MONTEREY - SALINAS TRANSIT

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "MONTEREY - SALINAS TRANSIT"

Transcription

1 MONTEREY - SALINAS TRANSIT MARINA AREA SERVICE STUDY FINAL REPORT SEPTEMBER 2009

2 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CUSTOMER SURVEY ANALYSIS COMMUNITY SURVEY ANALYSIS 35 TABLE OF CONTENTS 4. CSUMB SURVEY ANALYSIS PATRONAGE ANALYSIS SERVICE PLAN 91 MOORE & ASSOCIATES

3 Exhibit No. Exhibit Title Page Exhibit 2.1 Four-Month MST Ridership 8 Exhibit 2.2 On-Board Survey Sampling 8 Exhibit 2.3 Respondent Residence Location 10 Exhibit 2.4 Route Selection 11 Exhibit 2.5 Transfer Used 12 Exhibit 2.6 Trip Purpose 13 Exhibit 2.7 Typical Route vs. Trip Purpose 14 Exhibit 2.8 Number of Children under the Age of 16 Traveling with Rider 15 Exhibit 2.9 Ridership Frequency 15 Exhibit 2.10 Typical Route vs. Ridership Frequency 16 Exhibit 2.11 Length of Use 17 Exhibit 2.12 Typical Route vs. Length of Use 18 Exhibit 2.13 Transportation Alternatives 19 Exhibit 2.14 Typical Route vs. Transportation Alternatives 20 Exhibit 2.15 Transit Stop Access 21 Exhibit 2.16 Fare Type 22 Exhibit 2.17 Alternative Fare Payment Preference 23 Exhibit 2.18 Trip Purpose vs. Awareness of CSUMB Free Bus Zone 24 Exhibit 2.19 Typical Route vs. Awareness of CSUMB Free Bus Zone 25 Exhibit 2.20 Initial Source of Rider s Awareness 26 Exhibit 2.21 Initial Source of Rider s Awareness Other 26 Exhibit 2.22 Language vs. Initial Source of Awareness 27 Exhibit 2.23 Rider Information Outlets 28 Exhibit 2.24 Rider Information Outlets Other 28 Exhibit 2.25 Language vs. Information Outlets 29 Exhibit 2.26 Customer Information Telephone Service Rating 30 Exhibit 2.27 Website Rating 31 Exhibit 2.28 Service Attribute Rating 31 MOORE & ASSOCIATES

4 Exhibit 2.29 Selection Motivator 33 Exhibit 3.1 Respondent Residence Location 38 Exhibit 3.2 Respondent Residence Location Other 39 Exhibit 3.3 Barriers to Usage 41 Exhibit 3.4 Propensity to Ride vs. Employment Category 42 Exhibit 3.5 Propensity to Ride vs. Household Income 43 Exhibit 3.6 Preferred Enhancement 43 Exhibit 3.7 Alternate Public-Transit Services Used 45 Exhibit 3.8 Awareness of CSUMB Free Bus Zone vs. Employment 46 Exhibit 3.9 Service Attribute Importance 47 Exhibit 3.10 Advertising Source 48 Exhibit 3.11 Preferred Mode 49 Exhibit 3.12 Print Outlet 49 Exhibit 3.13 Age Distribution 50 Exhibit 3.14 Persons Under the Age of 16 Traveling With Respondent 51 Exhibit 3.15 Household Income 52 Exhibit 3.16 Employment Status 53 Exhibit 3.17 Education 54 Exhibit 4.1 Respondent Residence Location 60 Exhibit 4.2 Respondent Category vs. Residence Location 61 Exhibit 4.3 Patronized MST in Last 60 Days 62 Exhibit 4.4 Respondent Category vs. Patronized MST in Last 60 Days 63 Exhibit 4.5 Reason for Not Using MST 64 Exhibit 4.6 Residence Location vs. Reason for Not Using MST 65 Exhibit 4.7 Respondent Category vs. Reason for Not Using MST 66 Exhibit 4.8 Propensity to Ride MST 67 Exhibit 4.9 Respondent Category vs. Propensity to Ride MST 68 Exhibit 4.10 Preferred Service Enhancement 69 Exhibit 4.11 Characteristic Preference 70 Exhibit 4.12 Other Transit Service 71 Exhibit 4.13 CSUMB Fare-Free Zone 71 Exhibit 4.14 Nearest Bus Stop 72 MOORE & ASSOCIATES

5 Exhibit 4.15 Ride-Dependency 73 Exhibit 4.16 Respondent Category 74 Exhibit 4.17 Days on Campus 74 Exhibit 4.18 Time Arriving on Campus 75 Exhibit 4.19 Time Departing Campus 76 Exhibit 4.20 Use of CSUMB Shuttle 76 Exhibit 4.21 CSUMB Shuttle Frequency of Use 77 Exhibit 4.22 Most Frequent Off-Campus Destinations 78 Exhibit 4.23 Off-Campus Mode 79 Exhibit 4.24 Access to Campus 80 Exhibit 4.25 Discount Fare Option 81 Exhibit 5.1 Marina On-Call Common Origins 85 Exhibit 5.2 Marina On-Call Common Origins Map 87 Exhibit 5.3 Marina On-Call Common Destinations Map 88 Exhibit 5.4 Customer Survey Respondent Home Zip Codes 89 Exhibit 6.1 Current Route 2X 93 Exhibit 6.2 Current Route Exhibit 6.3 Current Route Exhibit 6.4 Current Route Exhibit 6.5 Current Route Exhibit 6.6 Current MST On-Call Marina 98 Exhibit 6.7 Current CSUMB Shuttle 99 Exhibit 6.8 Current Service in Marina 100 Exhibit 6.9 Current Service in Marina with Quarter-Mile Buffers 101 Exhibit 6.10 Proposed Marina Circulator 105 Exhibit 6.11 Proposed Marina Circulator Sample Schedule 106 Exhibit 6.12 Near-Term Service in Marina 107 Exhibit 6.13 Near-Term Service in Marina with Quarter-Mile Buffers 108 Exhibit 6.14 Proposed Route Exhibit 6.15 Proposed Route 25 Sample Schedule 111 Exhibit 6.16 Route 16 Sample Schedule 113 Exhibit 6.17 Route 20 Sample Schedule 115 MOORE & ASSOCIATES

6 Exhibit 6.18 Proposed Route 25 Sample Schedule 116 Exhibit 6.19 Mid-Term Service in Marina 117 Exhibit 6.20 Mid-Term Service in Marina with Quarter-Mile Buffers 118 Exhibit 6.21 Proposed Route Exhibit 6.22 Long-Term Service in Marina 123 Exhibit 6.23 Long-Term Service in Marina with Quarter-Mile Buffers 124 MOORE & ASSOCIATES

7 This Page Intentionally Left Blank. MOORE & ASSOCIATES

8 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 1

9 CHAPTER 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The goal of the Marina Area Service Study is to evaluate how well MST s Marina-area fixed-route service meets current demand, assess how well it is likely to meet future demand, and develop service modifications to better serve public transit customers in the near-term as well as forecast future. To this end, Moore & Associates fielded three separate surveys: a passenger survey conducted onboard MST buses traveling throughout the service area; a community survey conducted at several high-traffic points within Marina; and a web-based survey open to the Cal State University Monterey Bay faculty, staff, and student body. The purpose of these efforts was to codify perceptions, travel patterns, desired enhancements, and respondent demographics. These market research efforts were supplemented with interviews with stakeholders, MST staff, and riders. Market research efforts completed in conjunction with this study were fruitful. The community-intercept survey yielded 266 valid responses, the onboard survey 755, and the web-based CSUMB survey 519. The respective response rates allowed for a high degree of confidence in the results. Given the three different surveys each targeted a separate segment of the population, the results proved valuable in analyzing the differences between riders, non-riders, and members of the CSUMB community (i.e., students, faculty, and staff). Results from the customer survey revealed existing transit travel patterns and demographics, service satisfaction, as well as channels through which MST can improve service delivery and retain customers. The community and CSUMB surveys each provided valuable information about riders and non-riders within Marina as well as the CSUMB campus. Results helped target service planning efforts more accurately and allowed for the development of effective market-driven service enhancements. MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 2

10 To supplement the preceding market research efforts, Moore & Associates also analyzed patronage patterns onboard MST buses. We examined origin and destination data for MST s Marina On-Call service for the months of August 2008 and February 2009 as well as origin data from the customer survey conducted onboard MST buses in March The data was used to determine where trips are currently being made, ensuring service planning efforts to effectively address demand patterns. Recommendations arising from the market research activities and analysis of patronage patterns were split into near, mid, and long-term strategies. The three time frames serve different purposes. Near-Term recommendations focus on addressing immediate needs, mid-term recommendations are aimed at crafting a comprehensive approach toward service delivery within the Marina Service Sector, and long-term recommendations address forecast demand for transit service associated with the continued build-out of the former Fort Ord community. Taken collectively, the recommendations are designed to enhance MST s service delivery strategy in the Marina Service Sector, though given the Marina Transit Exchange functions as a gateway for many routes linking Salinas and Monterey, other portions of the service area stand to realize benefits as well. Primary obstacles to implementation including availability of funding (both capital and operating) and restrictive turning movements out of the Dunes Shopping Center (i.e., vehicles cannot make a left turn from the Shopping Center parking lot northbound onto Second Avenue). MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 3

11 This Page Intentionally Left Blank. MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 4

12 2. CUSTOMER SURVEY ANALYSIS MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 5

13 CHAPTER 2 CUSTOMER SURVEY ANALYSIS This chapter presents key findings and analysis from the customer survey conducted onboard Monterey-Salinas Transit (MST) in March The survey sought to collect data regarding demographics, assess rider satisfaction, perceptions and characteristics, and identify preferred service enhancements. Moore & Associates conducted an intercept survey of MST customers onboard MST vehicles traveling throughout Marina during the week of March 2, Survey instruments were developed to solicit information from current MST riders. The survey was designed to: Identify the needs, perceptions, concerns, and any barriers to use of Marina s transit rider population; Identify service improvements associated with existing users; Identify marketing strategies and appropriate media outlets designed to maximize impact; and Develop a profile of transit patrons traveling through Marina, including travel patterns and demographics. Methodology For the purposes of the study, the Marina area is defined as the area along Military Avenue from the south, extending north through California State University at Monterey Bay (CSUMB) north to Marina. It stretches from Highway 1 on the coast to the East Garrison community. Included in the study area are MST s Marina Transit Exchange and Edgewater Transit Exchange. Survey instruments were developed to develop a comprehensive analysis of transportation demand as well as travel patterns within the Marina area. To complement the information gathered in MST s 2006 Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP), this survey was also designed to evaluate how well MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 6

14 MST s bus service in and around the Marina/CSUMB area is meeting patron demand with respect to on-time performance, safety, and convenience. Data collected through the on-board survey will be used to: Analyze present and anticipated development and travel patterns, Support development of a series of new and revised alignments that would better serve existing and future transit customers, and Attract additional ridership. The on-board survey instrument was crafted using specific transit-based query recommendations from MST staff in concert with Moore & Associates. The survey was developed in English and Spanish and included information regarding the rider s trip that day as well as feedback regarding MST s services in general. Though secondary, the survey also contained demographic information to help gain insight on such items as the rider s approximate residential location and access to other mobility options. This information will support analysis of where service is found to be most effective, while also assisting in the development of service enhancements aimed at increasing MST ridership. The on-board surveys were completed over the course of four days: Monday, March 2 through Thursday, March 5, All surveyors boarded and disembarked for their survey shift at the Marina Transit Station located at Reservation Road and De Forest Road. Data was collected via a self-administered approach and included four Moore & Associates field supervisors and a team of 20 trained, bilingual surveyors. To ensure survey results were relevant, only which traveled to, from or through Marina were surveyed. All persons 16 years of age or older boarding a MST bus on the designated routes were invited to participate. Surveyor staff introduced themselves on behalf of Monterey-Salinas Transit and requested each respondent s permission before initiating the survey. Each respondent was given the option of completing the survey themselves or having assistance from one of the bilingual surveyors on-board. Self- MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 7

15 administered surveys were reviewed to ensure each was completed properly before deeming it valid. After each survey was completed, the surveyor thanked each respondent for their participation and concluded the survey session. A total of 755 surveys were collected across the five routes traveling through Marina: Routes 2X, 16, 20, 27, and the MST On-Call Marina. The sample targets for each route were calculated using recent ridership data, wherein those routes with higher ridership were assigned a higher quota than those with lower ridership. Survey administration was modified slightly for Route 20 as it accounted for more than 75 percent of the aggregate ridership amongst the target routes. Though Route 20 still accounted for the highest number of valid surveys, Moore & Associates adjusted surveyor staffing levels to ensure the other routes were sufficiently sampled. It should also be noted that although Routes 6 and 12 provide some service within parts of the Marina area, ridership was not considered significant, and therefore excluded from the sampling plan. Exhibit 2.1 Four-Month MST Ridership Route Sept-Dec 2008 Ridership Ridership Percentage Monterey-Salinas (20) 202, % Monterey-Marina (16) 46, % Watsonville-Marina (27) 6, % MST On Call Marina 4, % Pebble Beach Express (2X) 4, % Exhibit 2.2 On-Board Survey Sampling Route Survey Respondents Percentage of Respondents Monterey-Salinas (20) % Monterey-Marina (16) % Watsonville-Marina (27) % MST On Call Marina % Pebble Beach Express (2X) % Based on 2007 Census data, Marina has a population of approximately 25,378, yielding a 95-percent confidence level and a ±3.51 percent MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 8

16 margin of error. As expected, the highest number of surveys were completed on Routes 20 (371) and 16 (271), and the lowest on Route 2X (18). Of the 755 valid responses, 687 surveys were completed in English (91 percent) and 68 in Spanish (9 percent). Rider Profile In analyzing the most frequently occurring responses, a profile of the typical Monterey-Salinas Transit customer was developed. While this profile does not reflect any single customer, it is representative of the responses provided by MST riders during the survey period. Though the primary intent of this survey was not to gain demographic insight into current MST riders, some demographic information was obtained. Based on the on-board survey data, the typical MST Marina rider lives within Marina s zip code (39.2 percent) and first became aware of MST service by seeing the vehicles traveling around town (45.1 percent). Once becoming a rider, they have ridden consistently at a rate of approximately four or more days per week (62.4 percent) for at least a year (59.8 percent). In the absence of MST service, they would rely on a friend or family member for travel (42.3 percent). While traveling on the most frequently used route Route 20 (50.7 percent) they typically walk less than three blocks to reach the originating bus stop (50.2 percent). Boarding the bus, they typically use cash fare (61.6 percent) and are most likely traveling to either school (34.2 percent) or work (32.8 percent). Although they have internet access at home (65 percent), they have not likely visited the MST website (69.2 percent), nor have they used Google Transit to plan a trip or access information regarding MST s services (83.8 percent). Instead, the typical rider obtains information about MST onboard the bus (44.4 percent) and has probably never used MST s customer information telephone service (57.2 percent). Given the profile rider probably does not have a driver license (56 percent) or access to a personal vehicle (63.8 percent), they rely on MST and are therefore considered ride-dependent. MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 9

17 Though this Marina Area Service Study focuses primarily on the Marina community, results from the on-board survey reveals a wide range of residential location distribution. Respondents were asked to specify residence zip code. Given the survey was conducted on routes primarily serving the Marina area, the majority of respondents indicated residing in Marina (39.2 percent). Within Exhibit 2.3 are other locations that yielded significant results including Seaside (17.4 percent), Salinas (aggregate 16.9 percent across three zip codes), Monterey (6.8 percent), Castroville (3.8 percent), Watsonville (3.2 percent) and Pacific Grove (1.7 percent). It should be noted there were a total of 43 other zip codes indicated by respondents. However, each yielded less than a one-percent response rate and therefore was not considered statistically significant. Those 43 were combined and included in Exhibit 2.3 under Total Other (11.1 percent). Exhibit 2.3 Respondent Residence Location City Zip Code Respondents Percentage Marina % Seaside % Monterey % Salinas % Salinas % Salinas % Castroville % Watsonville % Pacific Grove % Total Other Various % Travel Patterns Several questions were posed regarding travel patterns. The resulting information will help MST develop service improvements best suited to their customers needs. Riders were asked which MST route/service do you ride most often and were provided seven options to choose from: Pebble Beach Express (Route 2X), Monterey-Salinas (Route 20), Marina On-Call, Edgewater-Ryan Ranch (Route 6), Watsonville-Marina (Route 27), Monterey-Marina (Route 16), and Other. Exhibit 2.4 indicates the MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 10

18 Monterey-Salinas Route 20 (50.7 percent) and Monterey-Marina Route 16 (33.7 percent) yielded the highest results, which is comparable to the results found in both the 2008 ridership data (Exhibit 2.1) and the Survey Sampling (Exhibit 2.2). It should be noted the information gained from responses to this question provides additional insight into travel patterns given the route the respondent most often uses can vary significantly from the route the respondent was on at the time of the survey. Only 34 respondents selected the other option and the results were too diverse to develop meaningful conclusions. Of those other routes selected, Route 1 (17.6 percent) and Routes 9, 23, and 28 (14.7 percent each) were the most commonly-cited. Exhibit 2.4 Route Selection 60.0% 50.0% 50.7% 40.0% 33.7% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 7.8% 5.1% 1.6% 1.1% 0.0% Pebble Beach Express (2X) Monterey-Salinas (20) MST On Call Marina Edgewater-Ryan Ranch (6) Watsonville-Marina (27) Monterey-Marina (16) Riders were asked if the surveyed trip included a transfer, and were then asked to specify their selection if yes was their response. Participants were given four options: Another MST bus/line, Santa Cruz Metro, RIDES (MST s ADA transportation service), or other. More than half of all respondents indicated their trip did include a transfer (57.4 percent). Among those responding yes, the vast majority originated from another MST/bus line MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 11

19 (87.7 percent). Among the 433 respondents to select yes, not one rider indicated other (i.e., another transit service) as their means of transfer. Exhibit 2.5 Transfer Used 100.0% 90.0% 87.7% 80.0% 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 5.0% 7.1% 0.0% Another MST bus/line Santa Cruz Metro RIDES The majority of respondents indicated school (34.1 percent) or work (32.8 percent) as their primary trip purpose. This was followed by personal business (18.1 percent), shopping (9.1 percent), and medical (5.8 percent) respectively. These results are consistent with market research conducted by Moore & Associates in other California communities. MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 12

20 Exhibit 2.6 Trip Purpose 40.0% 35.0% 32.8% 34.1% 30.0% 25.0% 20.0% 18.1% 15.0% 10.0% 9.1% 5.0% 5.8% 0.0% Work Personal Business School Shopping Medical To gain further insight into patron travel behavior, we performed a data cross-tabulation comparing respondents typical route and trip purpose. The results reveal Route 16 is used overwhelmingly for school-related trips (43.2 percent), which can be attributed to the fact it is the only traditional fixed-route serving CSUMB that operates across the entire service day. Routes 2X and 6 are typically used for work-related purposes (50.0 percent for both). Marina On-Call is used equally often for personal business and school-related trips (25.8 percent for each), while never used for medical reasons. Route 20 is used nearly equally as-often for work and schoolrelated trips (33.6 and 33.2 percent, respectively). MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 13

21 Exhibit 2.7 Typical Route vs. Trip Purpose Monterey-Marina (16) 29.0% 10.1% 43.2% 14.2% 3.6% Watsonville-Marina (27) 38.3% 21.3% 23.4% 17.0% Edgewater-Ryan Ranch (6) 50.0% 16.7% 16.7% 16.7% MST On Call Marina 35.5% 25.8% 25.8% 12.9% Monterey-Salinas (20) 33.6% 20.2% 33.2% 8.4% 4.6% Pebble Beach Express (2X) 50.0% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% 20.0% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Work Personal Business School Shopping Medical Riders were asked whether or not they were traveling with any person under the age of 16, and if so, to specify how many. This query was posed to assist in the development of service alternatives which may be beneficial to riders traveling with children, as well as to further understand the travel patterns of current riders. Though the majority of respondents indicated they were not traveling with any children (88.4 percent), those stating they were cited only one child as the most common response (40.5 percent). Four or more was cited least often (12.6 percent). MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 14

22 Exhibit 2.8 Number of Children under the Age of 16 Traveling with Rider % % % 4 or more 12.6% Participants were also asked how often they typically ride MST. The top response was four or more days per week (62.3 percent), followed by 2-3 days per week (22.1 percent). This reveals riders are not only using the service consistently, but view MST as the preferred transportation option for a significant share of their trips. This is considered to be a positive finding in that MST is having success retaining existing riders. Exhibit 2.9 Ridership Frequency 70.0% 60.0% 62.3% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 22.1% 10.0% 7.3% 4.3% 4.0% 0.0% 4 or more days per week 2-3 days per month 2-3 days per week 1 day per week 1 day per month or less A data cross-tabulation was run to compare frequency of usage with trip purpose. This revealed riders using the service to travel to work are most likely to ride four or more days per week (42.2 percent). Riders using MST to travel to school were also more likely to use the service four or more times per week (38.7 percent). Shopping (4.4 percent) and medical (4.4 MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 15

23 percent) trip purposes yielded the lowest responses for persons most likely to ride four or more days per week. An additional data cross-tabulation was conducted between typical route and frequency of usage. Of particular note, there are no infrequent riders (one day per week or less) using either Route 2X or Route 6, indicating riders come to rely heavily on these services for their daily trips. Route 2X, in particular, is skewed heavily toward daily trips (88.9 percent), which reflects its commute-oriented structure. The Marina On-Call service has a higher-than-average rate of everyday usage (70.4 percent). Routes 16 and 20 are most likely to be used on a less frequent basis. Exhibit 2.10 Typical Route vs. Ridership Frequency Monterey-Marina (16) 53.4% 7.4% 31.4% 4.4% 3.4% Watsonville-Marina (27) 61.7% 8.5% 21.3% 6.4% 2.1% Edgewater-Ryan Ranch (6) 57.1% 28.6% 14.3% MST On Call Marina 70.4% 22.2% 3.7% 3.7% Monterey-Salinas (20) 64.1% 7.9% 19.4% 3.8% 4.8% Pebble Beach Express (2X) 88.9% 11.1% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 4 or more days per week 2-3 days per month 2-3 days per week 1 day per month or less 1 day per week When asked how long they had been an MST customer, 59.8 percent of respondents stated they have used MST for more than one year. Among MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 16

24 the less frequent responses were less than three months (14.4 percent) and 3-6 months (9.2 percent). These results, much like those regarding service frequency, reveal MST excels at retaining patrons. Exhibit 2.11 Length of Use 70.0% 60.0% 59.8% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 14.4% 16.5% 10.0% 9.2% 0.0% Less than 3 months 6-12 months 3-6 months More than 1 year To analyze patron length of use more deeply, we conducted a data crosstabulation between typical route used and length of use. Results reveal more respondents have been riding Route 20 for more than a year (63.3 percent), while the highest concentrations of new riders can be found on Route 2X. This highlights that service s value as a potential tool for attracting new riders (i.e., new riders find it approachable and easy-touse), though it also has the lowest concentration of long-term riders (20.0 percent). Route 6 has the lowest concentration of new riders among the six routes surveyed (14.3 percent), followed closely by Route 20 (14.9 percent). It should be noted, however, that while Route 20 has a relatively low incidence of new riders, it has the highest ridership in the MST system, and as such the total number of riders is significantly greater than Route 2X. MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 17

25 Exhibit 2.12 Typical Route vs. Length of Use Monterey-Marina (16) 13.9% 18.7% 10.5% 56.9% Watsonville-Marina (27) 19.1% 19.1% 12.8% 48.9% Edgewater-Ryan Ranch (6) 14.3% 28.6% 14.3% 42.9% MST On Call Marina 21.9% 25.0% 9.4% 43.8% Monterey-Salinas (20) 14.9% 14.6% 7.3% 63.3% Pebble Beach Express (2X) 30.0% 30.0% 20.0% 20.0% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Less than 3 months 6-12 months 3-6 months More than 1 year Respondents were asked how they would make the surveyed trip if MST were not available. Many cited reliance on family/friend (42.3 percent) as their most common transportation alternative. This was followed by walk/bicycle (24.8 percent), drive self (13.3 percent), would not make trip (11.5 percent), and carpool (7.9 percent). Riders were also given the opportunity to respond to this question by selecting other. Only two other options were cited, both of which yielded similar results. Of the eleven respondents selecting the other option, six riders stated they would hitchhike while the other five stated they would use a taxi. These results further confirm the majority of surveyed riders are ride-dependent. MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 18

26 Exhibit 2.13 Transportation Alternatives 45.0% 42.3% 40.0% 35.0% 30.0% 25.0% 24.8% 20.0% 15.0% 13.3% 11.5% 10.0% 7.9% 5.0% 0.0% Drive Self Carpool Rely on family/friend Would not make trip Walk/bicycle To further analyze respondent transportation alternatives, we conducted a data cross-tabulation with typical route. The results reveal the highest concentrations of choice riders (i.e., respondents having access to mobility options and transit) are on Routes 2X and 6 (25.0 percent and 33.3 percent). The highest concentrations of ride-dependent patrons were on Routes 16 and 27 (7.1 and 11.6 percent, respectively). Delving further into the results, assuming patrons indicating they would walk or bicycle are using MST for shorter trips, the routes most often used for short trips include Route 27 and Marina On-Call (32.6 percent and 30.8 percent, respectively). Given it has a high concentration of respondents who would drive themselves, no one on Route 6 indicated they would walk or bicycle if the service was unavailable. MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 19

27 Exhibit 2.14 Typical Route vs. Transportation Alternatives Monterey-Marina (16) 7.1% 6.5% 45.8% 11.9% 28.6% Watsonville-Marina (27) 11.6% 4.7% 34.9% 16.3% 32.6% Edgewater-Ryan Ranch (6) 33.3% 16.7% 50.0% MST On Call Marina 15.4% 7.7% 38.5% 7.7% 30.8% Monterey-Salinas (20) 15.3% 8.2% 44.7% 10.6% 21.2% Pebble Beach Express (2X) 25.0% 12.5% 50.0% 12.5% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Drive Self Carpool Rely on family/friend Would not make trip Walk/bicycle Survey participants were asked how they typically access MST at the individual stop level. Among the responses specified, walked less than three blocks was cited as the most common response (50.2 percent). The next highest response was walked more than three blocks (39.5 percent), yielding similar results. A modest number indicated they either rode a bike (5.3 percent) or drove self (4.9 percent) as their means of accessing the bus stop. Though many riders board and alight buses at multiple stops, we observed the Marina Transit Exchange had little or no designated longterm parking for transit riders. Parking at this station is primarily either handicapped restricted or 15-minute parking (i.e., pick up/ drop off), both of which are monitored by on-site security personnel. While it may be difficult to quantify the direct effects this has on patronage, we believe it is reasonable to assume this policy could act as a barrier to possible transit use. MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 20

28 Respondents were also given the option to select transferred from another bus and then were asked to specify the route from which they transferred. Only 45 respondents selected this option, noting 19 different route/transfer combinations including two transferring from the CSUMB shuttle (4.4 percent of transfers) and one respondent transferring from MST s DART service (2.2 percent of transfers). Though all numerically modest, the two most noteworthy transfers were cited as Route 20 (22.2 percent of transfers) and Route 27 (11.1 percent of transfers). All other cited transfers were well below 10 percent and not considered significant enough to warrant further analysis. Exhibit 2.15 Transit Stop Access 60.0% 50.0% 50.2% 40.0% 39.5% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 4.9% 5.3% 0.0% Drove self Rode bike Walked more than 3 blocks Walked less than 3 blocks Fare Preferences More than 60 percent of respondents cited paying their fare using the standard cash fare. Payment through the use of a monthly pass (24.8 percent) was the next most commonly cited fare used, followed by discount fare (7.4 percent) and free fare (6.2 percent). Discounted fares are about half of the regular fare and are available to: MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 21

29 Individuals 47" tall to 18 years old, Individuals 65 years or older, Individuals with disabilities, and Medicare cardholders. The free fare only applies to children up to 46 inches tall. A maximum of three children, 46 inches tall or less, can ride free with a fare-paying passenger. Exhibit 2.16 Fare Type 70.0% 60.0% 61.5% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 24.8% 20.0% 10.0% 7.4% 6.2% 0.0% Cash Fare Monthly Pass Discount Free To garner input regarding changes to fare policy, survey participants were asked if available, which of the following payment methods do you prefer. This question was posed to riders in an effort to analyze awareness for introducing new fare media options. Each option includes the use of a payment card which, if implemented, the rider would board the bus and simply swipe the card as payment. The fare would then be immediately deducted from the Debit Card, Credit Card, or Pre-Paid Fare Card. This eliminates the need for the customer to have the exact cash fare or the need to travel to a ticket outlet to purchase daily or monthly passes. This MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 22

30 form of fare payment is relatively new to the transit industry and provides greater convenience to patrons while minimizing administrative burden. Among the options respondents were given, the pre-paid fare card was the most commonly-cited (54.7 percent), followed by debit card (33.3 percent), and credit card (11.8 percent). Exhibit 2.17 Alternative Fare Payment Preference 60.0% 54.7% 50.0% 40.0% 33.3% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 11.8% 0.0% Debit Card Credit Card Pre-paid Fare Card Information Awareness At the request of MST, we queried riders regarding their awareness of the free bus zone at CSUMB, which allows anyone to board MST buses for free at any stop in the CSUMB central and east residential campuses. Noting that 34.1 percent of respondents indicated their primary trip purpose as school, the data revealed the majority of riders were aware of this service (53.2 percent). A data cross-tabulation was run to compare respondent trip purpose with service awareness. Sixty-three percent stated their primary trip purpose was school knew about this CSUMB service, which was the highest result of the cross-tabulation. Those least likely to know about this service were respondents citing personal business as their primary trip purpose (61.9 percent responding no). MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 23

31 Exhibit 2.18 Trip Purpose vs. Awareness of CSUMB Free Bus Zone 70.0% 60.0% 61.9% 63.0% 60.9% 55.6% 50.0% 50.9% 49.1% 44.4% 40.0% 38.1% 37.0% 39.1% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% Work Personal Business School Shopping Medical Yes No To clarify the results of this question, another data cross-tabulation was conducted between awareness of the CSUMB fare-free zone and typical route used. Results reveal awareness of the free-fare zone varies dramatically depending upon which route the patron typically uses. Patrons using Route 2X are virtually unaware of the zone (11.1 percent), while patrons on Route 16 are much more familiar (78.5 percent). Patrons using other routes are generally split evenly. MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 24

32 Exhibit 2.19 Typical Route vs. Awareness of CSUMB Free Bus Zone Monterey-Marina (16) 78.5% 21.5% Watsonville-Marina (27) 48.8% 51.2% Edgewater-Ryan Ranch (6) 50.0% 50.0% MST On Call Marina 53.8% 46.2% Monterey-Salinas (20) 36.5% 63.5% Pebble Beach Express (2X) 11.1% 88.9% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Yes No Riders were questioned as to how they first became aware of MST and were then given five possible choices (88.9 percent): employer, saw vehicles, advertising, don t recall, phone book, and other (11.1 percent). Of the 88.9 percent selecting the stipulated options, the most common response was saw vehicles (45.1 percent) followed by don t recall (34.8 percent), advertising (9.0 percent), employer (8.5 percent), and phone book (2.6 percent). The 11.1 percent selecting other cited various other information sources, family being the most common (39.4 percent). It is clear MST is its own best current advertising platform. MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 25

33 Exhibit 2.20 Initial Source of Rider s Awareness 50.0% 45.0% 45.1% 40.0% 35.0% 34.8% 30.0% 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 8.5% 9.0% 5.0% 2.6% 0.0% Employer Saw vehicles Advertising Don't recall Phone Book Exhibit 2.21 Initial Source of Rider s Awareness Other Family 39.4% School 21.1% Friend 19.7% Internet 5.6% Social worker 5.6% Common sense 4.2% Rider guide 4.2% To enhance marketing and outreach efforts, we conducted a data crosstabulation between language and initial source of awareness of MST. Spanish speakers were more likely to learn of the service via advertising, employer, or the phone book than were English speakers. English speakers were most likely to learn of MST service by seeing the vehicles around town. MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 26

34 Exhibit 2.22 Language vs. Initial Source of Awareness Spanish 14.0% 30.0% 20.0% 30.0% 6.0% English 7.9% 46.5% 7.9% 35.3% 2.3% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Employer Saw vehicles Advertising Don't recall Phone Book Riders were questioned about where they typically obtain information regarding MST services. Similar to transit market research conducted in other California communities, respondents indicated they find MST information on-board vehicles (44.4 percent). This was followed by MST website (30.2 percent), MST telephone line (13.8 percent), employer (6.6 percent), and CSUMB (4.9 percent). Respondents were also given the option to select other, and then specify a different promotional outlet. A total of 7.4 percent selected other as an option and the MST rider guide was the most commonly-cited other response (63.0 percent). MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 27

35 Exhibit 2.23 Rider Information Outlets 50.0% 45.0% 44.4% 40.0% 35.0% 30.0% 30.2% 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 13.8% 10.0% 5.0% 6.6% 4.9% 0.0% Employer On-board vehicles MST telephone line MST website CSUMB Exhibit 2.24 Rider Information Outlets Other Rider guide 63.0% Family 10.9% Friend 8.7% Internet 8.7% School 4.3% Social worker 4.3% To improve marketing and outreach efforts, we conducted a data crosstabulation between language and rider information outlets. The results indicate some significant differences in how English and Spanish speakers access information. No Spanish speakers cited obtaining information via the website, while one-third of English speakers indicated doing so. English speakers were nearly three times more likely to get information through CSUMB. However, the overwhelming means by which Spanish speakers access information about MST was onboard the buses themselves. MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 28

36 Exhibit 2.25 Language vs. Information Outlets Spanish 5.6% 72.2% 20.4% 1.9% English 6.7% 41.6% 13.2% 33.3% 5.2% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Employer On-board vehicles MST telephone line MST website CSUMB Respondents were queried whether or not they have utilized the MST customer information telephone service. The majority indicated they had not (57.2 percent). This data is consistent with findings that the majority of riders state they receive their information on-board vehicles (44.4 percent). Those indicating using the service (42.7 percent) were asked to rate it. The results reveal the majority of those using the telephone service consider it to be good (41.2 percent) or excellent (23.2 percent). These results reveal MST s customer information telephone service is meeting customers needs, but may also have room for improvement. Those that were neutral comprised 13.3 percent, while those believing the service to be fair made up 13.9 percent. Poor garnered the fewest responses (8.2 percent). MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 29

37 Exhibit 2.26 Customer Information Telephone Service Rating Poor 8.2% Fair 13.9% Neutral 13.3% Good 41.2% Excellent 23.2% Riders were asked whether or not they had visited the MST website within 60 days prior to survey contact. Much like the telephone service question, the majority of riders had not visited MST s website within the prior 60 days (69.1 percent). When data cross-tabulations were run between this and respondents indicating they had internet access in their home (65.0 percent), only 27.0 percent of those riders with internet access had visited the MST website. Again, those indicating they had visited the website were also asked to rate it. Results closely mirrored those shown in the telephone service results; wherein good was the most common response (52.5 percent). The second highest response was excellent (20.5 percent), followed by neutral (14.5 percent), fair (10.0 percent), and poor (2.5 percent). The survey also sought to learn if riders had utilized Google Transit to plan a trip or to obtain information regarding MST s services. Again, the majority indicated they had not used this service (83.7 percent). Data cross-tabulations were run between Google Transit and home internet access, with only 13.4 percent cross-over. MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 30

38 Exhibit 2.27 Website Rating Poor 2.5% Fair 10.0% Neutral 14.5% Good 52.5% Excellent 20.5% Service Attributes Respondents were asked to rate, on a scale on one to five (wherein one equals poor and five equals excellent), an array of service attributes. Ratings equate to the following satisfaction indicators: 5=Excellent 4=Good 3=Neutral 2=Fair 1=Poor All responses were rated similarly and no response fell below three (neutral). The highest rated attribute was safety on-board (4.07), which was rated slightly higher than good. The lowest rated attribute was cost (3.09) which fell slightly higher than neutral. Though the majority of respondents indicated they opt to ride MST given absence of a personal vehicle (63.8 percent) over cost (10.7 percent), cost still seems to be a significant influencer in how current riders view the service. Exhibit 2.28 Service Attribute Rating Attribute Average On-time performance 3.84 Cost 3.09 Convenience 3.79 Hours of operation 3.60 Comfort on-board 3.94 Safety on-board 4.07 Seating availability 3.95 Frequency of service 3.63 Proximity of bus stop to your destination 3.91 Connectivity with other transit 3.88 MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 31

39 While the data reveal the majority of patrons are satisfied with MST s service attributes, attention still needs to be paid to the perception that certain attributes carry with them. Though cost may not necessarily be a deciding factor for current riders, the perception is that fares could always be lower. Issues such as this can benefit from simple marketing techniques presenting the customer with costs associated with other, less cost-efficient means of transportation or services. By providing the rider with insight into MST s cost-value, this perception may be neutralized. Demographics Because this survey was designed to be as non-intrusive to MST riders as possible, minimal demographic information was requested. Of the few demographic-based questions, riders were queried as to internet access at home. The majority of respondents stated that they did have internet access (65 percent), which can be useful when developing new and innovative forms of marketing and online services for current and future riders. As previously detailed in this chapter, the rider was also asked to provide their home zip code, to which (Marina) was the most commonly-cited response (39.2 percent). Refer to Exhibit 2.3 for a more detailed account of the data. Respondents were queried as to the principle motivating factor influencing their selection of MST. The majority selected lack of car (63.8 percent). MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 32

40 Exhibit 2.29 Selection Motivator 70.0% 63.8% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 18.6% 10.0% 10.7% 6.8% 0.0% Cost Proximity to my destination Lack of car Avoid traffic/parking Respondents were also asked whether or not they have a valid driver license and whether or not they had access to a personal vehicle. The majority of respondents had neither a valid driver license (56.0 percent), nor access to a personal vehicle (73.7 percent). Data cross-tabulations for both of these responses were run against their stated motivation. A total of 84.2 percent cited their selection of MST was motivated by a lack of car also had no access to a personal vehicle, while only 59.2 percent of respondents who cited the same influences had no valid driver license. Of the total survey sample, only 19 percent of respondents cited that they had both a valid driver license and access to a personal vehicle. Approximately 48 percent were found to be completely ride-dependent, meaning they have neither a valid driver license nor access to a personal vehicle. MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 33

41 This Page Intentionally Left Blank. MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 34

42 3. COMMUNITY SURVEY ANALYSIS MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 35

43 CHAPTER 3 COMMUNITY SURVEY ANALYSIS This chapter presents key findings and analysis from the community intercept survey conducted on behalf of Monterey-Salinas Transit (MST) in March Key survey findings focus on demographics, non-rider perceptions and characteristics, as well as barriers to possible use of MST. Moore & Associates conducted a community intercept survey at retail locations of persons residing specifically in Marina, across the week of March 2, Survey instruments were developed to solicit information chiefly from the transit non-rider population. The instruments were developed through a process that maintained a set of distinct goals specific to the population of Marina. These goals included: Transition non-riders into potential and regular users of MST services; Identify the needs, perceptions, concerns, and barriers to use of Marina s transit non-rider population; Identify service enhancements aimed at attracting new transit riders and improving mobility for existing transit users; Identify marketing strategies and appropriate media outlets aimed at maximizing service communication; and Develop a valid community-based profile of the Marina area including demographics, perceptions, travel patterns, and lifestyle. Methodology During our project initiation meeting, Moore & Associates and MST staff determined that a minimum of 200 community-based intercept surveys were necessary to achieve the project s goals and provide a valid and detailed profile of Marina s non-rider population. The intercept survey instrument was developed and tested for validity by requiring the respondent to verify he or she was at least 16 years of age. After the minimum age was verified, respondents were asked to complete the rest of MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 36

44 the survey in either English or Spanish. Though the intercept survey was primarily developed to gain insight into the perceptions of the non-rider community in the Marina area, non-rider and rider questions were both included. On an aggregate basis, sixty percent had not used MST s services within 60 days of the survey contact, while the remaining forty percent indicated doing so. The intercept surveys were completed over the course of two days: Tuesday, March 3 and Wednesday, March 4. It was also determined through discussions with MST staff that two key locations would yield the greatest probable participation: Wal-Mart located at 150 Beach Road, and Save Mart located at 210 Reservation Road. In an effort to maximize participation, each respondent was offered the opportunity to be entered into a random drawing for a one hundred dollar gift certificate from the respective location depending on where the survey was administered. To be entered into the drawing, respondents were asked to simply provide their names and phone numbers and were assured the information gathered would not be used for any other purposes other than notification of award. Over the two-day period, 266 valid surveys were completed between the two locations. Based on 2007 Census data, Marina has a population of approximately 25,378, yielding 95-percent confidence level and a ±5.98 percent margin of error. Though this Marina Area Service Study focuses primarily on the Marina community, results from the survey show a wide range of residential location distribution. Respondents were queried as to the location of their residence and were given six options: Marina, Sand City, Salinas, Seaside, Monterey, and Other. Eighty-six percent of respondents selected one of the five specified location options while the remaining fourteen percent selected Other option. Given the location at which the community surveys were administered, Marina yielded the highest response of the five MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 37

45 specified location options (70.9 percent); followed by Seaside (12.4 percent), Salinas (8.3 percent), Monterey (6.9 percent) and Sand City (1.4 percent). Exhibit 3.1 Respondent Residence Location 80.0% 70.0% 70.9% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 12.4% 10.0% 8.3% 6.9% 0.0% 1.4% Marina Sand City Salinas Seaside Monterey Those respondents selecting Other were asked to specify their residential location. The data from respondents that selected this option yielded a wide array of locations. MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 38

46 Exhibit 3.2 Respondent Residence Location Other Location Percent Carmel 1.5% Castroville 5.6% Fort Orsa 0.4% Gonzales 0.8% Montgomery 0.4% Moss Landing 0.8% Pacific Grove 1.5% Prundale 0.4% San Francisco 0.4% Santa Cruz 0.4% Scotts Valley 0.4% Soledad 0.4% Watsonville 0.8% Total 13.5% Community Profile By compiling the most frequently-cited responses, a profile of a typical Marina resident was developed. It should be noted this profile does not represent any single community respondent, but rather is a microcosm of responses received. The typical Marina area non-rider is female (52.5 percent) between the ages of 45 and 54 years (26.0 percent). She speaks English (93.6 percent), which also happens to be the primary language spoken in her household (87 percent). She is employed full-time (33.1 percent) and though she declined to state her personal income (25.6 percent), her approximate household income is $20,000 or less per year (24.4 percent). Her highest level of education is twelfth grade (22.2 percent). She has a valid driver license (81.8 percent) and access to a vehicle for personal use (84.1 percent). Although she probably does not subscribe to a newspaper (72.4 percent), if she did it would be the Monterey County Herald. When she listens to the radio, she prefers FM (16.2 percent), has internet access at home (69.8 percent), but has never visited the MST website (80.4 percent), nor planned a trip using Google Transit (86.6 percent). Because she is a non-rider with a valid driver license and access to a vehicle, she relies on her vehicle as her preferred mode (75.3 percent). MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 39

47 Non-Rider Responses Fewer respondents identified themselves as non-riders than identified in similar intercept surveys conducted by Moore & Associates in other California communities. Combined responses from both Save Mart and Wal-Mart revealed only sixty percent of respondents had not ridden MST within the prior 60 days. Community intercept surveys are aimed primarily at the non-rider population by selecting intercept locations that are generally auto-friendly, with high traffic and large parking lots. Though these locations selected by MST and Moore & Associates met those criteria, we learned many respondents were no stranger to MST s services. Though non-riders were still in the majority, it was important to identify the barriers to usage that exist among Marina residents. Survey results regarding barriers to use revealed responses common among transit non-riders throughout California. It is no secret many individuals still prefer their personal vehicle versus public transit. This pattern was evident in Marina. When queried as to the primary reason the respondent had not used MST within the prior 60 days, the most frequently-cited response was vehicle for personal use (76.4 percent). When we compared this with the incidence of respondents both riders and non-riders who were asked whether or not they simply had access to a vehicle, the response was comparable (81.6 percent of the combined rider and non-rider responses indicated they did have access to a vehicle for personal use). The next most frequently-cited reason for not using transit was does not go where I need it to go (14.0 percent). It should be noted respondents were also given the option to check the other category and then specify their response. However, only four respondents selected this option and all cited different reasons for not riding transit. Therefore, such responses were not considered significant enough to make a valid finding. MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 40

48 Exhibit 3.3 Barriers to Usage 90.0% 80.0% 76.4% 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 14.0% 10.0% 0.0% Does not go where I need it to go 3.4% Does not run frequently enough 2.2% Does not travel where I need it to 0.6% 3.4% Is unreliable Costs too much Have a vehicle for personal use Non-rider respondents were then asked to indicate the whether or not they would consider using MST if their normal method of travel was not available. The majority of respondents cited yes (81.0 percent), followed by maybe (12.2 percent), and finally no (6.9 percent). Respondents were next asked to indicate the likelihood of using MST within the three months by using a five-point scale, wherein one equaled not likely and five very likely. The average response, or mean score, was calculated so as to assign an aggregate value to transit propensity. The average rating was 2.71, revealed the profile respondent is between somewhat unlikely and neutral (or undecided). These results are slightly higher than responses received from other similar transit market research efforts, wherein findings suggest the average respondent is usually unlikely to ride public transit if they identify themselves as non-riders. Data cross-tabulations were run in an effort to gain further insight regarding respondents tendency to choose whether or not to ride MST. MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 41

49 Using demographic data gathered through the intercept surveys, we compared certain answers with the rating scale detailed above. The first comparison we made was the respondents likelihood to use MST versus their employment status. Exhibit 3.4 shows respondents employed part-time have the greatest likelihood of using MST s services within the next three months (3.5 rating). Those least likely to use MST were respondents identifying themselves as retired (2.11 rating). It should be noted that some questions in the intercept survey, including the employment question, also provided respondents the option to decline to respond, to which some (but very few) cited as their response. Therefore, these responses were not included in this analysis. Exhibit 3.4 Propensity to Ride vs. Employment Category Category Rating Employed-part time 3.50 Homemaker 2.92 Self-employed 2.84 Unemployed, looking for work 2.72 Employed-full time 2.56 Student 2.33 Retired 2.11 Next we compared the respondents likelihood to ride with household income. Fairly typical results were realized, finding that respondents more likely to use MST s services within the next few months indicated an income in the lower categories provided. Results indicated that those more likely to ride MST have a lower household income than those less likely to ride, which is often the case in other transit market research efforts. Though usually found in the lowest income bracket, respondents most likely to use MST were found to be in the second lowest category, earning an approximate household income of $20,001-$30,000 (3.38 rating). Again, decline to respond was also offered as an option when questioned as to household income. In this case, the majority of respondents selected this response over any other option (25.6 percent). The data generated in MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 42

50 Exhibit 3.5 only includes those responses where an income amount was cited. Exhibit 3.5 Propensity to Ride vs. Household Income Category Rating $20,000 and below 3.06 $20,001-$30, $30,001-$40, $40,001-$50,000 3 $50,001-$75, $75,001-$100, More than $100, One of the primary goals of this survey was to identify service enhancements, which, if introduced, could result in increased ridership. Here again, the survey yielded responses similar to those realized with other California transit programs. Respondents indicated if they had a bus stop closer to their house, they might be more willing to ride MST (26.3 percent). The data also indicate a high percentage of respondents could not be attracted regardless of potential improvement. Exhibit 3.6 Preferred Enhancement 30.0% 26.3% 25.0% 24.7% 20.0% 15.0% 11.6% 11.6% 10.0% 10.1% 7.6% 8.1% 5.0% 0.0% Bus stop closer to my house More frequent service Shorter travel time Earlier operating hours Later operating hours More weekend service Nothing would change my mind MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 43

51 This question also provided respondents with the option to indicate if a different destination might encourage their use of MST, and then to specify their response. Though most respondents did not select this option, the few that did cited that service to Big Sur, Carmel, Old Lighthouse, Scotts Valley, Wal-Mart (location unspecified) and Target (location unspecified) could encourage their use of MST. Respondents were then invited to compare MST with other transit services in the region. First, respondents were asked if they had ridden any other transit service besides MST within the prior 90 days. The majority had not (77.5 percent). If the respondent indicated positively, they were then asked to select one of three options: Santa Cruz Metro, California State University Monterey Bay Transportation and Parking Services (CSUMB TAPS), or RIDES (MST s ADA service). Respondents were then asked to compare these alternate services with MST. Of the 22.5 percent of nonriders indicating use of one of these alternative transit services, Santa Cruz Metro was the most common response (38.1 percent). Though the majority of respondents responded don t know (44.9 percent), those that did compare the services cited MST as better (27.5 percent). MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 44

52 Exhibit 3.7 Alternate Public-Transit Services Used 40.0% 38.1% 35.0% 33.3% 30.0% 28.6% 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0% Santa Cruz Metro CSUMB TAPS RIDES Per MST s request, we queried respondents regarding awareness of the fare-free zone at CSUMB, which allows free boarding of MST buses at any stop in the CSUMB central and east campuses. Noting that only nine percent of respondents indicated being a student, response data found that the majority of all respondents were not aware of the fare-free zone (79.1 percent). A data cross-tabulation was run to contrast respondents employment with awareness (of the zone). Fourteen percent who stated they were students knew about the zone. Those most likely to know about the zone were employed part-time (33.3 percent). Here again, respondents who selected decline to respond to their employment situations were not included in the analysis. MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 45

53 Exhibit 3.8 Awareness of CSUMB Free Bus Zone vs. Employment 100.0% 90.0% 85.7% 90.9% 80.0% 70.0% 78.0% 66.7% 73.9% 71.4% 80.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 33.3% 26.1% 28.6% 20.0% 22.0% 14.3% 20.0% 10.0% 9.1% 0.0% Employed-full time Employed-part time Self-employed Student Retired Homemaker Unemployed, looking for work Yes No To both attract new riders and enhance mobility for existing ones, it is critical to determine which specific transit-related variables are most important. With this in mind, the intercept survey included another rating scale, much like the one detailed above. This scale was aimed at soliciting preferences as to which transit-based factors respondents consider most important. Cost, Service frequency (how often the bus operates), Service schedule (times the bus operates), and Service coverage (where the bus travels). Respondents were asked to indicate on a five-point scale (one being not important and five being very important ), to rate each variable (as they pertain to the respondents selection of MST as a travel option). Though similar as to relative importance, the findings suggest cost is the least important to non-riders in deciding whether or not to use MST (3.57 rating), while service coverage is the most important (4.24 rating). MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 46

54 Exhibit 3.9 Service Attribute Importance Attribute Rating Service Coverage (where the bus travels) 4.24 Service Schedule (times the bus operates) 4.12 Service Frequency (how often the bus runs) 4.11 Cost 3.57 Non-Rider Segmentation Non-riders with an approximate household income of $30,000 or less may be the easiest population to mode shift. These respondents showed the greatest propensity to patronize MST compared with other income categories. Though cost was the least important influencer, many factors can play a role in transitioning a non-rider into a rider. Transit ridership growth potential among this income category can be realized as the costs associated with owning/operating a personal vehicle grow and the economy weakens. As the burden of relying on single-occupant automobiles climbs, strategic marketing campaigns are more effective, and can inform potential riders of the benefits of transit over driving. Once a patron has shifted to transit, long-term success can only be realized if service quality is maintained. The least likely respondent exhibiting a propensity to use MST is either retired, student, or employed full-time with a household income of $30,000 or more. The majority of these individuals have access to an automobile for personal use, have a valid driver license, and state their preferred mode of transportation is their personal vehicle. One positive finding is that when the respondent was asked which of the preferred enhancements might persuade them to patronize MST, nothing would change my mind was not the most popular option (24. 7 percent). Rather bus stop closer to my house was the most requested enhancement (26.3 percent). MST could benefit from an expanded service area (potentially beyond the standard fixed-route service), system-wide re-route (aimed at reducing travel time), or the addition of bus stops within the Marina service area (to enhance transit accessibility). MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 47

55 Rider/Non-Rider Responses As previously noted, the intercept survey also included questions applicable to Marina residents at-large, regardless of their transit usage. This section included querying the respondent as to whether or not they had seen any advertising for MST within 90 days of the survey. Respondents cited a fairly even distribution, with the majority noting some MST advertising (53.4 percent). Among those who responded positively, they were then asked to specify where they had seen such advertising. While the results were varied, the most common responses were T.V. (40.3 percent) or on the bus (37.7 percent). Other responses were numerically modest. Exhibit 3.10 Advertising Source Source Percent TV 40.3% Bus 37.7% Print 7.8% Marina 3.9% Radio 3.9% KSBW 2.6% Downtown Monterey 1.3% Online 1.3% Work 1.3% Next respondents were asked whether or not they knew the location of the MST bus stop nearest to their residence. The majority indicated they knew where the nearest stop was located (83.2 percent). This is a very positive finding, given it reveals residents recognize the MST bus stop signs and express unaided awareness of the service. As noted above, the majority of respondents indicated they drove a car as their preferred mode of transportation (75.3 percent). Respondents were queried as to other preferred forms of transportation. Though not as significant as the personal automobile, respondents indicated their next transportation option used by bus/rail (13.1 percent). MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 48

56 Exhibit 3.11 Preferred Mode 80.0% 75.3% 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 13.1% 10.0% 0.0% 6.0% 2.8% 1.2% 1.2% 0.4% Drive own vehicle Carpool Vanpool Bus, rail Bicycle Motorcycle Walk Respondents were then asked if they currently subscribe to a newspaper, to which to the majority indicated in the negative (72.4 percent). This may be attributed to the proliferation of online news forums. Those indicating subscribing to a newspaper (27.6 percent) were asked to specify which paper. The majority cited The Herald Monterey County s local newspaper (81.5 percent). The respondents were then asked which radio stations they listened to most often. The two most common responses were FM (22.9 percent) and FM (11.7 percent). Exhibit 3.12 Print Outlet Print Media Outlet Percent Salinas Californian 9.3% Financial Times 1.9% Monterey County Herald 81.5% San Jose Mercury News 7.4% Survey participants were asked to share information regarding their online usage. First, they were asked to indicate whether or not they had access to the internet at home, to which the majority indicated positively (69.8 MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 49

57 percent). Among those indicating having internet access at home, they were then asked if they had visited the MST website within the prior 30 days, and/or if they had ever used Google Transit to plan a MST trip or obtain other MST service information. Most had not visited MST s website within the prior 30 days (80.4 percent), and less than 14 percent had used Google Transit. Demographics The final set of questions focused on demographic information. Information such as age, gender, income, language, employment, education, driver license and vehicle access were included to develop a profile of the Marina non-transit rider. The typical respondent is between the ages of years old (26.0 percent) and female (52.5 percent). Age and gender were fairly evenly distributed, which is similar to other transit market research and confirms a valid non-biased sample. Exhibit 3.13 Age Distribution 30.0% 25.0% 26.0% 20.0% 18.5% 15.0% 15.5% 14.0% 14.0% 10.0% 9.8% 5.0% 2.3% 0.0% years old years old years old years old years old 65 and older Decline to respond Critical to our analysis was information regarding persons traveling with children 16 years and younger. Respondents were asked for this MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 50

58 information and if a yes was stated, they were then asked to specify how many children were traveling with them. The majority of respondents indicated they were not traveling with children under the age of 16 (71.8 percent). Of the balance (28.2 percent), respondents were usually only traveling with one child (59.2 percent). Exhibit 3.14 Persons Under the Age of 16 Traveling With Respondent Number Percent % % 3 7.0% 4 or more 16.9% Though household income has been discussed throughout this chapter, it has only been noted when comparing the likelihood to use MST versus the respondents stated income. Exhibit 3.15 illustrates the complete breakdown of the respondents household income, including those who indicated decline to state. This information reveals the majority of respondents either decline to state (25.6 percent) or indicated an income of $20,000 or less (24.4 percent). The fewest number of respondents indicated making more than $100,000 (2.6 percent), which is reflective of other transit market research conducted in California. MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 51

59 Exhibit 3.15 Household Income 30.0% 25.0% 24.4% 25.6% 20.0% 15.0% 12.8% 10.0% 9.4% 10.2% 7.5% 7.5% 5.0% 2.6% 0.0% $20,000 and below $20,001- $30,000 $30,001- $40,000 $40,001- $50,000 $50,001- $75,000 $75,001- $100,000 More than $100,000 Decline to respond Respondents were also asked to indicate the primary language spoken within their household. English was the most common response (87.0 percent), followed by Spanish (11.5 percent). It should be noted respondents were also given the option to respond with other, and then specify any language. Though a few respondents did select this option, each language specified was under a half percent and not considered statistically significant. These results suggest that there are minimal language barriers to non-riders understanding MST materials as MST provides all public information in both English and Spanish. The majority of respondents indicated being employed full-time (33.1 percent). The remaining 66.9 percent were all fairly evenly distributed as Exhibit 3.16 illustrates. These employment categories reflect reported income and age distribution. MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 52

60 Exhibit 3.16 Employment Status 35.0% 33.1% 30.0% 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 12.4% 11.7% 10.0% 10.2% 10.2% 9.0% 6.8% 6.8% 5.0% 0.0% Employed-full time Employed-part time Self-employed Student Retired Homemaker Unemployed, looking for work Decline to respond Education statistics were included to gain insight into the non-rider profile; assessing who, where, and in what manner transit information should be presented to the target customer. The typical Marina non-rider has the equivalent of a high school degree (22.2 percent), followed by a 2-year college degree (18.8 percent), grade school/some high school (16.2 percent), 4-year college degree (13.5 percent), graduate/professional/or doctoral degree (10.9 percent), technical/vocational school degree (7.5 percent), and some graduate school (3.8 percent). MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 53

61 Exhibit 3.17 Education 25.0% 22.2% 20.0% 18.8% 16.2% 15.0% 13.5% 10.9% 10.0% 7.5% 7.1% 5.0% 3.8% 0.0% Grade school/some high school High school graduate Technical/vocational school 2-year college degree 4-year college degree Some graduate school Graduate, professional, or doctoral degree Decline to respond Lastly, respondents were queried as to whether or not they hold a valid driver license and had access to a vehicle for personal use. As expected, the majority of respondents indicated they did have a driver license (81.1 percent) and also access to a vehicle for personal use (84.1 percent). These two variables may be the greatest barriers to transit usage in the Marina service area. A data cross-tabulation of persons without a license nor access to a vehicle for personal use was conducted to calculate a percentage of respondents considered to be completely ride-dependent. Of the total survey sample, 78 percent revealed they had both a valid driver license and access to a vehicle for personal use. This information is reflective of data discussed within the employment, education, and income level categories. Only 12 percent were found to be completely ridedependent, meaning they have neither a valid driver license nor access to a vehicle for personal use. Ride-dependent individuals who do not use public transit often have few mobility options. They typically rely on others for personal travel or use other, non-motorized modes of transportation such as walking or bicycling. Many times, barriers common to the ride- MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 54

62 dependent can be as simple as lack of knowledge or understanding of transit services or schedules. This lack of knowledge can create a lack of confidence by the ride-dependent, discouraging their use of otherwise viable transit options. In many cases, these persons can be educated about transit services around them and can transition smoothly into riders who eventually become regular transit patrons. Effective transit-training paired with effective marketing and public outreach can be the answer to gaining choice riders and retaining current users. MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 55

63 This Page Intentionally Left Blank. MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 56

64 4. CSUMB SURVEY ANALYSIS MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 57

65 CHAPTER 4 CSUMB SURVEY ANALYSIS This chapter presents key findings and analysis from the web survey of California State University at Monterey Bay (CSUMB) students, faculty, and staff conducted on behalf of Monterey-Salinas Transit (MST) in May Key survey findings focus on mobility patterns, non-rider perceptions and characteristics, and potential barriers to use of MST services. Moore & Associates fielded a web survey of CSUMB students, faculty, and staff across a two-week span beginning May 1 and ending May 15, The survey instrument was designed to solicit information from the CSUMB community, containing both a mix of rider and non-rider opinions and perceptions. The instrument was developed through a process that maintained a set of distinct goals specific to enhancing mobility for the university s sizeable population of both residents (students) and employees. These goals included: Transition non-riders into regular users of MST services; Identify the needs, perceptions, concerns, and barriers to use of CSUMB s non transit-rider population; Identify service enhancements aimed at attracting new transit riders and improving mobility for existing transit users; and Develop a valid community-based profile of CSUMB students, faculty, and staff including perceptions and travel patterns. Methodology During the project initiation meeting, Moore & Associates and MST staff agreed a survey of CSUMB students, faculty, and staff would be critical in identifying service enhancements aimed at improving mobility within the Marina study area. It was determined a web-based survey would be the most cost-effective method of distribution. Working closely with CSUMB and MST staff, Moore & Associates determined the most effective avenue for driving traffic to the survey would be through the use of the university s MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 58

66 sizeable database of addresses. Text was developed and s were sent to all current students, faculty, and staff advising of the availability of the survey, including a link to the website hosting the survey. Prior to fielding, the instrument was pre-tested. The effort included a qualifier question requiring the respondent to verify he or she was at least 16 years of age. Though the survey was primarily developed to gain insight into the perceptions of the CSUMB non-rider community, non-rider and rider questions were both included. A sample of 519 valid responses was realized. Although this Marina Area Service Study focuses primarily on the Marina community, results from the survey show a wide range of residential locations. Respondents were queried as to the location of their residence and were given seven options: Marina, Salinas, Seaside, Monterey, Residence Halls, East Campus Housing, and Other. Nearly 88 percent of respondents selected one of the six specified location options while the remainder selected the other option. Given the survey s target audience, Residence Halls was the most commonly-cited response (32 percent), followed by Marina (21.8 percent). Other common responses included Seaside (14.1 percent) and East Campus Housing (15.7 percent). MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 59

67 Exhibit 4.1 Respondent Residence Location 25.0% 21.8% 23.0% 20.0% 15.0% 14.1% 15.7% 12.5% 10.0% 6.0% 6.9% 5.0% 0.0% Marina Seaside Monterey Salinas Residence Halls East Campus Housing Other To provide a clearer picture of the relationship between respondent category and residence location, we performed a data cross-tabulation between the two. The results are largely predictable, with only students living in residence halls; older students, staff, and faculty living in east campus housing and off campus. Among off-campus locations, Seaside and Marina were the most common. Younger students, in general, prefer Seaside over Marina, while older students prefer Marina over Seaside. MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 60

68 Exhibit 4.2 Respondent Category vs. Residence Location Staff 11.4% 35.8% 11.4% 11.4% 25.2% Faculty 26.3% 28.9% 5.3% 10.5% 7.9% 21.1% Graduate Student 18.5% 29.6% 7.4% 11.1% 14.8% 18.5% 5th Year 5.6% 30.6% 13.9% 5.6% 5.6% 11.1% 27.8% Senior 27.3% 28.8% 7.6% 6.1% 12.1% 16.7% Junior 4.5% 9.1% 15.9% 6.8% 9.1% 29.5% 25.0% Sophomore 6.4% 12.8% 23.4% 4.3% 51.1% 2.1% Freshman 3.4% 26.1% 67.0% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Other Marina Seaside Monterey Salinas Residence Halls East Campus Housing On an aggregate basis, nearly seventy percent had not ridden MST within 60 days prior to the survey contact. MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 61

69 Exhibit 4.3 Patronized MST in Last 60 Days 30.4% Yes No 69.6% To analyze these results more effectively, we conducted a data crosstabulation between respondent category and exposure to MST in last 60 days. The results reveal freshmen and juniors were most likely to have used MST within the last two months (52.3 percent and 45.5 percent, respectively). Staff were the least likely to have used MST in that period (17.7 percent). MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 62

70 Exhibit 4.4 Respondent Category vs. Patronized MST in Last 60 Days Staff 17.7% 82.3% Faculty 26.3% 73.7% Graduate Student 22.2% 77.8% 5th Year 27.8% 72.2% Senior 19.7% 80.3% Junior 45.5% 54.5% Sophomore 31.9% 68.1% Freshman 52.3% 47.7% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Yes No MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 63

71 Non-Riders A follow-up question was posed to those respondents indicating not having ridden MST within the 60 days prior to the survey contact. The most frequent response was access to a vehicle for personal use (67 percent). This figure represents the percentage of the surveyed population not dependent upon transit for basic mobility. Such respondents could prove particularly resistant to efforts to attract them as customers moving forward. However, the remaining 33 percent represent potential future choice riders. Such respondents would ride MST should certain adjustments be made, such as new or altered alignments (6.3 percent), fare reductions (2.9 percent), or increased frequency (13.5 percent). These responses provide valuable insight into future service enhancements which MST could address to increase ridership within the CSUMB community. Choice riders tend to be more affluent, better educated, and more interested in using transit for its environmental benefits than many ridedependent persons. Exhibit 4.5 Reason for Not Using MST 80.0% 70.0% 67.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 13.5% 10.0% 6.3% 6.3% 0.0% Does not go where i need it to 3.2% 2.9% Does not travel where I need it to Cost to much Does not run frequently enough 0.9% Unreliable Vehicle for personal use Other MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 64

72 To analyze the relationship between where respondents live and the primary reason they do not ride MST, we performed a data crosstabulation. The most common response across all residence locations was vehicle for personal use. Salinas had the lowest incidence of this response (51.7 percent), while residence halls had the highest (75.4 percent). The next most common response across all categories was does not run frequently enough. Exhibit 4.6 Residence Location vs. Reason for Not Using MST East Campus Housing 5.7% 5.7% 7.5% 1.9% 71.7% Residence Halls 5.8% 11.6% 2.9% 75.4% Salinas 10.3% 10.3% 3.4% 20.7% 51.7% Monterey 4.8% 4.8% 19.0% 71.4% Seaside 6.1% 3.0% 12.1% 9.1% 69.7% Marina 5.5% 2.2% 22.0% 67.0% Other 7.8% 23.5% 5.9% 3.9% 56.9% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Other Does not go where i need it to Does not travel where I need it to Cost to much Does not run frequently enough Unreliable Vehicle for personal use Another data cross-tabulation was conducted to delve more deeply into the results. Results reveal graduate students were least likely to indicate they have access to a personal vehicle (28.6 percent), while juniors were most likely (80.8 percent). Those not citing vehicle for personal use as the primary reason they don t ride can be choice riders who will respond MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 65

73 favorably to service enhancements aimed at addressing their mobility needs. Exhibit 4.7 Respondent Category vs. Reason for Not Using MST Staff 4.9% 6.8% 9.7% 73.8% Faculty 14.8% 14.8% 3.7% 22.2% 44.4% Graduate Student 9.5% 19.0% 14.3% 4.8% 23.8% 28.6% 5th Year 11.5% 3.8% 26.9% 57.7% Senior 3.7% 7.4% 3.7% 14.8% 68.5% Junior 3.8% 3.8% 7.7% 80.8% Sophomore 9.4% 6.3% 12.5% 71.9% Freshman 6.8% 4.5% 4.5% 4.5% 75.0% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Other Does not go where i need it to Does not travel where I need it to Cost to much Does not run frequently enough Unreliable Vehicle for personal use Respondents were then asked whether they would ride MST if their typical mode of travel was unavailable. The results of this question were encouraging, with 70.4 percent responding affirmatively. Interestingly, only 5.1 percent responded negatively. We believe this reveals area residents choose not to use MST due to reasons related to a preference for their current mode of travel versus a fear of using transit. MST remains an attractive alternative should their current mode not be available. A targeted marketing campaign could convince some of these respondents to try transit for at least a portion of their local travel. MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 66

74 Exhibit 4.8 Propensity to Ride MST 24.5% Yes No 5.1% Maybe 70.4% To more effectively analyze the relationship between respondent category and whether they would consider using MST, we performed a data crosstabulation. Results reveal Faculty are the most likely to not consider using the service (10.5 percent), while all fifth-year students would at least consider it. Graduate students were the most likely to consider using the service (77.8 percent), and seniors were the least likely (62.1 percent). MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 67

75 Exhibit 4.9 Respondent Category vs. Propensity to Ride MST Staff 75.8% 4.8% 19.4% Faculty 76.3% 10.5% 13.2% Graduate Student 77.8% 7.4% 14.8% 5th Year 72.2% 27.8% Senior 62.1% 4.5% 33.3% Junior 70.5% 4.5% 25.0% Sophomore 70.2% 6.4% 23.4% Freshman 64.8% 2.3% 33.0% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Yes No Maybe Survey participants were asked to identify the most preferred service enhancement. Consistent with result of the question regarding reasons for not riding MST, respondents cited more frequent service as their top enhancement (39.3 percent). This was followed by shorter travel time (30.8 percent) and cheaper fares/passes (30.4 percent). Other numericallysignificant responses include later evening service (22.7 percent) and more weekend service (20.2 percent). These results provide MST with clear insight into service enhancements holding the greatest return-oninvestment for MST. MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 68

76 Exhibit 4.10 Preferred Service Enhancement 45.0% 40.0% 39.3% 35.0% 30.0% 30.8% 30.4% 25.0% 22.7% 20.0% 20.2% 15.0% 13.7% 13.1% 10.0% 7.5% 5.0% 0.0% Stop closer to home More frequent service Shorter travel time Earlier morning service Later evening service More weekend service Cheaper fares/passes Nothing would change my mind Respondents identifying themselves as non-riders were asked to rank four service characteristics (cost, service frequency, service schedule, and service coverage) on a four-point scale (where one equals not important and four equals very important). The averages for the four attributes were similar, ranging from 2.42 for cost and 3.08 for coverage. Marketing MST as a low-cost alternative to car travel would appear to have less impact than communicating the convenience of new services/service enhancements. MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 69

77 Exhibit 4.11 Characteristic Preference Cost Service Frequency Service Schedule Service Coverage To gain additional insight into current travel patterns among non-riders, the survey asked whether they had used another transit service (other than MST) within the 90 days prior to survey contact. More than thirty percent responded positively. Therefore, this subgroup is likely the best target for future service enhancements and marketing efforts targeting the CSUMB community. Respondents indicating affirmatively were then asked to cite the specific service used. Among the most commonly-cited responses were CSUMB TAPS (39.2 percent), BART (19.6 percent), Santa Cruz Metro (15.0 percent), and RIDES (5.2 percent). MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 70

78 Exhibit 4.12 Other Transit Service 31.3% Yes No 68.7% Nearly 60 percent of survey participants were aware of MST s fare-free zone at CSUMB, which includes the CSUMB central and east residential campuses. Exhibit 4.13 CSUMB Fare-Free Zone 41.2% Yes No 58.8% MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 71

79 More than 75 percent knew the location of the MST bus stop closest to their house. The fact that 25 percent indicated they didn t know the location of the nearest bus stop reveals a continued unfamiliarity regarding MST service specifics. Exhibit 4.14 Nearest Bus Stop 22.6% Yes No 77.4% Riders and Non-Riders Among all survey respondents, the most common language cited was English (88.1 percent), followed by bilingual (6.4 percent), and Spanish (3.4 percent). This reveals there is less demand for bilingual collateral within the CSUMB subset of the overall Marina service area. Nearly 80 percent indicated having both a valid driver license as well as access to a vehicle for personal use. Approximately 10 percent indicated having neither access to a personal vehicle nor a valid driver license, revealing total ride-dependency. The balance (12 percent) revealed they were partially ride-dependent (i.e., lack either a valid driver license or access to a vehicle). These results do not reflect findings from either the MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 72

80 community survey or the onboard survey. The CSUMB community is significantly less ride-dependent than respondents to either of the other surveys. Our analysis revealed ridership growth among members of the CSUMB community will require service enhancements focusing on choice riders, and promoting MST as a green alternative that is not only less expensive than the single-occupant vehicle, but also reduces impact on the environment. Exhibit 4.15 Ride-Dependency Access to Vehicle Yes No Driver Yes 78.9% 11.1% License No 0.9% 9.1% Survey participants were asked to identify the category to which they were associated. The most common response was staff (26.4 percent), followed by freshman (18.7 percent). On an aggregate basis, students comprised the largest share (65.5 percent). Students, traditionally fall into the ride dependent category given many core services are available on-campus (i.e., food, shelter, housing, health services). Faculty, in particular, are traditionally choice riders, should they use transit at all. MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 73

81 Exhibit 4.16 Respondent Category 30.0% 26.4% 25.0% 20.0% 18.7% 15.0% 14.0% 10.0% 10.0% 9.4% 7.7% 8.1% 5.7% 5.0% 0.0% Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior 5th Year Graduate Student Faculty Staff Given the nature of the CSUMB academic calendar, the vast majority of respondents typically attend/teach classes or work on campus on weekdays, particularly Monday through Thursday. Exhibit 4.17 Days on Campus 90.0% 80.0% 77.7% 76.3% 75.0% 76.3% 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 45.1% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% 3.1% 3.9% Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 74

82 The majority arrive on campus between 7:30 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. (45.5 percent), with nearly all arriving prior to noon (86.4 percent). Exhibit 4.18 Time Arriving on Campus 50.0% 45.0% 45.5% 40.0% 35.0% 30.0% 25.0% 26.0% 20.0% 15.0% 14.9% 10.0% 6.9% 5.0% 2.2% 4.6% 0.0% 6:00 a.m. to 7:30 a.m. 7:30 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. 12:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. 5:00 p.m. or later The most commonly-cited departure time cited was between 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m., with nearly all (87 percent) leaving after 4:00 p.m. These data, combined with preceding data, reveal commute patterns to and from campus resemble those of the traditional workweek, with clearly-defined weekday peak-hours. MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 75

83 Exhibit 4.19 Time Departing Campus 45.0% 40.0% 39.6% 35.0% 30.0% 25.0% 24.5% 22.9% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 8.2% 5.0% 0.9% 1.3% 2.6% 0.0% 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. 12:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m. 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. 8:00 p.m. or later Among all survey respondents, 26.6 percent indicated they had used the CSUMB shuttle within the month prior to the survey contact. Exhibit 4.20 Use of CSUMB Shuttle 26.6% Yes No 73.4% MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 76

84 As a follow-up, survey participants were then asked how often they typically use the on-campus shuttle. The most common response was one day per week or less (57.9 percent), revealing a dearth of regular users among the respondent sample. The CSUMB shuttle is not frequently used for respondents day-to-day mobility needs. Exhibit 4.21 CSUMB Shuttle Frequency of Use 17.5% 4 or more days per week 2-3 days per week 1 day per week or less 57.9% 24.6% Survey participants were asked about their most frequent off-campus destination. Among the most frequently-cited locations were Monterey (30.9 percent) and Marina (22.1 percent). Neighboring Santa Cruz garnered 5.7 percent. MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 77

85 Exhibit 4.22 Most Frequent Off-Campus Destinations 35.0% 30.9% 30.0% 25.0% 22.1% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 7.6% 12.8% 11.7% 10.2% 5.0% 5.7% 0.0% Other Marina Seaside Sand City Monterey Salinas Santa Cruz To identify common travel modes within the CSUMB community, respondents were asked how they typically get the off-campus destinations. The most common response was drive self (70.3 percent), which reveals a significant number of choice riders within the sample. Other common responses include carpool/rideshare (14.5 percent) and MST (9.3 percent). MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 78

86 Exhibit 4.23 Off-Campus Mode 80.0% 70.0% 70.3% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 14.5% 10.0% 0.0% 9.3% 3.0% 2.0% 0.7% 0.2% Drive Self Carpool/rideshare Walk/bicycle CSUMB Shuttle MST RIDES Other Respondents were also asked about how they typically travel to campus. Again, the most common response was drive self (59.2 percent). The variance between this response and the one analyzed above is due likely to a disproportionate response rate from students residing on campus, traveling between class and their residence halls. This conclusion is borne out by increases in walk/bicycle and CSUMB Shuttle coupled with a decrease in the use of MST. MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 79

87 Exhibit 4.24 Access to Campus 70.0% 60.0% 59.2% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 15.6% 10.0% 0.0% 8.5% 5.0% 5.4% 4.8% 1.5% Drive Self Carpool/rideshare Walk/bicycle CSUMB Shuttle MST RIDES Other Finally, respondents were asked if they would be more likely to ride MST to/from campus (versus using their personal vehicle) if CSUMB offered a low-cost bus pass to students, faculty, and staff. Nearly 50 percent indicated they would definitely use MST should a discount fare option be made available. Another 34.6 percent indicated they would consider using MST for at least a portion of their local trips (should the low-cost pass become available). Taken together, these data reveal an important ridership growth opportunity for MST. MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 80

88 Exhibit 4.25 Discount Fare Option 34.6% 49.4% Yes No Maybe 16.0% MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 81

89 This Page Intentionally Left Blank. MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 82

90 5. PATRONAGE ANALYSIS MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 83

91 CHAPTER 5 PATRONAGE ANALYSIS This chapter analyses origin and destination data culled from MST s Marina On-Call service for the months of August 2008 and February 2009 as well as origin data from the customer survey conducted onboard MST buses in March Marina On-Call Common Origins and Destinations In analyzing patronage patterns on the Marina On-Call service, Moore & Associates acquired trip sheets for two non-consecutive months. Every trip made during the two months was analyzed, resulting in a clear picture of how patrons use the service spatially. The five most common origins identified through our analysis were: Marina Transit Exchange, Third Avenue and Imjin Parkway, Dunes Shopping Center, CSUMB Quad, and Department of Defense building. These locations are all significant trip generators. The Marina Transit Exchange is the only time-point used by the Marina On-Call service and the only location served by another MST route on a regular basis (Route 16 travels through CSUMB, but doesn t serve the Quad). Route 12 and 2X serve the Dunes Shopping Center and the Department of Defense building, but only make a handful of trips a day, leaving the Marina On- Call services as the only Route to serve them for a full service day. The five most common destinations identified through our analysis were: Marina Transit Exchange, Third Avenue and Imjin Parkway, Dunes Shopping Center, MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 84

92 Department of Defense building, and Fort Ord Commissary. The list of the 24 most frequent origins and destinations is below. Exhibit 5.1 Marina On-Call Common Origins Origin Count Destination Count Location Total Marina Transit Exchange rd Avenue & Imjin Parkway The Dunes Shopping Center Department of Defense CSUMB Quad Commissary California Road & Reservation Road Wal-Mart V.A. Clinic Carmel Avenue & Crescent Avenue Del Monte Boulevard th Avenue & A Street Reindollar Avenue & Eddy Street Del Monte Boulevard & Palm Avenue Library Save Mart Del Monte Boulevard & Cosky Drive Hillcrest Avenue & Sunset Avenue Reindollar Avenue & Sunrise Circle Cardoza Avenue & Abdy Way Reindollar Avenue & Redwood Drive Reservation Road & Crescent Avenue Reindollar Avenue & Kennedy Court Reservation Road & Bayer Street The geographical distribution of common trip origins can be split into three areas: Marina proper, the Dunes Shopping Center, and CSUMB/DOD. There are no popular commonly-occurring origins outside of those three areas. MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 85

93 The following common origins and destinations within Marina proper are not currently covered by MST fixed-routes (or within one-quarter mile of a traditional fixed-route): Reindollar Avenue & Eddy Street, Reindollar Avenue & Sunrise Circle, Reindollar Avenue & Redwood Drive, and Reindollar Avenue & Kennedy Court. Third Avenue and Imjin Parkway is the only location in the Dunes Shopping Center area not covered by a fixed route, though the Dunes Shopping Center itself is only served by Routes 2X and 12, which do not operate for a complete service day. The CSUMB/DOD area in particular lacks access to MST fixed-routes. The following origins/destinations are not covered: Department of Defense building, Commissary, and CSUMB Quad. Service planning efforts should focus on delivering new mobility options to significant Marina On-Call origins/destinations not currently covered by MST fixed-routes. Taken collectively, these data provide a clear picture of the demand for transit service in those areas. Exhibits 5.2 and 5.3 display the geographic distribution of common origins and destinations, respectively. MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 86

94 Exhibit 5.2 Marina On-Call Common Origins Map MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 87

95 Exhibit 5.3 Marina On-Call Common Destinations Map MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 88

96 Customers by Zip Code Onboard customer survey respondents were asked to cite their home zip code. Given the surveyed routes travel primarily between Marina, Monterey, and Salinas, (Marina) was the most frequently-cited response. Other common responses included (Seaside/Sand City), (Southwestern Salinas), and (North Salinas). Results reinforce the fact that the corridor between Salinas and Monterey (with Marina at the midpoint) is the most common commute pattern in the region. The results are displayed in the map below. Exhibit 5.4 Customer Survey Respondent Home Zip Codes MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 89

97 This Page Intentionally Left Blank. MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 90

98 6. SERVICE PLAN MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 91

99 CHAPTER 6 MARINA AREA SERVICE PLAN The Strategic Development Center (SDC) of Marina Development Services Department has predicted rapid growth within the Marina area of Monterey County across the next ten to fifteen years. In September 2008, the SDC forecast 11,000 new residents, 12,400 new jobs, and 4,500 new housing units, as well as 1,400 acres of redeveloped land during that time period. While the current recession has stalled some of the forecast development, it remains critical Monterey-Salinas Transit account for this growth through the development of a comprehensive service plan. MST currently offers a variety of service options within the Marina Service Sector. The options are detailed below: Marina On-Call: Demand-response service with coverage between Martina, the Dunes, and CSUMB. Route 2X: Limited-stop express route operating between Pebble Beach and Salinas with stops at the Marina Transit Exchange and the Dunes. Route 12: Military-oriented route operating between the southern portion of the Marina Service Sector (including the Dunes) and the Naval School. Route 16: Fixed-route operating between Marina and Monterey, with service to CSUMB. Route 20: Fixed-route providing local service between Salinas and Monterey. It is the most productive route in the MST system. Route 27: Fixed-route operating between Watsonville and Marina. Route 71: Military-oriented route operating between Marina and the Presidio of Monterey. Route 72: Military-oriented route operating between North Salinas and the Presidio of Monterey. Route 74: Military-oriented route operating between Preston Park and the Presidio of Monterey. MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 92

100 Exhibit 6.1 Current Route 2X MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 93

101 Exhibit 6.2 Current Route 12 MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 94

102 Exhibit 6.3 Current Route 16 MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 95

103 Exhibit 6.4 Current Route 20 MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 96

104 Exhibit 6.5 Current Route 27 MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 97

105 Exhibit 6.6 Current MST On-Call Marina MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 98

106 Exhibit 6.7 Current CSUMB Shuttle MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 99

107 Exhibit 6.8 Current Service in Marina MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 100

108 Exhibit 6.9 Current Service in Marina with Quarter-Mile Buffers This chapter details a series of proposed service enhancements aimed at improving mobility, enhancing the efficiency of transit service delivery, and increasing ridership within the Marina Service Sector. It is split into three sections: Near-term recommendations (Implemented by July 1, 2011) Mid-term recommendations (implemented by July 1, 2014) Long-term recommendations (Implemented in FY 2014/15 and after). The three time frames serve different purposes. Near-Term recommendations focus on addressing immediate needs, mid-term recommendations are aimed at crafting a comprehensive approach MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 101

109 toward service delivery within the Marina Service Sector, and long-term recommendations are designed to address forecast demand for transit service associated with the continued build-out of Fort Ord. Taken collectively, the recommendations are designed to enhance MST s service delivery strategy in the Marina Service Sector, though given Marina serves as a gateway for many routes heading between Salinas and Monterey, other portions of the service area stand to realize benefits as well. Working with MST staff, we identified the following priorities for service development (in no particular order): Strengthen MST long-line service. Leverage value of Marina Transit Exchange. Enhance mobility for Marina residents. Increase market share in/to CSUMB. Increase productivity of service between Salinas and Marina. Increase productivity of service between Marina and Monterey. Near-Term Recommendations Looking at the Marina Transit Exchange as the primary nexus for transit service within the Marina Service Sector, it is important to understand the relative demand of other destinations/origins. Other significant trip generators in MST s service area that are of interest to members of the Marina community are: Salinas, Monterey, The Dunes Shopping Center, CSUMB, and Castroville/Watsonville. Service delivery between the Marina Transit Exchange and these locations vary. Connections between Salinas and Marina as well as Monterey and Marina are strong: Routes 2X and 20 serve Salinas; and Routes 2X, 16, MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 102

110 and 20 serve Monterey. Castroville and Watsonville are served by Route 27, which makes trips every two hours between Watsonville in Santa Cruz County and the Marina Transit Exchange (with some local service in Marina). Service between the Marina Transit Exchange and CSUMB is only available via Route 16, which provides local service between Marina and downtown Monterey. The only service between Marina and the Dunes Shopping Center is Route 2X, which makes three one-way, peak-direction trips in the morning and three in the evening. The Dunes and CSUMB are also served by the Marina On-Call demand-response service. The most pressing needs identified through market research and discussions with MST staff are: Transfer required for trips between CSUMB and Salinas, Limited transit service to the Dunes, and Ineffectiveness of Marina On-Call service. These needs present an exciting opportunity to begin reconfiguring MST s service delivery strategy in and around Marina. Given funding for the Marina On-Call service is set to expire within the horizon for near-term recommendations, it is logical to consider a comprehensive approach toward improving local service within Marina; enhancing connections between CSUMB and Salinas; bringing CSUMB intra-campus transit service under MST s umbrella; and creating a more frequent connection between CSUMB, the Dunes Shopping Center, and Marina. The near-term recommendations will focus on improving connections between CSUMB, the Dunes Shopping Center, and Marina. We propose the introduction of a new alignment, Route 25. We propose a two-phase introduction of Route 25 given funding constraints. The first phase of Route 25 s implementation consists of a Marina Circulator traveling between the Marina Transit Exchange and CSUMB via the Dunes Shopping Center. The second phase of the route s implementation is included within the Mid-Term Recommendations section of this chapter. The route would MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 103

111 travel from the Marina Transit Exchange to CSUMB via the Dunes Shopping Center. It begins its trip at the Marina Transit Exchange and then takes Crescent Avenue south to Carmel Avenue East. The bus would then travel south along California until taking Imjin Parkway west to the Dunes Shopping Center. Given limited turning motions available within the Dunes parking lot, the bus would be forced to then travel south along Second Avenue until it reaches the CSUMB campus. The bus would then do a loop through the campus and then follow the alignment in reverse back to the Marina Transit Exchange. Notably absent from the return trip is a stop at the Dunes Shopping Center. This can be attributed to the limited nature of turning movements out of the Dunes parking lot where the MST stop is located. Buses are forced to make a right-hand turn onto Second Avenue from the parking lot, taking them toward CSUMB. This works well on the Marina to CSUMB trip, but would require the bus to travel a significant distance out of its way (i.e., southbound) on the northbound return trip. This is due to the presence of a median blocking left-hand turns onto northbound Second Avenue from the Dunes parking lot. This streetscape design decision severely impacts MST s ability to effectively serve the Dunes Shopping Center. We recommend clearing a path through the median for left-hand turns onto northbound Second Avenue, if only for buses. This would allow for significantly improved access to the Dunes Shopping Center. In the interim, we recommend buses traveling northbound on Second Avenue intending to serve the Dunes Shopping Center include a stop on Second Avenue. While this alternative would require a significant walk into the Dunes Shopping Center, it is the most effective means of serving that location coming from the south. MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 104

112 Exhibit 6.10 Proposed Marina Circulator MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 105

113 Estimated total mileage for a round trip is 10.4 miles, with an approximate running time of fifty-five minutes. The proposed route would operate every hour from 6:30 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on weekdays. No Saturday service would be offered initially. This level of service translates to 12.5 Vehicle Service Hours each weekday. At MST s NTD-report rate of $101.66/VSH in 2007, this would amount to approximately $6,353 per week or $324,041 annually. Marina Transit Exhibit 6.11 Proposed Marina Circulator Sample Schedule The Dunes Divarty/ Engineer CSUMB Durham/ 6th Divarty/ Engineer Marina Transit Exchange Exchange 6:30 AM 6:40 AM 6:50 AM 6:57 AM 7:07 AM 7:25 AM 7:30 AM 7:40 AM 7:50 AM 7:57 AM 8:07 AM 8:25 AM 8:30 AM 8:40 AM 8:50 AM 8:57 AM 9:07 AM 9:25 AM 9:30 AM 9:40 AM 9:50 AM 9:57 AM 10:07 AM 10:25 AM 10:30 AM 10:40 AM 10:50 AM 10:57 AM 11:07 AM 11:25 AM 11:30 AM 11:40 AM 11:50 AM 11:57 AM 12:07 PM 12:25 PM 12:30 PM 12:40 PM 12:50 PM 12:57 PM 1:07 PM 1:25 PM 1:30 PM 1:40 PM 1:50 PM 1:57 PM 2:07 PM 2:25 PM 2:30 PM 2:40 PM 2:50 PM 2:57 PM 3:07 PM 3:25 PM 3:30 PM 3:40 PM 3:50 PM 3:57 PM 4:07 PM 4:25 PM 4:30 PM 4:40 PM 4:50 PM 4:57 PM 5:07 PM 5:25 PM 5:30 PM 5:40 PM 5:50 PM 5:57 PM 6:07 PM 6:25 PM 6:30 PM 6:40 PM 6:50 PM 6:57 PM 7:07 PM 7:25 PM MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 106

114 Exhibit 6.12 Near-Term Service in Marina MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 107

115 Exhibit 6.13 Near-Term Service in Marina with Quarter-Mile Buffers Mid-Term Recommendations The primary goal of mid-term recommendations is to bolster service delivery within Marina through improvements to existing services. This would reduce service gaps within the Marina Service Sector and promote increased ridership, thus leading to increased fare revenue and improved farebox recovery. Given near-term recommendations focus on the introduction of new service, mid-term recommendations will focus on responding to customer desire for increased frequency and improved connections. We propose accomplishing this through replacing the Marina Circulator with Route 25 MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 108

116 operating between Salinas and CSUMB as well as increased frequency along existing routes. The Marina Circulator discussed in the Near-Term Recommendations section of this chapter is an intermediary step leading to the ultimate goal of improving connections between Salinas and CSUMB. Route 25 serves as the complete realization of that goal, expanding upon the local service between Marina and CSUMB with service to Salinas. Route 25 would, however, suffer from the same connection problem to the Dunes Shopping Center as does the Marina Circulator. Buses are forced to make a right-hand turn onto Second Avenue from the parking lot, taking them toward CSUMB. This works well on the Marina to CSUMB trip, but would require the bus to travel a significant distance out of its way (i.e., southbound) on the northbound return trip. This is due to the presence of a median blocking left-hand turns onto northbound Second Avenue from the Dunes parking lot. This streetscape design decision severely impacts MST s ability to effectively serve the Dunes Shopping Center. We recommend clearing a path through the median for left-hand turns onto northbound Second Avenue, if only for buses. This would allow for significantly improved access to the Dunes Shopping Center. MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 109

117 Exhibit 6.14 Proposed Route 25 MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 110

118 Estimated total mileage for a round trip is 28.5 miles, with an approximate running time of one hour, forty minutes. This equates to a fifty-minute oneway trip between Salinas and CSUMB with stops in Marina and at the Dunes Shopping Center. The proposed route would operate every hour from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. on weekdays. No Saturday service would be offered initially. This level of service translates to 27.5 Vehicle Service Hours each weekday. At MST s NTD-report rate of $101.66/VSH in 2007, this would amount to approximately $13,978 per week or $712,890 annually. Salinas Transit Marina Transit The Dunes Divarty/ Engineer CSUMB Durham/ 6th Exhibit 6.15 Proposed Route 25 Sample Schedule Divarty/ Engineer The Dunes Marina Transit Salinas Transit Center Exchange Exchange Center 6:00 AM 6:20 AM 6:35 AM 6:45 AM 6:55 AM 7:05 AM 7:15 AM 7:30 AM 7:50 AM 7:00 AM 7:20 AM 7:35 AM 7:45 AM 7:55 AM 8:05 AM 8:15 AM 8:30 AM 8:50 AM 8:00 AM 8:20 AM 8:35 AM 8:45 AM 8:55 AM 9:05 AM 9:15 AM 9:30 AM 9:50 AM 9:00 AM 9:20 AM 9:35 AM 9:45 AM 9:55 AM 10:05 AM 10:15 AM 10:30 AM 10:50 AM 10:00 AM 10:20 AM 10:35 AM 10:45 AM 10:55 AM 11:05 AM 11:15 AM 11:30 AM 11:50 AM 11:00 AM 11:20 AM 11:35 AM 11:45 AM 11:55 AM 12:05 PM 12:15 PM 12:30 PM 12:50 PM 12:00 PM 12:20 PM 12:35 PM 12:45 PM 12:55 PM 1:05 PM 1:15 PM 1:30 PM 1:50 PM 1:00 PM 1:20 PM 1:35 PM 1:45 PM 1:55 PM 2:05 PM 2:15 PM 2:30 PM 2:50 PM 2:00 PM 2:20 PM 2:35 PM 2:45 PM 2:55 PM 3:05 PM 3:15 PM 3:30 PM 3:50 PM 3:00 PM 3:20 PM 3:35 PM 3:45 PM 3:55 PM 4:05 PM 4:15 PM 4:30 PM 4:50 PM 4:00 PM 4:20 PM 4:35 PM 4:45 PM 4:55 PM 5:05 PM 5:15 PM 5:30 PM 5:50 PM 5:00 PM 5:20 PM 5:35 PM 5:45 PM 5:55 PM 6:05 PM 6:15 PM 6:30 PM 6:50 PM 6:00 PM 6:20 PM 6:35 PM 6:45 PM 6:55 PM 7:05 PM 7:15 PM 7:30 PM 7:50 PM 7:00 PM 7:20 PM 7:35 PM 7:45 PM 7:55 PM 8:05 PM 8:15 PM 8:30 PM 8:50 PM 8:00 PM 8:20 PM 8:35 PM 8:45 PM 8:55 PM 9:05 PM 9:15 PM 9:30 PM 9:50 PM This new alignment would dramatically improve connections between Salinas and CSUMB, while also improving access between CSUMB and the Dunes as well as Marina and the Dunes. The alignment also supplants a significant portion of the Marina On-Call service s coverage area. The loop within the CSUMB campus also covers a sizeable portion of the CSUMB Campus Shuttle s alignment. We recommend regular monitoring of Route 25 s effectiveness at the individual stop level. Identifying those portions of the route are more MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 111

119 productive would allow MST to tweak the alignment in out years to better serve the community. This should be done on at least a quarterly basis using either ride checks or APC data. Frequency plays a significant role in whether a transit program can attract new choice riders. Increased frequency translates to increased flexibility for patrons in regards to choosing a travel time. The customer survey (Chapter 2) revealed nearly 64 percent of riders choose MST because they lack access to a motor vehicle. Only 13 percent indicated they would drive themselves if MST was not available. This indicates a high level of ridedependence among transit customers within Marina. To expand its customer base and increase its share of the trips made within Marina, MST should implement service enhancements targeted toward choice riders. Choice riders have access to a personal vehicle, but would elect to use transit for some or all of their trips should service be more convenient. Choice riders demand more amenities (onboard vehicles and at bus stops), more frequent service, more convenient fare media, and are typically more technologically savvy than ride-dependent patrons. They also respond well to targeted marketing efforts highlighting the convenience, environmental sustainability, and cost-related benefits of transit. To attract new riders from a broader spectrum of the population, we recommend MST increase frequency along Routes 16, 20, and 25. To increase MST s share of trips made within the Marina Service Sector, we propose increasing weekday frequency along three major alignments: Routes 16, 20, and proposed Route 25. These routes serve significant destinations and population centers and serve as the backbone of transit service within the Marina Service Sector. MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 112

120 We propose doubling the frequency of service along Route 16. Given frequent requests for shorter headways within the Marina and CSUMB communities, this step would result in significant increases in ridership and fare revenue. Doubling frequency to 30 minutes would require an additional two buses until 7:15 p.m., at which point headways would revert to hourly. A sample schedule for the proposed enhancement is below. Monterey Transit Plaza Edgewater Transit Exchange CSUMB 4th/Divarty Imjin/ Reservation Marina Transit Exchange Marina Transit Exchange Exhibit 6.16 Route 16 Sample Schedule Imjin/ Reservation CSUMB 4th/Divarty Edgewater Transit Exchange Monterey Transit Plaza -- 6:11 AM 6:28 AM 6:47 AM 6:56 AM 6:36 AM 6:41 AM 6:58 AM 7:15 AM 7:25 AM 6:30 AM 6:41 AM 6:58 AM 7:17 AM 7:26 AM 7:06 AM 7:11 AM 7:28 AM 7:45 AM 7:55 AM 7:00 AM 7:11 AM 7:28 AM 7:47 AM 7:56 AM 7:36 AM 7:41 AM 7:58 AM 8:15 AM 8:25 AM 7:30 AM 7:41 AM 7:58 AM 8:17 AM 8:26 AM 8:06 AM 8:11 AM 8:28 AM 8:45 AM 8:55 AM 8:00 AM 8:11 AM 8:28 AM 8:47 AM 8:56 AM 8:36 AM 8:41 AM 8:58 AM 9:15 AM 9:25 AM 8:30 AM 8:41 AM 8:58 AM 9:17 AM 9:26 AM 9:06 AM 9:11 AM 9:28 AM 9:45 AM 9:55 AM 9:00 AM 9:11 AM 9:28 AM 9:47 AM 9:56 AM 9:36 AM 9:41 AM 9:58 AM 10:15 AM 10:25 AM 9:30 AM 9:41 AM 9:58 AM 10:17 AM 10:26 AM 10:06 AM 10:11 AM 10:28 AM 10:45 AM 10:55 AM 10:00 AM 10:11 AM 10:28 AM 10:47 AM 10:56 AM 10:36 AM 10:41 AM 10:58 AM 11:15 AM 11:25 AM 10:30 AM 10:41 AM 10:58 AM 11:17 AM 11:26 AM 11:06 AM 11:11 AM 11:28 AM 11:45 AM 11:55 AM 11:00 AM 11:11 AM 11:28 AM 11:47 AM 11:56 AM 11:36 AM 11:41 AM 11:58 AM 12:15 PM 12:25 PM 11:30 AM 11:41 AM 11:58 AM 12:17 PM 12:26 PM 12:06 PM 12:11 PM 12:28 PM 12:45 PM 12:55 PM 12:00 PM 12:11 PM 12:28 PM 12:47 PM 12:56 PM 12:36 PM 12:41 PM 12:58 PM 1:15 PM 1:25 PM 12:30 PM 12:41 PM 12:58 PM 1:17 PM 1:26 PM 1:06 PM 1:11 PM 1:28 PM 1:45 PM 1:55 PM 1:00 PM 1:11 PM 1:28 PM 1:47 PM 1:56 PM 1:36 PM 1:41 PM 1:58 PM 2:15 PM 2:25 PM 1:30 PM 1:41 PM 1:58 PM 2:17 PM 2:26 PM 2:06 PM 2:11 PM 2:28 PM 2:45 PM 2:55 PM 2:00 PM 2:11 PM 2:28 PM 2:47 PM 2:56 PM 2:36 PM 2:41 PM 2:58 PM 3:15 PM 3:25 PM 2:30 PM 2:41 PM 2:58 PM 3:17 PM 3:26 PM 3:06 PM 3:11 PM 3:28 PM 3:45 PM 3:55 PM 3:00 PM 3:11 PM 3:28 PM 3:47 PM 3:56 PM 3:36 PM 3:41 PM 3:58 PM 4:15 PM 4:25 PM 3:30 PM 3:41 PM 3:58 PM 4:17 PM 4:26 PM 4:06 PM 4:11 PM 4:28 PM 4:45 PM 4:55 PM 4:00 PM 4:11 PM 4:28 PM 4:47 PM 4:56 PM 4:36 PM 4:41 PM 4:58 PM 5:15 PM 5:25 PM 4:30 PM 4:41 PM 4:58 PM 5:17 PM 5:26 PM 5:06 PM 5:11 PM 5:28 PM 5:45 PM 5:55 PM 5:00 PM 5:11 PM 5:28 PM 5:47 PM 5:56 PM 5:36 PM 5:41 PM 5:58 PM 6:15 PM 6:25 PM 5:30 PM 5:41 PM 5:58 PM 6:17 PM 6:26 PM 6:06 PM 6:11 PM 6:28 PM 6:45 PM 6:55 PM 6:15 PM 6:26 PM 6:43 PM 7:02 PM 7:11 PM 6:36 PM 6:41 PM 6:58 PM 7:15 PM 7:25 PM 6:45 PM 6:56 PM 7:13 PM 7:32 PM 7:41 PM 7:21 PM 7:26 PM 7:43 PM 8:00 PM 8:10 PM 7:15 PM 7:26 PM 7:43 PM 8:02 PM 8:11 PM 8:21 PM 8:26 PM 8:43 PM 9:00 PM 9:10 PM 8:15 PM 8:26 PM 8:43 PM 9:02 PM 9:11 PM 9:21 PM 9:26 PM 9:43 PM 10:00 PM 10:10 PM 9:15 PM 9:26 PM 9:43 PM 10:02 PM 10:11 PM 10:21 PM 10:26 PM 10:43 PM 11:00 PM 11:10 PM 10:15 PM 10:26 PM 10:43 PM 11:02 PM 11:11 PM Monterey-Salinas Transit Route 20 is currently the most productive route in the system. It carries more than 50,000 riders each month, more than four times as many riders as the next most productive route traveling through MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 113

121 Marina. It serves as the backbone of MST s service between Salinas and Monterey. It runs frequently, approximately every 20 minutes during peak hours. We recommend leveraging the success of this route through increasing peak-hour frequency to every 15 minutes. This would result in significantly improved flexibility for transit patrons and improve transfers to other lines. Increasing frequency to every 15 minutes during peak hours would require seven buses during peak-hour service. A sample schedule for increased frequency on Route 20 is below. MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 114

122 Monterey Transit Plaza Edgewater Transit Exchange Marina Transit Exchange Salinas Transit Center Salinas Transit Center Exhibit 6.17 Route 20 Sample Schedule Marina Transit Exchange Edgewater Transit Exchange Monterey Transit Plaza 6:00 AM 6:15 AM 6:33 AM 6:53 AM 5:05 AM 5:26 AM 5:40 AM 5:58 AM 6:15 AM 6:30 AM 6:48 AM 7:08 AM 5:45 AM 6:06 AM 6:23 AM 6:38 AM 6:30 AM 6:45 AM 7:03 AM 7:23 AM 6:10 AM 6:31 AM 6:45 AM 6:59 AM 6:45 AM 7:00 AM 7:18 AM 7:38 AM 6:40 AM 7:01 AM 7:15 AM 7:29 AM 7:00 AM 7:15 AM 7:33 AM 7:53 AM 7:00 AM 7:21 AM 7:38 AM 7:53 AM 7:15 AM 7:30 AM 7:48 AM 8:08 AM 7:15 AM 7:32 AM 7:51 AM 8:08 AM 7:30 AM 7:45 AM 8:03 AM 8:23 AM 7:30 AM 7:47 AM 8:06 AM 8:23 AM 8:00 AM 8:15 AM 8:33 AM 8:53 AM 7:45 AM 8:02 AM 8:23 AM 8:38 AM 8:15 AM 8:30 AM 8:48 AM 9:08 AM 8:00 AM 8:17 AM 8:38 AM 8:53 AM 8:30 AM 8:45 AM 9:03 AM 9:23 AM 8:15 AM 8:32 AM 8:53 AM 9:08 AM 8:45 AM 9:00 AM 9:18 AM 9:38 AM 8:45 AM 9:06 AM 9:23 AM 9:38 AM 9:00 AM 9:15 AM 9:33 AM 9:53 AM 9:00 AM 9:21 AM 9:38 AM 9:53 AM 9:15 AM 9:30 AM 9:48 AM 10:08 AM 9:15 AM 9:34 AM 9:48 AM 10:02 AM 9:45 AM 10:00 AM 10:18 AM 10:38 AM 9:30 AM 9:51 AM 10:08 AM 10:23 AM 10:15 AM 10:30 AM 10:48 AM 11:08 AM 9:45 AM 10:06 AM 10:23 AM 10:38 AM 10:45 AM 11:00 AM 11:18 AM 11:38 AM 10:00 AM 10:21 AM 10:38 AM 10:53 AM 11:15 AM 11:30 AM 11:48 AM 12:08 PM 10:15 AM 10:36 AM 10:53 AM 11:08 AM 11:45 AM 12:00 PM 12:18 PM 12:38 PM 10:45 AM 11:06 AM 11:23 AM 11:38 AM 12:15 PM 12:30 PM 12:48 PM 1:08 PM 11:15 AM 11:36 AM 11:53 AM 12:08 PM 12:45 PM 1:00 PM 1:18 PM 1:38 PM 11:45 AM 12:06 PM 12:23 PM 12:38 PM 1:15 PM 1:30 PM 1:48 PM 2:08 PM 12:15 PM 12:36 PM 12:53 PM 1:08 PM 1:45 PM 2:00 PM 2:18 PM 2:38 PM 12:45 PM 1:06 PM 1:23 PM 1:38 PM 2:15 PM 2:30 PM 2:48 PM 3:08 PM 1:15 PM 1:36 PM 1:53 PM 2:08 PM 2:45 PM 3:00 PM 3:18 PM 3:38 PM 1:45 PM 2:06 PM 2:23 PM 2:38 PM 3:15 PM 3:30 PM 3:48 PM 4:08 PM 2:15 PM 2:36 PM 2:53 PM 3:08 PM 3:45 PM 4:00 PM 4:18 PM 4:38 PM 2:48 PM 3:09 PM 3:26 PM 3:41 PM 4:00 PM 4:15 PM 4:33 PM 4:53 PM 3:15 PM 3:36 PM 3:53 PM 4:08 PM 4:15 PM 4:30 PM 4:48 PM 5:08 PM 3:45 PM 4:06 PM 4:23 PM 4:38 PM 4:30 PM 4:45 PM 5:03 PM 5:23 PM 4:18 PM 4:39 PM 4:56 PM 5:11 PM 4:45 PM 5:00 PM 5:18 PM 5:38 PM 4:33 PM 4:54 PM 5:11 PM 5:26 PM 5:18 PM 5:33 PM 5:51 PM 6:11 PM 4:48 PM 5:09 PM 5:26 PM 5:41 PM 5:33 PM 5:48 PM 6:06 PM 6:26 PM 5:03 PM 5:24 PM 5:41 PM 5:56 PM 5:48 PM 6:03 PM 6:21 PM 6:41 PM 5:18 PM 5:39 PM 5:56 PM 6:11 PM 6:03 PM 6:18 PM 6:36 PM 6:56 PM 5:33 PM 5:52 PM 6:05 PM 6:17 PM 6:18 PM 6:33 PM 6:51 PM 7:11 PM 5:48 PM 6:09 PM 6:26 PM 6:41 PM 6:33 PM 6:48 PM 7:06 PM 7:26 PM 6:18 PM 6:37 PM 6:53 PM 7:05 PM 6:48 PM 7:03 PM 7:21 PM 7:41 PM 6:33 PM 6:52 PM 7:08 PM 7:20 PM 7:15 PM 7:30 PM 7:48 PM 8:08 PM 6:48 PM 7:09 PM 7:26 PM 7:41 PM 8:15 PM 8:30 PM 8:48 PM 9:08 PM 7:15 PM 7:36 PM 7:52 PM 8:08 PM 9:15 PM 9:30 PM 9:48 PM 10:08 PM 8:20 PM 8:43 PM 8:52 PM 9:08 PM 10:15 PM 10:30 PM 10:48 PM 11:08 PM 9:15 PM 9:36 PM 9:52 PM 10:08 PM 11:15 PM 11:27 PM 11:42 PM 12:00 AM 10:15 PM 10:36 PM 10:48 PM 11:02 PM Should performance monitoring reveal significant demand for Route 25, we recommend increasing frequency to 30-minute headways. This would allow the route to transition from a service primarily for ride-dependent MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 115

123 patrons to one more able to attract trips from choice riders. Implementing this service would require four buses. Salinas Transit Marina Transit The Dunes Divarty/ Engineer Exhibit 6.18 Proposed Route 25 Sample Schedule CSUMB Durham/ 6th Divarty/ Engineer Marina Transit Salinas Transit Center Exchange Exchange Center 6:00 AM 6:20 AM 6:35 AM 6:45 AM 6:55 AM 7:05 AM 7:30 AM 7:50 AM 6:30 AM 6:50 AM 7:05 AM 7:15 AM 7:25 AM 7:35 AM 8:00 AM 8:20 AM 7:00 AM 7:20 AM 7:35 AM 7:45 AM 7:55 AM 8:05 AM 8:30 AM 8:50 AM 7:30 AM 7:50 AM 8:05 AM 8:15 AM 8:25 AM 8:35 AM 9:00 AM 9:20 AM 8:00 AM 8:20 AM 8:35 AM 8:45 AM 8:55 AM 9:05 AM 9:30 AM 9:50 AM 8:30 AM 8:50 AM 9:05 AM 9:15 AM 9:25 AM 9:35 AM 10:00 AM 10:20 AM 9:00 AM 9:20 AM 9:35 AM 9:45 AM 9:55 AM 10:05 AM 10:30 AM 10:50 AM 9:30 AM 9:50 AM 10:05 AM 10:15 AM 10:25 AM 10:35 AM 11:00 AM 11:20 AM 10:00 AM 10:20 AM 10:35 AM 10:45 AM 10:55 AM 11:05 AM 11:30 AM 11:50 AM 10:30 AM 10:50 AM 11:05 AM 11:15 AM 11:25 AM 11:35 AM 12:00 PM 12:20 PM 11:00 AM 11:20 AM 11:35 AM 11:45 AM 11:55 AM 12:05 PM 12:30 PM 12:50 PM 11:30 AM 11:50 AM 12:05 PM 12:15 PM 12:25 PM 12:35 PM 1:00 PM 1:20 PM 12:00 PM 12:20 PM 12:35 PM 12:45 PM 12:55 PM 1:05 PM 1:30 PM 1:50 PM 12:30 PM 12:50 PM 1:05 PM 1:15 PM 1:25 PM 1:35 PM 2:00 PM 2:20 PM 1:00 PM 1:20 PM 1:35 PM 1:45 PM 1:55 PM 2:05 PM 2:30 PM 2:50 PM 1:30 PM 1:50 PM 2:05 PM 2:15 PM 2:25 PM 2:35 PM 3:00 PM 3:20 PM 2:00 PM 2:20 PM 2:35 PM 2:45 PM 2:55 PM 3:05 PM 3:30 PM 3:50 PM 2:30 PM 2:50 PM 3:05 PM 3:15 PM 3:25 PM 3:35 PM 4:00 PM 4:20 PM 3:00 PM 3:20 PM 3:35 PM 3:45 PM 3:55 PM 4:05 PM 4:30 PM 4:50 PM 3:30 PM 3:50 PM 4:05 PM 4:15 PM 4:25 PM 4:35 PM 5:00 PM 5:20 PM 4:00 PM 4:20 PM 4:35 PM 4:45 PM 4:55 PM 5:05 PM 5:30 PM 5:50 PM 4:30 PM 4:50 PM 5:05 PM 5:15 PM 5:25 PM 5:35 PM 6:00 PM 6:20 PM 5:00 PM 5:20 PM 5:35 PM 5:45 PM 5:55 PM 6:05 PM 6:30 PM 6:50 PM 5:30 PM 5:50 PM 6:05 PM 6:15 PM 6:25 PM 6:35 PM 7:00 PM 7:20 PM 6:00 PM 6:20 PM 6:35 PM 6:45 PM 6:55 PM 7:05 PM 7:30 PM 7:50 PM 6:30 PM 6:50 PM 7:05 PM 7:15 PM 7:25 PM 7:35 PM 8:00 PM 8:20 PM 7:00 PM 7:20 PM 7:35 PM 7:45 PM 7:55 PM 8:05 PM 8:30 PM 8:50 PM 7:30 PM 7:50 PM 8:05 PM 8:15 PM 8:25 PM 8:35 PM 9:00 PM 9:20 PM 8:00 PM 8:20 PM 8:35 PM 8:45 PM 8:55 PM 9:05 PM 9:30 PM 9:50 PM MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 116

124 Exhibit 6.19 Mid-Term Service in Marina MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 117

125 Exhibit 6.20 Mid-Term Service in Marina with Quarter-Mile Buffers MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 118

126 Long-Term Recommendations Long-term recommendations focus on planning for forecast growth within the Marina Service Sector, specifically in and within the former Fort Ord. The long-term redevelopment plans for Fort Ord call for significant housing and commercial development as well as essential services, such as a new hospital. Accommodating this growth will require enhancements to existing service, alignment adjustments, as well as the introduction of new routes. The goal of the long-term recommendations is to supplement existing service as well as near- and mid-term recommendations to create a comprehensive approach toward transit service delivery within Marina and Fort Ord/CSUMB. To that end, we propose the following recommendations: Realign Route 27 to better serve CSUMB, and Introduce a dedicated local Marina circulator. These recommendations are discussed in more detail below. Realign Route 27 Route 27 currently provides service between Marina and Watsonville in Santa Cruz County. The route currently carries approximately 2,000 riders each month, about one-sixth what Route 16 carries and one-twentieth of Route 20. Given this Plan s increased focus on CSUMB as a major trip origin/destination, we propose realigning Route 27 to extend it to CSUMB. This would result in improved connections between Watsonville, Castroville, and CSUMB as well as provide an alternate path for those looking to travel between Marina and CSUMB. Given the route currently provides some local service in the western portion of Marina and has 13-minute layovers at the Marina Transit Exchange, we believe it is possible to re-route the alignment directly from Castroville into MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 119

127 the Marina Transit Exchange, and then on to CSUMB via California Avenue. We recommend this change be accompanied by performance monitoring to determine its net effect. Should patrons stop using the service as a result, we recommend reverting to the current alignment. However, should ridership increase, we recommend increasing frequency along the route to transition it from a primarily life-line service to a more mainstream service capable of attracting choice riders. A map of the proposed realignment is below. MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 120

128 Exhibit 6.21 Proposed Route 27 MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 121

129 Marina Circulator We believe poor patronage on the Marina On-Call service the community s only local service is due in large part to the fact it is a demand-response service. Demand-response programs provide a great deal of convenience in regards to origin and destination, while fixed-route programs provide less convenience in terms of origin/destination at the expense of improved reliability and capacity. Demand-response programs are typically much less costeffective on a per-passenger basis than fixed-route programs and also present a significant barrier to entry as there is no posted schedule. Given the Marina On-Call service is funded through a relatively short-term grant which is set to expire in the next fiscal year, we propose MST consider transitioning to a dedicated, fixed-route circulator within Marina. A good example of a viable community circulator service is Santa Monica Big Blue Bus new Mini Blue service. The Mini Blue service consists of four neighborhood circulators using smaller, 30-foot low-floor coaches. The buses run frequently (every minutes) and fares are only 50 cents (versus 75 cents for regular Big Blue Bus lines). We recommend MST consider implementing the service as a trial to replace the MST On-Call service as well as serve new or expanding residential/commercial developments within Fort Ord. The service should be offered at a reduced fare and operate every half-hour. It should serve key points between the Marina and Edgewater Transit Exchanges, including the Dunes Shopping Center, the Department of Defense building, the Marina library, and CSUMB. MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 122

130 Exhibit 6.22 Long-Term Service in Marina MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 123

131 Exhibit 6.23 Long-Term Service in Marina with Quarter-Mile Buffers MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 124

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

FINAL REPORT JANUARY 2017 TRANSDEV TRANSIT SURVEY SERVICES FOR NASSAU INTER-COUNTY EXPRESS (NICE) BUS. moore & associates FINAL REPORT JANUARY 2017 TRANSDEV TRANSIT SURVEY SERVICES FOR NASSAU INTER-COUNTY EXPRESS (NICE) BUS moore & associates 2016 Onboard Transit Survey Table of Contents Section 1: Executive Summary... 01

More information

Streetcar Community Attitudes Survey - Community Development and Transportation Principles

Streetcar Community Attitudes Survey - Community Development and Transportation Principles PREPARED FOR: CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO Streetcar Community Attitudes Survey - Community Development and Transportation Principles October 2011 PREPARED BY: DHM RESEARCH (503) 220-0575 203 SW Pine St., Portland,

More information

Survey Results Summary

Survey Results Summary Survey Results Summary January 28, 2014 FINAL Introduction As part of the Public Outreach Task for VTrans 2040, an online survey was designed and administered to residents of the Commonwealth. The purpose

More information

BOARD OF DIRECTORS REGULAR MEETING MONTEREY-SALINAS TRANSIT February 12, CALL TO ORDER

BOARD OF DIRECTORS REGULAR MEETING MONTEREY-SALINAS TRANSIT February 12, CALL TO ORDER BOARD OF DIRECTORS REGULAR MEETING MONTEREY-SALINAS TRANSIT February 12, 2007 1. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Armenta called the meeting to order at 10:00 a.m. in the Monterey-Salinas Transit Conference Room.

More information

Motivations and Barriers: Exploring Voting Behaviour in British Columbia

Motivations and Barriers: Exploring Voting Behaviour in British Columbia Motivations and Barriers: Exploring Voting Behaviour in British Columbia January 2010 BC STATS Page i Revised April 21st, 2010 Executive Summary Building on the Post-Election Voter/Non-Voter Satisfaction

More information

Elections Alberta Survey of Voters and Non-Voters

Elections Alberta Survey of Voters and Non-Voters Elections Alberta Survey of Voters and Non-Voters RESEARCH REPORT July 17, 2008 460, 10055 106 St, Edmonton, Alberta T5J 2Y2 Tel: 780.423.0708 Fax: 780.425.0400 www.legermarketing.com 1 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

More information

NOVEMBER visioning survey results

NOVEMBER visioning survey results NOVEMBER 2016 visioning survey results 2 Denveright SECTION 1 SURVEY INTRODUCTION OVERVIEW Our community is undertaking an effort that builds upon our successes and proud traditions to design the future

More information

Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo 2014 RCMP and Bylaw Services Citizen Telephone Survey Final Report

Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo 2014 RCMP and Bylaw Services Citizen Telephone Survey Final Report Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo 2014 RCMP and Bylaw Services Citizen Telephone Survey Final Report December 19, 2014 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS 3 2.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND 8 3.0 METHODOLOGY

More information

2016 Triennial Customer Survey Results

2016 Triennial Customer Survey Results 2016 Triennial Customer Survey Results Board of Directors May 4, 2017 Agenda Item 11 Objectives Determine who our customers are - Demographics - Trip purpose - Mode of access - Frequency of use - Reasons

More information

Title VI Plan For the Federal Transit Administration And Washington State Department of Transportation

Title VI Plan For the Federal Transit Administration And Washington State Department of Transportation Title VI Plan For the Federal Transit Administration And Washington State Department of Transportation July 1 31, 2015 June 30, 2017 Table of Contents Introduction... 3 Title VI Complaint Procedures...

More information

I-35W Bridge Collapse: Travel Impacts and Adjustment Strategies

I-35W Bridge Collapse: Travel Impacts and Adjustment Strategies I-35W Bridge Collapse: Travel Impacts and Adjustment Strategies Nebiyou Tilahun David Levinson Abstract On August 1 st, 2007, the I-35W bridge crossing the Mississippi river collapsed. In addition to the

More information

Vancouver Police Community Policing Assessment Report Residential Survey Results NRG Research Group

Vancouver Police Community Policing Assessment Report Residential Survey Results NRG Research Group Vancouver Police Community Policing Assessment Report Residential Survey Results 2017 NRG Research Group www.nrgresearchgroup.com April 2, 2018 1 Page 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS A. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3 B. SURVEY

More information

OFFICE OF THE CONTROLLER. City Services Auditor 2005 Taxi Commission Survey Report

OFFICE OF THE CONTROLLER. City Services Auditor 2005 Taxi Commission Survey Report OFFICE OF THE CONTROLLER City Services Auditor 2005 Taxi Commission Survey Report February 7, 2006 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 3 SURVEY DATA ANALYSIS 5 I. The Survey Respondents 5 II. The Reasonableness

More information

City of Janesville Police Department 2015 Community Survey

City of Janesville Police Department 2015 Community Survey City of Janesville Police Department 2015 Community Survey Presentation and Data Analysis Conducted by: UW-Whitewater Center for Political Science & Public Policy Research Susan M. Johnson, Ph.D. and Jolly

More information

Greater Washington Transportation Issues Survey

Greater Washington Transportation Issues Survey 4/16/2016 Greater Washington Transportation Issues Survey April 18, 2016 Conducted December 1-5, 2015 1 Greater Washington Transportation Issues Survey Page 1 Survey Overview The Northern Virginia Transportation

More information

Baseline Survey Results

Baseline Survey Results 3 Baseline Survey Results RETHINKING I-94 2017 Baseline Survey Key Takeaways Rabbit Prepared for MnDOT, Rethinking I-94 Key Considerations Trend comparisons across both years (2016 and 2017) need to be

More information

Title VI Report of the Franklin Regional Transit Authority

Title VI Report of the Franklin Regional Transit Authority Effective: July 31, 2016 Title VI Report of the Franklin Regional Transit Authority Franklin Regional Transit Authority 12 Olive St. Greenfield MA 01301 413-774-2262 7/31/2016 Introduction This update

More information

City of Bellingham Residential Survey 2013

City of Bellingham Residential Survey 2013 APPENDICES City of Bellingham Residential Survey 2013 January 2014 Pamela Jull, PhD Rachel Williams, MA Joyce Prigot, PhD Carol Lavoie P.O. Box 1193 1116 Key Street Suite 203 Bellingham, Washington 98227

More information

This report is formatted for double-sided printing.

This report is formatted for double-sided printing. Public Opinion Survey on the November 9, 2009 By-elections FINAL REPORT Prepared for Elections Canada February 2010 Phoenix SPI is a Gold Seal Certified Corporate Member of the MRIA 1678 Bank Street, Suite

More information

2001 Visitor Survey. December 2001 (November 30 December 13, 2001) Cincinnatus Minneapolis, Minnesota

2001 Visitor Survey. December 2001 (November 30 December 13, 2001) Cincinnatus Minneapolis, Minnesota December 2001 (November 30 December 13, 2001) Cincinnatus Minneapolis, Minnesota 612-331-9007 MINNEAPOLIS INSTITUTE OF ARTS Table of Contents MAJOR FINDINGS... 1 HOW THIS RESEARCH WAS CONDUCTED... 8 VISITOR

More information

APPENDIX B. Environmental Justice Evaluation

APPENDIX B. Environmental Justice Evaluation Appendix B. Environmental Justice Evaluation 1 APPENDIX B. Environmental Justice Evaluation Introduction The U.S. Department of Transportation has issued a final order on Environmental Justice. This final

More information

SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL TRANSPORTATION AGENCY

SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL TRANSPORTATION AGENCY THIS PRINT COVERS CALENDAR ITEM NO. : 12 DIVISION: Transit Services BRIEF DESCRIPTION: SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL TRANSPORTATION AGENCY The San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) Board of Directors

More information

LAREDO URBAN TRANSPORTATION STUDY

LAREDO URBAN TRANSPORTATION STUDY LAREDO URBAN TRANSPORTATION STUDY METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANZIATION UPDATED: May 15, 2017 METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION This page intentionally left blank TABLE OF CONTENTS GENERAL...1 POLICY...1

More information

2016 Appointed Boards and Commissions Diversity Survey Report

2016 Appointed Boards and Commissions Diversity Survey Report 2016 Appointed Boards and Commissions Diversity Survey Report November 28, 2016 Neighborhood and Community Relations Department 612-673-3737 www.minneapolismn.gov/ncr Table of Contents Introduction...

More information

2016 Nova Scotia Culture Index

2016 Nova Scotia Culture Index 2016 Nova Scotia Culture Index Final Report Prepared for: Communications Nova Scotia and Department of Communities, Culture and Heritage March 2016 www.cra.ca 1-888-414-1336 Table of Contents Page Introduction...

More information

ANNUAL SURVEY REPORT: REGIONAL OVERVIEW

ANNUAL SURVEY REPORT: REGIONAL OVERVIEW ANNUAL SURVEY REPORT: REGIONAL OVERVIEW 2nd Wave (Spring 2017) OPEN Neighbourhood Communicating for a stronger partnership: connecting with citizens across the Eastern Neighbourhood June 2017 TABLE OF

More information

Telephone Survey. Contents *

Telephone Survey. Contents * Telephone Survey Contents * Tables... 2 Figures... 2 Introduction... 4 Survey Questionnaire... 4 Sampling Methods... 5 Study Population... 5 Sample Size... 6 Survey Procedures... 6 Data Analysis Method...

More information

West Plains Transit System City of West Plains, MO. Title VI Program. Date filed with MoDOT Transit Section:

West Plains Transit System City of West Plains, MO. Title VI Program. Date filed with MoDOT Transit Section: West Plains Transit System City of West Plains, MO Title VI Program Date filed with MoDOT Transit Section: March 31, 2014 Amended August 26, 2015 1 Title VI Plan Table of Contents A. Introduction / Title

More information

THE FIELD POLL. UCB Contact

THE FIELD POLL. UCB Contact Field Research Corporation 601 California Street, Suite 900, San Francisco, CA 94108-2814 415.392.5763 FAX: 415.434.2541 field.com/fieldpollonline THE FIELD POLL UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY BERKELEY

More information

Edmonton Police Service 2011 Citizen Survey

Edmonton Police Service 2011 Citizen Survey Edmonton Police Service 2011 Citizen Survey May 2012 2012 Edmonton Police Service First Published 2012 Edmonton Police Service 9620 103A Avenue Edmonton, Alberta T5H 0H7 CANADA Phone (780) 421-3333 Fax

More information

COLORADO LOTTERY 2014 IMAGE STUDY

COLORADO LOTTERY 2014 IMAGE STUDY COLORADO LOTTERY 2014 IMAGE STUDY AUGUST 2014 Prepared By: 3220 S. Detroit Street Denver, Colorado 80210 303-296-8000 howellreserach@aol.com CONTENTS SUMMARY... 1 I. INTRODUCTION... 7 Research Objectives...

More information

BOARD OF DIRECTORS REGULAR MEETING MONTEREY-SALINAS TRANSIT June 9, CALL TO ORDER

BOARD OF DIRECTORS REGULAR MEETING MONTEREY-SALINAS TRANSIT June 9, CALL TO ORDER BOARD OF DIRECTORS REGULAR MEETING MONTEREY-SALINAS TRANSIT June 9, 2008 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Armenta called the meeting to order at 10:03 a.m. in the Monterey-Salinas Transit Conference Room. Present:

More information

BOARD OF DIRECTORS REGULAR MEETING MONTEREY-SALINAS TRANSIT February 8, CALL TO ORDER

BOARD OF DIRECTORS REGULAR MEETING MONTEREY-SALINAS TRANSIT February 8, CALL TO ORDER BOARD OF DIRECTORS REGULAR MEETING MONTEREY-SALINAS TRANSIT February 8, 2010 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Armenta called the meeting to order at 10:00 a.m. in the MST Conference Room. Present: Karen Sharp City

More information

THE FIELD POLL. UCB Contact

THE FIELD POLL. UCB Contact Field Research Corporation 601 California Street, Suite 900, San Francisco, CA 94108-2814 415.392.5763 FAX: 415.434.2541 field.com/fieldpollonline THE FIELD POLL UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY BERKELEY

More information

General Survey 2015 Winnipeg Police Service A Culture of Safety for All

General Survey 2015 Winnipeg Police Service A Culture of Safety for All General Survey 2015 Winnipeg Police Service A Culture of Safety for All THE WINNIPEG POLICE SERVICE GENERAL SURVEY, 2015 The 2015 Winnipeg Police Service public opinion survey was conducted between September

More information

Rural Pulse 2016 RURAL PULSE RESEARCH. Rural/Urban Findings June 2016

Rural Pulse 2016 RURAL PULSE RESEARCH. Rural/Urban Findings June 2016 Rural Pulse 2016 RURAL PULSE RESEARCH Rural/Urban Findings June 2016 Contents Executive Summary Project Goals and Objectives 9 Methodology 10 Demographics 12 Research Findings 17 Appendix Prepared by Russell

More information

Two-to-one voter support for Marijuana Legalization (Prop. 64) and Gun Control (Prop. 63) initiatives.

Two-to-one voter support for Marijuana Legalization (Prop. 64) and Gun Control (Prop. 63) initiatives. UC Berkeley IGS Poll Title Two-to-one voter support for Marijuana Legalization (Prop. 64) and Gun Control (Prop. 63) initiatives. Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/51c1h00j Author DiCamillo, Mark

More information

Background. Response Rate and Age Profile of Respondents. Community Facilities and Amenities. Transport Issues. Employment and Employment Land Issues

Background. Response Rate and Age Profile of Respondents. Community Facilities and Amenities. Transport Issues. Employment and Employment Land Issues Background Response Rate and Age Profile of Respondents Community Facilities and Amenities Transport Issues Employment and Employment Land Issues Housing and Housing Land Issues Telecommunications Tourism

More information

BOARD OF DIRECTORS REGULAR MEETING MONTEREY-SALINAS TRANSIT May 14, CALL TO ORDER

BOARD OF DIRECTORS REGULAR MEETING MONTEREY-SALINAS TRANSIT May 14, CALL TO ORDER BOARD OF DIRECTORS REGULAR MEETING MONTEREY-SALINAS TRANSIT May 14, 2007 1. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Armenta called the meeting to order at 10:00 a.m. in the Monterey- Salinas Transit Conference Room. Present:

More information

BLUE STAR HIGHWAY COMMUNITY OPINION SURVEY REPORT

BLUE STAR HIGHWAY COMMUNITY OPINION SURVEY REPORT BLUE STAR HIGHWAY COMMUNITY OPINION SURVEY REPORT MAY 2011 BLUE STAR HIGHWAY: DOUGLAS COMMUNITY OPINION SURVEY On March 1st, 2011 the Douglas Advisory Committee and the City of Douglas issued opinion surveys

More information

Van Ness BRT Community Advisory Committee Thursday, May 19, :00-7:30 p.m. One South Van Ness, 7 th floor, Union Square Conference Room

Van Ness BRT Community Advisory Committee Thursday, May 19, :00-7:30 p.m. One South Van Ness, 7 th floor, Union Square Conference Room Van Ness BRT Community Advisory Committee Thursday, May 19, 2016 6:00-7:30 p.m. One South Van Ness, 7 th floor, Union Square Conference Room MINUTES 1. Meeting was called to order at 6:02 p.m. 2. Public

More information

Board of Directors Regular Meeting and Strategic Planning Workshop January 14, 2019

Board of Directors Regular Meeting and Strategic Planning Workshop January 14, 2019 Board of Directors Regular Meeting and Strategic Planning Workshop January 14, 2019 Frank J. Lichtanski Administrative Building Board Room, First Floor 19 Upper Ragsdale Dr., Suite 100, Monterey 93940

More information

Denver, CO Community Livability Report

Denver, CO Community Livability Report Denver, CO Community Livability Report 2015 2955 Valmont Road Suite 300 777 North Capitol Street NE Suite 500 Boulder, Colorado 80301 Washington, DC 20002 n-r-c.com 303-444-7863 icma.org 800-745-8780 Contents

More information

REPORT TO PROPRIETARY RESULTS FROM THE 48 TH PAN ATLANTIC SMS GROUP. THE BENCHMARK OF MAINE PUBLIC OPINION Issued May, 2011

REPORT TO PROPRIETARY RESULTS FROM THE 48 TH PAN ATLANTIC SMS GROUP. THE BENCHMARK OF MAINE PUBLIC OPINION Issued May, 2011 REPORT TO PROPRIETARY RESULTS FROM THE 48 TH PAN ATLANTIC SMS GROUP OMNIBUS POLL THE BENCHMARK OF MAINE PUBLIC OPINION Issued May, 2011 5 Milk Street Portland, Maine 04101 Tel: (207) 871-8622 www.panatlanticsmsgroup.com

More information

Vancouver Police Community Policing Assessment Report

Vancouver Police Community Policing Assessment Report Vancouver Police Community Policing Assessment Report Residential Survey Results FINAL DRAFT NRG Research Group Adam Di Paula & Richard Elias www.nrgresearchgroup.com 3/17/2009 VPD Community Policing Report

More information

FINAL 2006 MST ADA Complementary Paratransit (MST RIDES) Plan

FINAL 2006 MST ADA Complementary Paratransit (MST RIDES) Plan FINAL 2006 MST ADA Complementary Paratransit (MST RIDES) Plan June 14, 2006 Monterey-Salinas Transit This page left blank. Table of Contents 1 INTRODUCTION... 2 2 OVERVIEW OF RIDES PARATRANSIT SERVICES...

More information

BOARD OF DIRECTOR'S MEETING MINUTES Approved Version November 10, 1999

BOARD OF DIRECTOR'S MEETING MINUTES Approved Version November 10, 1999 MONONGALIA COUNTY URBAN MASS TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY BOARD OF DIRECTOR'S MEETING MINUTES Approved Version November 10, 1999 MONONGALIA COUNTY URBAN MASS TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING

More information

Van Ness Business Advisory Committee Thursday, May 19, :00-4:30pm One South Van Ness, 3 rd Floor, Civic Center Conference Room (3074)

Van Ness Business Advisory Committee Thursday, May 19, :00-4:30pm One South Van Ness, 3 rd Floor, Civic Center Conference Room (3074) Van Ness Business Advisory Committee Thursday, May 19, 2016 3:00-4:30pm One South Van Ness, 3 rd Floor, Civic Center Conference Room (3074) MINUTES 1. Meeting was called to order at 3:05 p.m. 2. Public

More information

BOARD OF DIRECTORS REGULAR MEETING MONTEREY-SALINAS TRANSIT March 19, CALL TO ORDER

BOARD OF DIRECTORS REGULAR MEETING MONTEREY-SALINAS TRANSIT March 19, CALL TO ORDER BOARD OF DIRECTORS REGULAR MEETING MONTEREY-SALINAS TRANSIT March 19, 2007 1. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Armenta called the meeting to order at 10:00 a.m. in the Monterey- Salinas Transit Conference Room.

More information

CUP - City User Population Research

CUP - City User Population Research CUP - City User Population Research 2003-2013 Key insights from a decade of CUP surveys Contents Background... 2 Methodology... 2 Executive Summary... 3 Glossary of Terms... 4 Key Insights All City Users...

More information

2017 Municipal Election Review

2017 Municipal Election Review 2017 Municipal Election Review July 17, 2018 ISC: Unrestricted THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK ISC: Unrestricted Table of Contents Executive Summary... 5 1.0 Background... 7 2.0 Audit Objectives, Scope

More information

Title VI Review: Service and Facility Standards Monitoring

Title VI Review: Service and Facility Standards Monitoring Title VI Review: Service and Facility Standards Monitoring Prepared by SRF Consulting Group, Inc. SRF No. 7709 Table of Contents Executive Summary...5 Technical Analysis of Service Standards... 5 Additional

More information

CALIFORNIA ELECTIONS DATA ARCHIVE INTRODUCTION

CALIFORNIA ELECTIONS DATA ARCHIVE INTRODUCTION CALIFORNIA ELECTIONS DATA ARCHIVE INTRODUCTION The California Elections Data Archive (CEDA) is a joint project of the Center for California Studies and the Institute for Social Research, both of California

More information

Police Firearms Survey

Police Firearms Survey Police Firearms Survey Final Report Prepared for: Scottish Police Authority Prepared by: TNS JN:127475 Police Firearms Survey TNS 09.12.2014 JN127475 Contents 1. Background and objectives 3 2. Methodology

More information

Urban Coast Institute Polling Institute. Released: December 5, CONTACT: Tony MacDonald Director, Urban Coast Institute

Urban Coast Institute Polling Institute. Released: December 5, CONTACT: Tony MacDonald Director, Urban Coast Institute Mid-Atlantic Coastal Policy: The Public View A survey of residents in the six-state Mid-Atlantic region (New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia) Urban Coast Institute Polling

More information

Survey of Tourism Attitudes of Residents Prepared by Market Research & Development, Inc. June 2017

Survey of Tourism Attitudes of Residents Prepared by Market Research & Development, Inc. June 2017 Survey of Tourism Attitudes of Residents 2017 Prepared by Market Research & Development, Inc. Project Overview 2 In January of 2017, the Guam Visitors Bureau (GVB) contracted Market Research & Development,

More information

Board of Directors Special Meeting March 11, 2019

Board of Directors Special Meeting March 11, 2019 Board of Directors Special Meeting March 11, 2019 Frank J. Lichtanski Administrative Building Board Room, First Floor 19 Upper Ragsdale Dr., Suite 100, Monterey 93940 10:00 am 1. CALL TO ORDER 1-1. Roll

More information

AGENDA. August 1, 2017 Tuesday

AGENDA. August 1, 2017 Tuesday BOARD OF DIRECTORS 2017 AGENDA SAN MATEO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE Bacciocco Auditorium, 2 nd Floor 1250 San Carlos Avenue, San Carlos, CA 94070 CAROLE GROOM, CHAIR DON

More information

UTS:IPPG Project Team. Project Director: Associate Professor Roberta Ryan, Director IPPG. Project Manager: Catherine Hastings, Research Officer

UTS:IPPG Project Team. Project Director: Associate Professor Roberta Ryan, Director IPPG. Project Manager: Catherine Hastings, Research Officer IPPG Project Team Project Director: Associate Professor Roberta Ryan, Director IPPG Project Manager: Catherine Hastings, Research Officer Research Assistance: Theresa Alvarez, Research Assistant Acknowledgements

More information

ANNUAL SURVEY REPORT: BELARUS

ANNUAL SURVEY REPORT: BELARUS ANNUAL SURVEY REPORT: BELARUS 2 nd Wave (Spring 2017) OPEN Neighbourhood Communicating for a stronger partnership: connecting with citizens across the Eastern Neighbourhood June 2017 1/44 TABLE OF CONTENTS

More information

March 2016 University Link Bus Integration Service Changes. Title VI Service Equity Analysis Final Adopted Changes

March 2016 University Link Bus Integration Service Changes. Title VI Service Equity Analysis Final Adopted Changes March 2016 University Link Bus Integration Service Changes Title VI Service Equity Analysis Final Adopted Changes February 2016 Introduction Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Circular 4702.1B, Chapter

More information

Release #2475 Release Date: Wednesday, July 2, 2014 WHILE CALIFORNIANS ARE DISSATISFIED

Release #2475 Release Date: Wednesday, July 2, 2014 WHILE CALIFORNIANS ARE DISSATISFIED THE FIELD POLL THE INDEPENDENT AND NON-PARTISAN SURVEY OF PUBLIC OPINION ESTABLISHED IN 1947 AS THE CALIFORNIA POLL BY MERVIN FIELD Field Research Corporation 601 California Street, Suite 210 San Francisco,

More information

Juneau Transportation Survey

Juneau Transportation Survey Juneau Transportation Survey Funded jointly by: City and Borough of Juneau and First Things First Alaska Foundation March 2018 Juneau Transportation Survey Funded jointly by: City and Borough of Juneau

More information

Attitudes towards the EU in the United Kingdom

Attitudes towards the EU in the United Kingdom Flash Eurobarometer European Commission Attitudes towards the EU in the United Kingdom Analytical Report Fieldwork: January 200 Publication: May 200 Flash Eurobarometer 203 The Gallup Organization This

More information

2017 Citizen Satisfaction Survey City of Shawnee, Kansas

2017 Citizen Satisfaction Survey City of Shawnee, Kansas 2017 Citizen Satisfaction Survey City of Shawnee, Kansas Presented by March 2017 ETC Institute A National Leader in Market Research for Local Governmental Organizations helping city and county governments

More information

Project Update: September 2018 Public Outreach Executive Summary

Project Update: September 2018 Public Outreach Executive Summary Project Update: September 2018 Public Outreach Executive Summary Overview Sound Transit developed and analyzed initial route and station concepts for the Tacoma Dome Link Extension (TDLE) project. In September

More information

RESIDENTIAL PARKING PROGRAM PETITIONER PACKET

RESIDENTIAL PARKING PROGRAM PETITIONER PACKET RESIDENTIAL PARKING PROGRAM PETITIONER PACKET CITY OF TACOMA Public Works Department Engineering Division Parking Services 942 Pacific Ave Washington 98402 253.591.5371 For Guidelines and Procedures Effective

More information

BOARD OF DIRECTORS REGULAR MEETING MONTEREY-SALINAS TRANSIT April 13, CALL TO ORDER

BOARD OF DIRECTORS REGULAR MEETING MONTEREY-SALINAS TRANSIT April 13, CALL TO ORDER BOARD OF DIRECTORS REGULAR MEETING MONTEREY-SALINAS TRANSIT April 13, 2009 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Armenta called the meeting to order at 10:00 a.m. in the MST Conference Room. Present: Kristin Clark City

More information

Visitor Satisfaction Monitoring Report

Visitor Satisfaction Monitoring Report 2013 Visitor Satisfaction Monitoring Report Fourth Quarter (October December) Hawai i Convention Center 1801 Kalākaua Avenue Honolulu, Hawai i 96815 (808) 973-2255 www.hawaiitourismauthority.org INTRODUCTION

More information

THE FIELD POLL. UCB Contact

THE FIELD POLL. UCB Contact Field Research Corporation 601 California Street, Suite 900, San Francisco, CA 94108-2814 415.392.5763 FAX: 415.434.2541 field.com/fieldpollonline THE FIELD POLL UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY BERKELEY

More information

Voter and non-voter survey report

Voter and non-voter survey report Voter and non-voter survey report Proposal prepared for: Colmar Brunton contact The Electoral Commission Ian Binnie Date: 27 February 2012 Level 1, 6-10 The Strand PO Box 33690 Takapuna 0740 Auckland.

More information

Communitypolicingfirstnationsa pproachestopublicsafetypractici ngtrustandcommunitypridemoha

Communitypolicingfirstnationsa pproachestopublicsafetypractici ngtrustandcommunitypridemoha Communitypolicingfirstnationsa pproachestopublicsafetypractici ngtrustandcommunitypridemoha Public Safety Consultation Project: Community Perspectives on Policing and Crime within the Mohawk wkwayoflifefghjklzxcvbnmqwpri

More information

HOW CAN BORDER MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS BETTER MEET CITIZENS EXPECTATIONS?

HOW CAN BORDER MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS BETTER MEET CITIZENS EXPECTATIONS? HOW CAN BORDER MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS BETTER MEET CITIZENS EXPECTATIONS? ACCENTURE CITIZEN SURVEY ON BORDER MANAGEMENT AND BIOMETRICS 2014 FACILITATING THE DIGITAL TRAVELER EXPLORING BIOMETRIC BARRIERS With

More information

DRAFT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY WASHTENAW COUNTY SURVEY, Survey Methodology

DRAFT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY WASHTENAW COUNTY SURVEY, Survey Methodology Survey Methodology The team of CJI Research Corporation and Triad Research Group completed a total of 1,100 telephone interviews with a random sample of registered voters in Washtenaw County between October

More information

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: CITY OF BELLINGHAM RESIDENTIAL SURVEY REPORT

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: CITY OF BELLINGHAM RESIDENTIAL SURVEY REPORT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: CITY OF BELLINGHAM RESIDENTIAL SURVEY REPORT CENTER FOR ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS RESEARCH February 21, 2017 Prepared for The City of Bellingham Author(s) Isabel Vassiliadis Hart Hodges,

More information

CHAPTER 684. (House Bill 1185) Maryland Transit Administration Public Transit Services Efficiency and Performance Standards

CHAPTER 684. (House Bill 1185) Maryland Transit Administration Public Transit Services Efficiency and Performance Standards CHAPTER 684 (House Bill 1185) AN ACT concerning Maryland Transit Administration Public Transit Services Efficiency and Performance Standards FOR the purpose of repealing certain provisions of law relating

More information

Denver, CO Community Livability Report

Denver, CO Community Livability Report Denver, CO Community Livability Report 2016 2955 Valmont Road Suite 300 777 North Capitol Street NE Suite 500 Boulder, Colorado 80301 Washington, DC 20002 n-r-c.com 303-444-7863 icma.org 800-745-8780 Contents

More information

WISCONSIN ECONOMIC SCORECARD

WISCONSIN ECONOMIC SCORECARD RESEARCH BRIEF Q4 2013 Joseph Cera, PhD CUIR Survey Center University of Wisconsin Milwaukee WISCONSIN ECONOMIC SCORECARD The Wisconsin Economic Scorecard is a quarterly poll of Wisconsin residents conducted

More information

Subject: Shadelands Shuttle Route Fare Subsidy

Subject: Shadelands Shuttle Route Fare Subsidy Agenda Item # 5 To: Administration and Finance Committee Date: December 30, 2014 From: Anne Muzzini, Director of Planning and Marketing Reviewed by: Subject: Shadelands Shuttle Route Fare Subsidy Summary

More information

BOARD OF DIRECTORS REGULAR MEETING MONTEREY-SALINAS TRANSIT April 9, CALL TO ORDER

BOARD OF DIRECTORS REGULAR MEETING MONTEREY-SALINAS TRANSIT April 9, CALL TO ORDER BOARD OF DIRECTORS REGULAR MEETING MONTEREY-SALINAS TRANSIT April 9, 2007 1. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Armenta called the meeting to order at 10:00 a.m. in the Monterey- Salinas Transit Conference Room. Present:

More information

AGENDA. Wednesday, January 9, 2013 TAMC Conference Room 55-B Plaza Circle, Salinas. ***9:00 a.m.***

AGENDA. Wednesday, January 9, 2013 TAMC Conference Room 55-B Plaza Circle, Salinas. ***9:00 a.m.*** AGENDA TRANSPORTATION AGENCY FOR MONTEREY COUNTY SERVICE AUTHORITY FOR FREEWAYS EMERGENCIES AND MONTEREY COUNTY REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE JOINT POWERS AGENCY EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE Members are: Simon

More information

Telephone Survey of Mill Valley Voters Municipal Services Tax Measure Survey Report June 2016

Telephone Survey of Mill Valley Voters Municipal Services Tax Measure Survey Report June 2016 Telephone Survey of Mill Valley Voters Municipal Services Tax Measure Survey Report June 2016 Presented to: City Council of Mill Valley June 6, 2016 Methodology Live telephone survey of a representative

More information

This Addendum Number 1 to the above referenced IFB responds to a clarification question asked with the MST response.

This Addendum Number 1 to the above referenced IFB responds to a clarification question asked with the MST response. To: All Interested Parties From: Sandra Amorim Purchasing Manager Monterey-Salinas Transit Re: IFB #19-09 Automatic Passenger Counters Addendum Number 1 This Addendum Number 1 to the above referenced IFB

More information

THE LOUISIANA SURVEY 2018

THE LOUISIANA SURVEY 2018 THE LOUISIANA SURVEY 2018 Criminal justice reforms and Medicaid expansion remain popular with Louisiana public Popular support for work requirements and copayments for Medicaid The fifth in a series of

More information

Stanford University Climate Adaptation National Poll

Stanford University Climate Adaptation National Poll Stanford University Climate Adaptation National Poll March, 2013 Conducted by GfK Custom Research North America An Internet survey of a nationally representative probability sample of the general population

More information

FINAL REPORT. Public Opinion Survey at the 39th General Election. Elections Canada. Prepared for: May MacLaren Street Ottawa, ON K2P 0M6

FINAL REPORT. Public Opinion Survey at the 39th General Election. Elections Canada. Prepared for: May MacLaren Street Ottawa, ON K2P 0M6 FINAL REPORT Public Opinion Survey at the 39th General Election Prepared for: Elections Canada May 2006 336 MacLaren Street Ottawa, ON K2P 0M6 TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Exhibits Introduction...1 Executive

More information

FORT ORD REUSE AUTHORITY

FORT ORD REUSE AUTHORITY 1. CALL TO ORDER FORT ORD REUSE AUTHORITY 920 2 nd Avenue, Suite A, Marina, CA 93933 Phone: (831) 883-3672 Fax: (831) 883-3675 www.fora.org REGIONAL URBAN DESIGN GUIDELINES TASK FORCE MEETING 1:30 p.m.,

More information

BY Amy Mitchell FOR RELEASE DECEMBER 3, 2018 FOR MEDIA OR OTHER INQUIRIES:

BY Amy Mitchell FOR RELEASE DECEMBER 3, 2018 FOR MEDIA OR OTHER INQUIRIES: FOR RELEASE DECEMBER 3, 2018 BY Amy Mitchell FOR MEDIA OR OTHER INQUIRIES: Amy Mitchell, Director, Journalism Research Hannah Klein, Communications Associate 202.419.4372 RECOMMENDED CITATION Pew Research

More information

2017 State of the State Courts Survey Analysis

2017 State of the State Courts Survey Analysis To: National Center for State Courts From: GBA Strategies Date: November 15, 2017 2017 State of the State Courts Survey Analysis The latest edition of the State of the State Courts research, an annual

More information

MONTEREY COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

MONTEREY COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MONTEREY COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Ceremonial Document Request GUIDELINES Ceremonial documents are official announcements and/or public declarations issued by the Supervisors, individually or as a Board.

More information

Orange County Registrar of Voters. June 2016 Presidential Primary Survey Report

Orange County Registrar of Voters. June 2016 Presidential Primary Survey Report 2016 Orange County Registrar of Voters June 2016 Presidential Primary Survey Report Table of Contents Executive Summary 3 Voter Experience Survey 7 Poll Worker Survey 18 Training Survey 29 Delivery Survey

More information

BOOKER V. RIVERA AND THE POWER OF CABLE NEWS OBAMA APPROVAL DOWN SLIGHTLY

BOOKER V. RIVERA AND THE POWER OF CABLE NEWS OBAMA APPROVAL DOWN SLIGHTLY For immediate release Wednesday, March 13, 2013 Contact: Krista Jenkins Office: 973.443.8390 Cell: 908.328.8967 kjenkins@fdu.edu 8 pp. BOOKER V. RIVERA AND THE POWER OF CABLE NEWS OBAMA APPROVAL DOWN SLIGHTLY

More information

TITLE VI PROGRAM POLICY

TITLE VI PROGRAM POLICY TITLE VI PROGRAM POLICY The Napa Valley Transportation Authority (NVTA) is committed to ensuring that no person is excluded from participation in, or denied benefits of its transit services on the basis

More information

Orange County Transportation Issues Survey

Orange County Transportation Issues Survey 1 Orange County Transportation Issues Survey Val R. Smith, Ph.D. October 11, 2017 Methods: Field Dates: August 9-16, 2017 Sample Size: 1,590 completed interviews Sampling Error: 1,000-sample: +/- 3.1%

More information

In abusiness Review article nine years ago, we. Has Suburbanization Diminished the Importance of Access to Center City?

In abusiness Review article nine years ago, we. Has Suburbanization Diminished the Importance of Access to Center City? Why Don't Banks Take Stock? Mitchell Berlin Has Suburbanization Diminished the Importance of Access to Center City? Richard Voith* In abusiness Review article nine years ago, we examined the role that

More information

WISCONSIN ECONOMIC SCORECARD

WISCONSIN ECONOMIC SCORECARD RESEARCH BRIEF Q3 2013 Joseph Cera, PhD Manager CUIR Survey Center University of Wisconsin Milwaukee WISCONSIN ECONOMIC SCORECARD The Wisconsin Economic Scorecard is a quarterly poll of Wisconsin residents

More information

TITLE VI PLAN Adopted April 4, 2014

TITLE VI PLAN Adopted April 4, 2014 TITLE VI PLAN Adopted April 4, 2014 1 2 This page left blank intentionally II. Organization, Staffing and Structure A. Organizational Chart Reporting Relationships B. Staffing and Structure Executive

More information

IFES PRE-ELECTION SURVEY IN MYANMAR

IFES PRE-ELECTION SURVEY IN MYANMAR IFES PRE-ELECTION SURVEY IN MYANMAR May 2015 The publication was produced by IFES for the Australian Department for Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT), the United Kingdom Department for International Development

More information

Case 2:13-cv Document Filed in TXSD on 08/15/14 Page 1 of 51

Case 2:13-cv Document Filed in TXSD on 08/15/14 Page 1 of 51 Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 479-1 Filed in TXSD on 08/15/14 Page 1 of 51 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION MARC VEASEY, et al., v. RICK PERRY,

More information

$102 Million Investment 4.4 Track Miles, 2.2 Route Miles May 2014 Groundbreaking Fall 2015 Substantial Completion May 6, 2016 Grand Opening

$102 Million Investment 4.4 Track Miles, 2.2 Route Miles May 2014 Groundbreaking Fall 2015 Substantial Completion May 6, 2016 Grand Opening TOM GEREND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, KANSAS CITY STREETCAR AUTHORITY APTA RAIL 2016 The KC Streetcar $102 Million Investment 4.4 Track Miles, 2.2 Route Miles May 2014 Groundbreaking Fall 2015 Substantial Completion

More information