 |
METHODOLOGY: Survey of Subway Car AnnouncementsNYPIRG Straphangers Campaign • August 2003
The survey was conducted by 38 staff and volunteers during the period from March 31 to July 24. Participants were instructed to complete a survey entry every time they used the subways throughout that period. The survey form was designed to measure how each subway trip conformed to the guidelines laid out for announcements by MTA New York City Transit. Surveyors noted the date and line of each trip, and noted whether the name of the upcoming station and any applicable transfer information was understandably announced:
a. the first stop of the trip; In addition, surveyors recorded whether there was a change in service or delay of two minutes or more. When such a change in service or delay occurred, surveyors noted whether an in-car announcement was made, whether any announcement made was audible and ungarbled, and the exact language of the announcement. Station name and transfer information announcements were grouped and totaled as one category. Both types of announcements together comprise the "basic" in-car announcement, determined only by characteristics of the line and upcoming station. A basic announcement was deemed adequate if the upcoming station name and any applicable transfer information were announced in an audible and ungarbled manner. In our survey, we recorded 300 basic announcement opportunity observations on each of 22 lines. The Times Square, Rockaway and Franklin Avenue shuttles were not included in the survey. Our findings then reflect exactly 6,600 basic announcement opportunity observations; of these, our surveyors noted that for the entire system, 67% of announcements (plus or minus 2%) were adequate. The by-line confidence interval in each case is plus or minus 6%. All results are significant at the .05 level. By-line basic announcement levels measured in our 2003 survey are comparable to those reported in our 2002 and previous surveys; the campaign did not survey basic announcements in 2000. Of the 22 lines we measured in 2002 for basic in-car announcements, six showed a statistically significant improvement in performance between the survey periods: the 2, 5, 6, 7, G and L lines. Twelve lines‹the 1, 3, 4, A, B, D, E, F, N, Q, V and W‹showed asignificant deterioration in announcement performance. Four lines showed no significant change: the C, J/Z, M and R. In our 2002 report, we noted that 73% of basic announcements were adequate. This deterioration in systemwide performance is significant at the .05 level. Surveyors were also instructed to record whether there was a change in service or a delay between stations of two minutes or more. When such a change occurred, surveyors noted whether an in-car announcement was made, whether any announcement made was audible and ungarbled, and the exact language of the explanation given. Straphangers Campaign staff members then examined the transcription of each announcement to determine whether the announcement was "useful" or "not useful" to riders.
Our surveyors rated 93 delays and service changes during the survey period, of which 22 were followed by an ungarbled, audible and useful explanation for the disruption in service (24%, plus or minus 10%). These findings are consistent with those published in our 2002 report, in which we recorded 26% ungarbled, audible and useful announcements in response to 176 measured delays and service changes. The difference in results between the two survey periods is not statistically significant at the .05 level. Delay and service change data was not examined on a line-by-line basis. The number of such changes would be too low to permit statistically significant comparisons among lines. According to New York City Transit data, basic announcements remained virtually unchanged between the first three months of 2002 and the same period in 2003, going from 90% adequate to 89% adequate. Differences in methodology between Transit’s survey and this survey may explain the discrepancy. Straphangers Campaign would like to thank staff and volunteers who assisted in data collection: Michael Hernandez, Rebecca Sklaren, Richard Thomas, Neysa Pranger, Arelis Hernandez, Asi Klein, Monika Kumar, Joel Serrano, Jonathan Hesser, Kellie Roh, Michael Griffith, Dian Maguehi, Maria Capitummino, Jessica Hu, Jack Freedman, Reginald Raphael, Lynne Bagazonzya, Moe McKnight, Emanuel Frowner, Melissa Martinez, Jessica Huntado, Grace Zita O'Toole, Jose Medina, Analisa Nunez, Diana Breen, Melissa Morahan, Farrah Steide, Naima Ansari, Jasmin Ryan, Sarah Kogel-Smucker, Eliana Strauss, Aisha Fraites, Saliman Augustus, Mark Griffith, Max Rivlin-Nadler, Sally Waggoner and Ken Kaine. news release | methodology | tables
___________________________________________________ |
|
