and density of urban development. Both New York and the Middle Atlantic Division it resides within are among the higher scoring regions, but with lower mean scores and lower percentage negative responses than the South Atlantic, West South Central and Pacific Divisions of the country. However, the New York statewide results do provide the highest mean score and highest percentage of negative responses on concerns over traffic information (specifically, not knowing about traffic tie-ups or construction). This is higher, at 31.8% (± 2.6%) of negative responses, than the concerns expressed by travelers in either the rest of the Middle Atlantic (25.5% ± 3.6%) or in the New England (25.3% ± 4.2%) states. Concern over poor pavement conditions (rough pavement or potholes) also appears to be greater in New York State than in the rest of the Middle Atlantic Division. It ranks second to the West South Central region among the regional statistics shown,; and with a similar level of concern expressed by travelers in the New England and East North Central regions of the country. As far as concerns about a lack of walkways or sidewalks, New York travelers appear to be very

ORNL July, 2004

52

similar to those in the rest of the Middle Atlantic Division, and fall in the middle of the range represented by the nine Census Divisions. Concerns over speeding drivers produced reasonably consistent average scores across most regions of the country (the East and West North Central Regions being a little lower than the rest). Both New York State and the Middle Atlantic region rank a joint fourth behind New England, the South Atlantic and West South Central regions on percentage negative responses to this question, but with little to distinguish these regions on a statistical basis. Traveler concerns over large trucks on the highway appear to be less significant for New Yorkers than in most other regions of the country. Only New England and West North Central respondents ranked this concern lower both on average and as a large problem. Respondents in the rest of the Middle Atlantic region ranked this concern significantly higher. New Yorkers’ concerns over both drunk and aggressive drivers produced higher mean and percentage negative response scores than did respondents in any of the nine Census Divisions, but with no discernable difference between within-state responses and those provided by travelers in either the rest of the Middle Atlantic Division. Both New York State and Middle Atlantic Division concerns over distracted drivers fall within the range covered by the rest of the nation. This observation also applies to worries about being in a traffic accident, and to concerns over the price of gasoline. In the case of gasoline price, however, more New Yorkers appear to have large concerns (at 36.3%± 1.2%) than do their counterparts in the rest of the Middle Atlantic Division (at 30.9%± 2.3%).

ORNL July, 2004

53

Figure 14. Mean Response Scores by Region of the Country.

CONGESTION

Scores between 1 (best) and 5 (worst)

2.61 2.652.42

2.82 2.80 2.922.642.51

2.17

2.63 2.592.44

1

2

3

4

5

Middle

Atlanti

c

New Y

ork S

tate

Rest o

f Mid-

Atlanti

c

New E

nglan

d

East N

orth C

entra

l

Wes

t Nort

h Cen

tral

South

Atlanti

c

East S

outh

Centra

l

Wes

t Sou

th Cen

tral

Mounta

in

Pacific

Nation

al

Mea

n Sc

ores


2.762.49 2.61 2.69 2.63 2.582.61 2.54 2.55

2.68

2.292.59

1

2

3

4

5

Middle

Atlanti

c

New Y

ork S

tate

Rest o

f Mid-

Atlanti

c

New E

nglan

d

East N

orth

Centra

l

Wes

t Nor

th Cen

tral

South

Atlanti

c

East S

outh

Centra

l

Wes

t Sou

th Cen

tral

Mounta

in

Pacific

Nation

al

Mea

n S

core

s


2.98 2.873.00

2.60

3.07

2.612.812.81

2.57

2.93 2.862.98

1

2

3

4

5

Middle

Atlanti

c

New Y

ork S

tate

Rest o

f Mid-

Atlanti

c

New E

nglan

d

East N

orth C

entra

l

Wes

t Nort

h Cen

tral

South

Atlanti

c

East S

outh

Centra

l

Wes

t Sou

th Cen

tral

Mounta

in

Pacific

Nation

al

Mea

n Sc

ores

CONGESTION


2.61 2.652.42

2.82 2.80 2.922.642.51

2.17

2.63 2.592.44

1

2

3

4

5

Middle

Atlanti

c

New Y

ork S

tate

Rest o

f Mid-

Atlanti

c

New E

nglan

d

East N

orth C

entra

l

Wes

t Nort

h Cen

tral

South

Atlanti

c

East S

outh

Centra

l

Wes

t Sou

th Cen

tral

Mounta

in

Pacific

Nation

al

Mea

n Sc

ores


2.762.49 2.61 2.69 2.63 2.582.61 2.54 2.55

2.68

2.292.59

1

2

3

4

5

Middle

Atlanti

c

New Y

ork S

tate

Rest o

f Mid-

Atlanti

c

New E

nglan

d

East N

orth

Centra

l

Wes

t Nor

th Cen

tral

South

Atlanti

c

East S

outh

Centra

l

Wes

t Sou

th Cen

tral

Mounta

in

Pacific

Nation

al

Mea

n S

core

s


2.98 2.873.00

2.60

3.07

2.612.812.81

2.57

2.93 2.862.98

1

2

3

4

5

Middle

Atlanti

c

New Y

ork S

tate

Rest o

f Mid-

Atlanti

c

New E

nglan

d

East N

orth C

entra

l

Wes

t Nort

h Cen

tral

South

Atlanti

c

East S

outh

Centra

l

Wes

t Sou

th Cen

tral

Mounta

in

Pacific

Nation

al

Mea

n Sc

ores

ORNL July, 2004

54



Scores between 1(best) and 5 (worst)

2.02 2.03 1.912.17 2.09

1.94 2.012.021.83

2.031.86

2.21

1

2

3

4

5

Middle

Atlanti

c

New Y

ork S

tate

Rest o

f Mid-

Atlanti

c

New E

nglan

d

East N

orth C

entra

l

Wes

t Nort

h Cen

tral

South

Atlanti

c

East S

outh

Centra

l

Wes

t Sou

th Cen

tral

Mounta

in

Pacific

Nation

al

Mea

n Sc

ores

SPEEDING DRIVERS

2.982.76

3.11 3.00 2.97 2.953.06 3.08

2.693.02

2.862.94

1

2

3

4

5

Middle

Atlanti

c

New Y

ork S

tate

Rest o

f Mid-

Atlanti

c

New E

nglan

d

East N

orth C

entra

l

Wes

t Nort

h Cen

tral

South

Atlanti

c

East S

outh

Centra

l

Wes

t Sou

th Cen

tral

Mounta

in

Pacific

Nation

al

Mea

n S

core

s

LARGE TRUCKS

2.773.04 2.93

2.79 2.842.652.93

2.63 2.642.79 2.79

2.94

1

2

3

4

5

Middle

Atlanti

c

New Y

ork S

tate

Rest o

f Mid-

Atlanti

c

New E

nglan

d

East N

orth C

entra

l

Wes

t Nort

h Cen

tral

South

Atlanti

c

East S

outh

Centra

l

Wes

t Sou

th Cen

tral

Mounta

in

Pacific

Nation

al

Mea

n Sc

ores



2.02 2.03 1.912.17 2.09

1.94 2.012.021.83

2.031.86

2.21

1

2

3

4

5

Middle

Atlanti

c

New Y

ork S

tate

Rest o

f Mid-

Atlanti

c

New E

nglan

d

East N

orth C

entra

l

Wes

t Nort

h Cen

tral

South

Atlanti

c

East S

outh

Centra

l

Wes

t Sou

th Cen

tral

Mounta

in

Pacific

Nation

al

Mea

n Sc

ores

SPEEDING DRIVERS

2.982.76

3.11 3.00 2.97 2.953.06 3.08

2.693.02

2.862.94

1

2

3

4

5

Middle

Atlanti

c

New Y

ork S

tate

Rest o

f Mid-

Atlanti

c

New E

nglan

d

East N

orth C

entra

l

Wes

t Nort

h Cen

tral

South

Atlanti

c

East S

outh

Centra

l

Wes

t Sou

th Cen

tral

Mounta

in

Pacific

Nation

al

Mea

n S

core

sLACK OF WALKWAYS OR SIDEWALKS


2.02 2.03 1.912.17 2.09

1.94 2.012.021.83

2.031.86

2.21

1

2

3

4

5

Middle

Atlanti

c

New Y

ork S

tate

Rest o

f Mid-

Atlanti

c

New E

nglan

d

East N

orth C

entra

l

Wes

t Nort

h Cen

tral

South

Atlanti

c

East S

outh

Centra

l

Wes

t Sou

th Cen

tral

Mounta

in

Pacific

Nation

al

Mea

n Sc

ores

SPEEDING DRIVERS

2.982.76

3.11 3.00 2.97 2.953.06 3.08

2.693.02

2.862.94

1

2

3

4

5

Middle

Atlanti

c

New Y

ork S

tate

Rest o

f Mid-

Atlanti

c

New E

nglan

d

East N

orth C

entra

l

Wes

t Nort

h Cen

tral

South

Atlanti

c

East S

outh

Centra

l

Wes

t Sou

th Cen

tral

Mounta

in

Pacific

Nation

al

Mea

n S

core

s

LARGE TRUCKS

2.773.04 2.93

2.79 2.842.652.93

2.63 2.642.79 2.79

2.94

1

2

3

4

5

Middle

Atlanti

c

New Y

ork S

tate

Rest o

f Mid-

Atlanti

c

New E

nglan

d

East N

orth C

entra

l

Wes

t Nort

h Cen

tral

South

Atlanti

c

East S

outh

Centra

l

Wes

t Sou

th Cen

tral

Mounta

in

Pacific

Nation

al

Mea

n Sc

ores

ORNL July, 2004

55

Figure 14 (Continued)…. `

DISTRACTED DRIVERSScores between 1 (best) and 5 (worst)

3.03 3.102.89

3.14 3.14 3.043.053.062.74

3.06 3.123.05

1

2

3

4

5

Middle

Atlanti

c

New Y

ork S

tate

Rest o

f Mid-

Atlanti

c

New E

nglan

d

East N

orth

Centra

l

Wes

t Nor

th Cen

tral

South

Atlanti

c

East S

outh

Centra

l

Wes

t Sou

th Cen

tral

Mounta

in

Pacific

Nation

al

Mea

n Sc

ores

DRUNK DRIVERS

2.652.46 2.52 2.51 2.502.512.61 2.54

2.24

2.632.482.59

1

2

3

4

5

Middle

Atlanti

c

New Y

ork S

tate

Rest o

f Mid-

Atlanti

c

New E

nglan

d

East N

orth

Centra

l

Wes

t Nor

th Cen

tral

South

Atlanti

c

East S

outh

Centra

l

Wes

t Sou

th Cen

tral

Mounta

in

Pacific

Nation

al

Mea

n S

core

s

AGGRESSIVE DRIVERS

2.993.20 3.08 3.06 3.09

3.27 3.20 3.172.84

3.24 3.113.04

1

2

3

4

5

Middle

Atlanti

c

New Y

ork S

tate

Rest o

f Mid-

Atlanti

c

New E

nglan

d

East N

orth

Centra

l

Wes

t Nor

th Cen

tral

South

Atlanti

c

East S

outh

Centra

l

Wes

t Sou

th Cen

tral

Mounta

in

Pacific

Nation

al

Mea

n S

core

s

DISTRACTED DRIVERSScores between 1 (best) and 5 (worst)

3.03 3.102.89

3.14 3.14 3.043.053.062.74

3.06 3.123.05

1

2

3

4

5

Middle

Atlanti

c

New Y

ork S

tate

Rest o

f Mid-

Atlanti

c

New E

nglan

d

East N

orth

Centra

l

Wes

t Nor

th Cen

tral

South

Atlanti

c

East S

outh

Centra

l

Wes

t Sou

th Cen

tral

Mounta

in

Pacific

Nation

al

Mea

n Sc

ores

DRUNK DRIVERS

2.652.46 2.52 2.51 2.502.512.61 2.54

2.24

2.632.482.59

1

2

3

4

5

Middle

Atlanti

c

New Y

ork S

tate

Rest o

f Mid-

Atlanti

c

New E

nglan

d

East N

orth

Centra

l

Wes

t Nor

th Cen

tral

South

Atlanti

c

East S

outh

Centra

l

Wes

t Sou

th Cen

tral

Mounta

in

Pacific

Nation

al

Mea

n S

core

s

AGGRESSIVE DRIVERS

2.993.20 3.08 3.06 3.09

3.27 3.20 3.172.84

3.24 3.113.04

1

2

3

4

5

Middle

Atlanti

c

New Y

ork S

tate

Rest o

f Mid-

Atlanti

c

New E

nglan

d

East N

orth

Centra

l

Wes

t Nor

th Cen

tral

South

Atlanti

c

East S

outh

Centra

l

Wes

t Sou

th Cen

tral

Mounta

in

Pacific

Nation

al

Mea

n S

core

s

ORNL July, 2004

56




2.56 2.522.31

2.69 2.60 2.55 2.522.522.31

2.54 2.522.58

1

2

3

4

5

Middle

Atlanti

c

New Y

ork S

tate

Rest o

f Mid-

Atlanti

c

New E

nglan

d

East N

orth C

entra

l

Wes

t Nort

h Cen

tral

South

Atlanti

c

East S

outh

Centra

l

Wes

t Sou

th Cen

tral

Mounta

in

Pacific

Nation

al

Mea

n S

core

s

GASOLINE PRICE

2.88 2.80

3.162.96 2.84

3.293.012.96 3.01

2.84 2.882.89

1

2

3

4

5

Middle

Atlanti

c

New Y

ork

Rest o

f Mid-

Atlanti

c

New E

nglan

d

East N

orth

Centra

l

Wes

t Nor

th Cen

tral

South

Atlanti

c

East S

outh

Centra

l

Wes

t Sou

th Cen

tral

Mounta

in

Pacific

Nation

al

Mea

n Sc

ores



2.56 2.522.31

2.69 2.60 2.55 2.522.522.31

2.54 2.522.58

1

2

3

4

5

Middle

Atlanti

c

New Y

ork S

tate

Rest o

f Mid-

Atlanti

c

New E

nglan

d

East N

orth C

entra

l

Wes

t Nort

h Cen

tral

South

Atlanti

c

East S

outh

Centra

l

Wes

t Sou

th Cen

tral

Mounta

in

Pacific

Nation

al

Mea

n S

core

s

GASOLINE PRICE

2.88 2.80

3.162.96 2.84

3.293.012.96 3.01

2.84 2.882.89

1

2

3

4

5

Middle

Atlanti

c

New Y

ork

Rest o

f Mid-

Atlanti

c

New E

nglan

d

East N

orth

Centra

l

Wes

t Nor

th Cen

tral

South

Atlanti

c

East S

outh

Centra

l

Wes

t Sou

th Cen

tral

Mounta

in

Pacific

Nation

al

Mea

n Sc

ores

ORNL July, 2004

57

Figure 15. Percentage of Large Problem Responses by Region of the Country.

CONGESTION(numbers above bars = % of '4' and '5' responses


35.9

28.0

16.221.4 20.0

31.827.628.7

25.6

31.928.828.7

0

20

40

60

Middle

Atlanti

c

New Y

ork S

tate

Rest o

f Midd

le Atla

ntic

New E

nglan

d

East N

orth C

entra

l

Wes

t Nort

h Cen

tral

South

Atlanti

c

East S

outh

Centra

l

Wes

t Sou

th Cen

tral

Mounta

in

Pacific

Nation

al

%


27.4 26.728.7

31.828.3

25.325.5 26.730.0

25.824.819.5

0

20

40

60

Middle

Atlanti

c

New Y

ork S

tate

Rest o

f Midd

le Atla

ntic

New E

nglan

d

East N

orth C

entra

l

Wes

t Nort

h Cen

tral

South

Atlanti

c

East S

outh

Centra

l

Wes

t Sou

th Cen

tral

Mounta

in

Pacific

Nation

al

%


25.3

31.0

35.237.5

25.7

35.632.8

24.0

39.8

30.2

36.130.9

0

20

40

60

Middle

Atlanti

c

New Y

ork S

tate

Rest o

f Midd

le Atla

ntic

New E

nglan

d

East N

orth C

entra

l

Wes

t Nort

h Cen

tral

South

Atlanti

c

East S

outh

Centra

l

Wes

t Sou

th Cen

tral

Mounta

in

Pacific

Nation

al

%


CONGESTION(numbers above bars = % of '4' and '5' responses


35.9

28.0

16.221.4 20.0

31.827.628.7

25.6

31.928.828.7

0

20

40

60

Middle

Atlanti

c

New Y

ork S

tate

Rest o

f Midd

le Atla

ntic

New E

nglan

d

East N

orth C

entra

l

Wes

t Nort

h Cen

tral

South

Atlanti

c

East S

outh

Centra

l

Wes

t Sou

th Cen

tral

Mounta

in

Pacific

Nation

al

%


27.4 26.728.7

31.828.3

25.325.5 26.730.0

25.824.819.5

0

20

40

60

Middle

Atlanti

c

New Y

ork S

tate

Rest o

f Midd

le Atla

ntic

New E

nglan

d

East N

orth C

entra

l

Wes

t Nort

h Cen

tral

South

Atlanti

c

East S

outh

Centra

l

Wes

t Sou

th Cen

tral

Mounta

in

Pacific

Nation

al

%


25.3

31.0

35.237.5

25.7

35.632.8

24.0

39.8

30.2

36.130.9

0

20

40

60

Middle

Atlanti

c

New Y

ork S

tate

Rest o

f Midd

le Atla

ntic

New E

nglan

d

East N

orth C

entra

l

Wes

t Nort

h Cen

tral

South

Atlanti

c

East S

outh

Centra

l

Wes

t Sou

th Cen

tral

Mounta

in

Pacific

Nation

al

%


ORNL July, 2004

58


LACK OF WALKWAYS OR SIDEWALKSLACK OF WALKWAYS OR SIDEWALKS(numbers above bars = % of '4' and '5' responses(numbers above bars = % of '4' and '5' responses

on a 1 (best) to 5 (worst) point scale) on a 1 (best) to 5 (worst) point scale)

13.616.517.2 17.1

21.4

14.617.3

12.8

20.919.1

13.6 12.1

0

20

40

60

Middle

Atlanti

c

New Y

ork S

tate

Rest o

f Midd

le Atla

ntic

New E

nglan

d

East N

orth

Centra

l

Wes

t Nort

h Cen

tral

South

Atlanti

c

East S

outh

Centra

l

Wes

t Sou

th Cen

tral

Mounta

in

Pacific

Nation

al

%

SPEEDING DRIVERS

36.437.2

28.230.832.7

38.7

33.138.3

41.841.438.338.3

0

20

40

60

Middle

Atlanti

c

New Y

ork S

tate

Rest o

f Midd

le Atla

ntic

New E

nglan

d

East N

orth

Centra

l

Wes

t Nort

h Cen

tral

South

Atlanti

c

East S

outh

Centra

l

Wes

t Sou

th Cen

tral

Mounta

in

Pacific

Nation

al

%

LARGE TRUCKS

36.4

31.627.8

31.134.3 35.5

29.7

35.8

28.8

38.8

29.432.7

0

20

40

60

Middle

Atlanti

c

New Y

ork S

tate

Rest o

f Midd

le Atla

ntic

New E

nglan

d

East N

orth

Centra

l

Wes

t Nort

h Cen

tral

South

Atlanti

c

East S

outh

Centra

l

Wes

t Sou

th Cen

tral

Mounta

in

Pacific

Nation

al

%

LACK OF WALKWAYS OR SIDEWALKSLACK OF WALKWAYS OR SIDEWALKS(numbers above bars = % of '4' and '5' responses(numbers above bars = % of '4' and '5' responses

on a 1 (best) to 5 (worst) point scale) on a 1 (best) to 5 (worst) point scale) (numbers above bars = % of '4' and '5' responses(numbers above bars = % of '4' and '5' responses

on a 1 (best) to 5 (worst) point scale) on a 1 (best) to 5 (worst) point scale)

13.616.517.2 17.1

21.4

14.617.3

12.8

20.919.1

13.6 12.1

0

20

40

60

Middle

Atlanti

c

New Y

ork S

tate

Rest o

f Midd

le Atla

ntic

New E

nglan

d

East N

orth

Centra

l

Wes

t Nort

h Cen

tral

South

Atlanti

c

East S

outh

Centra

l

Wes

t Sou

th Cen

tral

Mounta

in

Pacific

Nation

al

%

SPEEDING DRIVERS

36.437.2

28.230.832.7

38.7

33.138.3

41.841.438.338.3

0

20

40

60

Middle

Atlanti

c

New Y

ork S

tate

Rest o

f Midd

le Atla

ntic

New E

nglan

d

East N

orth

Centra

l

Wes

t Nort

h Cen

tral

South

Atlanti

c

East S

outh

Centra

l

Wes

t Sou

th Cen

tral

Mounta

in

Pacific

Nation

al

%

LARGE TRUCKS

36.4

31.627.8

31.134.3 35.5

29.7

35.8

28.8

38.8

29.432.7

0

20

40

60

Middle

Atlanti

c

New Y

ork S

tate

Rest o

f Midd

le Atla

ntic

New E

nglan

d

East N

orth

Centra

l

Wes

t Nort

h Cen

tral

South

Atlanti

c

East S

outh

Centra

l

Wes

t Sou

th Cen

tral

Mounta

in

Pacific

Nation

al

%

ORNL July, 2004

59


DISTRACTED DRIVERS

(numbers above bars = % of '4' and '5' responseson a 1 (best) to 5 (worst) point scale)

37.140.0

28.831.8

35.539.0 38.737.7 37.7

40.138.738.2

0

20

40

60

Middle

Atlanti

c

New Y

ork S

tate

Rest o

f Midd

le Atla

ntic

New E

nglan

d

East N

orth

Centra

l

Wes

t Nort

h Cen

tral

South

Atlanti

c

East S

outh

Centra

l

Wes

t Sou

th Cen

tral

Mounta

in

Pacific

Nation

al

%

DRUNK DRIVERS

28.527.3

23.228.1

29.5 29.126.8

31.7 31.2

28.3

33.532.6

0

20

40

60

Middle

Atlanti

c

New Y

ork S

tate

Rest o

f Midd

le Atla

ntic

New E

nglan

d

East N

orth C

entra

l

Wes

t Nort

h Cen

tral

South

Atlanti

c

East S

outh

Centra

l

Wes

t Sou

th Cen

tral

Mounta

in

Pacific

Nation

al

%

AGGRESSIVE DRIVERS

40.038.5

30.3

35.938.7 39.5

41.945.3 43.3 43.1

47.346.3

0

20

40

60

Middle

Atlanti

c

New Y

ork S

tate

Rest o

f Midd

le Atla

ntic

New E

nglan

d

East N

orth C

entra

l

Wes

t Nort

h Cen

tral

South

Atlanti

c

East S

outh

Centra

l

Wes

t Sou

th Cen

tral

Mounta

in

Pacific

Nation

al

%

DISTRACTED DRIVERS

(numbers above bars = % of '4' and '5' responseson a 1 (best) to 5 (worst) point scale)

37.140.0

28.831.8

35.539.0 38.737.7 37.7

40.138.738.2

0

20

40

60

Middle

Atlanti

c

New Y

ork S

tate

Rest o

f Midd

le Atla

ntic

New E

nglan

d

East N

orth

Centra

l

Wes

t Nort

h Cen

tral

South

Atlanti

c

East S

outh

Centra

l

Wes

t Sou

th Cen

tral

Mounta

in

Pacific

Nation

al

%

DRUNK DRIVERS

28.527.3

23.228.1

29.5 29.126.8

31.7 31.2

28.3

33.532.6

0

20

40

60

Middle

Atlanti

c

New Y

ork S

tate

Rest o

f Midd

le Atla

ntic

New E

nglan

d

East N

orth C

entra

l

Wes

t Nort

h Cen

tral

South

Atlanti

c

East S

outh

Centra

l

Wes

t Sou

th Cen

tral

Mounta

in

Pacific

Nation

al

% DRUNK DRIVERS

28.527.3

23.228.1

29.5 29.126.8

31.7 31.2

28.3

33.532.6

0

20

40

60

Middle

Atlanti

c

New Y

ork S

tate

Rest o

f Midd

le Atla

ntic

New E

nglan

d

East N

orth C

entra

l

Wes

t Nort

h Cen

tral

South

Atlanti

c

East S

outh

Centra

l

Wes

t Sou

th Cen

tral

Mounta

in

Pacific

Nation

al

%

AGGRESSIVE DRIVERS

40.038.5

30.3

35.938.7 39.5

41.945.3 43.3 43.1

47.346.3

0

20

40

60

Middle

Atlanti

c

New Y

ork S

tate

Rest o

f Midd

le Atla

ntic

New E

nglan

d

East N

orth C

entra

l

Wes

t Nort

h Cen

tral

South

Atlanti

c

East S

outh

Centra

l

Wes

t Sou

th Cen

tral

Mounta

in

Pacific

Nation

al

%AGGRESSIVE DRIVERS

40.038.5

30.3

35.938.7 39.5

41.945.3 43.3 43.1

47.346.3

0

20

40

60

Middle

Atlanti

c

New Y

ork S

tate

Rest o

f Midd

le Atla

ntic

New E

nglan

d

East N

orth C

entra

l

Wes

t Nort

h Cen

tral

South

Atlanti

c

East S

outh

Centra

l

Wes

t Sou

th Cen

tral

Mounta

in

Pacific

Nation

al

%

ORNL July, 2004

60


WORRY ABOUT BEING IN AN ACCIDENT(numbers above bars = % of '4' and '5' responses

on a 1(best) to 5 (worst) scale)

24.824.7

19.019.9

27.5 27.8

23.925.8 23.4

28.527.026.4

0

20

40

60

Middle

Atlanti

c

New Y

ork S

tate

Rest o

f Midd

le Atla

ntic

New E

nglan

d

East N

orth C

entra

l

Wes

t Nort

h Cen

tral

South

Atlanti

c

East S

outh

Centra

l

Wes

t Sou

th Cen

tral

Mounta

in

Pacific

Nation

al

%

GASOLINE PRICE

37.1

45.7

32.2

41.136.5

31.335.5

30.933.5 35.936.3

33.6

0

20

40

60

Middle

Atlanti

c

New Y

ork S

tate

Rest o

f Midd

le Atla

ntic

New E

nglan

d

East N

orth C

entra

l

Wes

t Nort

h Cen

tral

South

Atlanti

c

East S

outh

Centra

l

Wes

t Sou

th Cen

tral

Mounta

in

Pacific

Nation

al

%

WORRY ABOUT BEING IN AN ACCIDENT(numbers above bars = % of '4' and '5' responses

on a 1(best) to 5 (worst) scale)

24.824.7

19.019.9

27.5 27.8

23.925.8 23.4

28.527.026.4

0

20

40

60

Middle

Atlanti

c

New Y

ork S

tate

Rest o

f Midd

le Atla

ntic

New E

nglan

d

East N

orth C

entra

l

Wes

t Nort

h Cen

tral

South

Atlanti

c

East S

outh

Centra

l

Wes

t Sou

th Cen

tral

Mounta

in

Pacific

Nation

al

%

GASOLINE PRICE

37.1

45.7

32.2

41.136.5

31.335.5

30.933.5 35.936.3

33.6

0

20

40

60

Middle

Atlanti

c

New Y

ork S

tate

Rest o

f Midd

le Atla

ntic

New E

nglan

d

East N

orth C

entra

l

Wes

t Nort

h Cen

tral

South

Atlanti

c

East S

outh

Centra

l

Wes

t Sou

th Cen

tral

Mounta

in

Pacific

Nation

al

%

ORNL July, 2004

61

8. HAVE OPINIONS CHANGED IN RECENT YEARS? A COMPARISON OF 1995 AND 2001 RESPONSES

8.1 Introduction Policy decisions affecting transportation infrastructure and service investments are influenced not only by the public’s identification of problem areas, but also by trends in such opinions: are things perceived to be getting better or worse? In this section of the report comparisons are drawn between New York travelers’ responses to the 2001 NHTS and responses to its predecessor survey, the 1995 National Personal Transportation Survey (NPTS). Due to revisions in survey content only five of the 11 questions analyzed in Sections 3 through 6 above offer comparisons. The five questions common to both surveys are listed below, with the specific wording used in each survey: 2001 NHTS 1995 NPTS

1. Highway congestion (CONGEST) Highway congestion 2. Worrying about getting into a traffic Being worried about traffic accidents

accident (ACDT) 3. Lack of walkways or sidewalks Poor walkways or sidewalks (NOWALK) 4. Not knowing about traffic tie-ups Not knowing about traffic tie-ups or road construction (TIE-UP) or road construction

5. Rough pavements or potholes (PVPOT) Rough pavement on highways (PVHWY), and Rough pavement on neighborhood streets (PVSTRT)

A second difference between the two surveys was the method used to differentiate responses. The 2001 survey used a five point coding system: 1 = no problem; 2 = a little problem; 3 = somewhat of a problem; 4 = very much of a problem; and 5 = a severe problem. The 1995 survey used a three level (and reversed order) coding system: 3 = no problem, 2 = a small problem and 1 = a large problem. To allow comparisons between the two surveys the five point coding system used in 2001 was collapsed to a three point system, based on the following equivalences: No Problem (2001) = No Problem (1995) A Little Problem and Somewhat of a problem (2001) = A Small Problem (1995) Very Much of a Problem and A Severe Problem (2001) = A Large Problem (1995) Some fuzziness with respect to the placing of “Somewhat” and “Very Much” of a problem responses must be accepted, although the two breakdowns do appear to be quite compatible with one another on a reduced three-point scale. The

ORNL July, 2004

62

statistical comparisons reported below, especially when analyzing breakdowns in the samples taken from each survey, focus on differences in the percent of respondents in each survey who clearly indicate a “Large Problem” to exist on one or more of the five issues brought to their attention. 8.2 Analysis of Negative Responses Figure 16 shows both the New York statewide and Rest of Nation results obtained on each of the five traveler opinion questions asked in both the 1995 and 2001 travel surveys. Shown are the population weighted percentages of “Large Problem” responses on both surveys, as defined in Section 8.1 above, along with their associated 90% confidence intervals. Looking first at the New York State results (Figure 16A), the percentage of negative responses associated with highway congestion and with pavement condition are both significantly higher in the 2001 survey. In the case of congestion this percentage grows from 20.5% to 28.8 %. While 29.1% of respondents statewide found highway pavement condition to be a large problem in 1995, this figure rose to 37.5% in 2001. Similar increases were reported by both New York Metro Area and New York City respondents. Concerns about being in traffic accidents increased from 24.8% to 27% of responses, a smaller but still statistically significant increase7. Similarly, concerns over not knowing about traffic tie-ups and road construction increased slightly over this same period, growing from 30.3% to 31.8% of responses. In contrast, the percentage of negative responses to the lack of sidewalks and walkways dropped from 20.1% in 1995 to 17.1% in 2001, a small but again statistically significant difference. Figure 16B shows how the rest of the nation (i.e. excluding New York State’s responses) viewed these same five concerns in 1995 versus 2001. Of note, a very similar range of increases is observed in the percentage of travelers finding highway congestion and pavement conditions to be a large problem. A similar level of increase in concern over traffic accidents is also evident in these rest-of-nation results. Unlike the New York State result, the rest-of-nation responses show an increase in the percentage of travelers reporting a large concern over the lack of walkways or sidewalks. There is also a statistically significant increase in the percentage of travelers expressing concern over lack of knowledge about traffic tie-ups and road construction. An increase in the percentage of travelers showing concern over congestion causes this issue to rival rest-of-nation concerns over poor pavement conditions: while pavement condition issues stand out as more of a

7 Based on the z-score, computed as the ratio of the combined standard error divided into the percentage difference in negative responses.

ORNL July, 2004

63

Figure 16. Percentage Large Problem Responses, 1995 versus 2001 (A) New York State:

(B) Rest of The Nation:

20.5

27.9

14.3

16.5

24.1

26.3

23.7

30.5

22.8

24.6

1995

2001


HIGHWAYCONGESTION

LACK OFWALKWAYS

NOT KNOWINGABOUT

TRAFFIC TIE-UPS


WORRYABOUT

ACCIDENTS

Percent Responses0 20 40 60

20.5

27.9

14.3

16.5

24.1

26.3

23.7

30.5

22.8

24.6

1995

2001

1995

2001


HIGHWAYCONGESTION

LACK OFWALKWAYS

NOT KNOWINGABOUT

TRAFFIC TIE-UPS


WORRYABOUT

ACCIDENTS

HIGHWAYCONGESTION

LACK OFWALKWAYS

NOT KNOWINGABOUT

TRAFFIC TIE-UPS


WORRYABOUT

ACCIDENTS

Percent Responses0 20 40 600 20 40 60

HIGHWAY CONGESTION

Percent Responses

Numbers at end of bars =% of negative responses(= ‘4’ or ‘5’ in 2001; = ‘1’ in 1995)

27.0

24.8

37.5

29.1

31.8

30.3

17.1

20.1

28.8

20.5

LACK OFWALKWAYS

NOT KNOWINGABOUT

TRAFFIC TIE-UPS


WORRYABOUT

ACCIDENTS

0 20 40 60

1995

2001


HIGHWAY CONGESTION

Percent Responses


Percent Responses


27.0

24.8

37.5

29.1

31.8

30.3

17.1

20.1

28.8

20.5

LACK OFWALKWAYS

NOT KNOWINGABOUT

TRAFFIC TIE-UPS


WORRYABOUT

ACCIDENTS

0 20 40 600 20 40 60

1995

2001

1995

2001


ORNL July, 2004

64

perceived problem within the New York State results (at 37.5% ± 1.1% versus 30.5%± 0.5%) than they do in the rest of the nation. Similar increases in concerns over highway congestion and pavement condition, as well as smaller but still significant increases in worry over traffic accidents were also found when responses were combined for the 12 MPO managed areas of the state, as well as for the heavily built-up New York Metro Area. These results can be seen in Figure 17. Scrutiny of this figure also shows a significant and continued concern over pavement condition that is evident in the more rural, non-MPO parts of the state: where less than 1 in 5 travelers have major concerns with congestion, accidents, lack of walkways and traffic information, but some 31% continue to be concerned over potholes and rough pavement conditions. Differences in mean response trends between MPO and non-MPO areas of the state between 1995 and 2001 can be seen in the increased non-MPO (i.e. more rural) areas’ concerns over lack of sidewalks and walkways (which they rank above traffic congestion as a problem), and a larger proportional increase in concern over the lack of information on traffic tie-ups and highway construction. There was no change in the percentage of non-MPO negative responses on the traffic accidents question (at 19%), in contrast to the increased level of concern shown by travelers based in the state’s MPO regions.

ORNL July, 2004

65

Figure 17. Percentage of Large Problem Responses: New York Regions, 1995 and 2001.

1995 2001 = 90% confidence intervals

New York MPO Areas

33.232.638.4

25.628.2

20.917.0

29.731.1

22.2

0

20

40

60

HIGHWAYCONGESTION

LACK OFWALKWAYS

NOTKNOWINGABOUT

TRAFFIC

POORHIGHWAY

PAVEMENT

WORRYABOUT

ACCIDENTS


8.711.2

25.0

17.513.6

18.919.1

31.1

15.2

19.3

0

20

40

60

HIGHWAYCONGESTION

LACK OFWALKWAYS

NOTKNOWING

ABOUTTRAFFIC

POORHIGHWAY

PAVEMENT

WORRYABOUT

ACCIDENTS

%



20.5

28.8 29.1

17.120.1

27.024.8

37.5

30.331.8

0

20

40

60

HIGHWAYCONGESTION

LACK OFWALKWAYS

NOTKNOWING

ABOUTTRAFFIC

POORHIGHWAY

PAVEMENT

WORRYABOUT

ACCIDENTS


31.829.0

38.8

30.8

35.637.1

17.122.2

35.8

26.2

0

20

40

60

HIGHWAYCONGESTION

LACK OFWALKWAYS

NOTKNOWING

ABOUTTRAFFIC

POORHIGHWAY

PAVEMENT

WORRYABOUT

ACCIDENTS

%

19951995 2001 = 90% confidence intervals= 90% confidence intervals

New York MPO Areas

33.232.638.4

25.628.2

20.917.0

29.731.1

22.2

0

20

40

60

HIGHWAYCONGESTION

LACK OFWALKWAYS

NOTKNOWINGABOUT

TRAFFIC

POORHIGHWAY

PAVEMENT

WORRYABOUT

ACCIDENTS


8.711.2

25.0

17.513.6

18.919.1

31.1

15.2

19.3

0

20

40

60

HIGHWAYCONGESTION

LACK OFWALKWAYS

NOTKNOWING

ABOUTTRAFFIC

POORHIGHWAY

PAVEMENT

WORRYABOUT

ACCIDENTS

%



20.5

28.8 29.1

17.120.1

27.024.8

37.5

30.331.8

0

20

40

60

HIGHWAYCONGESTION

LACK OFWALKWAYS

NOTKNOWING

ABOUTTRAFFIC

POORHIGHWAY

PAVEMENT

WORRYABOUT

ACCIDENTS


31.829.0

38.8

30.8

35.637.1

17.122.2

35.8

26.2

0

20

40

60

HIGHWAYCONGESTION

LACK OFWALKWAYS

NOTKNOWING

ABOUTTRAFFIC

POORHIGHWAY

PAVEMENT

WORRYABOUT

ACCIDENTS

%

ORNL July, 2004

66

9. SUMMARY OF PRINCIPAL FINDINGS Summarizing the results of the study, a majority of New York residents appear to have a positive view of highway travel in the state as we move into the twenty-first century. However, a significant number of residents, ranging from 17% to as high as 47%, did indicate more than minor problems on each of the eleven customer satisfaction questions posed to them. Chief among these concerns were the presence of aggressive and distracted drivers on the highways, a ranking also mirrored in the rest-of-nation responses analyzed. Over 38% of the state’s travelers had significant concerns over speeding drivers, while 37% had significant concerns over highway pavement condition, and over 36% were concerned about the price of gasoline. Questions addressing concerns over traffic congestion and traffic accidents produced roughly 29% and 27% negative responses respectively. One third of New York residents have significant concerns about drunk drivers, and some 30% are also concerned about the presence of large trucks in the traffic stream. New York travelers’ attitudes have shifted a little since 1995. A comparison between 2001 and 1995 responses indicates noticeable increases in the percentage of travelers finding highway congestion and poor pavement conditions (rough pavements or potholes) to be a significant problem. To a lesser but still significant extent more people in 2001 expressed concerns about being in a traffic accident than in 1995. These same trends were also found when comparing the results from the 1995 and 2001 rest-of-nation surveys. Comparing New York travelers’ responses to those in the rest of the nation revealed a generally similar level of concern over the set of 11 issues put to them, based on both mean response scores and the percentage of responses indicating a significant problem. In 2001 New York travelers showed a little more concern over lack of information on traffic tie-ups and road construction, over poor pavement conditions, and over aggressive and drunk drivers than did respondents in the rest of the nation. The state’s residents expressed a little less concern, on the average, over a lack of sidewalks or walkways, and over large trucks on the highways. In addition to a statewide analysis of the data, differences in traveler responses were broken down along three lines: by socio-economic and demographic group, by the type and amount of travel engaged in, and by geographic location and nature of the urban environment. New York travelers’ responses were often found to vary on the basis of gender, age-group, education and family income, depending on the problem area being captured by the surveys. Significant statistical differences between men and women were associated with greater female concerns over speeding drivers, poor pavement conditions and potholes,

ORNL July, 2004

67

the presence of large trucks on the highways, and the potential for an accident, and marginally over aggressive drivers. Men expressed greater concern over traffic congestion than did women. Responses were also found to vary by size of metropolitan area and by residential density, notably traffic congestion concerns. Car drivers were found to be significantly more concerned about gasoline price than non-drivers, as well as being more concerned over congestion and large trucks on the highways. They were less concerned about speeding and drunk drivers, and less worried about getting into traffic accidents, as well as a being marginally less concerned about the lack of sidewalks or walkways. As might be expected, travelers with longer journey to work times and distances were more likely to have concerns over traffic congestion. Some 40% of the state’s travelers who take more than 30 minutes to get to work on a daily basis consider highway congestion to be a significant problem. Statewide responses were also broken down according to the regions covered by State’s 12 Metropolitan Planning Organizations, as well as by its non-metropolitan areas. A higher percentage of residents in the New York Metropolitan Area expressed significant concerns over traffic congestion than those living in either the rest of the state or the rest of the nation. Gasoline price topped the list of concerns reported by the non-metropolitan area residents of the state, over 30% of which also expressed significant concerns over the presence of rough pavement and potholes. Finally, a comparison of the state’s results with those of the rest of the Mid-Atlantic Region, and with the other eight US Census Regions of the country indicated generally similar levels of concern in response to the 11 questions put to travelers. A slightly higher percentage of New Yorkers expressed significant concern over a lack of information on traffic tie-ups and road construction, and both New York and surrounding states in the Middle Atlantic and New England regions expressed slightly greater levels of concern over the presence of aggressive and drunk drivers on the highways.

ORNL July, 2004

68

10. REFERENCES [1] Stokes, M.E., Davis, C.S. and Koch, G.G. (1995) Categorical Data Analysis. Using The SAS System. SAS Institute. Inc. Cary, North Carolina. [2] Agresti, A. (1996) An Introduction to Categorical Data Analysis. Wiley, New York. [3] So, Y. A tutorial in logistic regression.(1995) SAS Institute. Inc. Cary, North Carolina. http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/sas/library/logistic.pdf

ORNL July, 2004

69

APPENDIX A. DESCRIPTION OF CUSTOMER SATISFACTION QUESTIONS Table A1 below shows how the 11 customer satisfaction questions were posed to the respondents of the 2001-2 National Household Travel Survey.

Table A1. 2001 NHTS Customer Satisfaction Questions. “Thinking about your day-to-day travel, please tell me how much of a problem each of the following issues is for you. Use a number between 1 and 5, where 1 means it is not a problem for you at all, and 5 means it is the worst travel problem it could be for you. On a scale from 1 to 5, how much of a problem is… “ NOT A

PROBLEM A LITTLE

PROBLEMSOMEWHAT

OF A PROBLEM

VERY MUCH OF A PROBLEM

A SEVERE

PROBLEM

RF DK

a. Highway congestion? CONJ

1 2 3 4 5 -7 -8

b. The price of gasoline? GAS

1 2 3 4 5 -7 -8

c. Lack of walkways or sidewalks? NOWALK

1 2 3 4 5 -7 -8

d. Not knowing about traffic tie-ups or road construction? TIEUP

1 2 3 4 5 -7 -8

e. Rough pavement or potholes? PVPOT

1 2 3 4 5 -7 -8

f. Aggressive drivers on the road? RRAGE (AGGR)

1 2 3 4 5 -7 -8

g. Drunk drivers on the road? DRUNK

1 2 3 4 5 -7 -8

h. Distracted drivers on the roads? DISTRC

1 2 3 4 5 -7 -8

i. Drivers speeding on the roads? SPEED

1 2 3 4 5 -7 -8

j. The number of large trucks on highways? TRUCKS

1 2 3 4 5 -7 -8

k. Worrying about getting into a traffic accident? ACDT

1 2 3 4 5 -7 -8

RF = refused to answer, DK = don’t know.

ORNL July, 2004

70

Table A2 below shows how customer satisfaction questions were posed to the respondents of the 1995 National Personal Transportation Survey (NPTS). Only questions in common with the 2001 NHTS are shown. Table A2. 1995 NPTS Customer Satisfaction Questions Analyzed in this Report “I’m going to read some difficulties people sometimes have when traveling. Thinking about your day-to-day travel, please to me whether each of these is a large problem, a small problem, or no problem at all for you.” LG SM NO Highway congestion Being worried about traffic accidents Poor walkways or sidewalks Not knowing about traffic tie-ups or road construction Rough pavement on highways Rough pavement on neighborhood streets Other questions asked but not analyzed in this report: Air pollution caused by cars, trucks and buses Being worried about getting lost in areas or neighborhoods you’re not familiar with Being worried about crimes against motorists Not all questions were asked of all respondents. Each respondent was asked five different questions, selected from 3 pre-defined question blocks.

ORNL July, 2004

71

APPENDIX B. SUPPORTING DATA TABLES

(Note: 90%CI = 90 percent confidence intervals)

Table B1. Mean Response Scores: New York State versus Rest-of-Nation Samples.

Question Rest of Nation New York State

Mean 90%CI Mean 90%CI HIGHWAY CONGESTION 2.65 (0.02) 2.61 (0.04) NOT KNOWING ABOUT TRAFFIC TIE-UPS 2.56 (0.03) 2.76 (0.06) ROUGH PAVEMENT OR POTHOLES 2.79 (0.01) 2.98 (0.04) LACK OF WALKWAYS/SIDEWALKS 2.01 (0.03) 2.02 (0.06) SPEEDING DRIVERS 2.95 (0.03) 2.98 (0.07) LARGE TRUCKS 2.86 (0.03) 2.65 (0.07) DISTRACTED DRIVERS 3.04 (0.03) 3.03 (0.07) DRUNK DRIVERS 2.49 (0.03) 2.65 (0.06) AGGRESSIVE DRIVERS 3.08 (0.03) 3.27 (0.07) WORRY ABOUT ACCIDENTS 2.52 (0.02) 2.56 (0.05) GASOLINE PRICE 3.02 (0.02) 2.88 (0.04)

(See Figures 1 and 3 in body of Report). Table B2. Percentage of Travelers Indicating a Significant Problem, by Gender:

2001 NHTS

Question Male Female% 90%CI % 90%CI

HIGHWAY CONGESTION 30.1 (1.79) 27.7 (1.39)NOT KNOWING ABOUT TRAFFIC TIE-U 30.4 (2.67) 32.9 (1.96)ROUGH PAVEMENT OR POTHOLES 34.1 (1.61) 40.3 (1.56)LACK OF WALKWAYS/SIDEWALKS 16.0 (2.67) 18.0 (1.96)SPEEDING DRIVERS 32.6 (3.75) 42.7 (3.37)LARGE TRUCKS 26.0 (3.00) 32.3 (3.29)DISTRACTED DRIVERS 39.8 (3.85) 37.7 (3.98)DRUNK DRIVERS 32.8 (4.07) 34.0 (3.17)AGGRESSIVE DRIVERS 44.1 (4.18) 49.9 (3.94)WORRY ABOUT ACCIDENTS 21.5 (3.12) 31.0 (2.62)GASOLINE PRICE 35.3 (1.73) 37.2 (1.73)

(See Figure 4 in body of Report)

ORNL July, 2004

72

Table B3. Statewide Large Problem Percentage by Age Group: 2001 NHTS.

Large Problem Percentages HIGHWAY NOT KNOWING PAVEMENT LACK OF Age Group CONGESTION ABOUT TIEUPS CONDITION WALKWAYS

0-21 years old 25.9 (4.6) 42.3 (12.5) 38.9 (5.1) 16.4 (4.9)

22-36 years old 27.9 (2.9) 28.6 (5.0) 36.7 (3.0) 18.9 (3.8)

37-50 years old 31.1 (2.0) 33.1 (4.7) 40.1 (2.4) 17.1 (3.3)

51-64 years old 30.5 (2.7) 32.8 (4.6) 38.4 (2.8) 15.3 (3.3)

65+ years old 25.8 (3.2) 28.7 (6.1) 31.1 (3.3) 17.9 (4.2) SPEEDING LARGE DISTRACTED DRUNK

Age Group DRIVERS TRUCKS DRIVERS DRIVERS 0-21 years old 41.7 (10.8) 26.3 (7.1) 47.0 (12.3) 46.5 (11.8)

22-36 years old 30.6 (4.9) 22.1 (3.8) 38.8 (6.2) 33.1 (5.0)

37-50 years old 38.6 (5.1) 28.1 (4.5) 41.5 (4.4) 34.3 (4.3)

51-64 years old 45.2 (6.4) 35.5 (4.8) 36.4 (4.5) 30.2 (5.2)

65+ years old 39.9 (4.8) 38.6 (7.1) 31.2 (6.1) 26.6 (5.6)

AGGRESSIVE WORRY ABOUT GASOLINE

Age Group DRIVERS ACCIDENTS PRICE 0-21 years old 45.4 (14.5) 34.8 (8.2) 31.5 (5.1)

22-36 years old 41.2 (6.1) 26.7 (3.4) 34.0 (2.6)

37-50 years old 50.8 (5.6) 26.3 (3.3) 39.7 (2.4)

51-64 years old 49.8 (6.0) 28.3 (4.3) 37.4 (3.2)

65+ years old 47.5 (7.7) 22.9 (3.8) 35.5 (4.1)

Numbers in brackets = 90% confidence intervals


ORNL July, 2004

73

Table B4. Statewide Large Problem Percentages by Family Income Group: 2001 NHTS

ANNUAL HOUSEHOLD HIGHWAY NOT KNOWING PAVEMENT LACK OF

(FAMILY) INCOME CONGESTION ABOUT TIEUPS CONDITION WALKWAYS <$15,000 26.0 (3.9) 36.3 (8.9) 39.1 (4.4) 20.0 (5.1)

$15 to 29,000 26.7 (3.4) 32.0 (6.6) 40.4 (3.3) 16.8 (4.2)

$30 to 49,999 27.5 (3.1) 32.8 (6.4) 42.6 (4.2) 18.9 (4.7)

$50 to 69,999 29.8 (3.6) 31.4 (6.2) 37.6 (4.0) 19.4 (4.6)

$70 to 99,999 32.1 (3.7) 27.3 (5.5) 31.1 (3.4) 13.0 (3.2)

$100,000+ 32.1 (3.0) 30.0 (6.5) 30.0 (3.3) 16.3 (6.0)

ANNUAL HOUSEHOLD E SPEEDING LARGE DISTRACTED DRUNK

(FAMILY) INCOM DRIVERS TRUCKS DRIVERS DRIVERS <$15,000 52.2 (10.4) 30.8 (7.1) 37.8 (8.4) 37.4 (8.0)

$15 to 29,000 40.6 (7.3) 25.9 (5.9) 39.5 (6.6) 38.4 (6.8)

$30 to 49,999 37.7 (5.9) 35.9 (6.4) 38.8 (6.2) 36.7 (6.6)

$50 to 69,999 36.3 (6.9) 27.0 (5.7) 38.1 (6.7) 33.1 (7.8)

$70 to 99,999 35.8 (7.1) 23.7 (4.8) 40.0 (6.9) 26.4 (5.9)

$100,000+ 28.1 (5.2) 31.8 (6.5) 39.6 (7.3) 26.8 (5.3)

ANNUAL HOUSEHOLD AGGRESSIVE WORRY ABOUT GASOLINE

(FAMILY) INCOME DRIVERS ACCIDENTS PRICE <$15,000 50.8 (11.3) 35.8 (7.7) 35.3 (4.8)

$15 to 29,000 51.3 (8.0) 29.5 (5.9) 38.7 (4.3)

$30 to 49,999 47.0 (5.4) 28.9 (4.1) 38.7 (2.8)

$50 to 69,999 44.1 (6.9) 26.2 (4.5) 40.3 (4.1)

$70 to 99,999 43.3 (6.5) 19.8 (4.1) 36.9 (3.8)

$100,000+ 41.8 (9.0) 18.2 (4.2) 25.7 (3.5)

Numbers in brackets = 90% confidence intervals


ORNL July, 2004

74

Table B5. Statewide Large Problem Percentages by Educational Group: 2001 NHTS.

EDUCATION LEVEL HIGHWAY NOT KNOWING PAVEMENT LACK OF CONGESTION ABOUT TRAFFIC CONDITION WALKWAYS High School or Less 26.4 (1.7) 34.5 (4.8) 40.1 (2.0) 19.3 (2.6) Some Post High School 30.8 (1.8) 30.1 (3.6) 38.2 (2.1) 15.2 (2.6) to Bachelor's Degree Post Graduate Work 29.6 (3.2) 29.6 (5.8) 28.9 (2.9) 16.4 (4.5) EDUCATION LEVEL SPEEDING LARGE DISTRACTED DRUNK DRIVERS TRUCKS DRIVERS DRIVERS High School or Less 44.5 (4.1) 31.1 (3.4) 39.4 (4.6) 36.6 (4.4) Some Post High School 36.1 (3.7) 29.2 (4.3) 40.5 (4.6) 33.0 (3.7) to Bachelor's Degree Post Graduate Work 28.4 (6.0) 24.7 (4.3) 32.6 (5.1) 26.6 (5.7) EDUCATION LEVEL AGGRESSIVE WORRY ABOUT GASOLINE DRIVERS ACCIDENTS PRICE High School or Less 52.0 (5.1) 31.9 (3.3) 39.0 (2.2) Some Post High School 46.1 (4.1) 24.9 (2.6) 37.6 (1.8) To Bachelor's Degree Post Graduate Work 38.8 (7.3) 19.5 (3.9) 26.5 (2.8)

Numbers in brackets are 90% confidence intervals. (See Figure 7 in body of Report)

ORNL July, 2004

75

Table B6. Differences in Statewide Large Problem Response Percentages

between Drivers and Non-Drivers: 2001 NHTS HIGHWAY NOT KNOWING PAVEMENT LACK OF DRIVER STATUS CONGESTION ABOUT TIEUPS CONDITION WALKWAYS Drivers 29.7 (1.3) 31.5 (2.7) 37.8 (1.3) 16.5 (1.9) Non-Drivers 25.3 (2.5) 33.2 (6.4) 36.5 (2.7) 19.6 (4.8) SPEEDING LARGE DISTRACTED DRUNK DRIVER STATUS DRIVERS TRUCKS DRIVERS DRIVERS Drivers 35.7 (2.7) 30.5 (2.6) 39.1 (2.9) 32.2 (2.9) Non-Drivers 47.2 (6.9) 25.7 (5.0) 37.2 (7.0) 39.0 (6.3) AGGRESSIVE WORRY ABOUT GASOLINE DRIVER STATUS DRIVERS ACCIDENTS PRICE Drivers 45.5 (2.8) 24.6 (2.0) 39.0 (1.2) Non-Drivers 55.2 (9.5) 36.1 (5.1) 25.8 (3.1) Numbers in brackets = 90% confidence intervals


ORNL July, 2004

76

Table B7. Statewide Large Problem Percentages by Travel Time to Work.

HIGHWAY NOT KNOWING PAVEMENT LACK OF TRAVEL TIME TO WORK CONGESTION ABOUT TRAFFIC CONDITION WALKWAYS 15 min or less 22.7 (2.1) 30.4 (5.8) 36.7 (2.6) 15.8 (3.6) 16-30 min 27.4 (3.3) 25.7 (5.1) 36.3 (3.4) 15.0 (3.7) 31-45 min 37.1 (4.7) 40.8 (10.6) 40.3 (5.3) 17.0 (8.3) 46-60 min 39.9 (5.6) 25.2 (8.9) 39.0 (6.4) 10.3 (6.2) 61+ min 39.4 (6.6) 43.6 (14.7) 38.7 (7.4) 16.5 (12.6) SPEEDING LARGE DISTRACTED DRUNK TRAVEL TIME TO WORK DRIVERS TRUCKS DRIVERS DRIVERS 15 min or less 31.5 (4.8) 27.8 (5.8) 39.9 (6.3) 35.0 (6.3) 16-30 min 39.9 (8.6) 27.8 (5.0) 38.8 (5.8) 34.6 (6.3) 31-45 min 31.9 (8.1) 29.6 (8.9) 43.8 (10.3) 29.2 (6.9) 46-60 min 37.8 (11.3) 18.9 (7.5) 46.5 (13.7) 27.7 (9.0) 61+ min 47.4 (16.3) 36.1 (12.9) 42.9 (13.8) 19.5 (7.5) AGGRESSIVE WORRY ABOUT GASOLINE TRAVEL TIME TO WORK DRIVERS ACCIDENTS PRICE 15 min or less 45.0 (5.1) 23.5 (3.4) 37.6 (2.5) 16-30 min 44.1 (7.5) 23.4 (5.2) 36.9 (3.5) 31-45 min 49.7 (13.7) 26.8 (6.2) 33.5 (4.7) 46-60 min 47.7 (17.1) 26.2 (8.6) 27.6 (5.1) 61+ min 59.6 (21.6) 37.3 (13.5) 27.1 (6.7)

Numbers in brackets are 90% confidence intervals. (See Figure 9 in body of Report).

ORNL July, 2004

77

Table B8. Large Problem Percentages based on MSA Population Size. HIGHWAY NOT KNOWING PAVEMENT LACK OF MSA SIZE (Population) CONGESTION ABOUT TRAFFIC CONDITION WALKWAYS Less than 250,000 12.6 (2.53) 26.2 (7.99) 36.6 (4.54) 11.1 (4.20) 250,000 - 499,999 14.0 (1.57) 17.3 (4.05) 38.2 (2.52) 18.7 (3.92) 500,000 - 999,999 16.7 (1.37) 22.1 (3.36) 32.5 (2.21) 19.4 (2.80) 1,000,000 - 2,999,999 18.5 (1.84) 31.0 (4.94) 39.9 (2.27) 12.0 (2.74) 3,000,000 or more 35.4 (1.67) 35.2 (3.86) 38.3 (1.56) 17.6 (2.53) Not in MSA or CMSA 9.4 (1.57) 17.8 (3.52) 32.0 (3.13) 19.3 (3.85) SPEEDING LARGE DISTRACTED DRUNK MSA SIZE (Population) DRIVERS TRUCKS DRIVERS DRIVERS Less than 250,000 26.4 (7.82) 33.4 (9.19) 22.9 (5.14) 37.8 (10.32) 250,000 - 499,999 32.0 (5.86) 24.6 (5.47) 29.1 (4.97) 28.2 (4.96) 500,000 - 999,999 33.8 (4.07) 25.0 (3.42) 34.3 (3.81) 32.5 (4.31) 1,000,000 - 2,999,999 30.5 (4.53) 20.7 (4.69) 33.0 (5.85) 35.5 (5.29) 3,000,000 or more 42.3 (3.66) 32.1 (2.96) 41.9 (3.69) 33.9 (3.69) Not in MSA or CMSA 25.2 (4.34) 23.7 (4.59) 31.3 (4.99) 27.2 (4.98) AGGRESSIVE WORRY ABOUT GASOLINE MSA SIZE (Population) DRIVERS ACCIDENTS PRICE Less than 250,000 26.4 (7.11) 16.2 (4.49) 43.7 (5.73) 250,000 - 499,999 33.5 (4.93) 19.2 (3.04) 41.7 (3.36) 500,000 - 999,999 39.1 (4.25) 19.3 (2.61) 38.7 (2.48) 1,000,000 - 2,999,999 36.7 (5.29) 18.3 (2.77) 40.6 (2.98) 3,000,000 or more 53.4 (3.96) 31.5 (3.03) 34.1 (1.72) Not in MSA or CMSA 33.5 (5.41) 20.3 (3.09) 44.2 (4.00)

Numbers in brackets are 90% confidence intervals. (See Figure 10 in body of Report).

ORNL July, 2004

78

Table B9. Large Problem Percentages based on Residential Density.

POPN. DENSITY HIGHWAY NOT KNOWING PAVEMENT LACK OF (persons/square mile) CONGESTION ABOUT TRAFFIC CONDITION WALKWAYS 0-100 10.1 (1.5) 17.6 (3.6) 30.0 (3.0) 19.9 (3.8) 100-500 20.7 (2.0) 24.4 (4.1) 30.1 (2.7) 19.0 (3.6) 500-2000 22.6 (2.4) 26.7 (4.8) 30.1 (2.2) 21.3 (4.1) 2000-10,000 32.6 (2.1) 30.8 (3.7) 34.8 (1.9) 16.3 (2.8) 10,000+ 32.9 (2.2) 37.0 (5.2) 43.3 (2.3) 15.5 (3.2) SPEEDING LARGE DISTRACTED DRUNK POPN. DENSITY DRIVERS TRUCKS DRIVERS DRIVERS 0-100 25.3 (4.1) 22.4 (4.2) 25.6 (4.1) 26.5 (4.7) 100-500 34.0 (5.3) 22.7 (3.5) 37.3 (4.6) 29.9 (4.7) 500-2000 33.8 (4.8) 25.4 (4.7) 31.5 (5.6) 31.8 (4.9) 2000-10,000 37.8 (3.9) 30.7 (3.4) 41.7 (4.7) 33.5 (4.3) 10,000+ 42.4 (4.3) 32.2 (3.9) 41.3 (4.8) 35.5 (5.1) AGGRESSIVE WORRY ABOUT GASOLINE POPN. DENSITY DRIVERS ACCIDENTS PRICE 0-100 28.6 (4.2) 16.6 (2.6) 43.9 (3.9) 100-500 38.0 (5.8) 18.7 (3.1) 45.0 (3.9) 500-2000 42.9 (5.4) 19.4 (3.2) 41.7 (3.7) 2000-10,000 48.8 (4.8) 26.4 (2.4) 38.3 (2.5) 10,000+ 53.0 (4.9) 33.0 (3.8) 31.4 (2.2)


ORNL July, 2004

79

Table B10. Statewide, Regional and Rest-of-Nation Mean Scores and 90% Confidence Intervals (Mean Population Weighted Responses).

HIGHWAY

LACK OF ROUGH

LACK OF SPEEDING LARGE

Region CONGESTION TIE-UP INFO PAVEMENT WALKWAYS DRIVERS

TRUCKS

Ithaca-Tomkins Co. 1.90 (0.08) 2.30 (0.18

) 2.63 (0.10) 2.02 (0.18

) 2.44 (0.16

) 2.43 (0.21)

Adirondack-Glens Falls 1.96 (0.09) 2.20 (0.22

) 2.84 (0.13) 1.88 (0.19

) 2.66 (0.18

) 2.78 (0.18)

Elmira-Chemung 1.98 (0.08) 2.78 (0.18

) 3.23 (0.10) 1.91 (0.14

) 2.64 (0.20

) 2.72 (0.20)

Herkimer-Oneida 1.94 (0.07) 2.00 (0.15

) 3.00 (0.09) 2.09 (0.20

) 2.69 (0.20

) 2.37 (0.20)

Binghamton Metro 2.26 (0.09) 2.52 (0.17

) 3.14 (0.09) 2.01 (0.18

) 2.91 (0.19

) 2.73 (0.22)

Capital District 2.45 (0.05) 2.43 (0.09

) 2.87 (0.06) 2.16 (0.11

) 2.96 (0.11

) 2.61 (0.10)

Syracuse Metro 2.19 (0.09) 2.55 (0.18

) 3.00 (0.12) 1.99 (0.20

) 2.78 (0.20

) 2.52 (0.19)

Genesee 2.28 (0.08) 2.58 (0.18

) 3.08 (0.11) 1.96 (0.17

) 2.67 (0.15

) 2.34 (0.15)

Gt. Buffalo-Niagara 2.46 (0.09) 3.03 (0.19

) 3.26 (0.09) 1.74 (0.12

) 2.81 (0.19

) 2.55 (0.23)

Newburgh-Orange Co. 2.56 (0.12) 2.59 (0.24

) 2.79 (0.10) 2.43 (0.26

) 2.97 (0.20

) 2.81 (0.15)

Poughkeepsie 2.52 (0.10) 2.64 (0.19

) 2.63 (0.10) 2.39 (0.20

) 3.00 (0.22

) 2.50 (0.22)

New York Metro Area 2.84 (0.05) 2.88 (0.09

) 2.99 (0.05) 2.03 (0.09

) 3.11 (0.10

) 2.71 (0.10)

New York City 2.74 (0.07) 2.88 (0.12

) 3.10 (0.07) 1.99 (0.12

) 3.12 (0.12

) 2.64 (0.13)

Nassau & Suffolk 3.19 (0.10) 3.02 (0.16

) 2.77 (0.07) 2.10 (0.15

) 3.03 (0.17

) 2.82 (0.16)

Putnam, Rockland, Westchester 2.82 (0.08) 2.60 (0.15

) 2.72 (0.08) 2.19 (0.17

) 3.16 (0.17

) 2.88 (0.21)

All NY MPOs 2.71 (0.04) 2.81 (0.06

) 3.00 (0.04) 2.02 (0.07

) 3.03 (0.07

) 2.67 (0.08)

NY Non-MPO Areas 1.91 (0.05) 2.28 (0.11

) 2.82 (0.07) 1.98 (0.10

) 2.64 (0.11

) 2.52 (0.12)

ORNL July, 2004

80

NY Statewide 2.61 (0.04) 2.76 (0.06

) 2.98 (0.03) 2.02 (0.06

) 2.98 (0.07

) 2.65 (0.07)

Rest-of-Nation 2.65 (0.01) 2.56 (0.03

) 2.79 (0.01) 2.01 (0.03

) 2.95 (0.03

) 2.86 (0.03)

Numbers in brackets are 90% confidence intervals (See Figure 12 in body of Report)

Table B10 (Continued) : Statewide, Regional and Rest-of-Nation Mean Scores and 90% Confidence Intervals (Mean Population Weighted Responses).

WORRY DISTRACTED DRUNK AGGRESSIVE ABOUT GASOLINE Region DRIVERS DRIVERS DRIVERS ACCIDENTS PRICE Ithaca-Tomkins Co. 2.71 (0.21) 2.50 (0.19) 2.67 (0.21) 2.08 (0.12) 2.79 (0.12) Adirondack-Glens Falls 2.62 (0.27) 2.34 (0.18) 2.87 (0.22) 2.15 (0.14) 3.15 (0.13) Elmira-Chemung 2.68 (0.20) 2.59 (0.18) 2.72 (0.17) 2.17 (0.13) 3.27 (0.12) Herkimer-Oneida 2.73 (0.23) 2.35 (0.18) 2.96 (0.18) 2.32 (0.14) 3.21 (0.12) Binghamton Metro 2.83 (0.21) 2.50 (0.18) 2.99 (0.16) 2.34 (0.14) 3.12 (0.12) Capital District 2.96 (0.12) 2.58 (0.10) 3.20 (0.10) 2.30 (0.08) 3.04 (0.06) Syracuse Metro 2.88 (0.23) 2.51 (0.23) 3.10 (0.23) 2.36 (0.17) 3.08 (0.13) Genesee 2.95 (0.21) 2.67 (0.17) 3.15 (0.15) 2.34 (0.14) 3.30 (0.11) Gt. Buffalo-Niagara 3.08 (0.20) 2.90 (0.15) 3.10 (0.17) 2.36 (0.10) 3.06 (0.12) Newburgh-Orange Co. 3.09 (0.27) 2.48 (0.19) 3.01 (0.23) 2.48 (0.20) 3.24 (0.14) Poughkeepsie 3.06 (0.20) 2.47 (0.19) 3.23 (0.22) 2.57 (0.16) 3.12 (0.12) New York Metro Area 3.10 (0.10) 2.68 (0.10) 3.45 (0.10) 2.72 (0.07) 2.74 (0.05) New York City 3.02 (0.13) 2.66 (0.14) 3.40 (0.13) 2.73 (0.10) 2.58 (0.07) Nassau & Suffolk 3.36 (0.13) 2.80 (0.13) 3.62 (0.14) 2.68 (0.13) 3.10 (0.10)

ORNL July, 2004

81

Putnam, Rockland, Westchester 3.13 (0.18) 2.52 (0.24) 3.41 (0.14) 2.74 (0.15) 3.14 (0.10) All NY MPOs 3.06 (0.07) 2.66 (0.08) 3.34 (0.07) 2.61 (0.05) 2.84 (0.04) NY Non-MPO Areas 2.76 (0.14) 2.55 (0.10) 2.74 (0.11) 2.22 (0.09) 3.19 (0.07) NY Statewide 3.03 (0.06) 2.65 (0.07) 3.27 (0.07) 2.56 (0.05) 2.88 (0.04) Rest-of-Nation 3.04 (0.03) 2.49 (0.03) 3.08 (0.03) 2.52 (0.02) 3.02 (0.02)


Table B11. Mean Response Scores by Region of the Country. (See Figure 14 in body of Report).

HIGHWAY LACK OF ROUGH LACK OF SPEEDING LARGE

CONGESTION TIE-UP INFO PAVEMENT WALKWAYS

DRIVERS

TRUCKS

Region Mean

90%CI Mea

n 90%CI Mean

90%C

I Mean

90%C

I Mean

90%C

I Mean

90%C

I Middle Atlantic 2.63 (0.04) 2.68 (0.06) 2.93 (0.03) 2.03 (0.06) 3.02 (0.06) 2.79 (0.06) New York State 2.61 (0.10) 2.81 (0.16) 3.00 (0.07) 2.02 (0.15) 3.03 (0.17) 2.67 (0.16) Rest of Mid-Atlantic 2.65 (0.06) 2.61 (0.10) 2.87 (0.05) 2.03 (0.09) 3.06 (0.10) 2.93 (0.11) New England 2.51 (0.06) 2.59 (0.11) 2.98 (0.06) 2.02 (0.10) 3.08 (0.14) 2.63 (0.11) East North Central 2.42 (0.03) 2.49 (0.05) 3.00 (0.03) 1.91 (0.06) 2.76 (0.06) 2.77 (0.08) West North Central 2.17 (0.04) 2.29 (0.10) 2.86 (0.05) 1.83 (0.08) 2.69 (0.10) 2.64 (0.10) South Atlantic 2.82 (0.04) 2.61 (0.06) 2.60 (0.03) 2.17 (0.07) 3.11 (0.07) 3.04 (0.06) East South Central 2.44 (0.06) 2.54 (0.12) 2.81 (0.06) 2.21 (0.11) 2.94 (0.11) 2.94 (0.12) West South Central 2.80 (0.04) 2.69 (0.09) 3.07 (0.05) 2.09 (0.08) 3.00 (0.08) 2.93 (0.07) Mountain 2.59 (0.07) 2.55 (0.11) 2.57 (0.05) 1.86 (0.08) 2.86 (0.11) 2.79 (0.09) Pacific 2.92 (0.04) 2.63 (0.07) 2.61 (0.03) 1.94 (0.07) 2.97 (0.09) 2.79 (0.06) National 2.64 (0.01) 2.58 (0.03) 2.81 (0.01) 2.01 (0.03) 2.95 (0.03) 2.84 (0.03)

DISTRACTED DRUNK AGGRESSIVE

ACCIDENT GASOLINE

DRIVERS DRIVERS DRIVERS WORRY PRICE

ORNL July, 2004

82

Region Mean

90%CI Mea

n 90%CI Mean

90%C

I Mean

90%C

I Mean

90%C

I Middle Atlantic 3.06 (0.06) 2.63 (0.07) 3.24 (0.06) 2.54 (0.05) 2.84 (0.04) New York State 3.06 (0.13) 2.66 (0.13) 3.34 (0.14) 2.61 (0.13) 2.84 (0.10) Rest of Mid-Atlantic 3.10 (0.10) 2.61 (0.12) 3.20 (0.11) 2.52 (0.09) 2.80 (0.06) New England 3.06 (0.11) 2.54 (0.17) 3.17 (0.11) 2.52 (0.12) 2.89 (0.06) East North Central 2.89 (0.06) 2.46 (0.07) 2.99 (0.06) 2.31 (0.05) 3.16 (0.04) West North Central 2.74 (0.09) 2.24 (0.10) 2.84 (0.10) 2.31 (0.07) 2.88 (0.06) South Atlantic 3.14 (0.06) 2.52 (0.08) 3.20 (0.06) 2.69 (0.06) 2.96 (0.03) East South Central 3.05 (0.10) 2.59 (0.13) 3.04 (0.12) 2.58 (0.09) 2.96 (0.07) West South Central 3.05 (0.07) 2.51 (0.10) 3.08 (0.07) 2.60 (0.08) 2.84 (0.04) Mountain 3.12 (0.09) 2.48 (0.13) 3.11 (0.10) 2.52 (0.07) 3.01 (0.07) Pacific 3.14 (0.07) 2.51 (0.08) 3.06 (0.07) 2.55 (0.06) 3.29 (0.04) National 3.04 (0.02) 2.50 (0.03) 3.09 (0.03) 2.52 (0.02) 3.01 (0.02)

ORNL July, 2004

83

Table B12. Large Problem Percentage Responses by Region, 2001 NHTS.


Question Middle Atlantic 90%CI

New York State 90%CI

Rest of Middle Atlantic 90%CI

New England 90%CI

East North

Central 90%CI

West North

Central 90%CI CONGESTION 28.7 (1.2) 28.8 (1.1) 28.7 (1.9) 25.6 (2.1) 21.4 (1.3) 16.2 (1.5) NOT KNOWING ABOUT TRAFFIC TIE-UPS 28.7 (2.1) 31.8 (2.6) 25.5 (3.6) 25.3 (4.2) 24.8 (2.1) 19.5 (3.2) PAVEMENT CONDITION 35.2 (1.1) 37.5 (1.1) 32.8 (2.1) 35.6 (2.5) 36.1 (1.4) 30.9 (2.1) LACK OF WALKWAYS/SIDEWALKS 17.2 (1.9) 17.1 (1.7) 17.3 (2.9) 14.6 (2.8) 13.6 (1.7) 12.1 (2.4) SPEEDING DRIVERS 38.3 (2.9) 38.3 (2.5) 38.3 (5.0) 41.8 (2.9) 30.8 (2.4) 28.2 (3.8) LARGE TRUCKS 32.7 (2.4) 29.4 (2.2) 35.8 (4.2) 28.8 (4.6) 31.1 (2.8) 27.8 (4.1) DISTRACTED DRIVERS 38.2 (2.6) 38.7 (2.7) 37.7 (4.3) 37.7 (5.1) 31.8 (2.5) 28.8 (3.3) DRUNK DRIVERS 32.6 (2.4) 33.5 (2.6) 31.7 (4.4) 31.2 (5.7) 28.1 (2.3) 23.2 (3.4) AGGRESSIVE DRIVERS 46.3 (2.6) 47.3 (2.8) 45.3 (4.4) 43.3 (5.4) 35.9 (2.7) 30.3 (4.0) WORRY ABOUT ACCIDENTS 26.4 (2.1) 27.0 (2.0) 25.8 (3.3) 23.4 (3.8) 19.9 (1.6) 19.0 (2.4) GASOLINE PRICE 33.6 (1.3) 36.3 (1.2) 30.9 (2.3) 33.5 (2.6) 41.1 (1.6) 32.2 (2.1)

Question South

Atlantic 90%CI

East South

Central 90%CI

West South

Central 90%CI Mountain 90%CI Pacific 90%CI National 90%CI CONGESTION 31.9 (1.3) 20.0 (2.1) 31.8 (1.7) 27.6 (2.5) 35.9 (1.4) 28.0 (0.5) NOT KNOWING ABOUT TRAFFIC TIE-UPS 28.3 (2.1) 25.8 (4.8) 30.0 (3.4) 26.7 (4.2) 27.4 (2.6) 26.7 (1.0) PAVEMENT CONDITION 25.7 (1.1) 30.2 (3.1) 39.8 (2.2) 24.0 (2.1) 25.3 (1.2) 31.0 (0.4) LACK OF WALKWAYS/SIDEWALKS 21.4 (2.2) 19.1 (3.6) 20.9 (2.6) 12.8 (2.6) 13.6 (2.0) 16.5 (0.8) SPEEDING DRIVERS 41.4 (2.9) 32.7 (4.7) 38.7 (3.9) 33.1 (4.5) 37.2 (3.5) 36.4 (1.2) LARGE TRUCKS 38.8 (2.5) 34.3 (4.6) 35.5 (3.1) 29.7 (4.2) 31.6 (2.5) 33.1 (1.0) DISTRACTED DRIVERS 40.1 (2.6) 35.5 (4.3) 39.0 (3.6) 38.7 (4.8) 40.0 (3.3) 37.1 (1.1) DRUNK DRIVERS 28.3 (2.7) 29.5 (4.6) 29.1 (3.2) 26.8 (4.0) 27.3 (2.4) 28.5 (1.0) AGGRESSIVE DRIVERS 43.1 (2.9) 38.7 (5.9) 39.5 (3.7) 41.9 (5.2) 38.5 (3.2) 40.0 (1.2) WORRY ABOUT ACCIDENTS 28.5 (2.1) 27.5 (3.8) 27.8 (3.4) 23.9 (2.8) 24.7 (2.0) 24.8 (0.8) GASOLINE PRICE 35.9 (1.3) 36.5 (3.4) 31.3 (1.8) 35.5 (3.2) 45.7 (1.9) 37.1 (0.6)

ORNL July, 2004

84

Table B13. Percentage Large Problem Responses, 1995 versus 2001.

(A) New York State:

(B) Rest of Nation:

Question: % 90%CI HIGHWAY CONGESTION 1995 20.5 (0.50) HIGHWAY CONGESTION 2001 27.9 (0.50) LACK OF WALKWAYS 1995 14.3 (0.78) LACK OF WALKWAYS 2001 16.5 (0.82) NOT KNOWING ABOUT TRAFFIC 1995 24.1 (0.71) NOT KNOWING ABOUT TRAFFIC 2001 26.3 (1.07) HIGHWAY PAVEMENT CONDITION 1995 23.7 (0.68) HIGHWAY PAVEMENT CONDITION 2001 30.5 (0.47) WORRY ABOUT ACCIDENTS 1995 22.8 (1.04) WORRY ABOUT ACCIDENTS 2001 24.6 (0.83) Also asked in 1995: ROUGH PAVEMENT, neighborhood streets 27.3 (0.74)


Question: % 90%CI HIGHWAY CONGESTION 1995 20.5 (0.96) HIGHWAY CONGESTION 2001 28.8 (1.12) LACK OF WALKWAYS 1995 20.1 (1.78) LACK OF WALKWAYS 2001 17.1 (1.68) NOT KNOWING ABOUT TRAFFIC 1995 30.3 (1.50) NOT KNOWING ABOUT TRAFFIC 2001 31.8 (2.62) HIGHWAY PAVEMENT CONDITION 1995 29.1 (1.45) HIGHWAY PAVEMENT CONDITION 2001 37.5 (1.11) WORRY ABOUT ACCIDENTS 1995 24.8 (2.07) WORRY ABOUT ACCIDENTS 2001 27.0 (2.04) Also asked in 1995: ROUGH PAVEMENT, neighborhood streets 34.0 (1.48)

ORNL July, 2004

85

Table B14. Percentage Large Problem Responses by Selected Region, 1995 and 2001.

Question: Year New York New York New York Non- New York

Statewide MPO Areas MPO Areas Metro Area HIGHWAY 1995 20.5 (0.96) 22.2 (1.09) 8.7 (1.20) 26.2 (1.51) CONGESTION 2001 28.8 (1.12) 31.1 (1.25) 11.2 (1.43) 35.8 (1.75) LACK OF 1995 20.1 (1.78) 20.9 (1.98) 13.6 (2.58) 22.2 (2.70) WALKWAYS OR SIDEWALKS 2001 17.1 (1.68) 17.0 (1.86) 17.5 (3.22) 17.1 (2.58) NOT KNOWING 1995 30.3 (1.50) 32.6 (1.70) 15.2 (1.98) 37.1 (2.34) ABOUT TRAFFIC TIE-UPS & 2001 31.8 (2.62) 33.2 (2.94) 19.3 (3.34 ) 35.6 (4.04) CONSTRUCTION HIGHWAY 1995 29.1 (1.45) 29.7 (1.61) 25.0 (2.45) 30.8 (2.20 ) PAVEMENT CONDITION 2001 37.5 (1.11) 38.4 (1.25) 31.1 (2.47) 38.8 (1.64) WORRY 1995 24.8 (2.07) 25.6 (2.30) 19.1 (3.22) 29.0 (3.18) ABOUT ACCIDENTS 2001 27.0 (2.04) 28.2 (2.25) 18.9 (2.46) 31.8 (3.14)

Large problem responses = “ A large problem” response in 1995 and either a “very much of a problem” or “a severe problem” response in 2001. Numbers in brackets are 90% confidence intervals. (See Figure 17 in body of Report)

ORNL July, 2004

86

APPENDIX C. MULTI-WAY ANALYSIS USING LOGISTIC REGRESSION C.1 Introduction The analyses of the New York and National travel data in the main body of this report bring out the relationship between respondents’ concerns and selected socio-economic, demographic and transportation system variables. It is also useful to ask whether combinations of these variables (age group and trip length, for example) might help to further explain the variations in responses received. The challenge in doing so for such a large dataset is to identify the most likely combinations of factors affecting response, without having to analyze all of the possible combinations separately. An effort was made to do this on the 2001 NHTS New York data, using the SAS software package [1]. C.2 Multi-Category Logistic Regression Cumulative Logit Analysis of Ordinal Responses. The SAS software was used to develop a series of polychotomous (i.e. multi-category) ordered response logistic regression models. Such models provide results for categorical response variables that are analogous to correlation analysis of continuous variables. The goal in each case is to determine the patterns of dependence and independence among a set of variables, one or more of which may be a response variable. If we let Yr = a New York traveler’s response, r, to one of the customer satisfaction questions, where Y can have an (increasingly negative) response value of r =1,2,3,4 or 5, then each of the models described below takes the following general form: Probability (Yr ) = Pr = exp ( α r + X β ) / Σ r = 1 to 5 exp ( α r + X β ) (1) for α r = α 1 + …+ α5 and X β = X1.β1 + X2.β2 + …Xn βn + X1X2 β12 + X1X3 β13 + X2X3β23 … + X(n-1)Xn .β(n-1)n + X1X2X3 β123 +…. +X(n-2) X(n-1)Xn β (n-2)(n-1) n (2) where α1 through α5 are the model estimated intercept terms associated with each of the five response levels; X1 through Xn are the “explanatory” variables included in the model, represented here by different traveler characteristics (e.g. age group, gender, income level), trip characteristics (trip length, trip duration, travel mode) and regional characteristics (MSA size, Census Tract population density) thought to influence traveler response; and β is a vector of model estimated parameters (slope coefficients) associates with these explanatory variables. A term such as

ORNL July, 2004

87

X1X2 combines the effects of variables 1 and 2 (e.g. the effects of being in a particular age group and within a particular work trip length interval)., while a term such as X1X2X3 represents a three-way combination of variables 1, 2 and 3 (e.g. the effects of combining age group, trip length and MSA size class). In each case the software was asked to consider the effects of all possible 1- way, 2-way and 3-way combinations of effects on a traveler’s response. 8 This presents the possibility of a very large number of explanatory variable effects. In practice, however, most of the statistically significance effects were limited to 1-way interactions, as described below. Model Interpretation using Odds Ratios. It is common to rewrite the above type of logistic regression model in terms of it “logits”, i.e., logit (Pr) = log [ Pr /(1- Pr )] = α r + X β (3) so that, [Pr/(1- Pr)] = exp (α r + X β) (4) So for any 2 groups of travelers, e.g.. g =1 for males; g = 2 for females, we can form the following odds ratios: [P1r/(1- P1r)] / [P2r/(1- P2r)] (5) which gives the relative odds of group 1 travelers having response level r compared to group 2 travelers. Suppose that r refers here to the response of “no problem” with traffic congestion. Then the odds ratio given by equation (5) provides the relative odds of males (group 1) having no problem with traffic congestion, when compared with females (group 2). If the value of this ratio is 1.5, for example, then we can say that men are roughly one and a half times more likely to have no problem with traffic congestion: or conversely, that women are one and a half times more likely to have a problem with it. In the case where we have 5 levels of possible response, as in the 2001 NHTS customer satisfaction survey, the above odds ratios can be used to measure the odds of one group of travelers being more likely to be more positive or negative than a second group, for any given level or response (r=1,2,3,4,5). This, however, requires the assumption that the model’s β coefficients are identical, or nearly so, no matter which response level is being considered. This is termed a proportional odds model (see [1],[2, Chapter 8]) . Odds ratios such as these, which can be generated 8 The result in each case is equivalent to fitting an hierarchical log-linear model with up to three-way interaction effects. See [1, Section 14.5] also [2] for example.

ORNL July, 2004

88

using the SAS software, are used below to describe the results of the modeling exercise. The Model Building Procedure. Given the effort involved in setting up model runs, and also the significant run-times required to test all candidate regression models, four of the eleven response variables were selected for investigation. The resulting models deal with New York travelers responses to the 1) traffic congestion (CONGEST), 2) poor pavement condition or the presence of potholes (PVPOT), 3) concern over being involved in accidents (ACDT), and 4) concern over gasoline price (GAS). In each case the following explanatory variables were used as the starting point for the model calibration exercises: Traveler characteristics variables: age group, gender, household (family) income, formal education, driver status (yes/no) Tripmaking characteristics variables: annual miles driven, work trip length, work trip duration Regional characteristics variables: MSA size, residential population density. In each instance the SAS PROC LOGISTIC procedure [1] was used to develop a set of one-way, two-way and three-way interaction models, with explanatory variables and the interactions between them introduced into the model using a forward, stepwise procedure that identifies the most significant variables first and then adds to and adjusts the model’s parameters to accommodate further variables. This procedure terminates when no more variables can be found that add significantly to the goodness of fit of the model to the observed data. That is, no further explanation of the responses given can be attributed to the variables selected. The results from the one-, two- and three-way models can then be compared to determine how much additional explanation might be attributed to the more complex interaction terms in such models. All of the response models were run on the unweighted survey responses, and where possible an explanatory variable was allowed to take its original, continuous form. This applied to four variables: respondent age, population density, trip length (in miles) and duration (in minutes) were treated as continuous variables. Other variables retained the categories used in the rest of this report. In what follows we refer to the influence of models using simple one-dimensional variables as “main effects” models. Models incorporating two-way and three-way classifications of the traveling population are referred to as higher order interaction models. Here the focus in on describing the main findings of this

ORNL July, 2004

89

modeling exercise, and on providing a largely qualitative discussion of the major points raised by the effort. As the results discussed below indicate, all four sets of traveler responses appear to be most readily explained by simple one-way effects, but with a few two-way classifications of the surveyed populations shedding some additional light, if little additional predictive power, on the subject. C.3 Modeling Results In this section the results of looking from meaningful associations between variables is described. We take a meaningful association here to refer to statistically significant association that also adds a clear improvement in the power of a model to explain the responses obtained. The odds ratios as described above are used to quantify these effects in an interpretable manner A Caveat: In using the approach described above it became clear during the modeling exercise that in some cases, and depending upon how explanatory variables were entered into a model, the above assumption of identical β coefficients was not always held as more explanatory variables were added to the logit models, and notably with the addition of the continuous variables (age, household income, trip distance, trip duration). The SAS CATMOD procedure, which treats responses as nominal, rather than ordinal (i.e. no ordering of response severity levels assumed) was also experimented with and found, as expected, to identify the same main and interaction effects at similar levels of influence, if not the same model coefficients (using different β coefficients for different levels of response). The resulting PROC LOGISTIC odds ratios based on each model’s β coefficients, as reported below, should therefore be treated as approximations to the true effects. Factors Influencing Concerns over Traffic Congestion Table C1 shows the odds ratios associated with the one-way (main effects only) logistic regression model in which highway congestion is the response variable of interest. Subsequent discussions will omit such tables below and focus on the main findings. Numbers given in brackets (e.g. 1/0.423) are the log-odds results from the regression modeling exercise. Main Effects Modeling. Results are dominated by geographic/urban structural variables, and specifically by the MSA Size categorical variable and the New York City and New York Metro Area binary dummy variables. Residents living in MSAs with over 3 million population are 2.36 times more likely (i.e. have an odds ratio of 1/0.423) to express a higher level of concern over traffic congestion than residents living in non-MSA areas (the control group for this particular model): while residents in MSAs with populations in the 1 to 3 million range are 1.85

ORNL July, 2004

90

(1/0.540) times more likely to have greater concerns than non-MSA residents. Residents drawn from the entire New York Metro Area are 1.64 times more likely to express more concern over congestion. However, New York City residents as a group are twice as likely to have fewer concerns over congestion than other state residents (due in large part to the significantly higher percentages of urban transit users: see below). Finally, regular drivers are a little over 1.5 times more likely to complain more about highway traffic congestion than those who do not drive. Table C1. Odds Ratio Estimates for Main Effects (1-Way) CONGEST Response Model.

Effect Point Estimate

95% Wald Confidence Limits

Population Density (Census Tract of Residence) 1.000 1.000 1.000

DISTANCE to Work 0.996 0.993 0.999

TRAVEL TIME to Work 0.998 0.996 1.000

Respondent ‘s AGE 0.998 0.997 1.000

MSASIZE 3 million or more vs Not in MSA/CMSA 0.423 0.375 0.478

MSASIZE 1,000 – 2,999 vs Not in MSA/CMSA 0.545 0.488 0.609

MSASIZE 500 - 999 vs Not in MSA/CMSA 0.540 0.489 0.596

MSASIZE 250 - 499 vs Not in MSA/CMSA 0.715 0.632 0.809

MSASIZE Less than 250 vs Not in MSA/CMSA 0.913 0.807 1.031

Miles Driven in Year (YEARMILE) 1.000 1.000 1.000

DRIVER (Yes/No) 0.655 0.594 0.722

New York City (Yes/No) 2.030 1.719 2.398

New York Metro Area (Yes/No) 0.608 0.543 0.682

The other variables shown in Table C1, all of which were found to have statistically significant influence on traveler perceptions of congestion, have odds ratios very close to 1.0: indicating comparatively little additional influence on the resulting variability in traveler perceptions about highway congestion once the above urban structural and regional variables have been taken into account. This suggests that such structural variables may go a long way towards capturing statewide congestion concerns. Gender (male/female), household income and education effects were found to be too mild, when combined with the other effects discussed above, to enter the model. Interaction Effects. Allowing all one-way and two-way interactions between the set of explanatory variables produced a modest but statistically significant

ORNL July, 2004

91

improvement in model fit to the data. All two-way effects reported are very mild ones linking work trip distance and duration to population density. The cross-classification of Driver Status with the New York City dummy variable shows clearly the ameliorating effects on congestion response from sampling a large number of non-drivers (mainly transit users). Older drivers are also found to be marginally more concerned about congestion. The three-way interactions model yielded no additional statistically significant effects. Factors Influencing Concerns over Pavement Condition Main Effects Modeling. The gender (male/female) , driver status (driver/non-driver), education level and MSA size variables provided the principal influences on traveler response to poor pavement conditions and potholes (PVPOT). Drivers are 1.92 times more likely to express some level of concern over pavement conditions than non-drivers. Females are 1.34 (1/0.744) times more likely to express greater concern than males. Residents in MSAs under half a million population or between 1 and 3 million are approximately 1.3 more likely to express more concern over pavement quality than those living outside MSAs. In contrast, residents in the largest (> 3 million population) MSAs are 1.27 times less likely to express as much concern as non-MSA residents. Residents with a post graduate education are 1.36 times likely to express less concern than residents whose formal education ends at or before high school. Finally, New York City residents are 1.64 less likely to express greater concerns over pavement condition than residents in the rest of the state. Very mild household income, age of respondent, annual miles driven and population density effects also entered the model. Interaction Effects. Both two-way and three-way interaction effects models yielded an overall significant statistical improvement in the pavement quality model’s fit. However, gains in explanation were again modest and all of the individual interaction effects generated model coefficients close to zero. Factors Influencing Concerns over Being in an Accident Main Effects Modeling. Gender, being in a non-metro or small (under 250,000) MSA versus very being in a large (over 3 million) MSA, being in a high (over $100,000 per annum) income group, and living in the New York MSA have the most impact on respondent variability to accident concerns. Females and respondents in the largest metropolitan areas were roughly 1.6 times more likely to be concerned about potential accidents than males and residents in other regions of the state respectively. NY Metro area residents were on average 1.3 (1/0.778) times more likely to be concerned over the potential for being in a traffic

ORNL July, 2004

92

accident than other state residents. The odds of respondents in the highest income households expressing concern are roughly 20% lower than those of other residents in the state. Interaction Effects. While the modeling of a complete set of two-way interactions did increase the overall model fit in a modest and statistically significant way, no individual two-way or three-way interaction effects made significant contributions to further understanding the variability in responses obtained. Factors Influencing Concerns over Gasoline Price Main Effects Modeling. Drivers were 3.3 times more likely to raise some level of concern with gasoline prices than non-drivers. New York City respondents were 2.7 times less likely to bring up concerns over the price of gasoline than residents in the rest of the state. Women were roughly 1.3 (1/0.773) times more likely to express more concern over gas prices than men. Respondents with the least formal education were 1.7 times more likely to bring up concerns over gasoline prices than those with the most formal education. This result was mirrored by residents in the highest (over $100,000 per year) household income group, who also showed less concern for gas price. Residents in the largest ( > 3 million population) MSAs were 1.22 times more likely to report higher level of concern over gasoline prices than other state residents. Interaction Effects. While the full set of two-way interactions modestly improved overall model fit they added little in the way of additional insight. The exception was the interaction between household income and the New York City dummy variable. While New York City residents in the $30,000 to $50,000 per year household income range reflect the simple New York City effect, NYC residents earning less than $15,000 per year recorded the single largest concern over gasoline prices.

An Analysis of New York Residents’ Views of Highway Travel · FEMALE = 90% confidence interval...

Documents

Transcript of An Analysis of New York Residents’ Views of Highway Travel · FEMALE = 90% confidence interval...