2011 TRB Annual ... - TRB Travel Survey Methods Committee _ABJ40_

Document Sample
2011 TRB Annual ... - TRB Travel Survey Methods Committee _ABJ40_ Powered By Docstoc
					            Minutes of the Household Travel Surveys Subcommittee, ABJ40(1)
                     Tuesday, January 12, 2010, 12:15 PM-1:15 PM,
                             Presided by Jimmy Armoogum



Minutes by Stacey Bricka and Jimmy Armoogum

Presentations
We had a presentation made by Daniel Bergeron (AMT, Montréal) on the on-going travel
survey in Montréal: methods, first results and actual issues (the powerpoint will be posted
on the website www.travelsurveymethods.org).
The region of Montréal has a long tradition of conducting; large-scale household travel
surveys. Every 5 years about 5% of the population is interviewed to describe their mobility.
But there are still some missing and useful information that one wishes to measure such as:
seasonal and annual variations in travel demand and behavior; the economic conditions
affecting personal mobility; in public transit, road networks and demographics. In this
context the Agence metropolitaine de transport of Montréal decided to have an on-going
survey experiment.

Perter Stopher (ITLS - The University of Sydney) gave some information on the GPS only
Household Travel Survey in Cincinnati.
It is the first GPS-only household travel survey with a sample of 3,600 households
interviewed and conducted over one year. Each person over 12 years carries a GPS for 3
days, child diaries for 12 years and under. They used a Prompted Recall survey for about 750
households. The survey commenced in August 2009 and ended in August 2010. The
Prompted recall ended in October 2010.

Discussion
Stacey Bricka (Texas Transportation Institute) initiated a discussion on Electronic and social
media applications in survey outreach. Background:
One      topic   discussed    during     the     recent     HH     travel    survey    webinar
(http://tmip.fhwa.dot.gov/content/1402) focused on the outreach techniques used to reach
household travel survey respondents. These communications are typically designed to verify
the legitimacy of the survey effort and include: press releases, information packets for
regional stakeholders, and a multi-purpose website that hosts the survey materials,
frequently asked questions, contact information, etc. and also serve as the main portal for
web-based collection tools and other respondent communications. During the webinar,
NYTMC (NYC), ARC (Atlanta), and MetCouncil (Twin Cities) indicated that their outreach
techniques also included social media (facebook and twitter) and YouTube videos to further
communicate with respondents.
                                                1
All of the traditional techniques are “outward” or one-way communications. The addition of
social media moves us to a possible two-way communication, but this adds the complexity of
determining what to do when this broader form of communication attracts regional
residents who were not randomly sampled for the survey effort – what do you do with
them?

In addition, too much outreach can garner negative attention for the survey. In some
regions where there is a heavy political focus on transportation issues, surveys will be
postponed or scheduled around legislative sessions. In other areas, unhappy respondents
could use these forums to voice issues that may dissuade other potential respondents from
getting involved.

Given the changes in technology, combined with the fact that respondent outreach
techniques are generally more than a decade old, a discussion was held to identify relevant
issues for research, either through research statements or a call for papers. What follows is
a summary of the issues raised. At the conclusion of the discussion, the group determined
that while the topic of respondent outreach definitely deserved attention, it was also time to
consider the full spectrum of tools available for increasing respondent participation. The
discussion notes are in the order raised, to show the flow from social media specifically to
the broader issues.

Discussion points:
    We should look at the outreach program used by the Census program and see what
     we can learn from their use of social media. Also, has that been evaluated and if so,
     what were the findings?
    What are the potential risks linking data and outreach (Social Media is more public
     than generic press releases or individual letters)
    Would we set up a specific private “group” to be involved in the survey – and would
     this stimulate respondent interaction? Is that good or bad?
    Do respondents want the intrusion of the survey into their “private” lives on
     facebook?
    To effectively use Social Media, you need a plan – you need to know how your
     audience will use it.
    There are institutional barriers when it comes to Social Media – some agencies don’t
     allow staff access at work. How could agencies then use this tool for their surveys?
    Privacy concerns – would need to instruct respondents for setting options in social
     media software.
    Would there be biased introduced through the public respondent feedback?

                                                2
    Someone on the project side would need to monitor comments.
    How do we incorporate social media into our methods?
    If we use social media, would certain segments of society be excluded?
    Public outreach needs to be 2-way communication.
    Motivating respondents is very important – we need to increase response rates!
    We need to revamp our outreach efforts overall – social media is just one tool.
    We need to increase participation overall – outreach is just one part of it.


Who wants to contribute to this discussion?
Shall we write a research statement / call for papers …

End of the meeting: the duration of one hour is very short. Would it be possible to have a
longer slot of time.




                                                3
List of participants

      First Name Name                E-Mail                          Organisation
  1   Jimmy            Armoogum      jimmy.armoogum@ifsttar.fr       Ifsttar - Dest
  2   Kay              Axhausen      axhausen@ethz.ch                ETH - Zürich
  3   Daniel           Bergeron      dbergeron@amt.qc.ca             AMT - Montréal
  4   Stacey           Bricka        s-bricka@ttimail.tamu.edu       Texas Transportation Institute
  5   Ju-yin           Chen          ju-yin.chen@vdot.virginia.gov.gov VDOT
  6   Alfred           Chu           achu@amt.qu.ca                  AMT - Montréal
  7   Marco            Diana         marco.diana@polito.it           Politecnico di Torino
  8   Elizabeth        Greene        egreene@rsginc.com              Ressource Systems Group, inc
  9   Bob              Griffiths     reg@mwcog.org                   MW COG
 10   Joseph           Huegy         jbhuegy@ncsu.edu                NCSU - ITRE
 11   Eirini           Kastrouni     ekast@iastate.edu               Iowa State University
 12   Michelle         Lee           mlee@geostats.com               Geostats LP
 13   Yuanjun          Li            Yuanjun.li@mncppc-mc.org        M-NCPPC
 14   Paul             Metayatos     pavlos@uic.edu                  UIC
 15   Jason            Minser        j.minser@srbi.com               Abt SRBI
 16   Catherine        Morency       cmorency@polymtl.ca             Montreal Ecole Polytechnique
 17   Elaine           Murakami      elaine.murakami@dot.gov         FHWA
 18   Mike             Neidhart      mneidhart@GFNET.com             Gannett Fleming, Inc.
 19   Terri            Parker        t-parker@tamu.edu               Texas Transportation Institute
 20   Zachary          Patterson     zachary.patterson@EPFL.ch       Swiss Fed Inst of Technology
 21   Clara            Reschovsky    creschovsky@mwcog.org           MW COG
 22   Owen             Roberts       owen.roberts@rsginc.com         Ressource Systems Group, inc
 23   Tim              Spurr         tspurr@amt.qc.ca                AMT - Montréal
 24   Peter            Stopher       peters@itls.usyd.edu.au         University of Sydney
 25   Susan            Swain         Susanswain@westat.com           Westat
 26   Kevin            Tierney       ktierney@camsys.com             Cambridge Systematics
 27   Krishnan         Viswanathan   kviswanathan@camsys.com         Cambridge Systematics
 28   Laurie           Wargelin      wargelin@srbi.com               ABT-SRBI
 29   Chester          Wilmot        cecgw@lsy.edu                   LSU
 30   Jean             Wolf          jwolf@geostats.com              Geostats LP




                                                  4