rail Transit Improvements - The I-66 Corridor



Similar documents
Distracted Driving on the Capital Beltway

A Presentation by the Project Managers: Rick Canizales Prince William County. Jana Lynott, AICP Northern Virginia Transportation Commission

Ne w J e r s e y Tr a f f i c Co n g e s t i o n :

Survey Instrument Date Responses

There Is Widespread Support For Dynamic Tolling Both Among Those Who Use It And Among Those Familiar With The Lanes 69% 65% 29% 23%

Survey of San Francisco Likely November 2014 Voters Regarding Attitudes on Employee Shuttles

Economic Analysis Reports: Briefing. Transportation Finance Panel

ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY. Final Long-Range Transportation Plan - Destination Attachment A

APPENDIX E TASK 5 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM: TRAVEL DEMAND FORECASTING PROCESS

Final Frequencies (n=400) MINNEAPOLIS AREA SURVEY* The Mellman Group, Inc. and Ayres, McHenry & Associates, Inc. June 28, 2011

Examples of Transportation Plan Goals, Objectives and Performance Measures

ExpressLanes CAG Summit. March 2, 2010

Nashville Area MPO Regional Freight Study fast action projects

Tolling: Critical Steps to Deploying Your Project Implementing the I-77 Managed Lanes

APPENDIX A Dallas-Fort Worth Region Transportation System Management Strategies and Projects

Comprehensive Mobility Project Development Process Capital Metro ¼-Cent Fund Analysis

State of Good Repair Assessment Dallas Area Rapid Transit

Diane Williams Senior Media Research Analyst Arbitron Inc

July TD Bank Checking Experience Index 2013

Treasure Island Mobility Management Program

Roadway Congestion 139, , ,700 NA 4,300 4,900. Table 7-2 Transportation Criteria - Roadway Congestion (2035)

A Triple Bottom Line Opportunity For Our Cities

Smart Cities & Integrated Corridors: from Automation to Optimization

I-66 Pavement Rehabilitation

Urban Mobility India 2011 The IBM Smarter Cities Solutions: Opportunities for Intelligent Transportation

7.0 TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT

Cloud ITS: Reducing Congestion & Saving Lives

PRIORITIZATION PROCESSES

7.0 Transportation Management

Exploring Travel Behavioural Dynamics with Panel Surveys. Dynamic response profiles for Light Rapid Transit systems. Outline

United States House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. Subcommittee on Highways and Transit

Growth Management and Transportation. By Mark Hallenbeck Director, TRAC-UW

Statewide Colorado Poll Consumer Issue: Car Insurance Mandating Medical Payments Coverage

Virginia's Transportation Performance Management System

2011 Boulder Valley Employee Survey for Transportation Report of Results

Integrating the I-95 Vehicle Probe Project Data and Analysis Tools into the FAMPO Planning Program

By Anthony Downs Senior Fellow The Brookings Institution. March 19, 2002

Establishing a Metropolitan Network of Congestion-Free Freeways

BICYCLE TRENDS IN CAMBRIDGE

PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS & OPPORTUNITIES FOR SMALL BUSINESS IN VIRGINIA PRESENTATION TO THE 2010 SMALL BUSINESS SUMMIT

Findings of a study sponsored by the Citizens Budget Commission and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York

Service Guidelines Task Force. 5. Social Equity

Why build the Silvertown Tunnel?

First Transit Contra Flow Lane in Downtown San Francisco

Who is implementing managed lanes with pricing strategies? Operational Under Construction/ Development

Where Do We Want to Go? How Can We Get There?

Q. What do you think the most important transportation issues are in this area with regard to east-west travel?

Texas Transportation Institute The Texas A&M University System College Station, Texas

Planning and Design for Sustainable Urban Mobility

Advantages and Disadvantages of One Way Streets October 30, 2007

High Mileage Moms - The Report

SCOTTSDALE TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION REPORT

2014 Center City Commuter Mode Split Survey Survey Results

WSDOT 511 IVR Survey and Usability Testing Results. May PRR, Inc.

Dallas ICM Conception to Implementation

School-related traffic congestion is a problem in

3 FAM 3800 BUREAU OF HUMAN RESOURCES (HR) PROGRAMS

Wave 1: Final Report

Fiscal Year 2015 Quarter 4 April - June 2015 Stephanie Pollack Secretary & CEO

PERFORMANCE MEASURES FOR MOBILITY MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS

An Overview of Managed Lanes in the U.S.A. Darren Henderson, AICP

METROPOLITAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS. Independent Accountants Report on Applying Agreed-Upon Procedures

Guide to Employer Commuter Surveying

Overview of the Travel Demand Forecasting Methodology

A Bicycle Accident Study Using GIS Mapping and Analysis

DRAFT Freight Performance Measures

SF Bay Area Transportation Management Systems: An Innovative DOT and MPO Partnership

MEMORANDUM. Stanley E. Young University of Maryland, Center for Advanced Transportation Technology

The New Mobility: Using Big Data to Get Around Simply and Sustainably

FINAL REPORT DEVELOPMENT OF CONGESTION PERFORMANCE MEASURES USING ITS INFORMATION. Sarah B. Medley Graduate Research Assistant

Transportation Alternatives

Vision for Salisbury Quality Bus Partnership. 25 July 2012

Self-Driving Cars. Pete Gauthier & David Sibley EIS Section 1 Mini-Project 10/8/2012

Stone Way N Rechannelization: Before and After Study. N 34th Street to N 50th Street

Appendix 1 Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT)

All questions in this survey were voluntary; all results are based on number of respondents who answered the relevant question.

Goals & Objectives. Chapter 9. Transportation

Los Angeles Regional Transportation Management Center

Linked Transportation Services for Connected Travelers

Improving Access in Florida International University Biscayne Bay Campus Executive Summary

Downtown Houston Commute Survey Report

Doppler Traffic Flow Sensor For Traveler Information Systems. October,

Wilmington to Newark Commuter Rail Improvement Project

SELF-DRIVING FREIGHT IN THE FAST LANE

PREPARED BY WENDELL COX WENDELL COX CONSULTANCY FOR THE TEXAS PUBLIC POLICY FOUNDATION

A Framework for Monitoring the Performance of Travel Demand Management and Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Reduction Activities

Customer Satisfaction Index 2014

Traffic Signal Priority (TSP) and Automatic Vehicle Tracking System (AVTS) For Calgary Transit Buses

Job Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) and New Freedom Funding Recommendations Item 7 June 19, 2013

Report to the 79 th Legislature. Use of Credit Information by Insurers in Texas

THE PAN ATLANTIC SMS GROUP 54 th OMNIBUS POLL The Benchmark of Maine Public Opinion

14,449. Atlanta / Beaumont / Lufkin / Paris / Tyler Region. How was the survey taken? Do you own or lease a personal vehicle?

Appendix E Transportation System and Demand Management Programs, and Emerging Technologies

Consumer Assistance and Outreach Services

6.0 Market Research Implications for Policy Plan

RULES OF THE ROAD BY LWTL Staff Writer

Port Mann/Highway 1 Project Request For Proposals Volume 1 Instructions to Proponents

KEEPING NEVADA CONNECTED: Future Mobility in the Silver State

City of Rockville Regional Development Impacts: Transportation Capacity Analysis. June, 2013

11 p.m. to. Tuesday, June. will remain open. 14. closed

Transcription:

SECTION H Telephone Survey

232 West Broad Street i Richmond, Virginia 23220 i 04-3-91 i 00-07-91 www.sirresearch.com Idea-66: Westbound I-66 Inside the Beltway Stakeholder Telephone Survey Executive Summary January 12, 2004 Objectives and Methodology This research is designed to assess stakeholder perceptions of traffic congestion in the Westbound I-66 Corridor. It assesses response to four concept categories to manage traffic congestion. These concepts were provided by Governor Warner (as stated in his letter of September 4, 2003): Bus or rail transit improvements Changing the requirements for HOV and/or adding toll lanes Roadway widening Do nothing A random telephone survey was conducted among residents of the I-66 Corridor who travel westbound at least three times per week, using either I- 66, Metro or other roads running parallel to I-66. Key Findings and Implications Finding: Stakeholders believe that Westbound traffic in the I-66 Corridor is becoming more congested. They blame that congestion on the number of cars on the road, not having enough lanes on the road and population growth and development. Implication: Stakeholders are sensitive to the growing congestion along the I-66 Corridor. They are ready to hear about plans for its management. Finding: Of four options tested, making bus and/or rail transit improvements is the strongest performer overall. Nearly one-half (47) of commuters rated the bus and/or rail transit option as their first choice for

reducing congestion. One-third (33) said (without interviewer prompting) as an open-ended question) that the public transportation and Metro should be improved and expanded to lessen congestion in the I-66 Corridor. On a Concept Performance Index, bus and rail improvements also scored highest, indexing at 36. Widening the roadway is also a popular choice with commuters. Over one-half (2) of respondents suggested this solution in an open-ended question. Over one-third (37) rated this option first. It scored well on a Concept Performance Index as well (29). Implication: From the perspective of stakeholders, making bus and/or rail improvements should be adopted as a plan or at least as part of a plan to reduce traffic congestion on Westbound I-66. Widening the roadway also receives considerable stakeholder support and should be included as part of a plan that is responsive to the needs and preferences of stakeholders. Ideally, a plan that involves both bus and rail improvements and widening the roadway would be a context-sensitive solution. Conclusion: To do nothing about the traffic congestion in the Westbound I-66 Corridor is not acceptable to stakeholders. For nearly 6 out of 10 (7) commuters, doing nothing is their last choice for how to deal with the traffic congestion. Those who live outside the Beltway are particularly likely to say that doing nothing is not an option. Two-thirds of this group (66) nearly 7 out of 10 rated doing nothing as their last choice. Implication: Stakeholders are receptive and ready for action to be taken regarding westbound congestion on I-66. -2-

Southeastern Institute of Research Idea-66: Westbound I-66 Inside the Beltway Stakeholder Telephone Survey Pulsar Advertising G December 22, 2004 1 Agenda I. Objectives II. Methodology III. Key Findings IV. Conclusions & Implications 2

Research Objectives Provide input to aid in formulating a contextsensitive solution to managing congestion in the I-66 Westbound Corridor: Describe and document trips Westbound along the I-66 Corridor Identify and assess stakeholder perception of traffic congestion in the Westbound I-66 Corridor Explore the relative appeal of 4 concepts 3 Research Objectives (con t.) Assess relative appeal of 4 initial concept categories that the Governor identified (as stated in Governor Warner s letter dated September 4, 2003): 1. Bus or rail transit improvements 2. Changing the requirements for HOV and/or adding toll lanes 3. Roadway widening 4. Do nothing 4

Study Methodology A random telephone survey was conducted among residents along the I-66 corridor In order to qualify for the survey, respondents had to live within a 10-mile long / 1-mile wide corridor along I-66. Some respondents lived inside the Beltway, and others lived outside the Beltway. Outside the Beltway, the eligible area was defined by zip codes Inside the Beltway, it was defined by carrier routes Map of Study Area I-66 Inside The Beltway I-66 6

Map of Study Area- I-66 Outside of Beltway I-66 7 Methodology (con t.) All respondents traveled Westbound at least 3 times per week, using either I-66, Metro or other roads running parallel to I-66 01 interviews were completed 300 with residents inside the Beltway 201 with residents outside the Beltway These sample sizes were established in advance to ensure that sufficient numbers of these two groups were included in the total for individual analysis A sample of 01 has a margin of error of 4.4 at the 9 confidence level.

Stakeholder View Of I-66 Westbound Corridor Traffic 9 Commuters Believe that Westbound Traffic Is Becoming More Congested Easy to travel with very little congestion Easy to travel with some congestion 17 Harder and harder to travel with growing congestion Very hard to travel with significant congestion 32 4 77 Don't know 1 0 20 40 60 0 100 Question: How would you describe the traffic issues you encounter when driving either I-66 West or the other westbound roads running parallel to I-66? Would you say I-66 or the other roads are? (Read answers.) 10

Residents Both Inside and Outside the Beltway Believe that Westbound Traffic Is Congested Easy to travel with very little congestion Easy to travel with some congestion 6 3 23 69 inside and outside the Beltway believe Westbound traffic is congested. Harder and harder to travel with growing congestion Very hard to travel with significant congestion 22 47 42 46 Don't know 3 1 Inside the Beltway Outside the Beltway 0 20 40 60 0 100 Question: How would you describe the traffic issues you encounter when driving either I-66 West or the other westbound roads running parallel to I-66? Would you say I-66 or the other roads are? (Read answers.) 11 Question: What do you see as the cause of the congestion you re experiencing on either I-66 West or the other westbound roads running parallel to it? Commuters Believe the Congestion Is the Result of Too Many Cars and Not Enough Lanes for Westbound Traffic Total Inside of Beltway Outside of Beltway Only most frequent mentions are shown. Too many cars Not enough lanes/ not wide enough Expanding population 3 27 17 39 29 16 3 24 1 Too much development 12 17 Poor drivers / accidents 7 7 7 Bad merges / ramps 6 3 Poor infrastructure 6 3 9 Inadequate public transportation 12

What Do Commuters Believe The Solution Should Be? 13 SIR s Assessment Approach Possible Solutions: Bus or rail transit improvements Changing the requirements for HOV and/or adding toll lanes Roadway widening Do nothing 3 Ways To Assess Solutions: 1. Open-ended question Answer to What do you believe could be done to lessen congestion? 2. Ranking of the concept 3. Calculation of a Concept Performance Index 14

Assessment #1. Open-ended question Answer to What do you believe could be done to lessen congestion? 1 Question: What do you believe could be done to lessen the congestion along I-66 West and/or the I-66 Corridor to improve its efficiency for your use? Commuters Propose Widen/Add Lanes and Improve Public Transportation to Resolve Traffic Congestion (Chart shows most popular commuter suggestions before hearing 4 alternative solutions) Total Inside of Beltway Outside of Beltway Note: The 4 options were not mentioned. Only most frequent top of mind mentions are shown. Widen/add lanes Improve public transportation/expand Metro Build more roads 2 33 3 29 2 37 9 Extend Metro to Dulles 6 Improve HOV 6 3 Don t know/refused 16

Assessment #2. Ranking Question: Of all of these options, which would you choose first; which one second, which one third and which one fourth? (Rotate options to avoid order bias) 17 Graph reports the proportion selecting each option as first choice. Of Four Concept Categories Tested, Making Bus and/or Rail Transit Improvements Is the First Choice of Westbound Commuters to Reduce Westbound I-66 Congestion Bus and/or rail transit improvements 47 Roadway widening 37 Change the requirements for HOV and/or add toll lanes 12 Do nothing 4 0 20 40 60 0 100 Question: Of all of these options, which would you choose first; which one second, which one third and which one fourth? 1

Graph reports the proportion selecting each option as first choice. Those Who Live Inside the Beltway and Those Outside the Beltway Do Not Differ Significantly in Terms of Their First Choice Solutions to Reduce Westbound Congestion Bus and/or rail transit improvements 49 4 Roadway widening Change the requirements for HOV and/or add toll lanes 12 13 34 40 Inside of Beltway Outside of Beltway Do nothing 2 0 20 40 60 0 100 Question: Of all of these options, which would you choose first; which one second, which one third and which one fourth? 19 Graph reports the proportion selecting each option as first choice. Those Who Drive Alone or Carpool Prefer Either Improvements to Bus or Rail Transit or Widening the Roadway to Reduce Congestion. Those Who Use Some Other Form of Transportation Prefer Making Improvements to Bus or Rail Transit. Bus and/or rail transit improvements 42 39 Roadway widening 27 42 4 Change the requirements for HOV and/or add toll lanes Do nothing 12 10 13 3 6 2 Drive alone (n=306) Carpool (n=31) Vanpool/Metrorail/Bus/Telework (n=62) 0 20 40 60 0 100 Question: Of all of these options, which would you choose first; which one second, which one third and which one fourth? 20

Graph reports the proportion selecting each option as first choice. Those Who Believe The Congestion on Westbound I-66 Is Lighter and That It Is Easy to Travel on I-66 Prefer Bus and/or Rail Transit Improvements. Those Who Believe Westbound I-66 Is Getting More Congested and Harder to Travel Prefer Either Bus and Rail Improvements or Roadway Widening. Bus and/or rail transit improvements 46 1 Roadway widening 23 40 Change the requirements for HOV and/or add toll lanes 11 13 Easy to travel on I-66 (n=107) Do nothing 1 14 Harder to travel on I-66 (n=33) 0 20 40 60 0 100 Question: Of all of these options, which would you choose first; which one second, which one third and which one fourth? 21 Graph reports the proportion selecting each option as fourth (last) choice. The Majority Selected Do Nothing As The Least Most Popular Option Percent who selected Do Nothing as their last choice (option) All Residents 7 Outside of Beltway 66 Inside of Beltway 2 0 20 40 60 0 100 Question: Of all of these options, which would you choose first; which one second, which one third and which one fourth? 22

Assessment #3. Concept Performance Index Assigning 3 points for each first place choice, 2 points for each second place, 1 point for each third place and 0 points for each fourth place choice. 23 Concept Performance Index Respondents ranked the four congestion reduction options according to their first choice, second choice, third choice and fourth choice. In order to assess how well the four options performed across all of these ratings, a Concept Performance Index was calculated. This index was calculated by assigning 3 points for each first place choice, 2 points for each second place, 1 point for each third place and 0 points for each fourth place choice. The total points for each option were totaled. And, the grand total for all options was calculated. The proportions reported for the index represent each option s share of the grand total of points. 24

There Is No Clear Cut Winner. Making Bus and/or Rail Improvements Performs Best on the Concept Performance Index. Doing Nothing Indexes Least Favorably. Bus and/or rail transit improvements Roadway widening Change the requirements for HOV and/or add toll lanes 2 29 36 However, widening the road and changing HOV requirements or adding toll lanes perform reasonably well, also. Do nothing 10 0 20 40 60 0 100 Question: Of all of these options, which would you choose first; which one second, which one third and which one fourth? 2 The Four Options Tested Index About the Same For Inside and Outside the Beltway Residents Bus and/or rail transit improvements 36 3 Roadway widening Change the requirements for HOV and/or add toll lanes 27 33 2 24 Inside of Beltway Outside of Beltway Do nothing 12 0 20 40 60 0 100 Question: Of all of these options, which would you choose first; which one second, which one third and which one fourth? 26

Only most frequent mentions are shown. Some concern for environment Question: Why do you choose bus and/or rail transit improvements as your first option for improving the efficiency of traffic flow along the I-66 Corridor? Rail Transit and/or Bus Improvements Are Rated Favorably Because They Are Viewed as Decreasing the Number of Cars and Reducing Congestion; and, Because They Would Move More People Fewer cars / less congestion Environmental reasons Bus or rail needs to be extended Move more people People would use it Easiest / best option Widening road would not solve More convenient / less stress Least disruptive Like the idea It s needed Don t know Total 19 1 14 14 13 12 7 1 Inside of Beltway 16 1 12 1 16 10 1 Outside of Beltway 24 11 1 11 16 6 6 1 1 3-27 Only most frequent mentions are shown. Respondents Support Widening the Roadway Because They Believe It Would Move More Cars and Increase Traffic Flow More cars increase traffic flow Easiest / best option It s needed People / I prefer to use car More people / development needs to keep up Other Don t know Total 40 19 12 7 6 2 Inside of Beltway 30 22 1 3 6 11 - Outside of Beltway 3 1 11 6 4 Question: Why do you choose roadway widening as your first option for improving the efficiency of traffic flow along the I-66 Corridor? 2

Conclusion Transit and Roadway Widening Are The Most Popular Possible Solutions Bus or rail transit improvements Assessment #1 Assessment #2 Assessment #3 Open-ended Ranking CPI 2 1 1 Changing the requirements for HOV and/or adding toll lanes 3 3 3 Roadway widening 1 2 2 Do nothing NA 4 4 29 Key Conclusions & Implications 30

#1. The Vast Majority of All Stakeholders (Inside And Outside The Beltway) Believe I-66 Westbound Is Becoming More Congested Conclusion: Stakeholders believe that Westbound traffic in the I-66 Corridor is becoming more congested. They blame that congestion on the number of cars on the road, not having enough lanes on the road and population growth and development. Implication: Stakeholders are sensitive to the growing congestion along the I-66 Corridor. They are ready to hear about plans for its management. 31 #2. Of Four Alternative Concepts Tested, Making Bus and/or Rail Transit Improvements and Roadway Widening are the Most Appealing Overall Conclusion: Nearly one-half (47) of commuters rated bus and/or rail transit option as their first choice as a way of reducing congestion. And, one-third (33) said (without interviewer prompting) as an openended question) that the public transportation and Metro should be improved and expanded to lessen congestion in the I-66 Corridor. On a Concept Performance Index, bus and rail improvements also scored highest, indexing at 36. Widening the roadway is also a popular choice with commuters. Over one-half (2) of respondents suggested this solution in an open-ended question. Over one-third (37) rated this option first. It scored well on a Concept Performance Index as well (29). Implication: From the perspective of stakeholders, making bus and/or rail improvements should be adopted as a plan or at least as part of a plan to reduce traffic congestion on Westbound I-66. Widening the roadway is also a strong contender and should be included as part of a plan that is responsive to the needs and preferences of stakeholders. Ideally, a plan that involves both bus and rail improvements and widening the roadway would be a context-sensitive solution. 32

#3. To Do Nothing About The Traffic Congestion In The Westbound I-66 Corridor Is Simply Not Acceptable Conclusion: For nearly 6 out of 10 (7) commuters, doing nothing is their last choice for how to deal with the traffic congestion. Those who live outside the Beltway are particularly likely to say that doing nothing is not an option. Two-thirds of this group (66) or nearly 7 out of 10 rated doing nothing as their last choice. Implication: Stakeholders are receptive and ready for action to be taken regarding Westbound congestion on I-66. 33