REGENERATION SURVEY ANALYSIS №21
Analysis of: Alternative Transportation Awareness and Commitment Questionnaire
Prepared by: Alexandr Krimer
The main purpose of the study was to learn and benefit from the responses of Parking Permit Holder, later denoted as PPH, to a Questionnaire that consisted of four sections – Awareness, Ability, Willingness, and Barriers.Residence, local address, postal code, and vehicle information were taken from the application (Appendix A).
Awareness Section(CTRL + Left Click to look at it in an excerpt from the survey)
Awareness Section tested if PPHs knew about HRM SmartTrip, reserved parking, bike racks, Metro Routes, harmful emissions from vehicles, and SMUSA’s safe program. Yes or No responses were recorded.
Ability Section
Ability Section provided us with data on capability of PPHs to commit (time, resources, and physical ability) to finding a carpool group, walking and or biking to campus if residence is close enough.Lastly,this section provides us with data of PPHs that live on a Metro route. Direct, within 5 and within 15 min walk distance routes were selected.
Willingness Section
Willingness Section refers to PPHs desire to commit time and resources and switch to alternative forms of transportation. Responses were stated in days, weeks and months, then recoded into months for comparison purposes.
Barriers Section
PPHs listed barriers that constrained them from committing to use alternative transportation even though capability was present but willingness was missing.
The results were first recorded in Microsoft Excel and then tabulated in Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). SPSS aided us in detecting statistically significant levels of relationships between diverse variables and also present summary statistics that were transformed into graphs and charts. The conducted survey encompassed 731 respondents; yet, 18 of PPHs were taken out from the analysis due to their possible tendency to bias overall results of the analysis. Therefore, 713 PPHs’ responses were analyzed.
Table of Contents
General Information ………………………………………………………………………………3
Vehicle Information………………………………………………………………………………..4
All About Carpooling………………………………………………………………………………6
All About Biking…………………………………………………………………………………...10
All About Using Metro Transit…………………………………………………………………...12
All About Walking…………………………………………………………………………………16
Alternative Transportation Summary……………………………………………………………18
Summary of Barriers……………………………………………………………………………...20
Glance at the Residence Prices………………...………………………………………….………21
Appendix A………………………………………………………………………………………....22
GENERAL INFORMATION
Total number of PPHs: 713[s1]
Graph 1. Comparison of PPHs’ Status
Status represents PPHs’ category – Student, Part-Time Faculty, Staff, and Faculty/Senior Administration.
Graph 2.Percentage Distribution of PPHs’ Residence
Graph 3. Count Distribution of PPHs’ Residence Dissected by Status
There are just 53 PPHs that live on campus if compared to 647 PPHs that live off campus.Question arises, why would a full-time student need a car if he/she is living on campus? Some have legitimate reasons to own a car, but others mostly have it for convenience purposes. Graph 34 looks at barriers faced by PPHs.
VEHICLE INFORMATION
Graph 4. Comparison of Primary and Secondary Vehicles Count of PPHs Dissected by Status
Graph 4 shows that students are the majority of PPHs of both primary and secondary vehicles. However, if to compare primary to secondary vehicle possession in percent,students have the least number of secondary vehicles (18 percent) and faculty/senior administration have the most (31 percent). That is, only 18 percent of students have a second vehicle, while 31 percent of faculty/senior administration have a second one.
Graph 5. Classification of PPHs’ Vehicle Brands
The first six categories (Chevrolet to Chrysler) represent cars made in U.S. The next six categories (Honda to Subaru) are the cars from Japan. Japanese cars possession substantially dominates the ones that are from U.S. According to statistical analysis of Brian Carr in the article “American vs. Japanese – Gas Mileage Comparison”, “68% better gas mileage in the city… for Japanese cars”. (
Graph 6. PPHs Drive Vehicles From…
This graph illustrates that PPHs own almost twice of Japanese than American vehicles.
ALL ABOUT CARPOOLING
Graph 7. PPHs’Awareness of SmartTrip by HRM
Graph 7 exhibits 50.6 percent Staff (the highest percentage if compared to other groups) know that they can visit HRM SmartTrip to arrange a carpool group. 32.8 percent Faculty/Senior Administration (the lowest percentage if compared to other groups) know that one can visit HRM SmartTrip to arrange a carpool group. Overall only 41.4 percent of PPHs knew that they can arrange a carpool group by using HRM SmartTrip.
Graph 8. Awareness of SmartTrip Versus Attempt to Find a Carpool Group Dissected by Status
This graph presents us with an interesting fact that all categories (in proportion to Tried and Did Not Try to Find a Carpool) show that if an individual knew about SmartTrip by HRM then he/she is more likelyto have attempted to find a carpool than if he/she did not know about SmartTrip. The other direction could be reasoned too.McNemar test of causation could not be performed.
A significant relationship proves that Individuals that Did Not Try to Find a Carpool are less likely to know about SmartTrip.
Graph 9. Willing to Commit to Carpool Versus Aware of SmartTrip
335 PPHs will not carpool, 153 will. Just over 40 percent are aware of SmartTrip, but this might be one of the reasons why people are willing to carpool.
Graph 10. PPHs’ Awareness of a Reserved Parking if Would Carpool with Someone From Facilities Management
Graph 10 exhibits 43 percentof Staff and Part-Time Faculty have the highest knowledge of a reserved parking that if compared to other groups. In other words, those PPHsthat are aware, that they are able to get a reserved parking if would register with a Facilities Management carpool group. Students’ awareness is 34.8 percent. Overall, only 37.4 percent of PPHs knew that they can get a reserved parking. Thus, a possibility of a reserved parking needs to be advertised.
Graph 11. Willing to Commit to Carpool Versus Awareness of Reserved Parking
From the previous graph, Graph 10, we learnt that 37.4 percent are aware of reserved parking spaces when one would carpool with facilities management. Graph 11 shows frequency distribution of PPHs that are willing to carpool per month, split between PPHs that are aware and not aware of reserved parking.
Graph 12. Tried to Find a Carpool Group Versus Will Commit to Finding a Carpool Group
There is a huge number of PPHs that have not yet tried finding a carpool – 90 percent!
Overall, there are only about a third of PPHs that can commit, if compared to the ones that cannot commit to find a carpool. However, there are more people who tried to find a carpool and they are still willing to commit than those who tried to find a carpool but are no longer willing to commit in finding a carpool. This can be interpreted as PPHs that tried are likely to be satisfied and thus will commit to find carpool groups. Phi and Contingency Coefficient tests show a low association between groups.
Graph 13. Willing to Commit to Carpool Versus Can Commit to Find a Carpool
Only less than 30 percent of PPHs are willing to try to find a carpool! That is a shouting number.
Graph 14. Willing to Commit to Carpool Versus Tried to Find a Carpool
There is a relationship present between PPHs that tried to the ones that did not try to find a carpool. The later group is more likely to carpool – 60 percent. Overall, there are only 30 percent of PPHs that tried to carpool!
Graph 15. PPHs that Are Willing to Occasionally Carpool to Campus
ALL ABOUT BIKING
Graph 16. PPHs’ Awareness of Bike Racks Availability on Campus
Overall, more than 87 percent of PPHs are aware of bike racks availability on campus.
Graph 17. Availability of a Bike Versus Can Commit to Bike to Campus Occasionally
As the graph depicts, those that have a bike are more likely to commit to bike to Saint Mary's than those that do not yet have a bike. This means that even if a PPH would have a bike it would not mean that they would switch to biking to campus. Several Symmetrical and Directional Measures conclude that the groups are significantly different. Graph 34 lists some of the reasons why PPHs would not like to bike to campus.
Graph 18. PPHs that Are Willing to Occasionally Bike to Campus
ALL ABOUT USING METRO TRANSIT
Graph 19. Percent Comparison of PPHs’ Awareness Levels of Metro Routes that Run Either Directly, 5 min Walk, or 15 min Walk From or To Saint Mary’s
Overall, only 64 percent are aware of Metro routes that are within walking distances to campus.
Graph 20. Awareness of Living on a Direct Route Versus Living on it
99.99 percentsignificance level tells us that atleast one of the groups is significantly different to others.At least, 7.8 percent of applicants are the ones that benefitted from the survey since they live on a direct route but were unaware that the bus directly passes by the university.If awareness of direct routes as well as those that run with 15 min walk distance could be spread across SMU members, we could potentially decrease the number of parking applicants.
Graph 21. PPHs that Live on a Direct Route And Are Willing to Use Metro Transit
Frequency as well as percent distribution is provided in Graph 21. Although these individuals got their parking permits,125PPHs are still willing to use Metro Transit to commute.
Graph 22. Being Aware Versus Living on a Route that is Within a 5 min Walk Distance
Graph 23. Being Aware Versus Living on a Route that is Within a 15 min Walk Distance
As the walking distance from a bus stop to SMU increases, people are less likely to be aware of them.
Graph 24. PPHs that Are Willing to Occasionally Use Metro to Campus
Graph 25. Percent of PPHs that Are Not Within Walking Distance to Campus From Residence Versus Living on a Bus Route that Is Within Walking Distance to Campus
22 percent of PPHs that do not live within a 15 min walk to campus from their residence live on a direct route to campus.
Graph 26. Barriers Faced by PPHs that Live on a Direct Route
Although some PPHs that live on a direct route are willing to commit to using alternative forms of transportation, they are faced with barriers that are depicted in Graph 34. Five individuals are facing time constraints and four are having a difficulty with schedules.
ALL ABOUT WALKING
Graph 27. PPHs that Are Willing to Occasionally Walk to Campus
Graph 28. PPHs That Live Within 15 min Walk Distance Versus Can Commit to Walk to Campus Occasionally
As the graph depicts, majority of applicants (165 out of 209, 79 percent) do not live within 15 minute walk distance from the university. Also, about a third of applicants (52 out of 209, 25 percent) can commit to walk. Several Symmetrical and Directional Measures conclude that the groups are significantly different.
Graph 29. PPHs That Are Willing to Commit to Walk Versus Aware of a Safe Program by SMUSA
This in-depth graph portrays individuals’ willingness to commit to walking per month depending on awareness of SMUSA’s safe walk and drive programs. In total, about 70 percent of PPHs that responded to questions that helped construct this graph are aware of the program. Although, there is a PPH who tried to use the service who has not been assisted and was left extremely unsatisfied. Yet, this graph presents only 62 respondents that are willing to walk.
Graph 30. Will Commit to Walking Versus Can Commit to Walk
24 Percent (52 out of 214) state that they can commit to walking – have the ability - and 32 will walk on regular basis. 162 can not commit to walking – do not have the ability. 7 PPHs that do not have the ability still have the desire – willing to commit.
Graph 31. Will Commit to Walking Versus Living Within 15 Minutes
Living farther than 15 minutes walk is positively correlated with commitment to walk to campus occasionally. Less than 10 percent live within 15 minute walking distance but more than half of them (27 out of 51) will commit to walking. Plus, they are likely to walk to campus on regular basis.
ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION SUMMARY
Graph 32. Comparison of PPHs that Are Not Within Walking Distance to Campus From Residence that Will Commit to Use Alternative Transportation
Almost 60 percent that live on a direct route but do not live within walking distance to the university are willing to commit using alternative forms of transportation! That is something pleasing to know! There is a low association between groups. The sad part is that 73 percent of PPHs (356 out of 488) that answered questions that constitute data for this graph, Graph 32, live on a direct Metro route.
Graph 33. Willingness of Applicants in Using Alternative Transportation Versus Four Types of Transportation Methods
Graph 33provides a self-explanatory comparison summary of PPHs’ willingness in committing to use an alternative transportation. As one may discover, carpooling and metro are the two methods of transportation that are the most desirable to use by PPHs. 215 of 499 responses provided on the overall willingness to using alternative transportation on an occasional basis constitute the bottom 43 percent. Lastly, walking and biking are the least desirable methods to commute.
96.8 percent were aware that the use of alternative forms of transportation helps reduce traffic loads, toxic emission released into the atmosphere, and parking issues on campus.
SUMMARY OF BARRIERS
Graph 34. PPHs’Barriers to Commit to Using Other Forms of Transportation
Carpool organization is an interesting barrier that nine percent of applicants face. This means that they want to carpool, but simply cannot find the "right partner". Some carpool organization obstacles that individuals face is similar schedules, distance, and safety concern that is mostly expressed in trust and dependence on the partner. N/A response of 4 percent stated by PPHs can be interpreted as “No Barrier Available” or as “Not Applicable”, which can make a difference in analysis.
Other Category:
- Desire – 9 references
- A lot to carry – 7references
- Safety – 6references
- Ability – 3references
- Affordable Housing – 1reference
- Resources – 1reference
REGENERATION SURVEY ANALYSIS №21
GLANCE AT THE RESIDENCE PRICES
Single Student Housing at Saint Mary’s (Year 2010)Residence / Total Spaces Available / Per Year Without a Meal Plan / Meal Plan / Minimal Expense Per Academic Year For a Plan / Minimal Expense Per Month
Single / Double/Shared
Loyola / 433 / $ 8,250 / $ 6,900 / Mandatory / 2,940 / 8 = $367/mo / 6900/12 + 2940/8 = $943/mo
Vanier / 168 / $ 8,250 / $ 6,900 / Mandatory / 2,940 / 8 = $367/mo / 6900/12 + 2940/8 = $943/mo
Rice / 332 / $ 8,588 / $ 6,750 / Optional / 2,940 / 8 = $367/mo / 6750/12 = $563/mo
*1 person on the waiting list
Excerpt From Saint Mary's Off Campus Housing (Year 2008)
Location / Bachelor / 1 Bedroom / 2 Bedroom / Shared Average Price
Closest & Most Expensive / South End / 645x12= $7,740 / 823 x 12 = $9,876 / 1,243 x 12 = $14,916 / $ 550
Average / Mainland North / 581x12= $6,972 / 666 x 12 = $7,992 / 832 x 12 = $9,984 / $ 460
Least Expensive / Dartmouth South / 509x12= $6,108 / 586 x 12 = $7,032 / 670 x12 = $8,040 / $ 500
Although the excerpt from Saint Mary’s Off-Campus housing is a little outdated and the prices have increased since then, some comparison between on and off-campus housing can be done. If to compare value of South End apartment to on-campus housing, it is fairly priced. However, if a PPH lives with someone and has other obligations such that would require him/her to commute to other places, it might be possible for him/her to be better off at renting an apartment a little farther from the university, since it is the most expensive area to live in.
REGENERATION SURVEY ANALYSIS №21
Appendix A: Excerpt From a Parking Application
1. Personal Data (Click in the box and type your response)
Banner # / First Name / Last Name / Local Phone numberA
/ / Local address Street Name / Postal Code
2. Vehicle Information (Click in the box and type your response)
Vehicle 1Vehicle 2
Make/Model / Make/ModelYear/Colour / Year Colour
Province of Registration / Province of Registration
Insurance Company / Insurance Company
License Plate / License Plate
Alternative Transportation Awareness and Commitment Questionnaire
The University strongly encourages the university community to consider more sustainable forms of transportation such as public transit, walking, biking, or carpooling whenever possible. Also, take a look at ourSustainability Webpage ( more information on how you can get involved with the sustainability initiatives on campus.
Alternative Transportation
The data from this questionnaire will be used to help us in creating alternative transportation awareness programs.
Did you know that….(Click in the box and type your response) Yes or No
1. / you can visit HRM SmartTrip ( to arrange a carpool group?2. / you get RESERVED parking when you register a carpool group with Facilities Management?
3. / the university has bike racks on campus to make biking to the university more convenient?
4. / Metro Transit numbers 9, 10, 14, 17 and 18 travel to and from Saint Mary’s?
5. / Metro Transit numbers 3, 7, 41, and 42 travel within 5 minute walk from Saint Mary’s?
6. / Metro Transit numbers 1, 20, 21, 23, 31, 32, 33, 34, 53, 58, 59, 68, 80, 81, 84,85, 86, and 87 travel within 15 minute walk from Saint Mary’s?
7. / the use of alternative forms of transportation helps reduce traffic loads, toxic emission released into the atmosphere, and parking issues on campus?
8. / the University Security and SMUSA offer safe walk home and safe drive home programs?
Can you commit…. refers to theability to commit (time, access to resources, physical ability, logistical/personal situation) Yes or No