CHICAGO AREA VISITOR SURVEY

Transcription

1 CHICAGOAREA VISITOR SURVEY Prepared by: April 2015

2 The Regional Transportation Authority (RTA) commissioned RSG Inc.to survey and prepare the following report on transportation choices by visitors to the Chicago region. The RTA oversees planning and funding for public transportation in the Chicago area. The RTA convened the Chicago Visitor Travel Survey Technical Committee, which was comprised of representatives from the Illinois Department of Transportation s Division of Public and Intermodal Transportation, the Chicago Transit Authority, Metra, Pace, the Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning (CMAP), the Chicago Department of Transportation, and the Chicago Convention and Tourism Bureau. The RTA, the Federal Transit Administration, and the Illinois Department of Transportation s Division of Public and Intermodal Transportation funded this study. DISCLAIMER This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The United States Government assumes no liability for its contents or use thereof. The United States Government does not endorse products of manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers names appear therein solely because they are considered essential to the objectives of this report. 2

3 CONTENTS Contents Executive summary... 7 Regional Visitors... 8 Non Regional Visitors Recommendations Introduction Methodology Sampling Questionnaire Design Survey Administration Intercept Recruitment Lists Website and Newsletter Recruits Hotels/Hostels Survey Weighting Results Regional Visitors Who are the Regional Visitors to Chicago? What are Visitors Doing While in the Chicago Area? How do Visitors Plan Their Travel? Non Regional Visitors Who are the Non Regional Visitors to Chicago? What are Non Regional Visitors Doing While in the Chicago Area? How do Non Regional Visitors Plan Their Travel?

4 Comparison of Regional and Non Regional Visitors Trip Characteristics Reasons for Using or Not Using Transit What do Visitors Think about Transportation in the Chicago Area? Recommendations Regional Visitors Non Regional Visitors Table of Figures Figure 1: Screenshot of Web Survey Entry Page Figure 2: Intercept Flyer Front and Back Figure 3: Home Zip Code (Regional Visitors) Figure 4: Age (Regional Visitors) Figure 5: Household Income (Regional Visitors) Figure 6: Number of Persons in Party Figure 7: Percent of Traveling with Children and Seniors by Age Group (Regional Visitors) Figure 8: Types of Travel Companions (Regional Visitors) Figure 9: Frequency of Transit Use at Home Figure 10: Trip Purpose (Regional Visitors) Figure 11: Travel Modes to Destination by Trip Purpose (Regional Visitors) Figure 12: Travel Modes to Destination by Children in Party (Regional Visitors) Figure 13: Trip Duration (Regional Visitors) Figure 14: Accommodation Type for Overnight (Regional Visitors) Figure 15: Accommodation Location for Overnight (Regional Visitors) Figure 16: Types of Activities While in Chicago Area (Regional Visitors) Figure 17: Types of Activities While in Chicago Area by Trip Purpose (Regional Visitors) Figure 18: Types of Activities While in Chicago Area by Children in Party (Regional Visitors) Figure 19: Travel Modes Used In Chicago Area Simplified (Regional Visitors) Figure 20: Travel Modes Used In Chicago Area (Regional Visitors) Figure 21: Primary Transit Mode Used (Regional Visitors) Figure 22: Primary Transit Mode Used (Regional Visitors Metra Excluded) Figure 23: Single Travel Modes Used in Chicago Area (Regional Visitors) Figure 24: Other Modes Used by Metra Riders (Regional Visitors) Figure 25: Travel Modes by Party Size (Regional Visitors) Figure 26: Travel Mode in Chicago Area among Those Traveling with Children or Seniors (Regional Visitors) Figure 27: How Paid Fare Figure 28: How Pay for Fare and How Pay for Ticket (Regional Visitors) Figure 29: Number of Visitor Trips in Chicago Area (Regional Visitors)

5 Figure 30: Number of Visits in Chicago Area by Trip Purpose Figure 31: Primary Decision Maker in Party (Regional visitor) Figure 32: Information Source Used for Travel Planning (Regional Visitors) Figure 33: Information Resource Type Used for Travel Planning (Regional Visitors) Figure 34: How Accessed Travel Information Figure 35: Information Sources Aware or Have Used (Regional Visitors) Figure 36: Reasons for Using Transit During Visit (Regional Visitors) Figure 37: Reasons for Not Using Transit (Regional Visitors) Figure 38: Why Used Metra or South Shore Line and Not CTA (Regional Visitors) Figure 39: Attitudes toward Travel in the Chicago Area (Regional Visitors) Figure 40: Home Country (Non Regional Visitors) Figure 41: Home State (Non Regional Visitors) Figure 42: Age (Non Regional Visitors) Figure 43: Income Domestic Only (Non Regional Visitors) Figure 44: Car Ownership (Non Regional Visitors) Figure 45: Frequency of Transit Use at Home (Non Regional Visitors) Figure 46: Percentage of Visitors Traveling with Children and Seniors (Non Regional Visitors) Figure 47: Types of Travel Companions in Party (Non Regional Visitors) Figure 48: Trip Purpose Domestic (Non Regional Visitors) Figure 49: Trip Purpose International (Non Regional Visitors) Figure 50: Trip Purpose All Non Regional Visitors (Non Regional Visitors) Figure 51: Access Mode to the Chicago Area (Non Regional Visitors) Figure 52: Travel Modes to Region by Trip Purpose (Non Regional Visitors) Figure 53: Stay Duration (Non Regional Visitors) Figure 54: Accommodation Type (Non Regional Visitors) Figure 55: Accommodation Location (Non Regional Visitors) Figure 56: Types of Activities While in Chicago Area (Non Regional Visitors) Figure 57: Types of Activities While in Chicago Area by Trip Purpose (Non Regional Visitors) Figure 58: Travel Modes Used In Chicago Area (Non Regional Visitors) Figure 59: Travel Modes in Chicago Area (Non Regional Visitors) Figure 60: Single Travel Modes Used in Chicago Area (Non Regional Visitors) Figure 61: Travel Modes in Chicago Area by Transit Use at Home (Non Regional Visitors) Figure 62: How Did You Pay For Your Fare (Non Regional Visitors) Figure 63: How Did You Pay For Your Ticket (Non Regional Visitor) Figure 64: Number of Visits to Chicago Area in Past 12 Months (Non Regional Visitors) Figure 65: Primary Decision Maker (Non Regional Visitors) Figure 66: Information Sources Used to Plan Travel (Non Regional Visitors) Figure 67: How Travel Planning Resources Were Accessed (Non Regional Visitors) Figure 68: Awareness of Travel Planning Resources (Non Regional Visitors) Figure 69: Reasons for Using Transit While in Chicago Area (Non Regional Visitors) Figure 70: Reasons for Using Transit by Trip Purpose (Non Regional Visitors) Figure 71: Reasons for Using Transit by Children in Party (Non Regional Visitors) Figure 72: Reasons for Not Using Transit (Non Regional Visitors)

6 Figure 73: Transit Use in Chicago Area by Transit Use at Home (Non Regional Visitors) Figure 74: Attitudes towards Travel and Transit in the Chicago Area (Non Regional Visitors) Figure 75: Visit Duration by Visitor Type Figure 76: Stay Type by Visitor Type Figure 77: Stay Region by Visitor Type Figure 78: Number of Visits to Chicago Area in Past Year by Visitor Type Figure 79: Transit Access Mode by Visitor Type Figure 80: Modes Used in Chicago Area by Visitor Type Figure 81: Single Modes Used in Chicago Area by Visitor Type Figure 82: Reasons for Using Transit by Visitor Type Figure 83: Reasons for Not Using Transit by Visitor Type Figure 84: Attitudes toward Transit by Visitor Type Table of Tables Table 1: Sampling Segments Table 2: Survey Languages Table 3: Recruitment Methods Table 4: Survey Intercept Sites and Number of Surveys Table 5: Travel Modes to Destination by Age (Regional Visitors) Table 6: Travel Modes to Destination by Age (Regional Visitors, Metra Excluded) Table 7: Top Locations Visited by Trip Purpose Table 8: Locations Most Visited Together by Regional Visitors Table 9: Locations Visited Top Locations by Transit Use Only those that used Transit (Regional Visitors) Table 10: Information Resources Type Used by Primary Decision Maker (Regional Visitors) Table 11: Information Resources Used (Simplified) by Age (Regional Visitors) Table 12: Information Resources Used by Age (Regional Visitors) Table 13: How Accessed Information by Age (Regional Visitors) Table 14: Reasons for Using Transit by Age (Regional Visitors) Table 15: Reasons for Not Taking Transit by Children in Party (Regional Visitors) Table 16: Reasons for Not Using Transit by Age (Regional Visitors) Table 17: Frequency of Transit Use at Home by Age Group (Non Regional Visitors) Table 18: Travel Mode in Chicago Area by Person with Disability in Party Table 19: Tourist Locations Visited (Non Regional Visitors) Table 20: Locations Most Visited Together (Non Regional Visitors) Table 21: Travel Mode by Age (Non Regional Visitors) Table 22: Travel Modes in Chicago by Car Ownership (Non Regional Visitors) Table 23: Travel Modes in Chicago Area by Number of People in Party (Non Regional Visitors) Table 24: Travel Modes in Chicago Area by Traveling Companions (Non Regional Visitors) Table 25: How Planning Resources Were Accessed by Age Group (Non Regional Visitors) Table 26: Attitudes towards Travel in Chicago Area by Children in Party (Non Regional Visitors)

7 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Regional Transportation Authority (RTA) hired RSG to survey visitors to the Chicago area in August and September of The goal of the survey and study was to better understand who visits the Chicago area, learn what these visitors typically do, and identify why these visitors chose transit or another travel mode to get around the Chicago area. To guide the study the Chicago Visitor Travel Survey Technical Committee was established by the RTA and composed of representatives from the Illinois Department of Transportation s Division of Public and Intermodal Transportation, the Chicago Transit Authority, Metra, Pace, the Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning (CMAP), the Chicago Department of Transportation, and the Chicago Convention and Tourism Bureau. These agencies will use this report to devise better strategies to attract more visitors to transit. 3,689 visitors responded to the survey via e mail invitations, links on visitor and agency websites, and intercept surveys at many Chicago area tourist locations. To better understand the travel decisions different visitors made and their attitudes toward transportation and transit in the Chicago area, home geography and trip purpose were used to divide the visitor market into several segments. SEGMENT CATEGORY SEGMENT DEFINITION Visitor Type Regional Visitor Visitor who lives within the six county region and made a trip to a museum, event, tourism location, or convention TOTAL RESPONSES 2,074 Non Regional Visitor Visitor who lives outside the six county region 1,615 Trip Purpose Leisure Trip primarily for leisure purpose 2,866* Business Trip primarily for business purpose 424* Country of Origin Domestic Traveler U.S./Canadian Resident 3,305** International Traveler Non U.S. Resident 384 *A third category option was provided for purpose: Both Business and Leisure. This category was excluded from the Purpose tabulation. **Note: Canadian visitors were grouped as Domestic visitors for this study s purposes Primary Visitor Segments 7

8 The survey team first asked visitors whether they lived inside or outside of the RTA six county Chicago area when they made their visit. If they lived within the Chicago area, they were asked if they made a non routine, non work trip (e.g. to a museum, event, or tourist location) and further surveyed only those who did. These people were classified as regional visitors. If they lived outside of the Chicago area, they were asked whether they resided in the U.S. or Canada or outside those countries and classified them respectively as domestic or international visitors. For all visitors, the survey team asked them whether they were traveling to the Chicago area on business, leisure, or a mix of business and leisure. Regional Visitors Regional visitors lived within the RTA six county Chicago area and traveled to a museum, event, tourist location, or convention also in the Chicago area. The majority (66.4%) of regional visitor responses came from a Metra e mail list, potentially skewing some of the results. However RSG included these visitors in the results, since it helps shed light on different types of regional visitor trips. Over half of regional visitors surveyed used transit for at least some part of their trips during their visit to the Chicago area. These visitors cited convenience, lower stress, and the lower cost of transit as the most important reasons for using transit during their visit. Not having a car and not having a license were the least cited reasons. Travel Modes Used in Chicago Simplified Personal Auto or Taxi 48% Transit 59% Other 46% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Travel Modes Used Simplified (Regional Visitors) As for their reasons for not using transit, regional visitors most commonly answered other, noting they could walk everywhere they needed to go, had no need to use transit, found their car was easier, or found it s faster to drive, among other reasons. Regional visitors who indicated barriers to transit mainly stated that transit appeared to take too long or they preferred to drive or take a taxi/car service.

9 Reasons for Using Transit During Visit Transit is convenient for me to use Transit is less stressful than driving Cost of transit is less than cost of driving I prefer not to drive in the city I like riding transit Transit is faster than driving I don't have a car available to me I do not have a driver s license Other 6% 6% % 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Reasons for Using Transit During Visit (Regional Visitors) Reasons for Not Using Transit Transit takes too long 2 I prefer to drive, or use taxi or car service 19% Transit doesn't go where I need to go 1 I have children in my group 9% I don't know if transit goes to where I want to go 8% I have too many people in my group 7% Not familiar enough with Chicago area to feel 7% It is too difficult to understand how to use the 6% I did not know the fares or how to pay 6% It is too expensive to use transit 6% I don't feel safe riding transit 4% I didn't know that a transit option was available Other 3 0% 10% 1 20% 2 30% 3 40% Reasons for Not Using Transit (Regional Visitors) 9

10 Among regional visitors, the younger age groups (under 35 years old) and older age groups (65 years old or over) tended to take transit more than the middle age groups. Those in the middle age groups, particularly those between 35 and 44 years old, were far more likely to drive. Regional visitors were more likely than other segments to travel with children; however, regional parties including children were less likely to utilize transit. Regional visitors traveling with children were less likely to take transit to get to their destination (54%) than those traveling without children (66%). However, over half of those traveling with children still took transit. 7 50% 66% 54% Travel Modes to Destination by Children in Party 46% No children in party Children in party 30% 2 16% 1 0% Transit Personal Car Walked Taxi/Car Rental Car Biked Other Service Note: Respondents could select multiple responses and therefore the totals do not add to 100%. Travel Modes to Destination by Children in Party (Regional Visitors) While most visitor trips made by regional residents are for leisure, approximately 20% of regional visitors traveled as a part of trip connected to a business purpose. These visitors went to a conference or meeting and then stayed to go to museums, other tourist attractions, and restaurants. 10% 9% Trip Purpose 8 Business Leisure Both business and leisure Trip Purpose (Regional Visitors) 10

11 Regional visitors were generally positive about transit in the Chicago area and realized driving in the Chicago area could be costly and stressful. However, those that drove believed transit took too long or simply preferred driving. Regional visitors used several resources to plan their trips, although most found their information online. Younger visitors (those under 35 years old) expected to access this information not just on a computer, but also on their smartphones/mobile devices. Older visitors (those 55 years old and older) used the internet but also tended to gravitate toward printed materials (e.g., printed schedules/maps, newspapers). Non Regional Visitors Non regional visitors traveled into the six county Chicago area from outside it. They made up a smaller portion of the visitor market but tended to stay longer, visited more tourist locations, and engaged in more activities than regional visitors. RSG divided non regional visitors into domestic (i.e. the U.S. and Canada) and international (i.e. outside of the U.S. and Canada) markets. Most non regional visitors in this survey flew into the Chicago area and stayed in downtown Chicago. These visitors represent an exceptional potential transit market because they came to the Chicago area without a vehicle and are stayed in an area with considerable transit. Non regional visitors traveled to downtown Chicago and primarily walked to the area s attractions, restaurants, and stores. For longer trips, they usually took a taxi or car service. To a slightly lesser extent, they took a CTA train. Only one quarter of these visitors used a personal car for any part of their travel. This suggests visitors are able to use a variety of transportation modes to travel around the city. (Note: the chart below excludes travel mode categories totaling <) Travel Modes Used in Chicago Area Walk (> 4 blocks) % CTA train (The L ) % Taxi or car service CTA bus 2 26% 4 26% Personal car 1 2 Domestic 1 International Metra train 16% 1 All Rental car Other 7% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Travel Modes Used in Chicago Area (Non Regional Visitors) 11

12 Non regional visitors who took transit in the Chicago area often stated it was convenient, less expensive and stressful than driving, and provided a convenient way to get to and from the airport. International visitors also stated they used transit because they did not have a car available to them. When visitors were asked more broadly about their attitudes towards transit in the Chicago area, most of them stated how transit was convenient, easy to navigate, and available in areas people wanted to go. Reasons for Using Transit While in Chicago Area Transit is convenient for me to use Cost of transit is less than cost of driving Transit is less stressful than driving I prefer not to drive in the city I don't have a car available to me Transit is faster than driving I like riding transit I do not have a driver s license Other 4% 56% 37% 3 30% 28% 27% 24% Non Regional Visitors 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Reasons for Using Transit while in Chicago Area Reasons for Not Using Transit I prefer to drive, or use taxi or car service Not familiar enough with Chicago area Don't know if transit goes to where I want to go Transit takes too long Transit doesn't go where I need to go I did not know the fares or how to pay It is too difficult to understand how to use I have children in my group Other: 7% 7% 6% 6% 10% 24% 2 Non Regional Visitors 29% 0% 10% 1 20% 2 30% 3 Reasons for Not Using Transit (Non Regional Visitors) Non regional visitors most often used a computer or a mobile device to plan their travel and obtain travel information. Ensuring clear and easy access to online information is a good way to continue 12

13 capturing non regional visitors. Compared to regional visitor, non regional visitors, especially international ones, are more likely to get information from visitor centers and visitor brochures. Domestic visitors came from all over the U.S. and Canada, particularly from the surrounding Midwestern states. Those who lived closer to the Chicago area primarily drove. They primarily came for leisure, but were more likely than international visitors to travel to the Chicago area for business. Getting domestic visitors out of their cars and onto transit could be challenging without raising parking fees, which could deter them from driving in the Chicago area. Home State (Non Regional Visitors) International visitors tended to be younger (under 35 years old) than domestic visitors. They were more likely to stay in a hostel, more likely to take transit, and more likely to combine business and leisure trips. They also were more likely than domestic visitors to use planning resources including visitors centers and saw more attractions. These tendencies make them a potential market for agencies to target (e.g. Come for business and stay for fun!). 13

14 Recommendations The results from the survey help identify the different characteristics, attitudes, and behaviors of different segments of the Chicago area s visitor travel market. Understanding these segments can help shed light on strategies to pursue to best capture these segments. The Chicago area has done a good job developing a transit system visitors want to ride and feel comfortable riding. However, the challenge now is to continue to capture a greater portion of the transportation market. Part of that challenge will be counteracting some of the reasons visitors do not use transit. The top reasons for not riding transit include a preference for driving, or using a taxi or car service; not being familiar with the Chicago area to feel comfortable using transit; and not knowing if transit goes where they need to go. Attracting Repeat Visitors Regional visitors tend to visit for day trips and make frequent visits. In the survey, 28% of regional visitors reported making visitor trips 12 or more times per year. Focusing on the regional visitor market therefore holds promise for capturing repeat transit customers. Since most regional visitors traveled for leisure, emphasize the leisure and relaxing aspect of taking transit by marketing transit as part of the city experience. A sizable portion of regional respondents were familiar with utilizing transit during their weekly activities with 34% using transit 5 or more times a week. Promoting the transit accessibility of visitor sites may potentially yield additional non commuting trips. The analysis showed driving as the main competitor to transit use. Reminding visitors of the costs of driving (e.g., fuel cost, parking cost, and lost time and energy searching for a parking spot) while emphasizing the advantages of transit could encourage visitors to choose transit over driving. Regional visitors were sufficiently familiar with the region and did not require additional planning resources. Many were already familiar with Metra and CTA websites. A barrier noted by 8% of respondents was I do not know if transit goes where I want to go. Promoting the trip planning capabilities of the less well known RTA Trip Planner may help visitors to better understand if and what transit goes to their destination. The forth coming Ventra mobile application could also be a good forum for sharing trip information with customers. Visitors with Children The survey data showed a correlation between having children in the travel party and a lower rate of transit use. Respondents with young children in their party used a car more often. Emphasize that children under seven years old ride free with a fare paying adult to help encourage visitors with children to use transit. Marketing Metra s Family Car accommodations may also help to encourage parties with children to utilize transit. Visitors traveling with children had a higher propensity to visit a tourist attraction or museum during their visit as compared to parties without children. Strategies for targeting families with children could include co marketing with key visitor destinations. Furthermore, several 14

15 organizations offer bundled tourist passes it could be advantageous to bundle transit passes with some of these tourist passes to further encourage transit use on tourist type visitor trips. Consider promoting services that enhance the children and family ride experience. This can encourage families to use transit (as it would encourage a family friendly perception) as well as encourage a habit of transit use in children. Also consider educational opportunities that could make children more knowledgeable and comfortable with transit. Business Visitors Regional business travelers (defined for the survey as those attending an event or convention) tended to make quick trips, went to few sites during their visit (i.e., an average of 1.7 sites compared to 2.4 sites for leisure travelers), and engaged less in visitor activities (such as going out to restaurants, etc.). In contrast, those who made a combined business/leisure trip went to more sites than purely business or leisure visitors and had their activities more closely mirror that of leisure visitors. Agencies should try to capture this potential transit market since regional business visitors frequently make these trips. In the survey, 4 of business visitors and 37% of business/leisure visitors made 12 or more trips within the Chicago area in the past 12 months, compared with 26% of leisure visitors. As with the overall visitor population, the most often indicated barrier to transit use is transit takes too long. While the actual time frame may bar some business visitors from using transit, the perceived trip duration can change when business visitors see travel time as productive time and not wasted time. A potential source of increased visitor trips could be marketing to business travelers to bring their spouse or families with when they go into the city for meetings/conferences. Older Visitors Respondents 65 and older are more likely to take transit because they don t like driving in the city (5), and were more likely to feel transit is less costly than driving (66%). These predilections should be emphasized when marketing to older visitor. They were also more likely than younger visitors to access information at a transit station/stop. Metra and South Shore Line Users The majority of regional visitors that also use Metra and South Shore trains did not transfer to a different service once reaching their end terminal because they stated that Metra or South Shore line already got them to where the needed to go or they preferred to walk or bike once they go to downtown. The third most common reason provided for not using the CTA in particular was that they don t know the CTA system well enough. Coordination provided by the forth coming Ventra mobile app holds potential to increase the seamlessness between services. Additionally, cross marketing of services by the different transit agencies could further inform riders of the potential to reach their destination by transit. Non Regional Visitors Non regional visitors engage in many activities and go to lots of tourist destinations over the course of their visit. This is especially true of leisure visitors, who engage in more activities and visit more of the tourist locations than business visitors. These are potential repeat transit customers during their visit, and since most of them stayed in the City of Chicago, transit is a strong option for them. 15

16 The two main reasons for not using transit among non regional visitors are I prefer to drive, or use taxi or car service and I am not familiar enough with the Chicago area to feel comfortable using transit. Emphasizing the downsides and comparative costs of driving could help capture visitors who would otherwise drive. To further expand on enhancing visitors knowledge of the system, transit information should highlight popular visitor destinations near transit. After using transit once, visitors may become familiar with the system and be more willing to use it in the future. Increasing signage to transit near key visitor destinations may help expand visitors awareness of their opportunities and encourage them to consider taking transit. The proportion of non regional visitors who went to Millennium Park and Navy Pier was quite large, particularly for international visitors (46% went to Millennium Park and 4 to Navy Pier). This suggests agencies should focus their efforts on targeting non regional visitors at these locations, as well as in the Loop and near the North Michigan Avenue Bridge. Having transit information available at visitor centers and information kiosks is another entrypoint for introducing these visitors to transit and for overcoming their unfamiliarity with the city. International Visitors International visitors are a small portion of the visitor population, but agencies should not ignore them. They tend to stay longer, are more likely to use transit at home, show a high prevalence of transit use in the Chicago area, and visit more tourist destinations than domestic visitors. Agencies should thus convince these visitors to use transit early in their visit to the Chicago area. Because most international visitors fly into the Chicago area, their points of entry are concentrated. Marketing to them through the airports and airlines may offer cost effective opportunities. In accordance with general visitor trends, since international visitors tend to travel in smaller groups and to not have children in their parties, they are more likely to try transit. Targeting these international visitors may yield additional transit trips. 16

17 INTRODUCTION Over 45 million people visit the Chicago area each year according to Choose Chicago, and 2014 proved to be a record year with 50.2 million visitors. Visitors, who are likely to participate in cultural activities, eat at restaurants, and shop, are a boon to the regional economy. All visitor trips rely on some form of transportation. However, the transportation needs of visitors are poorly understood, and improving this understanding will help local transit agencies attract and serve the large visitor market. Furthermore, the goal of attracting visitors to transit is an integral part of RTA s Regional Transit Strategic Plan, which calls for a strategy to thoughtfully increase ridership to better leverage existing capacity. Understanding visitor travel behavior and preferences is important for developing this informed strategy. The RTA, in coordination with CTA, Metra, Pace, IDOT, CMAP, the City of Chicago, and Choose Chicago, wanted to learn more about how visitors travel to popular destinations and to gather their opinions about travel in the region. However, the visitor market can be difficult to identify and capture in data collection efforts. To best approach this data collection effort, a literature review was performed to better understand what other transit agencies had done to obtain visitor data. There was little precedent for collecting data on visitor travel behavior in a systematic way, and no recent regional data regarding the mode share of the visitor market. Although Choose Chicago collects data annually with some questions focused on transportation, their questionnaire does not ask visitor opinions about the transit system. As a first step, a visitor was defined as 1. Any Chicago area residents who made a trip to a museum, event, tourist location, or convention in the Chicago area OR 2. Any non resident of the Chicago area who went somewhere within the Chicago area This inclusive definition seeks to identify individuals who are behaving as visitors, which may differ from other studies or methodologies that use purely geographic criteria to identify visitors. After defining what constitutes a visitor, a survey questionnaire was developed to meet the primary goal of this project. As previously indicated, that goal was to obtain actionable information that will help transit providers develop strategies that will increase visitor transit use. The questionnaire was designed to help identify various sub markets of visitors (such as business and leisure visitors, and visitors traveling with children). The questionnaire also sought to determine how these markets make travel decisions and sought their opinions about travel in the region, with a focus on attitudes toward transit. This report conveys the findings of the Visitor Travel Survey. First, the survey methodology is reviewed in order to provide background on the ways that visitors were captured for this survey. Then, separate sections detail the behavior of Regional Visitors and Non Regional Visitors of the Chicago area. This is 17

18 Methodology followed by a summary section that makes note of important comparisons between these two broad visitor markets. Finally, the Recommendations section elaborates on these findings, seeks to identify specific markets and sub markets that are currently under utilizing the Chicago Area transit system, and provides observations that can inform strategies to increase the transit mode share among visitors. 18

19 Methodology METHODOLOGY Sampling The RTA and their study partners were interested in knowing more about how various visitor segments traveled, how these visitors decided what to see and do, and how transit played or could play a role in these travel plans in the future. From the onset of the project, there was the intention to obtain at least 800 surveys to achieve statistical significance. RSG received 3,689 responses to the survey, far exceeding expectations, and making the data even more statistically significant and reliable. Table 1 shows how these responses were distributed among the major market segments. Table 1: Sampling Segments SEGMENT CATEGORY SEGMENT DEFINITION Visitor Type Regional Visitor Visitor who lives within the six county region and made a trip to a museum, event, tourist location, or convention TOTAL RESPONSES 2,074 Non Regional Visitor Visitor who lives outside the six county region 1,615 Trip Purpose Leisure Trip primarily for leisure purpose 2,866* Business Trip primarily for business purpose 424* Country of Origin Domestic Traveler U.S./Canadian Resident 3,305** International Traveler Non U.S. Resident 384 *A third category option was provided for purpose: Both Business and Leisure. This category was excluded from the Purpose tabulation. **Note: Canadian visitors were grouped as Domestic visitors for this study s purposes. 19

20 Methodology Questionnaire Design The survey collected information such as home ZIP code, trip duration, trip purpose, parts of the Chicago area visited, mode(s) used, and tourist attractions visited. Agencies can use this information to identify and characterize various visitor sub markets and determine how transit use differs between those submarkets. They did not, however, collect detailed trip based information. This data thus cannot be used to determine visitor travel flows or estimate visitor volumes to tourist destinations. The survey also asked questions which helped clarify visitors decision making processes about mode choice, including the information sources they consulted, the transportation modes they used, their frequency of use, and their attitudes and opinions about the Chicago area s transit systems. The survey was published in six languages besides English to try to more effectively capture international visitors. However, only 3.6% of the surveyed visitors completed the survey in a language other than English. Table 2: Survey Languages LANGUAGE COUNT % English % Non English % Spanish % Japanese Portuguese French % Polish 2 0. Mandarin % Total % 20

21 Methodology Survey Administration RSG used a web based questionnaire to collect data. They primarily conducted in person intercept surveys at key visitor locations in the Chicago area, with most sites located in Chicago and a few sites in the suburbs. They also performed surveys via e mail blasts, distributed postcards at hotels, and posted links on visitor travel websites. The survey was fielded between August 24th and September 30th, Table 3 shows the number of respondents recruited from each source. Figure 1: Screenshot of Web Survey Entry Page Table 3: Recruitment Methods RECRUITMENT METHOD COUNT % Intercept Survey 1,852 50% Choose Chicago Website 22 Pace E mail 182 Pace Website and Newsletter 35 CTA Website 2 0% RTA Website and Newsletter 10 0% Hotel Postcard 2 0% Intercept Postcard 10 0% Metra Opt In Marketing E mail List

22 Methodology Intercept Recruitment Most of this survey s respondents were intercepted at tourist attractions. Surveyors used internetenabled tablets to canvass the intercept location and engage respondents within the recommended intercept areas. To ensure adequate response via intercept recruitment, the surveyors offered respondents who completed the survey a gift card as well as a chance to enter a grand prize drawing. The survey team surveyed larger sites on a weekday and a weekend day. Working with the RTA and other study partners, they selected a mixture of sites to capture different segments of the visitor population (Table 4). The specific sites were selected for current transit accessibility and willingness to allow an on site survey. Table 4: Survey Intercept Sites and Number of Surveys INTERCEPT LOCATION COUNT % Field Museum % Midway Airport 159 9% Navy Pier 155 8% Shedd Aquarium 153 8% O'Hare Airport 142 8% Millennium Park 125 7% Art institute of Chicago 117 6% Chicago Cultural Center 110 6% N. Michigan Avenue Bridge 108 6% Union Station 105 6% McCormick Place 85 Skydeck Chicago 81 4% Adler Planetarium 79 4% Magnificent Mile Water Works Visitor Center 65 4% Brookfield Zoo 61 Museum of Science and Industry 53 The Peggy Notebaert Nature Museum 28 Lincoln Park Zoo 27 Chicago History Museum 23 Total 1, % 22

23 Methodology The surveyors distributed flyers describing the survey to potential respondents who did not want to take it on site. These flyers included a web link to the survey and a unique survey password needed to enter the survey. RSG translated the survey description into the six languages which the survey was available to help surveyors communicate with potential respondents who did not speak English. This flyer appears below. The same flyer was also used for non intercept postcard invitations. Figure 2: Intercept Flyer Front and Back 23

24 Methodology Lists RSG also used several e mail lists to try to capture a broader sample of regional visitors, including the Pace e mail list and a Metra e mail list. The RTA list is not shown in the recruitment methods because no recruits were obtained from that effort. The Metra e mail list yielded a much larger sample than was anticipated, accounting for 4 of the total sample and 66% of the regional sample. The Metra e mail respondents likely represented a different traveler type than the intercept recruits. They were regional visitors who made more everyday visitortype trips such as going to restaurants, concert venues, sports games, and similar venues and events. Website and Newsletter Recruits As indicated in Table 3, respondents were recruited through a variety of websites and newsletters. They included a brief survey description and a link in the following: The Pace Website, The Pace Newsletter, The CTA Website, The RTA Website, The RTA Newsletter, and The Choose Chicago Website Although these methods did not garner a large response, they did offer another avenue for visitors to enter the survey and share their experiences traveling and using transit in the Chicago area. Hotels/Hostels The survey team left survey flyers at local hotels, motels, and hostels, and designed them so these flyers could be left with the concierge or placed in the visitor brochure rack. One hostel also permitted an e mail blast to their client list. This e mail blast yielded 353 responses. However, since hostel stays accounted for such a small proportion of visits to the Chicago area, it was determined the hostel e mail sample would be excluded from analysis because it did not provide a representative visitor sample. Survey Weighting No strong population based dataset exists to identify visitors since the visitor market is hard to define and even more difficult to identify and extract a representative sample. This study s primary focus, moreover, was to understand general market characteristics, preferences, and visitor behaviors, rather than make quantitative assessment such as origin destination patterns. For these reasons, the survey data have not been weighted, and cannot be weighted to a broader visitor population. 24

25 Results RESULTS The following sections detail the results of the Chicago Area Visitor Survey according to regional and non regional visitor travel behavior. For each of these groups, RSG analyzed the data to identify the composition of each visitor market, the activities each group generally undertook, and the reasoning behind their travel planning.

26 Regional Visitors REGIONAL VISITORS Regional visitors lived within the RTA six county Chicago area and traveled to a museum, event, tourist location, or convention also in the Chicago area. These visitors are an important part of the visitor market since they make these trips more frequently than non regional visitors do. Marketing transit to these visitors may yield multiple transit based trips per year per regional visitor. For this study, RSG surveyed 2,074 regional visitors. Who are the Regional Visitors to Chicago? Respondent Demographics Respondents came from most parts of the Chicago area. Most of them lived within Cook County (59%), but outside of Chicago (74%). Slightly more of them were female (56%). Figure 3: Home Zip Code (Regional Visitors)

27 Regional Visitors They also were slightly older than all respondents with an average age of 48. Almost two thirds (6) of them were over 45 (Figure 4). Age Under % % % % 24% 65+ years 1 0% 10% 1 20% 2 30% Figure 4: Age (Regional Visitors) Regional visitors household income levels ranged from less than $15,000 to more than $250,000. Their average household income was approximately $98,000 (Figure 5). Thirty eight percent of them had household incomes over $100,000 and 84% of them owned at least one car. 27

28 Regional Visitors Household Income Less than $15,000 $15,000 $24,999 $25,000 $39,999 $40,000 $59,999 $60,000 $74,999 $75,000 $99,999 $100,000 $149,999 $150,000 $199,999 $200,000 $249,999 $250,000 and over 6% 8% 8% % 2 0% 10% 1 20% 2 Figure 5: Household Income (Regional Visitors) Travel Party Characteristics Regional visitors typically had a party size of 2.7 people with a mean size of 3.4 people. However, 30% of regional visitors traveled alone. Just over one quarter (27%) of regional visitors traveled with one or more children. Nineteen percent traveled with one or more seniors (Figure 7). Eight percent of them traveled with someone having a mobility issue. 40% 30% 30% Number of People in the Party 3 20% 10% % 1 Person (travel alone) 2 People 3 People 4 People 5 or more people 28

29 Regional Visitors Figure 6: Number of Persons in Party 30% Percent of Visitors Traveling with Children and Seniors by Age Group 27% 20% 10% 1 9% 1 19% 0% Children aged 0 7 years old Children aged 8 11 years old Children aged Children of any years old age in party Seniors aged 65 and older Figure 7: Percent of Traveling with Children and Seniors by Age Group (Regional Visitors) Approximately half (5) of the regional visitors traveled with their spouse or partner. Thirty three percent traveled with their children and just over one quarter (28%) traveled with friends (Figure 8). Types of Travel Companions My spouse/partner 5 My children 3 Friend(s) 28% Other family members 19% My parents 6% Co worker(s)/colleague(s) Other 4% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Figure 8: Types of Travel Companions (Regional Visitors) 29

30 Regional Visitors Most regional respondents (60%) indicated that they use transit at home more than once per month. Only 14% of respondents indicated that they do not use transit, either by choice or because it is not available to them. Regional visitors that already use transit could therefore be targeted to encourage them to use transit for visitor type trips. 40% 30% 34% Frequency of Transit Use at Home 20% 19% 10% 10% 7% 9% 8% 1 0% 5 or more times per week 3 4 times per week 1 2 times per week More than 7 12 times once per per year month, but less than weekly 1 6 times per year I don't have public transit available to me I never use public transit Figure 9: Frequency of Transit Use at Home 30

31 Regional Visitors What are Visitors Doing While in the Chicago Area? Trip Characteristics Most regional visitors (8) traveled for leisure (Figure 10). Approximately half of the business visitors sought a combination of business and leisure. 10% 9% Trip Purpose 8 Business Leisure Both business and leisure Figure 10: Trip Purpose (Regional Visitors) Most regional visitors (6) used transit to reach their destination (Figure 11). Regional visitors traveling for business were slightly more likely to use transit (69%) than those making leisure trips (6). Those making leisure trips were more likely to drive (36% vs. 2) to their destination. 7 50% 2 0% 2 Travel Modes to Destination by Trip Purpose 69% % 30% % Transit Personal Car Walked Taxi/Car Service Business Leisure Both business and leisure 6% 4% 4% Biked Rental Car Other Note: Respondents could select multiple responses and therefore the totals do not add to 100%. Figure 11: Travel Modes to Destination by Trip Purpose (Regional Visitors) 31

32 Regional Visitors Regional visitors traveling with children were less likely to take transit to get to their destination (54%) than those traveling without children (66%). However, over half of those traveling with children still took transit (Figure 12). 7 50% 66% 54% Travel Modes to Destination by Children in Party 46% No children in party Children in party 30% 2 16% 1 0% Transit Personal Car Walked Taxi/Car Rental Car Biked Other Service Note: Respondents could select multiple responses and therefore the totals do not add to 100%. Figure 12: Travel Modes to Destination by Children in Party (Regional Visitors) Regional visitors under 25 years old or over 65 years old were more likely to take transit than other age groups (Table 5). Table 5: Travel Modes to Destination by Age (Regional Visitors) Mode Under years Transit 69% % 7 Personal Car 24% 3 46% 36% 34% 27% Walked 17% 24% 17% 1 1 9% Taxi/Car Service 7% 8% 6% 4% Biked 4% 4% Rental Car 0% 0% 0% Other 4% 32

33 Regional Visitors Table 6 shows the proportion of regional visitors in each age group to use each mode of transit. The difference in this table is that respondents recruited using the Metra list have been excluded. It is possible to see that the transit share of each age group is lower than when the Metra sample was included (Table 5), with the most dramatic differences seen in the 25 34, 35 44, and age groups. However, transit is still seen to be a prevalent access mode to the city for regional visitors. Table 6: Travel Modes to Destination by Age (Regional Visitors, Metra Excluded) Mode Under years Transit % 50% 6 66% Personal Car 2 37% 50% 44% 3 30% Walked 16% Taxi / Car Service 6% 6% 6% 4% 4% Other: 0% Rental Car 0% 0% 4% Biked 4% Most regional visitors (86%) did not stay away overnight (Figure 13). Of the 14% who did, 4 stayed with friends or family combined, 4 stayed at a hotel, and 1 reported other (Figure 14). Those who reported other indicated visiting the hospital or staying with a significant other. Most of them (74%) stayed within the City of Chicago (Figure 14). Trip Duration Less than 1 day (no overnight) 1 day (with overnight) 2 days 3 days 4 days 5 or more days 86% 0% 2 50% 7 100% Figure 13: Trip Duration (Regional Visitors) 33

34 Regional Visitors Accommodation Type (Among Overnight Visitors) Hotel/motel 4 Staying with family 2 Staying with friends 18% Hostel Dormitory housing (for conference) 0% Other 1 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Figure 14: Accommodation Type for Overnight (Regional Visitors) Accomodation Location (Among Overnight Visitors) City of Chicago Cook County (outside City of Chicago) Lake County McHenry County Kane County DuPage County Will County Outside of the six county region 8% 4% 74% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% Figure 15: Accommodation Location for Overnight (Regional Visitors) 34

35 Regional Visitors Activities in Chicago Area Over half (5) of regional visitors went to a restaurant or bar while on their trip (Figure 16). Other popular activities included going to tourist attractions, museums, and shops. Types of Activities While in Chicago Area Went to a restaurant/bar Went to tourist attractions (other than museums) Went to museums Went shopping Attended a public event (e.g., Cubs game, Jazz fest) Visited friends/family Attended a concert or theatrical performance Went to meetings/conducted business Attended a conference Attended a private event (wedding, funeral, etc.) 2 18% 14% 10% 29% 3 39% 5 0% 20% 40% 60% Figure 16: Types of Activities While in Chicago Area (Regional Visitors) 35