September 1994

FHWA Study Tour for

Prepared by the study tour team

and the

Transportation Technology Evaluation Center (TTEC)

International Technology Research Institute

Loyola College in Maryland

Baltimore, MD 21210

Prepared for

Federal Highway Administration

U.S. Department of Transportation

Washington, DC 20590

September 1994

Executive Summary v

1. Introduction 1
1.1 Background 1
1.2 Purpose of Trip 1
1.3 Team Members 2
1.4 European Contacts 3
1.5 General Trip Description 4

2. Summary of Visits 5
2.1 The United Kingdom 5
2.2 Denmark 5
2.3 The Netherlands 5
2.4 Sweden 5
2.5 France 6
2.6 Germany 6
2.7 Overall View 6

3. Findings 7
3.1 Overview 7
3.2 Institutional Questions 8
3.3 Content Questions 12
3.4 Method Questions 17

4. Acknowledgments 25

Appendices

A. United States Team 27
B. Primary European Contacts 29
C. Sample Introductory Letter 31
D. Glossary of Special Terms and Acronyms 33
E. Meeting Agendas 35
F. Documents Received 43

National Travel Surveys Summary Table 9

Executive Summary

In October 1993, a team of Federal, State, and local officials visited major centers in Europe where substantial national travel survey activities have been undertaken. Among the purposes of the visits were to seek out innovative methodological approaches to transportation survey design and operations, to review European experiences with different kinds of institutional arrangements, and to investigate new ideas in survey content and new collection methods. The countries visited included:

The United Kingdom

Denmark

The Netherlands

Sweden

France

Germany

Information obtained in these visits will have direct and immediate application in the United States. The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), under the leadership of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), will be designing and conducting the Nationwide Personal Transportation Survey (NPTS) in 1995. In addition, the Department's new Bureau of Transportation Statistics will also be conducting a major survey of long-distance travel, the American Travel Survey, in 1995. These surveys represent major financial investments by the DOT. Any experience that can be converted into greater efficiency or program improvement will be highly cost-effective.

While the primary benefits of the field visits of the Travel Survey Panel will be the detailed evaluation of survey design and operations experience and in the wealth of supporting materials obtained in meetings with European counterparts, there are valuable broader perspectives that were obtained and can be identified at this early stage. This report documents some of the broad observations and comments of the study team, based on their six country visits. They are divided into the three discussion areas employed in the visits: institutions, content, and methods.

Institutions

--Travel surveys are expensive. Cost is a critical factor in weighing the trade-offs between content and methods. All States had stringent cost constraints.

--Significant differences exist in funding levels for travel survey data activity. Relative to their overall programs, Europeans appear to devote more resources to this area than we do in the United States.

--Many of the agencies visited referred to the difficulty in effectively justifying survey funding needs. Some of the approaches used to support program financing were continuing programs to avoid funding spikes, broader popular dissemination of survey results to generate public interest and support, and emphasis on the ratio of data costs to total scale of transportation investment.

--Most nations visited had advisory groups composed of agencies that were financial supporters and who provided some program oversight. This approach received mixed reviews. Many felt that boards of advisors or other groups conducting surveys suffered from divergent points of view. A single-purpose approach was preferred. Others felt that the programs benefited from the increased array of input.

--Nation-to-nation comparisons of travel data are difficult because of differences in the definitions of travel attributes and rules of procedure in data collection.

--Greater focus has been given to national-level data collection, based on the national travel surveys, rather than on local data collection. Both Paris and London are doing individual travel surveys, but they are being performed by the national agencies, although with extensive local participation. Germany is conducting a substantial number of local-specific surveys.

--Unlike the United States, European governments conduct a considerable amount of attitudinal and public-preference surveying. Much of this work is targeted at public affairs issues.

--All surveys mix short and long trips in the survey design.

--Short trips are incorporated more frequently in European surveys. These short trips sometimes include walking and bicycling trips as short as 200 or 300 meters in length. Bicycling groups, among others, encourage the measurement of this travel. A major goal is to obtain accident-exposure data, given the high accident and death rates among walkers and users of two-wheeled vehicles of all kinds.

--The distinction between short and long trips is even less clear in Europe than in the United States. Long trips tend to be shorter in Europe than in the United States and are less relevant in an intercity context.

Method

--Continuous surveys are preferred. Half of the countries visited have adopted a continuous system in which observations are made each week of the year over a four- or five-year program cycle.

--The use of omnibus surveys, general surveys of the population containing a variety of topics, is more prevalent than in the United States. This is true of both public and private survey operations.

--Many nations indicated heavy national involvement in local data collection, mostly for the major cities, and displayed significant interest in piggybacking on national surveys for local data needs. This was a partial function of the national survey's ability to obtain and code detailed trip geographic identification.

--The range of details obtained for origin-destination data in national surveys varies significantly. Automated address coding development would appear to be less advanced than in the United States, probably because we have so many large metropolitan areas that require detailed data. But the clear trend in Europe is toward greater sophistication and detail in geographic identification and use.

--The use of geographic information systems (GIS) for display and analysis has increased. Several notable projects were presented using computers for tracing travel itineraries and for presenting a national atlas database.

--The use of computer assisted telephone interviewing (CATI) is growing in Europe. Many countries have higher telephone ownership than in the United States and have better mechanisms for identifying and accessing persons without telephones.

--Because of the type of registers employed in many countries, sample frames are often person-based rather than

household-based. This creates survey complexities because of the importance of household roles in travel demand and characteristics.

--Area classification for urban and rural areas, designed to represent distinct settlement patterns, is used extensively.

--The use of panels, especially for focused public policy questions, is more extensive in Europe than in the United States.

--While public access to survey results is not restricted, and is even encouraged in some cases, the dissemination of national survey data is usually limited to spon-

sors, primarily government agencies, and the research community. The emphasis, except in individual urban surveys, as in London and in various German cities, does not focus on expanding or improving public information.

--Roadside surveying and on-board surveys are far more prevalent in Europe. Due to safety concerns, roadside surveying has diminished in the United States.

--Special-purpose surveys for travel and travel-related activities are performed more frequently in Europe. These include travel of the elderly, young peoples' travel, students' travel, activity surveys, and quality-of-life surveys. Such special-purpose surveys warrant further consideration in the United States.

1. Introduction

1.1 Background

The FHWA of the U.S. DOT is planning to conduct the Nationwide Personal Transportation Survey (NPTS) again in 1995, involving interviews with approximately 25,000 households. The NPTS is the primary national source of travel statistics on the travel behavior of the U.S. population and was first conducted in 1969. Aside from an extensive battery of data on national patterns and trends, it provides a benchmark for local, State, and metropolitan comparisons to locally developed surveys. In many transportation-related subject areas, the NPTS is the only national source of information.

In addition, the U.S. Congress has recently established a Bureau of Transportation Statistics within the Department of Transportation. That agency plans a national travel survey called the American Travel Survey, also scheduled for 1995. This survey will focus on long-distance travel. This survey and the NPTS need to be coordinated in definitions, design, and procedure. These surveys represent major financial investments by the DOT. European experience in merging both local and intercity travel surveying could be helpful in providing guidance to the U.S. programs.

The 1990 NPTS survey successfully introduced a number of innovations, such as computer assisted telephone interviewing (CATI) using a private firm. To continue the adoption of the latest advances in survey practices, a scanning of current international practices was considered highly beneficial. Many European countries have extensive travel survey programs exhibiting substantial expertise and experience. The ability to observe the practices in other countries, to gain from their experiences, and to discuss alternative approaches with people who have similar responsibilities can ultimately pay dividends in money, time, and survey quality.

This report documents the findings of a scanning trip of a team of six U.S. representatives. The team visited national statistical offices in Europe with the potential of sharing important information on the design of travel surveys in the United States. This visit was part of a series of scanning trips to exchange experience with the experts of other nations in subjects important for the U.S. transportation profession in general, and for the FHWA of the U.S. DOT, the trip's sponsor, specifically.

1.2 Purpose of Trip

The specific intent of the trip was to conduct in-depth review and documentation of national travel surveys conducted in Europe. The review would encompass the experience of other nations, including methodological approaches, survey planning considerations, funding and operational practices, privacy issues, statistical sampling, statistical expansion and dissemination of results. The visits would also permit the sharing of recent U.S. experience in survey design with other interested countries. Opportunity for personal exchange of views would also be extremely beneficial. The visits also established valuable contacts that will permit a mutual exchange of information.

Among the other purposes of the visits were to explore and evaluate innovative methodological approaches to transportation survey design and operations, and to review European experience with different institutional arrangements for survey development, new ideas in survey content, and new collection methods. The scanning review would be useful in assessing the potential application of identified techniques to national and urban surveys, with the overall objective of improving the efficiency of survey operations and, ultimately, the accuracy of summary results.

The information obtained in these visits will have direct and immediate application in the United States. The two U.S. surveys will

involve millions of dollars in public funds and will be the U.S. benchmarks of travel activity for the Nation into the next century. It is imperative that these surveys be produced inexpensively and with the highest quality standards.

1.3 Team Members

The study team was assembled to ensure representation and expertise in the field of travel survey design. Team members appear below, with their full names and addresses, along with brief resumes included in Appendix A.

Name Organization Role

David R. McElhaney Federal Highway Team Leadership and

Administration Represent Federal

U.S. DOT Perspective

Frank E. Jarema Federal Highway Represent FHWA

Administration (Program Manager

U.S. DOT for the Nationwide

Personal Transportation Survey)

Philip Fulton Bureau of Represent Bureau of

Transportation Statistics Transportation Statistics

U.S. DOT (Program Manager for the

American Travel Survey)

Ronald Tweedie New York State Dept. Represent State Perspective

of Transportation

Charles Purvis Metropolitan Represent Metropolitan Planning

Transportation Commission Organization (MPO) Perspective

Alan Pisarski Consultant to FHWA Report Facilitator for TTEC

1.4 European Contacts

During the trip, team members met with individuals or groups representing ten different companies, research facilities, universities, and public sector agencies. The principal representatives and their affiliations are summarized below. In Appendix B, their names, addresses, and phone/fax numbers are listed.

The United Kingdom

Mr. Kerrick Macafee Department of Transport

Professor Peter Jones University of Westminster

Mr. Peter Capell Department of Transport

Denmark

Mr. Erik Toft Ministry of Transport

The Netherlands

Mr. Ambrosius Baanders Ministry of Transport and Public Works

Sweden

Mr. Krister Spolander Statistics Sweden

Ms. Amie Lindeberg Statistics Sweden

France

Mr. Jean-Loup Madre National Institute for Research in Transport and Safety (INRETS)

Mr. Michel Houee Ministry of Transport (OEST)

Germany

Dr. Werner Brög SocialData

Ms. Andrea Börngen European Travel Data Center

1.5 General Trip Description

The procedure of the scanning program involved each of the following steps:

1. Establish contact with comparable agencies abroad.

2. Identify through correspondence the issues of concern to U.S. interests in the corresponding nations.

3. Provide officials of those countries with lists of questions.

4. Identify appropriate parties.

5. Establish meeting dates.

6. Conduct site visits to discuss the questions.

7. Obtain research materials and other documentation of experience.

8. Document the visits.

Based on international literature review and the expert team's previous contacts, the key countries in terms of leadership in design and conduct of travel surveys were indentified. The service of a consulting group specializing in the logistics of international visits was retained to establish requested European contacts, develop preliminary visiting schedules, and arrange for the general logistics of the visits, including air travel, hotels, and ground transportation requirements.

Appendix C is a sample of the contact letters used. The team developed questions of interest and transmitted them to potential contacts. At each site a local key contact was asked to take on the role of assembling the appropriate persons to ensure the most effective use of time and to serve as host of the meetings in the site city. A glossary of acronyms and agencies for team use was developed and updated during the trip (see Appendix D).

In addition to their specific, separate roles,

each member of the team was required to take individual notes to assist in report preparation and review, and to provide their individual expertise and perspective to the team effort.

A compressed itinerary of the six countries was established to maximize the efficiency of the schedule and accommodate the schedules of those visited.

Team members were provided with notebooks that included background materials on each country, the questions to be discussed, materials to guide the visits, and space for note taking. A laptop computer was used to maintain notes for each visit and to provide team members with rapid summaries of meeting results.

2. Summary of Visits

This section briefly outlines the meetings conducted in the six countries visited to provide a sense of the overall trip. In most countries the hosts prepared extensive agendas of expert presentations based on the questions that had been forwarded to them in advance. Agendas for most of the meetings appear in Appendix E. Typically, after brief introductory preliminaries, the team and hosts discussed the questions at hand. Our European hosts were gracious in their hospitality to the team and generous with their time and expertise.

2.1 The United Kingdom

The visit to the United Kingdom involved several meetings, all in London. After a Sunday team planning session with the team's contracted logistics guide and discussions of operating procedures, the meetings commenced. Monday's visits involved an all-morning session with the group from the UK's DOT and Office of Population Censuses and Surveys that operates the national travel survey. The afternoon session was dedicated to a meeting with university experts in the travel survey and transport statistics area.

In the evening, members of the team met with the DOT Director of Statistics to discuss new national transportation policies and data collection in the United States and Europe. The following morning a meeting was held with the team that managed the London Area Transport Survey. A complete briefing on their program was obtained. After the meeting the team departed for Copenhagen, Denmark.

The entire day, Wednesday, was scheduled for a meeting in Copenhagen with the Danish Transport Ministry and associated organizations involved in the operation of their national survey. The Danish hosts arranged the meeting with representatives of the Statistics Office, the Ministry of Environment, the Transport Ministry and Danish Rail.

2.3 The Netherlands

On Friday the activities in the Netherlands paralleled the structure of the meeting in Denmark. The hosts arranged the meeting agenda and brought in a team of experts representing all the key agencies and interests in their program. The meeting involved a full day of sessions at the Netherlands Ministry of Public Works headquarters, Rotterdam. The day closed with informal discussion between the Dutch representatives and the U.S. team.

2.4 Sweden

The team traveled to Stockholm on Saturday and met to compile and compare notes and review progress to date. Computer versions of the summary notes for meetings to date were prepared, distributed, and reviewed.

Monday, a full day of meetings was held with the Statistics Sweden team, who manage their country's national travel survey. Other groups associated with travel surveys were invited to participate in the meetings to discuss special areas such as the use of Geographic Information Systems (GIS) in travel surveys.

2.5 France

On Wednesday there were two major meetings in Paris. The first, a morning meeting, was an extensive discussion of survey matters with the team that manages the French national travel survey. In the afternoon the team met with Transport Ministry policy staff to discuss international statistical matters relating to the actions of multinational agencies such as the European Union.

2.6 Germany

After a morning trip to Munich, Thursday, there was an afternoon meeting with representatives of the European Travel Data Center, a private organization. The following morning the last meeting was held with SocialData, another private entity, that performs an extensive number of travel surveys in Germany and in other countries. This meeting continued into the afternoon.

The last day in Germany was devoted to final meetings of the team, review of the prepared draft notes of the meetings, and the drafting of final comments.

2.7 Overall View

The team's overall view was that the meetings had been valuable and the trip could be considered a success. The professional capabilities and the uniform willingness of the country programs visited to be cooperative and supportive was a major factor in making the visits so worthwhile. One of the great benefits of these meetings has been the opportunity to exchange information with professional counterparts on a face-to-face basis. The interaction that this makes possible, and the ability to move from one important subject to another in a conversational format, cannot be duplicated by telephone or correspondence. These personal contacts make future correspondence more feasible and effective.

3. Findings

3.1 Overview

The U.S. study team prepared a series of questions to focus the objectives of the scanning trip. These questions were not intended to be exhaustive but rather to indicate to the European hosts the primary areas of interest of the team and to assist in guiding discussion. The questions were submitted several weeks before the meetings to assist hosts in identifying those who would be appropriate to have present in the meetings. Some corresponding organizations sought to answer each question specifically in the course of the discussions; others viewed them as a guide for the general flow of topics. In most cases the questions were raised and addressed in every meeting.

The question set was divided into three categories: institutional, referring to the organization and funding of the surveys, distribution of the data, and other administrative matters; content, treating the actual subject matter covered in the surveys; and method, concentrating on the statistical surveying and data processing approaches employed. The question sets are described below.

--What is the general character of national versus local/state/provincial surveys: content, methodology, sample size?

--Is there collection of long-distance and local travel in the same survey?

--What is the nature of your sample frame?

The findings of the team are organized and presented in the format of responses to the questions, though this is not necessarily the manner in which the discussions flowed. Consequently, this approach causes some loss in the great benefits obtained from the actual meetings. The reader is referred to the actual meeting notes on file at the Office of Information Management, FHWA, for the more detailed information from the individual sessions. Documents and other work materials obtained from the visits, identified in Appendix F, are held in a separate file at FHWA.

3.2 Institutional Questions

National versus local/state/provincial surveys--general content, methodology, sample size:

While national surveys varied in content, scale, and scope, all of them provided resources of great value to those studying survey organization and methods. The following table summarizes the salient characteristics of the main national surveys of the nations visited. (Information not available to the study team is so indicated.)

Collection of long-distance versus local travel, in the same survey:

The Danish parliament decided that there was insufficient data for public policy making and planning. Energy and environmental issues were a major factor, given that transport uses 50 percent of petroleum and 20 percent of energy in Denmark. Other uses of energy have decreased; transport use has increased. The concept of sustainable development is a new factor.

Walking trips have varying distance thresholds, defined as:

The UK survey does not record trips by persons who operate a vehicle as their occupation but does include work-related trips that occur as part of a day's activity.

In Denmark, minimum trip distances are 300 meters.

A unique approach to trip definition is employed in Sweden. Trips with a home or work base are considered main trips, errands based on main trips are called part trips, and modal segments are called component trips. Counted trips will include walk and bike trips of over 200 meters in length on a public way.

In France, walk trips are obtained for weekday trips only; bicycle trips are obtained for weekdays and weekends.

The European Travel Monitor, conducted by ETIC, the European Travel Intelligence Center, a private firm, is a survey of long-distance travel only. It covers all overnight domestic and international trips by household members over 15 years of age. All trips are counted for the recall period, but only the most recent three international trips are described in detail. Questions include length of stay, modes used, trip purpose, and an estimate of total expenditures in the trip, with average interview lengths of seven to seven and one-half minutes. Obtaining detailed disaggregated expenditure estimates for trip components has proven unreliable; only about half of respondents are able to estimate expenditures reliably.

Level of detail obtained for each trip:

In Denmark, the overall survey data set consists of four elements:

The background data obtained in the survey consists of ownership of a driver's license, vehicle ownership, transit season ticket status, days per week at work, and time to walk to nearest transit. Trip data collected is very much the standard set: time, mode by leg, purpose, distance of trip, degree of urbanization. In addition to the core survey, its flexible design allows space for featuring monthly, special-purpose questions. This add-on capability has been used for data such as year obtained license, taxation questions, and public reactions to policy issues.

The French questionnaire, conducted as a home interview, is extensive and complete. The survey is conducted in two parts, each requiring about an hour to complete, justifying concerns about its great length. The first part obtains socioeconomic data and the second meeting covers travel activities. They also obtain data on transport expenditures such as vehicle repair costs.

The questionnaire is used as a standard instrument in most of the surveys conducted by SocialData in Germany. Their format displays great openness to the respondents' interests and allows for extensive freedom of comment. It is designed for minimal, basic collection by mail.

Procedure for estimating vehicle miles of travel/person miles of travel:

The UK approach to obtaining total annual VMT/PMT estimates involves collecting respondent estimates that are the product of trips multiplied by trip lengths. Estimates

Nature of sample frame, in each case:

The UK NTS sampling is a two-stage design keyed to the national postal code register, which contains addresses of all structures. Generally, about 20 observations are drawn from each of 240 of the 8000 postal code areas, using zero-vehicle households and auto ownership as controls. The LATS survey used the postal code register with about 72 responding households per electorial ward.

The UK National Travel Survey is described as a seven day face-to-face survey using diaries as memory-joggers and as recording devices. Because of a relatively low (88 percent) household phone ownership rate in the UK, the National Travel Survey uses face-to-face interviewing. The participant receives a general letter informing them of selection, followed by a placement interview to obtain household, individual, and vehicle data. Persons of 11 and above receive their own diaries, and about three or four days later the travel week begins. Interviewers call to confirm that the householders understand their requested activities and pick up the forms in the following week, with a four-day goal to complete pickups. Some maintain that the survey is too large to permit phone interviewing.

They decided that a seven-day survey was optimum. An unsupported, retrospective survey can cover only two or three days, at most, because competent recall beyond that is limited. Their goal of 1994 is to get to Computer Assisted Personal Interviewing (CAPI) because of anticipated potential quality, speed, and cost benefits. CAPI is used in other government surveys, for example, a labor force survey and a crime survey.

The LATS survey was conducted as a paper-and-pencil interview (PAPI). CAPI was considered, but at the time the decision was made, the technology was still in its infancy and the UK lacked experience in its application to large-scale surveys. Computers were still expensive and heavy, and use of CAPI was not cost-effective for a one-time survey. For a small survey of 1000 observations to update trip rates, or for preference surveys, CAPI was attractive. Further, if they were to start today, they would seriously consider CAPI. CATI approaches would not be useful because of the low phone ownership rates and because a large part of the survey focused on the needs of minorities, who were even less likely to have phones. Survey length was also a concern.

The Danish survey design is based on Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing (CATI) and is conducted by the Danish Statistical Office as part of the national Omnibus survey, which covers many subjects. The nation has a 93 percent rate of telephone ownership among households. A significant benefit of the use of the national personal registry, which lists everyone in the country, for a sample frame in the design of the survey is that those households without phones are identifiable by address. They can be contacted by mail and arrangements made for alternative means to collect survey data.

In Denmark, four alternative collection designs were considered: an eight-month survey using four panels conducted quarterly, a system for respondents to call in trips to a phone recorder, a face-to-face interview, and a diary mailback. In one case, they considered having a phone interview with respondents to collect the trips they had previously recorded in a diary. All of these approaches had weaknesses and were rejected.

Among the survey choices of phone, mail, or face-to-face, the Netherlands researchers found travel surveys too complex for phone interviewing, mail too low in response rate, and thus preferred the more expensive face-to-face approach. This added pressure to use panels because of the lower cost per interview in panels compared with other face-to-face approaches.

In almost all countries contacted, no attempt is made to survey visitors. In several countries, roadside surveys are used extensively. If the cars stopped contain foreign visitors, their travel activity data is recorded.

Sweden plans a hotel register for surveying tourists. They will get outbound international Swedish travel in the national travel survey.

In the UK, NTS data indicates that trip diaries get more trip observations than alternatives.

The idea of a diary was tested in Denmark but rejected. The diary approach was found to be inflexible, and required respondents to define questions in their own way for difficult materials, such as linked trips, whereas phone interviewers can explain and react quickly. It was also noted that, despite a high rate of literacy, 10 percent of the population has difficulty with forms and other complex material.

In Sweden, the diary was regarded as an effective complement to the household survey, but it was not effective when used alone. About half of respondents used the diary for remembering, but the value was seen as guiding other respondents to the necessity for detailed responses as well. The Swedish dislike seven-day recall surveys because of poor recall but felt that week-long travel diaries might prove effective. Also monthly-recall level decay was cited, as follows:

Month 1 100 percent

Month 2 96 percent

Month 3 93 percent

Month 4 89 percent

Month 5 83 percent

The Netherlands has extensive experience with using panels to collect travel data. Two perspectives on the experience with the National Mobility Panel were presented. Dr. Henk Meurs, consultant to the Transport Research Centre, described the panel as 2000 households with approximately 4000 persons over 12 years of age. The primary objective of the panel, which ran from 1984 to 1989, was to monitor trends in personal mobility, particularly behavioral reactions to national transportation policy changes. The need to examine these changes over time led to the panel approach, designed to operate in ten waves over four years. This was in response to a prospective transit fare increase to be introduced over a period of four years. Parliament agreed to the proposed fare changes but mandated monitoring of the first year's effects before the second increase could become effective. (The second phase of increases were subsequently canceled.) Panels were conducted parallel to the cross-sectional national travel survey, in operation since 1979.

Dr. Meurs outlined the alternative characteristics of panels versus cross-sectional surveys and felt that the panel approach was efficient in tracing discrete time events and actual durations. Among the emerging issues where this would be valuable were travel concerns of the aging and rates of turnover in the vehicle fleet.

Panel effects, or panel conditioning, wherein panelists begin to respond differently because of the survey observing their behavior, was noted as an additional problem. Panels needed refreshment with new respondents in each wave. Among other methodological issues are the choices between individuals or households in panels, requirements for panel size, and refreshment procedures.

Panels could be applied to future issues, such as use of HOV lanes; before-and-after studies of land-use changes; the study of the adverse effects of policy, e.g., the creation of rail lines generating increased auto travel; the study of supply/demand interactions; the study of consumer attitudes, including elasticities and the value of time; and modeling in new ways that have not yet been fully validated.

A panel studied the effects of free transit provided to all students ages 18 to 27. The purposes of the study were to obtain before-and-after trend experience regarding transit use, obtain descriptive statistics, and perform cohort analyses.

In Sweden, a panel concept is being considered for the new travel survey. Panels are used extensively in other national surveys, and the Swedish view is that person-based panels are preferable to household panels. Due to family changes, households are considered too dynamic.

The French view was that panels were effective for short-term questions, for example, measuring vehicle fleet turnover. They replenish a quarter of the panel each wave, and they felt that weekly panels overloaded the respondents. A major goal of their survey approach was to recognize that trips were disproportionately produced by some groups in society and they did not want the survey instrument to discourage high-frequency users.

Methods of geographic identification and summarization:

In the UK national survey, geographic identification is coded to the county level and restricted to the 63 counties, in the interest of protecting confidentiality.

In Denmark, roadside surveys to obtain origin-destination data are a low priority because of expected political reaction. Their goal is to link such data collection more accurately with national travel surveys to gain better use of the data.

Another Netherlands survey was a day-trip survey undertaken to obtain greater understanding of tourism activities. Long trips of more than two hours' duration for recreational purposes, not including visits to friends and relatives or overnight stays, were collected by phone for a two-week or one-month recall period. About 90 percent of the trips collected were usable. The first data will be available in August 1994.

In Sweden, in response to a question on survey timing, researchers indicated that pretesting began in October 1993, evaluation performed over the Christmas holidays, and a full-scale field test conducted in January 1994. There is a data integrity agency that reviews data programs but it does not have a protracted content or design review process. The contrast in speed to the United States is notable.

The French survey, funded by French Telecom, the national telephone company, contains an experimental set of questions on the communications capabilities of the household, phones owned and used, etc. This may be useful for looking at substitutes for transportation.

In meetings with French officials, they indicated that, in the long term, there would need to be a public intercity travel survey for all of Europe. The various multinational groups were forming an intersecretariat group to coordinate activities. This included Eurostat, the statistical agency of the EC, the Economic Commission for Europe of the United Nations (ECE/UN) in Geneva, and the European Conference of Ministers of

Special acknowledgment is due all the European transportation ministries, contractors, and researchers for their gracious hospitality and generosity in sharing their time and expertise with the scanning team.

Thanks also go to FHWA's Office of International Programs for technical assistance and funding of this valuable project.

A large part of this successful effort is attributable to the preparation and professionalism of the Transportation Technology Evaluation Center (TTEC) at Loyola College in Maryland. TTEC coordinated the team, provided logistical support, and edited this publication.

Finally, special thanks are given to TTEC's liaison office, American Trade Initiatives, Inc., for arranging the meetings, planning the travel, and escorting the team.

Appendix A. United States Team

David R. McElhaney

Director, Office of Highway Information Management

Federal Highway Administration

400 7th Street, SW

Washington, DC 20590

Tel: 202-366-0180

Fax: 202-366-7742

Responsible for the national program for assembly, analysis, and publication of highway transportation data. This program works in partnership with the 50 State Departments of Transportation and deals with mileages, travel, finance, vehicle registration, and drivers' licenses.

Frank E. Jarema

Chief, National Data Management and Dissemination Division

Federal Highway Administration

400 7th Street, SW

Washington, DC 20590

Tel: 202-366-0160

Fax: 202-366-7742

Responsible for conducting the collection, analysis, and publication of national personal travel data. Served as program manager for the series of Nationwide Personal Transportation Studies.

Philip Fulton

Associate Director for Data User Services, Bureau of Transportation Statistics

400 7th Street, SW

Washington, DC 20590

Tel: 202-366-3282

Fax: 202-366-3640

Responsibilities include developing and directing a data dissemination program, designing a national intercity travel survey to be conducted in 1995, and acting as principal liaison to the Bureau of the Census for the transportation items collected in the 2000 Census.

Formerly Chief, Journey to Work Statistics, Bureau of the Census. Also designed the reports and machine-readable products for the 1990 United States Census.

Ronald Tweedie

Director of Data Services Bureau

New York State Department of Public Works

State Campus, Building 4, Room 115

Albany, NY 12232

Tel: 518-457-1966

Fax: 518-457-8317

Responsible for transportation data collection and dissemination including traffic and travel surveys.

Chair, Transportation Research Board Subcommittee on Statewide Data and Information Systems, AIC03 (2).

Charles Purvis

Senior Transportation Planner

Metropolitan Transportation Commission

101 8th Street

Oakland, CA 94607

Tel: 510-464-7731

Fax: 510-464-7848

Chief of Transportation Analysis Unit in charge of survey data collection and analysis, census data analysis, travel demand model development, and travel forecasting.

Chair, Transportation Research Board Subcommittee on Urban Data and Information Systems, AIC03 (1).

Alan Pisarski

Consultant

6501 Waterway Drive

Falls Church, VA 22044

Tel: 703-941-4257

Fax: 703-941-5086

Formerly, Chief of the Information Division in the Office of the Secretary,

U.S. Department of Transportation, and in that capacity served as the first U.S. representative to the Group of Experts on Transport Statistics of the UN/ECE.

Served seven years as Chair of the National Academy of Science's Transportation Research

Board Committee on Transport Data and Information Systems.

Report facilitator and primary recorder for the surveys team, under contract with the Transportation Technology Evaluation Center (TTEC) at Loyola College in Maryland.

Appendix B. Primary European Contacts

The United Kingdom

Mr. Kerrick Macaffee

Department of Transport

Directorate of Statistics

2 Marsham Street

London, SW1 3PY

Tel: 44-71-276-8025

Fax: 44-71-276-8161

Professor Peter Jones

Director, Transport Studies Group

University of Westminster

35 Marylebone Road

London NW1 515

Tel: 44-71-911-5021

Fax: 44-71-911-5057

Mr. Peter Capell

Department of Transport

Directorate of Statistics

Romney House

43 Marsham Street

London SWI 3PY

Tel: 44-71-276-8170

Fax: 44-71-276-8784

Denmark

Mr. Erik Toft

Trafikministeriet

Frederiksholm Kanal 27(F)

Copenhagen

Tel: 45-33-924-333

Fax: 45-33-123-893

The Netherlands

Mr. Ambrosius Baanders

Head, Dept. for Strategic Research and Programme Coordination

P.O. Box 1031

3000 BA Rotterdam

Boompjes 200

Tel: 3110-402-6681

Fax: 3110-414-8125

Sweden

Mr. Krister Spolander

Statistics Sweden

100 Karlavägen

S-115 81 Stockholm

Tel: 46-8-783-4293

Fax: 46-8-783-4763

Mrs. Amie Lindeberg

Statistics Sweden

100 Karlavägen

S-115 81 Stockholm

Tel: 46-8-783-4946

Fax: 46-8-783-4763

France

Mr. Jean-Loup Madre

Director of Research, Dept. of Transport Economics and Sociology

2 avenue du General Malleret-Joinville

94114 Arcueil Cedex

Tel: 331-47-40-70-00

Fax: 331-45-47-56-06

Mr. Michel Houee

Chargé de mission pour la coordination des affaires internationales

Tour Pascal B

Tel: 331-4081-13-57

Fax: 331-4081-17-71

Germany

Dr. Werner Brög

SocialData

Hans-Grassel-Weg 1

D-8000 Munich 70

Tel: 49-89-7108-1

Fax: 49-89-7164-02

Ms. Andrea Börngen

Director of Research, European Travel Data Center

Hohenzollernstrasse 2

D-8000 Munich 40

Tel: 49-89-3320-05

Fax: 49-89-3384-06

Appendix C. Sample Introductory Letter

13 August 1993

Mr. Christian Reynaud

INRETS

Dear Mr. Reynaud,

Survey Terms

CAPI Computer Assisted Personal Interview

CASQ Computer Assisted Self-administered Questionnaire

CATI Computer Assisted Telephone Interview

CES Consumer Expenditure Survey, United States

GLTS Greater London Travel Survey

NPTS Nationwide Personal Transportation Survey, United States Survey

NTS National Travel Survey

O-D Origin-Destination Survey

PAPI Pencil and Paper Interview

PC-AXIS software for tabulation and suppression analysis

Transport Terms

E roads European roads extending across international borders

HOV High Occupancy Vehicle

PKT Person Kilometers of Travel

VKT Vehicle Kilometers of Travel

VMT Vehicle Miles of Travel

X-Y grid coordinates

Agencies

Date: Monday 11 October 1993

Time: 9:30am - 12:30pm

Location: Conference Room S, Room S4/03, 2 Marsham St, LONDON SW1

Those expected:

From USA UK

David McElhaney HPM Kerrick Macafee DOT

Frank Jarema HPM Paul Niblett DOT

Phil Fulton BTS Amanda Wilmot OPCS

Ron Tweedie NY DOT Nick Bateson OPCS

Chuck Purvis MTC Sharon Bruce OPCS

Alan Pisarski TTEC Nicola Iles OPCS

John O'Neill TTEC

NB. HPM Office of Highway Information Management, FHWA

BTS Bureau of Transportation Statistics

NYDOT New York State Department of Transportation

MTC Metro Transportation Commission

TTEC Transportation Technology Evaluation Center

DOT Department of Transportation

OPCS Office of Population Censuses and Surveys

Timetable

9:30 Introduction inc. uses of NTS Kerrick Macafee

9:45 Data collection Amanda Wilmot

10:30 Break

10:45 Data processing and dissemination Paul Niblett

11:30 Methodological choices Kerrick Macafee

12:15 Question time ALL

12:30 LUNCH

Speakers have agreed not to speak for longer than 30 minutes, which should leave plenty of time for questions and debate both during and toward the end of each 45-minute segment. Some of the topics to be covered by each speaker are listed below. Those put forward by John O'Neill are in bold letters.

We are aware that there are some differences between U.S. NTSs and ours. In particular, the U.S. uses CATI, fairly normal for U.S. survey operations, and the U.S. NTSs are conducted every 7 years or so, not continuously as in GB. We will endeavour to keep our talks as relevant to the U.S. experience as possible.

Amanda Wilmot

-Advantages and disadvantages of telephone interviewing versus personal interviewing.

-Advantages and disadvantages of using the respondent diary method.

-Escort journeys.

-Estimating distances of walk and other journey stages.

-Incentive/low response rates in city areas.

-Journeys, subsidiary journeys, etc.

-The advantages of ACPI over PAPI (as part of the discussion of why CATI is not suitable in Great Britain?).

Paul Niblett

-Work-trip itinerary (how to handle respondents who make many daily trips as part of their occupation, e.g. delivery drivers).

-The level of detail obtained for each trip.

-The collection of national-level data and detailed geographical origin-destination data for local usage.

-The practicality of obtaining road-class information for individual trips.

-The collection of long-distance travel data and local travel data in the same survey.

-Measuring annual vehicle travel (respondent estimates versus odometer readings).

-Institutional responsibility for national travel surveys (e.g., central statistics bureaus, transportation agencies, etc.) and application of survey results.

-Reweighting data.

-Income equivalent scales.

-Continuous versus ad hoc travel surveys.

Second and Third Parts

I understand that the second part of the conference will be an afternoon session held at the University of Westminster. This will be chaired by a transport consultant, Prof. Peter Jones. The third part of the conference will be on the following morning and will concentrate on local transport surveys, such as the London Area Transport Survey (LATS). It will be handled by Peter Capell in his office in Romey House.

VISIT TO UK DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT

BY NATIONAL PERSONAL TRANSPORTATION SURVEYS PANEL

12 OCTOBER 1993

THE LONDON AREA TRANSPORT SURVEY (LATS)

Purpose of Meeting

Informal discussion of how experience with design and implementation of LATS is relevant to USA survey plans.

AGENDA

1. Introduction to LATS

-Data requirements

2. General Design Issues

-Sample sizes

-etc.

3. Methodology

-Household Survey

-Pilots

-Use of CAPI

-Cordon diary

-Goods Vehicles

-Other

4. Household Survey Questionnaire

5. Address Coding

6. General Questions

Conference: Danish Travel Surveys

Wednesday, 13 October 1993, American visit

10:00 Welcome and presentation, Erik Toft, Ministry of Transport

10:15 The Danish National-level Personal Travel Survey, special surveys to collect information about children and old people, institutional responsibility, Pia Berring, Ministry of Transport

10:45 The collection of national-level survey data, geographic stratification, advantages and disadvantages of telephone interviewing versus personal interviewing and of using the respondent diary method. Johannes Noordhoek, Danmarks Statistik

11:10 Break

11:15 The Danish travel habits, results and the travel survey, Linda Christensen, National Environmental Research Institute

11:40 Collection of long-distance travel data in the same survey, Erik Bache, Danish State Railways

12:00 Lunch

13:30 Subsampling at the local level, monthly indicators of transport activity, the practicality of obtaining road class information for individual trips, Knud Erik Andersen, The Danish Road Directorate.

13:50 How to get information about safety aspects from the travel survey,

Inger Marie Bernhoft, Danish Council of Road Safety Research

14:10 Estimating vehicle-miles-of-travel/person-miles-of-travel, special analyses about yearly vehicle-miles-of-travel and passengers in cars, Erik Toft, Ministry of Transport

14:30 Questions and discussion

David McElhaney, Office of Highway Information Management, FHWA

Frank E. Jarema, National Data Management and Dissemination Division, FHWA

Phil Fulton, Bureau of Transportation Statistics

Ron Tweedie, Division of Transportation Planning

Chuck Purvis, Metro Transportation Commission

Alan Pisarski, Report Facilitator

Linda Christensen, National Environmental Research Institute

Erik Bache, Danish State Railways

Johannes Noordhoek, Danmarks Statistik (Danish Central Statistics office)

Frances Cheung Consultant Public and Private Transport, Ministry of Transport and Public Works, Transport Research Centre (AVV)

Dr. Frans Hendrikx Head of Traffic and Transport Division, Central Bureau of Statistics

Eric den Hoedt Head of Tourism Division, Central Bureau of Statistics

Prof.dr. Toon

van der Hoorn Head of the Section Strategic Studies, Ministry of Transport and Public Works, Transport Research Centre

Dr. Henk Meurs Consultant, MuConsult Utrecht

Ger Moritz Researcher Traffic and Transport, Central Bureau of Statistics

Ursula Blom Consultant Strategic Studies, Ministry of Transport and Public Works, Transport Research Centre (AVV)

Aad Rühl Head of Directorate General of Transport, Ministry of Transport and Public Works

National Personal Transportation Surveys

Agenda for the seminar 18 October 1993 at Statistics Sweden,

Stockholm, Karlavägen 100, Room B616 (Blåsippan).

0830 Arrival, coffee

0900 Presentations, approval of the Krister Spolander

agenda, etc. SCB

0930 Use of and general requirements of Henrik Swahn

data on personal transportation in The National Road

Sweden and Transport

Research Institute

1000 The National Swedish Surveys on Amie Lindeberg

personal transportation in the SCB

1970s and 1980s: objectives,

methods, results and experiences

1015 Coffee break

Appendix F. Documents Received

United Kingdom

Meeting with Mr. Kerrick Macafee

Copies of slide presentation materials

National Travel Survey questionnaire

Reports:

National Travel Survey 1989/1991

Annual report of the Transport Studies Group; a brief resume of the functions and activities of the group at the University of Westminster

Meeting with Mr. Peter Capell

Office Organization Chart

Home Interview Survey Form

Roadside Survey Interview Form

Denmark

Summary copies of presentation transparencies

Copy of survey questionnaire

Reports:

The Bicycle in Denmark, 1993, Present Use and Future Potential

Danish Transport Action Plan, January 1991

Road Transport Statistics 1992

Papers:

Netherlands

Papers:

Sweden

Statistical Databases Description

Statistics Sweden Organization Chart

Map of National Population Densities

GIS Guide

Mini Reports:

Sweden in Figures 1993

Women and Men in Figures 1990

Education in Sweden 1991

The Swedish Environment

Meeting with Mr. Jean-Loup Madre

National Travel Survey 1993/94 Questionnaire

Transportation Statistics Sources

Trips in Paris

Organization of the OEST

Brief Analysis of the Status and Regulation of Transportation in Europe

Germany

Meeting with Ms. Andrea Börngen

1992 European Travel Monitor Questionnaire

Description of ETIC (European Travel Intelligence Center)

Meeting with Dr. Werner Brög

Listing of publications

Sample questionnaires with mailing material

Reports:

Assessment of Mobility