Residential Building Transportation Performance Monitoring...

September 2013

Residential Building Transportation Performance Monitoring Study

Topline Results Presentation

September 2013 ACCS Research: Residential Building Transportation Performance Monitoring Study 2

Presentation Outline

• Introduction• Purpose and objectives• Methods• Basic descriptors

• Behaviors• Mode split• Trip generation• Vehicle ownership and parking

• Awareness, Preferences• TDM• Transit• Parking

• Uses of this Study• Future Research Needs


Study Introductionand Methodology


Study Purpose

• Learn about travel and parking behaviors of Arlington residents in high density residential buildings with TDM

• Enhance local evidence of what influences travel for staff and decision-makers charged with advising on parking and TDM requirements and implementing programs and services

• Inform the public about the performance of residential site plans relative to County transportation objectives


Study Objectives

• Convey mode split and vehicle trip generation: How well are these buildings supporting Countywide transportation goals and objectives? Are we moving more people without more traffic?

• Convey parking regulation and availability: How well are these buildings supplying the “right” amount of parking? Are minimum parking needs met without excess?

• Convey auto ownership rates: What sample characteristics may influence, or be influenced by, auto ownership?

• Compare awareness/attitudes with mode choice and trip generation: What is the influence of travel assistance services?

• Compare trip generation to ITE and to TIAs: How accurate are ITE and TIA estimates for trip generation at these sites?


Sample

• 16 residential site plan buildings and their occupants

• 8 apartments (incl. one extended-stay hotel)• 8 condominiums• Range of locations across County, range of

densities, some with retail on ground floor• Building participation required by site plan

condition, but resident survey participation voluntary

• Total sample collected between 2010-2012• Not a random sample


Data Collection:Parking and Trip Generation

• Methods• Tube counts or parking operator/garage computer• 24 hrs, 7 consecutive days, aggregated into 15-min

intervals• Parking occupancy counted once manually

• Key variables (dependent)• Peak hour time of day (AM and PM)• Peak hour trips generated• Daily total trips generated• Parking occupancy by time of day

• ITE codes used:• 221 (low-rise apt); 222 (high-rise apt); 232 (high rise

condo/townhouse); 310 (hotel)


Data Collection:Resident Survey

• Methods• Voluntary online or paper survey• Property manager sends email notification• Team conducts on-site events• 1,456 completes, overall response rate of 25% of

adult residents• Key variables (dependent)

• Weekly commute mode split, commute distance, and other commute characteristics (self-reported by residents; as distinguished from the garage data)

• Mode share of non-work trips• Vehicle ownership


Data Collection:Explanatory Variables

• Methods• Property manager interview• Resident survey• Field work• Secondary research

• Key variable groups (independent)• Building/site factors• Neighborhood characteristics• Transportation access• Information/assistance• Demographics• Work location


Building Sample Characteristics

• 3,700 occupied dwelling units (96%)• 4,840 total parking spaces, all types• 1.04 – 1.55 residential parking spaces per unit

(not including visitor/retail spaces)• Over 38,000 trips counted • 11 sites within Metrorail corridors, 5 outside• 3 sites outside the Metrorail corridors offer

shuttle to Metro or ongoing transit subsidy• East Falls Church is considered outside

Metrorail corridors for purposes of this study


Resident Sample Characteristics

Sample County Sample is…

Tenure <5 years 69% 35% Newer

HHs 2-person or fewer

88% 60% Smaller

Sex 49% male similar

Age < 35 years 47%(71% under 45)

31% Younger

Race/Ethnicity 76% White, 11% Asian, 6% Hispanic

83% White, 6% Asian, 4% Hispanic

Fewer Asian,more Hispanic

HH Income $80K 77%(65% $100K+)

60% Wealthier

Employment 88% 67% More employed

Work Location 45% DC/Alexandria27% Arlington

41% DC/Alexandria33% Arlington

More work in Arlington, fewer in

DC/Alexandria


Behaviors:Commute Travel

Mode Split


Travel Mode Comparisons

• Used resident survey data to calculated travel mode shares for commute travel

• Compared commute mode split for:

• All regional commuters (SOC survey)

• Arlington resident commuters (SOC survey)

• Employed residents who live in the vicinity of the Site Plan buildings (COG HH Travel Survey)

• Access to parking at home / work

• Access to home-area transportation services:

• Transit (Metrorail distance, Transit Score)

• Bike paths, walking (Walk Score), highways, carshare


0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Drive-alone Transit Bike/walk TW/CWS Drive/ridewith others

51%

34%

7% 5% 3%

54%

27%

8% 6% 5%

64%

21%

2%6% 7%

Study Residents All Arlington residents Region

Sources:

Region and Live in Arlington –

2010 COG SOC Survey

Site Plan Bldgs –Resident Surveys

Site Plan Survey Respondents Drive Alone to Work Less than the Regional Average

They use transit much more than the regional average and more than the average Arlington residents overall

Regionn = 6,050

Live in Arlingtonn = 551

Site Plan Bldgsn = 1,283

Mode split - All weekly commute trips

Q6 How many weekdays do you typically use each of the following types of transportation to get to work?


0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Drive-alone Transit Bike/walk Drive/ride with others

54%

36%

7%3%

51%

32%

6% 9%

Study Residents TAZs in HH Travel Survey

Compared to Typical Residents of their Immediate Home Areas, Site Plan Respondents Ride Transit

Slightly More for their CommuteThey “drive/ride with others” for fewer commute trips, but this

figure for the HH survey might include some drop-off of children

Site Plan Bldgsn = 1,283

HH Travel Surveyn = 462

Telework excluded from both samples


Sources:

MWCOG Household

Travel Survey –2007-2008;

includes only TAZs that

correspond to site plan

building areas




0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Drive-alone Transit Bike/walk Drive/ride withothers

66%

27%

3% 4%

52%

37%

8%3%

Non-Metrorail Metrorail Corridor


Source:Resident Surveys Site Plan Respondents who Live in a Metro

Corridor Have a Much Lower Commute Drive Alone Rate than do Non-Metro Area Respondents

Their transit and Bike/Walk mode shares are much higher

Metro Corridorn = 1,068

Non-Metron = 215

Telework excluded from both samples



0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


66%

27%

3% 4%

63%

25%

2%10%

Study Resident Non-Metrorail HH Survey TAZs-Non-Metrorail


Site Plan Respondents who Live in Non-Metro Areas have Similar Commute Mode Profiles as do

Residents of their Immediate Home AreasExcept they “Drive/Ride with Others” less often

Site Plan

Non-Metron = 215

HH Survey TAZs

Non-Metron = 311

Sources:

MWCOG Household




building areas


Note: HH Travel Survey “drive /

ride with others” might include

some drop-off of children



0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


52%

37%

8%3%

41% 40%

10% 9%

Study Residents-Metrorail Corridor

HH Survey TAZs-Metrorail corridor


Site Plan

Metro corridorn = 1,068

HH Survey TAZs

Metro corridorn = 151

Site Plan Respondents who Live in Metro Corridors Use Transit and Bike/Walk at About the

Same Rate as do Others In their Home Areas, They Drive alone more and “Drive/Ride with Others” less

Sources:

MWCOG Household




building areas


Note: HH Travel Survey “drive /

ride with others” might include

some drop-off of children



0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


48%

37%

8%2%

50%

33%

9%3%

61%

29%

2% 4%

0-2 blocks 2-5 blocks 1 mile or more


Source:Resident Surveys Commute Mode Split Clearly Tracks with Distance

from Home to Metrorail – As Distance Increases, Driving Alone Goes Up; Transit Use Drops

Distance to Metrorail

0 – 2 blocksn = 373

3-5 blocksn = 573

6-10 blocks No sample

More than 10 blocksn = 337

There were no significant differences in mode use by distance to

major highways or distance to bike/walk

paths



0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Drive alone Transit Bike/Walk Drive/Ride withothers

60%

31%

2% 4%

55%

29%

7%3%

43% 42%

9%2%

Some transit (25-51)

Good transit (52-69)

Excellent transit (70-89)

Source:Resident Surveys

Commute Drive Alone Mode Share Also Decreases as the “Transit Score” of the

Resident’s Building Goes Up Transit use jumps substantially when transit is “Excellent”

Transit Score

25 – 49n = 188

50 – 69 n = 808

70 - 89n = 420

90 – 100n = 0

Mode split – Typical day Non-Work TripsQ21 How many non-work trips did you make [yesterday] by each of the following types of transportation?


0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


63%

28%

3% 4%

59%

31%

1% 4%

50%

33%

9%3%

50%

36%

7%3%

Car dependent (0-49)

Somewhat walkable (50-69)

Very walkable (70-89)

Walkers' paradise (90-100)


Source:Resident Surveys A Similar Pattern is Evident for Residents who

Live in Areas with Higher “Walk Scores”Particularly when the Area Reaches “Very Walkable”


Walk Score

0 – 49n = 110

50 – 69 n = 147

70 - 89n = 639

90 – 100n = 387


0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


51%

34%

7% 4%

50%

35%

8%3%

57%

31%

6% 3%

0 - 0.75 per resident

0.76 - 0.95 per resident

0.96 or more per resident



Site Plan Buildings that Have Fewer Parking Spaces than the Number of Adult Residents have

Lower Commute Drive Alone Rates


Parking Spaces Per Adult Resident

0 - 0.75n = 417

0.76 – 0.95 n = 477

0.96 or moren = 389


0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


55%

30%

7%2%

59%

26%

5% 4%

47%39%

6% 3%

42% 39%

12%

3%

$0 $1 - $49 $50 - $99 $100 or more



The Commute Drive Alone Rate Falls Noticeably When Resident Parking Charge is $50+ Per Month


Monthly parking charge for first resident vehicle

$0 per month n = 632

$1 - $49 per monthn = 169

$50 - $99 per monthn = 371

$100 or more per monthN = 111


0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


69%

19%

5% 3%

51%

23%16%

5%

53%

30%

8%4%

25%

61%

7%2%

$0 $1 - $100 $101 - $150 $151 or more



But Workplace Parking Cost has a More Significant Impact on Commute Mode, Primarily

When Parking Reaches $100 per Month

Q6 How many weekdays do you typically use each of the following types of transportation to get to work?Q15 How much do you pay to park at work? If you don’t usually drive, enter what you would have to pay if you drove.



$1 - $49 per monthn = 169

$50 - $99 per monthn = 371


66%of Site Plan

respondents have on-site parking at

work

44%pay to park

at work


0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Arlington DC Other

42%37%

80%

28%

53%

12%21%

3% 1%3% 4% 5%




Site Plan Respondents’ Commute Mode is Strongly Related to Where they Work

Work in Arlington – 21% Bike/Walk; Work in DC - 53% Transit; Work Elsewhere - 80% Drive Alone

Q6 How many weekdays do you typically use each of the following types of transportation to get to work?Q34 In what county do you work?

Arlington n = 332

District of Columbia

n = 505

Other arean = 398


Commute Travel Key Findings

Study residents’ commute travel is similar to the travel patterns of commuters who live in the immediate neighborhood of the site plan buildings, but they ride transit slightly more

Access to transit service at home and walkability of a residential area are both related to low drive alone rates for commuting

Parking is a powerful factor in commute decision-making, but parking availability / price at work is likely more important than parking at home

Work location is a strong component of commute mode


Behaviors:Non-work Travel

Mode Split


Resident Non-Work Travel

• The survey asked respondents if they had made any non-work trips from home “yesterday”

• “Yesterday” was relative to the day the respondent took the survey, so the trips would have included both weekday and weekend trips and can be considered a “typical” day

• 70% of all respondents said they made at least one non-work trip from home yesterday

• These respondents were asked about the modes they used for these trips


0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

All Metrorail corridor Non-Metrorail

2.3 2.3 2.42.7

2.52.9

Study Residents HH Survey TAZs

Average daily non-work trips

Site Plan

All n = 1,416

Metro corridorn = 1,044

Non-Metron = 372

HH Survey TAZs

All n = 630

Metro corridorn = 186

Non-Metron = 444

On Average, Site Plan Respondents make 2.3 Non-work Trips per Day – Slightly Under the 2.7

Trips Reported in the HH Travel SurveyBut the Site Plan survey likely undercounts non-work trips

Sources:

MWCOG Household




building areas


Q21 How many non-work trips did you make [yesterday] by each of the following types of transportation? Please count both the trip leaving your home and the trip returning home as individual trips.


Overall, Site Plan Residents Make a Quarter of their Non-Work trips by Walking and 14% by

Transit

Drive alone, 40%

Drive / ride with others,

21%Transit, 14%

Walk, 24%

Bike, 1%


n = 1,032

Q21 How many non-work trips did you make [yesterday] by each of the following types of transportation? Please count both the trip leaving your home and the trip returning home as individual trips.

Mode split – Typical day Non-Work Trips

2009 Overall County Non-work Trip Distribution

Drive alone 40%

Drive/ride with others36%

Walk/Bike16%

Transit8%

2009 Arlington Resident Survey


0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Drive-alone Drive/ride withothers

Bike/walk Transit

40%

21% 25%14%

30% 33%27%

6%

Study Residents HH Survey TAZs

The Non-work Mode Distribution for Site Plan Respondents is Different than for All Residents of

their Immediate Home AreaThey use transit and drive alone more; drive/ride with others less,

possibly because their demographics are different

Site Plann = 1,413

HH Survey TAZsn = 630

Sources:

MWCOG Household




building areas



Q21 How many non-work trips did you make [yesterday] by each of the following types of transportation?


0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Drive-alone Drive/ride withothers

Bike/Walk Transit

37%

20%15%

28%

49%

23%16%

12%

Metrorail Corridor Non-Metrorail



Respondents who Live in a Metro Corridor Make the Same Number of Daily Non-work Trips as Do

Residents who Live in Non-Metro AreasBut they use transit for a much higher share of their trips

Metro Corridorn = 1,044

Non-Metron = 372

Average Daily TripsMetrorail corridor = 2.33

Non-Metrorail area = 2.37



0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Drive-alone Drive/Ride withothers

Bike/Walk Transit

38%

22%29%

12%

37%

19%

30%

14%

50%

23%

13% 14%

0-2 blocks 2-5 blocks 1 mile or more


The Mode Share Pattern for Non-Work Trips is Essentially the Same for Residents who Live 0-2

Blocks and 3-5 Blocks from Metrorail; Residents who live more than 1 mile from Metro drive alone for

50% of their non-work trips vs 37% within 5 blocks of Metro


0 – 2 blocksn = 373

3-5 blocksn = 573





0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


Bike/Walk Transit

54%

24%

13% 10%

48%

23%

8%

22%

36%

20%

30%

14%

42%

20%27%

10%

Car dependent (0-49)

Somewhat walkable (50-69)

Very walkable (70-89)

Walkers' paradise (90-100)


Residents who Live in Areas with “Walk Scores” of 70 or More Walk for More than a Quarter of

their Non-Work Trips;vs about one in ten trips in less pedestrian-friendly areas

Walk Score

0 – 49n = 118

50 – 69 n = 161

70 - 89n = 691

90 – 100n = 446



0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


Bike/Walk Transit

49%

22%14% 14%

42%

21% 22%

11%

30%

20%

31%

17%

Some transit (25-51)

Good transit (52-69)

Excellent transit (70-89)


A Similar Walking Pattern is Evident for Residents who Live in Areas with “Transit

Scores” of 70 or More;Transit use does not seem to be strongly affected, but the

highest transit score was just 80 and the range was from 45-80

Transit Score

25 – 51n = 188

50 – 69 n = 808

70 - 89n = 420

90 – 100n = 0



0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Drive-alone Drive/ride with others Bike/walk Transit

38%

20% 22% 20%

41%

18%

28%

11%

42%

24% 22%

9%

0-0.75 per resident

0.76 - 0.95 per resident

0.96 or more per resident


Availability of Resident Parking Seems to have Only Modest Impact on the Drive Alone Rate for

Non-work Trips


Parking Spaces Per Adult Resident

0 - 0.75n = 466

0.76 – 0.95 n = 518

0.96 – 1.10n =225

1 .11 or moren = 207


0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Drive-alone Drive/ride with others Bike/walk Transit

44%

21%26%

9%

45%

25%18%

12%

37%

19%25%

18%26%

17%

34%

23%

$0 $1 - $49 $50 - $99 $100 or more


Residents Who Pay a Resident Parking Charge of $50 or More Per Month Are Less Likely to Drive

Alone for Non-work TripsBut this could be related to lower car ownership generally,

rather than a choice not to use a car they own



$1 - $49 per monthn = 169

$50 - $99 per monthn = 371



Non-work Drive Alone % by Vehicles per Adults in HH

0 vehicle13% DA

Less than 1 vehicle36% DA

1+ vehicle 64% drive alone


Non-work Travel Key Findings

Transit, walking, and biking account for 39% of the non-work trips made by site plan residents

The non-work transit share is higher for site plan buildings than for their immediate neighborhoods

But access to transit seems a less significant factor in non-work mode choice than for commuting

The share of non-work walk trips is clearly related to the extent of services within walking distance

The role of residential parking on non-work mode use is difficult to define – most likely it influences vehicle ownership, which in turn influences mode choice


Behaviors:Trip Generation


Buildings Inside Metro CorridorsGenerate Fewer Daily Trips

per Occupied Unit

< 0.2 miles from Metron = 4

> 0.2 miles from Metro; in corridor

n = 7

Outside Metro corridor

n = 5

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

< 0.2 miles fromMetrorail

> 0.2 miles fromMetrorail; in Metro

Corridor

Outside MetroCorridor

Vehi

cle

Trip

s P

er O

ccup

ied

Uni

t

Mon-Thurs

Friday

Saturday

Sunday


Buildings Inside Metro CorridorsGenerate Fewer Peak Hour Vehicle Trips

per Occupied Unit



n = 7


n = 5

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

120.00



Corridor

Outside Metro Corridor

Veh

icle

Trip

s P

er O

ccup

ied

Uni

t Weekday AM

Weekday PM

Saturday

Sunday


0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

5.00

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4

Vehi

cle

Trip

s pe

r Occ

upie

d U

nit

Miles to Metrorail Station

Buildings Outside Metro CorridorsMay be Influenced by Certain Services

• Trips Monday-Thursday• Extended-stay hotel and East Falls Church locations unusual.• Buildings outside the corridors that were served by shuttles or transit subsidies had lower daily trip

generation rates.


Daily Trips per Occupied Unit Decrease as Neighborhood Intensity Increases

Neighborhood intensity is defined as the total number of residents and employees per acre, within a quarter mile radius of the building.

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

0 50 100 150 200 250

Trips p

er O

ccup

ied Unit

(Residents + Employees) / Acre

Mon‐Thurs

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

0 50 100 150 200 250

Trips p

er O

ccup

ied Unit


Friday

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

0 50 100 150 200 250

Trips p

er O

ccup

ied Unit


Saturday

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

0 50 100 150 200 250

Trips p

er O

ccup

ied Unit


Sunday


Density of Residences in Neighborhood

Trips decreased with increases in residential density of the neighborhood.

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

100%

0-24 DU/acre 25-37 DU/acre 38-51 DU/acre 51-75 DU/acre

Max ParkingOccupancy

Min ParkingOccupancy

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

0-24 DU/acre 25-37 DU/acre 38-51 DU/acre 51-75 DU/acre

Vehi

cle

Trip

s pe

r Occ

upie

d U

nit

Mon-Thurs

Friday

Saturday

Sunday


Density of Employees in Neighborhood

Trip generation generally decreased with increases in employee density in the neighborhood.

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

0-20employees/acre

21-70employees/acre

71-125employees/acre


Vehi

cle

Trip

s pe

r Adu

lt R

esid

ent

Mon-Thurs

Friday

Saturday

Sunday

0.0010.0020.0030.0040.0050.0060.0070.0080.0090.00

100.00

0-20 employees/acre 21-70employees/acre



Pea

k H

our T

rips

Com

pare

d to

ITE

(%)

Weekday AM

Weekday PM

Saturday

Sunday


Trip Generation is Lower in Areas with Higher Walk Scores

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

Car Dependent Somewhat Walkable Very Walkable Walker's Paradise

Vehi

cle

Trip

s pe

r Adu

lt R

esid

ent Mon-Thurs

Friday

Saturday

Sunday

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

120.00

Car Dependent Somewhat Walkable Very Walkable Walker's Paradise

Dai

ly T

rips

Com

pare

d to

ITE

(%)

Weekday

Saturday

Sunday

0-49 50-69 70-89 90-100

0-49 50-69 70-89 90-100

Car Dependentn = 1

Somewhat Walkable

n = 2

Very Walkablen = 9

Walker’s Paradise

n = 4


Density of Destinations in Neighborhood

Walk scores decreased for buildings outside Metro corridors but the trend was not noticeable for buildings with high scores located within the Metro corridors.

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

5.00

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Trip

s P

er O

ccup

ied

Uni

t

Walk Score

Mon-Thurs Vehicle Trips per Occupied Unit

Outside Metro CorridorsWithin Metro Corridors


No Noticeable Difference in Trip Generation by Average Age of Residents

for Buildings in Metro Corridors

• Except for the extended-stay hotel, which doesn’t behave like a residential building.• Despite differences in incomes and car ownership rates.

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00

Trip

s P

er O

ccup

ied

Uni

t

Average Age of Residents

Mon-Thurs

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00

Friday

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00

Saturday

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00

Sunday

Average Age of Residents


Peak Hour Trip Generation within Metrorail Corridors Much Lower Than ITE



n = 7


n = 5

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

80.00

90.00

100.00



Corridor

Outside Metro CorridorObs

erve

d Ve

hicl

e Tr

ips

as a

per

cent

of P

redi

cted

Tr

ips

base

d on

ITE

Rat

es (%

)

Weekday AM

Weekday PM

Saturday

Sunday


Daily Trip Generation within Metrorail Corridors Much Lower Than ITE



n = 7


n = 5

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

80.00

90.00

100.00



Corridor

Outside Metro CorridorObs

erve

d Ve

hicl

e Tr

ips

as a

per

cent

of P

redi

cted

Trip

s ba

sed

on IT

E R

ates

(%) Weekday

Saturday

Sunday


ITE Codes 222 (Apartments) and 232 (Condos)

Peak hour trips for all days were 35-55% less than the predicted trips for the ITE Codes 222 and 232 within the Metro corridors; daily trips were 40-60% less. Trip generation comparisons outside the Metro corridors were more varied.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

High-Rise Apartment (ITECode 222) Within Metro

Corridors

High-Rise Condominium(ITE Code 232) Within

Metro Corridors

High-Rise Aparment (ITECode 222) Outside Metro

Corridors

High-Rise Condominium(ITE Code 232) Outside

Metro Corridors

Obs

erve

d V

ehic

le T

rips

as a

per

cent

of

Pre

dict

ed T

rips

base

d on

ITE

R

ates

(%)

WeekdayAM Peak

WeekdayPM Peak

SaturdayPeak

SundayPeak

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

High-Rise Apartment (ITECode 222) Within Metro

Corridors

High-Rise Condominium(ITE Code 232) Within

Metro Corridors

High-Rise Aparment (ITECode 222) Outside Metro

Corridors

High-Rise Condominium(ITE Code 232) Outside

Metro Corridors

Obs

erve

d V

ehic

le T

rips

as a

pe

rcen

t of P

redi

cted

Trip

s ba

sed

on IT

E R

ates

(%) Weekday

Daily

SaturdayDaily

SundayDaily

ITE Code 222 Within Corridor

n = 3

ITE Code 222 Outside Corridor

n = 2

ITE Code 232 Within Corridor

n = 6

ITE Code 232 Outside Corridor

n = 2


Vehicle Trip Generation Key Findings

Peak hour and daily trips for buildings within Metro corridors for all days of the week were much lower than predicted trips based on appropriate ITE rates. Some trip generation rates for buildings outside the Metro corridors was also much lower than ITE rates.

The location within the Metro corridor was the most significant factor affecting trip generation. Density of destinations (Walk Score) and provision of a shuttle or free transit seemed to lower trip generation outside the corridors.

There was no noticeable difference in the trip generation of apartments and condominiums, or by average age of residents in the building.


Behaviors:Vehicle Ownership

& Parking


Few Garages Approached Full Occupancy, and Many Cars

were Rarely Used

• Maximum parking occupancy ranged from 66% to 96%. • Minimum parking occupancy ranged from 5% to 47%.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1.05 1.06 1.07 1.14 1.19 1.19 1.20 1.25 1.26 1.28 1.42 1.53 1.55

Par

king

Occ

upan

cy

Resident Parking Spaces per Unit

Max Parking Occupancy Min Parking Occupancy


Average Maximum Occupancy is Similar for All Locations but Vehicle

Usage is lower in the Metro Corridors



n = 7


n = 5

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%



Corridor

Outside MetroCorridor

Max ParkingOccupancy

Min ParkingOccupancy


$80,000

$90,000

$100,000

$110,000

$120,000

$130,000

$140,000

$150,000

$160,000

$170,000

0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 Vehicles Per Adult Resident

Apartment in Metro CorridorsApartment outside Metro Corridors

Condo in Metro Corridors

Condo outside Metro Corridors

Vehicle Ownership Increased with Average Household Income, and

Outside Metro Corridors

• By location, condos had higher vehicle ownership than apartments. This may be due to the higher average household incomes of condo owners than apartment renters.


Vehicle Usage was Similar between Apartments and Condos within Corridors

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 10.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

Condo CondoApartment Apartment

In Metro Corridors Outside Metro Corridors

Vehicles per Adult Resident

Ave

rage

Dai

ly T

rips

per

Occ

upie

d U

nit


Friday peak hours had a different pattern compared to other weekdays.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

before7AM

7:00AM

7:15AM

7:30AM

7:45AM

8:00AM

8:15AM

8:30AM

8:45AM

9:00AM orlater

Num

ber o

f Bui

ldin

gs

Monday AM Peak

Tuesday AM Peak

Wednesday AM Peak

Thursday AM Peak

Friday AM Peak

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

before5PM

5:00PM

5:15PM

5:30PM

5:45PM

6:00PM

6:15PM

6:30PM

6:45PM

7:00PM orlater

Num

ber o

f Bui

ldin

gs

Monday PM Peak

Tuesday PM Peak

Wednesday PM Peak

Thursday PM Peak

Friday PM Peak

Peak Hour Time of Day More Consistentin the AM than the PM


• Friday evening occupancy is similar to Saturday evening• Sunday evening occupancy is similar to weekdays• Weekday occupancy is generally similar

Weekday and Weekend Occupancy Show Consistent Trends, with a Difference in

Fri and Sat PM

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

12:15 AM

1:00

AM

1:45

AM

2:30

AM

3:15

AM

4:00

AM

4:45

AM

5:30

AM

6:15

AM

7:00

AM

7:45

AM

8:30

AM

9:15

AM

10:00 AM

10:45 AM

11:30 AM

12:15 PM

1:00

PM

1:45

PM

2:30

PM

3:15

PM

4:00

PM

4:45

PM

5:30

PM

6:15

PM

7:00

PM

7:45

PM

8:30

PM

9:15

PM

10:00 PM

10:45 PM

11:30 PM

Average Parking Occupancy for Buildings in Metro Corridors, % of Total Spaces

MondayTuesdayWednesdayThursdayFridaySaturdaySunday

n = 7


0 cars per adults, 7%

0.1 - 0.99 vehicles per adult, 28%

1 vehicle per adult, 60%

More than 1 vehicle per adult, 5%


About a Third of Site Plan Respondents Have Fewer than One Vehicle Per Adult in the

Household; 7% have no vehicles

Q31 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?

Q32 Including yourself, how many persons live in your household? n = 1,315

Within the Metro Corridors

37% of respondents

have fewer than one vehicle per

adult:

Car Free HH9%

Car “Lite” HH28%

Average Number of Vehicles per Adult

ResidentOverall – 0.84

Not employed – 0.77Employed – 0.85

Apartments – 0.79Condominiums – 0.88


Car Availability is Measurably Lower Among Site Plan Respondents who Live Within 5 Blocks of

Metrorail

Average vehicles per adult resident



Q32 Including yourself, how many persons live in your household?

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

2 blocks orless

3-5 blocks More than 10blocks

Not in Metrocorridor

0.81 0.81

0.990.90


0 – 2 blocksn = 417

3-5 blocksn = 556


Not in Metro corridorn = 255


Average Vehicles per Adult ResidentMetro corridors –

0.81Non-Metro areas –

0.92


Car Availability Also Drops as Home-Area Pedestrian Opportunities Increase (Walk Score), but Little Additional Gain after Area is at Least

“Somewhat Walkable”


0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

Car dependent(0-49)

Somewhatwalkable (50-69)

Very walkable(70-89)

Walkers' paradise(90-100)

0.980.84 0.82 0.82




Walk Score

0 – 49n = 118

50 – 69 n = 161

70 - 89n = 691

90 – 100n = 446

Walk Score


Car Availability Drops More Steeply and Progressively as Home-Area Transit Improves –

as Defined by Transit Score


0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

Some transit (25-51) Good transit (52-69) Excellent transit (70-89)

0.950.84

0.76




Walk Score

25 – 51n = 261

52 – 69 n = 657

70 - 89n = 397

90 – 100n = 0

Transit Score


Car Availability is Highest when the Residential Building has Parking for All Adult Residents





0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

0 - 0.75spaces

0.75 - 0.95spaces

0.96 - 1.10spaces

1.11 or morespaces

0.81 0.800.87

0.96

Spaces per adult resident

0 to 0.75n = 429

0.76 to 0.95n = 480

0.96 to 1.10n = 209

1.11 or moren = 197

Spaces per Adult Resident in Building


Car Availability Drops as the Cost of Residential Parking Goes Up





0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

$0 per month $1 - $94 $95 or more

0.890.83

0.71

Cost per month

$0 per monthn = 629

$1 to $75n = 487

$76 or moren = 199

Monthly charge for first regular parking space


Vehicle Ownership Key Findings

Vehicle ownership increased with average household income

Condominium owners owned more vehicles per adult than apartments residents

There is a definite inverse relationship between vehicle ownership and transit access

Ownership rates were lower in more walkable areas but were about the same if the area was “somewhat,” “very,” or “extremely” walkable


Vehicle Ownership Key Findings

Vehicle ownership is strongly related to the cost of residential parking – particularly at a cost of $95+ per month

Parking occupancy and vehicle use seemed unrelated to the spaces per resident provided

Overall parking occupancy within Metrorail corridors was similar for all weekdays. Weekend occupancy was higher. Sunday evening occupancy was similar to weekday evenings.


Awareness,Preferences &

Influence


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

Transit schedule info

Transit financial incentive

Secure bicycle parking

Telework

Bicycle/walking info

Showers / personal lockers

Carshare

Carpool matching

Guaranteed Ride Home

Preferential carpool/vanpool parking

Vanpool financial incentive

Carpool financial incentive

20%

16%

37%

14%

20%

28%

18%

18%

11%

12%

7%

8%

24%

27%

6%

24%

14%

6%

4%

1%

2%

1%

1%

1%

Available, not used Available and used


75% of Employed Site Plan Respondents said their Employers Offer TDM Service at Work;

44% have access to transit info and 43% have a transit subsidy

Q25 Listed below are travel services or benefits that might be available at your work. For each service or benefit, indicate … if the service: is available and you have used it, is available and you have not used it, is not available.

n = 1,316

54%have used a workplace

service


Don't know, no services

reported, 22%

Low TDM, 31%

Moderate TDM, 18%

High TDM, 28%


Nearly Half of Site Plan Respondents have Workplace TDM Services that Constitute a

Moderate to High TDM Program

n = 1,316

Low TDM =No financial, some support services

Moderate TDM = Some financial, 0-2 support services

High TDM = Substantial

financial + 3 or more support

services



Only about 4 in 10 Employees Who have Access to Moderate to High Worksite TDM Drive Alone, vsAbout 7 in 10 Who Don’t have Robust Services

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

Drive-alone

Transit

Walk/bike

71%

18%

5%

64%

25%

6%

34%

54%

7%

40%

44%

10%

No services reported

Low TDM

Moderate TDM

High TDM


No services reportedn = 279

Low TDMn = 401

Moderate TDM n = 226

High TDM n = 353




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




Shuttle to bus / train station

Discounted transit pass

Help finding carpool/vanpool partner

Reserved carpool/vanpool parking

45%

29%

27%

14%

7%

9%

6%

21%

37%

31%

16%

9%

1%

1%Available, not used Available and used


85% of Site Plan Respondents said they have Access to TDM Service at Home

Most common service are bicycle and transit-related

Q26 Listed below are travel services or benefits that might be available at the building or in the complex where you live…. For each service or benefit, indicate … if the service: is available and you have used it, is available and you have not used it, is not available.

n = 1,476

56%have used a home-based

service


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

Drive-alone

Transit

Walk/bike

46%

38%

8%

55%

33%

8%

58%

27%

5%

Low TDM

Moderate TDM

High TDM


Low TDM (0 to 2 services)n = 495

Moderate TDM (3 or more services,

no financial incentive or

shuttle)n = 289

High TDM (3 or more services,

including financial

incentive or shuttle) n = 393


Access to Home Area Services Seems Not to Have an Influence on Commute Mode



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

Drive-alone

Drive/ridewith others

Transit

Bike/walk

44%

17%

18%

22%

40%

21%

13%

26%


Services available


No services reportedn = 172

Services available n = 1,244

Availability of Home Services Seems Slightly Related to Non-work Trip Mode for Bike/Walk




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

Bike/walkinfo

Bike parking

22%

22%

28%

26%No services reported

Services available


Bike/walk infoNo services

n = 569

Available, used n = 847

Bike parkingNo services

n = 440

Availablen = 976

Availability of Individual Bike/Walk Services Seems to Support Use of Bike/Walk for Non-work Trips

Q26 Listed below are travel services or benefits that might be available at the building or in the complex where you live…. For each service or benefit, indicate … if the service: is available and you have used it, is available and you have not used it, is not available – Bicycle or walking information; Secure parking for bicycles

Bike/walk Mode split – Typical day Non-Work Trips


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

Transit route/schedule info


Shuttle to bus/train

15%

12%

13%

13%

19%

14%


Service available


And Availability of a Discounted Transit Pass Appears to Influence Non-work Transit Use

No difference for transit info or shuttle, but some respondents might have reported regular route transit as shuttle availability

Q26 Listed below are travel services or benefits that might be available at the building or in the complex where you live…. For each service or benefit, indicate … if the service: is available and you have used it, is available and you have not used it, is not available – Transit schedule or route information; Shuttle

Transit Mode split – Typical day Non-work Trips

Transit infoNo services

n = 456

Availablen = 960

Transit passNo services

n = 1,179

Available n = 237

ShuttleNo services

n = 973

Available n = 443



Respondents said Safe Sidewalks / Bike Paths and Transit Subsidies would Encourage them to

Make More Trips by Non-drive Alone Modes

Q27 If the following services were available at the building or complex or in the area where you live, how likely would you be to make more of your trips by carpooling, public transit, bicycling, or walking?

Base for likely to try non-drive alone

mode varies by service (n = ):

Transit pass 1,241Sidewalks 1,476

Shuttle 1,033 Transit sched 513Bike/walk info 628Bike parking 499

CP/VP partner 1,326

CP/VP parking 1,369

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






Help finding CP/VP partner

Reserved CP/VP parking

16%

30%

66%

58%

66%

10%

7%

12%

8%

11%

11%

7%

6%

4%

45%

19%

15%

14%

12%

5%

4%

Service available now

4

5-Very likely



Respondents said Safe Sidewalks / Bike Paths and Transit Subsidies would Encourage them to

Make More Trips by Non-drive Alone Modes

Q27 If the following services were available at the building or complex or in the area where you live, how likely would you be to make more of your trips by carpooling, public transit, bicycling, or walking?

Base for likely to try non-drive alone

mode varies by service (n = ):

Transit pass 1,241Sidewalks 1,476

Shuttle 1,033 Transit sched 513Bike/walk info 628Bike parking 499

CP/VP partner 1,326

CP/VP parking 1,369

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






Help finding CP/VP partner

Reserved CP/VP parking

17%

32%

68%

61%

70%

11%

8%

3%

3%

2%

3%

3%

6%

8%

22%

37%

14%

19%

17%

65%

70%

8%

9%

6%

7%

3%

8%

7%

10%

6%

4%

5%

2%

5%

4%

40%

14%

5%

6%

4%

5%

4%

Service available now Don't know 1 or 2 (not likely) 3 4 5-Very likely


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

WMATA / Metro

ART bus

Commuter Store

BikeArlington

Commuter Connections

WalkArlington

CommuterPage.com

Arlington County Commuter…

Arlington Transportation Partners

Commuter Direct

8%

46%

30%

34%

32%

26%

19%

19%

17%

15%

83%

32%

21%

14%

6%

9%

8%

3%

2%

2%

Aware / not used

Aware and have used


78% of Site Plan Respondents Know of ART Bus; Awareness Also is High for Commuter Store

(51%) and Bike Arlington (48%)

Q28 Shown below is a list of organizations and programs that provide transportation information and assistance to Arlington residents and employees. For each, please indicate … if you have used services of the organization, you have heard of the organization but have not used it, you don’t know of the organization.

n = 1,283

85%aware of an Arlington TDM service (other than ART)

34%have used an Arlington TDM

service

2009 Overall Co Awareness

ART79%

Commuter Store 51%

BikeArlington45%

WalkArlington38%

CommPage18%

ACCS30%

2009 Arlington Resident Survey


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

Drive-alone

Transit

Bike/walk

Carpool/vanpool

57%

31%

6%

2%

52%

34%

7%

3%

45%

39%

8%

3%

Not aware of Arlington services

Know any Arlington service

Used any Arlington service


Not aware of services n = 179

Aware of services n = 1,104

Used servicesn = 629

Note: respondents who “used services”

also are included in the “aware of services” group

Site Plan Residents who Know of Arlington TDM Services Drive Alone to Work Less and Use Transit

More than Residents who Don’t know of the ServicesThose who USE Arlington services drive alone even less




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

Drive alone

Drive/ridewith others

Transit

Bike/walk

53%

18%

10%

19%

39%

21%

14%

26%

35%

21%

16%

28%

Not aware of Arlington services

Know any Arlington service

Used any Arlington service


Not aware of services n = 183

Aware of services n = 1,233

Used servicesn = 717

Note: respondents who “used services”

also are included in the “aware of services” group

A Similar Pattern in Evident for Awareness / Use of Arlington TDM Services and Mode for Non-work Trips

But which came first – TDM service awareness or mode use?




Awareness / Influence Key Findings

Use of non-DA modes is higher for commute and non-work trips when respondents know of Arlington services, more still if they have used the services

There is a strong relationship between workplace TDM and use of non-drive alone modes for commuting; modest relationship of commute mode with home-based TDM

75% of respondents have TDM services at work

85% of respondents mentioned having at least one home-based TDM service – 56% have used services

Home-based transit and bike/walk services seem to influence use of these modes for non-work trips

Awareness of Arlington TDM services is the same as for the Co overall – 34% have used an Arlington service


Uses of this Study


Uses of Building-Level Data

• As baseline for future evaluations• ATP can work with property managers on

tailored program improvements• Send to ITE to improve their trip generation

factors


Uses of Aggregate Study Results

• Enhance understanding of behavior and influence of TDM at site plan buildings

• Improve new/existing ATP campaigns• Inform parking discussion and

recommendations for residential site plan proposals

• Inform overall parking and TDM policy recommendations


FutureResearch Needs


For Further Exploration

• What is the pedestrian trip generation of these sites?

• What is the bicycle trip generation of these sites?

• How do site plan residential buildings compare to non-site plan residential buildings?

• What routes people take on their commute?• Do “edge sites” (Mosaic, Bergmann’s,

Dominion Heights) behave differently than on-metro sites or off-metro sites?

• Do CAFs generate trips, and demand parking, differently than market rate units?


Future Research Strategies

• Increase the sample of buildings overall, for more confidence

• Expand the range of settings• Geography• Building types• Neighborhood characteristics

• Increase the sample of CAFs• Need additional or different questions for property

manager, residents to understand CAFs• Study non-site plan residential buildings

Residential Building Transportation Performance Monitoring...

Documents

Transcript of Residential Building Transportation Performance Monitoring...