NORTHERN
VIRGINIA COMMUTER STUDY
SPONSOR:
Virginia Department of Transportation
Contact: Joan Morris, Office of Public Affairs –
Northern Virginia
Virginia Department of Rail and
Public Transportation (DRPT)
Contact: Charlene
(Gus) Robey, TDM and Marketing Section
RESEARCH VENDOR:
Southeastern Institute of Research, Inc., Richmond, VA.
Conducted: 1993
Contact: John W. Martin
Telephone: 804-358-8981
Email: JWM@SIRresearch.com
OVERALL PURPOSE:
This research was designed to help guide the development and implementation of programs to increase usage of the HOV lanes in Northern Virginia.
OBJECTIVES OF RESEARCH:
Ž Measure
public awareness and support of public transportation and car/vanpools.
Ž
Identify the greatest opportunity target audience for car/vanpools,
ridesharing and public transportation.
Ž Understand
what motivations are involved in a decision to rideshare and/or use public
transportation in order to aid in the creation of marketing strategies and
materials.
Ž Provide
benchmark data to which future changes in attitudes and behavior can be
compared.
METHODOLOGY:
|
Mode of Data Collection |
Telephone survey |
|
Completed Interviews |
1,206 |
|
Survey Population |
All households in Fairfax City, Fairfax County, Fauquier
County, Spotsylvania County, Stafford County, Fredericksburg City, Loudon
County, Leesburg, Prince William County and Manassas City |
|
Survey Instrument |
Questionnaire administered by telephone interviewers |
|
Criteria for Participation |
To qualify for participation in this study, respondents
had to commute at least 25 minutes one way to work and travel through or to
Fairfax County, VA. |
SELECTED KEY FINDINGS:
Ž
Although most commuters (96%) supported car/vanpooling,
only 21% participated in a car or vanpool.
In total, 73% drove alone to work.
Ž
People who “car/vanpool” were motivated by personal and
economic reasons rather than societal reasons.
On an unaided basis, the reasons mentioned “first” most often for
carpooling are “save money/costs less”
(40%) and “pooling is more convenient” (22%). When looking at the “first” and other reasons mentioned for
deciding to car or vanpool combined, nearly two-thirds (63%) cited “saves
money/costs less.” “Pooling more
convenient” (38%) was mentioned next most often followed by “saves time,” “can
use the HOV lanes” and “saves wear and tear on car” (18%, 14%, 10%,
respectively).
Ž
Numerous obstacles were identified for not using some form
of transportation other than driving alone:
Inflexible schedule/inconvenient (69%)
Need vehicle during the day (19%)
Don’t know anyone to share ride with (19%)
Public transportation not available in my area (9%)
No public transportation goes to place of work (8%)
Like freedom of driving alone (7%)
Ž The incidence of participating in a car or vanpool was highest in Spotsylvania County (42%) and Stafford County (39%), and lowest in Loudoun County (11%). Older commuters were more likely to participate in a car or vanpool than younger commuters. Those with longer commutes – longer than 30 miles – were more likely to car or vanpool than those with shorter commutes. Employees of the federal government were more likely to participate in a car or vanpool (41%) than employees in private industry (12%), state/local government (6%) or those who were self-employed (6%).
Ž This research recognized the importance of offering a Guaranteed Ride Home program to encourage ridesharing. Those commuters who drove alone as one of their primary modes of transportation to work were told that consideration was being given to making available a “Guaranteed Ride Home Program” to those people who car or vanpool and in an emergency need a ride home. They could call a designated phone number and a vehicle would be sent to pick them up and drive them to their destination. If such a program were available, more than two out of five commuters who drive alone (43%) believe it would influence their decision to join a car or vanpool – “big influence” (16%) and “some influence” (27%).
Ž Nearly
everyone believed there is a pollution problem in metropolitan Washington (85%)
and that ridesharing was less harmful to the environment (74%). However, since this belief was also held
strongly by those who drove alone, it cannot be viewed by itself as sufficient
motivation for ridesharing. Few
commuters were aware of the possible loss of highway construction funds if the
area failed to address the pollution issue (41%).
OTHER FINDINGS/RECOMMENDATIONS:
Ž Less
than one-half of those who did not car/vanpool knew of a ridesharing
organization/commuter matching service.
Ž 1 in 5
commuters overall could be classified as “prime prospects” for
ridesharing. “Prime Prospects” for
ridesharing were more likely to work downtown than non-prime prospects, and
those who did not drive alone were more likely to have employer provided
incentives to car pool. Prime prospects
also tended to be younger.
Ž While a
majority of commuters had a positive image of VDOT (67% believed VDOT was doing
a “good job overall”), support was only moderate. Fifty-nine percent (59%) said they had “confidence in the job
VDOT is doing regarding transportation planning.” But, VDOT was not perceived as doing a very good job of listening
to user needs (51%).
Ž Specific
recommendations from the research included:
“Market” the personal benefits of car/vanpooling,
particularly the time and cost savings that occur due to the use of the HOV
lanes. This will bring about increased
support for and usage of HOV lanes and help reduce the number of and/or the
frequency of “drive-alones”.
While helping the environment may be an important reason
DRPT is promoting ridesharing, it is not persuasive in terms of attracting
commuters to rideshare. While keeping
the environmental message alive may be important, a more powerful message may
be the danger that the area will lose highway construction funds if drivers
continue to pollute the environment.
More aggressive marketing of commuter information services
– ridesharing – and the Rideshare Network is needed.
“Guaranteed Ride Home” could be a powerful tactic. A “Guaranteed Ride Home” program should be
actively marketed to “prime prospects.”
Develop employer-based programs and support among downtown
employers.
Rideshare programs should be tailored to the needs of
specific locations.
AVAILABLE DOCUMENTS:
|
Questionnaire |
|
Data tables |
|
Final report |
|
PowerPoint presentation |
Key Words:
carpool, environment, Guaranteed Ride Home, public
transportation, ridesharing, vanpool