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

1

2006 Arlington County Resident Study Topline Report

Prepared By

Prepared For

Arlington County Commuter Services

Preliminary Report

August 9, 2006

Southeastern Institute of

Research2

2006 Arlington

County Resident Study

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


Research3

2006 Arlington


Study Background

&Objectives


Research4

2006 Arlington


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.


Research5

2006 Arlington


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.


Research6

2006 Arlington


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.


Research7

2006 Arlington


Study Methodology


Research8

2006 Arlington


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.


Research9

2006 Arlington


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


Research10

2006 Arlington



• 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


Research11

2006 Arlington



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.


Research12

2006 Arlington



• 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.

Rideshare Mode Ethnicity

n

Margin of error

n

Margin of

error

Primary Ridesharers

148 +/- 8.1 Hispanic 201

+/-7.0

Secondary Ridesharers

189 +/- 7.2 Non-Hispanic

308

+/- 5.6

Non-Ridesharers

172 +/- 7.5

TOTAL 509 +/- 4.4 TOTAL 509

+/- 4.4


Research13

2006 Arlington


Detailed Findings


Research14

2006 Arlington


Resident Commute

Behavior

Non-Work Travel

Awareness

& Use of Travel Info &

Services

Worksite & Residential

Services

Travel Patterns

& Choices


Research15

2006 Arlington


Resident Commute Behavior


Research16

2006 Arlington


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


Research17

2006 Arlington


Work Arrangements

• 68% of respondents were employed – 60% FT, 8% PT

Among Employed Residents:2006 Resident 2004 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


Research18

2006 Arlington


Travel Mode to Work

6%

58%

26%

7%

1%

3%

5%5%

74%

13%

5%

1%

1%

3%

12%

6%

27%

47%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

DA

Train

Bus

Bike

Walk

CP/VP

2006 Resident Survey

Arl Residents - 04 SOC

Regional Ave - 04 SOC

Percentage of weekly trips made by each mode

n=328


Research19

2006 Arlington


Frequency of Mode Use

Modes Used for Travel to Work

Avg. Days per Week

Drive alone (n=136) 4.5

Metrorail/Commuter Rail (n=84)

4.2

Bus (n=44) 3.7

Carpool/vanpool (n=15) 3.7

Bike (n=10) 3.6

Walk (n=22) 4.0

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.

n=328


Research20

2006 Arlington


Profiles of DA and Transit Commuters

DA TransitTravel 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%


Research21

2006 Arlington


Commute Distance (mi)

16.5

10.3

9.9

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0

Arl Residents - 06 Survey



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?

n=278


Research22

2006 Arlington


Commute Time (min)

34

28

27

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

Arl Residents - 06 Survey



But Arlington residents do not have proportionately shorter commute times (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?

n=320


Research23

2006 Arlington


Try/Use HOV in Past Year

70%

12%

10%

4%3%

3%

No new HOV Metrorail Bus Bike Walk Other

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?

Within the past year, 30% of residents have tried or used an HOV mode that they are not using now.

n=328

30%


Research24

2006 Arlington


DA Commuters Trial/Past Use of HOV

21%

35%

39%

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0%

Non-ridesharers

Secondary ridesharers

Primary ridesharers

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?

Primary RS n=144

Secondary RS n=99

Non-rideshare

n=86


Research25

2006 Arlington


DA Commuters Likely to Try HOV

• Most DA commuters are long 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%)


Research26

2006 Arlington


Non-Work

Travel


Research27

2006 Arlington


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?

Employed, Work day

n=253

Employed, Non-work day n=94

Non- employed,

N=162


Research28

2006 Arlington


Number of Non-Work Trips

• Residents who made non-work trips yesterday made an average of 2.3 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?

Employed, Work day

n=163

Employed, Non-work day n=63

Non- employed,

N=116


Research29

2006 Arlington


Weekly Trips for Work and Non-Work

0.0

9.8

13.1

7.5

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0

EmployedResidents

Non-employedresidents

Work trips Non-work trips

13.1 weekly trips

17.3 weekly trips

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.

Employed residents

n=226

Non- employed,

N=116


Research30

2006 Arlington


Non-Work Travel Purpose

39%

23% 14%

11%

7%

6%

Shop / errands Social Appointment

Drop-off / Pick-up Work meeting Other

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?

n=342, multiple response permitted

Trip n=459


Research31

2006 Arlington


Non-Work Travel Mode

45%

33%

14%

6%

5%2%

4%

Drive alone Walk CP/VP Train Bus Bike Other

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.

Drive alone

WalkCP/VP

n=342, multiple response permitted

Trip n=459

Q J-7, J-8, J-13 What type or types of transportation did you use for <these trips>?


Research32

2006 Arlington


Awareness and

Use ofTravel Info and

Services


Research33

2006 Arlington


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

n=507

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?


Research34

2006 Arlington


Info/Service Sources Contacted n=283

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

2%

2%

2%

2%

2%

3%

3%

6%

6%

7%

44%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%

Yellow pages

Referral

Newspaper/magazine

Highway sign

Employer

Newspaper/magazine

Other orgs

Bus stop info

Arlington Orgs *

WMATA

Website


Research35

2006 Arlington


Info/Services Soughtn=283

Q K-4: What information or services were you seeking?

16%

2%

2%

2%

2%

3%

7%

54%

9%

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

Other

Park&Ride

Telecommute

Bike/walk

Metrochek/SmarTrip

CP/VP info

Travel directions

Metro fares/passes

Transit route/sched

More than half of the residents who sought information or services looked for transit information/services.


Research36

2006 Arlington


Four in Ten Residents Who Sought Info/Services Took Action to Change

Travel

n=201

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?

8%

2%

15%

5%

9%

42%

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

Other

Tried CP

Tried bus/train

Changed route towork

Sough more infofrom Internet

Took some action

99% said the info/service encouraged this action and 47% said they were “not likely” to have taken the action without the info/service.


Research37

2006 Arlington


Awareness of Commute Organizations(Unprompted)

n=201

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?

26%

4%

2%

3%

5%

15%

11%

38%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%

Other

Other Arlington

Commuter Store

ACCS

Other regional org

WMATA

Don't know name

Don't know any

10% named Arlington org


Research38

2006 Arlington


Where to Look for Info?n=191

Q K-9 If you wanted to find this type of information, where would you look?

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%


Research39

2006 Arlington


n=447

4%

13%

14%

16%

22%

32%

34%

44%

46%

80%

38%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

CommuterDirect.com

CommuterPage.com

Way to Go

ATP

Walk Arlington

Bike Arlington

Commuter Connections

ACCS

Commuter Store

ART

WMATA

Awareness of Commute Orgs (prompted)

67% knew one or more Arlington commute organizations


Research40

2006 Arlington


Who Knew Arlington Orgs?Commuter

Store n=198

ACCS n=169

Bike Arlington

n=144

Walk Arlington

n=99

ATP n=71

Commuter Page.com

n=59

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


Research41

2006 Arlington


Used Arlington Travel Servicesn=509

0%

2%

2%

4%

7%

8%

11%

0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12%

CommuterDirect.com

CarShare

CommuterPage.com

Walk Arlington

Bike Arlington

ACCS

Commuter Store

One in five residents (21%) had used a travel service from an Arlington County/ACCS program last year.


Research42

2006 Arlington


Who Used Arlington Services?Commuter

Store n=198

ACCS n=169

Bike Arlington

n=144

Walk Arlington

n=99

ATP n=71

Commuter Page.com

n=59

• 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.


Research43

2006 Arlington


Worksite and

Residential TDMServices


Research44

2006 Arlington


Access to Employer TDM

64%

36%

53%

47%

69%

31%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Yes

No/DK

Regional Ave - 04 SOC Arl Residents - 04 SOC 2006 Resident Survey

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.

n=344


Research45

2006 Arlington


Most Common Employer Services

n=328

31%

5%

10%

18%

17%

27%

44%18%

4%

12%

14%

16%

22%

0%

2%

4%

1%

3%

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

CP subsidy

GRH

Bike/walk info

PreferentialParking

RS Info

Transit subsidy

2006 Resident Survey




Research46

2006 Arlington


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.


Research47

2006 Arlington


Mode Use at TDM Worksites

39%

17%

8%

8%

4%

6%

14%

3%

32%

27%

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

DA

Train

Bus

Bike/walk

CP/VP

Yes, employer offers

No, employer doesn't offer

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


Research48

2006 Arlington


Residential TDM ServicesResident

base n=285

Service base n=67

3%

3%

10%

14%

36%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%

Bike racks

SmarTrip cards

Metrotickets/tokens

Transportationinfo/seminar

Transit Info

• 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%).


Research49

2006 Arlington


Used Residential TDM Services

Service use n=42

4%

12%

27%

12%

25%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

Bike racks

SmarTrip cards

Metrotickets/tokens

Transportationinfo/seminar

Transit Info

• 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.


Research50

2006 Arlington


Actions Taken After Using Residential TDM Services

Travel change n=28

5%

21%

41%

27%

4%

18%

27%

20%

32%

29%

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

Bike

Walk

Metrorail

Metrobus

ART bus

Use more Start using

• 95% of residents who used a residential TDM service tried or increased use of an HOV mode after using the services.


Research51

2006 Arlington


Transportation &

Quality of Life

Perceptions of Transportation

System

Opportunities for

Improvement

Ability to Get

Around

Perceptual Issues


Research52

2006 Arlington


The Arlington County Transportation Impact Model

The economy

Transportation system

and services

Entertainment & recreational

Job opportunities

Clean environment

Public education

Attractive residential communities

Safety

Shopping opportunities

Ease of getting around the area

Diversity

Overall

Quality of Life

Safety

Ease of getting around by bus

Ease of getting around w/out car

Ease of getting around by walking

Ease of getting around by bicycle

Sat. AC is meeting residents needs

Ability to travel around AC

Ease of getting around w/car

Choice/variety of options

Cost

Time required to make trips

Convenience

Dependability

Comfort

Ease of getting to other destinations w/out a car


Research53

2006 Arlington


Transportation &

Quality of Life


Research54

2006 Arlington


QC-1. Think about the quality of life in Arlington County. By “quality of life” we mean “the general well-being of residents, taking into consideration such things as the quality of

education available, employment opportunities, the economy, mobility, personal safety, health,

housing, recreation and entertainment opportunities, and so forth.”

How would you rate the overall quality of life in Arlington County? Please use a scale of 1-5 for

your answer, where “1” means that the quality of life is “not very good” and “5” means the quality

of life is “very good.”


Research55

2006 Arlington


Citizens of Arlington County Rate Their Overall Quality of Life Quite

FavorablyAlmost 9 in 10 Give It a Favorable Rating

53%

35%

9%

1%

1%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

5-Very Good

4

3

2

1-Not Very Good

C-1: How would you rate the overall quality of life in Arlington County?

88%


Research56

2006 Arlington


Primary Ridesharers View Their Quality of Life Favorably

50%

41%

6%

0%

2%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

5-Very Good

4

3

2

1-Not Very Good


91%

Based to Primary Ridesharers


Research57

2006 Arlington


Secondary Ridesharers Also View Their Quality of Life Favorably

53%

35%

11%

0%

1%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

5-Very Good

4

3

2

1-Not Very Good


88%

Based to Secondary Ridesharers


Research58

2006 Arlington


Non-Ridesharers Also View Their Quality of Life Favorably

55%

31%

10%

2%

2%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

5-Very Good

4

3

2

1-Not Very Good


86%

Based to Non-Ridesharers


Research59

2006 Arlington


Ratings of Quality of Life Vary Across Key Demographic

Groups

• Although ratings of the quality of life do not vary significantly across the three transportation groups, some differences across demographic groups are posted, including:

– Those with higher incomes tend to rate the quality of life more favorably

– Older respondents tend to rate the quality of life more favorably

– Those who have lived in Arlington County longer (more than five years) tend to rate the quality of life more favorably


Research60

2006 Arlington


The “Transportation System & Services” Is Also Rated Favorably —

“Ease of Getting Around in the Area” Is Rated Slightly Less So

43%

35%

39%

41%

35%

51%

45%

43%

51%

41%

58%

27%

35%

37%

39%

45%

29%

37%

40%

34%

45%

28%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Public education

Job opportunities

Ease of getting around in the area

The economy

Clean environment

Diversity


Transportation system and services

Avail. of entertainment & rec. opportunities

Safety

Availability of shopping opportunities

5-Very Good 4

C-2: Please rate Arlington County on each of these attributes…

86%

86%

85%

83%

82%

80%

80%

80%

76%

70%

70%

Residents are most satisfied

with shopping

opportunities, safety, entertainm

ent and transportation system.


Research61

2006 Arlington


Nine of Ten Primary Ridesharers Rate the “Transportation System & Services” Favorably, and Eight of Ten Rate “Ease of Getting

Around in the Area” Favorably

38%

34%

41%

33%

32%

43%

44%

43%

50%

35%

56%

26%

36%

39%

47%

47%

33%

35%

46%

36%

54%

30%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Public education

Job opportunities


The economy

Clean environment

Diversity




Safety


5-Very Good 4


86%

89%

86%89%

79%

76%79%

80%

80%

70%

64%



Research62

2006 Arlington


Secondary Ridesharers Are Slightly Less Satisfied with the “Transportation System & Services” in Arlington County and with the “Ease of Getting

Around the Area”

44%

35%

37%

46%

35%

52%

46%

47%

47%

45%

61%

28%

37%

36%

35%

49%

27%

39%

36%

35%

40%

27%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Public education

Job opportunities


The economy

Clean environment

Diversity




Safety


5-Very Good 4


88%85%

82%83%

85%

79%84%

81%

73%

72%

72%



Research63

2006 Arlington


About Three-fourths of Non-Rideshares Have Favorable Views of the “Transportation System & Services” and “Ease of Getting Around the

Area”

47%

36%

39%

43%

38%

53%

46%

39%

31%

42%

57%

27%

33%

36%

37%

37%

28%

36%

38%

55%

41%

27%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Public education

Job opportunities


The economy

Clean environment

Diversity




Safety


5-Very Good 4


84%83%

86%77%

82%

81%

75%

80%

72%

69%74%



Research64

2006 Arlington


How is satisfaction with

mobility issues related to

perceptions of overall

quality of life?


Research65

2006 Arlington


Predictive Modeling

• Helps us to identify cause and effect relationships:– It models the impact or effect of

causal factors on a specific outcome

• Multiple regression used to identify the relationship and the magnitude of the impact


Research66

2006 Arlington


What Influences Quality of Life?

OverallQuality of

Life

The economy


Entertainment & recreational opps

Job opportunities

Clean environment

Public education


Safety



Diversity

?

?

?

??

?

??

??

?


Research67

2006 Arlington


“Transportation System & Services” Have a Significant Impact on the Quality of Life in Arlington

CountyThe Economy Has the Greatest Effect

The regression coefficient indicates that for

every point increase in

rating of the transportation system

and services, overall

quality of life ratings

will increase by 0.078.

OverallQuality of

Life

The economy


Availability of entertainment and recreational opportunities

Job opportunities

Clean environment

Public education


.078

.134

.119

.154

.112

.088

.203

Note:

The 4 other quality of

life attributes from the previous slide did

not have an impact and consequently are not

included on this list of

key variables.

Not significant impacts on quality of

life: safety, shopping, ease of getting

around, and diversity


Research68

2006 Arlington


Satisfaction with the “Transportation System & Services” in Arlington

County Improves Residents’ Quality of Life Ratings

85%94%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Less than very satisfied withtransportation system

Very satisfied with transportationsystem


9-point lift

The trans-portation system in Arlington County

makes it a better

place to live.

How to Read This

Chart:Proportions

reported are those rating the quality of

life favorably.

Example: 85% of

those less than very

satisfied w/ trans.

system rate quality of

life favorably.


Research69

2006 Arlington


Satisfaction with the “Transportation System & Services” in Arlington County Lifts

Perceptions of the Quality of Life Among All Commute Groups – Especially Those That Do

Not Rideshare

89%94%

85%93%

80%

96%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

< Verysatisfied

Verysatisfied

< Verysatisfied

VerySatisfied

< Verysatisfied

Verysatisfied


Primary Ridesharers Secondary Ridesharers

Non-Ridesharers

+5%

+16%

+8%

Note: < is shorthand

for less than

satisfied

How to Read This

Chart:Proportions

reported are those rating the quality of

life favorably.

Example: 89% of

those less than very

satisfied w/ trans.

system rated

quality of life

favorably.


Research70

2006 Arlington


Additionally, Mobility Issues Are Near the Top of the List of Stated

Importance for Factors Influencing Quality of Life

31%

40%

37%

50%

34%

43%

42%

49%

59%

52%

70%

34%

27%

31%

20%

42%

36%

37%

31%

29%

36%

21%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%


Job opportunities

Diversity

Public education


The economy



Clean environment


Safety

5-Very important 4

C-3: Please tell me how important each of the attributes is in terms of your overall quality of life?

91%

88%88%

80%79%

79%

76%

70%

68%

67%

65%


Research71

2006 Arlington


Nearly Nine out of Ten Primary Ridesharers Say That “Ease of Getting Around the Area” Is Important to Their Overall Quality of Life; Similarly, Nine out of Ten Primary

Ridesharers Say “Transportation System & Services” Are Important

26%

42%

34%

51%

24%

40%

31%

60%

56%

54%

73%

33%

32%

34%

19%

46%

47%

46%

27%

34%

35%

21%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%


Job opportunities

Diversity

Public education


The economy



Clean environment


Safety

5-Very important 4


94%

89%

90%

87%

77%87%

70%

70%

68%

74%

59%



Research72

2006 Arlington


The “Transportation System & Services” Are Less Important to Secondary Ridesharers, but “Ease of

Getting Around” Is Just As Important for This Group As for Primary Ridesharers

34%

38%

41%

46%

37%

43%

47%

47%

61%

51%

73%

34%

26%

27%

22%

42%

33%

33%

34%

29%

39%

18%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%


Job opportunities

Diversity

Public education


The economy



Clean environment


Safety

5-Very important 4


91%

90%

90%

81%

80%

76%

79%

68%

68%

64%

68%



Research73

2006 Arlington


Both the “Transportation System & Services” and “Ease of Getting Around” Are Less

Important to Non-Ridesharers

33%

41%

35%

53%

38%

47%

49%

40%

59%

50%

64%

36%

23%

32%

20%

37%

31%

35%

32%

26%

33%

25%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%


Job opportunities

Diversity

Public education


The economy



Clean environment


Safety

5-Very important 4


89%

83%85%

72%

84%

78%

75%

73%

67%

64%

69%



Research74

2006 Arlington


Key Finding:Arlington County residents are quite satisfied with their quality of life. And, the transportation system in Arlington County improves their quality of life.

When explicitly asked how important certain attributes are in their overall quality of life, both transportation services and ease of getting around in the area were rated near the top — even higher than education and job opportunities.

Higher level statistical modeling of the survey data confirmed residents’ explicit or stated feelings. The transportation system has a statistically significant impact on perceptions of quality of life. While education, job opportunities, and other attributes may have a greater impact, the fact is transportation is in the set of attributes that have a measurable impact on how Arlington County residents rate their quality of life!

Strategic Implication:The transportation system in Arlington County improves the quality of life in Arlington County. This fact can be stated unequivocally in marketing materials.


Research75

2006 Arlington


Key Finding:Perceptions of the impact of transportation and mobility on overall quality of life differ for Ridesharers and Non-Ridesharers. On some measures, the relationship between transportation and quality of life is evident for Ridesharers but not for Non-Ridesharers. On other measures, the relationship is stronger for Non-Ridesharers.

Strategic Implication: The relationship between transportation and quality of life is complex. Do not expect residents to “figure it out” for themselves. Use communications to continue to develop a greater appreciation of the important role transportation has in residents’ quality of life. Inform and educate residents about this direct relationship to grow awareness, familiarity, and desired behavior of a fully-integrated transportation system.


Research76

2006 Arlington


Perceptions ofTransportation

System


Research77

2006 Arlington


When Asked What the Transportation System Means, About Half Gave a Mode

of Transportation As an Answer

17%

3%

3%

4%

23%

2%

4%

6%

20%

4%

9%

13%

21%

34%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Other responses

Inadequate system

Cars

Convenient/easy to use

Good transportation system

Biking/bike lanes

Congestion

Ability to get around

Roads

Taxis

Public transportation

Metrorail/subway

Metro system

Metrobus/buses

D-1: First, when I say “the transportation system of Arlington County,” what does that mean to you? That is, how would you define “the transportation system of Arlington County?”

An additional 2% said they did

not know.

Public Transportatio

n: 51%

Mobility: 29%

Positive Comment: 26%

NOTE: Percentages for mode,

mobility, and

positive comments

denote those who

gave at least one

of the indicated

responses.


Research78

2006 Arlington


QD-3. Next, tell me, how satisfied you are with the transportation system in Arlington County. For the purposes of this interview, “transportation system

of Arlington County” means “all services and options available to residents of Arlington County

that make it possible to travel throughout Arlington County, as well as the quality of those services.” So, we are talking about such things as bus and

train routes and stops, the quality of the buses, the quality of the roads, support services for transit, bicycling, walking, carpooling, and so forth.” The

transportation system is what makes mobility possible for residents of Arlington County.

Overall, how satisfied are you with the Arlington

County transportation system? Please use a scale of 1-5 for your answer, where “1” means “not very

satisfied” and “5” means “very satisfied.”


Research79

2006 Arlington


Satisfaction with Arlington County’s Transportation System is Quite High

35%

43%

17%

3%

1%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

5-Very satisfied

4

3

2

1-Not verysatisfied

D-3: Overall, how satisfied are you with the Arlington County Transportation system?

78%

The following are significantly more likely to be “very”

satisfied:• Have lived in Arlington County

less than 2 years• Work part-time• Work in Arlington County• Have incomes of less than

$60,000• Have high school or less

education


Research80

2006 Arlington


Satisfaction Is Equally High Among Primary Ridesharers, Secondary

Ridesharers, and Non-Ridesharers

D-3: Overall, how satisfied are you with the Arlington County Transportation system?

36%

38%

19%

5%

2%

31%

46%

16%

4%

1%

39%

44%

15%

1%

1%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

5-Very satisfied

4

3

2

1-Not very satisfied

Primary Rideshare

Secondary Rideshare

Non-Ridesharers


Research81

2006 Arlington


Residents Are Slightly Less Likely to Be Satisfied That Arlington County Is

Meeting Residents’ Needs for Transportation Than Other Measures of

Satisfaction

31%

39%

22%

4%

2%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

5-Very satisfied

4

3

2

1-Not verysatisfied

D-4: How satisfied are you that Arlington County is meeting its residents’ needs for transportation and their ability to get around?

70%

These groups

are more likely to

be satisfied:

•Lower income

•Work part-time

•Lower level of education

•Have no car


Research82

2006 Arlington


33%

35%

21%

6%

2%

32%

36%

27%

2%

3%

28%

47%

16%

5%

2%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

5-Very satisfied

4

3

2

1-Not very satisfied

Primary Rideshare

Secondary Rideshare

Non-Rideshare

Primary Ridesharers Are Slightly More Satisfied That Arlington County Is

Meeting Its Residents’ Needs for Transportation

D-4: How satisfied are you that Arlington County is meeting its residents’ needs for transportation and their ability to get around?

Primary: 75%Secondary: 68%Non: 68%


Research83

2006 Arlington


The Transportation System in the County Is Rated Most Favorably in

Regard to SafetyBut, Scores Are Quite Low on Time Required to Make

Trips

17%

21%

26%

23%

28%

26%

37%

28%

34%

38%

41%

38%

40%

47%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%


Cost

Convenience

Comfort

Choice/variety of transportation options

Dependability

Safety

5-Very Good 4

E-8: Please rate the Arlington County transportation system on the following attributes and options.

84%

66%

66%

64%

64%

55%

45%


Research84

2006 Arlington


With a Few Exceptions, Current Ridesharers Give the Transportation System Higher

Ratings on Individual Attributes Than Do Non-Ridesharers


39%

44%

55%

61%

60%

66%

78%

43%

61%

63%

67%

66%

69%

84%

53%

60%

73%

64%

72%

63%

88%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%


Cost

Convenience

Comfort


Dependability

Safety

Primary Rideshare

Secondary Rideshare

Non-Rideshare

Percentages indicate

scores 4 and 5 on a 1-5

scale where the higher the score the more favorable the rating.


Research85

2006 Arlington


Key Finding:Satisfaction with Arlington County’s transportation system is quite high – both for Ridesharers and Non-Ridesharers. Overall, however, residents tend to give slightly lower scores to the County in terms of meeting its residents’ transportation needs than on other measures of satisfaction in this research. Are citizens failing to recognize the County’s role in providing those services? Perhaps the County is not getting all the credit it deserves for its transportation initiatives.

Strategic Implication #1:Create a stronger “link’ or association between the County’s brand and Arlington County’s transportation system. Communicate more thoroughly the role of the County in providing transportation services. Consider a move to a more unified “brand sponsor” rather than three separate entities – ACCS, ATP, and Arlington Transportation.

Strategic Implication #2:It may be that residents have unmet needs in regard to transportation in Arlington County. Explore the extent to which “something is missing” in regard to transportation services, features, and attributes via upcoming planned studies.


Research86

2006 Arlington


Key Finding:Residents give the most favorable ratings to the safety of the transportation system. They are least satisfied with the time it takes to make trips. With few exceptions, current ridesharers give the transportation system higher ratings than do those who do not rideshare. Those who do not rideshare give the lowest rating to the time it takes to make trips.

Strategic Implication:“Time” is an issue. If credible promises can be made in regard to ridesharing and saving time, then, it can be used to promote ridesharing. If credible promises cannot be made, it should be avoided as a message idea.


Research87

2006 Arlington


What’s driving

satisfaction with the

transportation system?


Research88

2006 Arlington


Possible Drivers of Satisfaction with Transportation System

Satisfaction with

Transportation System

Safety







Ability to travel around Arlington County



Cost


Convenience

Dependability

Comfort

?

??

???

?

??

? ??

?

??


Research89

2006 Arlington


Overall Ability to Travel Around Arlington County Is the Biggest Driver in

Satisfaction with Arlington County’s Transportation System

Satisfaction with


Getting around Arlington by bus



Convenience


Safety

.070

.105

.131

.142

.173

.366


Research90

2006 Arlington


Primary Ridesharers Follow a Similar Model, Yet Convenience and Time Required to Make

Trips Are Not Major Drivers of Their Satisfaction

Satisfaction with




Safety

Choice/variety of transportation options .117

.155

.286

.291


Research91

2006 Arlington


Similarly, Secondary Ridesharers Follow a Similar Model, Yet Convenience and

Safety Are Not Major Drivers of Their Satisfaction

Satisfaction with

Transportation SystemGetting around Arlington by

bus




.485

.176

.178

.157


Research92

2006 Arlington


Convenience Is a Driver for Non-Ridesharers

Satisfaction with




Convenience


.152

.207

.223

.375


Research93

2006 Arlington


Ridesharing Status Affects What Drives Satisfaction with the Transportation

SystemPrimary

RideshareSecondary Rideshare

Non-Rideshare

Ability to travel around Arlington

County


County


County

SafetyChoice/variety of transportation

options


Choice/variety of transportation

options


Choice/variety of transportation

options



Convenience


Research94

2006 Arlington


Safety and Ease of Getting Around Are the Attributes or Features Rated

Highest for Stated Importance

20%

22%

28%

27%

28%

26%

34%

38%

46%

41%

51%

45%

59%

19%

28%

24%

29%

30%

38%

37%

39%

34%

39%

31%

42%

28%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Ease of getting around Arlington by bicycle

Ease of getting around Arlington by bus

Ease of getting around Arlington without a car

Ease of getting around Arlington by walking

Cost

Comfort

Choice or vaiety of transportation options

Time needed to make trips

Ease of getting around Arlington with a car

Convenience

Dependability

Ease of getting around Arlington overall

Safety

5-Very important 4

F-1 to F8: Now, we’d like to know how important some attributes and options in a transportation system are to you. For each attribute or option I read, please tell me how important it is, using a scale of 1-5 where “1” means that it is “not at all important and “5” means that it is very important.

87%

87%

82%

80%

80%

77%

71%

64%58%

56%52%

50%

39%


Research95

2006 Arlington


Key Finding:Overall ease of traveling around Arlington County, choice/variety of transportation options, and getting around by bus are the biggest drivers of satisfaction with the transportation system. Safety is also a major factor for primary ridesharers, as is time required to make trips and convenience for Secondary Ridesharers and Non-Ridesharers respectively.

Strategic Implication:In order to increase overall satisfaction with the transportation system, make sure that residents are aware of and familiar with the wide variety of transportation options available to them—particularly buses. Do not ignore the role of time and convenience, however. These are important needs among those who are not Primary Ridesharers and can influence their transportation choices.


Research96

2006 Arlington



Overall

Quality of Life


Research97

2006 Arlington



The economy



Job opportunities

Clean environment

Public education


Safety



Diversity

Overall

Quality of Life


Research98

2006 Arlington



The economy



Job opportunities

Clean environment

Public education


Safety



Diversity

Overall

Quality of Life


Research99

2006 Arlington



The economy



Job opportunities

Clean environment

Public education


Safety



Diversity

Overall

Quality of Life


Research100

2006 Arlington



The economy



Job opportunities

Clean environment

Public education


Safety



Diversity

Overall

Quality of Life

Safety









Cost


Convenience

Dependability

Comfort



Research101

2006 Arlington



The economy



Job opportunities

Clean environment

Public education


Safety



Diversity

Overall

Quality of Life

Safety









Cost


Convenience

Dependability

Comfort



Research102

2006 Arlington


Opportunities forImprovement


Research103

2006 Arlington


There Are Some Noticeable Gaps Between Importance and

Performance Ratings

39%

50%

52%

56%

58%

64%

71%

77%

80%

80%

82%

87%

87%

49%

50%

44%

49%

55%

64%

66%

45%

64%

78%

66%

80%

84%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%





Cost

Comfort

Choice or variety of transportation options


Convenience


Dependability


Safety

Performance

Importance

Methodology note: All of

the “performanc

e” ratings are on 1-5 scales, yet

are anchored by a variety of

different items (i.e.,

satisfaction, difficulty/ea

se, or poor/good).


Research104

2006 Arlington


SIR Opportunity Index

• Calculated based on the factor’s importance to the respondents, the gap between this importance, and your performance on that factor:

Performance Gap = Max. Mean Rating – Performance Level

3.8 mean1.2 = 5.0 mean –

Opportunity Index = Performance Gap X Importance level X Indexing factor of 5

22 = 1.2 3.7 meanX X 5

The higher the number, the greater the opportunity you have to make a

difference.


Research105

2006 Arlington


There Is Particular Opportunity in the Area of Time Needed to Make

TripsImportan

cePerforman

ce

Opportunity

Index

Safety 4.4 4.2 18

Dependability 4.3 3.9 24

Ease of getting around Arlington overall 4.3 4.1 19

Convenience 4.2 3.8 25

Ease of getting around Arlington with a car 4.2 4.2 17

Time needed to make trips 4.1 3.4 33

Choice or variety of transportation options 4 3.8 24

Comfort 3.9 3.8 23

Cost 3.7 3.6 26

Ease of getting around Arlington by walking 3.6 3.4 29

Ease of getting around Arlington without a car 3.5 3.3 30

Ease of getting around Arlington by bus 3.4 3.6 24

Ease of getting around Arlington by bicycle 3.1 3.6 22

But, realistically,

can we address this through the

use of alternate modes? Can we make

promises about saving time?A message

opportunity


Research106

2006 Arlington


Key Finding:There are a few gaps between importance of transportation system attributes and perceived performance on these items. Notably, there is particular opportunity in the time needed to make trips. This is especially important because this is one of the driving factors for Non-Ridesharers in terms of satisfaction with the ability to get around the County.

Strategic Implication: Promote that ridesharing trips can be fast—or at least do not take additional time—if this is true. An alternative message with strong potential is “convenience” (of the SOV alternatives).


Research107

2006 Arlington


Ability to Get Around


Research108

2006 Arlington


Residents Give Positive Ratings to Their Ability to Travel Around Arlington

County

39%

41%

14%

4%

2%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

5-Very satisfied

4

3

2

1-Not verysatisfied

D-2: Tell me, overall, how satisfied are you with your ability to travel around Arlington County?

80%

Whether or not

there is a car in the household does not have an effect on ratings of

ease of getting around

Arlington County.


Research109

2006 Arlington


Both Ridesharers and Non-Ridesharers Are About Equally As

Satisfied

44%

32%

15%

5%

4%

35%

46%

13%

5%

1%

37%

45%

15%

1%

2%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

5-Very satisfied

4

3

2

1-Not verysatisfied

Primary Rideshare

Secondary Rideshare

Non-Rideshare

D-2: Tell me, overall, how satisfied are you with your ability to travel around Arlington County?

Primary: 82%Secondary: 81%Non: 76%


Research110

2006 Arlington


Some Differences Across Demographic Groups Are Posted for Satisfaction with the Ability to Travel Around Arlington

County

• Residents who work in Arlington County are significantly more likely to be satisfied with the ability to travel around Arlington County than are those who work outside Arlington County.

• Those who work part-time are more likely to be satisfied with the ability to travel around Arlington County than are those who work full-time or who do not work.


Research111

2006 Arlington


Satisfaction with the Ability to Travel Around Arlington County Improves

Quality of Life

85%93%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Less than very satisfied with ability totravel around Arlington County

Very satisfied with ability to travelaround Arlington County


8-point liftHow to

Read This Chart:

Proportions reported are those rating the quality of

life favorably.

Example: 85% of

those less than very sat. with ability to

travel rated quality of

life favorably.


Research112

2006 Arlington


Satisfaction with the Ability to Travel Around Arlington County Lifts Perceptions of

the Quality of Life Among All Commute Groups – Especially Those Who Do Not

Rideshare

90% 92%85%

93%

79%

94%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

< Verysatisfied

Verysatisfied

< Verysatisfied

VerySatisfied

< Verysatisfied

Verysatisfied


Primary Ridesharers Secondary Ridesharers

Non-Ridesharers

+2%

+15%

+8%


Research113

2006 Arlington


Residents Tend to Believe That It Is Difficult to Get Around Arlington County

Without a Car, SUV, Van, or Truck

18%

43%

26%

35%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Without a car,SUV, van, or

truck

With a car,SUV, van or

truck

5-Very Easy 4

78%

44%

E-1: How difficult or easy is it to get around Arlington County without a car, SUV, van, or truck?E-2: How difficult or easy is it to get around Arlington County with a car, SUV, van, or truck?

This view holds

across the 3 groups:

Primary

Ridesharers,

Secondary Ridesharer

s, and Non-

Ridesharers.


Research114

2006 Arlington


Those Who Do Not Actually Own a Car, However, Find It Easier to Get Around

Without a Car Than Those with Cars

16%

24%

33%

17%

7%

17%

27%

31%

15%

7%

25%

29%

26%

9%

10%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

5-Very Easy

4

3

2

1-Very Difficult

No cars

One car

More than one car

E-1: How difficult or easy is it to get around Arlington County without a car, SUV, van, or truck?

54% of those with no car say it

is easy to get around Arlington

County.


Research115

2006 Arlington


Similarly, Residents of Arlington County Believe It Is Difficult to Get from Arlington

County to Other Destinations Without a Car, SUV, Van, or Truck

25%

36%

13%

38%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Without a car,SUV, van, or

truck

With a car,SUV, van or

truck

5-Very Easy 4

74%

38%

E-6: How difficult or easy is it to get from Arlington County to other destinations in the region without a car, SUV, van, or truck?E-7: How difficult or easy is it to get from Arlington County to other destinations in the region with a car, SUV, van, or truck?

This pattern does not vary by ridesharing

status or car ownership.


Research116

2006 Arlington


About Half of the Residents Rate Arlington County Favorably for Getting Around by Bus, Bicycle, or

Walking

22%

22%

20%

27%

27%

30%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

By walking

By bicycle

By bus

5-Very Easy 4

E-3: How difficult or easy is it to get around Arlington County by walking?E-4: How difficult or easy is it to get around Arlington County by bus?E-5: How difficult or easy is it to get around Arlington County by bicycle?

50%

49%

49%


Research117

2006 Arlington


Perceptions of the Ease of Traveling Around Arlington County by Bus, Bicycle, or Walking

Are Similar Across the Rideshare Groups

47%

41%

49%

50%

50%

51%

50%

56%

48%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

By walking

By bicycle

By bus

Primary Rideshare

Secondary Rideshare

Non-Rideshare

But, Non-ridesharers are less likely to

believe it is easy to travel around by

bicycle than are the other groups.

E-3: How difficult or easy is it to get around Arlington County by walking?E-4: How difficult or easy is it to get around Arlington County by bus?E-5: How difficult or easy is it to get around Arlington County by bicycle?


Research118

2006 Arlington


Key Finding:Both Ridesharers and Non-Ridesharers give favorable ratings to their ability to travel around Arlington County. They believe, however, that it is easier to get around with a car than without. But, those who do not own a car believe that it’s easier to get around without a car than those who do.

Strategic Implication:It will be difficult to convert Non-Ridesharers to an alternative mode of transportation if they perceive that it is difficult to get around without a car. Work on changing this perception - especially among those who own cars. Explore message development around the idea that it is “easy” to get around Arlington County without a car.


Research119

2006 Arlington


Key Finding:Residents of Arlington County are less likely to believe it is easy to get around by bus, bicycle, or walking than by car. About half of the residents give Arlington County favorable scores for ease of getting around by bus, bicycle, or walking.

Strategic Implication:The idea of “ease” of traveling about the area by bus, bicycle, or walking has reached about half the residents. Now, focus on the half who have not yet realized the ease of using these alternative modes of transportation. Continue to develop and market programs that support travel by bus, bicycle, and walking. Take advantage of the core of residents who already believe it is easy to travel using these alternative modes of transportation. Explore the extent to which “believers” can be apostles to “non-believers” via testimonials in the communication materials.


Research120

2006 Arlington


Accessibility to Bus and

Train Stops


Research121

2006 Arlington


Bus Stops and Train Stations Are Accessible to Residents’ Homes and Work

5%

1%

7%

20%

65%

1%

1%

5%

20%

71%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

30 minutes ormore

21 to 30 minutes

11 to 20 minutes

6 to 10 minutes

Less than 5minutes

Home

Work

G-1: About how long would it take you to walk from your home to the nearest bus stop or train station?G-2: About how long would it take you to walk from your work to the nearest bus stop or train station?

Awareness of bus stops and train

stations is high—only 1% do not

know how long it would take them

to get to the nearest bus stop or train station.


Research122

2006 Arlington


Communication


Research123

2006 Arlington


Communication about Transportation and Traffic Issues Is Important to Residents of

Arlington CountyNearly Two-thirds Say Information Is Important

36%

25%

23%

6%

9%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

5-Very Important

4

3

2

1-Not Very Good

M-1: How important is it that you are kept informed about transportation and traffic issues in Arlington County?

Information is more important to those with lower incomes

than those with higher incomes; and, it is more important to

those who do not have cars.

61%


Research124

2006 Arlington


Ridesharers Are More Likely to Say It Is Important to Be Kept Informed About

Transportation and Traffic Issues

30%

21%

27%

5%

16%

40%

24%

22%

7%

6%

37%

32%

22%

6%

4%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

5-Very Important

4

3

2

1-Not veryimportant

Primary Rideshare

Secondary Rideshare

Non-Rideshare


69% of Primary64% of Secondary51% or Non


Research125

2006 Arlington


Communication Is Equally Important to Those Who Are and Are Not Satisfied

with Travel Around Arlington County

33%41%

22%28%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Less than very satisfied with ability to travelaround Arlington County

Very satisfied with ability to travel aroundArlington County

4

5-Very Important


61% 63%


Research126

2006 Arlington


Being Kept Informed About Transportation and Traffic Issues in Arlington County Is

Significantly More Important to Those Who Are Very Satisfied with the


30%47%

23%

27%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Less than very satisfied with transportationsystem in Arlington County

Very satisfied with transportation system inArlington County

4

5-Very Important


57%

70%


Research127

2006 Arlington


The Daily Newspaper Is the Single Most Preferred Information Medium

6%

0%

1%

2%

6%

6%

11%

13%

14%

15%

26%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Don't know

Programs or information distributed at work

Public meetings

Word of mouth

Weekly newspaper

Emails

Regular mail

Find information on Internet

Television

Radio

Daily newspaper

M-2: Which of the following do you MOST prefer for receiving information related to transportation and traffic issues?


Research128

2006 Arlington


There Is Little Variation in Preferred Medium Across

Rideshare Modes

7%

0%

0%

2%

6%

3%

13%

11%

17%

16%

25%

4%

0%

1%

1%

6%

9%

10%

12%

14%

16%

27%

6%

1%

0%

3%

5%

6%

10%

18%

12%

12%

27%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Don't know

Programs or information distributed at work

Public meetings

Word of mouth

Weekly newspaper

Emails

Regular mail

Find information on Internet

Television

Radio

Daily newspaper

Primary Rideshare

Secondary Rideshare

Non-Rideshare

M-2: Which of the following do you MOST prefer for receiving information related to transportation and traffic issues?


Research129

2006 Arlington


Preferred Source of Information Varies Across Demographic

Groups• Older residents (50 and over) are more likely to

prefer the daily paper. Younger residents (under 35) are more likely to prefer the Internet.

• While all education levels prefer the daily newspaper, those with a high school or less education are more likely to prefer television. Higher levels of education are more likely to prefer the radio and the Internet.

• Lower income levels (under $60,000) are more likely to prefer television than are those with higher income levels who more often prefer the Internet or email.


Research130

2006 Arlington


One-fourth Are Aware of Advertising for Transportation Services in Arlington County

Don't know, 2%

Yes, 24%

No, 75%

M-3: Do you recall seeing or hearing any advertising recently for transportation services in Arlington County?


Research131

2006 Arlington


Primary Ridesharers Are Significantly More Likely to Be Aware of Advertising for Transportation Services in Arlington County Than Are Non-Rideshares; Secondary

Ridesharers Are Midway Between These Two Extremes

19%

24%

28%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Non-Rideshare

SecondaryRideshare

Primary Rideshare

M-3: Do you recall seeing or hearing any advertising recently for transportation services in Arlington County?


Research132

2006 Arlington


Advertising Lifts Both Satisfaction with Ability to Travel Around Arlington County and

Satisfaction with the Transportation System

37%44%

33%40%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Not aware ofadvertising

Aware ofadvertising

Not aware ofadvertising

Aware ofadvertising


Satisfied with ability to travel around Arlington

County

Satisfied with transportation system in Arlington County

NOTE: Percentages indicate

those rating their

quality of life “5-Very

Good.”


Research133

2006 Arlington


Most Often, Top-of-Mind Advertising Content Recall Relates to General Messages – Followed by Specific

Transportation Programs or Services

General messages 34%

Transportation programs or services 13%

Benefit messages 4%

Transportation programs or services – Maps 2%

Other 23%

Don’t know 25%

M-4: What did the advertising say or which messages for transportation or transportation services in Arlington County do you recall having seen or heard. (First mention)


Research134

2006 Arlington


Considering Total Mentions, Many Don’t Recall the Content of the

Message They Have Seen or Heard


Transportation programs or services II 16%

Benefit messages 4%

Transportation programs or services I – Maps 8%

Other 33%

Don’t know 73%

M-4: What did the advertising say or which messages for transportation or transportation services in Arlington County do you recall having seen or heard? (First mention) Probe: Any other advertising? What did the advertising say or which messages for transportation or transportation services in Arlington County do you recall having seen or heard?


Research135

2006 Arlington


Messages About Buses, Trains or Metrobus Are the Most Frequently Recalled General Messages in Total


Bus or train, Metrobus 25%

Carpool, vanpool, rideshare 5%

Biking 4%

Walking 4%

Springfield Interchange construction 2%

New trains 3%


Note: Specific

mentions may not sum to total

reported due to

rounding.


Research136

2006 Arlington


In Total, a Variety of Transportation Programs or Services Are Recalled

Transportation Programs or Services: Arlington County

17%

Arlington Transit – ART 6%

Pike Ride 3%

Bike to Work Day 2%

CommuterPage.com, CommuterDirect.com 2%

Commuter Store 1%

Way to Go/Way to Go Arlington 1%

Arlington Community Bike Ride 1%

Commuter Connections 1%


Note: Specific

mentions may not sum to total

reported due to

rounding.


Research137

2006 Arlington


Maps Are The General Program Information Most Frequently

Recalled

Transportation Programs and Services: General

8%

Map(s)/bike map/walking map 4%

Guaranteed Ride Home 2%

MetroChek benefits/SmarTrip benefits 2%

HOV lanes 1%


Note: Specific mentions may not sum to total reported due to rounding.


Research138

2006 Arlington


Nearly One-fourth Recall the “Way to Go” Campaign

Don't know, 4%

Yes, 22%

No, 75%

M-6: Have you seen or heard any advertising that made the statement: “Way to Go” or “Way to Go Arlington?”


Research139

2006 Arlington


All Three Rideshare Groups Are Equally Likely

to Have Seen or Heard Anything About “Way to Go” or “Way to Go Arlington”

19%

21%

25%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Non-Rideshare

SocondaryRideshare

Primary Rideshare

M-6: Have you seen or heard any advertising that made the statement: “Way to Go” or “Way to Go Arlington?”


Research140

2006 Arlington


The “Way to Go” Campaign Has Brought About Mode Switching and

Increased Usage

3%

3%

7%

10%

5%

9%

20%

18%

2%

3%

3%

7%

12%

14%

16%

19%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Vanpooling

Carpooling

Telework

Biking

ART bus - Arlington Transit

Metrobus

Walking

Metrorail

Began using

Use more often

M-7: Did you begin to use any of the following forms of transportation in response to this campaign or did you begin using any of these forms of transportation more often?

The greatest increases are posted for Metrorail, walking, Metrobus and

ART.

40% of those aware of “Way to Go” report that they have not made any mode

changes.


Research141

2006 Arlington


Hispanics


Research142

2006 Arlington


As a Reminder, the Survey Over-Sampled Hispanics

3%

1%

3%

18%

72%

2%

1%

2%

39%

53%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Other

Asian

African American

Hispanic

White

Unweighted

Weighted

N-8: Which one of the following best describes your racial background?

Results for the Following Section Are Unweighted, Whereas the Previous Sections Were Weighted to

Mimic the Actual Population


Research143

2006 Arlington


Half of Hispanics Reported That They Are More Comfortable Speaking in

Spanish

N-8a: Do you feel most comfortable speaking in:

Equally comfortable

in both27%

English21%

Spanish51%


Research144

2006 Arlington


Hispanics Are Twice As Likely As Non-Hispanics to Not Own a Car

39%

33%

19%

45%

43%

10%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

2 or more

One

None

Non-Hispanic

Hispanic

N-4: In total, how many motor vehicles, in working condition, including automobiles, trucks, vans, and highway motorcycles are owned or leased by members of your household.


Research145

2006 Arlington


Non-Hispanics Rate Their Quality of Life More Favorably than Hispanics

48%

31%

14%

1%

4%

55%

36%

7%

1%

1%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

5-Very good

4

3

2

1-Not Very Good

Non-Hispanic

Hispanic



Research146

2006 Arlington


There Are Some Significant Differences in Ratings of Individual

Attributes

54%

30%

56%

31%

53%

41%

46%

51%

41%

52%

56%

41%

36%

35%

44%

32%

53%

45%

42%

53%

39%

59%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Public education

Job opportunities


The economy

Clean environment

Diversity




Safety


Non-Hispanic

Hispanic


Hispanics are more

pleased with the

transportation system

and the ability to get

around.


Research147

2006 Arlington


The Drivers of Overall Quality of Life for Hispanics and Non-Hispanics Are Slightly

Different

Hispanic Non-Hispanic

Public education (.295)Attractive residential communities (.206)

The economy (.255) The economy (.205)

Ease of getting around the area (.208)

Job opportunities (.148)

Availability of entertainment and recreational opps (.179)

Clean environment (.143)

Transportation system and services (.105)

Ease of getting around Arlington County is a driver for Hispanics, whereas Satisfaction with the Arlington County

Transportation System is a driver for Non-Hispanics

NOTE: Numbers

in parenthese

s are regression coefficient

s.


Research148

2006 Arlington


Hispanics Are Significantly More Likely to Say That They Are Satisfied with Their

Ability to Travel Around Arlington

52%

30%

12%

4%

1%

36%

44%

15%

4%

2%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

5-Very satisfied

4

3

2

1-Not verysatisfied

Non-Hispanic

Hispanic

D-2: Tell me, how satisfied are you with your ability to travel around Arlington County?


Research149

2006 Arlington


Hispanics Are Also Significantly More Likely

to Say That They Are Satisfied with the Arlington County Transportation System

53%

29%

13%

3%

2%

31%

46%

18%

3%

1%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

5-Very satisfied

4

3

2

1-Not verysatisfied

Non-Hispanic

Hispanic

D-3: Overall, how satisfied are you with the Arlington County transportation system?


Research150

2006 Arlington


Hispanics Are Also Significantly More Likely to Say That Arlington County Is

Meeting Residents’ Needs

47%

33%

10%

5%

3%

28%

40%

24%

4%

2%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

5-Very satisfied

4

3

2

1-Not verysatisfied

Non-Hispanic

Hispanic

D-4: How satisfied are you that Arlington County is meeting its residents needs for transportation and their ability to get around?


Research151

2006 Arlington


Hispanics Rate Most Methods of Transportation Easier Than Do Non-

Hispanics

49%

22%

26%

36%

27%

56%

29%

36%

11%

22%

15%

21%

40%

15%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Ease of getting to other destinations w/ a car







Non-Hispanic

Hispanic

E-1 through E-7: How difficult or easy is it to get around Arlington County…


those rating the

method “5-Very

easy.”


Research152

2006 Arlington


Hispanics Also Rate Each Attribute of the Transportation System Higher

Than Do Non-Hispanics

28%

44%

41%

28%

33%

41%

49%

19%

19%

25%

14%

24%

23%

34%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Cost

Comfort



Convenience

Dependability

Safety

Non-Hispanic

Hispanic



those rating the

method “5-Very

easy.”


Research153

2006 Arlington


Many Attributes Are Also More Important for Hispanics

25%

41%

39%

34%

46%

49%

46%

44%

61%

47%

51%

54%

68%

19%

17%

26%

25%

24%

22%

31%

37%

42%

41%

52%

44%

58%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%





Cost

Comfort




Convenience

Dependability


Safety

Non-Hispanic

Hispanic

F-1 through F-13: Now, we’d like to know how important some attributes and options in a transportation system are to you.


those rating the

method “5-Very

easy.”


Research154

2006 Arlington


The Top Few Drivers of Satisfaction with Transportation System Are the Same for Both

Hispanics and Non-Hispanics

Hispanic Non-Hispanic

Ability to travel around Arlington (.401)

Ability to travel around Arlington (.356)

Ease of getting around Arlington by bus (.166)

Ease of getting around Arlington by bus (.168)

Choice/variety of transportation options (.164)


(.157)

Ease of getting around without

a car (.097)Safety (.157)

Convenience (.151)

Ease of getting around without a car is also a driver for Hispanics; Safety and Convenience are

also drivers for Non-Hispanics.

Recall, Hispanics are much less likely to own a

car.

NOTE: Numbers

in parenthese

s are regression coefficient

s.


Research155

2006 Arlington


Key Take-A-Ways


Research156

2006 Arlington


7 Key Take-A-Ways• Arlington County residents are quite satisfied with their

quality of life – almost 9 in 10 give it a favorable rating.

• Arlington County’s transportation system & services improves the quality of life of Arlington County residents.

• Overall, the key drivers to residents’ high ratings of Arlington County’s transportation system & services are choice & variety of options, convenience, safety, ability to travel around the County, ease of getting around by bus, and time required to make trips. ACCS’ communication programs should promote these!

• Communication is equally important to those who are and are not satisfied with travel around Arlington County. Nearly one-forth recall ACCS’ “Way to Go Campaign.” The “Way to Go” Campaign has brought about self-reported mode switching and increased usage.


Research157

2006 Arlington


7 Key Take-A-Ways

• Advertising lifts both satisfaction with ability to travel around Arlington County and satisfaction with the transportation system.

• The County may not be getting all the credit it deserves for its transportation initiatives. Look for ways to unify the different County messages under one brand communication platform.

• As there is a direct relationship between transportation and quality of life, create an easy to understand model that brings it to life. Use this model to marshal greater resources for communications to advance the transportation system as this will ultimately drive Arlington County residents’ quality of life ratings.


Research158

2006 Arlington



Overall

Quality of Life


Research159

2006 Arlington



The economy



Job opportunities

Clean environment

Public education


Safety



Diversity

Overall

Quality of Life


Research160

2006 Arlington



The economy



Job opportunities

Clean environment

Public education


Safety



Diversity

Overall

Quality of Life


Research161

2006 Arlington



The economy



Job opportunities

Clean environment

Public education


Safety



Diversity

Overall

Quality of Life


Research162

2006 Arlington



The economy



Job opportunities

Clean environment

Public education


Safety



Diversity

Overall

Quality of Life

Safety









Cost


Convenience

Dependability

Comfort



Research163

2006 Arlington



The economy



Job opportunities

Clean environment

Public education


Safety



Diversity

Overall

Quality of Life

Safety









Cost


Convenience

Dependability

Comfort


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

Documents