Survey Results Summary

Transcription

1 Survey Results Summary January 28, 2014 FINAL

2 Introduction As part of the Public Outreach Task for VTrans 2040, an online survey was designed and administered to residents of the Commonwealth. The purpose of the survey was to gather public input and assist the Study Team in identifying transportation deficiencies, opportunities and locations for potential improvement. The survey was available online from July 21, 2014 to October 15, 2014 through Links to the survey were provided through the VTrans website, the VTrans Facebook page, as well as promotional cards (shown below). Interim results were reported to the MMWG in August 2014 and were used to identify underrepresented areas of the Commonwealth. Facebook boosts were used to help market the survey to specific demographic groups, such as Millennials (age 20 34). The MMWG agency representatives were also instrumental in distributing and promoting the survey. For example, the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) helped market the survey to DMVs in those underrepresented areas. Between July and October, a total of 2,932 responses were received from the online survey. 1 Double sided VTrans2040 business cards (front on the left) were distributed throughout the Commonwealth at places such as transit stops. Survey Design and Administration The online survey was designed to take approximately 10 minutes to complete. Although the majority of questions were designed in multiple choice format, respondents were provided an opportunity to identify specific locations and concerns regarding transportation challenges and opportunities in several open ended questions. When the survey closed, data was downloaded from the website and imported into Microsoft Excel, which was used to manage and process the responses. Data variables were then assigned to create tabular and graphical output of survey results. 1 Note: The survey respondents were not randomly sampled. The survey was available to the total population through the VTrans website and was promoted by VDOT from August to October The survey was not intended to be statistically significant, and none of the results are claimed to be statistically significant. 2 P age

3 Geographic Distribution The response locations were geocoded by zip code and subsequently aggregated to the Planning District Commission (PDC) level in order to analyze results across larger sample sizes. The geographic distribution of respondents mirrors Virginia s populous areas. There were also 79 responses from zip codes in neighboring states (including the District). Figure 1 illustrates the survey response locations and population by PDC. FIGURE 1: GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS Note: there were particularly small sample sizes (responses) from the Accomack Northampton PDC (7 responses), the Northern Neck PDC (8 responses), the Commonwealth Regional Council (19 responses), and the West Piedmont PDC (19 responses). The Northern Virginia PDC accounted for 34.8% of all survey respondents, which is somewhat higher than the PDC s share (28.2%) of Virginia s population. Meanwhile, Hampton Roads PDC only accounted for 10.0% of all survey respondents, despite representing 20.1% of the Commonwealth s population. Some PDCs, such as Mount Rodgers, Roanoke, and Richmond Regional, were overrepresented, while others were underrepresented (e.g., Cumberland, Northern Neck, Accomack Northampton). 3 P age

4 Figure 2 shows the survey respondents relative to the PDC population and provides insight into over/underrepresented PDCs in the survey. FIGURE 2: SHARES OF SURVEY RESPONDENTS AND POPULATION BY PDC 40.0% 35.0% 30.0% 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0% Percent of Respondents Percent of Population Demographic Profile Respondents were asked to provide their zip code for geographic coding, as well as demographic information including: birth year, gender, income, race, and employment status. Over 80.0% of survey respondents were White/Caucasian and employed full time. Average age for respondents was 47 years old, and the average weighted income was $87,300. Figure 3 illustrates the respondent profile for this survey, along with statewide averages for comparison. 4 P age

5 FIGURE 3: RESPONDENT PROFILE Sources: Employment, 2012 ACS 1 Year Estimates for Work Status, 35 hours or more a week of the working age population (16 years and older). Figure 4 shows the generational split of survey respondents and Commonwealth population (over 14 since the survey respondents were as young as 14). While Baby Boomers (age 50 68) account for approximately 28.5% of the Commonwealth s population, the generation represented almost half (42.5%) of the total respondents. Generation X (age 35 49, 25.6% of all Virginians over 14) accounted for the second largest respondent group, representing approximately one third (30.0%) of all survey respondents. Millennials (age 20 34) were slightly unrepresented in the survey, representing 21.9% of all respondents (they account for 25.9% of Virginians over 14). Finally, Generation Z (19 and younger) and the Silent Generation (69 and older) represented small shares of the survey respondents, at 0.6% and 5.0%, respectively. Together, these generations comprise 19.9% of the Commonwealth s population over 14. This generational segmentation helps inform us that the survey responses are heavily weighted towards those between the ages of 35 and P age

6 FIGURE 4: SHARE OF SURVEY RESPONDENTS AND SHARE OF COMMONWEALTH POPULATION BY GENERATION 45.0% 42.5% 40.0% 35.0% Percent Share 30.0% 25.0% 20.0% 21.9% 30.0% 25.9% 25.6% 28.5% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0% 0.6% 8.3% Generation Z (19 and younger) Millennials (20 34) Generation X (35 49) Baby Boomers (50 68) 5.0% 11.6% Silent (69 and older) Share of Survey Respondents Share of Commonwealth Population (over 14) Source: Survey response data and the American Community Survey (ACS), Population over 14 was used since that represented the survey respondent group Baby Boomers (age 50 68) represented almost half of the total respondents (they account for 28.5% of Virginians over 14 years). Generation X, the second largest respondent group, represented approximately one third of all survey respondents (they account for 25.6% of Virginians over 14). Meanwhile, Millennials were slightly unrepresented in the survey, representing 21.9% of all respondents (they account for 25.9% of Virginians over 14). How Virginia Commutes and How They Want to Commute The survey also asks Virginians how they currently commute to work or school. It is difficult to compare the survey s commuting statistics to statewide averages since the U.S. Census American Community Survey (ACS) segments the various transportation modes differently. As a basis of comparison, the 2013 ACS indicates that 77.4% of Virginians drive alone to work. Only 55.0% of survey respondents (n=1,798) indicated that they drive alone as their primary way to commute to work/school. According to the ACS, approximately 9.4% of Virginians carpool to work, which is comparable to the share of survey respondents who reported that they drive with passengers (6.3%) or carpool/vanpool (3.3%). The survey results show that approximately 3.8% of commuters primarily walk to work or school, marginally higher than the ACS estimate of 2.5%. Meanwhile, the ACS groups those commuting via bicycle, taxicab, and motorcycle. Together these modes account for only 1.8% of Virginia commuters. Approximately 9.0% of survey respondents (n=292) stated that they primarily commute via bicycle evidently much higher than the share of state commuters. Similarly, the share of 6 P age

7 survey respondents who primarily take bus or rail (13.4%) is much higher than the ACS commuting estimates for public transportation (4.4% of commuters). The survey results ultimately suggest that single occupancy drivers are underrepresented in the survey, while bicycle and transit commuters are overrepresented an important distinction to keep in mind when evaluating commuting and lifestyle preferences (addressed later). Figure 5 illustrates the primary mode of commute to work or school for all respondents across all modes. FIGURE 5: PRIMARY MODE FOR COMMUTE TO WORK OR SCHOOL The survey also asked respondents how you would like to travel to work or school if you had the choice. It is important to note that respondents could select multiple choices for this question. Nearly 32.0% of respondents (n=888) selected bicycle. This was closely followed by driving alone (31.0%, n=846), rail (27.0%, n=755), and walking (26.0%, n=709). When asked what prevents them from using this choice mode, the top three answers were: not available (48.0%, n=1,329), not accessible (43.0%, n=1,181), and time limitations (42.0%, n=1,164). Table 1 compares how respondents primarily commute to how they want to commute. The percent difference, shown in column four, suggests an increased interest in all commuting modes except for single occupancy vehicle (driving alone). 7 P age

8 TABLE 1: HOW VIRGINIA COMMUTES VS. HOW VIRGINIA WANTS TO COMMUTE Commute to Work and/or School How You Commute [1] How You WANT to Commute [2] Change Drive Alone 55% 31% 25% Drive with Passengers 6% 14% 8% Carpool/Vanpool 3% 12% 9% Taxi 1% 1% 1% Bicycle 9% 32% 22% Walk 4% 26% 22% Bus 7% 21% 14% Rail (e.g. VRE, the TIDE, Amtrak) 6% 27% 21% Ferry 0% 3% 3% Online (or from home) 4% 13% 10% Not Applicable 3% 4% 1% Other (e.g., skateboard, kayak) 1% 3% 2% [1] Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding [2] Respondents could select multiple choices for this question, which explains why cumulative percentages exceed 100% [3] Note: rounding errors may exist A large portion of Millennials (44.0%, n=254), Gen X ers (37.0%, n=288), and Boomers (26.0%, n=288) would bike to work if they had the choice. Time (Millennials) and availability of supporting infrastructure (Gen X and Boomers) are reasons why they can t bike to work. In contrast, Generation Z and Silent generations want to drive alone to work or school (n=16 and 32, respectively). The following map series (Figure 6 Figure 11) compare how PDC respondents currently commute (driving alone, rail/bus, and bicycling/walking) to how they want to commute. In several PDCs (Northern Shenandoah Valley, Middle Peninsula, Crater, Commonwealth, and Hampton Roads), over 70.0% of respondents currently drive alone to work or school, yet only 30.0% to 40.0% state that they want to drive alone to work or school (Figure 6 and Figure 7). As shown in Figure 8 and Figure 9, respondents expressed a significant interest in commuting via bus or rail. Over 50.0% of respondents would like to commute via bus/rail in seven (7) of the PDCs (primarily those located in the Urban Crescent). The percentage of each PDC population who currently commute by bicycling or walking is illustrated in Figure 10. Those who want to commute by bicycling or walking is illustrated in Figure 11. As evident in the map, there is a general interest in bicycling or walking to work/school. Thomas Jefferson PDC, which includes the City of Charlottesville, has the highest percentage of those surveyed that currently bike or walk to work or school (33.0%) and who want to bike or walk to work or school (93.0%). While it would be interesting to compare generational commuting preferences by geography (PDC), the sample sizes are typically much too small. 8 P age

9 FIGURE 6: PRIMARILY DRIVE ALONE TO WORK OR SCHOOL FIGURE 7: WANT TO DRIVE ALONE TO WORK OR SCHOOL 9 P age

10 FIGURE 8: PRIMARILY COMMUTE BY BUS OR RAIL TO WORK OR SCHOOL FIGURE 9: WANT TO COMMUTE BY BUS OR RAIL TO WORK OR SCHOOL 10 P age

11 FIGURE 10: PRIMARILY COMMUTE BY BICYCLING OR WALKING TO WORK OR SCHOOL FIGURE 11: WANT TO COMMUTE BY BICYCLING OR WALKING TO WORK OR SCHOOL 11 P age

12 Commute Times and Satisfaction Respondents were asked about the length of their commute and their degree of satisfaction with their existing commute. Generally, respondents are SATISFIED with their commutes. However, several PDCs stand out as exceptions, including: Rappahannock, Thomas Jefferson, Northern Virginia, and Lenowisco. Meanwhile, 22.0% (n=614) of respondents spend over 60 minutes commuting to work or school daily; while 21% (n=579) spend 15 to 30 minutes. Of those who spend over 60 minutes commuting to work or school, 62.0% (n=380) are not at all satisfied, or only slightly satisfied, with their commute. Of those who spend minutes commuting to work or school, 71.0% (n=381) are very satisfied or extremely satisfied with their commute. Table 2 displays commute time as compared to commute satisfaction. The yellow highlighted fields indicate the highest percentages in each travel time group. TABLE 2: COMMUTE TIMES TO/FROM WORK AND SCHOOL On a TYPICAL DAY, how much TIME do you spend traveling to and from work and/or school? Answer Options 5 to 15 minutes 15 to 30 minutes 30 to 45 minutes 45 to 60 minutes Over 60 minutes Always Work/ Class at Home Not at all satisfied 2 0% 13 2% 38 8% 39 14% % 0 0% Slightly satisfied 10 2% 30 5% 70 16% 62 18% % 0 0% Somewhat satisfied 27 6% % % % % 3 6% Very satisfied % % 52 34% 77 20% 53 9% 12 24% Extremely satisfied % % 31 7% 10 3% 17 3% 26 52% Unsure/Not Applicable 3 1% 0 0% 4 1% 2 0% 6 1% 9 18% 12 P age

13 Figure 13 shows commute satisfaction, specifically the percentage of respondents by PDC who are very satisfied or extremely satisfied with their commutes. In the majority of PDCs, over 30% of respondents are very satisfied or extremely satisfied with their commutes. FIGURE 13: COMMUTE SATISFACTION Leisure Travel Respondents were asked to what level traffic congestion influences leisure travel. Findings show that traffic congestion plays a significant role in leisure trip planning, especially in the urban crescent. Over 48.0% (n=1,321) of survey respondents said that traffic congestion often or always influences their leisure destination choices. Figure 14 illustrates the percent of respondents, by PDC, whose leisure trip choices are often or always influenced by traffic congestion. Respondents were also asked an open ended question regarding how congestion influences their leisure trips. Top answers included: utilizing an alternative route, avoiding peak travel times and days, and/or selecting a different destination. 13 P age

14 FIGURE 14: IMPACT OF TRAFFIC CONGESTION ON LEISURE TRIP PLANNING Where Virginians Live and Where They Want to Live With respect to community types, the survey asked respondents to identify where they live now, where they would currently like to live, and where they would like to live in the next years. Respondents generally show an increasing interest in downtown urban living and rural/small town living; and a diminishing interest in city neighborhood and suburban living. For example, 30.0% of respondents (n=812) currently live in suburban neighborhoods, 16.0% (434) currently want to live in suburban neighborhoods, and only 11.0% (n=301) want to live in suburban neighborhoods in the next years. Conversely, an increasing share of survey respondents prefer downtown/city center living (8.0% live there now, 18.0% want to live there now, and 19.0% want to live there in years). Respondents express increased interest in rural and small town living, as well. 14 P age

15 TABLE 3: LIVING PREFERENCES Downtown/City Center Within walking distance of offices, shops and restaurants City Neighborhood Mostly residential Suburban Center A few minutes from offices, shops and restaurants Suburban Neighborhood Mostly residential Where do you live now? Where do you want to live now? Where do you want to live in the FUTURE (10 20 Years)? % Change from where respondents currently Live to where they want to live in the future (10 20 Years) 214 8% % % 11% % % % 4% % % % 2% % % % 19% Small Town or Village 249 9% % % 6% Rural Countryside % % % 3% Unsure/Not Applicable 33 1% 68 3% 157 6% 5% From a younger generational perspective, Millennial respondents generally exhibit similar preferences to those shown in Table 3 (above). The respondents typically express increasing interest in downtown/city living (17.0% live there now, 21.0% want to live there in years) and stable interest in city neighborhood living (no change). The Millennial respondents also show diminishing interest in suburban living, particularly in suburban neighborhood living (24.0% live there now, 14.0% want to live there in the future). The Millennial respondents do not express a substantial increased interest in small town or village living, but appear increasingly interested in living in the rural countryside (8.0% live there now, 15.0% want to live there in years). The following maps (Figure 14 Figure 17) focus on the future, showing the percent of respondents who want to live in a rural area/small town, a suburb, and an urban area years from now. The living preferences above were grouped in this fashion (small town/rural, suburban, urban) in order to maintain large enough sample sizes across the PDC geographies. The results suggest a sustained interest in a rural/small town living (Figure 14). Every PDC, except one (Northern Virginia), has a significant share (over 30.0%) of respondents who wish to live in rural/small town settings in the next years. It should be noted, however, that some PDCs show a diminishing interest in rural/small town living (Figure 15). In Figure 15, the negative values (shown in blue) suggest that a smaller share of respondents wish to live in a rural area/small town, than the share currently living in rural areas/small towns. The Richmond Regional PDC is the only PDC where over one third (32.7%) of respondents indicated a desire to live in the suburbs in the next years (Figure 16). The highest percentages of 15 P age

16 those desiring to live in an urban setting (Figure 17) are found in the following PDCs: Shenandoah (46.0%), Northern Virginia (44.0%), and Thomas Jefferson (42.0%). Central While it would be interesting to compare generational living preferences by geography (PDC), the sample sizes are typically much too small. 16 P age

17 FIGURE 14: PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS BY PDC WHO WANT TO LIVE IN A RURAL AREA/SMALL TOWN FIGURE 15: RURAL/SMALL TOWN PREFERENCES FUTURE VS. NOW 17 P age

18 FIGURE 16: PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS BY PDC WHO WANT TO LIVE IN A SUBURB IN FUTURE FIGURE 17: PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS BY PDC WHO WANT TO LIVE IN AN URBAN SETTING IN FUTURE 18 P age

19 Virginia s Greatest Transportation Challenge Respondents were asked what they think Virginia s greatest transportation challenge will be in the next 10 years. Traffic congestion (35.7%, n=948), and aging or deteriorating infrastructure (31.4%, n=833), were chosen as the top two transportation challenges, followed by insufficient public transportation (16.3%, n=433). Figure 12 shows the response distribution. FIGURE 12: VIRGINIA S GREATEST TRANSPORTATION CHALLENGES IN THE NEXT TEN YEARS 40.0% 35.0% 30.0% 31.4% 35.7% 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 16.3% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0% 1.7% 1.2% 1.2% 2.7% 0.5% 3.8% 0.2% Traffic congestion was identified as the primary challenge for all generations, but Boomers who ranked congestion a close secondary concern (34%, n=379). The percentage of age groups who selected traffic congestion as the primary challenge is as follows: Generation Z (38%, n=6), Millennials (39%, n=224), Gen X ers (35%, n=276), Silent (35%, n=46). Boomers identified aging and deteriorating infrastructure as the primary challenge (36%, n=399). Gen X ers (34%, n=265) and the Silent generation (32%, n=42) identified aging and deteriorating infrastructure as a close secondary challenge. Millennials identified insufficient public transportation as the secondary challenge (23%, n=130), while Generation Z identified parking availability (31%, n=5). As shown in Figure 13, most PDCs (12 of 18) identified aging and deteriorating infrastructure as the most pressing transportation challenge in the next decade. Traffic congestion was identified as the top transportation challenge in five PDCs all of which are located in either the Northern Virginia region or the Hampton Roads region. The high response numbers in these areas (accounting for 53.0% of this question s survey responses) explain why traffic congestion was cited as the most pressing challenge (35.7%, n=948). For example, 49.2% (n=399) of respondents in the Northern Virginia PDC identified 19 P age

20 traffic congestion as the top transportation challenge in the next ten years. Meanwhile, respondents in the Thomas Jefferson PDC collectively identified insufficient public transportation as the top transportation challenge (31.3%, n=26), followed closely by traffic congestion (28.9%, n=24). FIGURE 13: GREATEST TRANSPORTATION CHALLENGE IN THE NEXT TEN YEARS BY PDC 20 P age

21 Focus on Transportation In addition to identifying transportation challenges, the survey asked what Virginia should focus on with regards to transportation in the next 10 years. A high percentage of respondents (26.7%) believe Virginia should focus on maintaining existing infrastructure (n=710). Investing in local public transportation (18.3%, n=486), and investing in bicycle and pedestrian networks and facilities (14.9%, n=396) ranked second and third, respectively. Figure 14 shows the response distribution. FIGURE 14: TRANSPORTATION FOCUS AREAS IN NEXT 10 YEARS 30.0% 25.0% 26.7% 20.0% 15.0% 12.8% 18.3% 14.9% 10.0% 5.0% 1.8% 7.4% 1.2% 3.3% 2.2% 0.5% 6.6% 4.3% 0.0% The need to maintain our existing infrastructure was identified as the top transportation focus area for Gen X ers (26%, n=205), Boomers (34%, n=377), and the Silent generation (34%, n=45). Generation Z is focused on new transportation technology (25%, n=4), while Millennials are focused on investing in local public transportation (26%, n=151). Generation X (17%, n=130) and Boomers (13%, n=146) identified investing in local public transportation as a secondary focus area. As shown in Figure 15, the need to maintain our existing infrastructure was identified as the top transportation focus area in the vast majority of PCDs (17 of the 19 PDCs with sample sizes over 20). The Northern Virginia PDC and George Washington PDC were the only exceptions. In the Northern Virginia PDC, 25.6% (n=213) of respondents identified local public transportation as the top focus area, which was followed closely by investing in bicycle and pedestrian networks and facilities (23.1%, n=192). 21 P age

22 In the George Washington PDC, new roads was the top focus area (29.5%, n=31), followed by maintaining existing infrastructure (19.2%, n=20). FIGURE 15: PRIMARY TRANSPORTATION FOCUS AREA IN THE NEXT TEN YEARS BY PDC 22 P age

23 Governor for the Day Virginians were asked what they would do for transportation if they were Governor for the day. Over 1,700 individuals responded. The word cloud (Figure 16) below helps visualize some of the most frequently cited responses, while Figure 17 shows examples of some of the specific comments. FIGURE 16: WORD CLOUD SUMMARY OF GOVERNOR FOR A DAY RESPONSES FIGURE 17: EXAMPLES OF COMMENTS RECEIVED FOR GOVERNOR FOR A DAY QUESTION Promote public transportation and the need for options such as Metro, low fare taxis, and safe bus routes. Repair aging roads & bridges. They were never intended for the current amount of traffic, much less the increasing amount in the near future. I would raise gas taxes and institute a congestion charge for city centers and use proceeds to fund increased public transportation and develop plans for increased pedestrian and bike paths/lanes. I would install safe bike/ped infrastructure in cities to promote alternative transportation, which would reduce congestion and reduce bike/ped accidents with cars. Add more lanes to areas that are affected most during rush hour/weekends. 23 P age