FINAL REPORT JANUARY 2017 TRANSDEV TRANSIT SURVEY SERVICES FOR NASSAU INTER-COUNTY EXPRESS (NICE) BUS. moore & associates

Transcription

1 FINAL REPORT JANUARY 2017 TRANSDEV TRANSIT SURVEY SERVICES FOR NASSAU INTER-COUNTY EXPRESS (NICE) BUS moore & associates

2

3 2016 Onboard Transit Survey Table of Contents Section 1: Executive Summary Section 2: Overview and Methodology Section 3: Analysis and Key Findings Section 4: Title VI Analysis Appendix A: Survey Instruments... A-1 Appendix B: Simple Frequencies... B-1 Appendix C: Route Profiles... C-1

4 2016 Onboard Transit Survey This page intentionally blank.

5 Section 1 Executive Summary In October 2016, Transdev sponsored an onboard survey of the Nassau Inter-County Express (NICE) fixed-route bus service. The purpose of the survey was to develop a profile of travel and demographic characteristics of NICE fixed-route customers in order to ensure compliance with federal Title VI reporting requirements. The survey instrument was designed to capture the following information: Travel patterns and behavior, including where people are traveling to, when they tend to travel, where they come from, how they access transit services, how they travel to their final destination, how frequently they use transit services, trip purpose, trip length, and other travel modes they use. Rider demographics, including race, gender, ethnicity, English proficiency, income, vehicle availability, and other information, which will provide Transdev with a clear picture of who is using transit services. All customers boarding the surveyed routes were offered the opportunity to take the survey. A total of 8,604 responses were received. This sample ensured statistical accuracy of 95 percent and a ±1.1 percent margin of error at the system level. Route-specific sample sizes were designed to ensure statistical accuracy of not less than 95 percent and a ±10 percent margin of error (based on average daily ridership) at the individual level. To ensure NICE riders had an equal opportunity to participate in the survey, the survey instrument was made available in the six non-english languages most commonly spoken in Nassau County (Spanish, Chinese, Italian, Persian, Korean, and French Creole). The majority of respondents (86 percent) opted to take the survey in English, with the remainder preferring Spanish (14 percent). No customers completed an alternate-language survey. The profile NICE rider is an English-speaking female between the ages of 25 and 64. She identifies as either Black/African-American or Hispanic/Latino and lives in Nassau County. She has an annual household income of less than $35,000 and lives in a household with two to four persons. She is at risk for living below the federal poverty guidelines. 1 She is employed at least part-time and is not a student. She does not face language barriers in her use of NICE and has access to a smartphone. An analysis of the NICE system as a whole as well as individual routes revealed no significant barriers arising from ethnicity, language, or income. Slightly less than eight percent of respondents said a lack of proficiency in English affected their ability to use NICE. The highest percentage of affirmative responses was observed on Routes n54 (24.0 percent), n21 (16.5 percent), n58 (13.8 percent), and n23 ( U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2016 Poverty Guidelines, aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/13poverty.cfm (accessed December 13, 2016).

6 percent. Spanish was the most frequently cited non-english language for each of these routes, suggesting that an increased availability of service information in Spanish would bridge the gap for those riders who believe their lack of proficiency in English presents a barrier. 2

7 Section 2 Overview and Methodology This section discusses the methodologies by which the survey was developed and administered along with the data collected. Project Overview Survey Development Our project team created a specific survey instrument for the NICE fixed-route service. The survey instrument was submitted to Transdev for review and approval. Upon approval, it was translated into Spanish and five other languages: Chinese, Italian, Persian, Korean, or French Creole. These languages were identified as the most frequently occurring languages in Nassau County. While Spanish surveys were printed (the reverse side of all English surveys), additional languages were only available online. Customers requesting the survey in another language were given a business card with a URL directing them to the online survey, where they could select to take the survey in any of the five additional languages. Sampling Plan We utilized a stratified random-sampling methodology to collect data that accurately represented all rider types on NICE fixed-route service. A formal sampling target was calculated for each route reflective of recent actual average daily ridership data provided by Transdev. Our sampling plan was weighted such that individual route sampling targets ensured a confidence level of 95 percent and a ±10 percent margin of error (based on daily average ridership by route and estimates of unique riders). In the absence of ridership data for circulator routes, arbitrary targets were created. Although only 3,062 valid surveys were needed to achieve the desired confidence level, our weighted target was 8,683, which is similar to the number of surveys collected in Sampling targets, as well as the actual samples, are shown in Exhibit 2.1. Data collection in 2016 presented challenges not experienced during the 2013 survey effort, which will be discussed in further detail in the Data Collection section. Despite extending the 2016 data collection period by four days, data collection fell just short of the 8,683 target, with a final sample of 8,604. Route-specific sampling targets to ensure the 95-percent confidence level and a ±10 percent margin of error were achieved for all but Routes 57 and 78. Circulator routes also fell short of targets, but this is believed to be because actual ridership did not support the arbitrary targets. Note: the sample total of 8,604 includes 37 surveys for which the route could not be verified. 3

8 Route Daily trips % of total Unique riders (est.) Sample needed for 95/10 confidence Exhibit 2.1 Sampling by Route Weighted sample target Actual sample n % n % n % n n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n n % n % n n % n % n % n % n % n % n n n % n n n % n % n % n % n n % n % n % n % n % n shuttles Totals

9 Survey Administration Staffing/Recruitment Moore & Associates contracted with two local temporary staffing firms to recruit surveyor candidates. Our goal was to recruit individuals with a professional appearance and demeanor as well as the skills necessary to conduct the survey. While the staffing firm conducted a background check and ensured each recruit was legally eligible to work in the United States, our criteria for selection included the following: Fluency in English (written and oral) (required), Conversant in one of the top six most common languages spoken by limited Englishproficient residents in Nassau County (Spanish, Chinese, Italian, Persian, Korean, or French Creole) (preferred), Ability to read and understand a bus schedule, Common sense problem solving capabilities, Ability to conform with appearance standards ( business casual dress code black or khaki pants, polo or collared shirt, and comfortable shoes), No facial tattoos or extensive visible piercings, The physical ability to board and ride the bus unassisted, Punctuality (ability to arrive 15 minutes before the start of the shift), Availability of reliable transportation (including public transit, bicycle, or ride from friend/family), and Possession of a cell phone for communication with field supervisory personnel. All surveyors were screened and then trained by our project team. Training included an overview of the project, discussion of surveyor performance expectations, familiarization with the NICE system and survey instrument, onboard etiquette, protocol for conducting the survey, and a review of individual assignments. Moore & Associates trained more surveyors than we anticipated needing in order to have trained back-up personnel immediately available should a surveyor fail to report or be dismissed. Unacceptable behavior which included making or receiving calls from persons other than Moore & Associates field supervisors, listening to music on an ipod or phone, causing any type of disruption onboard the vehicle, use of profanity, failure to comply with appearance standards, and tardiness was communicated to all recruits as cause for immediate dismissal. Recruitment and training of surveyors was completed on October 5, 2016, prior to survey pre-test fielding. Additional surveyors were trained on-site as required. Approximately 40 surveyors were trained as part of this engagement. Data Collection Data collection was accomplished using an onboard intercept methodology. All survey questionnaires were printed on 100-pound stock to eliminate the need for clipboards. Survey instruments were printed double-sided, with English on one side and Spanish on the other. Each surveyor was provided with language cards printed with a URL directing riders to the online survey, where they could select to take the survey in English, Spanish, or any of the five additional languages. 5

10 Surveyors were easily identified by an identification badge worn on a lanyard around the neck as well as a reflective vest. Prior to boarding the assigned vehicle, each surveyor was provided with a surveyor bag containing survey forms, pens, schedule, and an individual surveyor paddle. Each surveyor was also provided with the cell phone contact information for his/her assigned field supervisor, who conducted spot-checks of surveyor performance and maintained a presence in the service area throughout the entire data collection period as a quality control measure. Surveyors offered the bilingual (English/Spanish) survey or the language card to all customers boarding the vehicle while also making themselves available to answer questions regarding the survey. Respondents were instructed to return the completed instrument to the surveyor or leave it on their seat for retrieval by our surveyor. At the conclusion of each day s surveying, all collected surveys, identification badges, and reflective vests were returned to the assigned field supervisor. Our field supervisors completed an in-field pretest of the approved survey instruments on October 6, A pretest sample of 415 valid responses was achieved. No significant issues were identified. Therefore, the pretest responses were incorporated into the total sample. Moore & Associates successfully managed the fielding of the transit rider survey using an onboard intercept methodology from October 7 through October 21, The data collection covered all NICE fixed-routes. A total sample of 8,604 surveys was collected. The 2016 data collection effort was marked by challenges not experienced during the 2013 survey. Many potential respondents refused to take the survey, citing dissatisfaction with routes and on-time performance, which were not focuses of the 2016 survey instrument. Given these challenges, data collection was extended by four days to support collection of route-specific sampling targets. Data Processing Data Entry All survey data was entered into an Excel spreadsheet using trained data entry personnel. Moore & Associates staff monitored the entire data entry process, reviewing data entry work on a daily basis while also conducting spot-checks throughout each day. Data Cleaning Data cleaning was undertaken by trained personnel following completion of data entry. This process addressed differing data formatting that resulted in identical responses being sorted as different (i.e., route number being entered as N4 versus n4). The cleaned data was then imported into a Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) database for further analysis. Following data cleaning, simple frequencies were compiled and submitted for Transdev review. Analytical Methods The SPSS database allowed our project team to compile simple frequencies as well as data crosstabulations within each dataset. Cross-tabulations allow comparisons between survey responses that can provide additional insight into customer profiles, travel patterns, perceptions of service, and demographics. 6

11 Section 3 Analysis and Key Findings Typical Rider Profile By analyzing the simple frequencies arising from the collected data, we can provide a profile of the typical NICE rider. This typical rider reflects data from across the system as a whole and for this reason may not be reflective of specific routes. Specific analysis on the route level is provided later in this section and in Appendix D. The profile NICE rider is an English-speaking female between the ages of 25 and 64. She identifies as either Black/African-American or Hispanic/Latino and lives in Nassau County. She has an annual household income of less than $35,000 and lives in a household with two to four persons. She is at risk for living below the federal poverty guidelines. 2 She is employed at least part-time and is not a student. She does not face language barriers in her use of NICE and has access to a smartphone. The profile rider walks to and from the bus stop and uses NICE to travel to work. She pays on a per-ride basis, either through a Pay-Per-Ride MetroCard or cash. She rides NICE because she does not have access to a car or is otherwise unable to drive. She rides the bus five or more times a week and typically uses a transfer to complete her trip. She would rely on a friend/family member, or take a taxi, to make the trip if NICE was not available, or she might not make the trip. The following analysis looks at each question on a more in-depth basis, offering data cross-tabulations where appropriate to explore certain findings further. Additional information on a route-by-route basis is provided in Appendix D. 7 2 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2016 Poverty Guidelines, aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/13poverty.cfm (accessed December 13, 2016).

12 Survey Language The majority of respondents (85.7 percent) elected to take the survey in English. Just over 14 percent chose to complete the survey in Spanish. Though survey instruments in five additional languages (Chinese, Italian, Persian, Korean, and French Creole) were available online, and each surveyor was equipped with a language card to direct respondents to these online surveys, no surveys were completed in any language other than English and Spanish. Exhibit 3.1 Survey Language Spanish 14.3% n = 8,602 English 85.7% Section 1: Tell us about THIS trip Question 1: What route are you telling us about for this trip? Riders were asked to provide the route number of the bus they were riding when the survey was administered. A summary of how many surveys were collected for each route was provided in Exhibit

13 Question 2: In what community, town, or city did you board this bus? Riders were asked to indicate the name of the community, town, or city in which they boarded the bus on which they were taking the survey. Origin locations cited by one percent or more of respondents are provided in Exhibit 3.2. Exhibit 3.2 Origin Community Community Name Percent of Riders Hempstead 21.3% Jamaica 7. Garden City 6.2% Freeport 5.3% Great Neck 4.3% Hicksville 4.1% Queens 4. Elmont 3. Mineola 3. Far Rockaway 2.8% Westbury 2.7% Uniondale 2.4% Lynbrook 1.9% Baldwin 1.8% Valley Stream 1.6% Long Beach 1.6% Rockville Centre 1.6% Roosevelt 1. Flushing 1.4% Glen Cove 1.3% East Meadow 1.3% New Hyde Park 1.2% Massapequa 1.2% Roslyn Heights 1. 9

14 Question 3: In what community, town, or city will you get off this bus? Riders were asked to indicate the name of the community, town, or city where they would get off the bus on which they were taking the survey. Destination locations cited by one percent or more of respondents are provided in Exhibit 3.3. Exhibit 3.3 Destination Community Community Name Percent of Riders Hempstead 18.8% Jamaica 7.1% Garden City 6.6% Freeport 4. Hicksville 4.2% Elmont 3.7% Great Neck 3.6% Queens 3. Uniondale 3.2% Mineola 2.9% Westbury 2.3% New Hyde Park 2.3% Far Rockaway 2.1% Valley Stream 2.1% Lynbrook 2.1% Rockville Centre 1.9% Flushing 1.7% Roosevelt 1.7% Baldwin 1.7% Long Beach 1. East Meadow 1.4% Glen Cove 1.3% Farmingdale 1.1% Franklin Square 1.1% Massapequa 1. Oceanside 1. West Hempstead 1. Levittown 1. 10

15 Question 4: Does this one-way trip include a transfer? More than 62 percent of respondents cited use of a transfer as part of their trip (down from 69 percent in 2013). The majority of those (53.8 percent) transferred to/from another NICE bus, while another 32.2 percent used an MTA bus or subway as part of their trip. Exhibit 3.4 Incidence of Transfer No 37.7% n = 7,950 Yes 62.3% Exhibit 3.5 Transfer - Service % n = 4, % 14.9% 8.8% Another NICE bus MTA subway MTA bus Long Island Railroad 2.1% 1.4% Suffolk County Transit Long Beach Transit 0.6% 1.1% Huntington Area Rapid Transit 11

16 Respondents transferred to/from one or more of nearly 200 individual routes. Exhibit 3.6 indicates the most commonly cited routes among transferring customers. Exhibit 3.6 Transfers to/from NICE (Route Number) Route Transferred To/From Frequency Percentage N N % N N % N % N N % N N % Exhibits 3.7.a and 3.7.b illustrate the number of riders who indicated a trip transfer by route surveyed. This data cross-tabulation was divided into two charts to improve readability. Exhibit 3.7.a provides details for routes n1 to n33, while Exhibit 3.7.b provides details for routes 35 through 81. Community shuttles were omitted from these charts given the low response rates. Route n21 featured the highest percentage of transfers (77.4 percent), while Route n45 featured the lowest (38.6 percent). 12

17 Exhibit 3.7.a Incidence of Transfer by Route (n1 n33) n1 n4 n6 n15 n16 n19 n20 n21 n22 n23 n24 n25 n26 n27 n31 n32 n % 69.9% 60.4% 69.9% 53.8% 69.2% 77.4% 63.9% 49.4% 60.4% 59.9% 72.3% 57.4% % 60.6% % 30.1% 39.6% 30.1% 46.2% 30.8% 22.6% 36.1% 50.6% 39.6% 40.1% 27.7% 42.6% % 39.4% Transfer No Transfer 13

18 Exhibit 3.7.b Incidence of Transfer by Route (n35 n81) n35 n36 n40 n41 n43 n45 n47 n48 n49 n51 n54 n55 n57 n58 n70 n71 n72 n78 n79 n80 n % 65.7% % 47.1% 38.6% % % 67.8% 63.2% 75.9% 68.2% 59.6% % % 62.7% 62.2% 37.8% 34.3% % 52.9% 61.4% % % 32.2% 36.8% 24.1% 31.8% 40.4% % % 37.3% 37.8% Transfer No Transfer 14

19 Question 5: What fare media do you typically use? The MetroCard continues to be the most frequently used type of fare media. More than 68 percent of 2016 respondents used a MetroCard, down from more than 72 percent in However, 8.0 percent of 2016 respondents indicated use of the gomobile app, which was not available in Nearly 24 percent of respondents prefer using cash over a MetroCard (down from nearly 28 percent in 2013). Exhibit 3.8 Fare Media None, I pay cash 23.8% MetroCard Pay Per Ride 41.7% MetroCard Unlimited 26. n = 8,432 gomobile transit app 8. Question 6: What, if any, discounted fare do you use? Nearly 16 percent of respondents reported using a fare discount. Of these, 45.6 percent were Senior/Medicare cardholders, 29.9 percent were students, and 24.1 percent had a disability. Exhibit 3.9 Discounted Fare Used Disabled 24.1% Student 29.9% Senior/ Medicare Card Holder 45.6% n = 1,309 15

20 Route n21 had the highest percentage of respondents using a Pay-Per-Ride MetroCard (51.1 percent), while 46.3 percent of respondents on Route n26 preferred the Unlimited MetroCard. Route n81 saw the highest use of cash (44.0 percent), while Route n80 saw the highest use of the gomobile app (21.8 percent). Route n26 had the lowest level of cash use (just 10.4 percent). Exhibit 3.10.a Fare Media by Route (n1 n33) n % 4.3% n4 49.2% 31.9% 14.6% 4.3% n6 44.9% % 4. n % 18.8% 31.4% 8.6% n % 19.9% 22.2% 13.1% n % 21.4% 33.7% 10.2% n % 37.6% n % 26.1% 17.4% 5.4% n % 32.7% 19.3% 7.2% n % 22.2% 26.9% 8.8% n % 6.8% n % 19.2% 8. n % 46.3% 10.4% 3. n % 17.9% 28.7% 9.8% n % 24.9% % n % 6.6% n % % 16 MetroCard Pay Per Ride MetroCard Unlimited None, I pay cash gomobile transit app

21 Exhibit 3.10.b Fare Media by Route (n35 n81) n % 21.6% % n % 17.6% 30.9% 5.9% n % 16.9% % n % % n % 14.3% 30.7% 17.8% n % 16.2% 33.8% 16.2% n % 22.8% 36.7% 6.3% n % 18.3% 37.4% 6.9% n % 21.6% 28.4% 11.9% n % 19.2% 34.6% 11. n % 9.7% 41.9% 10.8% n % 14.1% 28.2% 11. n % 24.1% % n % 40.2% % n % 16.4% % n % 16.8% 33.2% 10.9% n % 20.1% 42.3% 10.3% n % 24.3% 13. n % 20.9% 38.4% 11.6% n % 16.4% 32.7% 21.8% n MetroCard Pay Per Ride None, I pay cash MetroCard Unlimited gomobile transit app 17

22 There was little difference between NICE riders who cited using a transfer as part of their trip and those who did not with respect to fare media. Those who cited a transfer were slightly more likely to use an Unlimited MetroCard. 10 Exhibit 3.11 Fare Media vs. Incidence of Transfer % 26.6% % 43.2% Transfer 9.7% 39.6% No Transfer MetroCard Pay Per Ride MetroCard Unlimited gomobile transit app Cash 18

23 Question 7: How did you get to the bus stop where you boarded this bus? The majority of respondents (65.8 percent) walk to the bus stop, with 36 percent walking four blocks or less. Nearly 27 percent transferred from another bus or train. Few riders bike to the bus stop (0.5 percent). Exhibit 3.12 Bus Stop Access % 26.7% n = 8,393 Walked four blocks or less Walked more than four blocks Transferred from bus/train 4.9% Was dropped off 1.1% Drove myself Rode a bike Routes n45 had the highest percentage of riders walking to the bus stop (86.7 percent). Route n80 had the highest incidence of riders walking more than four blocks (43.1 percent), an interesting development given it had the lowest such incidence in 2013 (16.7 percent). Route n20 had the highest percentage transferring to/from another bus or train (34.6 percent). Route n78 had the highest incidence of riders being dropped off at the bus stop (9.3 percent). 19

24 Exhibit 3.13.a Bus Stop Access by Route (n1 n40) n1 40.1% % 1.1% n4 31.2% 32.8% 29.6% 5.1% n % % n % 27.9% 24.3% 4.4% n % 27.4% 3.6% n % 28.3% 24.2% 2. n % 23.6% 34.6% 4.4% n % % 1.1% n % 30.9% 26.2% 4. n % 24.7% 29.4% 2.9% n % 24.7% n % % 4.2% n % 29.2% 29.2% 4.6% n % 35.7% % n % % 7.3% n % n % 28.3% 29.2% 3.8% n % 26.4% n % 17.4% 1.4% n % 32.6% 26.3% 6.6% Walked 4 blocks or less Walked more than 4 blocks Transferred from bus/train Was dropped off Drove myself* Rode a bike* Rode a bike* *Response types with values less than 2% are not labeled to maintain chart clarity 20

25 Exhibit 3.13.b Bus Stop Access by Route (n41 n81) n % 31.1% 27.6% 3.9% n % % 4.9% n % % 2.7% n % 29.9% 33.8% 2.6% n % 34.1% 27.1% 6.2% n % % 4.6% n n % % 4.4% n % 3.8% n % 21.4% 42.9% 3.6% n % 28.9% 26.7% 4.4% n % 29.7% 33.1% 9.3% n % 7.2% n % 37.2% 17.9% 6. n % 24.3% 10.8% n % 30.9% 32.1% 6.2% n % % n % 33.3% 29.4% 3.9% Walked 4 blocks or less Walked more than 4 blocks Transferred from bus/train Was dropped off Drove myself* Rode a bike* Rode a bike* *Response types with value s less than 2% are not labeled to maintain chart clarity 21

26 As Exhibit 3.14 shows, there were no significant differences in bus stop destination access for respondents who transferred or who did not transfer. Interestingly, a fairly significant number of respondents (25.8 percent) who said their NICE trip did not include a transfer indicated accessing the bus stop via a transfer from another bus or train. The cause of this discrepancy is unclear % Exhibit 3.14 Bus Stop Origin Access vs. Incidence of Transfer 39.4% 34.9% 27.2% 27.2% 25.8% 4.6% 5.4% % 1.1% 0.8% 0.3% 1.1% Transfer No Transfer Walked more than 4 blocks Drove myself Transferred from bus/train Walked 4 blocks or less Rode a bike Was dropped off 22

27 Question 8: How will you travel to your destination once you get off this bus? Similar to responses to Question 7, the majority of respondents (68.7 percent) indicated they would travel to their destination on foot once they alight the bus. Forty-two percent would travel less than four blocks. Nearly 25 percent would transfer to another bus or train Exhibit 3.15 Destination Access % 24.9% n = 7,537 Walk four blocks or less Walk more than four blocks Transfer to bus/train 3.2% Get picked up 1.3% 0.6% 1.3% Drive myself Ride a bike Route n43 had the highest percentage of riders walking to their destination (82.7 percent). Route n36 had the highest incidence of riders walking more than four blocks (39.1 percent), while Route n57 had the lowest (14.3 percent). Route n21 had the highest percentage of riders who would be picked up once alighting the bus (6.7 percent). 23

28 Exhibit 3.16.a Destination Access by Route (n1 n40) n1 52.4% 20.3% 23.1% 1.4% n4 36.2% % 4.3% n6 33.3% % 3.4% n % 21.8% 3. n % 18.4% 25.1% 1.7% n % 28.3% 25.3% 3. n % % 4.4% n % % n % 27.6% 23.2% 4.6% n % 25.3% 22.4% 1.8% n % % 2.3% n % 31.3% 24.4% 1.7% n % 24.2% 31.8% 3. n % 3.8% n % 32.6% 24.2% 0.8% n % 31.1% 22.8% 0. n % 22.2% % n % 1.9% n % 39.1% 20.3% 2.9% n % 36.8% % Walk 4 blocks or less Walk more than 4 blocks Transfer to bus/train Get picked up Drive myself Ride a bike *Response type with consistent value sless than 2% are not labeled to maintain clarity of the chart 24

29 Exhibit 3.16.b Destination Access by Route (n41 n 81) n % % 4.8% n % 12.7% 2.1% n % 20.3% 18.9% 5.4% n % 24.4% 3.8% n % 22.8% 28.9% 2.6% n % 35.6% 26.4% 2.9% n n % 22.2% 27.8% 4.4% n n % 14.3% 32.1% 0. n % 26.9% 30.1% 2.2% n % 29.4% n % 23.9% 22.2% 6.1% n % % n % 23.7% 23.7% 2.6% n % 31.8% % n n Walk 4 blocks or less Walk more than 4 blocks Transfer to bus/train Get picked up Drive myself Ride a bike *Response types with values consistently less than 2% are not labeled to maintain clarity of the chart 25

30 Riders who did not transfer were significantly more likely (54.8 percent) to walk four blocks or less to their final destination than those who did (35.8 percent). Nearly 11 percent of riders who said their trip did not include a transfer indicated that they transferred from a bus or train. The reason for this discrepency is unclear. Exhibit 3.17 Destination Access vs. Incidence of Transfer % % 33.6% 35.8% 27.8% % 1.3% 1.3% 0.3% 3.9% 1.4% Transfer No Transfer Walked more than 4 blocks Transferred from bus/train Rode a bike Drove myself Walked 4 blocks or less Get picked up 26

31 Question 9: What is the primary purpose for the trip that includes this bus that you are currently riding? Work was the most frequently cited trip purpose (58.3 percent), followed by school (11.7 percent) % Exhibit 3.18 Trip Purpose n = 8, % 4.8% Work Shopping Visiting family/friends 1.4% 11.7% 10.7% Home School Personal business 5.9% Healthcare 1.2% We assessed trip purpose by route to identify on which routes particular trip purposes were concentrated (Exhibits 3.19.a and 3.19.b). While work was the primary trip purpose overall, the highest percentages of work trips were noted on Route n26 (87.9 percent) and Route n57 (82.8 percent). This is not surprising, given both routes operating only during peak hours on weekdays. Routes with the lowest percentage of work trips include Route n16 (33.4 percent) and Route n51 (44.0 percent). School was also a frequent trip purpose on Route n51 (40.8 percent) and Route n16 (33.8 percent). Route n16 serves Nassau Community College and Molloy College, while Route n51 serves Nassau Community College and Hofstra University. Healthcare, while not a primary trip purpose for most respondents, was cited most frequently on Route n25 (17.8 percent) and Route n32 (10.3 percent). Route n25 serves Franklin Hospital, Long Island Jewish Hillside Medical Center, and North Shore University Hospital, while Route n32 serves St. John s Episcopal Hospital. While shopping was also not a frequently cited trip purpose, it was observed most often on Route n1 (17.6 percent) and Route n45 (15.8 percent). 27

32 Exhibit 3.19.a Trip Purpose by Route (n1 n40) n1 49.7% % 17.6% 5.9% 4.8% n4 58.9% 8.8% 12.8% 5.3% 5.1% 6.4% n6 55.1% 13.9% 12.1% % 7. n % 7.3% 12.1% 11.3% 5.4% 6.3% n % 33.8% 15.7% 5.9% 6.2% 2.6% n % % 11.1% 8.1% 3. n % % 5. n % 4.3% 8.6% 1.1% 4.3% 4.3% n % 10.6% 7.2% 6.1% 5.7% 4.3% n % 8.8% % 2.3% n % 5.3% 2.8% n % 6.1% 3.4% 17.8% 4.2% n % n % 13.6% 7.3% % n % 14.3% 12.1% 2.6% 6.3% 4. n % % 3.3% 10.3% 3. n % 5.6% 8.3% % 6. n % 15.3% 10.3% 7.2% % n % 7.1% 8.6% % 2.9% n % % 9.9% 6.1% Work School Personal business Shopping Healthcare Visiting friends *Response types with consistently low values are not labeled to maintain clarity of the chart 28

33 Exhibit 3.19.b Trip Purpose by Route (n41 81) n % 16.3% 1.9% 4.7% 5.4% n % 29.2% 8.9% 5.7% n % 21.1% 2.6% 15.8% n % % 9.1% 2.6% n % % 9.2% n % % 4.6% 6.9% n n % 7.7% 8.8% 8.8% % n % 7.6% 10.1% 3.8% 6.3% n % 3.4% 6.9% n % 7.4% 4.2% 4.2% 6.3% n % % % 3.3% n % % % 4.4% n % 7.8% 8.2% % n % 2.6% % 5.3% n % n % 11.8% 13.7% 5.9% 5.9% n Work School Personal business Shopping Healthcare Visiting friends *Response types with consistently low values are not labeled to maintain clarity of the chart 29

34 Question 10: What is your primary reason for choosing NICE for this trip? Absence of a personal vehicle is the reason 45.3 percent of respondents gave for using NICE. Another 17.0 percent said they ride NICE because they are not able to drive, which could include lack of a driver license or a disability that prevents them from driving. Few respondents (3.3 percent) indicated avoidance of traffic or parking as their reason for riding NICE. Exhibit 3.20 Reason for Riding n = 8, % 45.3% 17. Cost Lack of car Not able to drive 1.1% 11.9% Proximity to my destination 3.3% Avoid traffic/parking 7.6% Prefer public transit to driving While lack of a car is a dominant reason for selecting NICE, it did not occur equally across all routes. Route n20 had the lowest incidence of respondents who ride because they lack access to a car (31.0 percent), while Route n48 had the highest (61.1 percent). Route n19 had the highest percentage of riders who choose NICE based on cost (22.4 percent). Route n57 had the greatest percentage of respondents who patronize NICE because they cannot drive (28.6 percent). Those who choose public transit to avoid traffic or parking, because of proximity to their destination, or because they prefer it to driving can most likely be classified as choice riders. Route n20 had the highest percentage of respondents riding NICE to avoid traffic or parking (6.3 percent), while n21 had the highest percentage who ride because of proximity to their destination (18.9 percent). Route n26 had 18.2 percent who prefer public transit to driving. 30

35 Exhibit 3.21.a Reason for Riding by Route (n1 n 40) n1 41.8% 19.6% 9.8% 16.8% 7.6% 3.8% n4 41.8% 13.6% 16.2% 14.6% % n6 40.7% % 9.4% 5.2% n % 15.1% 15.1% 8.4% 6. n % 17.3% 9.3% 10.3% 5.3% n % 18.4% 22.4% 12.2% 3.1% n % 18.9% 14.9% 7.2% 6.3% n % 11.1% % 10. n % 15.8% 18.2% 12.1% 10.8% 5. n % 17.9% % n % % n % 17.4% 13.9% 11.2% 7.7% 3.9% n % 21.2% 6.1% 16.7% 18.2% n % % n % 19.4% % 8.1% 2.6% n % 16.7% % 5.9% 4.1% n % % 17.9% 12.3% 3.8% n % 13.9% 12.6% 7.9% 3. n % 28.4% % 1. n % % 8.4% 1.9% Lack of car Not able to drive Cost Proximity to my destination Prefer public transit to driving Avoid traffic/parking *Response types with consistently low values are not labeled to maintain chart clarity 31

36 Exhibit 3.21.b Reason for Riding by Route (n41 n 81) n % 13.6% 15.1% 9.7% 7. n % 9.6% 3.9% n % % 10.7% 6.7% n % 27.3% 3.9% 10.4% 9.1% n % 18.3% 3.8% 8.4% 6.9% n % n % % 16.7% n % 16.7% % 11.1% n % 18.8% 13.8% 11.3% 12. n % 28.6% 14.3% 3.6% 14.3% n % % 17.2% 12.6% n % 11.6% 12.4% 9.1% 4.1% n % 8.3% 6.6% 7.7% n % 20.8% % n % 13.2% % n % 24.1% 13.8% 10.3% 6.9% n % 20.8% % 7. n Lack of car Not able to drive Cost Proximity to my destination Prefer public transit to driving Avoid traffic/parking *Response type with consistently low values are not labeled to maintain chart clarity 32

37 To further analyze the reasons for riding NICE by individual route, we grouped respondents who ride because of cost, lack of car, or being unable to drive as ride-dependent ; and those who ride because of proximity, to avoid traffic or parking, or personal preference as choice riders. ( responses were omitted for this data comparison.) Route n48 had the highest percentage of respondents classified as ride-dependent (79.4 percent), followed by Route n80 (77.4 percent) and Routes n47, n71, and n81 (all 74.0 percent). Route n58 had the highest percentage of respondents classified as choice riders in terms of motivator (59.8 percent), followed by Route n21 (50.0 percent) and Route n22 (48.6 percent). 33

38 Exhibit 3.22.a Rider Category (Based on Reason for Riding) by Route (n1 n40) n1 n4 n6 n15 n16 n19 n20 n21 n22 n23 n24 n25 n26 n27 n31 n32 n33 n35 n36 n % 55.3% 55.6% 67.8% 71.4% 57.1% 51.3% % % 70.2% 64.1% 61.1% 55.7% 72.2% 71.6% 65.6% 38.6% 44.7% 44.4% 32.2% 28.6% 42.9% 48.7% % % 29.8% 35.9% 38.9% 44.3% 27.8% 28.4% 34.4% Ride dependent Choice riders 34

39 Exhibit 3.22.b Rider Category (Based on Reason for Riding) by Route (n41 n81) n % 35.3% n n % 29.3% n n % 20.6% n n % 33.3% n % 28.9% n n % 32.1% n % 59.8% n % 30.6% n n % 33.9% n % 28.9% n n % 22.6% n Ride dependent Choice riders 35

40 Section 2: Tell us about yourself Question 11: How often do you ride NICE? The majority of respondents (58.1 percent) indicated riding NICE at least five times a week. This is consistent with the high number of respondents indicating their primary trip purpose is travel to work. Another 23.6 percent use the service three to four times a week. Overall, 81.7 percent of customers surveyed ride NICE at least three times a week, down slightly from 84.7 percent in Exhibit 3.23 Frequency of Ridership 58.1% 5 7.6% 10.7% 23.6% Less than once a week 1-2 times a week 3-4 times a week 5 or more times a week Five or more times a week was the most frequently cited response on all routes, cited by at least 47 percent on every route. Route n78 had the highest percentage of respondents riding five or more times a week (73.0 percent). Route n21 had the greatest percentage of respondents who indicated they ride twice a week or less (30.8 percent). 36

41 Exhibit 3.24.a Frequency of Ridership by Route (n1 n40) n1 53.3% % 8.8% n4 59.7% % 9.9% n6 62.6% 20.9% 10.4% 6.1% n % 23.2% 8.6% 9.2% n % % 7.6% n % 17.2% 14.1% 9.1% n % 26.2% 13.4% 11.6% n % 21.3% 19.1% 11.7% n % 23.7% % n % 7.1% 3. n % 26.2% 11.8% 9.9% n % 8.6% 7.1% n % 17.9% 10.4% 4. n % 12.3% 6. n % 25.3% % n % 18.1% 15.9% 11.8% n % 35.8% 13.2% 3.8% n % 24.8% 8.2% 5.3% n % 20.6% 8.8% 8.8% n % 20.1% 12.6% 8.2% 5 or more times a week 3-4 times a week 1-2 times a week Less than once a week 37

42 Exhibit 3.24.b Frequency of Ridership by Route (n41 n81) n % 17.4% n % 28.3% % n % 6.6% 3.9% n % 20.3% 6.3% 3.8% n % 9.9% 3.8% n % n % 3.8% n % 27.8% 11.1% 7.8% n % 9.9% 2. n % 13.8% 3.4% n % 26.9% 9.7% 11.8% n % 23.7% 12.7% 5.9% n % 27.9% 9.3% 6. n % 20.9% 9.8% 8. n % 16.2% 2.7% n % 23.9% % n % % 7. n % 19.6% 15.7% 3.9% 5 or more times a week 3-4 times a week 1-2 times a week Less than once a week 38

43 The most frequent riders are far more likely to use the Unlimited MetroCard than those who ride fewer than five times per week. At the current NICE fare of $2.75 per trip, an Unlimited MetroCard does not offer savings if the individual is making five round trips per week on NICE only ($27.50, versus $30 for a 7-Day Unlimited MetroCard). A 30-Day Unlimited MetroCard also offers no savings if used on NICE for 20 or fewer round trips in a month ($110, versus $ for the pass). However, if the individual is riding more than five round trips per week, or is transferring to an MTA bus or subway, the Unlimited Pass becomes a greater value. This suggests respondents who use an Unlimited MetroCard yet only cite using NICE four or fewer times per week are likely using the card on other services as well to realize any kind of savings. The Pay-Per-Ride MetroCard is a common choice across all frequency levels, as it provides a small savings over cash regardless of how many rides are made in a week. The NICE gomobile app is most popular among respondents who ride at least three times per week, as it offers small discounts based on the number of rides purchased % or more times a week Exhibit 3.25 Fare Media vs. Frequency of Ridership 26.6% % 8.3% 6.3% 20.1% 3.4% 46.6% 46.3% times a week 1-2 times a week Less than once a week MetroCard Pay Per Ride MetroCard Unlimited gomobile transit app None, I pay cash 39

44 Not surprisingly, those who use NICE to travel to work and school are most likely to ride five or more times per week. In fact, few who said they were traveling to work (nine percent) indicated riding fewer than three times a week. By contrast, those who ride NICE to visit friends are most likely to ride infrequently, with approximately 49 percent of respondents in this category indicating they ride twice a week or less. Forty percent or more of those indicating healthcare or personal business as their trip purpose also indicated riding five or more times a week. This suggests such riders use NICE for more than just the trip purpose cited. Exhibit 3.26 Frequency of Ridership versus Trip Purpose % 6.1% 14.9% 3.8% 9.6% 19.6% 23.8% 16.4% 14.8% % 37.2% 17.3% 23.3% 25.3% 18.1% 24.4% 58.1% 14.3% 25.7% 70.3% 37.1% % % Work Shopping School Healthcare Visiting friends 41.1% Personal business % 9.4% Home 45.2% 5 or more times a week 3-4 times a week 1-2 times a week Less than once a week 40

45 Question 12: How would you have made this trip if NICE was not available? Just 10.8 percent of respondents said they would drive their own vehicle if the NICE bus was not available. Riding with a friend or family member was the most frequently cited option (26.5 percent), followed by those who would said they would take a taxi (21.9 percent). Nearly 19 percent said they would not make the trip. Relatively few (12.3 percent) would walk or ride a bicycle, suggesting they are traveling a longer distance than they are willing to make using active transportation modes. Slightly more than seven percent of respondents said they would use other public transit to make their trip. Of those, nearly 85 percent would use the train or subway. Exhibit 3.27 Mobility Options 26. n = 8, % 18.8% 10.8% % 2.8% 2.2% Ride with friend/family member Taxi Wouldn't make trip Drive own vehicle Walk public transit Ride bicycle Routes n6 and n51 had the greatest percentage of respondents who indicated they would drive themselves (15.4 percent). Route n15 had the highest percentage of respondents who said they would ride with a friend or family member (33.6 percent), while Route n79 had the greatest percentage who would take a taxi (35.6 percent). Routes n26 and n33 had the highest percentage of respondents who would not have made the trip (30.2 and 30.0 percent, respectively), which typically indicates a lack of other mobility options. It could also indicate customers who have the option of telecommuting rather than traveling to a conventional work location, but this number is likely to be modest given the overall demographic profile of NICE riders. 41

46 Exhibit 3.28.a Mobility Options by Route (n1 n36) n1 25.6% % % 10.8% n % 15.1% 6.8% 21.1% n6 26.9% % % n % 19.8% % 11.4% 5.4% n % % 11.3% % n % % % n % % % n % 15.6% 24.4% % 8.9% n % 19.9% 16.6% 14.8% 7.7% 15.7% n % % 7.3% 9.8% 7.3% n % % 11.2% 8.6% 14.3% n % 23.4% 9.2% % n % 14.3% 30.2% 7.9% 7.9% 15.9% n % 20.4% 20.1% 7.7% 10.7% 6. n % 19.3% % 6.4% 12.9% n % 23.2% 16.3% 12.9% 9.1% 7.6% n n % 26.6% 15.8% 6.9% 10.9% 3.3% n % 26.1% 23.2% 7.2% 11.6% 8.7% Ride with friend/family member Taxi Wouldn't make trip Drive own vehicle Walk Ride bicycle *Response types with consistently low values are not labeled to maintain chart clarity 42

47 Exhibit 3.28.b Mobility Options by Route (n40 n81) n % % 8.1% 13.4% 5. n % 8.7% % n % 13.9% 8.6% 9.3% 1.8% n % % n % % 5. n % 4.7% n % % 8. n % 30.8% 23.1% 15.4% 7.7% 3.8% n % 23.9% 15.9% 3.4% 9.1% 13.6% n % 29.1% 25.3% 6.3% 10.1% 10.1% n % 21.4% 10.7% 7.1% 21.4% 3.6% n % 10.9% % 3.3% n % 17.8% 24.6% 11.9% 3.4% 4.2% n % 21.8% % 8.4% 6.7% n % 32.1% % 7.7% n % 32.4% 21.6% 5.4% % n % 17.2% 9.2% 9.2% 4.6% n % % 18.4% 2. n % % 4.3% % Ride with friend/family member Taxi Wouldn't make trip Drive own vehicle Walk Ride bicycle *Response types with consistently low values are not labeled to maintain chart clarity 43

48 Those citing a trip purpose of shopping or other were most likely to say they would not make the trip if NICE was not available (24.5 percent and 25.7 percent, respectively), though not by a significant margin. Those traveling to school are most likely to ride with a friend or family member (39.8 percent), while those traveling to access healthcare are most likely to take a taxi (32.5 percent). Exhibit 3.29 Mobility Options vs. Trip Purpose 9.3% 3.3% 13.2% 8.7% 21.7% 20.6% 9.3% 3.6% 9.3% 8.7% 25.7% % 1.7% % % 3.3% 5.8% 12.3% 17.6% 15.3% % 9.6% 13.9% 14.4% 19.7% % 12.1% % % 9.1% 11.7% 17.7% 22.9% % % 39.8% 26.9% 24.7% 24.9% Personal business Visiting friends Healthcare School Shopping Work Ride with friend/family member Taxi Wouldn't make trip Drive own vehicle Walk Ride bicycle 44

49 Question 13: Who else in your household uses NICE? Respondents were asked to describe what other members of their household use NICE. Young adults (age 19-24) and other adults comprise the largest segment (58.3 percent) of household users. Exhibit 3.30 Household NICE Usage % n = 8, % 8.4% 8.9% 8.8% Child/ren (age 12 and under) Child/ren (age 13-18) Young adults (age 19-24) adult(s) Senior(s) (age 65 or older) 45

50 Question 14: What is your approximate annual household income? Nearly 34 percent of respondents cited an annual household income of less than $15,000. Depending on the size of the household, many of these individuals are at risk for being below federal poverty guidelines. Currently, $16,020 is the poverty threshold for a two-person household. 3 The American Community Survey reports a mean annual household income for Nassau County as nearly $100, By contrast, 73.9 percent of respondents reported an income of less than $50,000 annually. Exhibit 3.31 compares the breakdown of NICE rider incomes to those of the overall Nassau County population. Exhibit 3.31 Annual Household Income % 33.9% % 5.3% 5.7% % 8.2% 12.7% 13.2% 12.2% 4.4% 5.3% Less than $15,000 $15,000 to $24,999 $25,000 to $34,999 $35,000 to $49,999 $50,000 to $74,999 $75,000 to $99,999 $100,000 or more NICE Nassau Co. Minimum wage in the state of New York was $9.00 per hour at the time of the survey. Nassau County also has a Living Wage Law, which requires employers with which the County does business to pay employees a minimum of $15.78 per hour. 5 This translates to an annual salary for full-time employment of approximately $32,800. While these figures may appear adequate on paper, they fail to take into account the many individuals who do not have full-time employment or who may be supporting an entire household on a single salary. This aspect of household income will be addressed fully in our analysis of Question U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2016 Poverty Guidelines, aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/13poverty.cfm. Accessed December 13, U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Nassau County, New York, factfinder2.census.gov. Accessed December 13, Nassau County, New York, County Comptroller s Office, index.html. Accessed December 13,

51 Exhibit 3.32.a Annual Household Income by Route (n1 n36) n1 38.2% 11.2% 22.4% 5.9% 11.2% 5.3% 5.9% n4 26.4% % 12.9% 17.4% 3.2% 5. n6 31.2% 11.4% % 14.2% 5.4% 5.9% n % 14.3% 21.4% 8.7% 8.7% 3.4% 5.3% n % 11.1% 23.3% 7.1% 8.7% % n % 23.3% 9.3% 5.8% n % 13.4% 17.4% 9.9% 13.7% 4.8% 8. n % 8.6% % 13.6% 3.7% n % 13.7% % 13.3% 7.8% 9. n % % 10.7% 14.7% n % 12.9% 19.9% n % % 10.7% 4.3% 3. n % 13.2% % n % 13.7% n % % 7.9% 11.9% n % 12.8% 22.8% 8.2% % 4.6% n % 19.6% 26.1% % 4.3% n % 10.9% 24.8% % 3.6% 4.7% n % 12.1% 13.8% 12.1% 6.9% 8.6% Less than $15,000 $15,000 to $24,999 $25,000 to $34,999 $35,000 to $49,999 $50,000 to $74,999 $75,000 to $99, $100,000 or more *Response types with consistently low values are not labeled to maintain chart cllarity

52 Exhibit 3.32.b Annual Household Income by Route (n40 n81) n % 11.1% 23.2% 11.1% 18.2% 2.9% n % 13.6% 20.2% 12.7% 10.3% 5.2% n % 8.1% 22.7% 6.9% 7.3% % n % 18.3% 16.7% % 3.3% n % 7.4% 29.4% 7.4% 16.2% n % 11.1% % 9.3% 7.4% n % 17.4% % 10.9% 4.3% n % 18.2% % 4. n % 26.4% 5.6% % n % % n % 5.3% 26.3% 5.3% 5.3% 5.3% 15.8% n % % 9.3% 5.3% 13.3% n % 7.8% % 9.8% 4.9% n % 8.3% % 17.3% 2.6% 3.8% n % 15.7% 10.7% 20.3% 4.1% n % 12.9% 25.8% 3.2% % 9.7% n % 17.8% 8.2% 16.4% 5. n % 8.9% 15.6% 17.8% 8.9% 6.7% n % % 4.8% Less than $15,000 $15,000 to $24,999 $25,000 to $34,999 $35,000 to $49,999 $50,000 to $74,999 $75,000 to $99,999 $100,000 or more *Response types with consistently low values are not labeled to maintain chart clar 48 Question 15: How many people live in your household?

53 The majority of respondents (60.5 percent) cited living in a household of two to four persons. Of those, 22.1 percent live in a four-person household. The average household size in Nassau County is 3.03 persons. 6 Exhibit 3.33 Household Size 18.1% 20.3% 22.1% n = 7, % 13.7% 6.7% % or more To assess the likelihood of customers living below federal poverty guidelines, we compared household size to annual household income. Darker red squares in Exhibit 3.34 indicate increased likelihood of living below the poverty line, while lighter red squares indicate individuals at risk of living in poverty. Each percentage is shown as the percentage of total respondents who answered both questions. This translates to 3,264 individuals, or 49.3 percent of the total sample, who are at risk for living below federal poverty guidelines U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Nassau County, New York, factfinder2.census.gov. Accessed December 13, 2016.

54 Exhibit 3.34 Household Income vs. Household Size or more Less than $15, % 5.8% 6.1% % 2.1% 1.1% 0.7% 1. $15,000 to $24, % 2.3% % 0.1% 0.2% $25,000 to $34, % 4.4% 5.3% 4.4% 2.3% 1.3% % 0.2% $35,000 to $49, % % 1.4% % 0.1% 0. $50,000 to $74, % 2.6% 2.8% 3.1% 1.8% 0.7% 0.3% 0.1% 0.2% $75,000 to $99, % 0.7% % 0.6% 0.3% 0.1% % $100,000 or more 0.2% 0.8% 0.9% % 0.6% 0.2% 0.1% 0.2% 50

55 Question 16: What is your race/ethnicity? (select all that apply) Black or African-American was the most frequently selected response, cited by 43.4 percent of surveyed riders. Persons of Hispanic/Latino heritage made up another 28.3 percent of the survey sample. Respondents identifying themselves as White represented just 14.3 percent, while 8.8 percent identified themselves as Asian. This is in distinct contrast with the ethnic breakdown of Nassau County as a whole, wherein 64.5 percent identified as White and just 15.6 percent and 10.9 percent identified as Hispanic/Latino and Black/African-American, respectively. Exhibit 3.35 compares the ethnic breakdown of survey respondents against the overall population of Nassau County Exhibit 3.35 Rider Ethnicity 7 Onboard Survey n = 8, % 28.3% 10.9% Black/African American 15.6% 14.3% 8.8% 8.3% 1.8% 2.7% 0.1% 0.7% 0.01% 0. Hispanic/Latino White Asian American Native Indian/Alaskan Hawaiian/Pacific Native Islander NICE Nassau Co. Routes n21 and n19 had the highest concentration Hispanic/Latino respondents (52.1 percent and 45.5 percent, respectively), while Routes n1 and n6 had the highest percentage of Black/African-American respondents (54.5 percent and 54.4 percent, respectively). Route n55 had the highest percentage of American Indian/Alaskan Native respondents (4.7 percent), while Route n79 had the highest percentage of Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander (3.1 percent). Route n78 had the highest percentage of Asian respondents (29.7 percent). Route n1 had the highest percentage of other responses (9.4 percent) U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Nassau County, New York, factfinder2.census.gov. Accessed December 13, 2016.

56 Exhibit 3.36.a Rider Ethnicity by Route (n1 n36) n % 9.4% 7.3% n4 53.9% 24.7% 8.6% 6.8% n6 54.4% 24.7% 7.9% 7.6% n % 29.6% 17.1% 3.6% n % 13.4% 5. n % % 5. n % % 27.8% n % 52.1% 14.9% 11.7% n % 22.2% n % 43.1% 16.1% 9.2% n % 24.6% 18.9% 14.3% n % 23.1% 21.3% 5.6% n % 32.3% 4.6% 7.7% n % 38.2% 16.6% 5. n % % n % 33.8% 13.6% 3.3% n % 29.1% 21.8% 5. n % 24.3% 10.7% 3. n % 26.1% % Black/African American Hispanic/Latino White Asian American Indian/Alaskan Native Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander *Response types with consistently low values are not labeled to maintain chart clarity 52

57 Exhibit 3.36.b Rider Ethnicity by Route (n40 n81) n % 29.8% 9.2% 4. n % % n % 7.3% 6. n % 17.1% 10. n % % n % 28.6% % n % % n % 26.9% 26.9% 7.7% n % 2. n % 20.9% 17.4% 3. n % 32.1% % n % 28.9% 9.3% n % 24.6% 17.2% 11. n % 25.9% 28.6% 4.2% n % 31.4% 22.4% 4. n % 21.6% 8.1% 29.7% n % 22.4% 15.3% 12.2% n % 28.3% n % 28.6% 18.4% 14.3% Black/African American Hispanic/Latino White Asian American Indian/Alaskan Native Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander *Response types with consistently low values are not labeled to maintain chart clarity 53

58 Question 17: Were you? Question 17 attempted to determine if respondents were born inside or outside the United States. Fiftyeight percent of respondents indicated being born within the United States. Born outside the United States, 42. Exhibit 3.37 Country of birth n = 7,895 Born in the United States,

59 Question 18: What language(s) are spoken in your home? Seventy-six percent of respondents indicated speaking English at home, followed by 16.1 percent that speak Spanish. French/Haitian Creole was the only other significant language group noted (3.4 percent). Exhibit 3.38 Home Language n = 8, % 3.4% English Spanish French/ Hatian Creole 0.9% 0.9% 0.7% 0.3% 0.2% 0.2% 1.2% South Asian Languages Chinese Italian Korean Persian/ Farsi Tagalog A more in-depth analysis of home language on a route-by-route basis is provided in Appendix C. 55

60 Question 19: How well do you speak English? Despite the large number of foreign-born respondents, nearly 84 percent reported speaking English very well. Exhibit 3.39 English Proficiency Less than very well, 16.2% n = 8,227 Very well, 83.8% Question 20: Has a lack of proficiency in English affected your ability to use NICE? Approximately eight percent of respondents said a lack of proficiency in English has affected their ability to use NICE. Exhibit 3.40 Barriers Due to Language Yes 7.9% No 92.1% n = 7,756 56

61 The relatively modest language barrier revealed in Question 20 becomes more apparent when assessed on a route-by-route basis. The lowest incidence of language barrier was seen on Route n51, where fewer than five percent of respondents cited a lack of proficiency in English being a barrier to using NICE. By contrast, 24.0 percent of Route n54 respondents indicated a language barrier. routes noting significant language challenges included Route n21 (16.5 percent), Route n58 (13.8 percent), and Route n23 (13.1 percent). 57

62 Exhibit 3.41.a Barriers Due to Language by Route (n1 n36) n1 n4 n6 n15 n16 n19 n20 n21 n22 n23 n24 n25 n26 n27 n31 n32 n33 n35 n % % % 89.3% % 86.9% 93.6% 93.8% % 90.4% 91.8% 93.9% % 5.3% % % 10.7% % 13.1% 6.4% 6.2% % 9.6% 8.2% 6.1% % No Yes 58

63 Exhibit 3.41.b Barriers Due to Language by Route (n40 n81) n % 9.6% n % 8.1% n n n % 6.7% n % 5.1% n % 7.7% n n % 6.9% n % 8.3% n n % 13.8% n n n % 6.8% n % 8.6% n % 9.8% n n % 9.8% No Yes Exhibit 3.42 illustrates the percentages of respondents who cited language barriers while utilizing NICE. While the percentages of respondents appear significant, it should be noted that only Spanish (200 respondents), French/Haitian Creole (30 respondents), and Chinese (13 respondents) included more than 10 respondents who experienced a language barrier. 59

64 % 11.3% 85.4% 88.7% Spanish French/ Haitian Creole Exhibit 3.42 Barriers Due to Language vs. Langauge Spoken at Home % % Chinese South Asian Languages Italian Korean Tagalog Persian/ Farsi No Yes Question 21: How many private vehicles do you have in your household? The majority of respondents (58.1 percent) indicated having access to at least one private vehicle. However, it should be noted that nearly one-third of respondents did not select one of the provided responses. We believe this is because many of them had zero private vehicles at home, which was not a response option % 27. Exhibit 3.43 Private Vehicles Access n = 5, % 4.7% or more 60

65 Question 22: Did you have a private vehicle available to make this trip? More than 85 percent of respondents indicated they did not have a private vehicle available for the surveyed trip. Exhibit 3.44 Private Vehicles Availability for This Trip Yes, 14.7% No, 85.3% n = 8,063 Question 23: Do you possess a valid driver license? Approximately 55.9 percent of respondents reported possession of a valid driver license. Exhibit 3.45 Driver License Yes, 44.1% No, 55.9% n = 8,169 61

66 Question 24: What is your gender? Responses skewed toward females, who represented 56.8 percent of the sample. The population of Nassau County as a whole also skews slightly toward females, though not to the same degree (females make up 51.5 percent of Nassau County residents)., 0.3% Exhibit 3.46 Respondent Gender Decline to state, 2.9% Male, 40. Female, 56.8% n = 8,499 62

67 Question 25: What is your age? Adults age 25 to 44 made up the largest single response group (35.5 percent). Persons age 45 to 64 also comprised a significant portion of those surveyed (28.4 percent). Another 20.8 percent of respondents cited being age 19 to 24. Relatively few respondents indicated they were 65 years of age or older (6.6 percent) or under age 19 (8.7 percent). Exhibit 3.47 Respondent Age n = 8, % 20.8% 7.1% 6.6% 1.6% Under to to to to or older 63

68 Question 26: What is your home ZIP code? Not surprisingly, more than 71 percent of respondents cited a Nassau County ZIP code with relation to their home location. Twenty-one percent indicated a Queens County home location, while 1.9 percent hailed from Kings County, and just under two percent from Suffolk County. Exhibit 3.48 Home ZIP Code (All) % n = 7, % Nassau County Queens County 2.8% 1.9% 0.7% 0.6% 0.3% 0.6% 0.7% Suffolk County Kings County Bronx County New York County NY County Out of State Unknown The three ZIP codes comprising Hempstead (11549, 11550, and 11551) were the most cited of all Nassau County ZIP codes (22.0 percent). notable concentrations of survey respondents included Elmont (11003; 8.6 percent), Freeport (11520; 8.2 percent), Roosevelt (6.8 percent), and Uniondale (11553, 11555, 11556, and 11588; 6.2 percent combined). 64

69 Exhibit 3.49 Home ZIP Code (Nassau County) Nassau Zip Code Number City Percent 11549, 11550, ,136 Hempstead Elmont 8.6% Freeport 8.2% 11553, 11555, 11556, Uniondale 6.2% Roosevelt 4.8% 11580, 11581, 11582, Valley Stream 4.4% 11590, 11593, Westbury 3.8% West Hempstead 2.9% 11020, 11021, 11022, 11023, 11024, Great Neck 2.9% Baldwin 3.1% 11040, 11042, New Hyde Park 2.7% 11801, 11855, Hicksville 2.6% Long Beach 2.2% Glen Cove 2.3% 11570, 11571, Rockville Center 1.8% 11001, Floral Park 1.6% Mineola 1.4% East Meadow 1.3% 11050, 11051, 11053, Port Washington 1.3% Oceanside 1.2% Franklin Square 1.2% 11563, Lynbrook 1.1% Levittown 1. Nassau zip codes % 65

70 Question 27: Are you employed? Seventy-nine percent of respondents indicated being employed at least part-time, which is consistent with the high percentage of riders traveling to or from work. Just 16.2 percent said they were not employed or retired, a category that could include students and homemakers as well as those looking for work. Exhibit Respondent Employment Status Not employed, 16.2% Retired, 4.8% Full-time, 46.1% Part-time, 32.9% n = 8,237 Question 28: Are you a student? Slightly more than 33 percent of respondents said they were either full- or part-time students. Exhibit 3.51 Student Status Full-time, 21.3% Not a student, 66.8% Part-time, 11.9% n = 7,673 66

71 Question 29: Do you own or have access to a smartphone? More than 81 percent of respondents indicated having access to a smartphone, up from approximately 66 percent in Exhibit 3.52 Access to Smartphone No, 18.8% n = 8,122 Yes, 81.2% Question 30: Have you used NICE s gomobile transit app? The prevalence of smartphone access appears to have translated to respectable usage of NICE s gomobile app (33.3 percent). Exhibit 3.53 Usage of gomobile app Yes, 33.3% No, 66.7% n = 8, Question 31: Do you access real-time bus information through the gomobile transit app?

72 Nearly 36 percent of respondents indicated having accessed real-time bus information through the gomobile transit app. The higher percentage of users in this question compared to the percentage of users indicated in Question 30 is likely attributed to a lower number of respondents to this particular question. Exhibit 3.54 Usage of gomobile app real-time bus information Yes, 35.8% No, 64.2% n = 7,968 68

73 Section 4 Title VI Analysis The following is an assessment of the geographic distribution of key population groups relevant to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of Title VI prohibits the discrimination on the basis of race, color or national origin in programs or activities receiving federal assistance. This assessment reflects the racial/ethnic makeup of Nassau County, along with low-income populations, and those with limited access (zero or one) to a personal vehicle. This allowed us to identify locations within Nassau County still in need of NICE services. This analysis is intended to provide decision-makers with relevant information when determining service changes or route development. Data was gathered from the American Community Survey. Minority Populations Hispanic/Latino populations are primarily clustered near the center and west portions of Nassau County. The heaviest concentrations (census block groups with Hispanic/Latino population greater than 6,000/square mile) exist in or near Hempstead, Freeport, and Westbury. Modest concentrations (census block groups with Hispanic/Latino population of 3,000-6,000/square mile) exist in or near Glen Cove, Levittown, Valley Stream, Inwood, Uniondale, Mineola, and Elmont (See Exhibit 4.1). Black/African-American populations are primarily concentrated in central Nassau County (Hempstead, Freeport, Lynbrook, and Westbury) and far west Nassau County (Elmont). A modest Black/African American population resides in or near Inwood, Great Neck, Glen Cove, and Long Beach (See Exhibit 4.2). Asian populations are more spread out across Nassau County with fewer pockets of high concentrations (census block groups with Asian population greater than 2,500/square mile). However, a few high density pockets exist in or near Elmont, Bellerose, Floral Park, New Hyde Park, and Herricks. The majority of the Asian population is concentrated south of the Long Island Expressway in or near Mineola, Westbury, Hicksville, and Levittown, with pockets also existing in Great Neck and Long Beach (See Exhibit 4.3). Concentrations of American Indian/Alaskan Native populations are modest within Nassau County. However, clusters do exist throughout the County, including near Great Neck, Williston Park, Malverne, Westbury, Uniondale, Freeport, and Mineola (See Exhibit 4.4). There are no significant concentrations of persons identifying themselves as being Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander in Nassau County. Small, low-density pockets (census block groups with Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander population greater than 100/square mile) exist in the vicinity of Westbury, Elmont, and Freeport. (See Exhibit 4.5.) minority populations (those who indicated being something other than those cited in the 2014 American Community Survey) are loosely concentrated in the northern and central Nassau County areas 69

74 of Glen Cove, Westbury, Hicksville, Elmont, Freeport, Oceanside, Long Beach, Inwood, Roosevelt, and New Hyde Park (See Exhibit 4.6.). While White is not a minority population, the map depicting the concentration of White population within Nassau County serves to illustrate areas where the majority ethnicity is not dominant. Specifically, these areas include Brookville, Freeport, Uniondale, and portions of Hempstead (See Exhibit 4.7). Low-Income Populations Exhibit 4.8 presents the concentration of persons living below the federal poverty line ($11,670 CY 2014) in Nassau County. Low-income residents are primarily clustered south of the Long Island Expressway. Key areas with a more dense concentration (census block groups with low-income population greater than 2,000/square mile) include Hempstead, Westbury, Glen Cove, Baldwin, and Freeport. There are several modest concentrations near Great Neck, Oceanside, Levittown, Hicksville, and Mineola. Senior Populations As defined by the Older Americans Act (OAA), senior citizens are individuals over the age of 60 years. Exhibit 4.9 details senior population growth throughout Nassau County. While modest senior populations are spread throughout the County, the greatest concentrations (census block groups with seniors greater than 3,000/square mile) are located in Uniondale, Great Neck, Elmont, and Hempstead. Youth Populations Exhibit 4.10 presents those persons under the age of 18 residing in Nassau County by census block group. Youth populations are spread across Nassau County, with heavy concentrations (census block groups with youths greater than 3,000/square mile) in or near Hempstead, Westbury, Roosevelt, Freeport, North Valley Stream, and Levittown. Overall, there are an average of 1,823 youths/square mile. Households with No or Limited Access to a Personal Vehicle Exhibit 4.11 presents the number of households with no or limited access to a personal vehicle. No or limited access is defined as a household having access to zero or one vehicles. Areas with the greatest concentration of Households with limited access to a personal vehicle include Hempstead, Glen Cove, Freeport, Mineola, Long Beach, Russell Gardens, and Great Neck. More than half (55.8 percent) of the census block groups within the County have at least 100 households with limited access to a vehicle. 70

75 Exhibit 4.1 Concentration of Hispanic/Latino Population 71

76 Exhibit 4.2 Concentration of Black/African American Population 72

77 Exhibit 4.3 Concentration of Asian Population 73

78 Exhibit 4.4 Concentration of American Indian/Alaskan Native Population 74

79 Exhibit 4.5 Concentration of Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander Population 75

80 Exhibit 4.6 Concentration of Minority Populations 76

81 Exhibit 4.7 Concentration of White Population 77

82 Exhibit 4.8 Concentration of Low-income Population 78

83 Exhibit 4.9 Concentration of Senior Population

84 Exhibit 4.10 Concentration of Youth Population

85 Exhibit 4.11 Concentration of Households with No or Limited Access to a Personal Vehicle

86 This page intentionally blank.

87 Appendix A Survey Instruments On the following pages are the survey instruments used in the 2016 Onboard Transit Survey. Included is the English survey as well as the translation into Spanish. Chinese, Farsi, Italian, Korean, and Haitian Creole translations were available online and promoted via a printed language card. The language cards are also included in this appendix. B-1

88 This page intentionally blank. B-2

89 B-3

90 B-4

91 B-5