Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
What does quality of life mean to Minnesotans and how does transportation fit into that description? This research looks at these questions, as well as Minnesotans’ satisfaction with Mn/DOT programs and services and how this research can guide the development of Mn/DOT’s performance measures.
Citation preview
Understanding & Aligning
Transportation with Quality of Life
Ingrid E. Schneider, Ph.D., Tian Guo, M.S.
Karla Rains, MnDOT
June 12, 2013
© 2011 Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved.
Quality of Life (QOL)
© 2011 Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved.
Measures, scores, results, &
dashboards…
Oh my!
© 2011 Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved.
Purpose: Connect QOL, transportation,
performance measures
© 2011 Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved.
3 study methods
Literature review
Focus groups Questionnaire
© 2011 Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved.
Method 1, Literature review QOL
© 2011 Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved.
Method 2, Focus groups
(n=29)
© 2011 Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved.
Focus group results: 11 QOL areas
© 2011 Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved.
Purpose: Connect QOL, transportation,
performance measures
© 2011 Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved.
Focus group results:
7 separate transportation areas
• Access
• Design
• Environment
• Maintenance
• Mobility
• Safety
• Transparency (planning & communications)
© 2011 Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved.
Method 3: Questionnaire
45% response rate
(mail survey)
4, 7 point scales +
Regression ,
importance/performance,
& forced choice
© 2011 Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved.
Questionnaire results
preview
© 2011 Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved.
Minnesotans’ satisfied with Quality of Life
© 2011 Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved.
Importance of QOL areas
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Rec and entertainment
Local services and amenities
Transportation
Spirituality faith and serenity
Education
Environment
Employment and finances
Housing
Family, friends and neighors
Safety and security
Health
Very unimportant Somewhat unimportant Slightly unimportant
Neither Slight important Somewhat important
Very important
© 2011 Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved.
Importance of 5 QOL life areas differ
significantly across age groups
© 2011 Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved.
Relationship among 11 QOL areas
Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3
Health Education Local services/
amenities
Spirituality, faith &
serenity
Family/friends Environment Recreation
Safety/security Employment
Housing
Transportation
© 2011 Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved.
Focus group results: 7 transportation areas
• Access
• Design
• Environment
• Maintenance
• Mobility
• Safety
• Transparency (planning &
communications)
© 2011 Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved.
All transportation areas are important
© 2011 Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved.
8 out of 10 Minnesotans’ satisfied
with MnDOT services
© 2011 Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved.
7 of 8 areas significant predictors of satisfaction with
MnDOT services
Satisfaction with MnDOT
services
Accessibility
.13 Planning
.17
Design
.13
Safety
.11
Communication .11
Mobility
.04
Maintenance
.27
© 2011 Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved.
Four areas
identified as
‘good work’
© 2011 Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved.
Maintenance quotes • “Our snow and ice removal is remarkable.”
(Minneapolis)
• “We could do without potholes” (Willmar)
• “Does MnDOT check or compare how long roads
last? They just don’t seem to last as long as they
used to” (Rochester)
• “More funding to increase maintenance so fillings
don’t fall out when driving” (Brainerd)
• “How does asphalt compare to concrete?”
(Minneapolis)
© 2011 Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved.
Maintenance: 5 significant predictors statewide
Keep road surface smooth, .48
Satisfaction with
maintenance Road/pavement makings clearly
visible, .12
Visual appeal of roadsides, .08
Clearing roads of debris, .07
Rest areas for road trips, .05
© 2011 Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved.
Maintenance: most important selected items (identified by 10%+)
76
54
13 11 11
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Clearing roadsof snow and ice
Keeping roadsurfacessmooth
Clearingsidewalks ofsnow and ice
Makingroad/pavement
markingsclearly visible
Makinghighway signs
clearlyreadable
% o
f re
spo
nd
ents
cit
ed t
he
item
as
mo
st im
po
rtan
t e
nvi
ron
me
nt
item
© 2011 Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved.
Important for Minnesota’s future?
Short term (5-10 years)
• Maintenance
• Access
• Safety
Next generation…
• Access
• Maintenance
• Safety
© 2011 Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved.
Performance measure
considerations
© 2011 Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved.
Existing
MnDOT
measure
Corresponding or
related items in
questionnaire
Available item that
significantly predicts
satisfaction with MnDOT
services & identified as
important
Traffic
fatalities
Perceived pedestrian safety
in community
Perceived pedestrian
safety in community
Perceived road safety
excluding other drivers
Perceived road safety with
other drivers
Perceived road safety
excluding other drivers
Perceived railroad crossing
safety
Perceived bike safety
considering design
© 2011 Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved.
Purpose: Connect QOL, transport,
performance measures
© 2011 Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved.
Next stop…
• Understand
– QOL
– MnDOT role
– Sharing results
– Performance
measures
considerations &
implementation
– Applying learning
to public outreach
© 2011 Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved.
Incorporating Results – Review of Service Satisfaction: Improvement Needs
• Maintenance: Road Smoothness aligns with Investment Strategy
– Corridor Investment Management Strategy [CIMS]
• Program works at a corridor level with other state agencies also
affecting users QOL [DEED, Health, Housing, Education, etc.]
– Performance Measurement
• Affirmed existing Annual Performance Report customer measures
• Added new measures: safety-based [modal fatalities], environment
– Education and Outreach
• Created public educational materials grounded in QOL learning
• Information used to communicate customer-defined value of
transportation [A to B video]
© 2011 Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved.
Questions?
– Full reports
• www.tourism.umn.edu
• Literature review, Focus Groups, Questionnaire,
• Final report
– Contacts:
• [email protected]; 612 624 4947
• [email protected]; 651 366 3172
