Understanding How Individuals Make Travel and Location Decisions: Implications for Public Transportation (2008)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

48 This chapter presents some selected findings from the Phase 1 survey. The results are presented by age-group since the research was designed to emphasize the younger and older age-groups as being the most positive toward living in a CN. Results are also presented by e-panel so that the effect of enriching the sample with respondents who use transit can be observed. For those readers curious about the detailed results of the TPB-related responses in the survey, the SPSS files of responses for all of the Internet panel surveys are included as Appen- dix C. Also included in Appendix C are several Excel files with data from a conjoint analysis done in Phase 1 and a MaxDiff analysis in Phase 2. Who Were the Respondents? The survey was completed by 865 individuals who are part of the Resource Systems Group Internet Survey Cafe or part of the New Jersey Transit e-panel. The Internet Survey Cafe individuals were limited to those who live in metropolitan areas where there is rail transit service. Respondents were included only if they had moved within the past 2 years or were considering a move within the next 2 years. The following screening question was asked when respon- dents first started the survey: Which of the following best describes you? 1. I moved to a different address within the past 2 years. 2. I am considering a move within the next 2 years. 3. None of the above If they chose the first or second answer, they were allowed to continue taking the survey: It is important to note that the full panel (e-panel plus Survey Cafe) used for this survey is not intended to be repre- sentative of the general population. Instead, the panel was selected to ensure that the survey provided information about individuals who are the most likely to be “interesting” with respect to location and transit decisions. Table 6-1 and Table 6-2 indicate who took the survey, by metropolitan area and by age. NJ Transit respondents are shown as well. As can be seen, the NJ Transit respondents were a little over a quarter of those responding. While the oversampling of those aged 21 to 30 was successful in getting a large group of respondents, the same oversampling was less successful in the 55-plus age-group. Screening for those who had recently moved or were planning to move appears to have negated the effect of the oversampling for the older group. The panels do differ quite a bit by age-group, with nearly half of the Survey Cafe panel being 30 or less, com- pared with 15% of the NJT e-panel. Alternatively, nearly half of the NJT e-panel is in the next older age-group (ages 31 to 44), compared with 25% for the Survey Cafe respondents. Our sample tends to have relatively high household in- comes. Excluding the NJ Transit panel, the median house- hold income for the Phase 1 survey was $55,000, which is somewhat higher than the relevant statewide median incomes reported by the Census for the year 2003, but metro areas tend to have higher household incomes than nonmetro areas. By way of example, median household incomes in King County, Washington, and San Francisco, California, were somewhat more than $50,000, while their full state averages were less than $50,000. Statewide median household incomes in Massachusetts, Minnesota, and Connecticut were also somewhat more than $50,000 per year. Given our focus on mobile, urban households, the median level of $55,000 seems quite reasonable. The median income of the NJ Transit panel was $100,000, which reflects the dominant role of the commuter rail system into Manhattan, both directly and connecting with PATH. The median household income of the entire state of New Jersey was $55,000 in the year 2003. Integrating the NJ Tran- sit data with the rest of the sample, the median household income for the full sample is $65,000 per year. C H A P T E R 6 Selected Findings from the Phase I Survey

Current Residence/Residential Aspirations/Transit Use Current Residence and Mode to Work The sample showed a range of living situations, thus pro- viding a good representation of those living in apparently transit-friendly communities. Following is a summary of some of the indicative data. Note that there were hopes to find re- spondents who had transit options, and this sample looks good from that aspect, both for the NJT e-panel and other re- spondents. Table 6-3 shows some of the characteristics of the respondents. Note that the first two rows of data comparing home types add to 100%, as do the next two comparing park- ing availability, but the following rows do not. Over half lived in other than a single-family home, and over half had some kind of parking limitation. More than 80% had public trans- portation close by. Nearly a third had a commercial district within one-third mile. Significant differences in Table 6-3, as well as in following tables, are indicated by asterisks. There are distinct differences by age-group, in that the younger respondents are significantly more likely to live in multifamily housing and to have parking limitations. They are more likely to live close to commercial districts. However, our respondents do not follow the U-shaped curve shown in Figure 2-6 since the oldest group (age 55-plus) is the least likely to live in multifamily housing, have parking restric- tions, or live near commercial areas. Our oldest respondents may not be old enough to show these trends, which appear to start in the late 70s, as shown in Figure 2-6. The NJ Transit e-panel and the Survey Cafe respondents are different from one another on several of the characteris- tics in Table 6-3, with a higher than average proportion of the NJT e-panel respondents living in single-family homes and having plenty of parking. As expected, a higher percentage of the NJ Transit e-panel respondents have transit services in their neighborhood. Note that the largest difference between the respondent e-panels was in mode to work: 74% of the NJ Transit e-panel respondents took transit to get to work or school, whereas 13% of the Survey Cafe respondents took transit. Comparing Census Bureau journey-to-work data with the Survey Cafe, nationally 7.3% took transit to work. However, according to the 2000 census, the weighted average mode split in the metropolitan areas from which the survey respondents come is around 16%.1 Outside of the NJ Transit e-panel, therefore, the survey respon- dents had a slightly lower mode split to work than the mode split found by the census in their respective metropolitan areas. Reasons for the Most Recent Move The reasons respondents most often cited for moving to their current residence were external (due to some event) and internal (due to my own needs/desires). Table 6-4 shows the three largest reasons. Wanting to “own my own home” accounted for the largest percentage overall, as well as in each group. Around 15% “needed more space.” Recall that these were the top two reasons found in the National Association of Realtors survey (20). The category “change in my job or school location” was significantly higher for the youngest group than for the sample as a whole. As might be expected based on life-cycle stage, the youngest group moved around more in response to job location changes and were less concerned about space. The 31- to 44- year-olds were more concerned about space requirements. 49 Respondents by Age-Group Age-Group Survey Cafe n (%) NJT e-pane n (%) Total n (%) 21–30 316 (49%) 34 (15%) 350 (40%) 31–44 162 (25%) 110 (49%) 272 (31%) 45–54 99 (15%) 54 (24%) 153 (18%) 55-plus 62 (10%) 27 (12%) 89 (10%) Total 639 (100%) 226 (100%) 865 (100%) Metropolitan Statistical Area Number Percentage of Total Total 865 100 NJ Transit e-panel 226 26 Atlanta 57 7 Boston/NH 55 6 Chicago 101 12 LA/Long Beach 77 9 Minneapolis/St. Paul 49 6 New York City, NY 99 11 Philadelphia/NJ 76 9 San Diego 32 4 San Francisco 12 1 Seattle/Bellevue/Everett 28 3 DC/MD/VA 53 6 Table 6-1. Respondents by age and e-panel. Table 6-2. Respondents by metropolitan area. 1 Weighting of the standard metropolitan statistical area (SMSA) mode split was done by summing the product of each SMSA mode split times the number of households in the SMSA, and dividing the total by the sum of households for all of the SMSAs represented in the sample.

50 Age Categories e-Panel Reason Percentage of Total Sample 21-30 (%) 31-44 (%) 45-54 (%) 55+ (%) NJ Transit e-panel (%) Survey Cafe (%) Wanted to own home 20.9 19.0 23.0 24.3 16.1 24.0 19.8 Needed more space 14.8 11.6* 21.1* 11.8 12.6 11.6* 16.0* Change in job or school location 13.0 17.7* 10.4* 8.6* 11.5 12.0 13.4 *Significantly different from the total sample at p < .05, n = 865. Table 6-4. Reasons for most recent move (by group). Age Categories e-Panel Characteristic Percentage of Total Sample 21-30 (%) 31-44 (%) 45-54 (%) 55+ (%) NJ Transit e-panel (%) Survey Cafe (%) Single-family home 48 34* 57* 56* 63* 58* 44* Apartment, condo—not single family 52 66* 43* 44* 37* 42* 56* Plenty of parking in own garage and driveway 48 36* 54* 56* 64* 53* 46* Other parking situations (less parking) 52 64* 46* 44* 36* 47* 54* One-third mile or less to nearest commercial district 32 40* 32 25* 11* 31 32 Public transit in neighborhood 84 86 87* 77* 79 90* 82* Use transit to get to work (all)† 30 23* 38* 37* 21* 78* 13* * Significantly different from the total sample at p < .05, n = 865. † Work mode split is based on all respondents, including those not working. Table 6-3. Characteristics of respondents by age and e-panel (by group). Attitudes Toward Urban Living One of the hypotheses was that there would be a market segment that was positively inclined toward living in denser communities. The raw data gives some promise that this mar- ket segment will be found. The following question was bor- rowed from a survey of the trade associations representing real estate agents and homebuilders. As reported in the New York Times (48), the question was as follows: Suppose you have a choice between two similarly priced homes. One is an urban town house within walking distance of

stores and mass transit; the other is in the suburbs and requires driving everywhere. Which one would you pick? The national response was that 17% would choose the townhouse. Overall, the respondents to our survey are more favorable to the choice of a townhouse, which is not surpris- ing given that our survey panelists were in metropolitan areas with good transit or were part of the NJ Transit e-panel. Overall, 44% of our panel picked the urban townhouse. Of the youngest age-group, 52% chose the urban townhouse, whereas only 36% chose it among the 31- to 44-year-olds. Contrary to expectations based on the analysis shown in Figure 2-6, the oldest age-group (55-plus) did not choose the urban townhouse at a higher rate than the sample as a whole. Table 6-5 shows this result, as well as the percentage pre- ferring to live in a big city. There was little difference between the attitudes of the NJ Transit e-panel and the Survey Cafe e-panel. The differences by age-group again point to the likely influence of life-cycle stage on residential preferences, as the youngest group is much more interested in city living than the next youngest age-group. Childhood Experience and Attitudes The Phase 1 Internet survey asked many questions about respondents’ impressions of childhood neighborhoods, travel experiences, and other values. The objective was to develop information to allow exploration of links between childhood experiences and current values and choices. The data do reveal considerable differences by age-group. The youngest group was the most suburban and was driven to school more than the older market segments. Table 6-6 shows these results. The decline in walking to school is seen clearly, with 75% of those 55 and over walking and only 47% of those ages 20 to 29 walking. Transit use for the trip to school also dropped from 38% to 15% for these age-groups. Note that the percentages for mode to school total more than 100% since more than one mode could be selected by the respondents. Table 6-7 and Table 6-8 show memories of childhood atti- tudes toward the environment and toward taking transit. As seen in Table 6-7, the older age-group had fewer memories of conversations about the environment or of being concerned about the environment, which makes sense as the environ- mental movement dates from around 1970. In this regard, the NJ Transit e-panel was like the Survey Cafe panel. As for taking transit as children, the youngest age-group remembered more negative impressions, such as parents disapproving or friends not thinking it was cool. As shown in Table 6-8, the youngest and oldest age-groups are significantly different, with the older age-group remembering transit more positively. The ratings come from a survey question that asked respondents to indicate, on a scale from one (strongly disagree) to seven (strongly agree), with eight being “don’t know,” their agreement or disagreement with seven statements about their childhood. The statements were as follows: • My family discussed environmental issues[0]. • As a child I thought it was important to do what I could to save the environment. • As a child, I traveled by myself on public transit (e.g., bus, train, trolley). • My friends considered it “uncool” to take public transit. • My parents thought it was unsafe for me to ride public transit. • My parents encouraged me to take the bus or train. • As a child, my first impressions about riding the bus or train were generally positive. Current Environmental Attitudes Several questions were asked to measure respondents’ current opinions on environmental issues. Looking at the average ratings on pro-environmental statements by age- group and e-panel, Table 6-9 shows that there is little varia- tion. Even though the older group may not have discussed environmental issues as children, they have similar or slightly greater concerns about the environment now. 51 Age Category e-Panel Attitude Percentage of Total Sample 21-30 (%) 31-44 (%) 45-54 (%) 55+ (%) NJT e-panel (%) Survey Cafe (%) Choose urban Townhouse 43.9 52.0* 36.4* 40.5 41.6 48.2 42.4 Prefer to live in a big city 23.5 31.4* 20.6 20.3 6.7* 21.7 24.1 *Significantly different from the total sample at p < .05, n = 865. Table 6-5. Attitudes toward urban living (by group).

TPB Measures on Moving to a Compact Neighborhood One way to test whether our hypotheses about the youngest and oldest age-groups being the most positive toward a CN is to compare the responses to direct questions about their ATT, SN, SCF, and intent to move to a CN. A more complete discussion of the TPB variables and respon- dent choices will follow in other chapters, but Table 6-10 gives a preview For each of the four TPB concepts, three questions were asked, as follows, with answers provided on a seven-point scale: 52 Age Category e-Panel Experience Percentage of Total 21-30 (%) 31-44 (%) 45-54 (%) 55-plus (%) NJ Transit (%) Survey Cafe (%) Grew up in a single-family house 76 79 78 73 67* 80 75 Grew up in a big city 23 14* 24 36* 29 20 24 Grew up in a suburb 41 47* 40 33* 33* 39 41 Walked to school 60 47* 68* 69* 75* 69* 57* Took a car to school 38 54* 35 23* 12* 32* 41* Took transit to school 20 15* 21 19 38* 22 20 *Significantly different from the total sample at p < .05, n = 865. Table 6-6. Childhood experiences (percentages by group). Age Category E-Panel Memory Total Sample 21-30 31-44 45-54 55-plus NJ Transit Survey Cafe My family discussed environmental issues 3.3 3.5* 3.3 3.0 2.5* 3.3 3.2 As a child I thought it was important to do what I could to save the environment 3.9 4.2* 3.8 3.8 3.1* 3.9 3.9 Average 3.6 3.9* 3.5 3.4 2.8* 3.6 3.5 *Significantly different from the sample average at p < .05, n = 865. Table 6-7. Average ratings for childhood memories of the environment (on a scale of one to seven).

Attitude Toward the Behavior • For me to move to a CN in the next 2 years would be (1 ex- tremely undesirable . . . 7 extremely desirable). • For me to move to a CN in the next 2 years would be (1 ex- tremely unpleasant . . . 7 extremely pleasant). • For me to move to a CN in the next 2 years would be (1 boring . . . 7 interesting). Subjective Norm • Most of the people who are important to me live, or would like to live, in a CN. (1 definitely false . . . 7 defi- nitely true) • Most people whose opinions I value would approve of my moving to a CN in the next 2 years. (1 definitely false . . . 7 definitely true) • It is expected of me that I move to a CN in the next 2 years. (1 strongly disagree . . . 7 strongly agree) Self-Confidence • Whether or not I move to a CN in the next 2 years is com- pletely up to me. (1 strongly disagree . . . 7 strongly agree) • I am confident that if I wanted to I could move to a CN in the next 2 years. (1 definitely false . . . 7 definitely true) • For me to move to a CN in the next 2 years would be (1 im- possible . . . 7 possible). 53 Age Category E-Panel Memory Total Sample 21-30 31-44 45-54 55-plus NJ Transit Survey Cafe As a child, I traveled by myself on public transit. 3.9 3.1* 3.8 4.6* 5.5* 3.9 3.8 My friends considered it “uncool” to take public transit. 2.9 3.2* 2.9 2.9 2.2* 2.9 2.9 My parents thought it was unsafe for me to ride public transit. 3.3 3.8* 3.2 2.9* 2.2* 3.0* 3.4* My parents encouraged me to take the bus or train. 3.5 3.2* 3.5 4.0* 4.2* 3.6 3.5 As a child, my first impressions about riding the bus or train were generally positive. 5.1 4.7* 5.1 5.5* 5.7* 5.4* 5.0* *Significantly different from the total sample average at p < .05, n = 865. Table 6-8. Average ratings for childhood memories of transit.

54 Age Category E-Panel Statement Total Sample 20-29 30-44 45-54 55-plus NJ Transit Survey Cafe I am concerned about global warming or climate change. 4.9 4.8* 4.8 5.1 5.4* 5.0 4.9 I think I should be more active…in protecting the environment. 4.8 4.8 4.7 4.8 4.7 4.7 4.8 Protecting the environment should be given top priority, even with taxes. 4.1 4.0 3.9 4.3 4.3 4.2 4.0 Average 4.6 4.5 4.5 4.7 4.8 4.6 4.6 *Significantly different from the total sample average at p < .05, n = 865. Table 6-9. Average environmental ratings. Age Category E-Panel Component Total Sample 20-29 30-44 45-54 55-plus NJ Transit Survey Cafe Attitude toward the behavior to move to a compact neighborhood 3.8 4.0* 3.6 3.5 3.7 3.9 3.7 Subjective norm (what others think of my moving to a compact neighborhood) 3.2 3.5* 3.1 2.9* 3.1 3.2 3.2 Self-confidence (my ability to move to a compact neighborhood) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.4 4.6 4.6 4.5 Intent to move to a compact neighborhood in 2 years 2.9 3.2* 2.7 2.6 2.5 2.8 2.9 * Significantly different from the sample average at p < .05, n = 822. Table 6-10. TPB measures for moving to a compact neighborhood within 2 years.

Intent • I plan to move to a CN in the next 2 years. (1 strongly dis- agree . . . 7 strongly agree) • I will make an effort to move to a CN in the next 2 years. (1 I definitely will not . . . 7 I definitely will) • I intend to move to a CN in the next 2 years. (1 strongly disagree . . . 7 strongly agree) These questions were not asked of respondents who had recently moved to CNs. Thus the data shown are for only 822 respondents. As expected, the youngest group was significantly more positive than the sample as a whole was toward moving to a CN. The youngest group had significantly more positive atti- tudes, subjective norms, and intent to move. All of the groups had similar SCF for moving. The oldest group was not signif- icantly more positive toward moving. The NJ Transit e-panel and the Survey Cafe e-panel are sim- ilar overall in their responses to these questions. Table 6-10 shows the average value for each of the components of the TPB by age-group and e-panel. Summary The overall goal for selecting respondents for the Phase 1 Internet panel survey was to find individuals who represent the likely market for choosing a CN as a place to live. By se- lecting respondents from larger metropolitan areas, individu- als with an interest in living in a more urban setting than the national norm, as measured by their answers to a theoretical question about neighborhood choice were found. Age-groups most likely to be interested in CN—the young (ages 21 to 30) and old (age 55-plus) were oversampled. This oversampling did result in a younger group with higher than average inter- est in moving to a CN, but did not result in an older group with higher than average interest. This does not imply this group does not exist; rather, it is likely that the instrument of an Internet panel survey combined with the screening re- quirement about moving reduced the chances of getting par- ticipation from the older age-group. The addition of the NJ Transit e-panel participants to the panel changed the mode choice profile of the sample signifi- cantly, but in many other ways the NJ Transit e-panel re- sponded similarly to the Survey Cafe e-panel. There were more significant differences by age-group than by e-panel in terms of childhood experience, attitudes toward the environ- ment, and attitudes toward urban living. There were significant differences by age-group in many aspects. The younger group grew up in more suburban areas on average; they walked and took transit less to school than older groups. They were also more likely to have experienced negative social pressure regarding use of transit. However, they were more likely to have been concerned about the environment as children. In terms of interest in moving to a CN in the next 2 years it was hypothesized that both the youngest age-group and the oldest would have the most interest. That proved true for the youngest group, which rated highest on measures of ATT to- ward moving, SN, SCF and intent. But it did not prove true for the oldest group. 55