Shared-Use Mobility Possibilities in Brooklyn Park: Firsthand Accounts of Unmet Transportation Needs

Transcription

1 Shared-Use Mobility Possibilities in Brooklyn Park: Firsthand Accounts of Unmet Transportation Needs Prepared by Kurt Howard, Shengnan Lou, Daniel Lubben, Joshua Pansch and Faith Xiong Students in PA 5232/CEGE 5212: Transportation Policy, Planning, and Deployment Instructor: Andrew Guthrie Prepared on Behalf of City of Brooklyn Park Community Development Department Fall 2016

2 The project on which this report is based was completed in collaboration with the City of Brooklyn Park as part of the Resilient Communities Project (RCP) partnership. RCP is a program at the University of Minnesota s Center for Urban and Regional Affairs (CURA) that connects University faculty and students with Minnesota communities to address strategic projects that advance local resilience and sustainability. The contents of this report represent the views of the authors, and do not reflect those of RCP, CURA, the Regents of the University of Minnesota, or the City of Brooklyn Park. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution- NonCommercial 3.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit or send a letter to Creative Commons, 444 Castro Street, Suite 900, Mountain View, California, 94041, USA. Any reproduction, distribution, or derivative use of this work under this license must be accompanied by the following attribution: Produced by the Resilient Communities Project ( at the University of Minnesota. Reproduced under a Creative Commons Attribution- NonCommercial 3.0 Unported License. This publication may be available in alternate formats upon request. Resilient Communities Project University of Minnesota 330 HHHSPA th Avenue South Minneapolis, Minnesota Phone: (612) rcp@umn.edu Web site: The University of Minnesota is committed to the policy that all persons shall have equal access to its programs, facilities, and employment without regard to race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, age, marital status, disability, public assistance status, veteran status, or sexual orientation.

3 Firsthand Accounts of Unmet Transportation Needs in the City of Brooklyn Park Report prepared by: Kurt Howard, Shengnan Lou, Daniel Lubben, Joshua Pansch and Faith Xiong PA 5232/5212: Transportation Policy, Planning and Deployment Professor Andy Guthrie November 22, 2016

4 Table of Content Executive Summary 1. Introduction 2. Community Engagement 3. Survey Development 4. Initial Engagement Results 5. Policy and Research Recommendations 6. Conclusion Final Report 1. Introduction 2. Community Engagement Overview 2.1. Dragon Star Supermarket Harvest Farmer s Market Festival Methodology Summary 2.2. Starlite Transit Center Methodology Summary 3. Engagement Results 4. Survey Improvements 5. Policy and Research Recommendations 6. Conclusion Appendix Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C Reference 1

5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1. Introduction The community engagement group partnered with the City of Brooklyn Park to understand unmet transportation needs by getting a level deeper with their residents beyond readily available data and to an understanding of obstacles they are facing, especially with traditionally harder to reach communities. The potential expansion of light rail through the city gives an opportunity and reason for the city to expand transit accessibility to more of its residents. One particular challenge the community faces is the Last Mile problem to get residents from their homes or places of work to public transportation. The Last Mile problem is a result of land use decisions in the city that includes destinations and transportation accessibility that is very spread out. Low-income residents in the city that don t own a car or have the opportunity to use alternate transportation will have trouble overcoming the Last Mile. Our study will focus on the challenges and equity issues Brooklyn Park residents face when encountering their Last Mile as well as dig into potential solutions already being used like carpooling. To gather results we are engaging directly with residents through outreach opportunities at a farmers market and at a transit center both of which are located near proposed light rail stations. Through this report we will deliver a summary of quantitative and qualitative results of surveys conducted, an updated and effective survey format, research on immigrants and carpooling, and our thoughts on next steps and opportunities. 2. Community Engagement Our first fieldwork exercise was on Saturday, October 8 th, when our group attended the Dragon Star Supermarket Harvest Market Festival event which was hosted in partnership with the city of Brooklyn Park. Our objective was to collect data on unmet mobility needs from the community through the use of survey questionnaires as well as a large laminated map of the city, which participants used to trace the route and mode of transportation they used to get to the event. The questionnaires supplemented the map with questions about barriers to mobility, as well as what community assets exist in the area. We received 30 responses in total, and identified some aspects of our approach that can be improved for future engagement opportunities. For instance, we 2

6 noticed that shoppers were reluctant to provide their personal travel information at the beginning of the day when the map was blank. However, once the map became marked up, people were increasingly interested and willing to add their route to the collection. Additionally, it quickly became apparent that though a latent interest and support of transit seemed to exist among participants, nearly every single person arrived by car. We determined that our questionnaires need to be refined in order to better capture the subtle inclinations towards transit and shared used mobility that seemed to exist within the community. 3. Survey Development To ensure that we cover potential interests or experiences of transit and shared mobility of the community, we first need to expand our questionnaires. For example, we could ask the community whether they have heard of or experienced shared mobility such as Nice Ride, ZipCar, and carpooling, whether they would be interested in using shared mobility facilities and transit, what factors would encourage /discourage them to use the shared mobility facilities and transit, etc. Secondly, we need to rephrase our questions to better communicate with the community. We noticed that people would either ask for clarity as to the meaning of the question or give a minimal response to the questions about the challenges and obstacles on their way to the Farmers Market. Therefore, we should make sure that the questions are straightforward and understandable for the community. 4.Initial Engagement Results Though limited, the results of both engagements provide some insight into the existing conditions and accessibility of the Brooklyn Boulevard station area. Respondent s travel behavior informs the context in which they expressed their transportation needs, barriers, and desires. In the first outreach, Fifteen respondents travelled from various cities to visit the Farmers Market. We were able to have brief discussions with 30 people to take our first survey. We followed that outreach with a debrief which we discussed ways to improve the survey for a second engagement opportunity at the Starlite Transit Center. There we talked with another 15 commuters. Overall we heard stories about long bus commutes, tricky pedestrian intersections and limited use of alternative transportation such as 3

7 shared- use mobility. There are several barriers to overcome but respondents were excited to use a potential new light rail or new forms of transportation. 5. Policy and Research Recommendations Through these initial engagements, we found significant unmet mobility needs in the city, particularly around the new Blue Line Extension Proposal. To better address these unmet mobility needs, we recommend that the City of Brooklyn Park: Provide an educational opportunity for the community to learn about shared used mobility options that are available in the City of Brooklyn Park. Conduct focus groups within different racial/ethnic communities to understand what influences their travel mode choices. Continue to engage the communities in the City of Brooklyn Park to understand challenges/barriers with mobility needs in relation to land use design around the proposed Bottineau Light Rail Transit and station design. Consider implementing Transit Oriented Development (TOD) and Complete Street strategies when designing the Blue Line Extension stations, as people expressed interest to use the Blue Line Extension to shop in the area and commute to work. 6. Conclusion Our experience engaging the Brooklyn Park community yielded valuable information regarding unmet mobility needs that should help inform aspects of the future of the proposed Blue Line extension and surrounding transportation improvements. Additionally, our experience with conducting survey research provided insights into best practices to be employed for improved survey engagement initiatives. Our conversations with community members also revealed the significant role that informal carpooling plays in the transportation practices of Brooklyn Park residents, which may serve as a useful point of reference in the consideration of any shared-use mobility programs that the city seeks to provide in the future. 4

8 FINAL REPORT 1. Introduction Unmet transportation needs are an obstacle for many residents in the City of Brooklyn Park to overcome. For many this obstacle requires additional time consideration when traveling through or out of the city and additional strain on already tight budgets. Much of the city is low-income and can t commit funds to the purchase of a car or use of a taxi. This is something we dive into with residents through engaging with the community to understand exactly what challenges they face and what solutions will fit their needs. This report will accompany quantitative data about demographics and current details about the current transportation network to give meaning to the barriers residents face. Through effective and equitable modes of transportation like an improved public transportation network and innovative alternative transportation like ridesharing or coordinated carpooling we can improve accessibility and mitigate or possibly eliminate these barriers. There is the potential of a new light rail being built through the community and with it brings an opportunity to make strides to improve the accessibility to transportation to many residents in the city. The goal of this work is to understand unmet transportation needs of the city but to also tie it back to effective ways to solve the Last Mile problem many residents have getting to public transportation. Many residents in the city rely on public transportation but often live a mile or more away from a bus stop. This extra mile is caused by land use decisions made by the city causing long distance between public transportation and residents homes, places of work, and local shops. To get ahead of this problem for the potential new light rail the group is working to understand what are the current challenges residents have with transportation in the city to help determine effective ways to solve the Last Mile problem. The group engaged with the community at two different events that allowed us to have conversations with several different individuals to dig into what can be done to help with their transportation needs. We used informal surveys which we worked to improve in between events and often had long conversations with residents to help the group really understand their challenges. Often these conversations were where the real value was found. The community delivered feedback to make improvements like 5

9 better sidewalks for residents to use to walk to local shops, safer crosswalks, and improvements to the bus system. We also heard excitement for the light rail and the use of informal carpools already happening with many immigrants in the city. This report will walk through the strategy used by our group to engage with residents as well as the revisions we made to our survey as we prepared for our second engagement event. We will walk through feedback from the community including challenges and successes of transportation in the city. We hope this work will result in policy changes that are geared more closely to the actual unmet transportation needs of all residents in the city. 2. Community Engagement Overview Between October and November, the student group participated in two engagement events (see below) and engaged with a total of 45 people. The events allowed the student group to ask the community about their current transportation as well as any challenges/barriers they encounter with mobility needs. Location Date/Time # of people engaged Dragon Star Supermarket Harvest Farmer s Market Festival Saturday, October 8, AM - 2 PM 30 Starlite Transit Center Thursday, November 3, :30 PM - 5:30 PM Dragon Star Supermarket Harvest Farmer s Market Festival Our first trip into the field was on Saturday, October 8, 2016, when our group attended the Dragon Star Supermarket Harvest Market Festival event which was hosted in partnership with the city of Brooklyn Park Methodology Our objective was to collect data on unmet mobility needs from the community through the use of survey questionnaires as well as a large laminated map of the city, 6

10 which participants used to trace the route and mode of transportation they used to get to the event. The questionnaires supplemented the map with questions about barriers to mobility, as well as what community assets exist in the area Summary We engaged with a total of 30 people, and identified some aspects of our approach that were eligible for improvement before being employed for future engagement opportunities. For instance, we noticed that shoppers were reluctant to provide their personal travel information at the beginning of the day when the map was blank. However, once the map became marked up, people were increasingly interested and willing to add their route to the collection. Additionally, it quickly became apparent that though a latent interest and support of transit seemed to exist among participants, nearly every single person arrived by car. We determined that our questionnaires need to be refined in order to better capture the subtle inclinations towards transit and shared used mobility that seemed to exist within the community. 7

11 To ensure that we cover potential interests or experience of transit and shared mobility of the community, we first need to expand our questionnaires. For example, we could ask the community whether they have heard of or experienced shared mobility such as Nice Ride, ZipCar, and carpooling, whether they would be interested in using shared mobility facilities and transit, what factors would encourage /discourage them to use the shared mobility facilities and transit, etc. Secondly, we need to rephrase our questions to better communicate with the community. We noticed that people would either confirm what the question means or give a minimal response to the questions about the challenges and obstacles on their way to the Farmers Market. Therefore, we should make sure that the questions are straightforward and understandable for the community in the next engagement effort Starlite Transit Center Our second engagement experience took place on the afternoon of Thursday, November 3, Members of our group went to the Starlite Transit Center located across the street from the future site of the proposed Brooklyn Boulevard station area. The date and time was selected in coordination with Metro Transit s Better Bus Stops outreach team who had plans to conduct an engagement effort of their own. Our expectation was that the transit center would yield a different sample of Brooklyn Park residents with a focus on transit ridership that would complement the automobile centric responses of those we interviewed at the farmer s market Methodology: Our team came equipped with the laminated map of the city as well as updated questionnaires that were designed to highlight some of the subtler concepts that were hard to capture at the farmer s market event Summary: At the Starlite Transit Center, we engaged with 15 people. Many people were using the bus to commute from work to home. Within the first few interactions, it became clear that we had overestimated the expected density of riders at the transit center and that it was not reasonable to ask people to walk all the way over to the laminated map that we had posted to one of the bus stop shelters. We quickly adjusted 8

12 our strategy in favor of a more mobile approach that relied exclusively on moving about the transit center with survey questionnaires and clipboards. What this approach lost in exact details for route information was made up for by the one-to-one conversational style that revealed various trends of shared understandings that constitute a major part of our results for the Starlite Transit Center engagement experience. 3. Engagement Results Though limited, the results of both engagement events provide some insight into the existing conditions and accessibility of the Brooklyn Boulevard station area. Respondent s travel behavior informs the context in which they expressed their transportation needs, barriers, and desires. In the first outreach at the Farmers Market, Fifteen respondents travelled from Brooklyn Park, eight from elsewhere in the Northwest Metro, two from St. Paul, and three from other suburban parts of the metro. Only 1/30 walked, while 29/30 drove. At least 7 respondents arrived via West Broadway, and it seemed more used in the mapping engagement than Brooklyn Boulevard as well. Routes also frequently included Zane Ave N, 85th Ave N, Hwy 610 and 169, and I-94. Common barriers to accessing the station site included inadequate biking and walking infrastructure, as well as infrequent bus service. In the second outreach at the transit center, it was found that seven respondents rode bus 705, four the 724, and two route 723. The 705 travels to and from Starlite Transit Center and St. Louis Park. The 724 travels between the Target North Campus and Downtown Minneapolis. The 723 route connects Brooklyn Center Transit Center and Starlite Transit Center. Most respondent trips were within 9

13 the Northwest Metro, with three travelling elsewhere in Metro In both engagements, concerns were commonly raised about the quality or presence of infrastructure or services necessary to use transit. Respondents voiced concern about the practicality of walking to station sites, considering the following: sidewalks often are present only on one side of the road, the distances between stations and many residential areas is too great to walk, and a lack of perceived safety crossing very wide streets with minimal pedestrian infrastructure. These issues are further exacerbated when carrying any luggage or in inclement weather. A number of barriers and challenges were also mentioned in using current transit. Some of the most strongly voiced concerns are the necessity for multiple transfers between buses, and the multiple waiting times that entails. Additionally, while much of the existing bus service is frequent at peak commuting hours, it is significantly less so at other times, and several routes do not run on weekends. This can make travel difficult for riding a single route, and often adds a great deal of time to trips that involve transfers. Respondents also noted that many bus stops have minimal infrastructure in terms of seating and shelter, which can make waiting more strenuous, especially in bad weather. While many people currently used the bus system, the anticipation for a potential new light rail was high. Many residents use transit to travel to Minneapolis and a light rail would provide a dedicated regular service that the bus system can t provide. Respondents thought the light rail would help them travel to Minneapolis since parking is very expensive and it will help them get to the airport and Mall of America. There were several questions that need to be addressed including: would there be an increase in bus connections, will there be adequate parking around stations, and would there be a high level of frequency of service. The general feeling about the light rail was extremely positive and is something most people already were comfortable using. While each of the engagement events focused on different types of transportation users, we heard from many people that car sharing was a common transportation alternative. However, when we asked the community members about their use of other shared mobility such as Uber, many community members expressed they have heard of it, but did not use it as an alternative transportation option. We recognized that majority of the people engaged were not fully aware of the different mobility options in the community. In fact, we talked with a few of people at the Dragon 10

14 Star Supermarket Harvest Farmer s Market who used internal carpooling as an alternative transportation option. There were also a few people who indicated that they came to the event by car, but did not identify whether they drove alone or carpooled with another person. 4. Survey Improvement Our survey improved from the first to the second engagement. The environment of the second engagement required a simple and effective survey that made respondents feel engaged while still getting answer to our research. Questions of the second outreach were rephrased in a way that is more understandable to the community-- instead of asking the challenges/assets on their way of travelling, we asked the respondents what might have made their travel difficult for them. Our group discussed the shortcomings of the first survey and the lack of response around shared-use mobility to create new questions that gave examples of shared-use mobility instead of using that term in our question. These examples helped the respondent and surveyor have a conversation about each. Unfortunately the overwhelming response was that respondents don t use shared mobility, which limited the conversation. Based on feedbacks of the first engagement, we also felt that we need to add a question about the community s opinions on the Blue Line Extension to better understand the factors that might influence their use of this one kind of shared mobility. Similar to the results from the first engagement at the Harvest Market, the majority of the respondents have shown a positive attitude towards the upcoming new mode of transportation. 5. Policy and Research Recommendations Through these initial engagements, we found significant unmet mobility needs in the city, particularly around the new Blue Line Extension Proposal. To better address these unmet mobility needs, we recommend that the City of Brooklyn Park: Provide an educational opportunity for the community to learn about shared used mobility options that are available in the City of Brooklyn Park. Conduct focus groups within different racial/ethnic communities to understand what influences their travel mode choices. 11

15 Continue to engage the communities in the City of Brooklyn Park to understand challenges/barriers with mobility needs in relation to land use design around the proposed Bottineau Light Rail Transit and station design. Consider implementing Transit Oriented Development (TOD) and Complete Street strategies when designing the Blue Line Extension stations, as people expressed interest to use the Blue Line Extension to shop in the area and commute to work. 6. Conclusion Our experience engaging the Brooklyn Park community yielded valuable information regarding unmet mobility needs that should help inform aspects of the future of the proposed Blue Line extension and surrounding transportation improvements. Despite unexpected challenges associated with the unpredictable nature of conducting community engagement, we were able to identify several common trends and shared understandings that should be addressed in future plans for the Blue Line extension proposal. Namely, these common themes centered around the need for improved pedestrian amenities, expanded weekend bus service and increased frequency and regularity of existing bus routes. Additionally, our experience with conducting survey research provided insights into best practices to be employed for improved survey engagement initiatives. Our conversations with community members also revealed the significant role that informal carpooling plays in the transportation practices of Brooklyn Park residents, which may serve as a useful point of reference in the consideration of any shared-use mobility programs that the city seeks to provide in the future. Above all, it is our hope that our engagement efforts contributed to a greater sense of engagement between community members and the City of Brooklyn Park. This sort of engagement and community building is essential to the creation of sound policy no matter where the project exists, and the opportunity to gain community engagement experience is greatly appreciated by all who participated. 12

16 Appendix Appendix A: Literature Review on Carpooling and Immigrant Travel Behavior Over the years, the City of Brooklyn Park underwent a series of demographic shift. Between 1990 to 2010, the City of Brooklyn Park saw a growth in its foreign born population. According the US Census, there are about 16,000 residents who are foreign born with 8.1% being African, 5.4% Asian, and 3.2 Latin American (City-Data, 2016). The dramatic shift of demographic in various parts of the Brooklyn Park transformed the once known white suburban into a new point of entry for immigrants. This created an immigrant neighborhood and an ethnic enclave that has implication on the built environment and transportation. Previous research on immigrant and travel behavior have research and found that there is a positive relationship between immigrant neighborhood and carpooling (Smart, 2015; Liu and Painter, 2012; and Blumenberg and Smart, 2010; Tal and Handy, 2010). Based on these research, four different factors including household characteristics, trip characteristics, residential location and the strength of social network explained the prevalence of immigrant carpooling even after length of time in the US (Blumenberg and Smart, 2013). In Shin s (2016) research, she examines the relationship between immigrant neighborhoods in an ethnic enclave based on the racial/ethnic characteristic of the neighborhood rather than foreign-born characteristic and the use of alternative modes of transportation. She looked at various literature, redefined ethnic enclave, and analyzed the California Household Travel Survey (CHTS) to get a better sense of how immigrants carpool in an ethnic enclave. Shin (2016) results show that immigrants living in an ethnic enclave have a higher rate of household external carpooling when traveling for leisure than for commuting to work. Shin (2016) also found that external carpooling is only relevant when one is within the same ethnic group. She tested this by analyzing the effects of living in an ethnic enclave on the travel behavior or another racial/ethnic group (Hispanic and Asian), and confirmed that living in an ethnic enclave does not increase the likelihood of external carpooling among those who do not belong to that race/ethnicity (Shin, 2016, p. 10). Her research implies that household external carpooling is prevalent in immigrant neighborhood, but an immigrant will not confine others of different race/ethnicity to carpool. She acknowledges that social network, as explained by Blumengberg and Smart (2013) is a contributing factor for carpooling in immigrant neighborhood.

17 While this research was done in California, it would be interesting to conduct a research in the new ethnic enclave in Brooklyn Park to see if there is a similar finding. This could help identify whether or not planners should focus on improving the already existing but not formalized carpooling model in current immigrant/foreign-born neighborhood, or look into different shared-use alternatives. Appendix B: Dragon Star Supermarket Harvest Farmer s Market Festival Engagement Notes Respondent # Where do you live? How did you get here today? What route did you take to get here? What are challenges/ba rriers to your commute here? What did you see/pass by on your way here that are great assets to the community? Other Notes 1 New Brighton Car 2 Brooklyn Park Car Zane Ave Scarce/inadequat e bus stops Interested in how he might become a light rail operator/work for Metro Transit 3 Brooklyn Park Car Broadway Avenue Navigating limited sidewalks with kids 4 Robbinsdale Car Bottineau Avenue 5 Maple Grove Car th Too spread out 6 Saint Paul Car 83rd to Brooklyn BLVD

18 7 Brooklyn Park Car 77 to Zane to Brooklyn BLVD An intersection on Xerxes needs a stop light 8 Champlin Car Douglas to Zane to 610 to Broadway 9 Brooklyn Park Car Time; crossing the intersection 10 Plymouth Car 11 Champlin Car 12 Brooklyn Park Carpool A mall and restaurant to go to in BP 13 Otsego CR 81 - has a lot of stop usually busy. congestion. Hwy 694 is lights but better than Car 14 BKN Tessman and Pakrway Walk Broadway Avenue more movements Will there be any bus connectors from the East side of the city to the LRT station? Would take transit (Blue Line) if it was closer to home; feel excited to take Blue Line to work (at the airport) the bike connections are good in Champlin; the BP is lack of decent eating places; coffee stores and convenient stores might make the station area more like a place rather than just a station

19 15 Maplegrove Carpool 610 to Broadway I don't have a driver's license; only a permit 16 Eagan Car 94 to Brooklyn BLVD to Broadway 17 Brooklyn Park Car Will there be parking around MOA? be? LRT/BRT access to airport and stations? How frequent will the LRT 18 Brooklyn Park Car Safety, children, friendly pedestrian road, not one side of the only sidewalk on Park and Ride. Diversity is good. LRT safer during winter than a car. LRT gives you a seat. Won't need to worry about parking. 19 Brooklyn Park Car More bus connection to the future LRT Station. 20 Brooklyn Park Car Parking at airport and downtown is difficult. LRT better option. 21 Brooklyn Park Car 22 Brooklyn Park Car Noble to 85 to W Broadway 93rd and Winnetka traffic is awkward at 7am

20 23 Park Center(Brookly n Park) Car 694 and Brooklyn Blvd Time 24 Bloomington Car Maplebrook 26 St. Paul Car I-94 to US Highway 169 Limited sidewalks and bike routes in area 27 Village Creek Park(Brooklyn Park) Car Kentucky(Bank)-78th(Ave?) to Cub foods- Farmers market No connections other than walking to LRT once built 28 Coon Rapids Car Coon Rapids Boulevard to Hwy 610 to West Broadway Two lanes go to one lane, which makes for inconsistency along the route 29 Car 81st is closed, Bus service limited Weekend and there is I-94 to Boone Ave N 30 Brooklyn Park Car 85th Ave N to West Broadway Gym Access, CVS, One Stop

21 Appendix C: Starlite Transit Center Engagement Notes Respondent # 1. What was your travel like today? a) Route to get to Starlite Transit Center b)mode of travel c) Where are you travellin g to from Starlite Transit center? 2. What makes travel difficult for you when travelling to/from the Starlite Transit Center or in Brooklyn Park in general? 3. Have you heard about the proposed Bottineau LRT extension? Thoughts? 4. Have you heard of shared-use mobility programs like Hour Car, Car2Go, Nice Ride, Uber, Lyft etc? 1 # Multiple ends) at trip (walking bus trips 723 bus between brooklyn center and home in brooklyn park The large number of bus transfers to get between Brooklyn park and Brooklyn center (home and work), verbal sexual harassment from male bus riders Hadn't heard much, but had experience with current blue line and thought it would make daily commute much faster and more efficient-especi ally by reducing the number of transfers required Had heard of these services but never used them personally except for a traditional taxi. Too expensive to use but the service would be convenient. 5. Would access to these make travel easier for you? Why or why not? Only if using them cost an equivalent amount as riding a bus-otherwise prohibitively expensive. For last mile trips it would make more sense to ride her own bike instead of using a niceride arrangement. However, the infrastructure isn't really there and walking is easier for reaching transit for the daily commute and for other travel. Respondent saw her bicycle more as a recreational option than a transportation one. Some sort of ride sharing connection might be beneficial, but would need to match the reliability and pricing of traditional transit to be a viable option

22 2 # 705 bus bus Target Yes. Sounds faster. Sounds good. No Proposed LRT station is already close to home 3 #705B bus Saint Paul Nothing No No No. Bus works fine. 4 Dropped off in car Yes. Sounds easier than bus. Yes Yes 5 From within BKN park Walked to bus stop Nothing No No 6 Walked/b us Grocery Store Limited hours for connecting 723 bus Yes. Sounds convenient. Yes No. Connecting 723 bus works well already. 7 Zane - Broadway - S.L. Bus S.L. Stops are far apart, service is infrequent Yes, she would use it. Yes No. No need for it. Has a car that she drives sometimes. 8 #705 bus walk) block south (8 from the Bus Starlite is final destinatio n Transferring. The 705 doesn't run on weekends. Yes, the respondent could go more places No. Does use metro mobility but it takes an hour and membership expires in January. No because it is too expensive.

23 9 Brooklyn Blvd Walk Bus # 724 or Carpool center transit ride to Transit Bus to Green Line to home in St. Paul Need to coordinate a ride. Bus connections. 11 Downtow n Mpls bus #724 Bus Bus #705 to home. 2 hours of bus rides. 4 block walk in winter. Weekend bus schedules Bus "There center. here" Respondent comment regarding desire for access to taxis at the transit a cab stand needs to be - Yes, it will be beneficial. No, it would be beneficial. No but will use. "Great" No No Hour Car Maybe No but does use taxi. Too expensive but would use if affordable in future.

24 13 # 724 Bus #705 No but it will be helpful Uber 14 Golden 705b bus # Valley to Bus #724 to Brooklyn Park Late buses, bus not in good condition, rude bus drivers Maybe Metro Mobility, taxi 15 Bus #723 to get home Late buses, weekend bus schedule. Yes, it will be good. Taxi Problem with Metro Mobility - timing is difficult, difficult to understand process

25 References Blumenberg, E., & Smart, M. (2010). Getting by with a little help from my friends and family:immigrants and carpooling. Transportation, 37(3), doi: /s Blumenberg, E., & Smart, M. (2013). Brother can you Spare a Ride? Carpooling in Immigrant Neighbourhoods. Urban Studies, 51(9), doi: / City-Data: Brooklyn Park, Minnesota. (2016). Retrieved October 26, 2016, from ParkMinnesota.html, Liu, C. Y., & Painter, G. (2012). Travel Behavior among Latino Immigrants: The Role of Ethnic Concentration and Ethnic Employment. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 32(1), Shin, E. J. (2016). Unraveling the Effects of Residence in an Ethnic Enclave on Immigrants Travel Mode Choices. Journal of Planning Education and Research, Smart, M., (2015). A Nationwide Look at the Immigrant Neighborhood Effect on Travel Mode Choice. Transportation 42(1): Tal, G., & Handy, S. (2010). Travel behavior of immigrants: An analysis of the 2001 National Household Transportation Survey. Transport Policy, 17(2), doi: /j.tranpol