Effectiveness of Different Approaches to Disseminating Traveler Information on Travel Time Reliability (2013) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Pages 71-84
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 71... ...
71 The objective of the open-ended survey was to determine whether drivers could correctly interpret both an indicator of normal trip time and an indicator of reliability (buffer time or total trip time estimate)
|
From page 72... ...
72 not every term could be tested in every combination with every participant. A total of 16 versions of the survey were created, as shown in Table 8.1.
|
From page 73... ...
73 information from a hotel website before they left the hotel for the meeting. Scenario 1 read as follows.
|
From page 74... ...
74 • Participants could add some time other than the buffer time value to the normal trip time to come up with the trip time they would allow for (the amount of time added may or may not be influenced by the buffer term)
|
From page 75... ...
75 the term best able to encourage selection of the trip time which most closely aligns with the amount of trip time uncertainty that the operating agency would be attempting to convey. When the terms added time and extra time were shown, a greater percentage of participants chose travel times that exceeded the 70-min intended value.
|
From page 76... ...
76 buffer terms were added time (74%) , extra time (70%)
|
From page 77... ...
77 message meant the same thing as the remaining buffer terms (those not originally viewed by the participant)
|
From page 78... ...
78 • Participants could ignore the normal trip time value provided and base their trip time strictly on the total trip time estimate provided (the intended use)
|
From page 79... ...
79 many participants who viewed the term travel time for planning chose to use a value less than the total trip time estimate in deciding how much time to allow. This result suggests that the term travel time for planning may convey more of a sense of a maximum trip time.
|
From page 80... ...
80 remained at 30 min but the total trip time estimate was 45 min (10 min less than in the original scenario 2)
|
From page 81... ...
81 Table 8.12. Distribution of Trip Times Allowed for 45-Minute Trip Trip Times Allowed For Percentage of Participants Total Trip Time Estimate Term Viewed Average 95th Percentile (n 5 46)
|
From page 82... ...
82 The percentage of participants who preferred each of the terms tested is shown in Table 8.14. These findings revealed no clear consensus as to the most preferred total trip time estimate term.
|
From page 83... ...
83 of participants adding the buffer time to the normal trip time, while the term cushion time resulted in the least. • Participants who saw recommended cushion time were more likely to select a total trip time that was clustered closely around the 70-min total trip time implied by the website message.
|
From page 84... ...
84 destination. Overall, 75% and 67% of participants, respectively, indicated that their trip would certainly or very likely take less than the value shown, further indicating that they recognized that value as an upper limit to how long a trip might take.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.