NONDRIVERS:
POPULATION,
DEMOGRAPHICS &
ANALYSIS
Washington State Legislature
Joint Transportation Committee
January 31
st
, 2023 | FINAL REPORT SUMMARY
In partnership with:
Cascadia Consulting Group, and
Strategic Research Associates
NONDRIVERS: POPULATION, DEMOGRAPHICS & ANALYSIS | FINAL DRAFT
TOOLE DESIGN | 1
CONTENTS
1. Executive Summary 4
Project Background 4
Key Findings 5
Study Overview / Research Approach 8
2. Nondriver Population Estimate for Washington State 11
3. Statewide Market Research Survey & Focus Groups 17
Market Research Methodology 17
Survey Findings 20
Focus Groups Findings 36
Market Research Conclusions 37
4. Transportation Options Analysis 40
NONDRIVERS: POPULATION, DEMOGRAPHICS & ANALYSIS | FINAL DRAFT
TOOLE DESIGN | 2
Acknowledgements
Joint Transportation Committee (JTC) Staff Workgroup
Alyson Cummings, JTC staff project manager
Paul Neal, JTC staff
Jenna Forty, Senate Transportation Committee staff
Michael Hirsch, House Transportation Committee staff
Don Chartock, Deputy Director of Public Transportation Division, WSDOT (subject matter expert)
Barb Chamberlain, Director of Active Transportation Division, WSDOT (subject matter expert)
Consulting Team
Toole Design Group
Manuel Soto, project manager
Joanna Wang
Anish Tailor
Michael Hintze
Stefanie Brodie
Cascadia Consulting Group:
Mary Ann Rozance, PhD
Gretchen Muller
Jay Carhart
Sophia Chau
Hannah Wheeler
Strategic Research Associates
Joanne Vega
Nathan Darnell
NONDRIVERS: POPULATION, DEMOGRAPHICS & ANALYSIS | FINAL DRAFT
TOOLE DESIGN | 3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
NONDRIVERS: POPULATION, DEMOGRAPHICS & ANALYSIS | FINAL DRAFT
TOOLE DESIGN | 4
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PROJECT BACKGROUND
Nondrivers include people of all backgrounds and abilities such as aging adults, youth, students, recent
immigrants, low-income individuals, those with physical, mental, intellectual, or developmental disabilities, and
people who prefer not to drive.
The Washington (WA) State Legislature directed the Joint Transportation Committee (JTC) to conduct a study to
estimate how many nondrivers are in Washington State and the demographics of this population, as well as
identify the availability of transportation options for nondrivers and the impact those options have on access to
daily life activities. The full study proviso, included at the bottom of this page, directed the JTC to:
▪ Estimate the nondriver population: Conduct research to quantify the nondriver population in
Washington State.
▪ Identify the demographics: Utilizing a statewide survey, collect demographic information and people’s
reasons for not driving.
▪ Analyze available transportation for nondrivers: Identify how current transportation infrastructure and
services serve nondrivers, and how that service meets people’s needs for access to economic opportunity,
recreation, education, and other aspects of community life.
The study has three main parts or steps:
1. Using available U.S. Census Bureau, Federal Highway Administration, and Department of Licensing data,
identify the different population groups that make up the nondrivers in Washington State.
2. Identify the demographics and mobility needs of surveyed nondrivers in Washington State through a
statistically significant market research survey.
3. Analyze the availability of transportation options, and the impact those options have on nondrivers’ access
to daily life activities.
Study Products:
▪ Summary Report and Appendices
▪ Publicly available interactive map and database
STUDY PROVISO - Sec. 204 of the 2022 supplemental transportation budget (ESSB 5689).
(8) $400,000 of the multimodal transportation account—state appropriation is for the joint transportation committee to
conduct a study to determine how many nondrivers are in Washington state and the demographics of this population.
The joint transportation committee is directed to conduct a survey, conduct research, develop a dataset, and conduct
analysis on the nondriving population of Washington state. The analysis must include but is not limited to: (a) Reasons
for not driving; (b) demographics of who is not driving to include age, disability status, rural or urban residence, and
other available demographic information; and (c) availability of transportation options for nondrivers and the impact
those options have on their access to services, economic opportunity, recreation, education, and other aspects of
community life. A report must be provided to the transportation committees of the legislature by February 1, 2023.
NONDRIVERS: POPULATION, DEMOGRAPHICS & ANALYSIS | FINAL DRAFT
TOOLE DESIGN | 5
KEY FINDINGS
NONDRIVER POPULATION ESTIMATE FOR WASHINGTON
STATE (USING EXISTING DATA)
Through a combination of U.S. Census Bureau and FHWA Highway Statistics data, the project team was able to
estimate rates of driver licensing and vehicle ownership for the Washington State population that is eligible to
apply for driver’s licenses, as well as the population that is under age 16 and therefore not eligible for a driver
license. Using this available data, nondrivers were estimated to fall into the following groups:
Table 1. Estimate of the Nondriver Population Groups in Washington State Utilizing Existing Data
Nondriver Population Groups
Under age 16 (and not eligible for a driver’s license)
Age 16 and over
Do not have a driver’s license
Do not have a car*
* Estimate of age-eligible drivers that belong to zero-vehicle households, based on U.S. Census Bureau ACS 5-Year Estimates 2016-2020
data for zero-vehicle households, household size, and driving-age population.
Source: Washington State Department of Licensing data from FHWA’s Highway Statistics Series for year 2020; American Community Survey
Five-Year Estimates 2016-2020; and the U.S. Census 2020.
These groups cannot be added together to reach a total, as there is likely significant overlap between those that
do not have a driver’s license and those that do not have a car. An estimate of those that do hold a driver’s
license but do not own a vehicle (or have a vehicle registered under their name) could not be made with available
data and within the timeframe of this study.
1
STATEWIDE MARKET RESEARCH SURVEY
Who are the nondriver survey respondents (18 and over) across Washington State?
▪ Demographic characteristics: A higher proportion of survey respondents are female, younger, lower
income, rent a home, and have a larger household size compared to the overall Washington State
population.
▪ Race and ethnicity: A higher proportion of survey respondents are African American and Native American
compared to the overall Washington State population.
▪ Driver licensing: For survey respondents, males, younger people, and people with lower income levels
are proportionally less likely to have a driver’s license than females, seniors, and nondrivers with higher
income levels.
▪ Vehicle ownership: For survey respondents, younger, lower income, and physically able nondrivers with
a valid driver’s license are less likely to have a vehicle in their household compared to seniors, higher
income, and disabled nondriver survey respondents.
1
It may be possible to estimate working with the Department of Licensing on a specific study that matches driver licensing and vehicle
registration records.
NONDRIVERS: POPULATION, DEMOGRAPHICS & ANALYSIS | FINAL DRAFT
TOOLE DESIGN | 6
▪ Primary driver: Of the nondriver survey respondents who have a driver’s license and a vehicle in their
household, women, those under 25, and those with annual income under $56,000 are less likely to be the
primary driver than males, those 25 years old and older, and those with income over $56,000.
▪ Choice and lifestyle: Of the nondriver survey respondents who have a driver’s license, a vehicle in their
household, and are the primary driver but do not drive to meet most transportation needs, more than one
half are female, and one half have annual income at or above $56,000. The majority of nondriver survey
respondents in the lifestyle group are 25-64 years old and 80 percent live in the 10 most populated
counties in Washington.
▪ Disability: 19 percent of survey respondents indicated that they have a disability or condition that limits
their driving.
What are the reasons nondriver survey respondents do not drive?
▪ Cost: Most often, they do not drive because of the high costs associated with owning and driving a car,
and due to a disability. Reasons for not driving vary by demographic characteristics.
▪ Income: Male, younger, lower income, urban, and physically abled survey respondents were more likely
than females, older, higher income, rural, and disabled survey respondents to identify cost reasons for not
driving.
▪ Lifestyle: Male, younger, urban, and higher income survey respondents were more likely to select lifestyle
preference than their female, older, rural, and lower income counterparts.
How do nondriver survey respondents get around and access daily life activities?
▪ More than one half travel to visit family and access food and groceries, medical and health care, recreation
and social opportunities, and spiritual activities. Just under one half travel to access education and
employment.
▪ Across all travel destinations, the three most common modes of transportation are receiving car rides from
friends or family, a fixed route bus or train, and walking or rolling. These modes were also identified as
transportation options that are the easiest to use.
▪ The ease of use of different transportation options varied by demographic characteristics. Male, younger,
higher income, urban, and physically abled nondrivers said that many transportation modes are easier to
use compared to their female, older, lower income, rural, and disabled peers. At the same time, older
nondriver survey respondents said that they do not need to use transportation options more than younger
nondriver survey respondents.
▪ Access to daily life activities varied by demographic characteristics of survey respondents, with most of the
differences in categories relating to the need to access certain activities. Income had more impact on
access to activities compared to other demographic categories. Those with lower income found it more
difficult to access education and employment, medical and health care, and all other destinations
compared to higher income nondriver survey respondents.
What, if any, are the impacts of transportation options on quality of life?
▪ At least once a week or more often, 23 percent of nondriver survey respondents will skip going somewhere
because of transportation, 22 percent will be late when not driving, 34 percent worry about being able to
get somewhere, and 39 percent worry about inconveniencing friends and family.
NONDRIVERS: POPULATION, DEMOGRAPHICS & ANALYSIS | FINAL DRAFT
TOOLE DESIGN | 7
▪ Over 70 percent of nondriver survey respondents skipped going somewhere, were late, worried about
being able to get somewhere, or worried about inconveniencing others at least one time in the past 30
days.
▪ Females, younger, and lower income nondriver survey respondents reported skipping a trip, being late
getting somewhere, worrying about being able to get somewhere, and worrying about inconveniencing
others more than their male, older, and higher income peers. Disabled nondriver survey respondents
worried about inconveniencing others more than nondrivers without disabilities.
▪ Nondriver survey respondents described negative impacts to their quality of life far more often than
positive impacts.
▪ Nondriver survey respondents most commonly described making cars and insurance more affordable and
improving transit routes as ways to improve transportation.
FOCUS GROUPS FINDINGS
Universally, focus groups participants expressed that being a nondriver required some leniency and pre-planning
to get to their destinations. Scheduling, and completing planned tasks like medical appointments and grocery
shopping, as well as going to work and school, were not necessarily major challenges to focus group participants,
but completing unscheduled tasks, and having to travel for unplanned events, were major challenges.
On-demand transportation options such as Ben Franklin Transit’s Connect, King County Metro’s Via to Transit, or
other ADA paratransit service options were either not considered, outside of budget, or not available to focus
group participants. Rural and urban participants mentioned walking as a reliable alternative to public
transportation.
Leveraging relationships for rides, such as getting a ride from a friend or family member, except for some
instances where individuals had strong community groups or friends, was a particular challenge to many focus
group participants.
Another challenge highlighted by focus group participants across all segments was finding transportation services
outside of key service hours. Rural and disabled focus group participants were particularly constrained on their
travel times due to key services they utilize for transportation ending at 5:00 p.m. or 6:00 p.m. daily. Attending and
going to evening social events or traveling to out-of-the-ordinary places was a particular challenge.
Many focus group participants suggested that while being a nondriver offered cost savings due to not having the
direct costs associated with maintaining a vehicle, they also experienced specific losses of “independence” and
“freedom.”
TRANSPORTATION OPTIONS ANALYSIS
The analysis of transportation options was aimed at developing a high-level assessment of access and mobility
throughout the state to understand level of access to daily life destinations by people around the state via
available transportation options. Key findings of this analysis include:
▪ Driving a car provides almost universal access to daily life activities to everyone around the state. Even
with a car, that access is diminished in rural counties for short trips of no more than 15 minutes. In
contrast, urban areas concentrate many daily life opportunities within a 15-minute car trip.
▪ Riding public transit is generally restricted to the footprint or extent of the fixed-route network and the span
of service (service start and end times). There are major differences in access and availability between
rural and urban counties, which can be explained largely by a longer span of service hours in urban areas,
NONDRIVERS: POPULATION, DEMOGRAPHICS & ANALYSIS | FINAL DRAFT
TOOLE DESIGN | 8
from early in the morning to late at night, and a shorter span of service in rural counties (ending typically at
around 6:00 p.m. on weekdays and no service on Sunday).
▪ Walking has the potential to access many daily life activities on trips of 30 to 60 minutes. At least 50
percent of the population in urban areas could reach destinations by walking if there were safe and
adequate facilities along all segments of the transportation network. A much lower reach is possible in rural
counties due to more sparse destinations, especially health care, and less extensive transportation
networks.
▪ Riding a bicycle also shows great potential to reach many daily life activities on trips of 15 to 30 minutes.
At least 80 percent of the population in urban areas could reach destinations riding a bike if there were
adequate safe and continuous facilities, including sufficient bike parking options. A much lower reach is
possible in rural counties due to more sparse destinations and less extensive transportation networks.
STUDY OVERVIEW / RESEARCH APPROACH
The research approach relied on several research methods to better identify nondrivers in Washington State and
assess their access to daily life activities and mobility options.
▪ Nondriver Population Estimate: The project team utilized publicly available information to estimate
Washington’s nondriver population. Using U.S. Census Bureau and Federal Highway Administration’s
(FHWA) Highway Statistics data, the project team estimated the nondriver population in Washington State
by combining driver licensing information and vehicle ownership rates for the Washington State population
that is eligible to apply for a driver’s license. This information was then mapped by census tract to identify
an estimate of the distribution of nondrivers across the state.
▪ Statewide Market Research Survey: The project team designed and conducted a statewide market
research survey and series of focus groups to better understand the demographic characteristics of
persons over the age of 18 who answered “no” to one of the following screening questions:
1. Do you currently have a valid driver's license?
2. Do you or someone in your household own a vehicle?
3. Are you the primary driver of a vehicle in your household?
4. Do you drive that vehicle to meet most of your transportation needs?
The project team researched their reasons for not driving, their mobility needs and preferences, and the
impact that their nondriver status has on access to daily life activities and quality of life. The project team
conducted the market research survey via phone and online and received a total of 2,786 responses from
across the state. The survey included the screening questions above to ensure that only persons who had
limited or no access to a vehicle provided behavior and preference data. Those under 18 years of age
were not surveyed, as minors legally fall into a protected class of people in research.
The collection of survey responses was purposely balanced to include rural and urban counties and a
geographical representation from across the state. The survey analysis includes descriptive statistics with
comparison to the 2020 U.S. Census and the American Community Survey 2016-2020. Additionally, the
project team conducted chi-square analysis looking at response distributions between demographic groups
by gender, age, income, location (urban/rural) and disability status.
▪ Focus Groups: The project team conducted three online focus groups, mainly with survey respondents.
The team focused on three key nondriver groups – people with disabilities, those from the least populated
and rural counties, and those from the most populated and urban counties, to fill in knowledge gaps and
NONDRIVERS: POPULATION, DEMOGRAPHICS & ANALYSIS | FINAL DRAFT
TOOLE DESIGN | 9
further explore survey results. Focus group participants were recruited from survey respondents to balance
spatial and demographic characteristics. The focus group results were summarized for key themes in
response to questions about mobility needs and access, transportation options opportunities and
challenges, impacts on quality of life, and interwoven issues including how participants’ different identities
and life experiences intersect with their experience as a nondriver.
▪ Transportation Options Analysis: The project team mapped the availability of travel destinations and
daily life activities around the state using GIS spatial analysis. Travel destination data included health and
medical care sites, food and grocery stores, number of jobs and employment sites, educational
establishments, parks and recreation sites, and other community life destinations (e.g., libraries and
community centers). The team then estimated the proportion of the population that have access to these
destinations, in terms of travel time, using four major transportation modes: driving a car, riding public
transit, riding a bicycle, and walking.
NONDRIVERS: POPULATION, DEMOGRAPHICS & ANALYSIS | FINAL DRAFT
TOOLE DESIGN | 10
2. NONDRIVER POPULATION
ESTIMATE FOR WASHINGTON
STATE (UTILIZING EXISTING
DATA)
NONDRIVERS: POPULATION, DEMOGRAPHICS & ANALYSIS | FINAL DRAFT
TOOLE DESIGN | 11
2. NONDRIVER POPULATION
ESTIMATE FOR WASHINGTON STATE
The nondriver population estimate methodology was modeled after the nondriver population analysis and
estimate that was developed by the State of Wisconsin, which includes an interactive map and dataset. The
Wisconsin Non-Drivers interactive map and dataset can be accessed at
https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/multimodal/nd.aspx.
REVIEW AND UTILIZATION OF EXISTING DATA
Table 2. Average Driver Licensing Rate of Age-Eligible Population in Washington State
Age Group
Census 2020
Total Population
1
FHWA 2020
Licensed Drivers
2
% of Population
with License
Under 5 years
466,280
-
-
5 to 9 years
478,231
-
-
10 to 14 years
473,685
-
-
15 to 19 years
459,615
201,289
44%
20 to 24 years
494,240
419,242
85%
25 to 29 years
595,447
528,176
89%
30 to 34 years
580,680
566,973
98%
35 to 39 years
543,274
564,847
104%
40 to 44 years
486,185
506,847
104%
45 to 49 years
482,256
469,882
97%
50 to 54 years
474,923
461,826
97%
55 to 59 years
493,534
475,125
96%
60 to 64 years
486,537
462,197
95%
65 to 69 years
411,442
409,535
100%
70 to 74 years
313,799
325,927
104%
75 to 79 years
196,404
209,719
107%
80 to 84 years
127,543
120,149
94%
85 years and over
141,204
90,766
64%
Total
7,705,281
5,812,500
1
U.S. Census Bureau Decennial Census 2020
2
FHWA Transportation Statistics 2020
NONDRIVERS: POPULATION, DEMOGRAPHICS & ANALYSIS | FINAL DRAFT
TOOLE DESIGN | 12
The U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) compiles the Highway
Statistics Series, which consists of annual reports containing analyzed statistical information on motor fuel, motor
vehicle registrations, driver licenses, highway user taxation, highway mileage, travel, and highway finance. Most
data are submitted directly to FHWA by each state. Each state's data is analyzed for completeness,
reasonableness, consistency, and compliance with FHWA data reporting instructions.
The project team obtained driver licensing and vehicle registration information for Washington State from FHWA’s
Highway Statistics Series for year 2020 and compared the data with population demographics (age and gender)
and household characteristics (household size, vehicle ownership, and income) from the American Community
Survey Five-Year Estimates 2016-2020 and the U.S. Census 2020, to develop an estimate of the nondriver
population in Washington State.
The first step of the analysis was to compare the number of driver licenses that are reported by DOL to FHWA
with the total population of the state by age group (as defined by the U.S. Census). The table above shows the
results of this analysis. Two issues stand out:
▪ The young adult population (18 to 35 years old) has a lower rate of licensing than older adults and seniors
(those 35 years old and older).
▪ The senior population (especially those between 65 and 80 years old) with driver licenses exceeds the
senior population estimates of the U.S. Census.
The main reason behind this discrepancy is that the U.S. Census Bureau estimates the total population based on
samples and its estimate contains a margin of error. At the same time, the licensing data reported by DOL likely
contains driver licenses for people that moved out of state and for deceased individuals. Although efforts are
made to minimize these issues, the purging of outdated information is not done on a continual basis.
To counter the effect of specific age groups with licensed drivers exceeding the total population, the project team
summarized the information in larger groups that represent key nondriver segments of the population. The results
of this aggregation are presented below.
Table 3. Rate of Licensing by Age Group in Washington State
Age Group
Driving Age
Population
Total Licensed
Drivers
Eligible Population
with a License
Minors* (15 to 19)
459,615
201,289
43.8%
Young Adults (20 to 34)
1,670,367
1,514,391
90.7%
Adults (35 to 64)
2,966,710
2,940,724
99.1%
Seniors (65 and over)
1,190,392
1,156,096
97.1%
Subtotal
6,287,084
5,812,500
92.5%
* Includes restricted and graduated licenses from minors 15-18 years old, as reported by DOL to FHWA
These projections show that Washington State has approximately:
▪ 7.7 million residents
▪ 6.3 million individuals of driving age, and
▪ 5.8 million licensed drivers
NONDRIVERS: POPULATION, DEMOGRAPHICS & ANALYSIS | FINAL DRAFT
TOOLE DESIGN | 13
NONDRIVER POPULATION ESTIMATE
These figures also enable an estimate of the size and proportion of key nondriver groups. These are shown in the
table below (which is also included in the Study Overview & Key Findings section).
Table 4. Estimate of the Nondriver Population Groups in Washington State Utilizing Existing Data
Nondriver Population Groups
Under age 16 (and not eligible for a driver’s license)
Age 16 and over
Do not have a driver’s license
Do not have a car*
* Estimate of age-eligible drivers that belong to zero-vehicle households, based on U.S. Census Bureau ACS 5-Year Estimates 2016-2020
data for zero-vehicle households, household size, and driving-age population. Source: Washington State Department of Licensing data from
FHWA’s Highway Statistics Series for year 2020; American Community Survey Five-Year Estimates 2016-2020; and the U.S. Census 2020.
The project team used this methodology to estimate the nondriver population for each county in the state and at
the census tract level. The maps on the following pages show the Total Nondriver Population and the Percent of
the Nondriver Population. An interactive webmap is also available here.
More details of this analysis can be found in the Appendices.
NONDRIVERS: POPULATION, DEMOGRAPHICS & ANALYSIS | FINAL DRAFT
TOOLE DESIGN | 14
Figure 1. Total Nondriver Population in Washington State per Census Tract
.
NONDRIVERS: POPULATION, DEMOGRAPHICS & ANALYSIS | FINAL DRAFT
TOOLE DESIGN | 15
Figure 2. Percentage of Nondriver Population in Washington State per Census Tract.
NONDRIVERS: POPULATION, DEMOGRAPHICS & ANALYSIS | FINAL DRAFT
TOOLE DESIGN | 16
3. STATEWIDE MARKET
RESEARCH SURVEY
& FOCUS GROUPS
NONDRIVERS: POPULATION, DEMOGRAPHICS & ANALYSIS | FINAL DRAFT
TOOLE DESIGN | 17
3. STATEWIDE MARKET RESEARCH
SURVEY & FOCUS GROUPS
MARKET RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This section provides a summary of the methodology, design, and findings for the Statewide Nondriver Population
Market Research Survey.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
For the purposes of this research, nondrivers include those who are age eligible to get a driver’s license, but:
▪ Do not hold a driver’s license
▪ Do hold a driver’s license but do not have a vehicle in their household
▪ Do hold a driver’s license and do have a vehicle in their household but do not drive it regularly or are not
the primary driver of the vehicle
To fully understand nondrivers and their transportation needs the project team examined four primary research
questions:
▪ Who are the nondrivers in Washington? – to identify their demographics.
▪ What are the reasons nondrivers do not drive? – to understand their reasons for not driving.
▪ How do nondrivers get around and access daily life activities? – to understand their mobility and access
preferences.
▪ What, if any, are the impacts of available transportation options on access to daily life activities and quality
of life? – to understand the impact that transportation options have on quality of life.
SURVEY DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION
The survey design documented reasons for not driving; demographics of nondrivers including age, disability
status, and rural or urban residence; availability of transportation options for nondrivers, and the impact those
options have on access to services, economic opportunity, recreation, education, and other aspects of community
life. The project team collaborated with a project Working Group and key stakeholders from nondriver interest
groups to refine the research goals and survey questions, discuss the preliminary survey results, and confirm the
audiences for three focus group sessions. The Working Group met virtually four times at key milestones
throughout the study
2
. The project team met with stakeholder representatives from the Washington Association of
Area Agencies on Aging, Transportation Choices Coalition, and Disability Rights Washington during the survey
design development process. During survey development, the project team referenced other travel behavior and
nondriver studies. Most notably, the team adapted questions from the Transportation Security Index (Murphey,
Gould-Werth, and Griffin, 2021)
3
, which includes questions to understand and evaluate the impact that nondriver
status has on quality of life and access to daily life activities.
2
For a complete list of Working Group representatives please see the Acknowledgements section.
3
Murphy, A. K., Gould-Werth, A., & Griffin, J. (2021). Validating the Sixteen-Item Transportation Security Index in a Nationally Representative
Sample: A Confirmatory Factor Analysis. Survey Practice, 14(1), 27185.
NONDRIVERS: POPULATION, DEMOGRAPHICS & ANALYSIS | FINAL DRAFT
TOOLE DESIGN | 18
The project team conducted the market research survey both via phone and online from September 19
th
through
October 24
th
of 2022. The team dialed over 50,000 phone numbers and contacted over 100,000 people online to
receive a total of 2,786 responses from across the state. The survey included screening questions to determine
nondriver status and required that participants be 18 years of age or older to participate.
Table 5. Number of People Contacted and Survey Respondents by Outreach Method
Method
People Contacted
Survey
Respondents
Effective
Response Ratio*
Phone
50,000+
76
1.5 per 1,000
Online
100,000+
2,710
27.1 per 1,000
Total
150,000+
2,786
18.6 per 1,000
* Note: these response ratios are significantly lower than is typical in surveying, the market research firm attributes this to the nondriver
screening criteria in relationship to the number of people in the statewide population that meet one of those criteria.
A detailed description of the survey methodology and outreach effort is available in Appendix 1A.
SURVEY REPRESENTATION
Figure 3. Survey Responses by County and Region across Washington State.
TOOLE DESIGN | 19
NONDRIVERS: POPULATION, DEMOGRAPHICS & ANALYSIS | FINAL DRAFT
The survey was geographically representative of Nondrivers in Washington. Nondriver survey respondents
came from every county in Washington State. The highest number of survey responses for any single county —
633 total — came from King County, followed by Pierce, Snohomish, Spokane, Clark, Thurston, Kitsap, Yakima,
Whatcom, and Benton counties. Garfield County had the fewest total responses (5 responses). This rate of
response is correlated with county population. In the 10 most populous counties the project team heard from 3.4
out of every 10,000 people, in the least populous counties, we heard from 4.4 out of every 10,000 people.
Additional information about the proportion of responses by county and region is available in Appendix 1B.
The survey specifically screened for disability related to driving, rather than a more general disability
status. Out of the 2,786 nondriver survey respondents, 19 percent indicated that they have a disability or
condition that prevents or limits their driving. The 2020 American Community Survey (ACS) estimates that around
26 percent of the Washington State population has a disability, however, the ACS estimate is inclusive of the
disabled population that are minors and adults, whereas the survey only accounts for adults (those 18 years old
and older); and the ACS does not provide detail on the smaller subset of the overall disabled population that has
a disability that prevents or limits their driving. The survey methodology and approach focused on the nondriver
and not the caregiver of a disabled nondriver, which is a potential gap in representation of disabled nondrivers.
Additional information about disabled nondrivers and type of disability is available in Appendix 1B.
The market research survey may not have been able to capture a proportionate response from older
adults that do not drive. While the screening criteria sought to capture the group of older adults that have a
driver license and primary access to a vehicle, but do not drive most places, the low response rate for phone
surveys (yet high rate of older adults that took the phone survey versus the online survey) indicates there may
have been a difficulty in either reaching older adults that met the criteria or controlling for responses on this topic
that can be one of frustration and anxiety for older adults.
4
Additional information about screening questions and demographic response rates is available in Appendix 1B.
FOCUS GROUPS
The project team conducted three focus groups with key nondriver groups – people with disabilities, nondrivers
from smaller and rural counties, and nondrivers from larger and urban counties, to fill in knowledge gaps and
further explore survey results. Focus group participants were recruited from survey respondents to balance
geographical and other demographic characteristics. The project team also recruited disabled participants through
email listserv communications via Disability Rights Washington.
Questions posed to the focus group participants emphasized four primary themes:
▪ Mobility needs and access: Questions related to travel needs, frequency, and preferred mode for
accessing daily life activities.
▪ Transportation access opportunities and challenges: Questions related to types of transportation
options and mobility means that work for participants, do not work well, and why. This also included
questions related to infrastructure, services, and technologies that participants would like to see
incorporated into their mobility options.
4
Depressive Symptoms Among Older Adults Who Do Not Drive: Association With Mobility Resources and Perceived Transportation Barriers
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5007631/
NONDRIVERS: POPULATION, DEMOGRAPHICS & ANALYSIS | FINAL DRAFT
▪ Impacts on quality of life: Questions that aimed to understand how nondriver status affects access to
daily life activities, travel behaviors, and quality of life.
▪ Interwoven issues: Questions that invited participants to expand upon and discuss how their previous
responses about being a nondriver intersect with other types of experiences in their life.
The complete focus group script is available in Appendix 1J.
SURVEY FINDINGS
This section presents survey findings, which are organized by each of the study’s four key categories of research
questions:
▪ Demographics: Who are the nondrivers in Washington State?
▪ Reasons: What are the reasons nondrivers do not drive?
▪ Mobility and Access: How do nondrivers get around and access daily life activities?
▪ Impact: What, if any, are the impacts of available transportation options on access to daily life activities
and quality of life?
The nondriver survey received a total of 2,786 responses — 76 by phone and 2,710 online. Nondriver survey
respondents who completed the phone survey were more likely to have a valid driver’s license, be 65 years or
older, have a disability or condition that prevents them from driving or limits their driving, be Caucasian, own an
apartment or house and have a smaller household compared to nondriver survey respondents who completed the
online survey.
The project team analyzed survey results and extracted findings for all nondriver survey respondents, but also
looked at differences across key demographic categories: gender, age, income, urban or rural county location,
and disability status. Differences in responses between demographic categories (e.g., male and female) were
measured using chi-squared tests and any noted differences included below were found to be statistically
significant (at the 95% confidence level).
DEMOGRAPHICS: WHO ARE THE NONDRIVERS?
The project team collected demographic information from survey respondents — including location, gender, age,
race and ethnicity, housing status, household size, responsibility for others’ transportation, and household income
to fully understand who makes up the population of nondrivers in the state, and ensure the study reached a
representative population.
Over one half of nondriver survey respondents (51%) do not have a driver license, the other one half of survey
respondents do have a driver’s license but do not have a vehicle (10%), do have a vehicle but are not the primary
driver of the vehicle (29%), or do have a vehicle but do not drive it to meet most transportation needs (10%). The
breakdown of nondriver groups by number of respondents is captured in the table below.
Out of 2,786 survey respondents, 61 percent are nondrivers that either do not have a driver’s license or a vehicle
in the household. The other 39 percent are nondrivers by choice (or lifestyle).
TOOLE DESIGN | 20
NONDRIVERS: POPULATION, DEMOGRAPHICS & ANALYSIS | FINAL DRAFT
TOOLE DESIGN | 21
Table 6. Nondriver Survey Respondents Groups
Number of
Respondents
Respondent Group
1,428
Do not have a driver’s license.
282
Have a driver’s license but no vehicle in household.
810
Have a driver’s license and a vehicle in household but are not the
primary driver of that vehicle.
266
Have a driver’s license, a vehicle in household, and are the primary
driver but do not drive it to meet most transportation needs.
Detailed Findings
The survey asked those that qualified as nondrivers about their demographics to build a comprehensive picture of
who they are and to compare demographics across nondriver groups: whether they hold a valid driver’s license,
have access to a vehicle in their household, or are the primary driver of that vehicle. The following section breaks
down who the nondrivers are by gender, age, race and ethnicity, household type and size, and income, identifying
significant trends for each nondriver group.
Additional demographic information is available in Appendix 1B.
Gender
Figure 4. Gender Distribution of Nondriver Survey Respondents (n=2,786)
* U.S. Decennial Census 2020 (U.S. Census Bureau)
50%
50%
Washington State Population*
Male Female
35%
60%
3%
2%
Nondriver Survey Respondents
Male Female Non-Binary Refused
NONDRIVERS: POPULATION, DEMOGRAPHICS & ANALYSIS | FINAL DRAFT
TOOLE DESIGN | 22
More women than men responded to the survey and proportionally more women than men have a valid
driver’s license. 60 percent of nondriver survey respondents were female, and 35 percent were male. Compared
to the population of Washington State (U.S. Census Bureau 2020), female survey respondents represent a
significantly larger share than males. Proportionally, more female nondriver respondents have a valid driver’s
license compared to male nondriver respondents, but more male nondriver respondents indicated that they are
the primary driver of a vehicle in their household
5
.
Age
Nondriver survey respondents tend to be younger. Survey respondents were younger than the overall
population of Washington when compared to the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey (2016-2020
5-Year Estimates). 70 percent of survey respondents were under the age of 45 and 24 percent were younger than
25. Proportionally, fewer seniors met the nondriver screening questions and were selected to participate in the
survey (compared to the Washington population), despite a conscious effort to reach this demographic group.
Senior nondrivers were more likely to have a driver’s license and more likely to have a vehicle in their household
compared to the nondriver survey respondents under 64 years old. Also, respondents under the age of 25 were
more likely to indicate that they are not the primary driver of a vehicle in their household compared to respondents
over the age of 25.
Figure 5. Age Distribution of Nondriver Survey Respondents (n=2,786)
* U.S. Decennial Census 2020 (U.S. Census Bureau)
Income
Nondriver survey respondents tend to be lower income. The survey had a larger share of lower income
nondriver respondents compared to the population of Washington, which supports other survey findings related to
high car ownership costs and a common sentiment among nondriver survey respondents who felt owning a car
was too expensive (see
5
A contemporary and thorough revision of the research literature and complexity of car access and use by gender in auto-deficit households is
provided by Evelyn Blumenberg, Andrew Schouten, and Anne Brown (2022). Who’s in the driver’s seat? Gender and the division of car use
in auto-deficit households. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice. Volume 162, August 2022, pages 14-26.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
18 to 24 years 25 to 44 years 45 to 54 years 55 to 64 years 65 to 74 years 75 and Over
Washington State Population* Nondriver Survey Respondents
NONDRIVERS: POPULATION, DEMOGRAPHICS & ANALYSIS | FINAL DRAFT
TOOLE DESIGN | 23
Reasons: What are the reasons Nondriver survey repondents do not drive?). Close to 15 percent of the
Washington population has an annual household income of less than $25,000. In contrast, more than 40 percent
of nondriver survey respondents have a household income of less than $28,000. Survey respondents with higher
income (more than $56,000) indicated having a valid driver’s license, a vehicle in their household, and being the
primary driver of a vehicle more often than those with lower income levels.
Figure 6. Household income distribution of survey respondents (n=2,786) versus state population*
* The breakdowns of the charts above do not match, because the Nondriver Population Survey used a different income scale than the figures
reported by the U.S. Census ACS. The survey breakdowns were chosen to better reflect levels of poverty according to federal standards,
where $14,000 is roughly equal to the federal poverty line of an individual and $28,000 that of a family of four.
Race
More African American and Native Americans nondrivers responded to the survey compared to the
overall Washington State population. Nine percent (9%) of nondriver respondents were African American and
seven percent (7%) were Native American. These are significantly higher response rates compared to the
population of Washington State. Response rates from other racial and ethnic groups closely matched overall
population size.
16%
10%
15%
22%
20%
8%
11%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
Nondriver Survey Respondents
4%
3%
7%
18%
31%
38%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
Washington State Population
NONDRIVERS: POPULATION, DEMOGRAPHICS & ANALYSIS | FINAL DRAFT
TOOLE DESIGN | 24
Figure 7. Race and Ethnicity of Nondriver Survey Respondents (n=2,786)
* 2020 American Community Survey (U.S. Census Bureau 2020)
Housing Status
Nondriver survey respondents tend to rent, rather than own a home. A majority of the nondriver survey
respondents (53%) were individuals who rented instead of owned their homes. This contrasts the norm for
Washington State where about two-thirds of residents own their home and about one-third rent. Survey results
also show representation from those living in vehicles, temporary shelters, or group quarters for which
comparable census data are not available.
Figure 8. Housing Status of Nondriver Survey Respondents (n=2,786)
* 2020 American Community Survey (U.S. Census Bureau 2020)
Household Size
Nondriver survey respondents tend to belong to a larger household size. One-third of survey respondents
live in a household with more than four people compared to about one-quarter (23%) of the Washington
population. The difference is statistically significant and indicates that nondrivers live in larger household sizes.
74%
13%
9%
4%
1%
1%
0%
5%
0%
70%
11%
7%
9%
7%
3%
1%
0%
5%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
Caucasian Hispanic Asian African
American
Native
American
Pacific
Islander
Middle
Eastern
Other Prefer not to
say
Washington State Population* Nondriver Survey Respondents
37%
63%
53%
27%
9%
4%
8%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
Rent a house or
apartment
Own a house or
apartment
Vehicle, tent, couch-
surfing, temporary
shelter, or hotel
Group quarters (e.g.,
dorm, group home)
Prefer not to say
Washington State Population* Nondriver Survey Respondents
NONDRIVERS: POPULATION, DEMOGRAPHICS & ANALYSIS | FINAL DRAFT
TOOLE DESIGN | 25
This result correlates with the fact that nondriver survey respondents are younger, with about one-quarter being
under the age of 25 and living with family.
Figure 9. Household Size of Nondriver Survey Respondents (n=2,786)
* 2020 American Community Survey (U.S. Census Bureau 2020)
Transportation Responsibility for Others
Most nondriver survey respondents are not responsible for the transportation needs of others. More than
two-thirds (69%) of nondriver survey respondents indicated that they are not responsible for the mobility needs of
others, whether a child, dependent, or other nondriver in the household.
Figure 10. Nondrivers Responsible for the Transportation Needs of Others (n=2,786)
27%
35%
15%
23%
17%
28%
18%
33%
4%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
1 2 3 4 or more Prefer not to say
Washington State Population* Nondriver Survey Repondents
25%
69%
7%
Yes
No
Prefer not to say
NONDRIVERS: POPULATION, DEMOGRAPHICS & ANALYSIS | FINAL DRAFT
TOOLE DESIGN | 26
REASONS: WHAT ARE THE REASONS NONDRIVER SURVEY
REPONDENTS DO NOT DRIVE?
The survey prompted nondriver respondents to answer the following question: “Which of the following best
describes your reason for not driving?” Respondents were allowed to select multiple reasons including “other” and
“prefer not to say.” The responses were examined for comparison across demographic differences.
Detailed Findings
Nondriver survey respondents cited cost, above all else, as their reason for not driving. 40 percent said the costs
of purchasing, operating, and maintaining a vehicle are too high, while another 28 percent stated that the costs of
vehicle registration and insurance are too high. Additional reasons — including a disability that prevents them
from driving, lifestyle preference, and lack of driver’s license — were also mentioned as reasons for not driving.
About 1 in 6 survey respondents (17%) selected “other,” and those that wrote in an option mentioned a
suspended license, partner uses the car, fear and/or anxiety, and other reasons for not driving.
Figure 11. Nondriver Survey Respondents Primary Reasons for Not Driving (n=2,786).
Additional information on barriers to driving by demographic are provided in Appendix 1C.
Reasons for not driving varied across demographic groups. More males than females selected the cost of
purchasing and maintaining a vehicle, and the cost of registration and insurance, as the primary reasons for not
driving. Besides cost, more females stated that disability status or other medical conditions were reasons for not
driving, while more males stated a preference for a lifestyle without a car. Proportionally, more females stated that
not knowing how to drive was a reason for not driving compared to males.
When broken down by age, cost (vehicle purchase and maintenance costs and insurance and registration) was
the primary reason for not driving for those under 45 years old. For adults 45 years old and older, the primary
reasons for not driving were disability status or other medical condition. When looking at lifestyle preferences,
more nondriver survey respondents under 45 years old preferred a lifestyle without a car compared to those over
45. Similarly, knowing how to drive and/or the cost to obtain a license were limiting factors for younger nondriver
survey respondents.
40%
28%
19%
17%
14%
17%
9%
Cost of vehicle and maintence
Cost of vehicle registration and/or
insurance
Disability or condition that prevents
or limits driving
Prefer a lifestyle without a car
Doesn't know how to drive and/or
cost of driver's license
Other
Prefer not to say
NONDRIVERS: POPULATION, DEMOGRAPHICS & ANALYSIS | FINAL DRAFT
TOOLE DESIGN | 27
Respondents with lower income (under $56,000) cited the cost of registration/insurance and disability status as a
reason for not driving more often than respondents with higher income (above $56,000). Lower income survey
respondents also reported the lowest rate of preferring a car-free lifestyle while also citing a lack of driver’s
education and/or cost to obtain a license as a reason not to drive.
Survey respondents from the most populated and urban counties identified vehicle cost and maintenance as the
primary reason for not driving at a higher proportional rate than respondents from the least populated and rural
counties, although both groups stated vehicle cost and maintenance as the main reason for not driving.
Respondents from the least populated and rural counties stated that disability or other medical conditions were
the third most common reason for not driving and this represented a higher proportional rate than urban
respondents. Respondents from the most populated and urban counties reported higher rates of preferring a car-
free lifestyle and not knowing how to drive, as reasons not to drive, as compared to their rural peers.
MOBILITY AND ACCESS: HOW DO NONDRIVER SURVEY
RESPONDENTS GET AROUND AND ACCESS DAILY LIFE
ACTIVITIES?
The survey asked respondents extensively about their available options for transportation – including cars, public
transit, paratransit, taxis, ridesharing, bicycles, scooters, and walking – and their ability to access daily life
activities. Nondriver survey respondents were also asked about their frequency of travel, ease of access, and
preferred mode of travel when accessing different daily life activities. Daily life activities included access to
employment, education, food and groceries, health care, childcare, recreation activities, social and family
activities, and other aspects of community life such as places of faith.
Detailed Findings
Most nondriver survey respondents traveled in the last 30 days to access food and groceries (81%), followed by
medical care (73%), recreation (68%), and social, family, and spiritual activities (62%). Just under one half of the
nondriver survey respondents traveled to access education and employment (48%), and only 12 percent of them
traveled to access child and dependent care.
Filtering survey results for nondriver survey respondents who traveled to daily life activities more than once a
week in the last 30 days, the project team found that about two-thirds of these nondrivers (65%) traveled to
education and employment, about 40 percent traveled to access child or dependent care, and just over one
quarter (26%) traveled to access food and groceries. These nondriver survey respondents traveled less frequently
to access recreation (21%), social, family, and spiritual activities (17%), and medical or health care (7%).
The analysis of survey results did not find significant differences in mode of access and frequency of travel
between demographic groups. Additional information on travel frequency and transportation mode of nondrivers is
available in Appendix 1D.
NONDRIVERS: POPULATION, DEMOGRAPHICS & ANALYSIS | FINAL DRAFT
TOOLE DESIGN | 28
Travel Frequency and Mode
Figure 12. Percentage of Nondrivers that Traveled to Daily Life Activities at least once in the Last 30 Days
Figure 13. Percentage of Nondrivers that Traveled to Daily Life Activities More Than Once per Week in the
Last 30 Days
Across all travel to daily life activities that was reported by nondriver survey respondents, the three most common
travel modes that nondrivers used were being driven by friends or family, riding a fixed-route bus or train, and
walking or rolling (e.g., mobility device, mobility scooter, or wheelchair).
81%
73%
68%
62%
48%
12%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Food/groceries
Medical/health care
Recreation
Social/family/spiritual
Education/employment
Child/dependent care
65%
38%
26%
21%
17%
7%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
Education/employment
Child/dependent care
Food/groceries
Recreation
Social/family/spiritual
Medical/health care
NONDRIVERS: POPULATION, DEMOGRAPHICS & ANALYSIS | FINAL DRAFT
TOOLE DESIGN | 29
Figure 14. Percentage of Nondrivers that Traveled to Daily Life Activities by Most Common Travel Mode
Note: percentages reflect preferred transportation mode and travel in the last 30 days for all nondriver survey respondents, regardless of
frequency of travel, which is why access to child and dependent care is proportionally lower, because many survey respondents indicated not
have traveled to that activity.
Overall Usability of Transportation Options
Nondriver survey respondents were asked about the usability of different transportation options, by rating the
ease of use of different travel modes. Nondriver survey respondents stated that the easiest options included cars
driven by friends or family, walking or rolling, riding fixed-route buses or trains, and riding a taxi or ride-hail
service. The most difficult options included driving a car, using a community transportation or paratransit service,
and pedaling or scooting (riding a bike or scooter).
Overall usability of different transportation options varied by demographic group as summarized below:
▪ Gender: Pedal or scoot, walk or roll, fixed route bus or train, volunteer/community transportation, and taxi
and ride hail are easier for male nondriver survey respondents to use compared to their female
counterparts.
▪ Age: Most transportation options are easier to use for younger nondriver survey respondents, but older
nondriver survey respondents do not need to use transportation as often as younger nondriver survey
respondents.
▪ Income: Pedal or scoot, taxi and ride hail, car driven by friends and family, and driving a car themselves is
easier to use for nondriver survey respondents with higher income compared to those with lower income.
▪ Location: Pedal or scoot, fixed route bus or train, taxis or ride hail, and car driven by friends or family are
easier for urban nondriver survey respondents to use than their rural counterparts. Urban nondriver survey
respondents said they do not need to use paratransit and volunteer/community transportation more often
than their rural counterparts.
24%
5%
49%
39%
42%
39%
23%
4%
26%
27%
21%
23%
14%
3%
24%
27%
17%
14%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Driven by friends/family Bus or train Walked or Rolled
NONDRIVERS: POPULATION, DEMOGRAPHICS & ANALYSIS | FINAL DRAFT
TOOLE DESIGN | 30
▪ Disability status: Pedal or scoot, walk or roll, fixed route bus or train, taxis and ride hail, and driving a car
themselves is easier for physically abled nondriver survey respondents to use compared to those with a
disability.
Figure 15. Ease of Use of Travel Options as rated by Nondriver Survey Respondents (n=2,786)
Additional information on transportation usability by demographic is available in Appendix 1E.
Overall Access to Daily Life Activities
Nondriver survey respondents were asked about their ability to access different activities – including recreation
opportunities, child or dependent care, food and groceries, social, family, or spiritual activities, medical and
healthcare needs, and education and employment.
More than 50 percent of nondriver survey respondents stated that they can easily access food and groceries,
recreation, social, family, or spiritual activities, and medical or healthcare needs. About one half of survey
respondents stated that they do not need to access child or dependent care, and about one in five (21%) said that
they do not need to access education or employment.
The most difficult activities for nondriver survey respondents to access are medical and health care with 35
percent saying that is somewhat difficult, very difficult or not possible. Access to education and employment,
recreation, and social, family or spiritual activities is somewhat difficult, very difficult, or not possible for 28 percent
of respondents.
Additional information on access to daily life activities by demographic is provided in Appendix 1F.
25%
25%
17%
19%
28%
27%
21%
11%
28%
12%
14%
13%
18%
12%
14%
16%
17%
13%
24%
36%
50%
48%
21%
24%
40%
64%
40%
26%
19%
14%
10%
26%
24%
16%
4%
12%
14%
6%
5%
5%
13%
11%
7%
4%
6%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Other
Pedal or scoot
Walk or roll
Fixed route bus or train
Paratransit
Community Transportation
Taxis and ride hail
Car driven by friends or
family
Car as driver
Not available or very difficult Somewhat difficult Somewhat easy/very easy
Do not need to use Prefer not to say
NONDRIVERS: POPULATION, DEMOGRAPHICS & ANALYSIS | FINAL DRAFT
TOOLE DESIGN | 31
Figure 16. Ease of Access to Daily Life Activities as rated by Nondriver Survey Respondents
As mentioned above, some activities are easier for nondriver survey respondents to get to than others and some
do not need to access activities compared to others.
▪ Gender: Female nondriver survey respondents report less need to access education and employment as
opposed to males, and more males report that access to education and employment is easier more often
than their female counterparts.
▪ Age: Older nondriver survey respondents report less need to access education and employment, social,
family, or spiritual, child, or dependent care, and recreation activities, as opposed to younger age groups.
Younger age groups report education and employment and recreation as being easier to access more
often than older age groups.
▪ Income: Income has more impact on access to activities other than demographic characteristics. Those
with lower income found it more difficult to access education and employment, medical and health care, all
other activities compared to higher income nondriver survey respondents. Lower income nondriver survey
respondents also reported that they do not need access to education and employment more often than
those with higher income.
▪ Location: Rural nondriver survey respondents said that education and employment, medical and health
care, and all other activities are harder to access than urban nondrivers. Urban nondriver survey
respondents do not need to access child or dependent care as much as their rural counterparts.
▪ Disability Status: Disabled nondriver survey respondents said they do not need to access education and
employment and child or dependent care more often than physically abled nondrivers. Disabled nondriver
survey respondents said it was more difficult to access social, family, or spiritual and recreation activities
compared to non-disabled nondriver survey respondents.
12%
13%
11%
10%
9%
11%
16%
22%
17%
16%
9%
18%
44%
55%
54%
64%
25%
59%
5%
3%
4%
5%
2%
4%
21%
4%
10%
3%
49%
6%
4%
3%
3%
3%
5%
3%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Education/employment
Medical/health care
Social/family/spiritual
Food/groceries
Chlid/dependent care
Recreation
Not possible or very difficult Somewhat difficult Somewhat easy/very easy
Access without travel Do not need to access Prefer not to say
NONDRIVERS: POPULATION, DEMOGRAPHICS & ANALYSIS | FINAL DRAFT
TOOLE DESIGN | 32
IMPACT: WHAT, IF ANY, ARE THE IMPACTS OF
TRANSPORTATION OPTIONS ON ACCESS TO DAILY LIFE
ACTIVITIES AND QUALITY OF LIFE?
The survey asked nondriver respondents how often they skip going somewhere, are late getting somewhere,
worry about getting somewhere, or worry about inconveniencing others due to transportation options. The survey
included two open-ended questions that asked about the impact of the nondriver status on respondents’ quality of
life and suggestions to improve their transportation options. The project team assessed the impact that nondriver
status and existing alternative transportation options have on nondriver survey respondents and found several
key findings presented below.
Detailed Findings
What is the impact of nondriver status on travel behavior?
Travel behavior of nondriver survey respondents is often or very often impacted by their nondriving
status. Nondriver survey respondents were asked a series of questions about the impact of problems with
transportation on their travel behavior in the past 30 days. At least once a week if not more often, 23 percent of
nondrivers will skip going somewhere because of a problem with transportation, 22 percent will be late when not
driving, 34 percent worry about being able to get somewhere, and 39 percent worry about inconveniencing friends
and family.
Figure 17. Frequency at which nondriver survey respondents indicated they…
11%
12%
27%
27%
23%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
Very Often
(More Than
Once A
Week)
Often
(Once A
Week)
Sometimes
(Several
Times A
Month)
Rarely
(Once A
Month)
Never
Skipped Going Somewhere
A
9%
12%
25%
27%
27%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
Very Often
(More Than
Once A
Week)
Often
(Once A
Week)
Sometimes
(Several
Times A
Month)
Rarely
(Once A
Month)
Never
Were Late Going Somewhere
B
19%
15%
25%
19%
22%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
Very Often
(More Than
Once A
Week)
Often
(Once A
Week)
Sometimes
(Several
Times A
Month)
Rarely
(Once A
Month)
Never
Worry About Getting Somewhere
C
22%
17%
23%
16%
22%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
Very Often
(More Than
Once A
Week)
Often
(Once A
Week)
Sometimes
(Several
Times A
Month)
Rarely
(Once A
Month)
Never
Worry About Inconveniencing Others
D
NONDRIVERS: POPULATION, DEMOGRAPHICS & ANALYSIS | FINAL DRAFT
TOOLE DESIGN | 33
The impact of travel behavior in response to the questions presented above varies by gender, age, and income,
and to a lesser extent by location and disability status.
Females, younger, and lower income nondriver survey respondents skipped going somewhere due to
their nondriver status more than their male, older, and higher income peers. While one half of nondriver
survey respondents indicated they rarely or never skipped going somewhere because of transportation, 12
percent of females indicated that they skip going somewhere more than once a week while only 9 percent of
males had the same response.
Younger nondriver survey respondents are more impacted by their transportation options, they said they skipped
going somewhere due to transportation “very often” or “often” more frequently than older nondriver survey
respondents. In addition, 38 percent of those 65 years old and older said they “never” skipped going somewhere,
which is a statistically significant higher proportion than the other age groups.
Income is another contributing factor, with lower income nondriver survey participants indicating that they skipped
going somewhere more than once per week more often than higher income levels. 57 percent of those with
annual income of $56,000 or higher indicated that they rarely or never skip going somewhere due to
transportation, which is a statistically significant higher proportion than the lower income levels.
Females, younger, and lower income nondriver survey respondents were late getting somewhere due to
their nondriver status more than their male, older, and higher income peers. When asked how often they
were late getting somewhere because of a problem with transportation, 10 percent of female nondriver survey
respondents said this occurs more than once per week which is a statistically significant higher proportion than
the 7 percent of males who also said this occurs more than once a week.
Younger nondriver survey respondents were late getting somewhere more often than survey respondents 65 and
older, with 53 percent of those 65 and older saying that they were never late getting somewhere (compared to a
range of 20%-36% for the other age levels).
Nondriver survey respondents with annual income under $14,000 said they were late getting somewhere more
than once a week more often than those with income over $25,000, and 29 percent of those with income $56,000
and up said they were never late getting somewhere, which was a statistically significant higher proportion than
the other income levels. One-third (33%) of nondriver survey respondents with a disability said they were never
late getting somewhere, which was a statistically significant higher proportion than the 26 percent of nondriver
survey respondents without a disability.
Females, younger, and lower income nondriver survey respondents worry about being able to get
somewhere due to not driving more than their male, older, and higher income peers. 21 percent of female
nondriver survey respondents worried about getting somewhere more than once per week, which was a
statistically significant higher proportion than the 15 percent of males who worry more than once a week.
The differences between income and age levels were also significant. Generally, younger nondriver survey
respondents worried about getting somewhere more frequently than their older counter parts (those 45 years old
and older). 27 percent of nondriver survey respondents with annual income under $14,000 worried about getting
somewhere more than once a week, which is a statistically significant higher proportion than the 18 percent with
income between $14,000 and $56,000 and the 14 percent with income over $56,000. Most respondents (51%)
with income over $56,000 said that they either rarely (once a month) or never worry about being able to get
somewhere.
NONDRIVERS: POPULATION, DEMOGRAPHICS & ANALYSIS | FINAL DRAFT
TOOLE DESIGN | 34
Females, younger, lower income, and disabled nondriver survey respondents worry about
inconveniencing others due to their nondriver status more than their male, older, higher income, and non-
disabled peers. Female nondriver survey participants worry about inconveniencing others more than male
nondriver survey respondents. 26 percent of female nondriver survey respondents said that they worry about
inconveniencing others because they need help with transportation more than once per week, which is a
statistically significant higher proportion compared to 16 percent of male nondriver survey respondents.
Younger nondriver survey respondents worry about inconveniencing others because they need help with
transportation more than older nondriver survey respondents. For example, those under 65 years old said “very
often” more than those 65 and older, and 39 percent of those 65 and older said they “never” worry about
inconveniencing others which is a statistically significant higher proportion than those in age categories under 65.
Lower income nondriver survey participants worried more often about inconveniencing others because they need
help with transportation more than higher income survey respondents. Nondriver survey respondents with a
disability worry more about inconveniencing others because they need more help with transportation than
nondriver survey respondents without a disability.
Additional information on transportation impact by demographic group is provided in Appendix 1G.
What is the impact of nondriver status on quality of life?
Nondrivers were asked about how their transportation options affected the quality of their lives in an open-ended
question. The project team reviewed and coded responses as either positive, neutral, negative, or no response
across a variety of themes, including everything from their daily life activities, employment opportunities, costs,
independence or dependence, mood, and safety among others.
Additional information on open-ended questions, codes, and frequency of coded responses is available in
Appendix 1H.
Overall, nondriver status negatively impacts nondriver survey respondents’ quality of life. Some survey
respondents noted the benefits of not driving. Benefits such as increased efficiency in taking public transit and not
having to park or look for parking, as well as improved mental and physical well-being with walking or biking were
coded 93 times out of 3,071 total codes across responses. However, more often nondriver survey respondents
cited daily negative impacts across almost all aspects of their lives. Negative impacts were coded 1,508 times
across 15 different categories out of 3,071 total codes across responses.
“Without reliable transport options, everything in my life is negatively affected. I will not go to
events, not shop in certain stores, and even reschedule medical appointments because of
limited access (female, 43 years old, Kitsap County).”
Within the responses that identified a negative impact, 282 responses indicated that daily life is negatively
impacted by non-driving, with an additional 97 responses indicating that quality of life is degraded as a nondriver.
In addition, 168 responses indicated that nondrivers limit their number of trips, including essential trips such as
commuting to work or medical appointments. Others feel their social and family life is negatively impacted with
some respondents saying they are “excluded” from their social circles.
“I have three brothers. One lives close, one across state, one across the coast. Either way, it
would cost me so much money to ever take the initiative to visit them, that I hardly ever see
any of them (female, 27 years old, Clark County).”
NONDRIVERS: POPULATION, DEMOGRAPHICS & ANALYSIS | FINAL DRAFT
TOOLE DESIGN | 35
The most prevalent challenge for nondriver survey respondents was trip-planning, with 194 responses
citing a lack of reliable transportation options where they live. Many felt they “do not have transit options” citing
“lengthy and cumbersome” bus rides during rush hour, difficult to understand schedules, and a lack of any public
transit in some places as barriers to using transit. Others mentioned lacking friends or family who can provide
transportation and the high cost of ride-share vehicles as barriers to transportation.
"Using the bus is very helpful but it’s got very exact times and sometimes I end up having to
wait quite a while because it just didn’t fit with my schedule. Getting my friends and family to
drive me around is difficult because it’s really up to them and sometimes they’re just not up for
it. Which is totally not their fault. I often stay home because of transportation
(female, 19 years old, Snohomish County)."
What do Nondrivers suggest for improving their transportation options?
Nondriver survey respondents overall suggested that improved transportation services would improve
their quality of life. Most nondrivers see cars as the best option for increased freedom and mobility in their lives,
with nearly a quarter of responses suggesting that more affordable cars, registration fees, and license fees would
improve their quality of life.
“A personal vehicle certainly does open up options for just about everything and that would be
very nice (male, 42 years old, Thurston County).”
The second most common suggestion was to improve transit routes, particularly bus service, would improve their
quality of life. Additional routes and more reliable schedules, including extended services on Sundays and
Holidays, as well as lower fares were most often cited as improvements that would make the most difference to
them.
“More express buses operating from more locations and to more neighborhoods. I appreciate
the expansion of the rail service but it's too little and too slow. The prices of bus fares are also
too prohibitive for someone who just barely makes more than the cutoff for reduced fare and
who also can't afford rising rental costs, food, etc. (non-binary, 43 years old, King County)”
Some respondents suggested that they would like to use public transit but cannot access it easily. Improved “last
mile” mobility to and from transit would bridge gaps for many nondrivers between home and their destinations,
Examples of improved “last mile” options include improved sidewalks, safe routes, additional bike lanes, scooters,
paratransit, shuttle service or rideshare options, and accessibility at transit locations (ramps, elevators, etc.).
“Improvement of city layout would come to mind, so that areas are a lot more walkable. Better,
more access to public transportation would be extremely beneficial. Having more affordable
options than things like Uber, would also help (female, 19 years old, King County).”
Most respondents cited bus service as their priority for improved service, though some mentioned light rail
expansion and sounder trains as well. All who mentioned transit recommended increased or more flexible service.
NONDRIVERS: POPULATION, DEMOGRAPHICS & ANALYSIS | FINAL DRAFT
TOOLE DESIGN | 36
FOCUS GROUPS FINDINGS
The researchers worked with focus groups to validate possible trends and findings from the market research
statewide survey. Specifically, to better understand differences across three distinct segments of Washington
State’s nondriver population, nondrivers from the most populated and urban counties, nondrivers from the least
populated and rural counties, and nondrivers with disabilities.
Urban nondrivers were identified as those who live within one of the 10 most populated counties in the State –
King, Pierce, Snohomish, Spokane, Clark, Thurston, Kitsap, Yakima, Whatcom, and Benton Counties. Rural
nondrivers were identified as residents of all other counties.
While each group had their own unique experiences, needs, and reasoning behind why they define themselves as
nondrivers, ranging from disability, to income, to lack of access to vehicles, and to lifestyle choices, the project
team also found that they have similar needs and experiences.
MOBILITY NEEDS AND ACCESS
Across all nondriver focus groups we found that needs for transportation are relatively similar, though some
groups may have a need more often than others. Urban nondrivers in the focus groups are more likely to be
traveling for work or school needs, while disabled and older drivers are traveling for medical needs.
Most focus group nondrivers use public transportation at least occasionally. Rural focus group participants were
more likely to rely on friends and family for their transportation needs, while urban participants were much more
self-reliant. Disabled participants often found themselves using a combination of public and medical transport
services to travel both short and long distances.
Universally, focus groups participants expressed that being a nondriver required some leniency and pre-planning
to get to their destinations. Many expressed experiences with longer commutes or travel times due to using
alternative transportation options other than driving a personal vehicle.
Scheduling, and completing planned tasks like medical appointments and grocery shopping, as well as going to
work and school, were not necessarily major challenges to our focus group participants, but completing
unscheduled tasks, having to travel for unplanned events, were major challenges.
Examples include going to social events, visiting friends, and even addressing urgent needs can be difficult as
most available transportation options required some scheduling and planning to be accomplished. On-demand
transportation options were either not considered, outside of budget, or not available to our focus group
participants.
TRANSPORTATION ACCESS OPPORTUNITIES AND
CHALLENGES
Focus group participants expressed general acceptance, and happiness with the options they have available. A
few participants had their own unique challenges, and most were due to a lack of public services, coupled with a
lack of friends or other individuals they could rely upon to assist. Those that felt they were in a place of
“transportation independence” were satisfied with their transportation options and happy to share the modes they
use, and why.
Rural and urban participants mentioned walking as a reliable alternative to public transportation. Leveraging
relationships for rides, such as getting a ride from a friend or family member, except for some instances where
individuals had strong community groups or friends, was a particular challenge to many.
NONDRIVERS: POPULATION, DEMOGRAPHICS & ANALYSIS | FINAL DRAFT
TOOLE DESIGN | 37
Another challenge across all segments is finding transportation services outside of key service hours. Rural and
disabled focus group participants were particularly constrained on their travel times due to key services they
utilize for transportation ending at 5:00 p.m. or 6:00 p.m. daily. Attending and going to evening social events or
traveling to out-of-the-ordinary places was a particular challenge to these segments.
Traveling outside of close proximity of one’s home, or outside of one’s regular routine was also a key challenge to
focus group participants. Urban participants were more likely to have a personal vehicle in their household that
they would use for these “one-off” types of trips, while rural and disabled participants mentioned “missing out” or
“skipping” these types of trips due to the challenges posed by finding transportation during a non-normal period or
via non-normal means.
When thinking of improvements to transportation options, focus group participants suggested better sidewalks
and walking or biking paths, improved or increased service routes, as well as better notifications, signage, and
alerts about public transportation pickups. An example used was more accurate, or more accessible “where is my
bus now” apps, as well as notification reader boards for those who may not have smart devices available to track
their ride status.
IMPACTS ON QUALITY OF LIFE
Many focus group participants suggested that while being a nondriver offered cost savings due to not having the
direct costs associated with maintaining a vehicle, they also experienced specific losses of “independence” and
“freedom.” Specific examples include not traveling to a specific event or location due to lack of accessibility. Or
not being able to solve an urgent matter; for example, they feel ill enough to want to go to urgent care for a visit
but are unable to find transportation to the urgent care facility due to it being a Sunday.
Impacts expressed by urban nondriver focus group participants also include additional time spent commuting and
choosing specific workplaces or housing locations that are near transit.
Rural participants relayed concerns about a lack of freedom and a feeling of being “homebound” due to limited
transportation options.
Safety concerns also came up as a discussion topic when discussing impacts on quality of life during this study.
Some focus group participants shared they chose to be a nondriver to be healthier, they shared that they enjoy
walking and biking and find the health benefits to outweigh the costs (mostly urban participants suggested this).
Additional safety concerns raised included worries about safety while waiting for transportation at bus stops,
issues with crossing streets, issues with the reliability and existence of sidewalks in areas they are traveling, and
issues with other passengers on shared transportation.
Additional information on the Focus Groups is provided in Appendix 1I.
MARKET RESEARCH CONCLUSIONS
STUDY LIMITATIONS
As with any market research survey, there is the potential for sampling bias and non-response bias. Sampling
bias occurs when there is reason to believe that some members of the public had a lower or higher chance of
being sampled. This can lead to results that lean towards demographics and/or characteristics based on ability to
access the survey. The project team utilized a market research firm to ensure minimal sampling bias. The market
research firm conducted a large phone survey effort to increase survey accessibility to older members of the
NONDRIVERS: POPULATION, DEMOGRAPHICS & ANALYSIS | FINAL DRAFT
TOOLE DESIGN | 38
population who may be less computer savvy. The market research team intentionally sampled at higher rates in
rural counties to account for lower populations, which required more effort to reach a representative sample of
nondrivers. The phone survey was offered in English and Spanish, and the online survey was available in multiple
languages. At the same time, the research design required the nondriver to be the individual taking the survey.
This leaves out people with disabilities who were unable to either cognitively or physically take the survey and are
under the care of others.
The other concern is non-response bias, which occurs when individuals from a particular demographic category
or nondriver characteristic agree to participate in a survey at a greater rate than other demographics. This survey
effort had more substantial screening requirements than typical market research efforts (see Appendix A). While
in more typical market research efforts females tend to respond at higher rates than males, the response ratios
within this study were greater than those of more typical market research efforts without screening questions.
Similarly, the nondriver survey respondents skewed younger in this study than they do in typical market research
efforts. Because the lower response of males and older individuals skewed far greater than what the project team
expects from typical market research, the project team believes it is more likely (than not) that the demographic
information presented in this analysis is more representative of the nondriver population in Washington state than
it reflects response bias.
The analysis of survey questions by demographic characteristics represents comparisons between groups within
demographic categories. It does not provide information about primary differences by demographic characteristics
when controlling for other demographic characteristics. For example, we noticed differences in responses by
gender and income levels, but this analysis does not look within a particular gender category (e.g., women) to
further identify patterns about income levels within the female subgroup.
POSSIBLE FURTHER ANALYSIS & FUTURE RESEARCH
Further analysis could be conducted on subgroups of this dataset, including those without a driver’s license and
those without a vehicle in their household. These segments may be less oriented towards choosing to be a
nondriver and may be a nondriver determined by circumstance (i.e., disability that prevents them from obtaining a
license, income that will not support a vehicle and insurance, etc.). The crosstabs segmentation could also be
done to look more closely at relationships within different demographic characteristics (e.g., female nondrivers). In
addition to expanding the use of crosstabs to segment groups of nondrivers, regression modeling and factor
analysis could be used to identify relationships between nondriver characteristics and particular impacts
associated with being a nondriver (e.g., missed trips more than once per week because of issues with
transportation).
This study used a market research approach and utilized a panel of random phone numbers and email addresses
to identify nondrivers across the State. In doing so, we may have missed information from target audiences. In
addition, this study only included nondrivers 18 years and older. Additional and different research approaches
could be utilized to conduct further study of disabled nondrivers, senior nondrivers, and youth, who may have
limited representation in this study.
NONDRIVERS: POPULATION, DEMOGRAPHICS & ANALYSIS | FINAL DRAFT
TOOLE DESIGN | 39
4. TRANSPORTATION
OPTIONS ANALYSIS
NONDRIVERS: POPULATION, DEMOGRAPHICS & ANALYSIS | FINAL DRAFT
TOOLE DESIGN | 40
4. TRANSPORTATION OPTIONS
ANALYSIS
The interactive map and dataset include a compilation of geospatial information from the U.S. Census Bureau’s
American Community Survey Five-Year Estimates (2016-2020) and Decennial Census (2020), the Washington
State Department of Licensing, the 2020 Federal Highway Administration’s Highway Statistics Series, Open
Street Map data, and GIS data from the Washington State Department of Transportation Public Transportation
Division. This information was used to estimate the vehicle ownership and licensing data of the driving-age
population around the state, to analyze the demographic characteristics that make up the nondriver population,
and ultimately to estimate the size of the nondriver population around the state at the census tract and county
level. A geospatial analysis was used to identify categories of travel destinations and daily life activities around
the state, and to measure level of access to these destinations, via available transportation options, in increments
of 15, 30, and 60 minutes.
DAILY LIFE ACTIVITIES
Travel destinations (daily life activities) were grouped into five distinctive categories: services, economic
opportunity, recreation, education, and other aspects of community life. For the purpose of the analysis, these
categories were assumed to include the following destinations:
Services
▪ Healthcare Services: Including regional hospitals and medical districts, outpatient clinics and dental
centers, community hospitals and clinics, and pharmacies.
▪ Food Services: Including big box retailers such as Walmart, Costco, Target, and Fred Meyer’s,
supermarkets and grocery stores, local markets, minimarkets, and bodegas.
Economic Opportunity
▪ Jobs and Employment: Includes jobs from goods producing industries, trade and transportation
industries, essential service industries, and professional service industries.
Education
▪ Educational Establishments: Including colleges, universities, high schools, elementary and middle
schools.
Recreation
▪ Parks and Recreation: Including parks, recreational facilities, and beaches and lakefront parks.
Other Aspects of Community Life
▪ Community Life Destinations: Including libraries, community centers, faith and spiritual centers, and
senior housing and care facilities.
TRANSPORTATION OPTIONS
The analysis of transportation options was also grouped into four major modes of transportation – driving a car,
riding public transit, riding a bicycle, and walking. Public transit options included a review of fixed-route and on-
NONDRIVERS: POPULATION, DEMOGRAPHICS & ANALYSIS | FINAL DRAFT
TOOLE DESIGN | 41
demand services from all public transit agencies in the state, and a review of tribal, community-based, and social
service agency transportation services.
ACCESS TO DAILY LIFE ACTIVITIES
For the purpose of assessing the impact that available transportation options have on the ability of nondrivers to
access daily life activities, the project team conducted a simplified access analysis by mode of travel that
measured 15, 30, and 60 minutes of travel time in each mode, away from each destination or daily life activity,
and calculated the number and proportion of the population that is served by the market shed of each mode of
travel and for each destination type (or daily life activity).
This analysis approach, although simplified, had the advantage of developing a high-level assessment of access
that accounts for the travel time limitations and geographic coverage of each mode, and also the geospatial
distribution of daily life activities throughout the state. In other words, the results of the analysis are determined
not only by transportation options but also by the availability and geographic dispersion of daily life activities
throughout the state, between large and small counties, and between urban and rural areas.
ANALYSIS RESULTS
A small sample of the analysis results is provided below, showing the proportion of the population within the
walking market shed of each daily life activity for Washington State and selected counties. Similar tables were
produced for each of the 39 counties in the state, and for each mode of travel. More details of this analysis can be
found in the Appendices.
Figure 18. Percent of the population within a 15-, 30-, and 60-minute walk of daily life activities
WASHINGTON STATE KING COUNTY
Walking 15 min 30 min 60 min Walking 15 min 30 min 60 min
Healthcare 54.9% 76.4% 87.9% Healthcare 76.1% 94.5% 99.3%
Food 65.4% 84.1% 94.1% Food 82.8% 95.5% 99.4%
Jobs 94.2% 97.8% 99.3% Jobs 99.5% 99.8% 99.9%
Schools 70.8% 85.7% 94.0% Schools 90.4% 98.3% 99.6%
Parks 78.5% 88.1% 95.0% Parks 96.3% 99.0% 99.7%
Other 51.9% 77.3% 91.4% Other 75.9% 95.5% 99.4%
YAKIMA COUNTY WHATCOM COUNTY
Walking 15 min 30 min 60 min Walking 15 min 30 min 60 min
Healthcare 41.1% 64.7% 78.4% Healthcare 36.6% 58.8% 78.8%
Food 63.1% 79.9% 90.9% Food 51.4% 73.3% 91.6%
Jobs 93.4% 97.2% 99.1% Jobs 93.0% 98.3% 99.6%
Schools 65.8% 82.8% 93.9% Schools 52.4% 72.7% 90.6%
Parks 66.7% 79.7% 91.2% Parks 57.4% 72.9% 91.3%
Other 40.3% 68.8% 83.2% Other 36.9% 63.3% 85.2%
SKAMANIA COUNTY LINCOLN COUNTY
Walking 15 min 30 min 60 min Walking 15 min 30 min 60 min
Healthcare 3.7% 11.4% 32.2% Healthcare 16.9% 26.0% 32.4%
Food 12.2% 31.3% 57.3% Food 20.7% 32.3% 48.4%
Jobs 57.9% 87.0% 97.6% Jobs 39.6% 65.7% 92.7%
Schools 12.6% 39.0% 79.9% Schools 19.4% 32.9% 46.9%
Parks 15.2% 39.7% 76.5% Parks 22.4% 35.6% 49.0%
Other 11.5% 29.0% 49.1% Other 20.0% 32.7% 45.8%