Study of Student Awareness and Opinion

of Public Transit

By

Brent M. Turley, Graduate Research AssistantMitsuru Saito, PhD., P.E.

Civil & Environmental Engineering DepartmentBrigham Young University

Provo, Utah 84602

February 2, 2001

Background

Public transit offered by the Utah Transit Authority (UTA) is an underutilized asset for Utah County residents. Even as residents bemoan current traffic conditions, relatively few take advantage of mass transit in this county, including students at Brigham Young University (BYU). UTA, in cooperation with BYU, has tried to address this discrepancy.

As BYU tentatively plans to decrease the number of parking lots close to campus, public transit would need to be seriously addressed in the University’s transportation plan. Utah County bus routes were recently changed this past year to make them more convenient to many students, faculty members, and staff members. It is reported that the BYU Student Association (BYUSA) participated in the modification of bus routes. Notwithstanding, students have not shifted significantly to mass transit nor have their parking concerns been eased.

Perfect student focus group. In an effort to gather student input about mass transit, Dr. Saito looked to one of his Civil Engineering classes. CE En 361, Introduction to Transportation Engineering, provides a choice opportunity to discuss transit issues. Although this class in the past has focused almost exclusively on engineering design topics, this year Dr. Saito chose to devote more time on mass transit issues. As students dedicated more time and thought to mass transit, they became a large group to which student opinion could be gleaned.

During the Fall 2000 semester, three class periods were dedicated to introduce public transit issues including a lecture, a video on the history of public transit in the U.S., and a guest speaker from UTA. Dr. Saito, however, considered three lectures were not enough to fully understand issues of public transit. Therefore, a semester-long bus service evaluation project was created, that would let the students:

Make 10 trips (commuting, shopping and other trips) by bus to evaluate the performance and viability of UTA.

Collect data about the bus level of service such as on-time arrival, driver courtesy, and route convenience.

Write a lab report summarizing the data collected, findings, ideas, and recommendations for integrating bus service in student life at BYU.

Evaluate their perception about bus transit services before and after the project.

Participate in a class discussion summarizing their experience with bus rides.

The outcome of the project, as presented in this report, will eventually provide a service to the University and Provo community. The project also provides students an opportunity to apply their knowledge learned in class to real issues in the community that they live in. On this merit, the term project received a grant from the Jacobsen Center for Service & Learning of Brigham Young University.

1

This report summarizes the findings from the pre- and post-project perception surveys, a summary of performance evaluation of UTA bus routes that serve the BYU community, and student recommendations to both UTA and BYU.

The students’ response to the term project was remarkably positive and they said the project helped them to dispel the stereotypical image of public transit. They found the UTA service as a potential, viable alternative mode of transportation, especially once their opinions were taken seriously and their recommendations to UTA, the BYU Student Association, and the University Administration were put into practice.

Figure 1 – CE En 361 students

Goals of The Class Project

Raise awareness. The main goal of this proposed activity was to raise awareness among the civil engineering students for public transit services available around BYU campus. It also provided the students an opportunity to discuss issues of public transit based on first hand experience rather than on the experience of others.

Gather student input. The second goal was to provide the University Administration, UTA, and BYUSA with student input about the bus services around campus to make UTA a more viable alternative transportation mode to the people in the BYU community.

Term Project Schedule

This term project followed the time schedule shown in Table 1. Three lecture periods were scheduled—November 15, 17, and 20—to discuss issues relating to public passenger transport. Students were required to submit all ten trip-log forms as well as a final summary lab report to get credit for this portion of the course. To insure that their opinions of public transit and UTA performance were not influenced or biased, students’ summary reports were collected prior to the three lectures and a post-project discussion.

2

Table 1 – Schedule of Project Activities

Date Activity Remarks

6 Sep 2000 Project explained Bus route maps, schedules, rules, and trip-log forms were given out. Students also filled out the pre-project perception survey.

9 Oct 2000 Mid-project data collection Students submitted trip-log forms for the first 5 trips. The research assistant began summarizing the data.

10 Nov 2000 Final data collection Students submitted trip-log forms of the remaining 5 trips, together with their summary reports. Students also completed post-project perception survey. The research assistant continued summarizing the data.

15 Nov 2000 Lecture: Introduction to mass transit issues

A lecture on classifications and characteristics of mass transit, typical bus network, and other issues was given.

17 Nov 2000 Guest speaker from UTA Mr. Bart Dean, Transit Planner at UTA, gave a presentation on the success of TRAX and public transit funding issues.

20 Nov 2000 Video: “Taken for a Ride” One view on the history (or decline) of mass transit in the US was presented by the video.

6 Dec 2000 Findings presented The research assistant presented to the students a summary of the student perception survey and UTA performance evaluation. After the class participated in a group discussion about the viability of bus transit services to the BYU community.

Results of the Opinion Surveys about Public Transit

For the “before and after” surveys, 61 out of 74 students participated. Of those sixty-one, 70% were male and 57% were single (non-married). Because 13 students failed to submit either a pre-evaluation or post-evaluation form, their surveys were omitted from this analysis.

A discussion on the exclusive items of pre-evaluation and post-evaluation follows as well as a description of the changes in student responses between similar questions posed in both surveys.

3

Figure 2 – Basic statistics

GenderFemale22%

Male78%

Marital Status

Married43%

Single57%

Pre-Evaluation SurveyThe pre-evaluation survey was conducted early in the semester before students

were asked to ride the bus. Several questions were asked concerning current mode of travel to school, the approximate distance the students lived away from school, and the general familiarity students had with mass transit.

Mode of travel. The mode, or means, of travel to school was primarily not by car. Nearly half of the students just walked to school. Biking accounted for an additional 18%. However, 31% of students used an automobile to get to school (See Fig. 3).

Proximity to campus. Two-thirds of students lived close to campus. From the students’ own judgement, 67% of students lived within a mile of campus (See Fig. 4). The 31% of car users seemed to correlate closely with the 33% of those students living greater than a mile away. After further comparison, 79% of car users alone live greater than a mile away.

Familiarity with mass transit. Most of the students were familiar with some sort of mass transit. Probably due to LDS mission experience, 82% of the students said they had

4

Mode of Travel

48%

18% 16% 15%

3%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%

Walk Bike Drivealone

Car pool Bus

Perc

enta

ge

Figure 3 – Mode of Travel (Pre-evaluation survey)

Proximity of Campus

22% 20%

7% 8%

18%

25%

0%

10%

20%

30%

< 1/4

mile

1/4 to

1/2 m

ile

1/2 to

1 mile

1 to 1

1/2 m

iles

1 1/2

to 2 m

iles

> 2 m

iles

Perc

enta

ge

Figure 4 – Proximity of campus (Pre-evaluation survey)

used a form of mass transit outside Utah County. This includes major cities in countries of Europe, Asia, Australia, North America, and South America. As shown in Figure 5b, 41% of these students indicated that they used mass transit on a regular basis (4 -5 days a week).

By contrast, the number of students who used UTA in Utah County was small. Only 30% of students had used UTA, and those mainly for work commute trips. Close to half of those 30% indicated that they had used it rarely (1-6 days a year). Though most of the sixty-one students had not used UTA, 97% of them had seen bus stop signs around campus and 86% of them had bus stops near their homes.

Post-Evaluation Survey

Discussion of substituting bus for car. Though opinions improved with mass transit, most students wanted UTA to make changes before changing their habits. Of the 61 students, 17 said they drove to school (differently worded question than pre-evaluation study). Of those seventeen, 10 indicated that they would be interested in using UTA instead of an automobile. When asked about this “substitution” during the class

5

14% 12%

33%

41%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Regularly Fairlyfrequently

Sometimes Rarely

Perc

enta

ge

*Includes only students who used public transit outside Utah County

Public Transit Use Outside Utah County*

Public Transit Use Inside Utah County*

22%17%

44%

17%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Regularly Fairlyfrequently

Sometimes Rarely

Perc

enta

ge

*Includes only students who used public transit inside Utah County Figure 5b – Frequency of past student public transit use (Pre-evaluation survey)

Yes82%

No18%

Outside Utah County

Yes30%

No70%

Inside Utah County

Figure 5a – Past student public transit use (Pre-evaluation survey)

discussion, the students indicated that they would be interested if, and only if, UTA made the recommended changes (See recommendations for UTA later in this report).

Frequency issues. Figure 6 shows the results from the post-evaluation survey. These results suggest that students were generally happy with 15 to 30 minute bus intervals. However, more thoughtful term papers and class discussion gave the impression that students felt frequency, coupled with indirect routes, was at the heart of mass transit problems. This is discussed more in “Student Opinions…” and “Recommendations…” later in this report.

Recommendations. Although recommendations were given in the post-evaluation survey, a summary of those recommendations is discussed later in this report.

Changes in Student OpinionsMost of the changes in student opinions between surveys revolved around having

the added experience and familiarity of mass transit usage.

Free programs. Both the “free” bus programs asked about in the survey went from a majority of uncertain approval to a more certain approval (See Fig. 7). Concerning the “Free bus program around campus”, the students changed from 54% somewhat interested to 56% definitely interested. Likewise, the “Free-fare bus zone (mile radius around campus)” opinion changed from 50% somewhat interested to 60% definitely interested.

Perception. Like the “free” programs, the overall perception of UTA bus transit improved (See Fig. 8). The pre-evaluation survey showed that 40% of students thought UTA as inconvenient with an additional 30% answering, “I do not know”. In the post-evaluation survey, the majority of the students (55%) answered that UTA was useful and convenient. “Inconvenient” answers dropped to 36% and “I do not know” dropped to 5%.

Bus pass with limited parking pass. Support for a special limited free bus program increased slightly (See Fig. 9). Often a free bus program participant cannot buy a regular parking sticker. They will be given a bus pass with a small number of “emergency” day parking passes. Before the evaluation, 75% of the students found that fair and acceptable. After, 85% found it fair and acceptable.

6

Adequate Frequency - Numbers

1218

511

59 7

32

0

10

20

30

40

830 831 832 833

Route #

Num

ber

of

resp

onse

s

YesNo

Note: Routes with less than 10 responses were omitted.

Adequate Frequency - %

58%42%

74%71% 67%

26% 29%33%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

830 831 832 833

Route #Pe

rcen

tage

YesNo

(Approx. freq: 45 min )30 min30 min15 min

Figure 6 – Bus frequency adequacy (Post-evaluation survey)

7

Free Bus Program - Before

37%

5% 3% 0%

54%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%

Definitelyinterested

Somewhatinterested

Not at allinterested

I do notknow

I do notcare

Free Bus Program - After

38%

3% 2% 2%

56%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%

Definitelyinterested

Somewhatinterested

Not at allinterested

I do notknow

I do notcare

Free-Fare Bus Zone - Before

33%

50%

8% 5% 3%0%

10%20%30%40%50%60%

Definitelyinterested

Somewhatinterested

Not at allinterested

I do notknow

I do notcare

Free-Fare Bus Zone - After60%

37%

2% 2% 0%0%

10%20%30%40%50%60%

Definitelyinterested

Somewhatinterested

Not at allinterested

I do notknow

I do notcare

Figure 7 – Free programs (Both surveys)

Perception of UTA - Before

25%

40%

30%

5%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Useful andconvenient

Inconvenient I do not know I do not care

Perception of UTA - After

36%

5% 3%

55%

0%

10%

20%30%

40%50%

60%

Useful andconvenient

Inconvenient I do not know I do not care

Figure 8 – Student overall perceptions (Both surveys)

Before

Yes75%

No25%

After

Yes85%

No15%

Figure 9 – Acceptability of a bus pass with limited parking pass (Both surveys)

Unchanged Student Usage and OpinionsThose items that did not change were related to strong habits and information

sources.

Same amount of car usage. Understandably, transportation habits will not change overnight. Before the project, 31% of the students said cars were involved in their commute. After, 28% said they drive to school. The difference that does exist is probably due to a difference in the survey question wording.

Wanted same website information. Though student use of UTA’s website doubled during the project, the students were looking for the same information in both surveys (See Fig. 10). Schedules and route/maps were the two most sought after pieces of information.

Wanted same bus stop sign information. The number of students unsatisfied with the information provided at bus stops did not change much nor did the type of wanted information. Roughly 45% of the students (47% before, 43% after) wanted more information at the bus stop. The two most desired pieces of information were a schedule and a map at each bus stop. This may coincide with the usual habit of students not planning ahead. For example, one student said he would just wait at the bus stop till a bus came.

Results of the Evaluation of Services and Performance

This section summarizes the specific experience students had during their ten bus trips. Statistics and opinions were based on the students travel records and term paper information.

Level of Service at Bus StopsLevel of service refers to the quality of the experience students had while waiting

for a bus arrival.

8

Figure 10 – Student website usage (Both surveys)

UTA Website - Before

13 14

5 61

05

101520253035

Route/map Schedule TRAX Fares Other

UTA Website - After

2629

9 11

3

05

101520253035

Route/map Schedule TRAX Fares Other

Positive experience. Students liked the major bus stops and the number of bus stops. Generally major bus stops, like at BYU had much better amenities than that over smaller stops. Students also expressed that there were a great number of bus stop locations.

Negative experience. The negative experience was due to two major factors: the physical environment and lack of information at the bus stop.

Environment. Since one of the due dates to turn in travel records was at the end of a week of snowstorms, the weather played a huge role in the level of service at the bus stops. Students complained that there was no protection from the wind. They also said that overhead shelters were preferred because benches were covered in snow making them useless. Concrete benches were much colder to sit on than wood benches. A lot of students ended up just standing in snow, which did not make them happy. On the flip side, students that experience hot weather wanted air conditioning.

No maps or schedules. The next biggest complaint was the lack of information at all the bus stops. As stated before, some students would just stand at the bus stop until the bus came. Other students wanted a way of knowing if a bus had already passed, perhaps by some electronic means. Still others were confused which sides of the street to wait on to go northbound or southbound (e.g. when the bus is on an east/west street).

Driver CourtesyThe greatest positive feedback the students expressed concerned driver courtesy.

Except for a few aggressive, uptight drivers, most were pleasant and always willing to help. Drivers would chat with the riders and learn the names of the regular riders. Students were impressed to be treated with respect.

Selected RoutesAlthough the students in this project used numerous bus routes, only a few routes

were chosen to analyze specific timing details. Incomplete or flawed travel records were omitted. Routes 830, 832, and 833 were selected for analysis because they had over 30 complete travel records each (See Table 2).

Schedule Adherence

Mostly on time. For the most part, the bus came within five minutes of the scheduled time. Roughly 60% of the buses came on time with 70% of the late buses coming under five minutes late (See Fig. 11). When asked about this during a discussion, students did not find this lateness too much of a problem. They suggested that it could be as simple as a difference in clock/watch settings.

Coming early frustration. The major frustration cited was when the bus came to and left early from a bus stop. Students really had no way of planning for this other than arriving early. The level of service at the bus stop as well as the general nature of students made that unlikely.

9

Table 2 – Summary of travel records analysis

Route #

Number of travel

records

Median waiting

time* (min)Bus on time

at origin

Median # of minutes late

(min)

Bus on time at

destination830 260 6 61 % 5 85 %832 121 6 55 % 4 82 %833 83 5 65 % 4 86 %

*Waiting time: time student arrives at bus stop until bus arrives (including late minutes).

Detailed Summary of Student Opinions

Although these students based their opinions on specific trips within this project, these opinions reflect their overall opinions of mass transit. These opinions are a summary of term paper responses and an in-class discussion.

Positive Opinions

Mostly courteous drivers. The most common positive remark was regarding the courtesy of the bus drivers. Drivers chatted, offered help in planning routes, explained bus related things, and general friendliness all contributed to the positive experience the students had.

Stress level. Another bonus that students learned about buses was the reduced stress level while on the bus. Notwithstanding the stressful wait for the bus, students liked not worrying about commute traffic. Others felt they could get a lot of reading or homework done on the bus. One student explained that he had a happier family life because his taking the bus allowed his wife to use the car more. Clean, professional bus environment. Since most of the students had seen mass transit outside Utah County, they were impressed by how clean the busses were. The clean buses

10

Number of Minutes Late

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

< 5 6 to 10 11 to15

16 to20

21 to25

26 to30

> 30

Time intervals (5 min)

Perc

ent o

f lat

e bu

ses

830

832

833

Figure 11 – Late bus timing statistics (Travel records)

erased some of the bad image of people associated with mass transit. It also added a bit of professionalism to the buses.

Sometimes cost effective. Those living farther away from school said that taking the bus was cost effective. The monthly cost for gas alone was greater than the monthly $20 pass.

Bring people together. Students were surprised by conversations sparked in bus travel. Student spoke with people from all walks of life and saw the world outside BYU. From talking to the bus driver and other riders, students learned many things. For example, one older mother gave a tip to a young student mother for caring for a newborn.

Negative Opinions

Inconvenient timing. By far the greatest problem students had was with the inconvenient frequency (number of bus visits per hour) and with indirect routing of buses.

Frequency problem, not promptness. Students wanted a greater frequency of buses rather than more prompt buses. When asked in a discussion if the number one complaint is tardiness of the buses, students responded with a “no.” Rather they suggested the number one problem is frequency, or the number of times per hour the bus comes.

Indirect routes. The indirect bus routes frustrated students concerned with the economics of time. Unless finding a parking space is the majority of the commute time, driving to school or work is always faster than the bus. They also commented that UTA had incorrectly labeled buses “shuttles” (Refer to Fig. 12). Students thought that “shuttles” should refer to quick, directly routed buses. Transfers. Aside from the saving a dollar, students had little good to say about transfers. This is probably related to three problems already mentioned. Transfers take planning that students do not do easily. Transfers require waiting at a bus stop to which the level of service is low. Finally, transfers make a trip even more indirect, wasting more time for the student.

Public image problem. Though students enjoyed meeting new people, associating with the low-income nature of the people riding the bus made it hard for some students. Other students did not want that “low income” label that accompanies mass transit.

11

Figure 12 – Actual bus label

Sometimes not cost effective. For students living closer to BYU the daily charge and $20 monthly pass was too expensive. Though cars have many hidden costs (insurance, maintenance, etc.), students will not totally give up a car for the bus. Thus, the bus competes against only the gas costs of the automobile. The closer the student lives to BYU, the cheaper the gas costs.

Limited coverage. A few students complained that certain areas of the city and valley were not covered closely with any bus route. For example, one student wanted a route close to the southwest part of campus. Another student found routes in Pleasant Grove lacking. Also, past certain times at night and on the weekend there were no bus routes available.

General Students Opinions of Public Transit after Term Project

Experience Is The KeyMost of the students agreed that they would not have learned these things about

mass transit had they not be required to ride the bus for multiple times. They expressed that it is unfortunate that most students do not have the experience and thus do not understand the option of mass transit. For students to use mass transit, they must first be coaxed on to the bus and try it out.

Increased Awareness And FavorabilityOnce the students had ridden the bus multiple times, their impression almost

always improved of mass transit. They became aware of mass transit as a whole and understood the issues surrounding it.

Good For CommutingStudents stated that mass transit was good for repeated commuting. Because of

the difficult traffic during commute, difficult parking problem, and the ease of learning only one schedule, using mass transit became a viable option. These things can sometimes offset the inconvenience of indirect routes and frequency issues.

Bad For ErrandsErrands are usually quick and random. These two adjectives are not associated

with mass transit. Students going shopping, to fast food, and to the bank all in an afternoon can be accomplished much quicker with a car than by choreographing four bus schedules.

Good Way To Meet PeopleAs mentioned above, this project surprised many students by allowing them to

meet many people from different walks of life, and not all bad either.

12

Student Recommendations for UTA

1. Need to Advertise and Get The Word OutStudents learned a lot about UTA by just trying it out for multiple times. Almost

always, UTA positively surpassed negative student expectations. However, the student had to be virtually forced to ride the bus to learn these things. The goal for UTA is to get the word out and coax students onto buses.

How to use it. The majority of students did not know how to pay, find schedules, use transfer slips, or buy passes. Students are aware of buses but do not understand workings of how to use the bus. Students agreed that UTA must create a way to educate students.

Simple schedules and maps at bus stops. The majority of students do not plan far enough ahead to find the information needed to use the bus. If the information such as a schedule and map were posted at each bus stop, students would more likely in passing understand the use of a specific bus stop. With this simple understanding, students would be more inclined to use the bus.

Trial passes/ free passes. Trial or free passes would give an incentive for students to experience the bus at no cost. This project showed that students who just experience mass transit gain a higher approval for it. Coaxing students on the bus is the key. Theme buses/ entertainment. Some students suggested that one way to get people to ride is to entertain them while on the bus. If the bus is going to take a long time, at least pass the time by entertaining the riders along the way.

Website transfer planning. Another student suggested letting the computer figure out the schedules. Like airline booking systems, allow a rider to enter origin, destination, and required day and time at destination. Then over the web, timing and routes necessary to get from point A to point B will be given to the rider.

2. Use Real Shuttles

Discussion on shuttles. Some students remarked in their papers and in a discussion that the term “shuttle” is different for students and UTA. For students, “shuttle” means short, direct, high frequency trips from two points. Shuttles usually are smaller buses and arrive every 5 to 10 minutes. For example, park and ride lots at the airport.

For UTA, “shuttles” are regular, long, circuitous routes with a different name. For example, see maps for routes 830, 832, 833: “Orem-Provo Shuttle”, “East Side Shuttle”, and “Provo Center St. Shuttle”, respectively.

13

Figure 13 – Typical bus stop

Simplicity. Shuttles, as students define them, are wanted for the reason students like TRAX in Salt Lake: the simplicity of not needing a schedule. TRAX comes every ten minutes and goes directly downtown. That’s all the information students need to get started and the rest is learned on the way. Shuttles, well marked, would be very simple for students to try and learn.

Apartment complexes and commuting. Shuttling students commuting from high-density housing would be ideal for BYU students. For example, instead of Wyview married students independently dropping their spouses off at BYU, a simple van or minibus could shuttle students directly to campus. In this example, both student families and local streets are less burdened.

Direct routes/ later routes. Shuttles would provide quick direct routes for students. Shuttles could also be used for women getting home at night or for late night movies at the various theaters around the Utah County. These shuttles would especially be useful for freshmen living on campus.

3. Money Issues

Pay by cards. Students ran into the problem of not having correct change. One way to solve this, a student suggested, would be to pay with credit cards or the BYU Signature Card.

Reduce fares. Students always love prices to be lowered. However, they understand this might not be always feasible. Notwithstanding, students agreed that short trips should be less than a dollar a ride.

Free fare zones. For those short trips to and from campus, some students suggested a free fare zone. This free fare zone would be a mile around campus.

Student Recommendations for BYU and BYUSA

1. University Should Promote Mass Transit Programs

Change attitudes. The seventy students began this project uneducated and skeptical about mass transit. After the project the majority of the students had a much more positive attitude toward mass transit. BYU should provide ways for students to learn the same things, preferably by direct experience. Transportation week. Like many BYUSA “Week’s”, Transportation Week could highlight the parking and traffic problems around campus and promote mass transit as a solution. Educating students would be the goal. Using mass transit could be labeled as a community service on the grounds of reducing traffic and protecting the environment. Free bus service that week could be incorporated.

14

The following things could be used in the Transportation Week or used independently to encourage mass transit usage:

General bus information session Big maps in the WSC accompanied with instructions. Simple manual for students Inform and target Freshmen

2. ShuttlesAs discussed in the recommendations for UTA, shuttles should be smaller, more

directly routed, and arrive 5-10 minutes apart. Access West Campus Dr. The need for access to west campus drive was voiced by the students. Students want a bus that goes all around campus, not just to the WSC. A shuttle could drop students off directly by the Benson Building, Testing Center, or the Smith Family Living Center.

Park and ride lots. These same shuttles could go to the Marriott Center or Stadium parking lots. Again frequency and simplicity is a necessity.

Access high density housing areas. Shuttles from the university could also access high-density housing areas such as Wyview, Wymount, South Campus, Branbury Park, and other high-density housing areas.

3. Money Issues

Tuition adjustments. Some students thought that free passes should be included in tuition. Others thought tuition discounts should be given to those who use mass transit.

Raise parking pass fees. Because parking passes are so cheap, students suggested raising the parking pass fees to $75-100 for lots close to campus. This would make shuttle service relatively more attractive. Stadium parking would still remain cheap, however.

4. Look to Other College Campuses Success Stories

University of Colorado in Boulder. The University of Colorado at Boulder has an apparently successful shuttle called “The Hop”. This shuttle regularly circles campus till 11 PM Sunday through Thursday and 1 AM Friday and Saturday. This student said the Colorado students use it regularly.

University of Utah and Utah State. The two in-state universities already have shuttles running on campus. Utah State apparently has a successful park and ride program. University of Utah has free bus program and a shuttle around campus that is also highly utilized.

15

Student Opinion of Term Project

Students also were asked on their opinion of this project itself.

Five Rides Sufficient for Understanding IssuesThey remarked that the required ten rides were excessive and five ride would

accomplish the same awareness.

Ride to Meaningful PlacesSeveral of the students remarked that they did not use the bus in a realistic way,

but rather “just to ride to get the records (and the grade).” They suggested making a list of real places students go to and have them go there on the bus.

Good Way To Learn about Mass Transit and Community AffairsAlmost all the students felt this experience was good for them. They learned about

the good and bad of mass transit rather than rely on just uninformed perception. They also got to see the community in a different light by noticing the different classes of people on the bus and by seeing the community as an observer, rather that a driver.

Summary

As manifested in this report, students of CE En 361 discovered that public transit is a useful alternative to their cars. Through lectures and direct experience, these students understood the positive role public transit plays in the BYU community by reducing traffic congestion, reducing air pollution levels, and providing mobility to students and residents.

16

Figure 14 – Northbound bus stop near the WSC

Although their perception of UTA and mass transit greatly improved, students were still unwilling to change travel habits. Their recommendations to BYU and UTA centered around one word: simplicity. Over half of those who drove said they would be interested in substituting their car for the bus if their recommendations were implemented. Experience may be the key, but only physical changes will open the door to higher student ridership.

Finally, this paper provides student input and opinion for BYU and UTA to consider. These future leaders were excited to provide solutions to the current transportation problems surrounding their campus. Their opinions are genuine and their recommendations are feasible. We look to both BYU and UTA to initiate a comprehensible transportation program using these ideas to improve our campus community.

Acknowledgments

The authors of this paper would like to thank all the students of CE En 361 who participated in this term project, collected a large number of performance data, and wrote summaries of their experience on UTA rides. We would also like to thank the Jacobsen Center for Service & Learning of the Brigham Young University for a grant they gave us. To reduce the financial stress on them that this project might on them, the grant was used to reimburse the students for the bus fares they paid. Also, part of this grant was used to hire Brent Turley as a research assistant. Lastly, but not least, we would like to thank the Utah Transit Authority for their endorsement of the term project and their providing us copies of bus schedules that were given to the students at the beginning of the term project.

17