1 / 163

Prepared By

Preliminary Report August 9, 2006. 2006 Arlington County Resident Study Topline Report. Prepared For. Prepared By. Arlington County Commuter Services. Outline of Presentation. Study, Background & Objectives Study Methodology Detailed Findings Resident Commute Behavior Non-Work Travel

elani
Download Presentation

Prepared By

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Preliminary Report August 9, 2006 2006 Arlington County Resident Study Topline Report Prepared For Prepared By Arlington County Commuter Services

  2. Outline of Presentation • Study, Background & Objectives • Study Methodology • Detailed Findings • Resident Commute Behavior • Non-Work Travel • Awareness & Use of Travel Info & Services • Worksite & Residential TDM Services • Transportation & Quality of Life • Perceptions of Transportation System • Opportunities for Improvement • Ability to Get Around • Accessibility to Bus & Train Stops • Communication • Hispanics • Key Take-A-Ways

  3. Study Background & Objectives

  4. Study Background • This project is a component of the 2006-2008 ACCS Program Research and Evaluation Plan. • The purpose of this component is to collect and analyze information needed to assess the performance of Arlington County Commuter Services (ACCS) and to enhance ACCS’ effectiveness in providing travel assistance services in Arlington County.

  5. Study Objectives • Measure Arlington County residents’ overall satisfaction with their mobility and the County’s transportation system. • Establish benchmark measures on residents’ overall ratings of their mobility and the County’s transportation system across a number of key attributes. • Identify residents’ overall transportation/mobility needs and unmet needs. • Assess the role Arlington County residents believe mobility/transportation system plays in making the County a desirable place to live and work.

  6. Study Objectives (Continued) • Measure how Arlington County residents perceive the County’s performance in delivering on their expectations. • Assess residents’ awareness and familiarity of non-SOV travel options available in Arlington County. • Measure usage and usage intent of non-SOV travel options available in Arlington County. • Measure awareness, use and impact of County’s transportation support organizations and services. • Assess awareness and rating of Arlington County’s transportation-related public information outreach efforts.

  7. Study Methodology

  8. Methodology • In order to meet the objectives established for this research, a random digit dialing telephone survey was conducted among residents of Arlington County. • The questionnaire was designed to meet the specific objectives established for this research and CATI (Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing) programmed for ease and quality of interviewing. • Core questions were asked of all respondents. Others were asked only of those who rideshare or do not, depending upon the relevancy of the issue for each individual respondent.

  9. Methodology (Continued) • In order to qualify, respondents had to meet the following criteria: • Resident of Arlington County • Age 18 and older • In addition, quotas were established to ensure sufficient numbers of respondents in key categories: • Residents who primarily use ridesharing modes • Residents who primarily do not use ridesharing modes • Hispanic respondents • Non-Hispanic Respondents In order to ensure the highest quality data, the interview was available in both English and Spanish – for the respondent’s preference

  10. Methodology (Continued) • At the start of this study, it was hypothesized that Ridesharers and Non-Ridesharers would have different perspectives, needs, and experiences. • In order to make relevant comparisons between Ridesharers and Non-Ridersharers, three (3) groups are compared in this analysis: • Primary Ridesharers • Secondary Ridesharers • Non-Ridesharers

  11. Methodology (Continued) Primary Ridesharers Reported that they rideshare to work at least once a week in a typical week. Secondary Ridesharers Do not typically rideshare to work, but reported that they used an alternative mode of transportation for a non-work trip during the past week. Non-Ridesharer Do not typically rideshare to work and did not use an alternative mode of transportation for a non-work trip during the past week.

  12. Methodology (Continued) • In total, 509 respondents completed this study: • In order not to over-represent the Hispanic segment in the total sample, the data have been weighted to accurately reflect the Hispanic population in Arlington County.

  13. Detailed Findings

  14. Travel Patterns & Choices Awareness & Use of Travel Info & Services Resident Commute Behavior Non-Work Travel Worksite & Residential Services

  15. Resident Commute Behavior

  16. Commute Characteristics • Work schedules • Commute modes and frequency of use • Profile of DA and transit commuters • Travel time and distance • Trial use/recent use of other modes • Likelihood to try HOV

  17. Work Arrangements • 68% of respondents were employed – 60% FT, 8% PT Among Employed Residents: 2006 Resident2004 SOC • Work CWS 19% 5% • Flextime N/A 19% • Telecommute 15% 13% • Avg. TC frequency 1.6 d/wk 1.3 d/wk • Avg. assigned days 4.9 4.9 • Avg. travel days 4.6 4.5

  18. n=328 Travel Mode to Work Percentage of weekly trips made by each mode

  19. n=328 Frequency of Mode Use 81% of residents used one mode 4+ days per week for commuting. Thus, there is only modest potential for increasing HOV use among current HOV users.

  20. Profiles of DA and Transit Commuters DATransit Travel 1-10 miles 70% 87% Travel 11+ miles 30% 13% Caucasian 82% 68% Hispanic 13% 18% Age < 50 60% 76% Age 50+ 40% 24% Income <$60K 21% 31% Income $60-120K 39% 42% Income >$120K 40% 27% Federal employee 26% 39% Private employee 34% 33%

  21. n=278 Commute Distance (mi) • Arlington residents travel shorter distances to work (10.3 miles) than do other commuters in the region (16.5 miles): • 41% travel 5 miles or less • 80% travel 10 miles or less Q H-13: How many miles do you travel from your home to your work?

  22. n=320 Commute Time (min) • But Arlington residents do not haveproportionately shorter commutetimes (28 min) than the regional average (34 min): • 48% travel 20 min or less, but • 26% travel 21–45 min and 26% travel 45+ min • This is primarily due to the large number of transit riders and walkers/bikers, who travel short distances, but take more time. Q H-14: How many minutes does this trip usually take you?

  23. n=328 Try/Use HOV in Past Year Within the past year, 30% of residents have tried or used an HOV mode that they are not using now. 30% Q H-24: In the past year, have you used or tried any other type of transportation that you’re not using now for your trip to work?

  24. Primary RS n=144 Secondary RS n=99 Non-rideshare n=86 DA Commuters Trial/Past Use of HOV DA commuters were more likely than current HOV commuters to have tried/used a different HOV mode in the past year. But is this because HOV users were satisfied with their travel mode and had less reason to change?

  25. DA Commuters Likely to Try HOV • Most DA commuters arelong time users – 62% started DA 2+ years ago and 18% “always used” DA. The remaining 20% started DA in past two years. • 28% of DA users said they were very likely (15%) or somewhat likely (13%) to try HOV mode within one year. • DA residents would be most willing to try transit if: • Bus schedule matched work schedule (13%) • Bus stop closer to home or work (6%) • More frequent schedule (6%) • Buses were faster (4%) • Gas prices were higher (3%) • Other (30%)

  26. Non-Work Travel

  27. Employed, Work day n=253 Employed, Non-work day n=94 Non- employed, N=162 Incidence of Non-Work Travel • 67% of residents made a non-work trip “yesterday.” • 64% of employed residents made a non-work trip on a work day • 67% of employed residents made a non-work trip on a non-work day • 72% of non-employed residents made a non-work trip on an average day • On days they worked, 40% of employed residents made trips on the way to/from work and 44% made trips at other times of the day. Q J-2 Did you make any stops yesterday on the way to work or stops on the way home from work? Q J-4 Did you make any trips for any purpose at any other time of the day? Q J-10 Did you make any trips yesterday, at any time of the day?

  28. Employed, Work day n=163 Employed, Non-work day n=63 Non- employed, N=116 Number of Non-Work Trips • Residents who made non-work trips yesterday made an average of2.3 trips/stops: • On work days, employed residents made 1.5 trips or stops on the way to/from work, plus 1.6 non-work trips at other times of the day • On non-work days, employed residents made 2.4 non-work trips • Non-employed residents made 2.6 non-work trips on an average day Q J-3 About how many stops did you make on the way to work or on the way home from work? Q J-5 About how many trips did you make? Q J-11 About how many trips did you make?

  29. Employed residents n=226 Non- employed, N=116 Weekly Trips for Work and Non-Work Non-employed residents made more non-work trips (13.1) weekly than did employed residents (7.5), but employed residents made more trips overall. Employed residents also made 2.7 stops per week on the way to or from work. 13.1 weekly trips 17.3 weekly trips

  30. n=342, multiple response permitted Trip n=459 Non-Work Travel Purpose Two in ten non-work trips were for made for shopping or errands and a quarter were made for social purposes. Social Shop Q J-6, J-12 For what purposes did you make these trips?

  31. n=342, multiple response permitted Trip n=459 Non-Work Travel Mode Nearly half of non-work trips are made by DA and one-third are made by walking. One in eight are made by riding or driving with another person. Walk CP/VP Drive alone Q J-7, J-8, J-13 What type or types of transportation did you use for <these trips>?

  32. Awareness and Use of Travel Info and Services

  33. n=507 Seeking Transportation Info/Services • 52% of all residents sought information on types of transportation they could use and 47%sought transportation services. • Who sought information? • Age 35-49 years old (60%) vs. other ages (51%) • Work outside Arlington (56%) vs. work inside (46%) • College/advanced degrees (56%) vs. HS or less (34%) • Lived in Arlington <10 years (54%) vs. >10 years (48%) • Employed and non-employed residents equally likely Q K-1: In the past year, have you sought information on types of transportation you could use to get around the Washington metropolitan region? Q K-2 In the past year, have you looked for services that could help you get around the Washington metropolitan region?

  34. n=283 Info/Service Sources Contacted Q K-3: What sources did you use or contact to obtain this information or service? * = Commuter Store, ACCS, ATP, CommuterPage.com, ART, Arlington government

  35. n=283 Info/Services Sought More than half of the residents who sought information or services looked for transit information/services. Q K-4: What information or services were you seeking?

  36. n=201 Four in Ten Residents Who Sought Info/Services Took Action to Change Travel 99% said the info/service encouraged this action and 47% said they were “not likely” to have taken the action without the info/service. Q K-5: After obtaining this information or service, did you take any actions to try to change how you travel around Arlington or how you travel from Arlington to other destinations in the Washington metropolitan area?

  37. n=201 Awareness of Commute Organizations(Unprompted) 10% named Arlington org Q K-8 Do you know of any organizations, phone numbers, or website that provides information on getting around Arlington or around the Washington region?

  38. n=191 Where to Look for Info? Residents who could not name a commute info source said if they wanted this type of info, they would look in: • Website/Internet 33% • Yellow Pages 7% • Employer 2% • Newspaper 2% • Referral 2% • Arlington organization 2% • Other 24% Q K-9 If you wanted to find this type of information, where would you look?

  39. n=447 Awareness of Commute Orgs (prompted)67% knew one or more Arlington commute organizations

  40. Commuter Store n=198 ACCS n=169 Bike Arlington n=144 Walk Arlington n=99 ATP n=71 Commuter Page.com n=59 Who Knew Arlington Orgs? Awareness of Arlington organizations was high, regardless of HOV use: use HOV for commuting (70%), use HOV only for non-work (66%), don’t use HOV (60%). • Commuter Store – <50 years old, College degree, Income $60K+, Longer time in Arlington • ACCS – Women, 35+ years old, 10+ years in Arlington, Non-employed • Bike Arlington – 35-49 years old, 2+ cars in HH, Income $60K+, High QOL rating, High TR satisfaction • Walk Arlington – Women, High TR satisfaction • ATP – Longer time in Arlington, Non-employed • CommuterPage.com – <50 years old, Employed

  41. n=509 Used Arlington Travel Services One in five residents (21%) had used a travel service from an Arlington County/ACCS program last year.

  42. Commuter Store n=198 ACCS n=169 Bike Arlington n=144 Walk Arlington n=99 ATP n=71 Commuter Page.com n=59 Who Used Arlington Services? • Residents who: • Used HOV for commuting (31%) vs. used HOV only for non-work (23%) vs. did not use HOV at all (10%) • Heard ads about transportation/commuting (36%) vs. did not hear ads (16%) • Worked for federal agencies (34%) vs. worked for non-profit (19%) or private employers (15%) • Worked for employers with 251+ employees (26%) vs. worked for employers with <251 employees (17%) • Employed and non-employed residents equally likely to use Arlington Services.

  43. Worksite and Residential TDM Services

  44. n=344 Access to Employer TDM About a third of the employed residents said their employer offers commute assistance services/benefits. This was much lower than that noted in 2004 SOC, but the SOC asked the question differently.

  45. n=328 Most Common Employer Services

  46. Access to Employer TDM • Employees were most likely to know their employer offered TDM services if they worked: • Full time (51%) vs. part time (21%) • Outside Arlington (57%) vs. inside Arlington (32%) • For a federal agency (60%) vs. state/local government (20%), non-profit (21%), or private firm (14%) • For an employer with 251+ employees (46%) vs. an employer with 250 or fewer employees (14%) • Among residents who did not have access to transportation subsidies, 36% said they would be very likely or somewhat likely to try HOV for work if their employers offered this benefit.

  47. Mode Use at TDM Worksites Transit use was higher and DA use was lower at worksites where employees said they had access to TDM services.

  48. Resident base n=285 Service base n=67 Residential TDM Services • One in four (24%) residents who lived in a condominium, townhouse, or apartment said they had access to transportation information at home: On-site concierge (19%), Self-service take-one display (13%).

  49. Service use n=42 Used Residential TDM Services • Two-thirds (66%) of residents who had access to residential services used one or more services: 27% used Metro tickets and 25% used transit information.

  50. Travel change n=28 Actions Taken After Using Residential TDM Services • 95% of residents who used a residential TDM service tried or increased use of an HOV mode after using the services.

More Related