1. Prepared by: December 2008 Metro Transit Bus Rider Survey FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS PERISCOPE

2. Page 2 Background Metro Transit recently completed the 13th wave of its rider survey. This annual research project was initiated in 1993, and is overseen by Metro Transit’s Customer Service and Marketing departments. It is fielded to measure system-wide customer service and satisfaction levels. The research quantifies the opinions and perceptions of customers, measures the effectiveness of existing service and communications programs, and helps determine the elements of Metro Transit’s service which are most important to customers. As with recent waves of research, we again used a distinct survey for light-rail riders. The deliverables are comparative reports outlining Metro Transit’s performance relative to previous years of bus and rail ridership. One additional report will be prepared that compares bus and light-rail results for questions that are common to both surveys. The number of completes and the response rate decreased notably for this latest study. In total, 4,643 surveys were completed, achieving a response rate of approximately 23% for 2008, compared to 6,592 surveys completed and a response rate of 33% for the 2006 rider study.

3. Page 3 Background The chart below can be used to determine the approximate confidence interval (CI) of the data collected in the 2008 wave of research and presented in this report. The CI for data is a direct result of the sample size (N) (i.e., the number answering each question) and thus varies for each question based on the number of completes. The table presents the CI for sample sizes in increments of 500 assuming a 95% confidence level. In this manner, we would thus be able to determine that a question with N=4,500 would be accurate to within ±1.46% and a question with N=3,250 would be accurate to between ±1.66% and ±1.79%. Sample SizeConfidence Interval 1,500±2.53% 2,000±2.19% 2,500±1.96% 3,000±1.79% 3,500±1.66% 4,000±1.55% 4,500±1.46% 5,000±1.39%

4. Page 4 Objectives The specific objectives of this research are as follows:  To determine why customers ride the bus or light-rail.  To identify the primary sources of bus/light-rail information.  To assess how well Metro Transit communicates with customers in a variety of areas.  To evaluate riders’ overall level of satisfaction with Metro Transit.  To determine riders’ levels of satisfaction with several specific components of service, as well as identify which components impact overall satisfaction the most.  To identify which service elements are of greatest importance to customers.  To evaluate which possible service improvements are most important to riders.  To assess demographic characteristics of current riders.  To monitor attitudinal shifts from wave to wave.

5. Page 5 Approach/Methodology For this 2008 wave of research, we again fielded two distinct surveys: one for light-rail riders and one for bus riders. As with all previous waves, the bus survey was administered using a probability sampling technique, with each customer having a unique chance of being selected for participation. Survey packets were prepared for every trip selected, and handed to drivers as they reported for work. Drivers were instructed to distribute a survey to each customer on a targeted trip as they boarded the bus, and collect them from those who completed the survey during the ride. If desired, the rider could go online to complete the survey. Metro Transit handled the programming of the online survey. We distributed 20,000 bus surveys and 10,000 light-rail surveys during the final two weeks of October 2008. As in the past, surveys were distributed both on weekdays and weekends per our sampling plan. We collected 4,643 returned bus surveys. Once collected, the surveys were scanned and subsequently analyzed. These numbers provide for excellent statistical reliability to compare wave to wave.

6. Page 6  The 2008 wave shows significant changes in general bus usage. Riders are riding the bus (and train) more frequently, on both weekdays and weekends, during non-rush hour times, for occasions beyond work and show an increase in local service. These results show a trend of more everyday usage and show lifestyle/behavior changes in riders.  The “need” for busing appears to have increased as is seen in the demographics of bus riders – increases in the percentage of young riders, those with lower incomes, riders with no cars available and those with no other way to make their trip, are all seen from 2006 to 2008. Results also show an increase in the number of people making transfers and an increase in the number of transfers they need to reach their destination.  Friends/Family/Coworkers, Employers and Schools continue to be the influencers in getting riders to first try Metro Transit. Likelihood to recommend the bus to family/friends has decreased, however, from 2006, perhaps due to lower perceived levels of service and performance. Such a trend could affect this important source of new riders.  Ratings of bus service are flat to down. Perceptions of safety/security while riding and waiting for the bus are down, convenient access to clear information is down, sufficient service is down (especially PM rush-hour) and perception of drivers/security personnel are down. These ratings may be impacted by both increased usage of Transit and the influx of new riders with new expectations. Observations

7. Page 7  An increase in riders using Metro Transit service from 1-5 years and a decrease in the percentage using Metro Transit service less than 1 year may indicate some maturation in the service levels. Observations (continued)

8. Page 8  As ridership increases in frequency, on weekends and off peak, we should take advantage by promoting use for occasions riding as well as events. Our commuting periods are strong and we should capitalize on the off-peak trends to continue to bolster this growth area. Communications surrounding the use of transit outside of the daily commute – e.g., shopping and/or entertainment – could help those efforts.  As the need for transit increases we should diffuse the congestion on the buses by promoting our rideshare, carpool and bike-friendly alternatives so that people who do not have the ability to make the trip themselves, can have an alternative means of transportation. Utilizing the Guaranteed Ride Home Program could bolster our efforts in this area.  We need to continue to utilize Friends/Family/Coworkers and Employers as influencers in the decision to use transit. Communications around Commuter Challenge can significantly bolster these efforts, especially online and to younger demographics who are yet to build strong ridership habits.  Given the growth in the ridership among younger audiences, programs such as the U-Pass and Go- To College Pass should continue to be used to cultivate ridership among the younger, student population Communications Implications

9. Page 9  Perceptions of service and safety seem to be receding – especially concerning safety, personnel, access to information and sufficient levels of service.  Additional efforts should be made to enhance perceptions of security and to promote existing security measures.  Training of Metro Transit staff should continue to focus in customer service.  We should reinforce the availability of transit information and options online, on the buses themselves and at bus shelters. The more touch points and reassurance, the better.  Communications efforts should continue to focus on online efforts – the importance of this channel among newer and younger riders continues to increase and is a primary tool they use to gain access to Metro Transit information Communications Implications (continued)

10. CUSTOMER COMPOSITION

11. Page 11 There was a 7% increase in the percentage of respondents who indicated that they ride the bus more than 5 days per week. “HOW MANY DAYS PER WEEK DO YOU RIDE THE BUS?” N = 4,482 Note: 5 or more days per week - 2003=82%; 2005=84%; 2006=80%; 2008=78% *Not an option.

12. Page 12 Over half (53%) of respondents have used Transit for more than 5 years. Eighty-seven percent have been using Transit for 1 year or more. “HOW LONG HAVE YOU USED METRO TRANSIT SERVICE?”* N = 4,113 Note: Options were regrouped in order to make all waves comparable to 2008. A breakdown of responses are included in the Appendix. *2003 question phrased: “How long have you used our bus service?”

13. Page 13 Friend/Family/Coworker category represents the biggest influence on trying Transit with 29% of respondents selecting this option. “WHAT INFLUENCED YOUR DECISION TO FIRST TRY TRANSIT?” N = 4,029 Note: Due to changes in question coding, data is not perfectly comparable to 2008. “On My Own” was not an option in 2008. Complete data can be found in the Appendix. *Not an option. **2003 and 2005 options phrased “Friend/Coworker”

14. Page 14 The percentage of African-American respondents continues to trend upward, while the percentage of Caucasian respondents continues to decrease. “WHICH BEST DESCRIBES YOUR RACIAL OR ETHNIC BACKGROUND?” N = 3,915

15. Page 15 The number of respondents aged 18-24 continues to increase with each wave of research. This increase corresponds to a decreasing share of respondents aged 35-44. “WHAT IS YOUR AGE?” N = 4,098

16. Page 16 The ratio of respondents’ genders are consistent with 2006 participants. “ARE YOU…?” N = 3,779

17. Page 17 Similar to previous waves, 21% of respondents have an annual household income of $70,000 or more. In 2008, there was a significant increase in respondents with an income of less than $10,000. “APPROXIMATELY WHAT WAS YOUR FAMILY’S TOTAL INCOME LAST YEAR?” N = 3,734 *2003 and 2005 option phrased: “$70,000 or more”; 2006 $70,000 or more = 21%; 2008 $70,000 or more = 21% 21%

18. Page 18 “Do Not Own a Car” is the primary reason for using Transit. “WHAT IS THE ONE MAIN REASON YOU USE TRANSIT?” N = 3,993 Note: Only paper responses were included in 2008 due to differences between the online and paper versions. Multiple responses allowed; totals may not equal 100%. Also see supplemental data “one main reason no mult response”. Due to changes in question coding, 2005 data is not comparable and therefore excluded from results. *Not an option.

19. Page 19 The number of respondents without an automobile available for their use continues to increase (up 4%). The majority of respondents, however, still have at least one working automobile available for their use. “HOW MANY WORKING AUTOMOBILES DO YOU HAVE AVAILABLE FOR YOUR USE?” N = 3,689 *Not an option.

20. RIDING PATTERNS

21. Page 21 Top 10 ZIP Codes: Commute Begun “FROM WHICH ZIP CODE DID YOU BEGIN YOUR COMMUTE TODAY?” N = 4,406 Note: Top ten responses in order of frequency (most to least). 20082006 City/Neighborhood ZIP Code% % Minneapolis: University, Prospect Park, M. Holmes554144.5%554074.2% Minneapolis: Near North, Harrison554114.2%551064.1% Minneapolis: Phillips, Whittier554044.1%554084.1% Minneapolis: Powderhorn, Phillips, Nokomis554074.0%554143.9% Minneapolis: Whittier, Lowry Hill East, Lyndale, CARAG554083.8%554113.4% St. Anthony554183.1%554043.1% Robbinsdale554123.0%551042.9% St. Paul: Midway, Thomas-Dale551042.9%554032.6% St. Paul: Dayton’s Bluff, Greater East Side, Battle Creek551062.9%554062.4% Minneapolis: Central, Loring Park554032.9%551022.3% Total 35.3% 33.0%

22. Page 22 Top 10 ZIP Codes: Commute Ended “TO WHICH ZIP CODE ARE YOU COMMUTING TODAY?” N = 3,392 Note: Top ten responses in order of frequency (most to least). 20082006 City/Neighborhood ZIP Code% % Minneapolis: Central, Downtown West5540214.6%5540216.4% Minneapolis: University, Cedar-Riverside554556.1%554556.8% Minneapolis: Central, Loring Park554035.4%551015.3% St. Paul: Payne-Phalen, Dayton’s Bluff551013.9%554014.6% Minneapolis: Downtown East, East Loop, Nicollett Island/East Bank554013.8%554034.5% Minneapolis: University, Prospect Park, M. Holmes554143.6%551023.6% Minneapolis: Near North, Harrison554113.5%554143.5% St. Paul: Midway, Thomas-Dale554043.4%554043.3% St. Paul: West Seventh551023.3%554113.0% Minneapolis: Whittier, Lowry Hill East, Lyndale, CARAG554083.2%551043.0% Total 50.9% 54.0%

23. Page 23 Nearly half (49%) of respondents indicated they usually ride the bus on both weekdays and weekends, a 10% increase from 2006. This data supports the increase in usage per week as noted earlier. “ON WHICH DAY(S) OF THE WEEK DO YOU USUALLY RIDE THE BUS?” N = 4,169 Note: 2003 and 2005 results are not displayed due to changes in responses.

24. Page 24 Non-rush-hour ridership increased by 4% in 2008 compared to 2006. “WHEN DO YOU USUALLY RIDE THE BUS?”** N = 3,431 *Not an option. **2003 question phrased: “At what time are you riding the bus?”; 2005 question phrased: “During which time period was your trip today?”

25. Page 25 Using Cash or a Metropass remain the top two ways respondents paid for their fares. Metropass usage increased 4% in 2008. “HOW DID YOU PAY YOUR FARE TODAY?” N = 4,389 Note: Due to changes in question coding, previous data is not perfectly comparable to 2008. *Not an option. (GTCP 4%/U-Pass 10%)

26. Page 26 Most employers do not offer Transit passes. “DOES YOUR EMPLOYER OFFER TRANSIT PASSES?” N = 4,360 Note: Question was not asked in previous waves.

27. Page 27 Among those whose employer offers Transit passes, 74% indicated the employer does share part of the cost. “IF YOUR EMPLOYER OFFERS TRANSIT PASSES, DOES IT SHARE PART OF THE COST?” N = 1,516 Note: Due to changes in question coding, previous data is not comparable to 2008. Complete data can be found in the Appendix.

28. Page 28 As in previous waves, “Transit Schedules” remain the primary source of Transit information. Total usage of phone as primary source of information is 23%. “WHAT IS YOUR PRIMARY SOURCE FOR TRANSIT INFORMATION?” N = 4,333 Note: Multiple responses allowed; totals may not equal 100%. *Not an option. **2005 question phrased: “Interior Cards”

29. Page 29 The website features used most by respondents include” Route/Schedule Pages” (57%) and “Trip Planner” (55%). “IF YOU USE METROTRANSIT.ORG, WHICH FEATURES DO YOU USE? (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)?” N = 3,366 Note: Question was not asked in previous waves. Multiple responses allowed; totals may not equal 100%.

30. Page 30 Work is still the major reason for making a trip on Transit. “WHAT IS THE PRIMARY PURPOSE OF YOUR TRIP TODAY?” N = 4,594 Note: Multiple responses allowed in 2008; totals may not equal 100%.

31. Page 31 Sixty-nine percent of respondents ride local service, a significant increase from 2006. “WHAT TYPE OF SERVICE ARE YOU CURRENTLY RIDING, OR DID YOU RIDE MOST RECENTLY?”* N = 4,150 *2003 and 2005 questions phrased: “What type of bus service are you currently riding, or did you ride most recently?”

32. Page 32 Half of respondents (51%) will have to transfer to complete their trips. This is a continuous trend from previous waves. “WILL YOU TRANSFER TO/FROM ANOTHER BUS AS PART OF YOUR TRIP TODAY?” N = 4,516 *2003 and 2005 questions phrased: “Will you transfer to complete your trip today?”

33. Page 33 Again, the number of respondents taking three or more buses to complete their trip has continued to increase from previous years. “HOW MANY TOTAL BUSES WILL YOU TAKE TO COMPLETE YOUR ONE-WAY TRIP?” N = 2,433 Note: Question was only asked of those respondents who indicated that they will transfer buses.

34. Page 34 The majority of respondents (81%) walk to get to their bus stop. “WHEN YOU BEGAN YOUR COMMUTE TODAY, HOW DID YOU GET TO YOUR BUS STOP?” N = 4,497 Note: Question was not asked in previous waves.

35. Page 35 Respondents who transfer to a light-rail train increased 2% from 2006 for a total of 12% of respondents indicating they will do so. “WILL YOU TRANSFER TO/FROM A LIGHT-RAIL TRAIN AS PART OF YOUR TRIP TODAY?” N = 4,516 Note: Question was not asked in 2003 or 2005.

36. Page 36 Light-rail riders continue to increase significantly each year. Seventy-one percent of respondents in 2008 indicated that they have ridden the train, a 7% increase from 2006 and a 19% increase from 2005. “HAVE YOU RIDDEN THE HIAWATHA LIGHT-RAIL LINE?” N = 4,510 Note: Question was not asked in 2003.

37. Page 37 Over half (55%) of respondents indicated that they take the train once a week. “IF SO, HOW MANY DAYS PER WEEK DO YOU NORMALLY TAKE THE HIAWATHA LIGHT-RAIL LINE?” N = 2,162 Note: “None” responses were excluded from the 2006 results. “None” was not an option in 2008 or 2005. Question was not asked in 2003. 2005 question phrased: “If so, how many days per week do you take the Hiawatha light-rail train?”

38. Page 38 Fifty-seven percent of respondents indicated that they travel ¼ mile or less to get to the bus stop where they begin their trip. “HOW FAR WOULD YOU ESTIMATE YOU TRAVELED TO GET TO THE BUS STOP WHERE YOU BEGAN YOUR TRIP?” N = 4,311 Note: Question was not asked in previous waves.

39. Page 39 Fifty-four percent of respondents indicated that they travel ¼ mile or less to their final destination once departing the bus. “HOW FAR WOULD YOU ESTIMATE YOU WILL TRAVEL FROM YOUR LAST BUS (OR TRAIN) TO YOUR DESTINATION?” N = 4,218 Note: Question was not asked in previous waves.

40. Page 40 Usage remains consistent with previous waves except for a 5% increase in Holidazzle usage. “FOR WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING EVENTS DO YOU USE METRO TRANSIT SERVICE?” N = 3,176 Note: Question was not asked in 2003. Multiple responses allowed; totals may not equal 100%. *Not an option.

41. Page 41 “Driving Alone” (as an alternative to Transit) continues to decrease while respondents who “Couldn’t Have Otherwise Made the Trip” continues to increase from 2005. “IF TRANSIT HAD NOT BEEN AVAILABLE, HOW WOULD YOU HAVE MADE THIS TRIP?” N = 3,877 *Not an option.

42. RATINGS

43. Page 43 Consistent with previous waves, most consider the information provided on the Transit system map to be good or excellent. Results are flat from 2006. RATING: CLEAR, ACCURATE ROUTE INFORMATION IN THE TRANSIT SYSTEM MAP N = 3,649 Note: Arrow in the above table indicates direction of change over previous year’s top two box results. "Don’t Use" responses were excluded from results. 

44. Page 44 Good ratings of courteous customer service on the information line decreased 4% compared to 2006. The majority still consider the service to be good to excellent. RATING: COURTEOUS CUSTOMER SERVICE ON THE METRO TRANSIT INFORMATION LINE (612-373-3333) N = 2,818 Note: Arrow in the above table indicates direction of change over previous year’s top two box results. "Don’t Use" responses were excluded from results. 

45. Page 45 Eighty-three percent of respondents rated the information given out over the Metro Transit Information Line as good to excellent for accuracy, with a slight decrease from 2006. RATING: CLEAR, ACCURATE INFORMATION ON THE METRO TRANSIT INFORMATION LINE (612-373-3333) N = 3,040 Note: Arrow in the above table indicates direction of change over previous year’s top two box results. "Don’t Use" responses were excluded from results.

46. Page 46 The accuracy of the information on schedules is considered good to excellent by the majority of respondents. Ratings were nearly identical to the previous waves of research. RATING: CLEAR, ACCURATE INFORMATION IN PRINTED SCHEDULES* N = 3,872 *2003 question phrased: “Accurate information on bus schedules” Note: Arrow in the above table indicates direction of change over previous year’s top two box results. "Don’t Use" responses were excluded from results. 

47. Page 47 Good to excellent ratings of the information provided on bus shelters decreased slightly from 2006. RATING: CLEAR, ACCURATE INFORMATION IN SHELTERS N = 3,682 Note: Arrow in the above table indicates direction of change over previous year’s top two box results. "Don’t Use" responses were excluded from results. 

48. Page 48 Sixty percent of respondents rated the information provided on bus stops as good to excellent. RATING: CLEAR, ACCURATE INFORMATION AT BUS STOPS N = 3,768 Note: New question for 2008 survey. "Don’t Use" responses were excluded from results.

49. Page 49 Information provided at www.metrotransit.org was rated good to excellent overall, with a 3% decrease from previous years. RATING: CLEAR, ACCURATE INFORMATION AT WWW.METROTRANSIT.ORG* N = 3,419 *2003 and 2005 phrased: “Clear, accurate information on Metro Transit website” Note: Arrow in the above table indicates direction of change over previous year’s top two box results. "Don’t Use" responses were excluded from results. 

50. Page 50 The courteousness of the service in Metro Transit stores is rated good to excellent overall. Excellent ratings continue to show an increase over previous waves of research, but good ratings decreased 5% from 2006. RATING: COURTEOUS, EFFICIENT SERVICE FOR FARE CARD PURCHASES AND INFORMATION IN METRO TRANSIT STORES N = 2,652 Note: Arrow in the above table indicates direction of change over previous year’s top two box results. "Don’t Use" responses were excluded from results. 

51. Page 51 The percentage rating the value of the information provided in TAKEOUT as good to excellent decreased 4% from 2006. RATING: VALUABLE BUS RIDING INFORMATION IN TAKEOUT, DISTRIBUTED MONTHLY ON BUSES”* N = 2,746 Note: Arrow in the above table indicates direction of change over previous year’s top two box results. "Don’t Use" responses were excluded from results. *2003 and 2005 questions phrased: “Valuable information in TAKEOUT” 

52. Page 52 On-Board information continues to be rated good to excellent overall. There was a slight decrease in good ratings. RATING: INFORMATION ABOUT METRO TRANSIT ON ONBOARD INFORMATION CARDS* N = 2,512 Note: Arrow in the above table indicates direction of change over previous year’s top two box results. "Don’t Use" responses were excluded from results. *2003 and 2005 questions phrased: “Information about Metro Transit on interior bus cards” 

53. Page 53 “Benefits the Community” and “Easy to Use” are the characteristics most closely associated with Metro Transit. “CONSIDERING METRO TRANSIT, PLEASE INDICATE HOW CLOSELY YOU ASSOCIATE THE FOLLOWING CHARACTERISTIC WITH THE ORGANIZATION.” N = Sample size varies by response – ranges from 3,631 to 3,751 Note: Question was not asked in previous waves. 2008 3.46 3.37 3.30 3.20 3.17 2.97 2.59

54. Page 54 Eighty-eight percent indicated that they agree with the statement that overall, they are satisfied with Metro Transit service. The percentage disagreeing has increased since the 2006 wave. “PLEASE INDICATE YOUR LEVEL OF AGREEMENT WITH: OVERALL, YOU ARE SATISFIED WITH METRO TRANSIT SERVICE.” (3.06) (3.21) (3.15) (3.11) (3.15) (3.21) (3.17) N = 4,099 Note: Question was not asked in previous waves. “Don’t Know” responses are excluded from results. Mean scores are in parenthesis.

55. Page 55 Fare/Bus-Related “PLEASE INDICATE YOUR LEVEL OF AGREEMENT WITH EACH OF THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS.” Note: Numbers in gray are averages on a 4-point scale. “Don’t Know” responses were excluded from results. *Not an option. **SuperSaver was added in 2008. 200820062005 3.153.142.94 3.303.373.30 3.323.36 3.50**   

56. Page 56 Information-Related “PLEASE INDICATE YOUR LEVEL OF AGREEMENT WITH EACH OF THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS.” Note: Numbers in gray are averages on a 4-point scale. “Don’t Know” responses were excluded from results. *Wording changed in 2008. It was phrased “Able to access info using TransitLine.” 200820062005 3.223.253.23 3.153.213.18 3.343.353.30 3.323.353.32    

57. Page 57 Information-Related (continued) Note: Numbers in gray are averages on a 4-point scale. “Don’t Know” responses were excluded from results. “PLEASE INDICATE YOUR LEVEL OF AGREEMENT WITH EACH OF THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS.” 200820062005 2.963.02* 3.16 *  

58. Page 58 Safety-Related “PLEASE INDICATE YOUR LEVEL OF AGREEMENT WITH EACH OF THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS.” Note: Numbers in gray are averages on a 4-point scale. “Don’t Know” responses were excluded from results. *Not an option.  200820062005 2.772.842.85 2.66 2.60 3.093.123.08 3.053.103.04   

59. Page 59 Safety-Related (continued) “PLEASE INDICATE YOUR LEVEL OF AGREEMENT WITH EACH OF THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS.” Note: Numbers in gray are averages on a 4-point scale. “Don’t Know” responses were excluded from results. *Not an option. 200820062005 2.782.84* 3.203.193.18 2.802.862.81 3.253.243.22 2.922.982.92     

60. Page 60 Hours/Time-Related “PLEASE INDICATE YOUR LEVEL OF AGREEMENT WITH EACH OF THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS.” Note: Numbers in gray are averages on a 4-point scale. “Don’t Know” responses were excluded from results. 200820062005 2.852.862.83 2.85 2.81 2.982.992.94 3.093.123.11 2.913.012.99     

61. Page 61 Driver-Related “PLEASE INDICATE YOUR LEVEL OF AGREEMENT WITH EACH OF THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS.” Note: Numbers in gray are averages on a 4-point scale. “Don’t Know” responses were excluded from results. 200820062005 3.24 3.21 3.143.183.15 3.213.233.19 2.862.892.88    

62. Page 62 Operations Note: Numbers in gray are averages on a 4-point scale. “Don’t Know” responses were excluded from results. *Not an option. “PLEASE INDICATE YOUR LEVEL OF AGREEMENT WITH EACH OF THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS.” 200820062005 2.762.80* 2.993.002.94 3.00 * 3.163.17*    

63. Page 63 APPENDIX: ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS

64. Page 64 Rankings: Perceptions of Metro Transit Bus Service “PLEASE INDICATE YOUR LEVEL OF AGREEMENT WITH EACH OF THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS.” StatementMean StatementMean Go-To Cards are convenient3.50Morning rush-hour service runs on schedule3.09 metrotransit.org gives you the information you need3.34You feel your car is safe in Park & Ride lots3.05 You are able to access route information or schedule information using the Metro Transit Information line3.32Vehicles are comfortable3.00 SuperSaver Stored Value Cards are convenient3.32Vehicles are clean2.99 SuperSaver 31-Day Passes are convenient3.30Transferring to complete your trip is not a problem2.98 You feel safe while riding during the day3.25Time spent waiting to get transit information by phone is not excessive2.96 Drivers present a professional appearance3.24You feel safe while riding at night2.92 You are likely to recommend Metro Transit bus service to family, friends or co-workers3.22Afternoon rush-hour service runs on schedule2.91 Drivers operate vehicles in a safe and responsible manner3.21 Drivers call out street names at transfer points and intersections with stop lights2.86 You feel safe while waiting for your ride during the day3.20Time waiting to transfer from one route to another is not excessive2.85 Overall, you are satisfied with Metro Transit service3.17Hours of operation for express service are sufficient2.85 Routes and updates are easy to understand3.16You feel safe while waiting for your ride at night2.80 Vehicles are reliable3.16 There are an adequate number of Metro Transit Police and/or security features2.78 TAKEOUT provides you with valuable information3.15Stops / Shelters are well lit2.77 Fare card readers are reliable3.15There are enough express routes2.76 Drivers are courteous and helpful3.14Stops / Shelters are clean2.66 Park & Ride lots are conveniently located3.09

65. Page 65 “HOW LONG HAVE YOU USED METRO TRANSIT SERVICE?”** N = 4,113 Note: Options varied from original options and are not perfectly comparable to 2008. *Not an option. **2003 question phrased: “How long have you used our bus service?” Over half (53%) of respondents have used Transit for more than 5 years. Eighty-seven percent have been using Transit for 1 year or more.

66. Page 66 “WHAT INFLUENCED YOUR DECISION TO FIRST TRY TRANSIT?” N = 4,029 Note: Due to changes in question coding, data is not perfectly comparable to 2008. Multiple responses allowed in 2006 and 2008; totals may not equal 100%. “On My Own” was not an option in 2008. *Not an option. **2003 and 2005 options phrased “Friend/Coworker” Friend/Family/Coworker category represents the biggest influence on trying Transit with 29% of respondents selecting this option.

67. Page 67 “IF YOUR EMPLOYER OFFERS TRANSIT PASSES, DOES IT SHARE PART OF THE COST?” N = 1,516 Note: Due to changes in question coding, previous data is not perfectly comparable to 2008. Among those whose employer offers Transit passes, 74% indicated the employer does share part of the cost.

68. CONTACT INFORMATION PERISCOPE 921 WASHINGTON AVE S MINNEAPOLIS MN 55415 www.periscope.com T 612 399 0500 F 612 399 0600