2011 Countywide Attitudinal and Awareness Survey Results · Awareness Survey Results. Purpose of...
23
2011 Countywide Attitudinal and Awareness Survey Results
Transcript of 2011 Countywide Attitudinal and Awareness Survey Results · Awareness Survey Results. Purpose of...
2011 Countywide Attitudinal and Awareness Survey Results
Purpose of Study
Establish baseline for measuring future performance Identify perceptions about transportation system,
issues, priorities Assess awareness and opinions about OCTA Measure perceptions about how effectively OCTA is
delivering projects, programs, and services Profile resident use of the transportation system Profile OCTA communication exposure, and
preferences
2
Methodology of Study
Telephone Survey o 2,010 adult Orange County residents o Random Land Line & Mobile Phones o English, Spanish & Vietnamese o 20-minutes o Online Option
Conducted Oct 8th to November 1st, 2011 Overall margin of error: ± 2.19%
3
Demographics of Sample
Category Value Percentage Gender Male 48%
Female 52%
Length of Residence 4 years or less 10%
5 to 14 years 21%
15 years or more 69%
Age 18-34 32%
35-54 34%
55 or older 25%
Ethnicity Caucasian 40%
Latino/Hispanic 29%
Asian 15%
Other 16%
Employment Status Employed full or part time 58%
Student/Homemaker/Retired 29%
Looking for a job 6% 4
Quality of Life
5
Not sure0.6
Poor1.7
Good52.2
Excellent32.6
Very poor0.6
Fair12.3
Most Important Issues
6
3.2
3.2
3.7
4.2
4.3
4.5
5.3
5.6
7.5
28.9
25.4
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Illegal immigration
Cost of living
Population, overcrowding
Transportation infrastructure
Real estate, housing
Budget, spending
Public safety
Traffic
Education, schools
Not sure / Cannot think of anything
Economy, unemployment
% Respondents
Heard of OCTA by Study Year
7
86.787.883.1†
0
20
40
60
80
100
2011 2006 2004
Study Year
% Re
spon
dent
s Aw
are
of O
CTA
(Dagger symbol denotes statistically significant difference)
Exposure to OCTA Advertising
8
42.343.9
28.9†
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
2011 2006 2004
Study Year
% Re
spon
dent
s Th
at E
ncou
nter
edO
CTA
Ads
in P
ast
6 M
onth
s
Opinion of OCTA
9
Somewhat unfavorable
7.7
Not sure 32.3
Very favorable
16.6
Somewhat favorable
25.6
Very unfavorable
4.6
Prefer not to answer 13.1
Favorable Opinion by Study Year
10
77.4†83.0 81.6
0
20
40
60
80
100
2011 2006 2004
Study Year
% Re
spon
dent
s W
ith F
avor
able
Opi
nion
(A
mon
g Th
ose
Who
Pro
vide
d O
pini
on)
Opinion of OCTA by Mode
11
Veryfavorable
24.726.8
59.647.7
Smwtfavorable
49.9
34.625.7
52.4
0
20
40
60
80
100
Drive alone Carpool /Vanpool
Public transit Bike / Walk
Primary Mode
% Re
spon
dent
s W
ho P
rovi
ded
Opi
nion
Statements About OCTA
12
11.5
13.2
16.5
20.7
21.2
23.7
24.8
24.0
30.7
33.1
35.3
35.5
8.7
10.6
9.6
10.6
7.8
8.6
10.2
9.4
6.4
7.2
6.9
7.1
44.7
42.8
36.8
28.3
28.9
25.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Makes good use of public funds
Listens to the general public
Is actively seeking solutions to our transportation issues
Has made many transportation system improvements in past 5 yrs
Is a public agency I trust
Helps local economies by improving our transportation system
% Respondents
Strongly agree Smwt agree Smwt disagree Strongly disagree Not sure
Unaided Recall of OCTA Services
13
0.4
0.50.7
0.71.3
1.5
4.16.4
8.2
9.9
10.2
19.660.5
11.4
9.1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Administers Measure M
Bikeway planning
Vanpool programsPrefer not to answer
Freeway Service Patrol tow trucksRideshare/carpool matching
City street improvements
The 91 Express Lanes toll roadACCESS Paratransit/service for the disabled
Metrolink commuter rail serviceRoad and freeway planning
Freeway improvements
Manages the overall transportation systemNot sure
Bus service
% Respondents
Rating of Transportation Services
14
9.1
8.7
9.3
11.0
12.0
10.0
12.1
9.8
14.9
13.3
17.2
18.5
39.8
44.7
44.7
46.6
47.5
49.7
48.4
51.7
48.6
52.8
53.1
55.3
34.6
31.1
30.2
27.2
27.1
27.2
25.7
26.2
22.3
21.8
22.9
19.8
12.6
12.2
12.3
12.1
10.4
9.7
10.0
9.2
8.9
9.4
5.2
5.0
4
3
4
3
3
3
4
3
5
3
2
1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Overall transportation system [87%]
Road and freeway planning [82%]
Overall quality, condition of city streets [97%]
Bikeway planning [64%]
Bus service [69%]
Rideshare and carpool matching programs [55%]
Vanpool programs [38%]
The overall quality and condition of freeways [96%]
Overall quality, condition of 91 Express Lanes [68%]
Metrolink commuter rail service [52%]
Freeway Service Patrol tow trucks [61%]
ACCESS Paratransit services for the disabled [55%]
% Respondents Who Provided Opinion(Percent With Opinion Shown in Brackets)
Excellent Good Fair Poor Very poor
Rating of Metrolink by Usage
15
17.4
13.9
10.9
3.9
5.3
3.420.9
54.2
3.916.0
34.0
44.2
24.3
40.9
3.2
0
20
40
60
80
100
At least 1x permonth
<1x per month Not in past year
Metrolink Usage
% Re
spon
dent
s
Not sure
Very poor
Poor
Fair
Good
Excellent
Reasons for Not Riding Metrolink
16
0.20.61.01.31.81.82.12.3
5.2
8.48.8
51.216.0
6.7
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Too crowdedSafety concerns
Travel time too longNeed transportation after Metrolink commute
Elderly, disabledNeed more information
Too expensiveWork from or near home
Available times, schedules are insufficientInconvenient in general
Prefer to drive personal vehicleMinimal personal travel / No need
Does not go to necessary areasNo particular reason
% Respondents Who Plan to Ride MetrolinkAbout the Same or Less Frequently in Next 6 Months
Transportation Priorities
17
24.3
18.7
22.3
31.3
24.9
33.0
37.2
35.6
49.2
43.2
65.1
67.4
31.1
40.2
38.6
32.0
44.0
38.5
39.7
41.8
34.2
40.9
25.7
25.2
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Build direct connection between 241 and 91
Expand vanpool programs
Improve the network of bike lanes
Build additional toll lanes
Improve ACCESS paratransit service
Expand the Metrolink rail service
Expand bus services
Construct roads over or under rail tracks
Widen the freeways
Optimize existing transportation system
Coordinate traffic signals
Fix potholes and repair roadways
% Respondents
High priority Medium priority
Primary Transportation Mode
18
0.1
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.9
1.5
9.3
13.8
57.3
15.5
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Express bus
Motorcycle/Scooter
Vanpool
Metrolink
Other mode
Walk
Bike
Local bus
Carpool with 2+ passengers
Carpool with 1 passenger
Drive alone
% Respondents Who Provided Mode
Satisfaction With Communication
19
Somewhat dissatisfied
12.9
Not sure 21.2
Very satisfied
20.0
Somewhat satisfied
40.5
Very dissatisfied
5.4
Additional Info Topics Desired
20
1.82.83.34.14.95.55.96.06.7
8.911.4
36.8
7.0
12.6
0 10 20 30 40
Carpool, vanpool, ride-share programsMore communication efforts in general
Fees for tolls, transit servicesBudget, spending information
Commuting optionsProposed projects, future plans
Transit options for seniors, disabled, studentsTraffic congestion, traffic relief measures
Not sure Services, programs offered in general
Route planningMetrolink schedules, info
Bus schedules, routesConstruction updates
% Respondents Who Desire Additional Info
Most Effective Channels
21
10.7
11.2
16.0
18.3
18.2
22.0
27.2
25.2
28.4
23.2
29.3
17.9
20.2
19.0
25.1
39.2
35.5
34.2
41.0
38.3
45.0
41.2
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Automated phone calls
Cell phone text messages
Electronic Newsletters
Email alerts
OCTA website
Electronic Billboards
Newsletters, direct mail
Advertisements in local papers
Radio advertisements
% Respondents
Very effective Somewhat effective
Key Findings & Conclusions
Awareness of OCTA is high for a special district Awareness does not necessarily translate into
an opinion of OCTA Positive ratings for OCTA-provided services Residents have clear priorities for ways to
improve transportation system Communications scores are mixed
22
Recommendations Enhance OCTA-resident communications Focus communications in channels rated as
most effective for reaching OC residents Adjust performance metrics for tracking in
future studies
23
