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 Section 2: Overview and Methodology... 03 Section 3: Analysis and Key Findings... 07 Section 4: Title VI Analysis... 69 Appendix A: Survey Instruments... A-1 Appendix B: Simple Frequencies... B-1 Appendix C: Route Profiles... C-1

2016 Onboard Transit Survey This page intentionally blank.

Section 1 Executive Summary In October 2016, Transdev sponsored an onboard survey of the Nassau Inter-County Express (NICE) fixed-route bus service. The purpose of the survey was to develop a profile of travel and demographic characteristics of NICE fixed-route customers in order to ensure compliance with federal Title VI reporting requirements. The survey instrument was designed to capture the following information: Travel patterns and behavior, including where people are traveling to, when they tend to travel, where they come from, how they access transit services, how they travel to their final destination, how frequently they use transit services, trip purpose, trip length, and other travel modes they use. Rider demographics, including race, gender, ethnicity, English proficiency, income, vehicle availability, and other information, which will provide Transdev with a clear picture of who is using transit services. All customers boarding the surveyed routes were offered the opportunity to take the survey. A total of 8,604 responses were received. This sample ensured statistical accuracy of 95 percent and a ±1.1 percent margin of error at the system level. Route-specific sample sizes were designed to ensure statistical accuracy of not less than 95 percent and a ±10 percent margin of error (based on average daily ridership) at the individual level. To ensure NICE riders had an equal opportunity to participate in the survey, the survey instrument was made available in the six non-english languages most commonly spoken in Nassau County (Spanish, Chinese, Italian, Persian, Korean, and French Creole). The majority of respondents (86 percent) opted to take the survey in English, with the remainder preferring Spanish (14 percent). No customers completed an alternate-language survey. The profile NICE rider is an English-speaking female between the ages of 25 and 64. She identifies as either Black/African-American or Hispanic/Latino and lives in Nassau County. She has an annual household income of less than $35,000 and lives in a household with two to four persons. She is at risk for living below the federal poverty guidelines. 1 She is employed at least part-time and is not a student. She does not face language barriers in her use of NICE and has access to a smartphone. An analysis of the NICE system as a whole as well as individual routes revealed no significant barriers arising from ethnicity, language, or income. Slightly less than eight percent of respondents said a lack of proficiency in English affected their ability to use NICE. The highest percentage of affirmative responses was observed on Routes n54 (24.0 percent), n21 (16.5 percent), n58 (13.8 percent), and n23 (13.1 1 1 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2016 Poverty Guidelines, aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/13poverty.cfm (accessed December 13, 2016).

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

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

Route Daily trips % of total Unique riders (est.) Sample needed for 95/10 confidence Exhibit 2.1 Sampling by Route Weighted sample target Actual sample n1 1772 1.96% 1013 88 162 189 n4 10308 11.38% 5890 95 944 378 n6 14434 15.93% 8248 95 1322 1207 n15 4888 5. 2793 93 448 486 n16 2122 2.34% 1213 89 194 313 n19 605 0.67% 346 75 75 102 n20 7151 7.89% 4086 94 655 442 n21 898 0.99% 513 81 82 96 n22 6673 7.37% 3813 94 611 561 n23 1839 2.03% 1051 88 168 176 n24 5094 5.62% 2911 93 467 475 n25 3306 3.6 1889 91 303 270 n26 310 0.34% 177 62 62 67 n27 1550 1.71% 886 87 142 311 n31 2314 2.5 1322 90 212 278 n32 2755 3.04% 1574 91 252 276 n33 777 0.86% 444 79 79 108 n35 3011 3.32% 1721 91 276 325 n36 423 0.47% 242 69 69 71 n40 3675 4.06% 2100 92 337 324 n41 3243 3.58% 1853 91 297 262 n43 1906 2. 1089 88 175 287 n45 271 0. 155 60 60 76 n47 515 0.57% 294 73 73 80 n48 994 1. 568 82 91 133 n49 1359 1.5 777 86 124 179 n54 911 1.01% 521 81 83 95 n55 879 0.97% 502 81 81 82 n57 280 0.31% 160 60 60 29 n58 1106 1.22% 632 83 101 95 n70 1177 1. 673 84 108 122 n71 942 1.04% 538 82 86 185 n72 2142 2.36% 1224 89 196 239 n78 154 0.17% 88 46 46 38 n79 556 0.61% 318 74 74 88 n80 127 0.14% 73 42 42 56 n81 134 0. 77 43 43 51 4 shuttles - - - 80 80 15 Totals 90601 100.0 51772 3062 8683 8567 4

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

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

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

Survey Language The majority of respondents (85.7 percent) elected to take the survey in English. Just over 14 percent chose to complete the survey in Spanish. Though survey instruments in five additional languages (Chinese, Italian, Persian, Korean, and French Creole) were available online, and each surveyor was equipped with a language card to direct respondents to these online surveys, no surveys were completed in any language other than English and Spanish. Exhibit 3.1 Survey Language Spanish 14.3% n = 8,602 English 85.7% Section 1: Tell us about THIS trip Question 1: What route are you telling us about for this trip? Riders were asked to provide the route number of the bus they were riding when the survey was administered. A summary of how many surveys were collected for each route was provided in Exhibit 2.1. 8

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

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

Question 4: Does this one-way trip include a transfer? More than 62 percent of respondents cited use of a transfer as part of their trip (down from 69 percent in 2013). The majority of those (53.8 percent) transferred to/from another NICE bus, while another 32.2 percent used an MTA bus or subway as part of their trip. Exhibit 3.4 Incidence of Transfer No 37.7% n = 7,950 Yes 62.3% Exhibit 3.5 Transfer - Service 6 5 53.8% n = 4,704 17.3% 14.9% 8.8% Another NICE bus MTA subway MTA bus Long Island Railroad 2.1% 1.4% Suffolk County Transit Long Beach Transit 0.6% 1.1% Huntington Area Rapid Transit 11

Respondents transferred to/from one or more of nearly 200 individual routes. Exhibit 3.6 indicates the most commonly cited routes among transferring customers. Exhibit 3.6 Transfers to/from NICE (Route Number) Route Transferred To/From Frequency Percentage N4 217 2. N6 267 3.1% N15 130 1. N20 148 1.7% N22 123 1.4% N32 89 1. N35 91 1.1% N40 171 2. N41 110 1.3% Exhibits 3.7.a and 3.7.b illustrate the number of riders who indicated a trip transfer by route surveyed. This data cross-tabulation was divided into two charts to improve readability. Exhibit 3.7.a provides details for routes n1 to n33, while Exhibit 3.7.b provides details for routes 35 through 81. Community shuttles were omitted from these charts given the low response rates. Route n21 featured the highest percentage of transfers (77.4 percent), while Route n45 featured the lowest (38.6 percent). 12

Exhibit 3.7.a Incidence of Transfer by Route (n1 n33) 6 8 10 n1 n4 n6 n15 n16 n19 n20 n21 n22 n23 n24 n25 n26 n27 n31 n32 n33 59. 59.2% 69.9% 60.4% 69.9% 53.8% 69.2% 77.4% 63.9% 49.4% 60.4% 59.9% 72.3% 57.4% 60. 62.1% 60.6% 40. 40.8% 30.1% 39.6% 30.1% 46.2% 30.8% 22.6% 36.1% 50.6% 39.6% 40.1% 27.7% 42.6% 39. 37.9% 39.4% Transfer No Transfer 13

Exhibit 3.7.b Incidence of Transfer by Route (n35 n81) 6 8 10 n35 n36 n40 n41 n43 n45 n47 n48 n49 n51 n54 n55 n57 n58 n70 n71 n72 n78 n79 n80 n81 62.2% 65.7% 56. 62.1% 47.1% 38.6% 70. 58.6% 68. 57.7% 67.8% 63.2% 75.9% 68.2% 59.6% 57. 64.3% 51. 42.2% 62.7% 62.2% 37.8% 34.3% 44. 37.9% 52.9% 61.4% 30. 41.4% 31. 42.3% 32.2% 36.8% 24.1% 31.8% 40.4% 43. 35.7% 48. 57.8% 37.3% 37.8% Transfer No Transfer 14

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

Route n21 had the highest percentage of respondents using a Pay-Per-Ride MetroCard (51.1 percent), while 46.3 percent of respondents on Route n26 preferred the Unlimited MetroCard. Route n81 saw the highest use of cash (44.0 percent), while Route n80 saw the highest use of the gomobile app (21.8 percent). Route n26 had the lowest level of cash use (just 10.4 percent). Exhibit 3.10.a Fare Media by Route (n1 n33) 6 8 10 n1 40. 33. 22.2% 4.3% n4 49.2% 31.9% 14.6% 4.3% n6 44.9% 37. 13.6% 4. n15 41.1% 18.8% 31.4% 8.6% n16 44.8% 19.9% 22.2% 13.1% n19 34.7% 21.4% 33.7% 10.2% n20 44.9% 37.6% 11. 6. n21 51.1% 26.1% 17.4% 5.4% n22 40.7% 32.7% 19.3% 7.2% n23 42.1% 22.2% 26.9% 8.8% n24 42. 33. 18.1% 6.8% n25 41. 30.8% 19.2% 8. n26 40.3% 46.3% 10.4% 3. n27 43.6% 17.9% 28.7% 9.8% n31 45.4% 24.9% 23. 6.7% n32 43. 29. 20.3% 6.6% n33 44.3% 33. 16. 6.6% 16 MetroCard Pay Per Ride MetroCard Unlimited None, I pay cash gomobile transit app

Exhibit 3.10.b Fare Media by Route (n35 n81) 6 8 10 n35 41.7% 21.6% 27. 9.7% n36 45.6% 17.6% 30.9% 5.9% n40 45.1% 16.9% 31. 6.9% n41 38.2% 20. 33. 7.9% n43 37.3% 14.3% 30.7% 17.8% n45 33.8% 16.2% 33.8% 16.2% n47 34.2% 22.8% 36.7% 6.3% n48 37.4% 18.3% 37.4% 6.9% n49 38.1% 21.6% 28.4% 11.9% n51 34.6% 19.2% 34.6% 11. n54 37.6% 9.7% 41.9% 10.8% n55 46.2% 14.1% 28.2% 11. n57 41.4% 24.1% 31. 3.4% n58 32.6% 40.2% 25. 2.2% n70 44.3% 16.4% 27. 12.3% n71 39.1% 16.8% 33.2% 10.9% n72 27.4% 20.1% 42.3% 10.3% n78 40. 21.6% 24.3% 13. n79 29.1% 20.9% 38.4% 11.6% n80 29.1% 16.4% 32.7% 21.8% n81 26. 14. 44. 16. MetroCard Pay Per Ride None, I pay cash MetroCard Unlimited gomobile transit app 17

There was little difference between NICE riders who cited using a transfer as part of their trip and those who did not with respect to fare media. Those who cited a transfer were slightly more likely to use an Unlimited MetroCard. 10 Exhibit 3.11 Fare Media vs. Incidence of Transfer 9 8 7 6 23. 24.7% 26.6% 26. 5 7.2% 43.2% Transfer 9.7% 39.6% No Transfer MetroCard Pay Per Ride MetroCard Unlimited gomobile transit app Cash 18

Question 7: How did you get to the bus stop where you boarded this bus? The majority of respondents (65.8 percent) walk to the bus stop, with 36 percent walking four blocks or less. Nearly 27 percent transferred from another bus or train. Few riders bike to the bus stop (0.5 percent). Exhibit 3.12 Bus Stop Access 3 36. 29.8% 26.7% n = 8,393 Walked four blocks or less Walked more than four blocks Transferred from bus/train 4.9% Was dropped off 1.1% 0. 1. Drove myself Rode a bike Routes n45 had the highest percentage of riders walking to the bus stop (86.7 percent). Route n80 had the highest incidence of riders walking more than four blocks (43.1 percent), an interesting development given it had the lowest such incidence in 2013 (16.7 percent). Route n20 had the highest percentage transferring to/from another bus or train (34.6 percent). Route n78 had the highest incidence of riders being dropped off at the bus stop (9.3 percent). 19

Exhibit 3.13.a Bus Stop Access by Route (n1 n40) 5 6 7 8 9 10 n1 40.1% 33. 25.3% 1.1% n4 31.2% 32.8% 29.6% 5.1% n6 29. 33.4% 28. 6.1% n15 39.1% 27.9% 24.3% 4.4% n16 49. 17.2% 27.4% 3.6% n19 43.4% 28.3% 24.2% 2. n20 34.6% 23.6% 34.6% 4.4% n21 30.8% 38. 28.6% 1.1% n22 35.8% 30.9% 26.2% 4. n23 38.8% 24.7% 29.4% 2.9% n24 36.8% 24.7% 31. 4. n25 43.2% 25. 25.9% 4.2% n26 32.3% 29.2% 29.2% 4.6% n27 35.1% 35.7% 19. 7.2% n31 33.6% 28. 28.1% 7.3% n32 32.8% 38. 21. 4. n33 36.8% 28.3% 29.2% 3.8% n35 46.2% 26.4% 23. 2. n36 42. 39.1% 17.4% 1.4% n40 32.9% 32.6% 26.3% 6.6% Walked 4 blocks or less Walked more than 4 blocks Transferred from bus/train Was dropped off Drove myself* Rode a bike* Rode a bike* *Response types with values less than 2% are not labeled to maintain chart clarity 20

Exhibit 3.13.b Bus Stop Access by Route (n41 n81) 5 6 7 8 9 10 n41 34.6% 31.1% 27.6% 3.9% n43 43.7% 25. 23.6% 4.9% n45 58.7% 28. 9.3% 2.7% n47 29.9% 29.9% 33.8% 2.6% n48 31.8% 34.1% 27.1% 6.2% n49 36.4% 33. 23.7% 4.6% n51 24. 36. 32. 4. n54 46.2% 27. 20.9% 4.4% n55 43. 19. 31.6% 3.8% n57 28.6% 21.4% 42.9% 3.6% n58 38.9% 28.9% 26.7% 4.4% n70 26.3% 29.7% 33.1% 9.3% n71 35. 25. 27.2% 7.2% n72 34.2% 37.2% 17.9% 6. n78 40. 21.6% 24.3% 10.8% n79 27.2% 30.9% 32.1% 6.2% n80 23. 43.1% 25. 3.9% n81 29.4% 33.3% 29.4% 3.9% Walked 4 blocks or less Walked more than 4 blocks Transferred from bus/train Was dropped off Drove myself* Rode a bike* Rode a bike* *Response types with value s less than 2% are not labeled to maintain chart clarity 21

As Exhibit 3.14 shows, there were no significant differences in bus stop destination access for respondents who transferred or who did not transfer. Interestingly, a fairly significant number of respondents (25.8 percent) who said their NICE trip did not include a transfer indicated accessing the bus stop via a transfer from another bus or train. The cause of this discrepancy is unclear. 4 3 30.7% Exhibit 3.14 Bus Stop Origin Access vs. Incidence of Transfer 39.4% 34.9% 27.2% 27.2% 25.8% 4.6% 5.4% 1. 0.6% 1.1% 0.8% 0.3% 1.1% Transfer No Transfer Walked more than 4 blocks Drove myself Transferred from bus/train Walked 4 blocks or less Rode a bike Was dropped off 22

Question 8: How will you travel to your destination once you get off this bus? Similar to responses to Question 7, the majority of respondents (68.7 percent) indicated they would travel to their destination on foot once they alight the bus. Forty-two percent would travel less than four blocks. Nearly 25 percent would transfer to another bus or train. 4 42. Exhibit 3.15 Destination Access 3 26.7% 24.9% n = 7,537 Walk four blocks or less Walk more than four blocks Transfer to bus/train 3.2% Get picked up 1.3% 0.6% 1.3% Drive myself Ride a bike Route n43 had the highest percentage of riders walking to their destination (82.7 percent). Route n36 had the highest incidence of riders walking more than four blocks (39.1 percent), while Route n57 had the lowest (14.3 percent). Route n21 had the highest percentage of riders who would be picked up once alighting the bus (6.7 percent). 23

Exhibit 3.16.a Destination Access by Route (n1 n40) 5 6 7 8 9 10 n1 52.4% 20.3% 23.1% 1.4% n4 36.2% 32. 24.8% 4.3% n6 33.3% 27. 32.7% 3.4% n15 48. 23.7% 21.8% 3. n16 50.2% 18.4% 25.1% 1.7% n19 41.4% 28.3% 25.3% 3. n20 37.9% 19. 35.3% 4.4% n21 31. 28.1% 31. 6.7% n22 41.1% 27.6% 23.2% 4.6% n23 48.8% 25.3% 22.4% 1.8% n24 43.8% 24. 24.8% 2.3% n25 38.6% 31.3% 24.4% 1.7% n26 39.4% 24.2% 31.8% 3. n27 51. 21. 20.8% 3.8% n31 38.6% 32.6% 24.2% 0.8% n32 42.7% 31.1% 22.8% 0. n33 49.1% 22.2% 25. 2.8% n35 49. 26. 20.1% 1.9% n36 37.7% 39.1% 20.3% 2.9% n40 39.4% 36.8% 17. 3.3% Walk 4 blocks or less Walk more than 4 blocks Transfer to bus/train Get picked up Drive myself Ride a bike *Response type with consistent value sless than 2% are not labeled to maintain clarity of the chart 24

Exhibit 3.16.b Destination Access by Route (n41 n 81) 5 6 7 8 9 10 n41 39.2% 26. 26.4% 4.8% n43 56. 26.1% 12.7% 2.1% n45 54.1% 20.3% 18.9% 5.4% n47 38. 33.3% 24.4% 3.8% n48 40.4% 22.8% 28.9% 2.6% n49 32.8% 35.6% 26.4% 2.9% n51 48. 24. 16. 4. n54 42.2% 22.2% 27.8% 4.4% n55 50. 22. 17. 5. n57 53.6% 14.3% 32.1% 0. n58 36.6% 26.9% 30.1% 2.2% n70 46.2% 29.4% 18. 2. n71 43.9% 23.9% 22.2% 6.1% n72 40. 32.8% 18. 4.7% n78 42.1% 23.7% 23.7% 2.6% n79 35.3% 31.8% 23. 2.4% n80 38. 32. 28. 2. n81 34. 20. 34. 4. Walk 4 blocks or less Walk more than 4 blocks Transfer to bus/train Get picked up Drive myself Ride a bike *Response types with values consistently less than 2% are not labeled to maintain clarity of the chart 25

Riders who did not transfer were significantly more likely (54.8 percent) to walk four blocks or less to their final destination than those who did (35.8 percent). Nearly 11 percent of riders who said their trip did not include a transfer indicated that they transferred from a bus or train. The reason for this discrepency is unclear. Exhibit 3.17 Destination Access vs. Incidence of Transfer 6 54.8% 5 25.2% 33.6% 35.8% 27.8% 10. 1. 0. 2.6% 1.3% 1.3% 0.3% 3.9% 1.4% Transfer No Transfer Walked more than 4 blocks Transferred from bus/train Rode a bike Drove myself Walked 4 blocks or less Get picked up 26

Question 9: What is the primary purpose for the trip that includes this bus that you are currently riding? Work was the most frequently cited trip purpose (58.3 percent), followed by school (11.7 percent). 7 6 58.3% Exhibit 3.18 Trip Purpose n = 8,436 5 6.1% 4.8% Work Shopping Visiting family/friends 1.4% 11.7% 10.7% Home School Personal business 5.9% Healthcare 1.2% We assessed trip purpose by route to identify on which routes particular trip purposes were concentrated (Exhibits 3.19.a and 3.19.b). While work was the primary trip purpose overall, the highest percentages of work trips were noted on Route n26 (87.9 percent) and Route n57 (82.8 percent). This is not surprising, given both routes operating only during peak hours on weekdays. Routes with the lowest percentage of work trips include Route n16 (33.4 percent) and Route n51 (44.0 percent). School was also a frequent trip purpose on Route n51 (40.8 percent) and Route n16 (33.8 percent). Route n16 serves Nassau Community College and Molloy College, while Route n51 serves Nassau Community College and Hofstra University. Healthcare, while not a primary trip purpose for most respondents, was cited most frequently on Route n25 (17.8 percent) and Route n32 (10.3 percent). Route n25 serves Franklin Hospital, Long Island Jewish Hillside Medical Center, and North Shore University Hospital, while Route n32 serves St. John s Episcopal Hospital. While shopping was also not a frequently cited trip purpose, it was observed most often on Route n1 (17.6 percent) and Route n45 (15.8 percent). 27

Exhibit 3.19.a Trip Purpose by Route (n1 n40) 6 8 10 n1 49.7% 7. 11.8% 17.6% 5.9% 4.8% n4 58.9% 8.8% 12.8% 5.3% 5.1% 6.4% n6 55.1% 13.9% 12.1% 5. 4.3% 7. n15 54.7% 7.3% 12.1% 11.3% 5.4% 6.3% n16 33.4% 33.8% 15.7% 5.9% 6.2% 2.6% n19 64.6% 4. 7.1% 11.1% 8.1% 3. n20 56.2% 17. 6. 5. 5.8% 5. n21 76.3% 4.3% 8.6% 1.1% 4.3% 4.3% n22 65.1% 10.6% 7.2% 6.1% 5.7% 4.3% n23 75.4% 8.8% 3. 3. 4.7% 2.3% n24 60. 11. 11. 6.8% 5.3% 2.8% n25 61. 5.3% 6.1% 3.4% 17.8% 4.2% n26 87.9% 3. 4. n27 59. 9.6% 13.6% 7.3% 5. 3.3% n31 56.3% 14.3% 12.1% 2.6% 6.3% 4. n32 61.6% 8. 10.3% 3.3% 10.3% 3. n33 65.7% 5.6% 8.3% 6. 5.6% 6. n35 56.7% 15.3% 10.3% 7.2% 5. 3.4% n36 57.1% 7.1% 8.6% 10. 7.1% 2.9% n40 53. 4.8% 19. 5.4% 9.9% 6.1% Work School Personal business Shopping Healthcare Visiting friends *Response types with consistently low values are not labeled to maintain clarity of the chart 28

Exhibit 3.19.b Trip Purpose by Route (n41 81) 6 8 10 n41 64. 4.7% 16.3% 1.9% 4.7% 5.4% n43 49.1% 29.2% 8.9% 5.7% n45 57.9% 21.1% 2.6% 15.8% n47 70.1% 6. 6. 3.9% 9.1% 2.6% n48 61.1% 11. 13. 3.1% 9.2% n49 55. 4.6% 14. 9.2% 4.6% 6.9% n51 44. 40. 4. 4. n54 57.1% 7.7% 8.8% 8.8% 5. 7.7% n55 59. 8.9% 7.6% 10.1% 3.8% 6.3% n57 82.8% 3.4% 6.9% n58 72.6% 7.4% 4.2% 4.2% 6.3% n70 55.4% 19. 6.6% 5. 9.1% 3.3% n71 55.2% 11. 13.7% 5. 7.1% 4.4% n72 62.1% 7.8% 8.2% 6. 6. 7.3% n78 73.7% 2.6% 10. 5.3% 5.3% n79 76.1% 4. 8. 4. n80 56.9% 11.8% 13.7% 5.9% 5.9% n81 64. 10. 16. 4. Work School Personal business Shopping Healthcare Visiting friends *Response types with consistently low values are not labeled to maintain clarity of the chart 29

Question 10: What is your primary reason for choosing NICE for this trip? Absence of a personal vehicle is the reason 45.3 percent of respondents gave for using NICE. Another 17.0 percent said they ride NICE because they are not able to drive, which could include lack of a driver license or a disability that prevents them from driving. Few respondents (3.3 percent) indicated avoidance of traffic or parking as their reason for riding NICE. Exhibit 3.20 Reason for Riding n = 8,381 5 4 3 13.7% 45.3% 17. Cost Lack of car Not able to drive 1.1% 11.9% Proximity to my destination 3.3% Avoid traffic/parking 7.6% Prefer public transit to driving While lack of a car is a dominant reason for selecting NICE, it did not occur equally across all routes. Route n20 had the lowest incidence of respondents who ride because they lack access to a car (31.0 percent), while Route n48 had the highest (61.1 percent). Route n19 had the highest percentage of riders who choose NICE based on cost (22.4 percent). Route n57 had the greatest percentage of respondents who patronize NICE because they cannot drive (28.6 percent). Those who choose public transit to avoid traffic or parking, because of proximity to their destination, or because they prefer it to driving can most likely be classified as choice riders. Route n20 had the highest percentage of respondents riding NICE to avoid traffic or parking (6.3 percent), while n21 had the highest percentage who ride because of proximity to their destination (18.9 percent). Route n26 had 18.2 percent who prefer public transit to driving. 30

Exhibit 3.21.a Reason for Riding by Route (n1 n 40) 6 8 10 n1 41.8% 19.6% 9.8% 16.8% 7.6% 3.8% n4 41.8% 13.6% 16.2% 14.6% 8. 5.1% n6 40.7% 15. 14. 14.4% 9.4% 5.2% n15 52.7% 15.1% 15.1% 8.4% 6. n16 54.2% 17.3% 9.3% 10.3% 5.3% n19 38.8% 18.4% 22.4% 12.2% 3.1% n20 31. 20.3% 18.9% 14.9% 7.2% 6.3% n21 38.9% 11.1% 20. 18.9% 10. n22 35.6% 15.8% 18.2% 12.1% 10.8% 5. n23 50.6% 17.9% 12. 9. 6. 2.4% n24 38.9% 17. 15.1% 16. 8. 4. n25 45.2% 17.4% 13.9% 11.2% 7.7% 3.9% n26 36.4% 21.2% 6.1% 16.7% 18.2% n27 54. 15.7% 14. 8. 4.7% n31 44.7% 19.4% 9. 14.7% 8.1% 2.6% n32 44.4% 16.7% 11. 16.3% 5.9% 4.1% n33 38.7% 17. 9.4% 17.9% 12.3% 3.8% n35 58.4% 13.9% 12.6% 7.9% 3. n36 43.3% 28.4% 6. 14.9% 1. n40 47.6% 18. 13. 9.6% 8.4% 1.9% Lack of car Not able to drive Cost Proximity to my destination Prefer public transit to driving Avoid traffic/parking *Response types with consistently low values are not labeled to maintain chart clarity 31

Exhibit 3.21.b Reason for Riding by Route (n41 n 81) 6 8 10 n41 51.2% 13.6% 15.1% 9.7% 7. n43 55. 17. 11.8% 9.6% 3.9% n45 46.7% 24. 9.3% 10.7% 6.7% n47 46.8% 27.3% 3.9% 10.4% 9.1% n48 61.1% 18.3% 3.8% 8.4% 6.9% n49 44. 22. 15.6% 11. 4. n51 41.7% 25. 16.7% 16.7% n54 54.4% 16.7% 10. 7.8% 11.1% n55 41.3% 18.8% 13.8% 11.3% 12. n57 39.3% 28.6% 14.3% 3.6% 14.3% n58 32.2% 8. 20.7% 17.2% 12.6% n70 57.9% 11.6% 12.4% 9.1% 4.1% n71 57. 16.6% 8.3% 6.6% 7.7% n72 45.3% 20.8% 16. 8. 5.1% n78 50. 21.1% 13.2% 0. 13.2% n79 41.4% 24.1% 13.8% 10.3% 6.9% n80 56.6% 20.8% 7. 5.7% 7. n81 54. 20. 12. 6. 6. Lack of car Not able to drive Cost Proximity to my destination Prefer public transit to driving Avoid traffic/parking *Response type with consistently low values are not labeled to maintain chart clarity 32

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

Exhibit 3.22.a Rider Category (Based on Reason for Riding) by Route (n1 n40) 6 8 10 n1 n4 n6 n15 n16 n19 n20 n21 n22 n23 n24 n25 n26 n27 n31 n32 n33 n35 n36 n40 61.4% 55.3% 55.6% 67.8% 71.4% 57.1% 51.3% 50. 51.4% 68. 56. 62. 57.6% 70.2% 64.1% 61.1% 55.7% 72.2% 71.6% 65.6% 38.6% 44.7% 44.4% 32.2% 28.6% 42.9% 48.7% 50. 48.6% 31. 44. 37. 42.4% 29.8% 35.9% 38.9% 44.3% 27.8% 28.4% 34.4% Ride dependent Choice riders 34

Exhibit 3.22.b Rider Category (Based on Reason for Riding) by Route (n41 n81) 6 8 10 n41 64.7% 35.3% n43 72. 27. n45 70.7% 29.3% n47 74. 26. n48 79.4% 20.6% n49 66. 33. n51 66.7% 33.3% n54 71.1% 28.9% n55 60. 40. n57 67.9% 32.1% n58 40.2% 59.8% n70 69.4% 30.6% n71 74. 26. n72 66.1% 33.9% n78 71.1% 28.9% n79 65. 34. n80 77.4% 22.6% n81 74. 26. Ride dependent Choice riders 35

Section 2: Tell us about yourself Question 11: How often do you ride NICE? The majority of respondents (58.1 percent) indicated riding NICE at least five times a week. This is consistent with the high number of respondents indicating their primary trip purpose is travel to work. Another 23.6 percent use the service three to four times a week. Overall, 81.7 percent of customers surveyed ride NICE at least three times a week, down slightly from 84.7 percent in 2013. 7 6 Exhibit 3.23 Frequency of Ridership 58.1% 5 7.6% 10.7% 23.6% Less than once a week 1-2 times a week 3-4 times a week 5 or more times a week Five or more times a week was the most frequently cited response on all routes, cited by at least 47 percent on every route. Route n78 had the highest percentage of respondents riding five or more times a week (73.0 percent). Route n21 had the greatest percentage of respondents who indicated they ride twice a week or less (30.8 percent). 36

Exhibit 3.24.a Frequency of Ridership by Route (n1 n40) 5 6 7 8 9 10 n1 53.3% 22. 15.9% 8.8% n4 59.7% 20. 9.9% 9.9% n6 62.6% 20.9% 10.4% 6.1% n15 59.1% 23.2% 8.6% 9.2% n16 55.4% 31. 5.9% 7.6% n19 59.6% 17.2% 14.1% 9.1% n20 48.8% 26.2% 13.4% 11.6% n21 47.9% 21.3% 19.1% 11.7% n22 57.7% 23.7% 11. 7.6% n23 59. 30.4% 7.1% 3. n24 52.1% 26.2% 11.8% 9.9% n25 63. 20.7% 8.6% 7.1% n26 67.2% 17.9% 10.4% 4. n27 52. 29.2% 12.3% 6. n31 51.3% 25.3% 14. 8.9% n32 54.2% 18.1% 15.9% 11.8% n33 47.2% 35.8% 13.2% 3.8% n35 61.6% 24.8% 8.2% 5.3% n36 61.8% 20.6% 8.8% 8.8% n40 59.1% 20.1% 12.6% 8.2% 5 or more times a week 3-4 times a week 1-2 times a week Less than once a week 37

Exhibit 3.24.b Frequency of Ridership by Route (n41 n81) 5 6 7 8 9 10 n41 67.6% 17.4% 10. 5. n43 59.4% 28.3% 6. 6.4% n45 60. 28.9% 6.6% 3.9% n47 69.6% 20.3% 6.3% 3.8% n48 59. 26.7% 9.9% 3.8% n49 62. 21.6% 8. 8. n51 50. 38. 7.7% 3.8% n54 53.3% 27.8% 11.1% 7.8% n55 63. 24.7% 9.9% 2. n57 65. 17.2% 13.8% 3.4% n58 51.6% 26.9% 9.7% 11.8% n70 57.6% 23.7% 12.7% 5.9% n71 56.8% 27.9% 9.3% 6. n72 60.7% 20.9% 9.8% 8. n78 73. 8.1% 16.2% 2.7% n79 52.3% 23.9% 12. 11.4% n80 69.8% 17. 5.7% 7. n81 60.8% 19.6% 15.7% 3.9% 5 or more times a week 3-4 times a week 1-2 times a week Less than once a week 38

The most frequent riders are far more likely to use the Unlimited MetroCard than those who ride fewer than five times per week. At the current NICE fare of $2.75 per trip, an Unlimited MetroCard does not offer savings if the individual is making five round trips per week on NICE only ($27.50, versus $30 for a 7-Day Unlimited MetroCard). A 30-Day Unlimited MetroCard also offers no savings if used on NICE for 20 or fewer round trips in a month ($110, versus $116.50 for the pass). However, if the individual is riding more than five round trips per week, or is transferring to an MTA bus or subway, the Unlimited Pass becomes a greater value. This suggests respondents who use an Unlimited MetroCard yet only cite using NICE four or fewer times per week are likely using the card on other services as well to realize any kind of savings. The Pay-Per-Ride MetroCard is a common choice across all frequency levels, as it provides a small savings over cash regardless of how many rides are made in a week. The NICE gomobile app is most popular among respondents who ride at least three times per week, as it offers small discounts based on the number of rides purchased. 10 9 8 7 6 5 20.6% 32. 18. 9. 38. 5 or more times a week Exhibit 3.25 Fare Media vs. Frequency of Ridership 26.6% 29. 31. 17.9% 8.3% 6.3% 20.1% 3.4% 46.6% 46.3% 45. 3-4 times a week 1-2 times a week Less than once a week MetroCard Pay Per Ride MetroCard Unlimited gomobile transit app None, I pay cash 39

Not surprisingly, those who use NICE to travel to work and school are most likely to ride five or more times per week. In fact, few who said they were traveling to work (nine percent) indicated riding fewer than three times a week. By contrast, those who ride NICE to visit friends are most likely to ride infrequently, with approximately 49 percent of respondents in this category indicating they ride twice a week or less. Forty percent or more of those indicating healthcare or personal business as their trip purpose also indicated riding five or more times a week. This suggests such riders use NICE for more than just the trip purpose cited. Exhibit 3.26 Frequency of Ridership versus Trip Purpose 10 9 3.1% 6.1% 14.9% 3.8% 9.6% 19.6% 23.8% 16.4% 14.8% 8 7 6 5 20. 22. 25.9% 37.2% 17.3% 23.3% 25.3% 18.1% 24.4% 58.1% 14.3% 25.7% 70.3% 37.1% 49. 39.8% 22. 28.9% Work Shopping School Healthcare Visiting friends 41.1% Personal business 8. 23.9% 9.4% Home 45.2% 5 or more times a week 3-4 times a week 1-2 times a week Less than once a week 40

Question 12: How would you have made this trip if NICE was not available? Just 10.8 percent of respondents said they would drive their own vehicle if the NICE bus was not available. Riding with a friend or family member was the most frequently cited option (26.5 percent), followed by those who would said they would take a taxi (21.9 percent). Nearly 19 percent said they would not make the trip. Relatively few (12.3 percent) would walk or ride a bicycle, suggesting they are traveling a longer distance than they are willing to make using active transportation modes. Slightly more than seven percent of respondents said they would use other public transit to make their trip. Of those, nearly 85 percent would use the train or subway. Exhibit 3.27 Mobility Options 26. n = 8,213 21.9% 18.8% 10.8% 9. 7.4% 2.8% 2.2% Ride with friend/family member Taxi Wouldn't make trip Drive own vehicle Walk public transit Ride bicycle Routes n6 and n51 had the greatest percentage of respondents who indicated they would drive themselves (15.4 percent). Route n15 had the highest percentage of respondents who said they would ride with a friend or family member (33.6 percent), while Route n79 had the greatest percentage who would take a taxi (35.6 percent). Routes n26 and n33 had the highest percentage of respondents who would not have made the trip (30.2 and 30.0 percent, respectively), which typically indicates a lack of other mobility options. It could also indicate customers who have the option of telecommuting rather than traveling to a conventional work location, but this number is likely to be modest given the overall demographic profile of NICE riders. 41

Exhibit 3.28.a Mobility Options by Route (n1 n36) 5 6 7 8 9 10 n1 25.6% 25. 13.6% 8. 15.9% 10.8% n4 22. 17. 15.1% 15.1% 6.8% 21.1% n6 26.9% 19. 20. 15.4% 6. 10.1% n15 33.6% 19.8% 17. 8.8% 11.4% 5.4% n16 32.4% 20. 15.7% 11.3% 13. 2.4% n19 22.2% 20. 20. 5.6% 10. 16.7% n20 21. 15.3% 20. 13.4% 4. 21.9% n21 32.2% 15.6% 24.4% 10. 7.8% 8.9% n22 23.4% 19.9% 16.6% 14.8% 7.7% 15.7% n23 23.2% 25. 23.2% 7.3% 9.8% 7.3% n24 23.7% 21. 19.1% 11.2% 8.6% 14.3% n25 24. 20.7% 23.4% 9.2% 11. 8.8% n26 22.2% 14.3% 30.2% 7.9% 7.9% 15.9% n27 32.8% 20.4% 20.1% 7.7% 10.7% 6. n31 26.1% 19.3% 20. 12.1% 6.4% 12.9% n32 28.1% 23.2% 16.3% 12.9% 9.1% 7.6% n33 17. 21. 30. 8. 8. 15. n35 31.6% 26.6% 15.8% 6.9% 10.9% 3.3% n36 18.8% 26.1% 23.2% 7.2% 11.6% 8.7% Ride with friend/family member Taxi Wouldn't make trip Drive own vehicle Walk Ride bicycle *Response types with consistently low values are not labeled to maintain chart clarity 42

Exhibit 3.28.b Mobility Options by Route (n40 n81) 5 6 7 8 9 10 n40 26.4% 29. 13.7% 8.1% 13.4% 5. n41 25. 25. 22.2% 8.7% 11. 3.2% n43 35. 28.2% 13.9% 8.6% 9.3% 1.8% n45 26. 31. 21.9% 5. 11. 2.7% n47 20. 26. 19.2% 11. 12.3% 5. n48 25. 25. 22.7% 4.7% 12. 5. n49 27.6% 23. 19. 7. 12.1% 8. n51 19.2% 30.8% 23.1% 15.4% 7.7% 3.8% n54 31.8% 23.9% 15.9% 3.4% 9.1% 13.6% n55 17.7% 29.1% 25.3% 6.3% 10.1% 10.1% n57 32.1% 21.4% 10.7% 7.1% 21.4% 3.6% n58 25. 17.4% 10.9% 13. 29.3% 3.3% n70 33.1% 17.8% 24.6% 11.9% 3.4% 4.2% n71 26.8% 21.8% 23. 11.2% 8.4% 6.7% n72 20.9% 32.1% 15. 9. 10.7% 7.7% n78 32.4% 32.4% 21.6% 5.4% 0. 5.4% n79 19. 35.6% 17.2% 9.2% 9.2% 4.6% n80 22.4% 24. 24. 6.1% 18.4% 2. n81 21.3% 25. 12.8% 4.3% 17. 10.6% Ride with friend/family member Taxi Wouldn't make trip Drive own vehicle Walk Ride bicycle *Response types with consistently low values are not labeled to maintain chart clarity 43

Those citing a trip purpose of shopping or other were most likely to say they would not make the trip if NICE was not available (24.5 percent and 25.7 percent, respectively), though not by a significant margin. Those traveling to school are most likely to ride with a friend or family member (39.8 percent), while those traveling to access healthcare are most likely to take a taxi (32.5 percent). Exhibit 3.29 Mobility Options vs. Trip Purpose 9.3% 3.3% 13.2% 8.7% 21.7% 20.6% 9.3% 3.6% 9.3% 8.7% 25.7% 17. 7.4% 1.7% 11. 6. 18.8% 32. 5.9% 3.3% 5.8% 12.3% 17.6% 15.3% 13. 2.4% 9.6% 13.9% 14.4% 19.7% 5. 2.4% 12.1% 7. 24. 23.3% 11. 2.7% 9.1% 11.7% 17.7% 22.9% 10 9 8 7 6 5 23.1% 26. 22.2% 39.8% 26.9% 24.7% 24.9% Personal business Visiting friends Healthcare School Shopping Work Ride with friend/family member Taxi Wouldn't make trip Drive own vehicle Walk Ride bicycle 44

Question 13: Who else in your household uses NICE? Respondents were asked to describe what other members of their household use NICE. Young adults (age 19-24) and other adults comprise the largest segment (58.3 percent) of household users. Exhibit 3.30 Household NICE Usage 3 36.6% n = 8,604 21.7% 8.4% 8.9% 8.8% Child/ren (age 12 and under) Child/ren (age 13-18) Young adults (age 19-24) adult(s) Senior(s) (age 65 or older) 45

Question 14: What is your approximate annual household income? Nearly 34 percent of respondents cited an annual household income of less than $15,000. Depending on the size of the household, many of these individuals are at risk for being below federal poverty guidelines. Currently, $16,020 is the poverty threshold for a two-person household. 3 The American Community Survey reports a mean annual household income for Nassau County as nearly $100,000. 4 By contrast, 73.9 percent of respondents reported an income of less than $50,000 annually. Exhibit 3.31 compares the breakdown of NICE rider incomes to those of the overall Nassau County population. Exhibit 3.31 Annual Household Income 6 5 49.7% 33.9% 12. 17.8% 5.3% 5.7% 5. 9.7% 8.2% 12.7% 13.2% 12.2% 4.4% 5.3% Less than $15,000 $15,000 to $24,999 $25,000 to $34,999 $35,000 to $49,999 $50,000 to $74,999 $75,000 to $99,999 $100,000 or more NICE Nassau Co. Minimum wage in the state of New York was $9.00 per hour at the time of the survey. Nassau County also has a Living Wage Law, which requires employers with which the County does business to pay employees a minimum of $15.78 per hour. 5 This translates to an annual salary for full-time employment of approximately $32,800. While these figures may appear adequate on paper, they fail to take into account the many individuals who do not have full-time employment or who may be supporting an entire household on a single salary. This aspect of household income will be addressed fully in our analysis of Question 15. 3 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2016 Poverty Guidelines, aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/13poverty.cfm. Accessed December 13, 2016. 4 U.S. Census Bureau, 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Nassau County, New York, factfinder2.census.gov. Accessed December 13, 2016. 5 Nassau County, New York, County Comptroller s Office, www.nassaucountyny.gov/agencies/comptroller/livingwage/ index.html. Accessed December 13, 2016. 46

Exhibit 3.32.a Annual Household Income by Route (n1 n36) 5 6 7 8 9 10 n1 38.2% 11.2% 22.4% 5.9% 11.2% 5.3% 5.9% n4 26.4% 9. 25.7% 12.9% 17.4% 3.2% 5. n6 31.2% 11.4% 21. 10.4% 14.2% 5.4% 5.9% n15 38.1% 14.3% 21.4% 8.7% 8.7% 3.4% 5.3% n16 37.9% 11.1% 23.3% 7.1% 8.7% 4. 7.9% n19 39. 17.4% 23.3% 9.3% 5.8% n20 32.7% 13.4% 17.4% 9.9% 13.7% 4.8% 8. n21 45.7% 8.6% 16. 9.9% 13.6% 3.7% n22 27.7% 13.7% 19. 8.9% 13.3% 7.8% 9. n23 35.3% 16. 18.7% 10.7% 14.7% n24 28.1% 12.9% 19.9% 11. 16. 6. 5. n25 28.3% 15. 24. 13.7% 10.7% 4.3% 3. n26 28.3% 13.2% 24. 7. 17. 9.4% n27 41.3% 13.7% 24. 7. 8. 3. n31 36.1% 15. 21.1% 7.9% 11.9% 4. 4. n32 34.7% 12.8% 22.8% 8.2% 10. 6.8% 4.6% n33 29.3% 19.6% 26.1% 12. 7.6% 4.3% n35 32.1% 10.9% 24.8% 9. 14.2% 3.6% 4.7% n36 46.6% 12.1% 13.8% 12.1% 6.9% 8.6% Less than $15,000 $15,000 to $24,999 $25,000 to $34,999 $35,000 to $49,999 $50,000 to $74,999 $75,000 to $99,999 47 $100,000 or more *Response types with consistently low values are not labeled to maintain chart cllarity

Exhibit 3.32.b Annual Household Income by Route (n40 n81) 6 8 10 n40 31.8% 11.1% 23.2% 11.1% 18.2% 2.9% n41 36.2% 13.6% 20.2% 12.7% 10.3% 5.2% n43 40.9% 8.1% 22.7% 6.9% 7.3% 6. 7.7% n45 31.7% 18.3% 16.7% 15. 13.3% 3.3% n47 36.8% 7.4% 29.4% 7.4% 16.2% n48 44.4% 11.1% 18. 7.4% 9.3% 7.4% n49 31.9% 17.4% 22. 10.1% 10.9% 4.3% n51 45. 13.6% 18.2% 0. 18.2% 4. n54 37. 11.1% 26.4% 5.6% 12. 5.6% n55 46.3% 9. 19.4% 9. 7. 3. 6. n57 36.8% 5.3% 26.3% 5.3% 5.3% 5.3% 15.8% n58 44. 5.3% 16. 6.7% 9.3% 5.3% 13.3% n70 38.2% 7.8% 22. 12.7% 9.8% 4.9% n71 32.1% 8.3% 25. 10.9% 17.3% 2.6% 3.8% n72 34. 13.7% 15.7% 10.7% 20.3% 4.1% n78 38.7% 12.9% 25.8% 3.2% 0. 9.7% 9.7% n79 26. 24.7% 17.8% 8.2% 16.4% 5. n80 42.2% 8.9% 15.6% 17.8% 8.9% 6.7% n81 31. 9. 21.4% 9. 19. 4.8% 4.8% Less than $15,000 $15,000 to $24,999 $25,000 to $34,999 $35,000 to $49,999 $50,000 to $74,999 $75,000 to $99,999 $100,000 or more *Response types with consistently low values are not labeled to maintain chart clar 48 Question 15: How many people live in your household?

The majority of respondents (60.5 percent) cited living in a household of two to four persons. Of those, 22.1 percent live in a four-person household. The average household size in Nassau County is 3.03 persons. 6 Exhibit 3.33 Household Size 18.1% 20.3% 22.1% n = 7,617 12.8% 13.7% 6.7% 3. 1.4% 2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 or more To assess the likelihood of customers living below federal poverty guidelines, we compared household size to annual household income. Darker red squares in Exhibit 3.34 indicate increased likelihood of living below the poverty line, while lighter red squares indicate individuals at risk of living in poverty. Each percentage is shown as the percentage of total respondents who answered both questions. This translates to 3,264 individuals, or 49.3 percent of the total sample, who are at risk for living below federal poverty guidelines. 49 6 U.S. Census Bureau, 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Nassau County, New York, factfinder2.census.gov. Accessed December 13, 2016.

Exhibit 3.34 Household Income vs. Household Size 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 or more Less than $15,000 5.4% 5.8% 6.1% 7. 4.2% 2.1% 1.1% 0.7% 1. $15,000 to $24,999 1.6% 2.3% 2. 2. 2. 1. 0.4% 0.1% 0.2% $25,000 to $34,999 2.9% 4.4% 5.3% 4.4% 2.3% 1.3% 0. 0.3% 0.2% $35,000 to $49,999 1. 1.8% 2. 2.1% 1.4% 0. 0.3% 0.1% 0. $50,000 to $74,999 1.1% 2.6% 2.8% 3.1% 1.8% 0.7% 0.3% 0.1% 0.2% $75,000 to $99,999 0.4% 0.7% 1. 1.4% 0.6% 0.3% 0.1% 0. 0.1% $100,000 or more 0.2% 0.8% 0.9% 1. 1.1% 0.6% 0.2% 0.1% 0.2% 50

Question 16: What is your race/ethnicity? (select all that apply) Black or African-American was the most frequently selected response, cited by 43.4 percent of surveyed riders. Persons of Hispanic/Latino heritage made up another 28.3 percent of the survey sample. Respondents identifying themselves as White represented just 14.3 percent, while 8.8 percent identified themselves as Asian. This is in distinct contrast with the ethnic breakdown of Nassau County as a whole, wherein 64.5 percent identified as White and just 15.6 percent and 10.9 percent identified as Hispanic/Latino and Black/African-American, respectively. Exhibit 3.35 compares the ethnic breakdown of survey respondents against the overall population of Nassau County. 7 6 64. Exhibit 3.35 Rider Ethnicity 7 Onboard Survey n = 8,604 5 43.4% 28.3% 10.9% Black/African American 15.6% 14.3% 8.8% 8.3% 1.8% 2.7% 0.1% 0.7% 0.01% 0. Hispanic/Latino White Asian American Native Indian/Alaskan Hawaiian/Pacific Native Islander NICE Nassau Co. Routes n21 and n19 had the highest concentration Hispanic/Latino respondents (52.1 percent and 45.5 percent, respectively), while Routes n1 and n6 had the highest percentage of Black/African-American respondents (54.5 percent and 54.4 percent, respectively). Route n55 had the highest percentage of American Indian/Alaskan Native respondents (4.7 percent), while Route n79 had the highest percentage of Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander (3.1 percent). Route n78 had the highest percentage of Asian respondents (29.7 percent). Route n1 had the highest percentage of other responses (9.4 percent). 51 7 U.S. Census Bureau, 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Nassau County, New York, factfinder2.census.gov. Accessed December 13, 2016.

Exhibit 3.36.a Rider Ethnicity by Route (n1 n36) 5 6 7 8 9 10 n1 54. 17.3% 9.4% 7.3% n4 53.9% 24.7% 8.6% 6.8% n6 54.4% 24.7% 7.9% 7.6% n15 42.7% 29.6% 17.1% 3.6% n16 47. 26.4% 13.4% 5. n19 25.7% 45. 20.8% 5. n20 19.1% 31. 18.2% 27.8% n21 18.1% 52.1% 14.9% 11.7% n22 35. 21. 14.9% 22.2% n23 27.6% 43.1% 16.1% 9.2% n24 36.3% 24.6% 18.9% 14.3% n25 47.8% 23.1% 21.3% 5.6% n26 44.6% 32.3% 4.6% 7.7% n27 36.7% 38.2% 16.6% 5. n31 42. 31.1% 14. 6.4% n32 44.9% 33.8% 13.6% 3.3% n33 39.1% 29.1% 21.8% 5. n35 56.4% 24.3% 10.7% 3. n36 40.6% 26.1% 27. 1.4% Black/African American Hispanic/Latino White Asian American Indian/Alaskan Native Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander *Response types with consistently low values are not labeled to maintain chart clarity 52

Exhibit 3.36.b Rider Ethnicity by Route (n40 n81) 5 6 7 8 9 10 n40 52.8% 29.8% 9.2% 4. n41 54. 30.4% 8. 3.4% n43 49. 34.6% 7.3% 6. n45 39. 28.9% 17.1% 10. n47 44. 29.8% 15. 4.8% n48 50.7% 28.6% 10. 8.6% n49 40. 28.9% 15. 8.1% n51 34.6% 26.9% 26.9% 7.7% n54 48. 27. 12.7% 2. n55 51.2% 20.9% 17.4% 3. n57 28.6% 32.1% 25. 3.6% n58 17. 41.2% 28.9% 9.3% n70 42.6% 24.6% 17.2% 11. n71 38.1% 25.9% 28.6% 4.2% n72 38.4% 31.4% 22.4% 4. n78 35.1% 21.6% 8.1% 29.7% n79 43.9% 22.4% 15.3% 12.2% n80 28.3% 28.3% 24. 17. n81 36.7% 28.6% 18.4% 14.3% Black/African American Hispanic/Latino White Asian American Indian/Alaskan Native Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander *Response types with consistently low values are not labeled to maintain chart clarity 53

Question 17: Were you? Question 17 attempted to determine if respondents were born inside or outside the United States. Fiftyeight percent of respondents indicated being born within the United States. Born outside the United States, 42. Exhibit 3.37 Country of birth n = 7,895 Born in the United States, 58. 54

Question 18: What language(s) are spoken in your home? Seventy-six percent of respondents indicated speaking English at home, followed by 16.1 percent that speak Spanish. French/Haitian Creole was the only other significant language group noted (3.4 percent). Exhibit 3.38 Home Language 8 7 6 5 76. n = 8,604 16.1% 3.4% English Spanish French/ Hatian Creole 0.9% 0.9% 0.7% 0.3% 0.2% 0.2% 1.2% South Asian Languages Chinese Italian Korean Persian/ Farsi Tagalog A more in-depth analysis of home language on a route-by-route basis is provided in Appendix C. 55

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

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

Exhibit 3.41.a Barriers Due to Language by Route (n1 n36) 6 8 10 n1 n4 n6 n15 n16 n19 n20 n21 n22 n23 n24 n25 n26 n27 n31 n32 n33 n35 n36 94.7% 95. 91.9% 92. 93. 89.9% 89.3% 83. 92.9% 86.9% 93.6% 93.8% 89. 91.4% 90.4% 91.8% 93.9% 93. 92.2% 5.3% 5. 8.1% 8. 7. 10.1% 10.7% 16. 7.1% 13.1% 6.4% 6.2% 10. 8.6% 9.6% 8.2% 6.1% 6. 7.8% No Yes 58

Exhibit 3.41.b Barriers Due to Language by Route (n40 n81) 6 8 10 n40 90.4% 9.6% n41 91.9% 8.1% n43 95. 5. n45 94. 6. n47 93.3% 6.7% n48 94.9% 5.1% n49 92.3% 7.7% n51 95. 4. n54 93.1% 6.9% n55 91.7% 8.3% n57 76. 24. n58 86.3% 13.8% n70 94. 5. n71 92. 7. n72 93.2% 6.8% n78 91.4% 8.6% n79 90.2% 9.8% n80 91. 8. n81 90.2% 9.8% No Yes Exhibit 3.42 illustrates the percentages of respondents who cited language barriers while utilizing NICE. While the percentages of respondents appear significant, it should be noted that only Spanish (200 respondents), French/Haitian Creole (30 respondents), and Chinese (13 respondents) included more than 10 respondents who experienced a language barrier. 59

10 9 8 7 6 5 14.6% 11.3% 85.4% 88.7% Spanish French/ Haitian Creole Exhibit 3.42 Barriers Due to Language vs. Langauge Spoken at Home 18. 16. 13. 17.2% 81. 83. 87. 82.8% Chinese South Asian Languages 9. 90. 20. 80. Italian Korean Tagalog Persian/ Farsi No Yes Question 21: How many private vehicles do you have in your household? The majority of respondents (58.1 percent) indicated having access to at least one private vehicle. However, it should be noted that nearly one-third of respondents did not select one of the provided responses. We believe this is because many of them had zero private vehicles at home, which was not a response option. 7 6 5 58.1% 27. Exhibit 3.43 Private Vehicles Access n = 5, 735 10.1% 4.7% 1 2 3 4 or more 60

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

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

Question 25: What is your age? Adults age 25 to 44 made up the largest single response group (35.5 percent). Persons age 45 to 64 also comprised a significant portion of those surveyed (28.4 percent). Another 20.8 percent of respondents cited being age 19 to 24. Relatively few respondents indicated they were 65 years of age or older (6.6 percent) or under age 19 (8.7 percent). Exhibit 3.47 Respondent Age 3 35. n = 8,180 28.4% 20.8% 7.1% 6.6% 1.6% Under 16 16 to 18 19 to 24 25 to 44 45 to 64 65 or older 63

Question 26: What is your home ZIP code? Not surprisingly, more than 71 percent of respondents cited a Nassau County ZIP code with relation to their home location. Twenty-one percent indicated a Queens County home location, while 1.9 percent hailed from Kings County, and just under two percent from Suffolk County. Exhibit 3.48 Home ZIP Code (All) 8 7 71.2% n = 7,257 6 5 21.2% Nassau County Queens County 2.8% 1.9% 0.7% 0.6% 0.3% 0.6% 0.7% Suffolk County Kings County Bronx County New York County NY County Out of State Unknown The three ZIP codes comprising Hempstead (11549, 11550, and 11551) were the most cited of all Nassau County ZIP codes (22.0 percent). notable concentrations of survey respondents included Elmont (11003; 8.6 percent), Freeport (11520; 8.2 percent), Roosevelt (6.8 percent), and Uniondale (11553, 11555, 11556, and 11588; 6.2 percent combined). 64

Exhibit 3.49 Home ZIP Code (Nassau County) Nassau Zip Code Number City Percent 11549, 11550, 11551 1,136 Hempstead 22. 11003 442 Elmont 8.6% 11520 422 Freeport 8.2% 11553, 11555, 11556, 11588 318 Uniondale 6.2% 11575 249 Roosevelt 4.8% 11580, 11581, 11582, 11583 230 Valley Stream 4.4% 11590, 11593, 11594 197 Westbury 3.8% 11552 150 West Hempstead 2.9% 11020, 11021, 11022, 11023, 11024, 11027 148 Great Neck 2.9% 11510 162 Baldwin 3.1% 11040, 11042, 11044 140 New Hyde Park 2.7% 11801, 11855, 11612 135 Hicksville 2.6% 11561 112 Long Beach 2.2% 11542 121 Glen Cove 2.3% 11570, 11571, 11592 95 Rockville Center 1.8% 11001, 11002 81 Floral Park 1.6% 11501 70 Mineola 1.4% 11554 69 East Meadow 1.3% 11050, 11051, 11053, 11055 65 Port Washington 1.3% 11572 60 Oceanside 1.2% 11010 62 Franklin Square 1.2% 11563, 11564 57 Lynbrook 1.1% 11756 50 Levittown 1. Nassau zip codes 598 11.6% 65

Question 27: Are you employed? Seventy-nine percent of respondents indicated being employed at least part-time, which is consistent with the high percentage of riders traveling to or from work. Just 16.2 percent said they were not employed or retired, a category that could include students and homemakers as well as those looking for work. Exhibit 3.450 Respondent Employment Status Not employed, 16.2% Retired, 4.8% Full-time, 46.1% Part-time, 32.9% n = 8,237 Question 28: Are you a student? Slightly more than 33 percent of respondents said they were either full- or part-time students. Exhibit 3.51 Student Status Full-time, 21.3% Not a student, 66.8% Part-time, 11.9% n = 7,673 66

Question 29: Do you own or have access to a smartphone? More than 81 percent of respondents indicated having access to a smartphone, up from approximately 66 percent in 2013. Exhibit 3.52 Access to Smartphone No, 18.8% n = 8,122 Yes, 81.2% Question 30: Have you used NICE s gomobile transit app? The prevalence of smartphone access appears to have translated to respectable usage of NICE s gomobile app (33.3 percent). Exhibit 3.53 Usage of gomobile app Yes, 33.3% No, 66.7% n = 8,125 67 Question 31: Do you access real-time bus information through the gomobile transit app?

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

Section 4 Title VI Analysis The following is an assessment of the geographic distribution of key population groups relevant to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VI prohibits the discrimination on the basis of race, color or national origin in programs or activities receiving federal assistance. This assessment reflects the racial/ethnic makeup of Nassau County, along with low-income populations, and those with limited access (zero or one) to a personal vehicle. This allowed us to identify locations within Nassau County still in need of NICE services. This analysis is intended to provide decision-makers with relevant information when determining service changes or route development. Data was gathered from the 2010-2014 American Community Survey. Minority Populations Hispanic/Latino populations are primarily clustered near the center and west portions of Nassau County. The heaviest concentrations (census block groups with Hispanic/Latino population greater than 6,000/square mile) exist in or near Hempstead, Freeport, and Westbury. Modest concentrations (census block groups with Hispanic/Latino population of 3,000-6,000/square mile) exist in or near Glen Cove, Levittown, Valley Stream, Inwood, Uniondale, Mineola, and Elmont (See Exhibit 4.1). Black/African-American populations are primarily concentrated in central Nassau County (Hempstead, Freeport, Lynbrook, and Westbury) and far west Nassau County (Elmont). A modest Black/African American population resides in or near Inwood, Great Neck, Glen Cove, and Long Beach (See Exhibit 4.2). Asian populations are more spread out across Nassau County with fewer pockets of high concentrations (census block groups with Asian population greater than 2,500/square mile). However, a few high density pockets exist in or near Elmont, Bellerose, Floral Park, New Hyde Park, and Herricks. The majority of the Asian population is concentrated south of the Long Island Expressway in or near Mineola, Westbury, Hicksville, and Levittown, with pockets also existing in Great Neck and Long Beach (See Exhibit 4.3). Concentrations of American Indian/Alaskan Native populations are modest within Nassau County. However, clusters do exist throughout the County, including near Great Neck, Williston Park, Malverne, Westbury, Uniondale, Freeport, and Mineola (See Exhibit 4.4). There are no significant concentrations of persons identifying themselves as being Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander in Nassau County. Small, low-density pockets (census block groups with Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander population greater than 100/square mile) exist in the vicinity of Westbury, Elmont, and Freeport. (See Exhibit 4.5.) minority populations (those who indicated being something other than those cited in the 2014 American Community Survey) are loosely concentrated in the northern and central Nassau County areas 69

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

Exhibit 4.1 Concentration of Hispanic/Latino Population 71

Exhibit 4.2 Concentration of Black/African American Population 72

Exhibit 4.3 Concentration of Asian Population 73

Exhibit 4.4 Concentration of American Indian/Alaskan Native Population 74

Exhibit 4.5 Concentration of Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander Population 75

Exhibit 4.6 Concentration of Minority Populations 76

Exhibit 4.7 Concentration of White Population 77

Exhibit 4.8 Concentration of Low-income Population 78

Exhibit 4.9 Concentration of Senior Population

Exhibit 4.10 Concentration of Youth Population

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

This page intentionally blank.

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

This page intentionally blank. B-2

B-3

B-4

B-5