...

Development of Revised Methodology for Collecting Origin

by user

on
Category:

cars

0

views

Report

Comments

Transcript

Development of Revised Methodology for Collecting Origin
Development of Revised Methodology for Collecting
Origin-Destination Data
This research was conducted under a grant from
the Florida Department of Transportation.
FDOT Project Manager:
Ed Hutchinson
The report was prepared by:
Larry Hagen, PE
Huaguo Zhou, PE, PhD
Fatih Pirinccioglu
Center for Urban Transportation Research
University of South Florida, College of Engineering
4202 E. Fowler Ave., CUT100
Tampa, FL 33620-5375
February 2006
The opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed in this report are those of the authors and not
necessarily those of the Florida Department of Transportation.
Center For Urban Transportation Research
Technical Report Documentation Page
1. Report No. FDOT: BD 544-30
2. Government Accession No.
3. Recipient's Catalog No.
4. Title and Subtitle
5. Report Date
Development of Revised Methodology for Collecting
Origin-Destination Data
February 2006
6. Performing Organization Code
7. Author(s)
8. Performing Organization Report No.
Larry Hagen, Huaguo Zhou, Fatih Pirinccioglu
9. Performing Organization Name and Address
10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS)
Center for Urban Transportation Research
University of South Florida
4202 E. Fowler Ave., CUT 100
Tampa, Florida 33620-5375
11. Contract or Grant No.
BD 544
Project Work Order 30
12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address
13. Type of Report and Period Covered
Final Report
Florida Department of Transportation
Office of Project Management, Research & Development
605 Suwannee Street, MS 30
Tallahassee, FL 32399
14. Sponsoring Agency Code
15. Supplementary Notes
Ed Hutchinson, FDOT Project Manager
16. Abstract
Trip Origin and Destination (O-D) data is needed to support continuing analyses and implementation of Florida’s
Strategic Intermodal System (SIS). The data can also be used in support of the Department’s traffic count program and
can provide data for specific projects for improvements to the SIS. An extensive literature review was conducted for both
passenger transportation and freight movement O-D survey methodologies. Based on the results of literature review, a list
of survey methods was studied. The advantages and disadvantages of each methodology were summarized in tables.
Different survey methodologies were recommended for passenger transportation than freight movements. For passenger
transportation, a license plate mail out-mail back/internet was recommended for external survey. For the truck
movements, a combination of fax, mail and internet survey of warehouse and distribution centers was recommended for
intra-regional trips, and a roadside interview was recommended for inter-regional travel. A map of weight stations, rest
areas, state roads, and Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZ) was developed for identifying the potential survey sites.
17. Key Word
18. Distribution Statement
trip origin-destination, travel survey, survey methodology
No Restrictions
19. Security Classif. (of this report)
20. Security Classif. (of this page)
Unclassified
Unclassified
Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72)
Reproduction of completed page authorized
II
21. No. of Pages
94
22. Price
Center For Urban Transportation Research
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:
The authors would like to extend their appreciation to the FDOT project managers and the
following individuals for their valuable assistance with this research.
Ysela Llort
Yongqiang Wu
Shi-Chiang Li
Mike Neidhart
William T. Olsen
Colleen T. Jarrell
Chunyu Liu
Ram Pendyala
Florida Department of Transportation, Central Office
Florida Department of Transportation, Central Office
Florida Department of Transportation, District IV
Volusia County MPO
Florida's Turnpike Enterprise
HNTB Corporation
Gannett Fleming, Inc.
University of South Florida
III
Center For Urban Transportation Research
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................................................................... 1
1
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................................. 2
1.1
1.2
1.3
2
BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................................... 2
STUDY OBJECTIVES ........................................................................................................................................... 2
KICK-OFF MEETING SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................... 2
LITERATURE REVIEW ...................................................................................................................................... 4
2.1
REVIEW OF AUTO O-D SURVEY METHODS ....................................................................................................... 4
2.1.1
Statewide O-D Survey in Vermont, 1995 .................................................................................................. 6
2.1.2
Cordon Line Travel Survey, Tampa Bay (Gannett Fleming), 2004 (3) .................................................... 8
2.1.3
Citrus County Cordon Survey (Resource Systems Group, Inc.), 2004 (4)................................................ 9
2.1.4
I-595 Vehicle Trip Length Study, FDOT District 4 (The CORRADINO Group), 2003 (5) .................... 10
2.2
REVIEW OF TRUCK O-D SURVEY METHODS.................................................................................................... 12
2.2.1
Lau’s Earlier Truck Travel Surveys (1995) ............................................................................................ 12
2.2.2
New York State DOT Conference (2002)................................................................................................ 14
2.2.3
Oregon DOT Special Project Report 343 (2004) ................................................................................... 15
2.3
OTHER ISSUES ................................................................................................................................................. 25
2.3.1
Use of Cell Phone Technology for O-D Study ........................................................................................ 25
2.3.2
Incentives to Improve the Rates of Return .............................................................................................. 25
2.4
SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................................................... 26
3
O-D DATA COLLECTION METHODOLOGY............................................................................................... 27
3.1
LICENSE PLATE MAIL-OUT SURVEYS .............................................................................................................. 27
3.2
ROADSIDE INTERVIEW ..................................................................................................................................... 29
3.3
MAIL-BACK POSTCARD SURVEYS ................................................................................................................... 29
3.4
ONLINE SURVEYS ............................................................................................................................................ 30
3.5
PHONE SURVEYS ............................................................................................................................................. 30
3.6
CELL PHONE, AND GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM (GPS) RECEIVER .............................................................. 31
3.7
RECOMMENDED AUTOMOBILE O-D SURVEY METHODOLOGY ........................................................................ 31
3.8
RECOMMENDED TRUCK O-D SURVEY METHODOLOGY................................................................................... 31
3.8.1
Inter-Regional Movements...................................................................................................................... 31
3.8.2
Intra-Regional Movements ..................................................................................................................... 32
4
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.............................................................................................. 32
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................................. 34
APPENDIX A: O-D SURVEY FORM FOR PASSENGER CAR........................................................................... 36
APPENDIX B: O-D SURVEY FORM FOR TRUCKS............................................................................................ 50
APPENDIX C: WAREHOUSE/DISTRIBUTION CENTER MAIL SURVEY FORM........................................ 56
APPENDIX D: ONLINE SURVEY FORM .............................................................................................................. 70
APPENDIX E: LIST OF CONTACT INFORMATION OF WAREHOUSE AND DISTRIBUTION CENTER
IN FLORIDA ................................................................................................................................................................ 73
APPENDIX F: STATEWIDE MODEL ZONE MAP .............................................................................................. 91
IV
Center For Urban Transportation Research
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1 VARYING DATA NEEDS AMONG USERS (8)...................................................................................................... 15
FIGURE A-1 TAMPA BAY CORDON LINE TRAVEL SURVEY FORM ................................................................................... 37
FIGURE A-2 FDOT SURVEY FORM USED IN I-595 VEHICLE TRIP LENGTH STUDY.......................................................... 38
FIGURE A-3 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TRAVEL SURVEY FORM ................................................. 40
FIGURE A-4 WSU/WSDOT CANADIAN BORDER SOUTHBOUND PASSENGER CAR SURVEY FORM ................................. 41
FIGURE A-5 CITY OF MENASHA O-D SURVEY FORM ...................................................................................................... 42
FIGURE A-6 ATLANTA REGIONAL COMMISSION EXTERNAL TRAVEL O-D SURVEY ........................................................ 43
FIGURE A-7 ROADSIDE ORIGIN-DESTINATION SURVEYS, SAMPLE FORM ....................................................................... 44
FIGURE A-8 CITRUS COUNTY CORDON SURVEY REPORT SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE ....................................................... 45
FIGURE B-1 WASHINGTON STATE TRUCK O-D SURVEY FORM ....................................................................................... 51
FIGURE B-2 VIRGINIA DOT I-81 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT STUDY TRUCK INTERCEPT SURVEY FORM ......................... 53
FIGURE B-3 1991 CALTRANS-ALAMEDA COUNTY TRUCK INTERCEPT AND CLASSIFICATION COUNT FORMS ................. 55
FIGURE C-1 WAREHOUSE / DISTRIBUTION CENTER MAIL/FAX SURVEY FORM ............................................................... 57
FIGURE C-2 VIRGINIA DOT I-81 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT STUDY SHIPPER/CARRIER SURVEY FORM.......................... 65
FIGURE D-1 A PROPOSED ONLINE SURVEY FORM .......................................................................................................... 71
FIGURE F-1 STATE OF FLORIDA TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS ZONE (TAZ) MAP.......................................................... 92
V
Center For Urban Transportation Research
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1 ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF THE LICENSE PLATE SURVEY .............................................................. 5
TABLE 2 ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF THE ROADSIDE HANDOUT SURVEY ..................................................... 5
TABLE 3 ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF THE ROADSIDE INTERVIEW SURVEY.................................................... 6
TABLE 4 SUMMARY OF THE STATEWIDE O-D SURVEY IN VERMONT................................................................................. 6
TABLE 5 SUMMARY OF CORDON LINE TRAVEL SURVEY, TAMPA ..................................................................................... 8
TABLE 6 SUMMARY OF CITRUS COUNTY CORDON SURVEY .............................................................................................. 9
TABLE 7 SUMMARY OF I-595 VEHICLE TRIP LENGTH STUDY.......................................................................................... 11
TABLE 8 BENEFITS DERIVED FROM OBTAINING RELIABLE TRUCK DATA ....................................................................... 13
TABLE 9 SUMMARY OF TRUCK TRAVEL SURVEYS IN URBAN AREAS (7) ........................................................................ 16
TABLE 10 SUMMARY OF DATA COLLECTED FROM TRUCK TRAVEL SURVEYS IN URBAN AREAS (7)............................... 17
TABLE 11 TRUCK TRIP DATA COLLECTION APPROACHES AND IMPLEMENTATION TECHNIQUES (9)............................... 18
TABLE 12 DATA ATTRIBUTES COLLECTED IN THE PAST STUDIES (9).............................................................................. 19
TABLE 13 COMPARING AND CONTRASTING ALTERNATIVE TRUCK O-D DATA COLLECTION METHODOLOGIES (9)........ 20
TABLE 14 PERFORMANCE OF DATA COLLECTION METHODS AS RELATED TO DATA NEEDS (9)...................................... 23
TABLE 15 SUMMARY OF SURVEY METHOD FOR TRUCK O-D (11)................................................................................... 23
TABLE 16 LICENSE PLATE TRAVEL SURVEYS CONDUCTED IN CALIFORNIA FROM 1990 TO 1997.................................... 28
TABLE 17 HOUSEHOLD TELEPHONE ORIGIN DESTINATION TRAVEL SURVEYS CONDUCTED IN CALIFORNIA FROM 1990
TO 1997................................................................................................................................................................... 30
TABLE 18 COMPARISON OF SURVEY METHODOLOGIES ................................................................................................... 33
TABLE E-1 WAREHOUSES AND DISTRIBUTION CENTERS LIST AND CONTACT INFORMATION ......................................... 79
TABLE F-1 NUMBER OF REST AREAS IN TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS ZONES (TAZ)..................................................... 93
TABLE F-2 NUMBER OF WEIGH STATIONS IN TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS ZONES (TAZ)............................................. 94
VI
Center For Urban Transportation Research
ABSTRACT
Trip Origin and Destination (O-D) data is needed to support continuing analyses and
implementation of Florida’s Strategic Intermodal System (SIS). The data can also be used in
support of the Department’s traffic count program and can provide data for specific projects for
improvements to the SIS. These projects can then help to improve mobility, safety, and economic
vitality for Florida’s traveling public.
An extensive literature review was conducted for both passenger transportation and freight
movement O-D survey methodologies. Based on the results of literature review, a list of survey
methods was studied. The advantages and disadvantages of each methodology were summarized in
tables. After the meeting with FDOT, some criteria for selecting the preferred O-D survey
methodology were determined, including: 1) Disruption of traffic; 2) Statistical reliability; 3) Data
attributes; 4) Cost effectiveness; 5) Geographic coverage; and 6) Response rate.
Different survey methodologies were recommended for passenger transportation than freight
movements. For passenger transportation, a license plate mail out-mail back/internet was
recommended for external survey. Since this method can only capture the trips of in-state vehicles,
an additional postcard survey at the rest areas or off-ramp intersections was recommended to be
used to catch those out-of-state vehicles to minimize the data bias. For the truck movements, a
combination of fax, mail and internet survey of warehouse and distribution centers was
recommended for intra-regional trips, and a roadside interview was recommended for interregional travel. A map of weight stations, rest areas, state roads, and Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZ)
was developed for identifying the potential survey sites. The past studies showed that a proper
incentive will have a positive impact on the rate of return. The web-based survey can provide very
accurate data and can significantly reduce the work load of data input. A higher amount of
incentives can be given to the respondents who submit the survey through the web because of the
potential savings on labor costs.
1
Center For Urban Transportation Research
1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
Trip Origin and Destination (O-D) data is needed to support continuing analyses and
implementation of Florida’s Strategic Intermodal System (SIS). The data can also be utilized in
support of the Department’s traffic count program and can provide data for specific projects for
improvements to the SIS. These projects can then help to improve mobility, safety, and economic
vitality for Florida’s traveling public.
The data obtained from O-D studies can be used to help produce a series of alternatives to be
evaluated for future growth in specific corridors of the SIS, and for inputs into the Statewide
Highway and Freight Models. These data may also be used as a baseline for future data
monitoring and surveys on the state’s limited access highway system.
The FDOT System Planning Office has requested that the Center for Urban Transportation
Research (CUTR) at the University of South Florida (USF) conduct research into the development
of a methodology for collecting O-D data without obstructing traffic. The main focus of the
methodology will be for the collection of O-D data related to intercity or interregional travel.
Upon acceptance by FDOT, the recommended methodology will be incorporated into an O-D
study effort in early spring of 2006. This effort is planned to be initiated by a pilot O-D survey on
one of the Interstate corridors. The most probable area for this pilot O-D survey is the Interstate 75
corridor from the Florida/Georgia line to the Turnpike/Interstate 75 interchange area. Additional
segments including Interstate 10 east of the Interstate 75 interchange, and US-301 from the
Interstate 10 interchange to the Ocala area could also be reviewed to provide a Regional aspect to
this pilot O-D effort. In the future, additional corridors or regional area surveys will be conducted
after the analysis of the pilot O-D effort is complete. The ultimate goal is to provide a
comprehensive effort to provide O-D data for SIS alternative development and modeling efforts.
1.2 Study Objectives
The objective of this research is to develop a methodology for collection of valid O-D data that
does not involve interruption of traffic flow. A particular concern that was identified by FDOT is
the capture of O-D data related to freight movement. The purpose of this effort is to develop an
appropriate methodology to collect this data that will then be tested and evaluated in a subsequent
project.
1.3 Kick-off Meeting Summary
A kick-off meeting was held at FDOT Systems Planning Office, Tallahassee on December 12,
2005. A few key points that came out of the meeting are listed as follows:
1. Roadside interviews, where we stop traffic and pull a sample of people over for
interviewing, is still allowed, just not on limited access roadways.
2. One new approach is to capture license plates of passing vehicles, and then using registered
vehicle data, follow up with a mail out survey form. This approach has some merits, but
may have a potential issue with respect to privacy of the vehicle owner. To apply this
2
Center For Urban Transportation Research
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
method, a literature review on this specifically should be conducted to see how other
locations that did these types of surveys addressed these issues. But for now, it is an option.
With regard to the level of detail required, the O-D data should be zone to zone travel since
it will be used in the statewide transportation models. FDOT will send CUTR information
regarding the zones used in the model. The zones are typically larger than a TAZ used in
local transportation models, but are much smaller than a city.
For roadside interview, vehicles can be stopped on conventional roads, just not on
interstates. Interview or hand motorists a mail-in postcard can be conducted at interstate
off-ramps intersections. The data collection process should not back traffic onto the
freeway mainline. Roadside interview can be conducted in rest areas or weight stations.
FDOT is interested in cars as well as trucks. They are interested in commodity flow
information (tonnage and cargo) for commercial vehicles.
The data will be used in the statewide models and should be useable for developing a map
of desire lines of travel.
A matrix of various methods of O-D data collection should be developed, including the
advantage and disadvantage of each.
With respect to truck data, some of the major distribution centers (i.e. Publix Centers in
Lakeland and Jacksonville, Dollar General in Alachua, the Ports and Airports, etc.) should
be identified, and considered for data collection there as well.
3
Center For Urban Transportation Research
2 LITERATURE REVIEW
Origin and destination (O-D) data is of fundamental importance to understand the travel patterns
and the associated demands on a transportation network over an entire region. This data is
normally used as the basic input to transportation models developed to support the decision
making process of the transportation agencies.
Historically, there has been considerable research and studies focused on O-D data collection
methodologies, including roadside interviews, postcard mail-back surveys, license plate mail back,
online survey, telephone surveys, and combinations of these methods. Over the last decade, there
have been multiple studies of different magnitudes at the state and metropolitan level, seeking to
collect truck trip O-D information for either modeling or policy planning purposes. The survey
methodologies are usually similar for passenger transportation and trucks. However, more
information is typically requested for a truck O-D survey.
This literature review presents summarized information on some of the most relevant past studies
and documents the state-of-the-practice.
2.1 Review of Auto O-D Survey Methods
Trip Origin-Destination surveys have been conducted in many jurisdictions for many decades.
Traditionally, these surveys have had, however, a very limited geographical scope as they have
primarily been used in conjunction with corridor analysis. Studies with larger or more
comprehensive scopes, and consequently larger geographical coverage, are related to the needs of
Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) while studies at the State level are not common
events. As described elsewhere in this literature review, there is consensus in the transportation
community of the need to bring all these results into a common framework for data aggregation
and analysis.
O-D surveys generally follow the procedures established for Vehicle Intercept and External Station
Surveys in the Travel Survey Manual (1). The basic questions to be answered are where to survey,
what methods to use, what techniques, and the design of the survey location. There are four
general methods for conducting O-D surveys as described in the Travel Survey Manual (1), as
follows:
1.
The license plate survey- Fieldworkers record the license plate number of vehicles passing
the survey location, the vehicles’ owners are determined using data from one or more
state’s Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), and the vehicle owners are then sent a mail
survey.
2.
Roadside Handout Survey- Fieldworkers stop some or all vehicles passing the survey
location, and hand out self-completion mailback survey forms.
3.
Roadside Interview Survey-Fieldworkers stop some or all vehicles passing the survey
location, and conduct short interviews with drivers.
4
Center For Urban Transportation Research
4.
Combined Roadside Interview and Handout Survey-Fieldworkers stop some or all vehicles
passing the survey location, conduct short interviews with drivers, and then hand out selfcompletion mail back survey forms.
The advantages and disadvantages of each of these four methods (1) are summarized in Tables 1-3.
Table 1 Advantages and Disadvantages of the License Plate Survey
Advantages
1. This method is the safest, because traffic is not stopped as opposed with the other
methods.
2. The number of field personnel is typically less than the other methods.
3. The mail questionnaire can be more extensive than interviews in terms of the
number of questions asked (especially about socioeconomic and household
related questions).
4. Although survey operations at night are difficult and unreliable for all the
methods, improvements in videotaping equipment technology are making the
collection of license plate information at night more feasible.
5. No traffic delays at survey stations, even at high-volume locations.
Disadvantages
1. No personal contacts are made between surveyors and potential respondents, so
there is no opportunity to answer questions or explain aspects of the survey
2. It is critical that the questionnaires be mailed to potential respondents within a
short-time period after the license plates are observed (one to two days is usually
the maximum). Logistically, this proves difficult because of multi-agency
coordination requirements and difficulties in identifying the license plate numbers
from the videotape, audiotape, or fieldworkers’ notes.
3. The method is essentially a mail survey, so it is likely to have relatively high nonresponse and strong potential for response bias
4. People driving rental or lease cars will not be surveyed. In addition, people
driving someone else’s vehicle will not receive the questionnaire unless it is
passed on by the vehicle owner.
Table 2 Advantages and Disadvantages of the Roadside Handout Survey
Advantages
1. This method is usually less expensive than other methods.
2. Traffic delays are less of a problem than for the interview methods.
3. Screening for certain types of respondents is possible (unlike license plate
method).
Disadvantages
1. This method requires traffic stoppages (albeit short ones).
2. The response rate tends to be low, and there is little opportunity to conduct
follow-ups.
3. Pulling vehicles over without a legitimate law enforcement reason is not
permitted in many states.
5
Center For Urban Transportation Research
Table 3 Advantages and Disadvantages of the Roadside Interview Survey
Advantages
1. The response rate is much higher than the other methods, so the potential for
survey bias is not as great.
2. Personal contacts are made between surveyors and respondents.
3. Selected survey samples can be identified at each location to satisfy standards for
statistical analysis.
4. The data are available much sooner than for the other methods, which rely on
mailback surveys.
Disadvantages
1. Traffic delays occur especially on high-volume facilities and during peak traffic
periods.
2. The method is not permitted in a number of states.
3. This method is more expensive than the Roadside Handout Survey.
4. The method is the least safe of the methods.
5. Because of the potential for delays, the interview must be extremely short.
2.1.1
Statewide O-D Survey in Vermont, 1995
In 1994, the Vermont Agency of Transportation (VAOT) conducted the field work to collect data
as part of their effort to develop a statewide travel demand forecasting model. Some of these
efforts were directed towards a Statewide Household Travel Survey (2) using a mail out – mail in
survey that had a response rate of 8.6% and which allow them to capture data on more than 1% of
the households in the State.
During the same year, another effort went underway to collect statewide origin-destination (O-D)
data for the first time in Vermont. They implemented two methods: roadside interview and
handout of postcard surveys to be mailed back. The survey method chosen for a particular site was
based on traffic volume, physical constraints and language needs (because of the presence of
French speaking travelers from Canada).
Table 4 Summary of the Statewide O-D Survey in Vermont
Methodology
Study Objectives
Survey
questionnaires
Survey Sites
Selection Criteria
Roadside interview and roadside handout of mail-back postcard survey
Estimate external-to-external and external-to-internal trip tables of the
statewide travel demand forecasting model
Trip origin detailed to street address
Trip destination detailed to street address
Trip purpose
Vehicle occupancy
Vehicle type
25 roadways crossing the state line (out of 70 but representing 90% of
all traffic entering the State of Vermont)
Geographic location
Functional classification
Average annual traffic volume
6
Center For Urban Transportation Research
Survey Scheduling
Sample Size
Field Adjusted
Sample Size
Measures to
Minimize Data
Biases
Incentives
Response rate
Cost per survey
Study findings
Comments
12 hours at each site (7am-7pm on Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and
Thursdays during June)
Estimated based on sampling rates of 34%, 24%, and 14% for traffic
volumes of <5k, 5k-10k, and 10k-20k for a 12 hour period in one
direction
Roadside interview: 42.0% (average of 502 interviews, max 747, min
228)
Mail-back postcards: 54.5% (average of 1676 cards distributed, max
4304, min 243)
Random selection of vehicles, including trucks
Vehicles selected from all the lanes
Bilingual cards (English and French)
Site selection to represent different functional classification, traffic
volumes, and geographical areas
N/A
Mail-back postcards: average 23.9% (min 8.9% max 33.1%)
Roadside interview: average 95.2% (above 96.5% in 8 sites, 83.3% in
one site)
Mail-back postcard survey:
Average $14.21 per usable response
$31.75 when traffic volume: 2,000 – 3,000 vpd
$14.65 when traffic volume: 4,500 – 6,000 vpd
$8.50 when traffic volume: over 14,500 vpd
Roadside interview:
$12.40 per usable response
$9.35 when traffic volume: 2,000 – 3,000 vpd
$11.15 when traffic volume: 4,500 – 6,000 vpd
1. Mail-back postcards are better suited for high traffic volume roads.
2. Roadside interview is more cost-effective on roads with less than
5,000 vpd.
3. Although both techniques require stopping traffic, field logistics are
much more complicated for roadside interviews.
4. Interviews could generally be conducted in less than 1 minute.
5. Mail-back postcards should not be used in low traffic volume roads
as it might not meet the sample size requirements due to low
response rate.
6. Police assistance is desirable for all sites where traffic is stopped on
the road for the survey.
1. Mail-back postcards response rate could be improved with the use
of incentives.
2. It might be possible to use existing natural stop locations (exit
ramps, intersections, rest areas) to distribute postcards.
3. Postcards could have been mailed out if vehicle owner info could
be gathered from field observations.
7
Center For Urban Transportation Research
2.1.2
Cordon Line Travel Survey, Tampa Bay (Gannett Fleming), 2004 (3)
As part of the 7th Regional Transportation Analysis (RTA), a Cordon Line Travel Survey was
conducted to enhance and validate the 2003 Tampa Bay Regional Planning Model (TBRPM).
Previous RTA Origin-Destination Surveys had considered three vehicle classifications: Passenger
car, Light truck, and Heavy Truck. This current study (2003) did not contemplate the assessment
of truck traffic. A license plate survey was used in this project. The detailed information is
summarized in Table 5.
Table 5 Summary of Cordon Line Travel Survey, Tampa
Methodology
Study Objectives
Survey
questionnaires
Survey Sites
Selection Criteria
Survey Scheduling
Sample Size
Field Adjusted
Sample Size
Measures to
Minimize Data
Biases
Incentives
Response rate
License plate matching (two methods: manual visual identification
tape recording in the field and photographic recording in the field
with manual visual identification in office) with owner’s records in
DMV database to mail survey out within 48 hours of trip
Validation of the 2003 Tampa Bay Regional Planning Model
Trip origin and its location
Trip destination and its location
Trip purpose
Number of occupants in the vehicle
Trip frequency
Other possible stops along the way
29 locations
Traffic volumes and other indicators of significance
Availability, date and reliability of existing data
Recent growth or apparent change in the traffic volume mix
Ability and reliability of determining characteristics based on
similar sites
6-hour periods between 12pm and 6pm on Tuesdays, Wednesdays,
and Thursdays of four weeks between March 12th and April 11th,
2003
Based on the experience of past surveys and consultation with
FDOT. Pre-specified number of completed surveys: Interstate
Hwy: 1200, Arterial AADT>40k: 900, Arterial AADT 15-40k:
750, Arterial AADT<15k: 500, Low Volume Roadway: 250
Number of recorded license plates based on 38% response rate and
50% success rate of license plate capturing and matching (only instate privately owned vehicles: no cargo trucks): Interstate Hwy:
6316, Arterial AADT>40k: 4736, Arterial AADT 15-40k: 3948,
Arterial AADT<15k: 2632, Low Volume Roadway: 1316
A total of approximately 15000 questionnaires were mailed out
Although only “privately-owned in-state” vehicles were used as
part of the sample, all vehicle types were counted for consistency
No
About 33%
8
Center For Urban Transportation Research
Cost per survey
N/A
Study findings
1. This methodology was found to be effective to conduct the OD survey without the disruption of normal traffic flow.
2. A toll free 1-800 number was found to be useful to answer
public questions and complains.
3. Human errors in data entry can be corrected with software.
1. Although the response rate is already very high for this type of
survey, an incentive or public campaign before and during
survey period could have been used to increase response rate.
2. An option of using website to return the survey should be
provided to increase response rate and reduce data input efforts.
Comments
2.1.3
Citrus County Cordon Survey (Resource Systems Group, Inc.), 2004 (4)
This survey was conduct to obtain O-D data for traffic heading into Citrus County by the Resource
Systems Group, Inc. (RSG), a sub-consultant to URS, to support the Florida Turnpike Enterprise’s
Tampa Regional Model Update. Survey data was collected in early June 2004 from travelers on
US 19 near Inglis at the Levy/Citrus County line and on SR 44 near Rutland on the Sumter/Citrus
County line. The methodology and results from this study are summarized in Table 6.
Table 6 Summary of Citrus County Cordon Survey
Methodology
Study Objectives
Survey
Questionnaires
Survey Sites
Selection Criteria
Survey Scheduling
Sample Size
Field Adjusted
Sample Size
License plate matching ( photographic recording in the field with
manual visual identification in office) with owner’s records in
DMV database to mail survey out within 2 weeks of trip
To support the Florida Turnpike Enterprise’s Tampa Regional
Model Update;
To supplement similar survey data that were collected during an
earlier study.
Trip origin and its location
Trip destination and its location
Trip purpose
Number of occupants in the vehicle
Trip frequency
Toll Costs
SunPass Transponder Information
2 locations
Traffic volume
Major highways to cross the county line
12-hour periods between 6:50 am and 7:15 pm on a typical
weekday in early June 2004
N/A
All non-commercial (two-axle) vehicles were photographed.
2,676 vehicles were photographed on SR 44; 2,909 vehicles were
9
Center For Urban Transportation Research
Measures to
Minimize Data
Biases
Incentives
Response Rate
2.1.4
photographed on US 19.
For quality assurance, all vehicles (commercial and noncommercial) were separately counted during the sampling period.
A one-dollar bill included in the mailout package
Approximately 32.4 %
Cost per Survey
N/A
Study Findings
1
Comments
The study indicated that vehicle owners received the survey packet
within two weeks of the day they were observed traveling.
However, one to two days is usually the maximum indicated by
the Travel Survey Manual (1).
The cover letter printed on FDOT letterhead and signed by a
high-ranking FDOT official was found to be helpful to
convince potential respondents to participate, and address
potential concerns about privacy.
2 The information (FAQ) sheet was provided to answer
frequently asked questions about the study purpose and
approach, and how personal privacy was being protected.
3 Study showed that a small financial incentive offered in
advance can help boost survey response rates.
I-595 Vehicle Trip Length Study, FDOT District 4 (The CORRADINO Group), 2003 (5)
The primary east-west connector in Broward County, Florida, is the interstate highway I-595 that
connects downtown Ft. Lauderdale, the Ft. Lauderdale-Hollywood Airport, the city of Davie, and
the city of Plantation. It also connects with I-95, US 1, and SR7/US 441. All of them go north.
There are several improvements projects being considered by FDOT. The survey was conducted to
develop travel forecasts and other planning analyses as part of the studies being conducted by the
FDOT and other local municipalities.
This survey was conducted on March 4, 2003 through March 20, 2003 from 7:00 a.m. to 3:15 p.m.
at seven sites along I-595. Teams of surveyors worked at the eastbound and westbound off ramps
and at major intersections approaching I-595. Surveyors approached stopped vehicles and offered
them a survey form. When the traffic signal turned green the surveyors moved out of the traffic
stream. All surveyors wore FDOT approved Class III safety vests. Police officers in cars with
flashing lights were located at the end of each exit ramp. The methodology and results from this
study are summarized in Table 7.
10
Center For Urban Transportation Research
Table 7 Summary of I-595 Vehicle Trip Length Study
Methodology
Study Objectives
Survey
questionnaires
Survey Sites
Selection Criteria
Survey Scheduling
Sample Size
Field Adjusted
Sample Size
Response Rate
Incentives
Cost per Survey
Roadside Handout Survey ( Return by mail or internet)
To help determine travel patterns and usage of I-595
To develop travel forecasts and develop transit and roadway
improvements from the analysis
Trip origin
Type of place of trip origin
Trip End
Type of place of trip end
Where did you enter I-595
Where did you exit I-595
Trip purpose
Number of people in vehicle
Type of vehicle used during trip
Number of vehicles available to household
Annual household income
Number of workers in household
Number of people in household
Would you use transit if it was in the form of buses in special
lanes, or in the form of trains?
Residency in South Florida
Space for additional comments
Seven locations along I-595
1. Davie Road
2. Pine Island Road
3. Nob Hill Road
4. Flaming Road
5. 136th Avenue
6. Hiatus Road
7. University Drive
At off ramps and major intersections approaching I-595
From 7:00 a.m. to 3:15 p.m. on March 4, 2003 through March 20,
2003. Respondents had one week to return their survey via regular
mail or by internet.
Questionnaires were distributed as much as possible between 6:30
a.m. and 6:45 p.m. with scheduled breaks between 9:30 and 11:00
a.m. and 2:00 to 3:30 p.m.
Survey forms were given to all willing drivers stopped at a traffic
signal
A plot study showed a response rate of 12.7%. Although the
majority of the respondents (88.0%) replied to the survey via
regular mail, the fact that 12 percent responded on-line is an
important consideration in future surveys.
No
N/A
11
Center For Urban Transportation Research
Study Findings
1. Several categories were compared to see if there was a bias
between the surveys that were returned through the mail and
those that were sent back through the Internet. The differences
were negligible for all categories with the exception of the
percent of those who would use a train.
2. The final question on the survey allowed respondents the
opportunity to provide comments on how transportation in
South Florida could be improved. Nearly 4,000 respondents
(over 50% of total responses) provided comments.
Comments
The long questionnaire may cause the low response rate for the
survey.
2.2 Review of Truck O-D Survey Methods
There is an increasing level of interest within the transportation planning community to have more
and better data about freight movements over the road network system. Historically, freight
planning efforts and the use of freight-related data have been accomplished by district offices to
address specific needs, but have not occurred in a comprehensive manner. FDOT recognizes the
needs for a data-supported, comprehensive approach to freight planning. The data for this type of
effort must come from various sources because no single freight data source provides all of the
information needed. The single, most needed element is accurate freight O-D data (6). This
information is a critical element in freight planning activities, but is available only at a more
aggregate level, rather than a specific level. Various freight data have been collected internally and
externally to FDOT. The in-house data collected includes the truck traffic volume, truck
percentage, and truck weight information. Other data in external sources include the Commodity
Flow Survey (CFS) produced by BTS, TRANSEARCH database, and data sources complied by
the Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR) housed at the University of Florida.
There has been much literature about truck travel survey methodologies, recently. Most past
studies on truck O-D surveys have been summarized in several reports and conference
proceedings, including Earlier Truck Travel Surveys by Lau (1995), Oregon DOT Special Project
Report 343 (2004), and Strategic Freight Transportation Analysis by Washington DOT.
2.2.1
Lau’s Earlier Truck Travel Surveys (1995)
In 1995, Samuel Lau (7) summarized the most comprehensive studies and an extensive literature
review related to truck travel surveys and truck travel demand forecasting conducted since 1970.
This report emphasized the need for accurate and reliable truck travel data to support any
comprehensive truck/freight planning. The study identified seven areas in which improved truck
travel data would provide great benefits. Table 8 presents these areas and how the data could be
used.
12
Center For Urban Transportation Research
Table 8 Benefits Derived from Obtaining Reliable Truck Data
AREA OF ANALYSIS
1. Truck Travel Model
Development
APPLICATION
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Truck trip generation
Origin and Destination analysis
Local and freeway route assignments
Congestion and speed simulations
Travel time analysis
Analyze impact of toll facilities
Spatial and temporal analysis (time-of-day,
day-of-week, and seasonal)
Evaluate route/corridor traffic management
proposal for freight impacts
Provide information on truck travel to
formulate traffic management plans during
roadway reconstructions
Assess impact of truck route reassignments
or closures
Estimate truck emissions
Facilitate seaport planning
Facilitate airport planning
Understand competition and demand of
different freight modes
Provide data to develop performance
measures for Intermodal Management
Systems as required under ISTEA
Evaluate and design road geometrics
Help calibrate pavement deterioration
models
Route restriction analysis
Dangerous goods movement regulation and
enforcement analyses
Truck driver safety programs
Open dialog with private freight industries
in gathering data
Provide truck travel data to public and
freight industry for research and analysis
Freight-economics analysis
•
2. Corridor/Route Analysis
•
•
3. Air Quality Modeling
4. Intermodal Freight Planning
•
•
•
•
•
5. Pavement Management System
6. Truck Traffic Regulation and
Enforcement
•
•
•
•
•
•
7. Public-Private Partnerships
•
•
Lau’s report made extensive comparisons of types of data collected and the uses of the truck
survey data collected in studies conducted in Chicago, Ontario, Vancouver, Phoenix, Alameda
13
Center For Urban Transportation Research
County (California), New York – New Jersey (Port Authority), El Paso (Texas), and Houston –
Galveston (Texas).
2.2.2
New York State DOT Conference (2002)
The conference “Data Needs in the Changing World of Logistics and Freight Transportation” (8)
was held in Saratoga Springs, New York, in November 2001. It was sponsored by the New York
State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) and other organizations with the objective of
providing “transportation officials with a broader understanding of data issues associated with the
changing focus of the global competitive markets and its implication on the existing transportation
infrastructure, trade corridors, and market areas.”
Although there was an implicit interest in discussing the conditions that prevail in the Northeast
transportation network, specifically the Montreal-Boston-New York-Washington corridor, the
discussions and conclusions reached have general implications. Most importantly, the conference
focused its deliberations on the issues surrounding freight data needs (8). Some of the specific
objectives of the conference were:
• Discuss new actions or strategies to obtain and enhance freight data and analysis
• Identify the data required to address various decision support needs
• Examine analytical and forecasting capabilities in freight transportation
• Identify strategies for improving freight data collection
One consensus point in the conference was that the intended use of the data should guide the data
collection effort, and that there are varying data needs among users as illustrated by Figure 2.1. No
single data set will satisfy all needs, but the overall objective should be to develop a data
architecture of compatible elements that work with each other, where the researchers, planners,
operators and policy makers can find the relevant information according to their specific interest.
Another critical issue that emerged from the conference was that there is a need to collect
additional local O-D data. In order to improve analysis and forecasting methods more disaggregate
data is needed and the cooperation of the shippers and carriers is essential. Ideally, the complete
logistics chain from producer to shipper to consumer should be modeled. It is envisioned that the
designer of data collection efforts should take advantage of existing and emerging technologies.
14
Center For Urban Transportation Research
Figure 1: Varying Data Needs among Users (8)
2.2.3
Oregon DOT Special Project Report 343 (2004)
A research project (9) was conducted to identify freight data attributes necessary for urban region
truck modeling and freight planning efforts, and to evaluate alternative data collection
methodologies to provide the necessary data attributes for the Oregon DOT.
This report presented a summary of the finding of Lau’s Truck Travel Surveys (7) with regard to
the survey method implemented and the data applications of eight studies as presented in Table 9.
The survey costs and response rate of each survey method used are summarized in Table 9. The
types of data collected in each of these studies in Lau’s report are summarized in Table 10.
Another report reviewed was the NCHRP Report 298 “Truck Trip Generation Data: A Synthesis of
Highway Practice” in particular with reference to techniques for truck trips data collection as
summarized in Table 11. Another study reviewed was the Strategic Freight Transportation
Analysis (SFTA) sponsored by the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT)
which is primarily focused on regional and statewide truck movements (10).
One of the findings of the literature review in this report (9) was that a combination of each data
collection methodology may be applicable when studying freight movement over a large
geographical area.
15
Center For Urban Transportation Research
Table 9 Summary of Truck Travel Surveys in Urban Areas (7)
Survey
Location
Chicago
Survey
Year
1986
Mailout-Mailback
Approx. No.
Completed Surveys
3,506
Response
Rate
25.30%
1988
Roadside Interview
19,225
96.50%
• Truck Travel Model Development
• Corridor/Route Analysis
• Effects of toll on trucks
• Truck Speed simulation model
• Truck activity mapping
• Time series comparison
• Evaluate & design road geometrics
• Pavement management planning
• Truck accident analysis
• Dangerous goods regulation and enforcement analysis
• Driver education program
Ontario
Phoenix
1991
720
30.00%
• Truck travel model development
N.Y. & N.J.
1991
Combined TelephoneMailout-Mailback
Roadside Interview
4,500
NA
Alameda
County, CA
1991
2,200
79.00%
Roadside Interview
over 8,000
NA
1992-94
Roadside Interview
14,671
37.8%3
El Paso
1994
Telephone Interview
188
42.60%
HoustonGalveston
1994
Combined TelephoneMailout-Mailback
900
Survey Method
Combined TelephoneMailout-Mailback &
Data Applications
• Evaluate dedicated route/corridor proposal
• Traffic management for highway reconstruction
• Time-series freight analysis
• Freight-economic analysis
• I-880 corridor analysis
Total Survey
Cost
$200,000
$/
Survey
$57
NA
NA
$90,0001
$125
NA
NA
NA
$285,0002
NA
• Create truck travel submodel for corridor analysis
• Generate 24-hour & PM peak volumes by axle
N.Y. & N.J.
NA
• Truck travel model development
• Part of regional travel study
• Truck emissions analysis
35%-40% • Truck travel model development
Source: Lau, Samuel W. “Truck Travel Surveys: A review of the Literature and State-of-the-Art. ” Metropolitan Transportation Commission, 1995.
1
Cost include data collection, data coding, and model development.
The cost included sample design, survey design, data collection, coding, data reporting, and model development. Approximately,
$5,000 was also included in the total cost for conduction vehicle classification counts at 11 locations along I-80 and I-880.
3
This was a sampling rate. No response rate was given.
4
This was a multi-agency effort, with partnership from the New Jersey Department of Transportation (NJDOT), the New York
Metropolitan Transportation Council (NYMTC), and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. The survey was conducted at
18 locations with 3 interviewers per toll plaza for 24 hours.
5
Cost included sample design, survey design, data collection, coding, reporting, survey analysis, and model development.
6
The higher cost was due to a high number of incomplete surveys.
2
16
$312,0004
$21
$65,0005
$3456
$150,000
$167
Center For Urban Transportation Research
Table 10 Summary of Data Collected from Truck Travel Surveys in Urban Areas (7)
Survey
Survey
Survey
Sample
Location
Year
Method
Source
Chicago
1986
Mailout-
DMV
Mailback
Ontario
Phoenix
1988
1991
Roadside
Roadside
Interview
Interview10
Combined
DMV
TelephoneMailout-
Weight
Truck
Axle
Type
√
O-D
Odometer
Reading
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
Commodity
Land
Driver
Route
Use
Info
Info
√
√
√
√
Mailback
N.Y. & N.J.
1991
Roadside
Toll Plaza
Interview
Alameda
1991
County, CA
Combined
DMV, Port
Telephone-
of Oakland
Mailout-
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
Mailback
&
Roadside
Roadside
Interview
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
Interview
N.Y. & N.J.
El Paso
1992-94
1994
Roadside
Roadside
Interview
Interview
Telephone
11
TVICs
Interview
HoustonGalveston
1994
Combined
√
√
DMV
TelephoneMailoutMailback
10
Sample taken at roadside intercept surveys.
11
Sample drawn from the Texas Vehicle Information and Computer Services, Inc (TVICS) database
17
√
√
Center For Urban Transportation Research
Table 11 Truck Trip Data Collection Approaches and Implementation Techniques (9)
Survey
Implementation
Approach
Technique
Manual Counts (direct
observation)
Automated or
Vehicle
Electronic Data
Classification
Collection (WIM, Loop
Counts
Detectors, etc.)
Video Surveillance
Advantages
Disadvantages
● May be more accurate than automated counters.
● High personnel requirement
● No traffic disruption.
● Potential for human error.
● Low risk to individual observers.
● No information regarding O-D, trip purpose, route, commodity, etc.
● No traffic disruption.
● Potential for equipment failure.
● Able to collect traffic counts at many sites,
● No information regarding O-D, trip purpose, route, commodity, etc.
efficiently with low labor requirement.
● Limited to location and availability of electronic transponders.
● No traffic disruption.
● High equipment cost requirement.
● Better information on type of commodity hauled
● Potential for equipment failure or recording during adverse weather.
compared with automated counters.
● No information regarding O-D, trip purpose, route, specific
● commodity, etc.
Roadside
Intercept
Roadside Interview
Surveys
Phone Survey
● Complete information, especially related to O-D,
● High labor requirement.
route, trip purpose, specific commodity, etc.
● Significant risk to survey personnel.
● High response rate
● Potential disruption of traffic.
● Good sampling control
● Limited locations where survey may be implemented.
● Ability to expand to total truck traffic population.
● Only captures truck traffic that passes through interview sites.
● Higher response rate when compared to mail
● Difficulty obtaining appropriate and correct phone numbers.
surveys.
● Can only call during regular business hours.
● Quick turnaround.
● Under-representation of out-of-state trucks in sampling frame.
● Inexpensive
● Low response.
Mailout-Mailback
● Difficulty ensuring appropriate individual complete survey.
Survey (owners,
● Requires access to vehicle registration list file (DMV or third party
operators, or receivers)
list)
Travel Diary
● Under-representation of out-of-state trucks in sampling frame.
Combination PhoneMailout-Mailback
● Improved response rate over mail only survey.
● Relatively low response.
● Better identification of appropriate survey
● Follow-up calls may be time-consuming and costly.
respondent.
● Requires access to vehicle registration list file (DMV or third party
Survey
list).
● Under-representation of out-of-state trucks in sampling frame.
Personal Interview
● Complete information
● High labor requirement.
● Expensive.
Source: Fischer, Michael J. and Han Myong. “Truck Trip Generation Data: A Synthesis of Highway Practice.” NCHRP Synthesis 298, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council,
Washington, D.C., 2001.
18
Center For Urban Transportation Research
Jessup et al (9) presents an analysis of data requirements for their study. In reviewing past studies,
authors came up with a classification of data attributes typically collected. Table 12 summarizes
these attributes. Other important information collected included the land use at origin and
destination. For vehicles carrying less than a complete truck load (LTL), land use at intermediate
stops is also of interest (10).
Table 12 Data Attributes Collected in the Past Studies (9)
Dimension of Data Attributes
Time
Trip
Vehicle
Attribute
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Coverage: 24 hours, peak hour
Travel time
Truck flow by time of day
Traffic composition (% trucks over time)
Trip frequency
Vehicle utilization (hours per day)
Number of trips on survey day
Speed profiles (by route, time of day)
Route
Distance
Purpose
Origin
Destination
Start and stop times
Odometer reading
Intermediate stops (trip chaining)
Location and magnitude of trip generators
Facility type
Type of truck pattern (E-E, E-I, I-E, I-I)
Business type
Type of vehicle (configuration)
Weight
Trailer dimensions
Fuel type
Driver characteristics
Driver and vehicle activity at each stop
A comparison has been made between the different methodologies implemented in the past in
terms of implementation challenges, investment and maintenance requirements, statistical
reliability, data attributes, and geographic coverage (9). The findings are summarized in Table 13.
19
Center For Urban Transportation Research
Table 13 Comparing and Contrasting Alternative Truck O-D Data Collection Methodologies (9)
Mail Survey
Advantages
Implementation
Disadvantages
Easy to implement.
Very difficult to obtain trip detail
No disruption of traffic, which is
for all shipment types that the
very important in urban settings.
shipper or trip generator may
possess.
Investment and Maintenance
Low investment requirement.
Must be replicated periodically to
Minimal personnel requirement.
maintain current relevance.
Statistical Reliability / Sampling
Generally good information for
Low response rate may create
Frame
those that respond.
biased data.
Survey design may include
Difficulty finding appropriate
targeted truck movement types or
person to complete survey, also
specific commodities.
contributing to bias or nonresponse.
Data Attributes
Very good data detail for
completed responses.
Geographic Coverage
Limited ability to clarify meaning
of specific questions.
Poor coverage of urban truck
movements from trucks licensed in
other states and areas.
Low response also limits coverage.
Telephone Survey
Advantages
Implementation
Investment and Maintenance
Easy to implement.
Disadvantages
Difficulty finding appropriate and
No disruption of traffic, which is
correct phone numbers.
very important in urban settings.
Can only call during business hours.
Quicker turnaround than mail.
20 to 30 minutes in length.
Low investment requirement.
Must be replicated periodically to
maintain current relevance.
Higher personnel requirement when
compared to mail.
Statistical Reliability / Sampling
Generally good information for
Low response rate may create biased
Frame
those that respond.
data.
Data Attributes
Survey design may include targeted
Difficulty finding appropriate person
truck movement types or specific
to complete survey, also contributing
commodities.
to bias or non-response.
Very good data detail for completed
None.
responses.
Geographic Coverage
Generally coverage is limited to
Poor coverage of urban truck
those vehicles licensed within the
movements from trucks licensed in
area.
other states and areas.
20
Center For Urban Transportation Research
Table 13 Comparing and Contrasting Alternative Truck O-D Data Collection Methodologies (9)
Combined Mail and Telephone Survey
Advantages
Implementation
Easy to implement.
Disadvantages
Difficulty finding appropriate and
No disruption of traffic, which is
correct phone numbers.
very important in urban settings.
Can only call during business hours.
Quicker turnaround than mail.
Follow-up calls may be timeconsuming and costly.
Investment and Maintenance
Moderate investment requirement in
Must be replicated periodically to
personnel.
maintain current relevance.
Higher personnel requirement when
compared to mail.
Statistical Reliability / Sampling
Generally good information for
Difficulty finding appropriate person
Frame
those that respond.
to complete survey, also contributing
Survey design may include targeted
to bias or non-response.
truck movement types or specific
commodities.
Data Attributes
Improved ability to explain
None.
questions and clarify intent, leading
to better data detail.
Geographic Coverage
Generally coverage is limited to
Poor coverage of urban truck
those vehicles licensed within the
movements from trucks licensed in
area.
other states and areas.
Roadside Interview
Advantages
Implementation
Relatively easy to implement.
2 to 6 minute interview.
Disadvantages
Relatively high labor requirement,
especially for large geographic areas.
Potential disruption of traffic.
Significant risk to survey personnel.
Investment and Maintenance
If managed properly, investment
Must be replicated periodically to
costs are relatively low.
maintain current relevance.
Higher personnel requirement than
phone and mail.
Statistical Reliability / Sampling
Best statistical contrrol since sample
Limited location where survey may
Frame
is from known traffic population,
be implemented may bias sampling.
over a known time period.
Highest response rate.
Data Attributes
Excellent ability to obtain all desired
None.
data and information, given one-onone contact with driver.
Complete information on O-D, route,
trip purpose, commodity, etc.
Geographic Coverage
Does provide coverage of truck
Only captures truck traffic that passes
activity other than at survey locations
through interview sites.
but truck must first pass through
survey site.
Includes vehicles passing through
from outside geographical area.
21
Center For Urban Transportation Research
Table 13 Comparing and Contrasting Alternative Truck O-D Data Collection Methodologies (9)
Video Surveillance
Advantages
Implementation
No disruption of traffic.
technical difficulties.
Disadvantages
Potential for equipment failure or
Weather and time of day/night
impact visibility and data collection.
Investment and Maintenance
High equipment cost and
requirements.
Relatively high maintenance and
replacement cost for video
equipment.
Statistical Reliability / Sampling
Captures all trucks passing a video
Frame
site, during all (visible) time periods.
Data Attributes
Provides general descriptive
information on traffic flows.
Provides limited information.
No information regarding O-D, trip
purpose, freight/goods type carried,
route, etc.
Geographic Coverage
Limited to locations with video
capability within and around urban
area.
GPS Receiver
Advantages
Implementation
No disruption of traffic.
Disadvantages
Requires private shipper
participation.
Investment and Maintenance
Very high equipment investment
cost.
Equipment malfunction and technical
difficulties common.
Statistical Reliability / Sampling
Limited to sample of vehicles
Frame
participating in study.
Very limited sample of all freight
movements in urban setting.
Data Attributes
Very limited information regarding
trip purpose, commodity hauled and
trip chaining.
Geographic Coverage
Limited to sample size.
As part of this study, there was a pilot test of two selected methodologies: roadside interviews and
mail out/fax survey. One pilot study tested a roadside intercept survey method at three different
locations, including an interstate highway weigh station, a Port of Portland marine terminal, and a
private freight warehouse/distribution center. The other pilot study tested a combination of mail
and fax survey methods. The performance of these five techniques was evaluated in their ability to
22
Center For Urban Transportation Research
deliver the data attributes considered most relevant for the needs of ODOT in their planning and
modeling efforts. The results are summarized in Table 14.
Table 14 Performance of Data Collection Methods as Related to Data Needs (9)
Roadside Interviews
Planning/Modeling
Data Attributes
O & D Detail
Route Identification
Land Use at Stops
Commodity, Weight,
Vehicle Type/Config.
Mail/Fax Surveys
Warehouse/Distribution
Interstate
Port
Mail
Fax
Acceptable
Very Good
Excellent
Excellent
Very Good
Incomplete
Incomplete
Excellent
Incomplete
Incomplete
Limited
Limited
Limited
Acceptable
Acceptable
Very Good
Very Good
Very Good
Acceptable
Acceptable
Limited
Limited
Limited
Incomplete
Incomplete
Excellent
Excellent
Excellent
Excellent
Excellent
Center
Location of Stops,
Location of Trip
Generators, Time of Day
Volume of Shipments
2.2.3. Strategic Freight Transportation Analysis (Washington State University), 2004
Washington State University conducted the Strategic Freight Transportation Analysis project
which follows on the success of the Eastern Washington Intermodal Transportation Study
(EWITS) both of which are geared towards facilitating the transportation planning efforts at the
state and regional level and to forecast the future needs of freight and passenger services (10, 11).
One of the particular challenges identified in both the SFTA and the EWITS studies is to obtain
comprehensive information on freight truck movements and in response they have implemented
the 1993 O-D truck survey using roadside interview and the more recent, and similar, 2002/2003
statewide O-D data collection effort summarized in Table 15.
Table 15 Summary of Survey Method for Truck O-D (11)
Methodology:
Study Objective:
Survey
questionnaires:
Roadside interview
To provide statistically reliable information on truck
characteristics and commodity flows for all major Washington
highways
To provide useful freight and goods movement information for
major transportation planning sub regions as well as the State as a
whole
Data collection period should be a continuous 24-hour period in
each of the four seasons of the year
Truck configuration
Trailer type
Number of axles
Authorization for transport of hazmat
Carrier name and location (city, state)
Vehicle weight
Empty/Loaded
23
Center For Urban Transportation Research
Survey Sites
Selection Criteria
Survey Scheduling
Sample Size
Field Adjusted
Sample Size
Incentives
Response rate
Cost per survey
Study findings:
Main type of commodity
Trip Origin
Trip Destination
Route selected
A total of 27 sites
Maintaining consistency with previous project 1993/1994 O-D
Study (EWITS: Eastern Washington Inter-modal Transportation
Study). Most locations were permanent weight stations and ports
of entry.
4-week period for each season: April 2002, July 2002, October
2002, and January 2003: 7 sites each week for three weeks and 6
sites during the fourth week.
Data collection hours (ideally 24 continuous) were restricted to
operational hours of weight stations.
Survey was conducted on Wednesdays of each week to avoid
unusual traffic flow patterns.
Goal to maximize the number of trucks surveyed
Previous study (1993/1994) goal was 10% of trucks traveling I-5,
20% on all major corridors and 50% of trucks at sites with the
lowest truck traffic volume.
60 to 80% of the trucks at sites where weight stations had lower
volumes during operating hours.
5 to 20% of total trucks at sites with higher volume. Lowest
percentages were seen at sites with high volume of truck traffic
and with trucks using bypass established procedures.
An estimated total of 24000 trucks were stopped for interviews
during 4-month period.
A coupon for a free cup of coffee as a token of thanks for their
participation.
An extra incentive for service clubs to perform quality work.
95 percent of truck drivers requested to complete an interview
agreed to participate.
N/A
1. Field questionnaires had to be modified to improve quality of
data and to have it completed in approximately 3 minutes.
2. Community service clubs can be a viable labor force for
conducting personal interview of truck drivers.
3. Involvement of uniformed enforcement officers is a critical
factor in obtaining cooperation and participation from truck
drivers requested to complete interviews.
4. Site setup and the use of systemic sampling techniques are
important factors to maintain traffic flows and promote
cooperation at the interview sites.
5. Establishing on going procedures for evaluation and
modification of procedures is important to quality data
collection.
24
Center For Urban Transportation Research
Comments
More detailed info on O-D locations might be necessary depending
on spatial resolution of analysis zones
2.3 Other Issues
2.3.1
Use of Cell Phone Technology for O-D Study
A study (12) by Delcan.Net for the Maryland Department of Transportation in the Baltimore area
used anonymous data from cell phone to estimate speeds and travel times on expressways and
arterial roads. The technology uses a statistical base to infer phone (& vehicle) movements as cell
phones transition from one cell tower to another cell tower. The phones must be on, although not
in use. The partnership states that the data from cell phones movements can also generate origindestination data needed for support of planning models. However, this technology has not been
used for any O-D study. More detailed information can be found at the website: www.delcan.com.
A study (13) by the Center for Urban Transportation Research at University of South Florida used
PDA/GPS combos and GPS-enabled cell phones to recorded O-D data, including path of travel
(GPS point recorded every 4 seconds with avg. accuracy around 2-3 meters). Each point also
included a timestamp, speed, and heading value. In Phase 1 of this project, a user interface was
developed for the PDA that prompted the user to input their mode of transportation, purpose for
trip, and occupancy of vehicle if relevant. The PDA acts as a “smart” diary that attempts to “prefill” fields for the user, in an attempt to reduce user fatigue (i.e. if the user has visited and labeled
their destination previously, the PDA “knows” where they are and the user doesn’t have input that
they are at “Work”. Speed is also used to guess mode of transportation). The user still verifies the
values in real-time, so the quality of the data should be maintained and should be more accurate
than standard retrospective surveys. All inputs are screened by the PDA to make sure they are
valid entries as well. All data is automatically dumped from PDA to server database via a wireless
“sync” (eliminating data cleansing & processing time), so it is in a completely relational format
ready for query and analysis using standard SQL commands. We also created some “smart”
algorithms that attempt to determine the mode of transportation based on the GPS data, in hopes of
eliminating needed user input for this info in the future. This technique was used to collect
individual travel behavior, not for a large area O-D survey.
2.3.2
Incentives to Improve the Rates of Return
Incentives have been used to increase the response rates. Previous experience and literature have
indicated the significance of including incentives in travel survey. A study by M.A. Abdel-Aty (14,
15) used U.S. saving bonds as an incentive to increase the response rate. Respondents had the
option to be included in a random drawing for 10 bonds worth $100 each. Although there is no
definite way to know how the incentive affected the response rate, it is important to note that more
than 99 percent of respondents participated. This shows an interest in the incentive, which leads
one to believe that the incentive had a positive effect on the response rate.
Many researchers (16) have examined the effect of providing a variety of nonmonetary incentives
to subjects. These include token gifts such as small packages of coffee, ball-point pens, postage
stamps, key rings, trading stamps, participation in a raffle or lottery, or a donation to a charity in
the respondent's name. Generally (although not consistently), nonmonetary incentives have
25
Center For Urban Transportation Research
resulted in an increased response. A meta-analysis of 38 studies that used some form of an
incentive revealed that monetary and nonmonetary incentives were effective only when enclosed
with the survey. The promise of an incentive for a returned questionnaire was not effective in
increasing response. The average increase in response rate for monetary and nonmonetary
incentives was 19.1 percent and 7.9 percent, respectively.
Most researchers have found that higher monetary incentives generally work better than smaller
ones. One researcher proposed a diminishing return model, where increasing the amount of the
incentive would have a decreasing effect on response rate. A meta-analysis of fifteen studies
showed that an incentive of 25¢ increased the response rate by an average of 16 percent, and $1
increased the response by 31 percent.
A study by Tooley M. (17) compared four different incentive methods and how each of them affect
the rate of returns of a household travel survey. These four incentive methods are: 1) Monetary
preincentives: monetary incentives included with mailouts; 2) Nonmonetary preincentives:
nonmonetary incentives included with mailout; 3) Monetary postincentives: monetary incentives
given upon return of the survey, and 4) Nonmonetary postincentives: nonmonetary incentives
given upon return of the survey. It was found that general survey literature supports the use of
monetary and nonmonetary preincentives, but is not supportive of the use of monetary or
nonmonetary postincentives. The study concluded that cash or other incentives, especially those
offered with the survey packet, have a positive effect on rates of return.
2.4 Summary
The key points and findings of the literature review are summarized as the followings:
1. The license plate survey method has been used for two O-D surveys for passenger
transportation in Florida, recently. These two studies showed this survey method is
applicable for auto O-D survey with a response rate of over thirty percent. The advantage
of this approach is no disruption of normal traffic flow, and is safer than roadside interview
and postcard survey. The disadvantage of this method is the potential issue with respect to
privacy of the vehicle owner. However, both studies included detailed information and
techniques that addressed how the drivers’ privacy has been protected.
2. The postcard survey was used for a corridor O-D study. The study on I-595 showed a fairly
low response rate using this method. This method has little impact on the normal traffic
because the postcards were distributed at the signalized intersection when vehicles were
stopped at the red light.
3. Roadside intercept surveys have been suggested not to be applied on the high-volume state
highways. However, it was found that this method is still very effective to collect truck OD information at weight stations or rest areas.
4. The website has been used as an alternative to mail for respondents to return their survey
results. The survey results from the web were found to be more accurate with less data
input efforts.
5. One study concluded that cash or other incentives, especially those offered with the survey
packet, have a positive effect on rates of return.
6. Cell phone and GPS-enabled cell phones technology have the potential to generate origindestination data needed for support of planning models.
26
Center For Urban Transportation Research
3 O-D DATA COLLECTION METHODOLOGY
The most important measure for a successful survey is a level of participation that is maximally
high, with answers that are maximally reliable (18). Therefore, how to obtain the willing, reliable
assistance of as many respondents as possible is the key to a success survey. There are a number of
things that can be done to make the survey more “respondent friendly”:
ƒ
Directly contact with respondents to see how they view such matters (asking the
respondents how FDOT can improve the transportation in their areas at the end of O-D
survey would have some pleasant side effects)
ƒ
Design the questionnaires in a type size that people can read, a clear layout, and
understandable questions. The sample forms for passenger transportation O-D survey, truck
roadside interview, warehouse and distribution center mail/fax survey are contained in
Appendix A, B, and C respectively.
ƒ
Keep the questionnaire as short as possible, normally it should take less than 1 minute for a
passenger car O-D survey, and less than 3 minutes for a truck O-D survey.
In addition, the selection of a proper survey method is the key to a success for survey. Based on the
literature review, O-D data collection methodologies include:
ƒ
License Plate Mail-out Surveys
ƒ
Roadside Interview
ƒ
Mail-back Postcard Surveys
ƒ
Internet Surveys
ƒ
Phone Surveys
ƒ
Cell Phone, and GPS Receiver
The advantage and disadvantages of each of above O-D survey methods are summarized in this
chapter. Some special concerns raised at the kick-off meeting will also be addressed. Two separate
methods will be recommended for the passenger car and truck trip O-D survey, respectively.
3.1 License Plate Mail-out Surveys
The license plate mail-out surveys involves recording license plate numbers of vehicles on a
selected roadway, tracing vehicle ownership, and mailing a survey to owners. There are two
different methods to obtain the license plate number: taking a photo/video or manually recording
the tag on vehicles. Photo or video are often used for high volume highways and the manual
recording method can be used for low and medium volume roadways. This method has no
disruption to normal traffic flow because it does not require vehicles to be stopped to receive the
survey. The disadvantages of this technique are that the amount of work involved in tracing their
ownership is huge because of the large number of out-of-state vehicles expected to be traveling
27
Center For Urban Transportation Research
into Florida, and the accuracy of the data is expected to be lower than that of the roadside postcard
survey because the surveys are mailed at a later date.
In addition, this approach is sometimes perceived to be a potential issue with respect to privacy of
the vehicle owner. The recent O-D survey by Gennett Fleming applied this method to conduct a
Cordon Line Travel Survey for FDOT District 7. In this survey, a 1-800 number was set up to
explain the survey to the respondents. Another recent study included detailed information and
techniques that addressed how the drivers’ privacy has been protected. The survey form, and cover
letter, and Q&A for this study are contained in Appendix A. both studies had a good response rate
of over thirty percent.
Based on the experiences from the most recent survey for FDOT, the DHSMV had updated their
process, allowing individuals to request restrictions on access to their records (in response to the
new privacy laws). However, only a very small percentage of individuals have chosen to do so.
The cost for looking up the addresses corresponding to the plates is $39 per plate for the public
from the DHSMV website. However, the cost for a DHSMV record request placed by
governmental agency (e.g., FDOT) was very low (approximately $0.01 per plate).
There have been quite a few O-D surveys using license plates by the California DOT. The
response rate, cost, and sample size information (19) are included in Table 16
Table 16 License Plate Travel Surveys Conducted in California from 1990 to 1997
Conducted By
Methodology
Division of Rail
Amtrak & KPMG
(1992)
Medocino County &
DKS (1990)
Caltrans, District 4 &
Systan Inc. (1994)
License Plate Videotaped;
Mail-out / Mail-back
Postcard
License Plate; Mail-out /
Mail-back Questionnaire
License Plate; Mail-out /
Mail-back
License Plate Videotaped ;
Mail-out / Mail-back
Postcard
Caltrans, AMBAG and
Three Counties (1994)
Response
Rate
30%
28%
22%
Sample
Size
15,100
5,800
7,300
Cost per
survey
$16
$75,000 per
site
27%
588
N/A
N/A
30%
18,000
N/A
$150,000
15%
44,500
N/A
N/A
Total Cost
Saint Luis Obispo
Council of Govs,
District 5
License Plate Videotaped ;
Mail-out / Mail-back
Postcard
43.4%
2,137
N/A
N/A
Saint Luis Obispo
Council of Govs,
District 5
License Plate; Mail-out /
Mail-back
12.7%
1,400
N/A
N/A
Caltrans, District 7 and
CTS
License Plate; Mail-out /
Mail-back Postcard
11.7%
12.5%
1,721
4024
N/A
$60,000
Caltrans, District 8 and
SBAG
Caltrans, District 12
and Orange County
License Plate; Mail-out /
Mail-back Postcard
License Plate Videotaped ;
Mail-out / Mail-back
22%
24%
21,000
23,000
N/A
N/A
$7,000
$10,000
11%
7,450
$9,13
$68,700
28
Center For Urban Transportation Research
Postcard
Santa Barbara County
Assn. Of Gov.
License Plate; Mail-out /
Mail-back
24%
3361
N/A
N/A
3.2 Roadside Interview
Roadside interview involves directing vehicles into a designated interview area and asking a series
of short questions. This technique has been widely used for both truck and auto trip data collection
because it has a very high response rate, good sampling control, broad geographic coverage, and
normally result in complete information. The disadvantage of this method is that it generally
requires more personnel and traffic control at survey sites. Sometimes, it may be difficult to
implement due to traffic disruption, especially in urban areas.
This type of survey has not been used in the most recent cordon station surveys and screenline
surveys in the state of Florida due to increasing concerns about disruption of traffic, "road rage",
higher speed limits, and the general declining response to surveys. However, there has not yet
emerged a satisfactory replacement for this survey, especially to obtain truck O-D data.
There are many advantages to collecting data on truck and freight movements via roadside
interviews. The survey sites are often selected at the rest areas, weigh stations, truck stops, or
warehouse centers where there is no disruption to the normal traffic flow.
A map of weight stations, rest areas, state roads, and Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZ) was developed
for identifying the potential survey sites, as seen in Appendix F.
3.3 Mail-back Postcard Surveys
Mail-back postcard surveys are often used when traffic volume is high. Compared to the roadside
interview, postcard surveys have less impact on traffic. Postcards with a brief questionnaire can be
distributed to motorists either at rest areas on the interstates or at signalized intersections or gas
stations where they normally stop. The advantages of this technique are that postcards can be
distributed quickly and with fewer personnel than are required for interviews. The disadvantage is
that a higher number of vehicles must be sampled to obtain an adequate number of completed
surveys because of the lower response rate of less than 30 percent. A recent O-D survey on I-595
showed a response rate of approximately twelve percent of this method. Postcard surveys are often
used for O-D survey along a corridor, interstate road, or a toll road. The postcards are usually
distributed at toll booths, on/off ramp signalized intersections, rest areas, gas stations, and other
“natural stops” areas where there is no disruption to normal traffic flow. The respondents can
return the survey by prepaid mail or through the internet. The past studies indicated an increasing
amount of respondents like to return the survey through the internet.
29
Center For Urban Transportation Research
3.4 Online Surveys
Web-based survey, in comparison to telephone and mail surveys, provide valuable information less
expensively, more quickly and often result in a significantly higher response rate. The web-based
surveys are considerably less expensive to conduct than traditional mail and telephone surveys
because they do not include costs for design, printing, postage, telephone, call personnel or data
entry. When comparing to traditional survey technologies using mail or telephone, Internet surveys
provide the ideal solution for information gathering because of their fast turnaround.
Prior study has demonstrated the online survey could be a promising future approach for collecting
travel data. The advantages of a web-based survey are that responses completed on the Internet
have a lower percentage of survey responses missing data because of automatically validation
before submission. Internet respondents also tended to complete their surveys more often than mail
back surveys. A sample of online O-D survey form is contained in Appendix D.
A response rate of online surveys could be very high if a proper incentive was applied. Past studies
showed that an incentive had a positive effect on the response rate. The money saved for data input
and validation could be used as an incentive to boost the response rate of an online survey. A
coupon or a gift certificate could be a good incentive for those respondents who return the survey
through the Internet.
3.5 Phone Surveys
Telephone surveys typically have a higher response rate than mail-back, and lower response rate
than roadside interviews. This method has no disruption to traffic flow and no risk for survey
personnel. However, it involves a great effort of identifying the appropriate contact person and
phone number. This method is often used for household travel surveys, and seldom used to do an
O-D survey. The household telephone O-D travel surveys conducted in California (18) are
summarized in Table 17. It showed that the response rate is approximately 35-49 percent, and the
cost per usable survey is very high.
Table 17 Household Telephone Origin Destination Travel Surveys Conducted in California from
1990 to 1997
Conducted By
Methodology
Response
Rate
Sample
Size
Cost per
Survey
Total Cost
MTC
Household telephone
interviews; mail-out/
phone retrieval
49%
9400
$84
$1,000,000
Caltrans Office of
Travel Forecasting and
Analysis and Maritz
Marketing Research
Inc.
Household Telephone;
CATI; Travel Diary
50%
precontact
69% of agreed
precontact
13,500
weekday
900
weekend
$104
$1,494,000
SCAG
Household telephone
interviews; activity diary
50%
precontact
69% of agreed
precontact
16,000
$94
$1,500,000
30
Center For Urban Transportation Research
3.6 Cell Phone, and Global Positioning System (GPS) Receiver
Cell phone tracking technology currently and presumably can only provide the data on phone (the
owners) movements as cell phones transition from one cell tower to another cell tower. The phones
must be on, although not in use. The data from cell phone movements can possibly generate
origin-destination data needed for support of planning models. However, to date, this technology
has not been used for an O-D study. Widespread utilization of GPS receivers for O-D data
collection is currently cost prohibitive, especially for large rural and urban areas.
3.7 Recommended Automobile O-D Survey Methodology
Based on the discussion at the kick-off meeting with the FDOT, some criteria for selecting an
appropriate O-D survey methodology were determined, including:
ƒ Will not disrupt the traffic
ƒ Good response rate
ƒ Statistical reliability
ƒ Collect the essential data attributes
ƒ Cost effectiveness
ƒ Geographic coverage
Table 18 listed the available methodologies and their cons and pros at each category. Based on
analysis of results and comparison of different methods, the research team proposed that a license
plate survey be the method for collecting O-D data for passenger transportation. Since this method
can only capture the trips of in-state vehicles, an additional postcard survey method at the rest
areas or off-ramp intersections was recommended to be used to catch those out-of-state vehicles to
minimize the data bias.
3.8 Recommended Truck O-D Survey Methodology
The O-D survey methodology for trucks is limited to roadside interview, and combination of
phone and mail/fax survey. The first statewide truck O-D survey used the roadside interview for
the Washington DOT. The recent report SPR 343 “Truck Trip Data Collection Methods”
summarized the truck data collection methods and recommended two different methods for interregional truck and intra-regional truck movements. The recommendation in this report is consistent
with the research results in the report SPR 343.
3.8.1
Inter-Regional Movements
The inter-regional movements refers to flows into and out of the area of interest, including
external-to-external, internal-to-external, and external-to-external. These types of trip movements
can be captured on the major highways, such as I-75, I-4, I-10, and so on. The rest areas,
agriculture inspection stations or weigh stations are often the sites to conduct roadside interviews
of truck drivers. The statewide traffic analysis zone (TAZ) map, major state highway, and
locations of rest areas and weigh stations are developed and contained in Appendix F. The research
team recommended that this type of truck O-D data be collected by use of roadside intercept
interviews.
31
Center For Urban Transportation Research
3.8.2
Intra-Regional Movements
Intra-regional movements refer to distribution and assembly activities within the city/region. This
type of truck traffic flow may not be able to be captured at rest areas or weight station on the major
highways. Therefore, a combination of mail/fax out and mail/fax/internet back to the distribution
centers or warehouses was recommended to collect the O-D data for intra-regional movements. A
sample form of warehouse and distribution center mail/fax/online survey is contained in Appendix
C. A listing of contact information of warehouse and distribution center in Florida is contained in
Appendix E.
4 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The objective of this research is to develop a revised methodology for collection of valid O-D data
that does not involve interruption of traffic flow. The traditional roadside intercept interview seems
no longer safe to collect automotive O-D data on major highways with high traffic volumes. The
literature review results showed the license plate survey method has been successfully used for
external surveys in several FDOT Districts. The potential drivers’ privacy issues has been
addressed very well by either setting up a 1-800 number or sending a cover letter and frequently
asked questions and answers. The drivers’ address can be obtained from DMV and the cost for a
DMV records request placed by governmental agency (e.g., FDOT) was very low. For passenger
transportation, a license plate mail out-mail back/internet was recommended for external surveys.
The internet was recommended to be an additional option for the respondents to return the survey.
Since only in-state vehicle owners’ mail address can be collected through DMV, to minimize the
data bias, an additional postcard survey at the rest areas or off-ramp intersections was
recommended to be used to collect O-D data for those out-of-state vehicles.
For freight movements, a combination of fax, mail and internet survey of warehouse and
distribution centers was recommended for intra-regional trips, and a roadside interview was
recommended for inter-regional travel. A map of weigh stations, rest areas, state roads, and Traffic
Analysis Zones (TAZ) was developed for identifying the potential survey sites. A list of contact
information of warehouse and distribution centers in Florida was developed in this study.
Previous studies indicate that a proper incentive will have a positive impact on the rate of return.
The web-based survey can provide very high accuracy data and can significantly reduce the work
load of data input.
32
Center For Urban Transportation Research
Table 18 Comparison of Survey Methodologies
Methodology
Disrupt the traffic
or respondents
Response Rate
Cost Effectiveness
Statistical
Reliability
Data Attributes
Geographic Coverage
License Plate
Mail-out
Surveys
Might distract
traffic
Moderate response
rate, higher than
mail-back surveys
32% - 33% *
Moderate to low
investment for
equipment and
personnel
Low response
rate may create
biased data
Very good data from
completed, very
useful O-D surveys
Covers the vehicles only
registered in
implemented state
Roadside
Interview
Disruption of
traffic, safety
concerns
High Response Rate
38% - 96% *
Higher personnel
requires higher
investment
Best statistical
control
Best for O-D surveys,
detailed data can be
obtained
Covers the vehicles
passing through
geographical area
Mail-back
Postcard
Surveys
May disrupt traffic
at intersections &
other locations
Low response rate
13% - 25% *
Low investment
Low response
rate may create
biased data
Very good data from
completed
Covers the vehicles
passing through
geographical area
Phone Surveys
Disrupting people
during business
hours
Higher investment
than mail surveys
Low response
rate may create
biased data
Detailed data can be
obtained with good
explanation of survey
No geographic limitation
as long as respondents are
informed about the survey
Mail-back &
Telephone
Combined
Disrupting people
during business
hours
Moderate Investment
Low response
rate may create
biased data
Detailed data can be
obtained with good
explanation of survey
No geographic limitation
as long as respondents are
informed about the survey
Internet
Surveys
No disruption of
traffic or
respondents
Low response rate,
depends on internet
availability
Lowest Investment
No control
over
respondents
Detailed data can be
obtained from
completed surveys
No geographic limitation
as long as respondents are
informed about the survey
GPS Receiver
No disruption of
traffic or
respondents
Data is obtained from
equipment
New technology very
high investment
Limited to
sample size
Descriptive
information of traffic
flows
Limited to sample size
Cell Phone
No disruption of
traffic or
respondents
Data is obtained from
equipment
Low investment data
can be acquired from
service providers
More than one
cell phone user
in a vehicle
might bias the
data
Descriptive
information of traffic
flows
Limited to respondents
with cell phones on and
geographic coverage of
service provider
Higher response rates
than the mail-back
surveys
43% *
Higher response rates
than the mail-back
surveys
30% - 40% *
*Rates are based on the literature reviewed in this report.
33
Center For Urban Transportation Research
REFERENCES
1.
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. Travel Survey Manual. Prepared for the U.S. Department of
Transportation and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, D.C. July 1996.
2.
Crevo C., Niedowski R. and D. Scott. Design and Conduct of a Statewide Household Travel
Survey in Vermont. Transportation Research Record 1477, Transportation Research Board,
National Research Council, Washington DC, 1995, pp 26-30.
3.
Gannet Fleming. Tampa Bay Regional Transportation Analysis and Model Validation Study:
Cordon Line Travel Survey. Draft Report prepared for the Florida Department of
Transportation, District 7. January 2004.
4.
Resource Systems Group, Inc.(RSG), Citrus County Cordon Survey, Final Report prepared
for the Florida’s Turnpike Enterprise.
5.
Corradino Group (The). I-595 Vehicle Trip Length Study Survey Results. Report prepared
for Florida Department of Transportation, District 4. August 2003.
6.
Golden, J. “Florida Department of Transportation Perspective”. Freight Data for State
Transportation Agencies: A Peer Exchange, Transportation Research Circular E-C080.
Transportation Research Board. Washington DC, November 2005, pp 22-26.
7.
Lau S. Truck Travel Surveys: A Review of the Literature and State-of-the-Art. Report
prepared for the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). Oakland, California.
January 2005.
8.
Meyburg A. and J. Mbwana, “Data Needs in the Changing World of Logistics and Freight
Transportation”. Conference Synthesis. Transportation Infrastructure Research Consortium.
Cornell University. New York, January 2002.
9.
Jessup E., Casavant K., and C. Lawson. Truck Trip Data Collection Methods. Final Report,
SPR 343 FHWA-OR-RD-04-10. February, 2004.
10.
Clark M., Jessup E. and K. Casavant. Freight Truck Origin and Destination Study: Methods,
Procedures and Data Dictionary. Strategic Freight Transportation Analysis (SFTA) Research
Report #2. Washington State University, December 2002.
11.
Casavant K., Gillis W., Blankenship D. and C. Howard. Survey Methodology for Collecting
Freight Truck and Destination Data. Transportation Research Record 1477, Transportation
Research Board, National Research Council, Washington DC, 1995, pp 7-14.
12.
www.delcan.com
13.
National Center for Transit Research at the Center for Urban Transportation Research at the
University of South Florida, Final Report: Traveling Smart: Increasing Transit Ridership
Through Automated Collection of Individual Travel Behavior Data and Personalized
Feedback, for the Florida Department of Transportation Reseach, August, 2005.
34
Center For Urban Transportation Research
14.
Abdel-Aty M., Hybrid Distribution and Response Techniques for an Origin-Destination
Travel Survey, ITE Journal, pp 22-27, February 2003.
15.
Abdel-Aty M. and Abdelwahab H., Toll Road Origin-Destination Travel Survey: Internet and
Mail-Back Response Analysis and Implications for Future Surveys. Transportation Research
Record 1768, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington DC,
2000, pp 61-70.
16.
http://www.statpac.com/surveys/incentives.htm
17.
Tooley M. Incentives and Rates of Return for Travel Surveys. Transportation Research
Record 1551, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington DC,
1996, pp 67-73.
18.
BrÖg, Werner, Keynote Paper: Raising the Standard! Transport Survey Quality and
Innovation, Proceeding of an International Conference on Transport Survey Quality and
Innovation, Grainau, Germany, March 24-30, 1997
19.
California Department of Transportation. An update survey of travel surveys conducted in
California since 1990, Transportation System Information Program, Office of Travel
Forecasting and Analysis. January 1997
35
Center For Urban Transportation Research
APPENDIX A: O-D SURVEY FORM FOR PASSENGER CAR
36
Center For Urban Transportation Research
Figure A-1 Tampa Bay Cordon Line Travel Survey Form
37
Center For Urban Transportation Research
Figure A-2 FDOT Survey Form Used in I-595 Vehicle Trip Length Study
38
Center For Urban Transportation Research
Figure A-2 Continued
39
Center For Urban Transportation Research
Figure A-3 California Department of Transportation Travel Survey Form
PLEASE DETACH AND MAIL THIS POSTAGE PAID CARD TODAY. THANK YOU.
Caltrans Travel Survey
(October 19, 1994)
Estbound Highway 152 Near San Luis Reservoir
1.
I was driving FROM: (Please check one only)
a
b
c
2.
Home
Work Place
Work Related
d
e
f
Shopping
Social
Recreation
g
h
3.
How often do typically make this trip?
a
b
c
9.
(Please print)
:
AM/PM (Please circle one)
Home
Work Place
Work Related
d
e
f
Shopping
Social
Recreation
d
e
2 - 6 per year
1 times or less per year
Including yourself how many people live in your household?
people (Please fill in)
Do you live in a:
11.
How many vehicles are owned or are avaliable for use by
members of your household?
vehicles (Please fill in)
12.
g
h
School
Other
a
b
Single dwelling unit ( house)
Other than single dwellin unit
a
b
c
13.
(Please print)
The time I arrived at the location in Question 5 was
:
(hour)
Which range best describes your household's total annual
income: (Please check only one box)
I was driving TO is located at:
Address OR major cross streets OR prominent place:
City/Town:
6.
4 or more times per week
1 - 3 times per week
1 - 3 times per month
10.
(min)
I was driving TO: (Please check one only)
a
b
c
5.
8.
The time I was driving from the above location was:
(hour)
4.
Including the driver, how many people were in this vehicle?
people (Please fill in)
School
Other
The place I was driving FROM is located at:
Address OR major cross streets OR prominent place:
City/Town:
7.
AM/PM (Please circle one)
(min)
40
Less than $10,000
$10,000 - $19,999
$20,000 - $34,999
Comments abd suggestions:
d
e
f
$35,000 - $49,999
$50,000 - 74,999
$75,000 and over
Center For Urban Transportation Research
Figure A-4 WSU/WSDOT Canadian Border Southbound Passenger Car Survey Form
41
Center For Urban Transportation Research
Figure A-5 City of Menasha O-D Survey Form
42
Center For Urban Transportation Research
Figure A-6 Atlanta Regional Commission External Travel O-D Survey
ATLANTA REGIONAL COMMISSION
External Travel Origin - Destination Survey
Please answer the questions below about the trip you were making when you were handed
this card, and drop it into any U.S. mailbox as soon as possible. NO POSTAGE is required.
Please fill out this card even if you have received others. Your assistance will help identify the
transportation need in the Atlanta Metropolitan area. Fully completed questionaires
received within two week will be entered in a drawing for a cash prize of $100. Please fill in
your return address on the reverse side if you wish to be entered in the drawing.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
1.
Where did you start this trip? (Be Specific)
Street Address, Nearest Intersection or other Specific Description
2.
Is the location in Question #1: (Check One)
Your Workplace
Other Workplace
Driver's Home
Other's Home
3.
4.
Shopping
Social/Recreation
School
Other: (specify)
What time did you leave the
location I Question #1?
A.M. P.M.
What is the purpose ofthis trip? ( Check One)
Commute To/From Work
Business
Shopping
Visit Friend/Relative
School
Recreation
Personal Business
Other: (specify)
5.
Please specify the highway you used to enter the Metro area:
6.
Where will this trip end today? (Be Specific)
Street Address, Nearest Intersection or other Specific Description
7.
Is the location in Question #6: (Check One)
Your Workplace
Other Workplace
Driver's Home
Other's Home
8.
How many times do you typically make this trip between these two places
for the same purpose
5 or more/week
3 to 4/week
1 to 2/week
9.
10.
1 to 3/month
6 to 12/year
2 to 5 /year
1/year
less than 1/year
How many people (including yourself) were in the vehicle?
Please identify the type of vehicle you were driving: (Check One)
Passenger Car
Minivan
Pickup
11.
Shopping
Social/Recreation
School
Other: (specify)
Van
Motorcycle
Bus
Single Unit Truck
Tractor Trailer Combination
Other:
Is the vehicle owned ( borrowed,leased) or rented? (Check One)
Owned
Rented
43
Center For Urban Transportation Research
Figure A-7 Roadside Origin-Destination Surveys, Sample Form
BANDERA ROAD O-D SURVEY
1.
Purpose of this trip
Work
School
Shopping
Recreation
2.
Trip origin map zone No.
3.
Trip destination map zone No.
4.
Number of times per week you make this trip:
>5
5
4
3
2
1
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Multiple
Other
<1
What street do you usually enter Bandera Road:
Inside 410
410
Wurzbach
Seneca
Hueber
Reindeer Trail
Eckhert
Mainland
Old Prue/Camino Villa
Prue/Tezel
1604
El Verde
Grissom
Poss
Guilbeau
Bresnahan
Outside 1604
Braun
What street do you usually get off Bandera Road:
Inside 410
410
Wurzbach
Seneca
Hueber
Reindeer Trail
Eckhert
Mainland
Old Prue/Camino Villa
Prue/Tezel
1604
El Verde
Grissom
Poss
Guilbeau
Bresnahan
Outside 1604
Braun
On this trip, how much time do you expect to spend on Bandera Road:
< 2min
2-5 min
6-10 min
11-20 min
21-30 min
If avaliable, what would you use to reduce the time you spend on Bandera Road:
A carpool lane
An express lane
An alternate route
Other
Vehicle occupancy:
1
2
3
10.
Station No.
11.
Surveyor's name
12.
Date and time
4
5
>5
44
>30 min
Don't know
Center For Urban Transportation Research
Figure A-8 Citrus County Cordon Survey Report Survey Questionnaire
45
Center For Urban Transportation Research
Figure A-8 Continued
46
Center For Urban Transportation Research
Figure A-8 Continued
47
Center For Urban Transportation Research
Figure A-8 Continued
48
Center For Urban Transportation Research
Figure A-8 Continued
49
Center For Urban Transportation Research
APPENDIX B: O-D SURVEY FORM FOR TRUCKS
50
Center For Urban Transportation Research
Figure B-1 Washington State Truck O-D Survey Form
51
Center For Urban Transportation Research
Figure B-1 Continued
52
Center For Urban Transportation Research
Figure B-2 Virginia DOT I-81 Corridor Improvement Study Truck Intercept Survey Form
53
Center For Urban Transportation Research
Figure B-2 Continued
54
Date ________ Hour ____ : _____ AM PM Interviewer ________________________Serial Number _____
Station # _________Station Location __________________________________Direction of Traffic _________
What city are you COMING FROM?
What city are you GOING TO?
55
2. Full
1. Empty
4
2. Full
1. Empty
3
2. Full
1. Empty
2
2. Full
1. Empty
1
2. Last Unloaded
1.Garaged
2. Last Unloaded
1.Garaged
2. Last Unloaded
1.Garaged
2. Last Unloaded
1.Garaged
2. Last Loaded
State
City
2. Last Loaded
State
City
2. Last Loaded
State
City
2. Last Loaded
State
City
2. Next Unloaded
1.Garaged
2. Next Loaded
2. Next Loaded
State
City
2. Next Unloaded
1.Garaged
2. Next Loaded
State
City
2. Next Unloaded
1.Garaged
2. Next Loaded
State
City
2. Next Unloaded
1.Garaged
State
City
EMPTY or FULL (circle if this is where the truck is GARAGED, was (circle if this is where the truck is GARAGED, will be
LAST LOADED or LAST UNLOADED)
LAST LOADED or was LAST UNLOADED)
(circle one)
Truck
State
City
State
City
State
City
State
City
(only if previously answered)
Empty
(specify)
Empty
(specify)
Empty
(specify)
Empty
(specify)
(cicrcle if empty)
hauling?
Where is the truck GARAGED? What TYPE OF GOODS are you
Number of
5
9
8
7
3
4
6
9
2
5
8
7
3
4
6
9
2
5
8
7
3
4
6
9
2
5
8
7
3
4
6
2
(circle answers)
AXLES
Center For Urban Transportation Research
Figure B-3 1991 Caltrans-Alameda County Truck Intercept and Classification Count Forms
Center For Urban Transportation Research
APPENDIX C: WAREHOUSE/DISTRIBUTION CENTER MAIL SURVEY FORM
56
Center For Urban Transportation Research
Figure C-1 Warehouse / Distribution Center Mail/Fax Survey Form
57
Center For Urban Transportation Research
Figure C-1 Continued
58
Center For Urban Transportation Research
Figure C-1 Continued
59
Center For Urban Transportation Research
Figure C-1 Continued
60
Center For Urban Transportation Research
Figure C-1 Continued
61
Center For Urban Transportation Research
Figure C-1 Continued
62
Center For Urban Transportation Research
Figure C-1 Continued
63
Center For Urban Transportation Research
Figure C-1 Continued
64
Center For Urban Transportation Research
Figure C-2 Virginia DOT I-81 Corridor Improvement Study Shipper/Carrier Survey Form
65
Center For Urban Transportation Research
Figure C-2 Continued
66
Center For Urban Transportation Research
Figure C-2 Continued
67
Center For Urban Transportation Research
Figure C-2 Continued
68
Center For Urban Transportation Research
Figure C-2 Continued
69
Center For Urban Transportation Research
APPENDIX D: ONLINE SURVEY FORM
70
Center For Urban Transportation Research
Figure D-1 A Proposed Online Survey Form
71
Center For Urban Transportation Research
Figure D-1 Continued
72
Center For Urban Transportation Research
APPENDIX E: LIST OF CONTACT INFORMATION OF WAREHOUSE AND
DISTRIBUTION CENTER IN FLORIDA
73
Center For Urban Transportation Research
E-1 State of Florida Commercial Airports List and Contact Information
Daytona Beach International Airport
http://www.volusia.org/airport/
Airport Information
700 Catalina Drive
Suite 300
Daytona Beach, FL 32114
Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport
http://www.broward.org/airport/
[email protected]
Gainesville Regional Airport
http://www.flygainesville.com/
Gainesville Regional Airport Administration
3880 N.E. 39th Avenue, Suite A
Gainesville, Florida 32609
Phone 352-373-0249
FAX 352-374-8368
[email protected]
Jacksonville International Airport
http://www.jaa.aero/
Jacksonville Aviation Authority
P.O. Box 18018
Jacksonville, FL 32229
(904) 741-2000
Key West International Airport
http://www.monroecounty-fl.gov/Pages/index
3491 South Roosevelt Blvd.
Key West, FL 33040
Phone: (305) 296-7223
Fax:(305) 292-3578
Alternate Phone: (305) 296-5439
Melbourne International Airport
http://www.mlbair.com/
Melbourne International Airport
One Air Terminal Pkwy, Suite 220
Melbourne, Fl 32901-1888
Miami International Airport
http://www.miami-airport.com/
MIA Info Line: (305)876-7000
Naples Municipal Airport
http://www.flynaples.com/
Naples Municipal Airport
160 Aviation Drive North
Naples, FL 34104
Phone (239) 643-0733
Fax (239) 643-4084
[email protected]
74
Center For Urban Transportation Research
Okaloosa Regional Airport/Fort Walton Beach
http://www.okaloosacountyairports.com/
Okaloosa County Airports System
1701 Hwy 85 North
Eglin AFB, FL 32542
Phone #(850) 651-7160, Fax #(850) 651-7164
Orlando International Airport
http://www.orlandoairports.net/goaa/main.htm
Greater Orlando Aviation Authority
Orlando International Airport
One Airport Boulevard
Orlando, Florida 32827-4399
Orlando Sanford International Airport
http://www.orlandosanfordairport.com/
Sanford Airport Authority
1200 Red Cleveland Boulevard
Sanford, Florida 32773
407-585-4000
Palm Beach International Airport
http://www.pbia.org/
Palm Beach International Airport
1000 Turnage Boulevard
West Palm Beach, FL 33406
Phone: (561) 471-7420
Panama City/Bay County International Airport
http://www.pcairport.com/
3173 Airport Rd.
Panama City ,FL 32405
850-763-6751
[email protected]
Pensacola Regional Airport
http://www.flypensacola.com/
2430 Airport Blvd., Ste 225
Pensacola, FL 32504
(850) 436-5000
Fax (850) 436-5006
Sarasota Bradenton International Airport
http://srq-airport.com/
6000 Airport Circle
Sarasota, FL 34243
941-359-2770
Southwest Florida International Airport
http://www.flylcpa.com/
St. Petersburg-Clearwater International Airport
http://www.fly2pie.com/
Tallahassee Regional Airport
http://www.talgov.com/airport/index.cfm
Tallahassee Regional Airport
75
Center For Urban Transportation Research
3300 Capital Circle SW, Ste #1
Tallahassee, FL 32310
850-891-7801
Tampa International Airport
http://www.tampaairport.com/
P.O. Box 22287
Tampa, Florida 33622-2287
76
Center For Urban Transportation Research
E-2 State of Florida Seaports List and Contact Information
Port Canaveral
http://www.portcanaveral.org/
P.O. Box 267
Cape Canaveral, FL 32920
(321) 783.7831
Port Everglades
http://www.broward.org/port/
1850 Eller Drive
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
954-523-3404
[email protected]
Port of Fernandina
http://www.ameliamaritime.com/pof.html
501 North 3rd Street
P.O. Drawer 1543
Fernandina Beach, FL 32035
Phone: (904) 261-0753
Port of Fort Pierce
http://www.stlucieco.gov/port/
Port of Jacksonville
http://www.jaxport.com/
Jacksonville Port Authority Communications Office
P.O. Box 3005
2831 Talleyrand Avenue
Jacksonville, FL 32206
(904) 630-3080
[email protected]
Port of Key West
http://www.keywestcity.com/depts/port/port.asp
http://www.keywestcity.com/contacts/contactshome1.asp?menu=Port%20Operations
Port Manatee
http://www.portmanatee.com/
Manatee County Port Authority
300 Tampa Bay Way
Palmetto, FL 34221-6608
[email protected]
Telephone: 941/722-6621
Port of Miami
http://www.metro-dade.com/portofmiami/
1015 N. America Way 2nd Floor
Miami, FL 33132
(305) 371-7678
Port of Palm Beach
http://www.portofpalmbeach.com/
One Each 11th Street. Ste. 400
Riviera Bch. FL 33404
77
Center For Urban Transportation Research
(561)383-4100
[email protected]
Port of Panama City
http://www.portpanamacityusa.com/
5321 W Hwy 98
Panama City, Florida 32401
Port of Pensacola
http://www.portofpensacola.com/
Port of Port St. Joe
http://www.portofportstjoe.com/
Post Office Box 745
Port St. Joe., FL 32457
Toll Free: (866) GoStJoe
(866) 467-8563
Port of St. Petersburg
http://www.stpete.org/port.htm
250 8th Ave. S.E.
St. Petersburg, Florida 33701
[email protected]
Toll Free: 1-800-782-8350
Port of Tampa
http://www.tampaport.com
1101 Channelside Drive
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: 813-905-7678(PORT)
US Toll Free Telephone: 800-741-2297
78
Center For Urban Transportation Research
Table E-1 Warehouses and Distribution Centers List and Contact Information
A One A Produce & Provisions
1351 Nw 22Nd St
Pompano Beach, Fl 33069Abc Foods
8218 Malvern Circle
Tampa, Fl 33615Abdor Florida Inc
925 Ne 24Th Ave
Hallandale , Fl 33009Agro Cold Storage
590 Ne 185Th Street
North Miami, Fl 33179Akro Dist Inc
1271 Laquinta Dr Ste 17
Orlando, Fl 32809Albertsons Distribution Center
1402 Albertsons Dr
Plant City, FL 33563
(813) 757-2500
Allen Distributing Inc
7952 Interstate Court
North Ft Myers, Fl 33917American Pizza Products Inc
4411 Bridgett Lane
Pensacola, Fl 32502Americold Corp
1601 North 50Th St
Tampa, Fl 33622Ameriserve
5545 Shawland Rd
Jacksonville , Fl 32254Anco Foods
1100 Nw 33Rd St
Pompano Beach, Fl 33064Apostolic Distribution Center
6703 NW 15th Ave
Miami, FL 33147
(305) 696-361
Associated Grocers Of Fl Inc
7000 Nw 32Nd Ave
Miami, Fl 33152-7695
B J'S Wholesale Club Inc
7817 Nw 103Rd Street
Hialeah Gardens , Fl 33016Baer's Furniture Corporate Office & Distribution Center
1589 NW 12th Ave
Pompano Beach, FL 33069
(954) 946-8001
79
Center For Urban Transportation Research
Bari Italian Foods Dist Branch
7300 Technology Dr
Melbourne, Fl 32904Bay Food Distributors Inc
6630 Jenson Rd
Tampa, Fl 33619Beach Trading Co Inc
1814 Industrial Blvd
Jacksonville , Fl 32254Berg Distribution Center
Serving Your Area
(407) 332-0072
Cabrera'S Beef & Pork Inc
765 W 27Th St
Hialeah , Fl 33010Cameo Distributors Inc
5422 Carrier Dr Suite
Orlando, Fl 32819Caney Distributing Co Inc
743 Nw 23Rd St
Miami, Fl 33127Caribbean Cold Storage Inc
1505 Dennis St
Jacksonville , Fl 32204Central Florida Donut Distribution Center LLC
2550 Michigan Ave
Kissimmee, FL 34744
(407) 933-6811
Cheeky Distribution Center
19501 Biscayne Blvd
Aventura, FL 33180
(786) 428-0133
Cheeky Distribution Center
2182 SE 17th St
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
(954) 318-0241
Cheeky Distribution Center
11401 NW 12th St
Miami, FL 33172
(786) 439-3917
Cheeky Distribution Center
8888 SW 136th St
Miami, FL 33176
(786) 249-0064
Cheeky Distribution Center
10300 W FOREST HILL BLVD
Wellington, FL 33414
(561) 422-9032
80
Center For Urban Transportation Research
Cheeky Distribution Center Warehouse
6708 NW 82nd Ave
Miami, FL 33166
(305) 597-0688
Cheney Brothers Inc
One Cheney Way
Riviera Beach, Fl 33404-7000
Christy Distribution Center
503 Brookhaven DR
Orlando, FL 32803
(407) 896-1800
Circuit City Distribution Center Lake County
19925 Independence Blvd
Groveland, FL 34736
(352) 429-6200
Clopay Distribution Center
11800 NW 100th Rd
Medley, FL 33178
(305) 884-1530
Colorado Boxed Beef Co
501 Ne 183Rd St
N Miami, Fl 33179Computer Distribution Center
14631 N Nebraska Ave
Tampa, FL 33613
(813) 972-4897
Cookin Good
4712 W Ohio Ave
Tampa, Fl 33614Custom Cold Storage &
1177 Nw 81St Street
Miami, Fl 33150D B Brown
3220 S W 2Nd Avenue
Ft Lauderdale , Fl 33315Daffin Foodservice
#1 Estes Street
Marianna, Fl 32446Daily Bread Distribution Center
1408 Morningside Dr
Melbourne, FL 32901
(321) 953-8000
Dollar General In Alachua
17815 Peggy Road
Alachua, Florida 32616
386-418-5000
Danko Distribution Center
525 NE 29th St
Miami, FL 33137
(305) 438-9020
81
Center For Urban Transportation Research
Domino's Distribution Center
7600 American Way
Groveland, FL 34736
(352) 429-5555
Eastern Distribution Service Center
660 Linton Blvd
Delray Beach, FL 33444
(561) 272-5274
Economy Cash & Carry
841 N. Combee Rd
Lakeland, Fl 33801Eliot Scott Company
785 S Congress Ave
Delray Beach , Fl 33444Ess Food Usa Inc
4601 Sheridan St Suite
Hollywood , Fl 33021Expeditors International Distribution Center
10205 NW 19th St
Miami, FL 33172
(305) 436-5277
Falcone/Henry Lee Co
1361 Nw 155Th Dr
Miami, Fl 33169-5723
Falla Food Sales Inc
7337 Nw 37Th Ave
Miami, Fl 33147Fantis Foods Of Florida Inc
3399 118Th Ave North
St Petersburg, Fl 33716Fashion Import Inc
3251 E 11Th Ave
Hialeah , Fl 33013Fast Food Merchandisers Inc
2096 Dennis St
Jacksonville , Fl 32204Fine Distributing Inc
9860 Currie Davis Dr
Tampa, Fl 33619Fjr Food Distributors Inc
118 W. Grant Street
Orlando, Fl 32806Fl Plantation Cold Storage Inc
501 Ne 183Rd Street
N Miami, Fl 33169Fleming Foods Inc
3400 Nw 74Th Avenue
Miami, Fl 33122-
82
Center For Urban Transportation Research
Florida Cold Storage
4501 Dignan St
Jacksonville , Fl 32254Florida Distribution Centers Inc
5001 L B Mcleod Rd
Orlando, FL 32811
(407) 297-1004
Florida Food Service Inc
317 Ne 35Th Ave
Gainesville , Fl 32609Florida Freezer Limited Partne
7952 Interstate Court
North Ft Myers, Fl 33917Food Lion Warehouse
Hwy 17 N (P O Box 806)
Green Cove , Fl 32043Food Lion Warehouse
1802 Jim Johnson Rd
Plant City, Fl 33566Food Wholesalers Inc
1960 5Th Ave South
St Petersburg, Fl 33712Foreign Trade Zone Distribution Center/IDS
8985 Columbia Rd
Melbourne, FL
(321) 799-2889
Four Star Poultry & Provision
2180 Nw 13Th Ave
Miami, Fl 33142Garcia Inc (Manolo)
1465 Nw 21St Terrace
Miami, Fl 33142Geno'S Pizza Product
9276 N Davis Hwy
Pensacola, Fl 32514Gold Kist Inc
4320 C Gandy Blvd
Tampa, Fl 33611Golden Poultry Company Inc
1731 Nw 18Th Street
Pompano Beach, Fl 33069Government Cars Distributions Center Inc
8020 NW 7th Ave
Miami, FL 33150
(305) 751-1777
Greene Poultry Inc (Don)
12701 Nw 38Th Avenue
Opa Locka, Fl 33054-
83
Center For Urban Transportation Research
Grocery Distribution Center
5600 Lucerne Park Rd
Winter Haven, FL 33881
(863) 294-1710
Guichard International
1380 Nw 23Rd St
Miami, Fl 33127Gulf Central Distribution Center Incorporated
4535 S Dale Mabry Hwy
Tampa, FL 33611
(813) 837-5602
Gulf Coast Meats & Prod Inc
8402 Lemon Rd
Port Richey, Fl 34668Gulf Distribution Center
2951 Work Dr
Fort Myers, FL 33916
(239) 337-4129
Guzman (Ana Julia)
1765 Nw 17Th Street
Miami, Fl 33125H & O Food Sales Inc
305 W Main Street
Lakeland, Fl 33801Haagen-Dazs Ice Cream Distribution Center
10479 N Commerce Pkwy
Miramar, FL 33025
(954) 447-1230
Harborside Refrigerated
2900 Guy N Verger Blvd
Tampa, Fl 33605Harlen Johnson'S Whlesle
3930 Hollywood Ave
Pensacola, Fl 32505Harvest Meat Co
2540 Shader Rd
Orlando, Fl 32854-0389
Harvest Valley Inc
2111 S Division Ave
Orlando, Fl 32805Henry Lee Company
3301 Nw 125Th St
Miami, Fl 33167Hoshizaki Southeastern Distribution Center Inc
Serving Your Area
(386) 785-0202
Hoshizaki Southeastern Distribution Center Inc
5589 Commonwealth Ave
Jacksonville, FL 32254
(904) 783-6069
84
Center For Urban Transportation Research
Hoshizaki Southeastern Distribution Center Incorporated
5402 Pioneer Park Blvd
Tampa, FL 33634
(813) 249-6800
Hudson Foods Inc
7270 Nw 12Th St
Miami, Fl 33126Iberia Foods Corp
350 Ne 75Th Street
Miami, Fl 33138Imeson Distribution Center
550 Gun Club Rd
Jacksonville, FL 32218
(904) 751-5500
Imeson Distribution Center
550 Gun Club Rd
Jacksonville, FL 32218
(904) 751-5500
Industrial Cold Storage
1814 Industrial Blvd
Jacksonville , Fl 32203Jacob Fleishman & Sons Inc
1177 Nw 81St St
Miami, Fl 33150Jacksonville Warehouse Companies
http://www.jaxwhse.com/contact.htm
Jar Distribution Center
10755 SW 190th St
Miami, FL 33157
(786) 242-9877
Jetro Cash & Carry
2041 Nw 12Th Ave
Miami, Fl 33127Johnsons Brothers
1640 Martin Luther King
Panama City, Fl 32401Kansas Marine Co
5511 Nw 163Rd Street
Hialeah , Fl 33014Kemmerer Sales Inc
6831 N W 37Th Ave
Miami, Fl 33147Ken Horne Distributors
1202 Pine Island Road
Cape Coral , Fl 33909L & M Foods Inc
500 Ne 185 Street
North Miami Beach, Fl 33179-
85
Center For Urban Transportation Research
Libreria San Pablo & St Paul Distribution Center
5800 SW 8th St
West Miami, FL 33144
(305) 269-9585
Limousine Distribution Center
Serving Your Area
(561) 687-5466
Long Food Company
2640 Kunze Ave
Orlando, Fl 32856Lowes Flatbed Distribution Center
525 T S Wilson Rd
Frostproof, FL 33843
(863) 635-8300
M F Z Public Warehouse Inc
2335 Nw 107Th Avenue
Miami, Fl 33172Manna Provision
6239 New Kings Rd N
Jacksonville , Fl 32209Martin Brower Company (The)
1661 Nw 12Th Avenue
Pompano Beach, Fl 33069Max Food Distributor Inc
Miami, Fl 33142Maxim'S Import Corp
2719 Nw 24Th St
Miami, Fl 33142Mck-Hughs Meat Distributors
Jacksonville , Fl 32206Meatman Inc (The)
4100 No Powerline Rd QPompano Beach, Fl 33073Merchants Export Incorporate
200 Ml King Blvd
Riviera Beach, Fl 33404NAPA Distribution Center Office
1090 Haines St
Jacksonville, FL 32206
(904) 354-7856
National Distribution Center
2000 E Landstreet Rd
Orlando, FL 32824
(407) 857-0649
National Distribution Center
901 W Landstreet Rd
Orlando, FL 32824
(407) 826-9924
86
Center For Urban Transportation Research
National Distribution Centers
4601 Bulls Bay Hwy
Jacksonville, FL 32219
(904) 781-0782
National Freezers
1849 Nw 1St Ave
Miami, Fl 33136Niagara Dist Inc
3701 N 29Th Ave
Hollywood , Fl 33020Ocho Rios Miami Inc
2051 Nw 15Th Ave
Miami, Fl 33142One Source Distribution Center
290 SW 12th AV
Pompano Beach, FL 33069
(954) 943-9990
Overseas Duty Free Supply
250 Catalonia Ave Ste
Coral Gables , Fl 33134P Q Beef Processors Inc
6707 Nw 37Th Avenue
Miami, Fl 33147Paradise Home & Patio Distribution Center
Serving Your Area
(772) 380-0203
Partners Distribution Center Inc
686 NW 112th St
Miami, FL 33168
(305) 754-0088
Patterson Dental Co Southeast Distribution Center
1401 Tradeport Dr
Jacksonville, FL 32218
(904) 741-4480
Paulinas Spanish Distribution Center
145 SW 107th Ave
Miami, FL 33174
(305) 225-2513
Pay Less Cash & Carry Whlse
3717 Vance St
Jacksonville , Fl 32205Pepsi Cola Distribution Center
4451 34th St N
Saint Petersburg, FL 33714
(727) 526-9794
Pepsi Cola Distribution Center
4451 34th St N
Saint Petersburg, FL 33714
(727) 527-7131
87
Center For Urban Transportation Research
Pepsi Cola Distribution Center
Tarpon Springs, FL 34688
(727) 942-3663
Phillips Meats & Seafoods Inc.
1220 Transmitter Rd
Panama City, Fl 32401Port Everglades Cold Stg Inc
3205 S E 19Th Ave
Ft Lauderdale , Fl 33316Preferred Freezer Services Inc
2900 Nw 75Th Street
Miami, Fl 33147Premier Global Distribution Center Inc
8150 NW 21st St
Doral, FL 33122
(305) 591-3550
Pride Of Omaha
689 Heinburg St
Pensacola, Fl 32501Produce Distribution Center
2208 W 21st St
Jacksonville, FL 32209
(904) 366-1368
Produce Distribution Center Llc
2208 W 21st St
Jacksonville, FL 32209
(904) 366-1370
Publix Distribution Center
5500 Park Ridge Blvd
Boynton Beach, FL 33426
(561) 369-7900
Publix Super Markets Distribution Center
Serving Your Area
(407) 856-2301
http://www.publix.com/careers/opportunities/groups/Distribution.do#57
Publix Supermarkets Inc
9786 W Beaver Street
Jacksonville , Fl 32231Pya/Monarch, Inc.
330 Carswell Ave
Holly Hill , Fl 32015Quirch Foods
7007 Nw 37Th Ave
Miami, Fl 33147Real Cold Storage Of Miami Inc
8020 Nw 60Th Street
Miami, Fl 33166Russell Corporation Distribution Center
3521 Russell Rd
Marianna, FL 32446
(850) 526-5205
88
Center For Urban Transportation Research
Sage Food Enterprises Inc
1301 Nw 89Th Court
Miami, Fl 33172-3008
Sally Beauty Co-Distribution Center
1550 Vantage Way
Jacksonville, FL 32218
(904) 741-1400
Sam'S Club
7233 Seacrest Blvd
Lantana, Fl 33462Sam'S Club
1900 S. University Drive
Miramar, Fl 33025Sams Distribution Center
3010 Saddle Creek Rd
Lakeland, FL 33801
(863) 667-1136
Seaboard Cold Storage Inc
110 S 11Th St
Tampa, Fl 33622Seaview Distribution Center
14525 62nd St N
Clearwater, FL 33760
(727) 532-3026
Shaklee Authorized Distribution Center
412 NE 13th Ave
Gainesville, FL 32601
(352) 373-5295
Southern Packaging & Distribution Center
5330 W 5th St
Jacksonville, FL 32254
(904) 786-0811
Staples Distribution Center
1206 N Us Highway 301
Tampa, FL 33619
(813) 626-8111
Turnpike Distribution Center Inc
1580 NW 27th Ave
Pompano Beach, FL 33069
(954) 969-0946
US Commercial Warehouse & Distribution Center
2209 NW 30th Pl
Pompano Beach, FL 33069
(954) 977-8622
Walgreen Drug Stores-Distribution Center
2467 Premier Row
Orlando, FL 32809
(407) 859-8202
Walgreens Distribution Center
Serving Your Area
(561) 493-7700
Wal-Mart Distribution Center Manager
5100 Kettering Rd
Brooksville, FL
89
Center For Urban Transportation Research
(352) 796-7525
Warehouse Distribution Center
7900 NW 68th St
Miami, FL 33166
(305) 591-7894
Warehouse Distribution Center
7900 NW 68th St
Miami, FL 33166
(305) 599-6115
Wayne Dalton Regional Distribution Center
9777 Satellite Blvd
Orlando, FL 32837
(407) 856-9557
Zephyrhills Ice & Distribution Center
5020 Hill Dr
Zephyrhills, FL 33542
(813) 715-4287
90
Center For Urban Transportation Research
APPENDIX F: STATEWIDE MODEL ZONE MAP
91
Center For Urban Transportation Research
Figure F-1 State of Florida Transportation Analysis Zone (TAZ) MAP
92
Center For Urban Transportation Research
Table F-1 Number of Rest Areas in Transportation Analysis Zones (TAZ)
TAZ No
10
77
100
105
163
229
242
248
271
278
322
373
378
391
406
413
414
417
423
428
429
546
552
554
555
561
567
602
732
786
790
792
798
805
821
891
892
959
966
970
1001
1067
1100
1111
1199
1236
1386
1495
Number of Rest Areas
3
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
3
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
93
TAZ No
1541
1620
1678
1767
1800
1814
1923
1932
1961
2029
2075
2090
2192
2193
2200
2205
2265
2344
2415
2464
2521
2556
2560
2563
2583
2657
2741
2772
2780
2793
2802
2830
2835
2887
2912
3020
3154
3201
3505
3533
3902
3908
3909
3914
3915
3917
3918
Number of Rest Areas
1
1
2
10
1
2
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
8
2
2
1
1
1
4
1
1
1
Center For Urban Transportation Research
Table F-2 Number of Weigh Stations in Transportation Analysis Zones (TAZ)
TAZ No
10
21
75
97
107
145
148
184
247
248
250
292
296
340
361
365
373
414
428
448
524
555
578
732
823
959
995
1001
1059
1062
1402
1495
1537
1966
2085
2125
2239
2324
2590
2731
2872
2904
2926
3065
3546
3551
Number of Weigh Stations
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
94
Fly UP