Onboard Rider Survey OVERVIEW

GOLDEN EMPIRE TRANSIT DISTRICT

2015 CUSTOMER AND COMMUNITY SATISFACTION SURVEY

FINAL REPORT

JUNE 2015

2015 Customer and Community Satisfaction Survey Golden Empire Transit District Final Report

Table of Contents

Section 1: Executive Summary ...... 01

Section 2: Onboard Rider Survey ...... 05

Section 3: Community Telephone Survey ...... 45

Section 4: GET-A-Lift Survey ...... 77

Appendix A: Survey Instruments ...... A-1

Appendix B: Rider Survey Simple Frequencies ...... B-1

Appendix C: Community Telephone Survey Simple Frequencies ... C-1

Appendix D: GET-A-Lift Survey Simple Frequencies ...... D-1

Moore & Associates, Inc. | 2015 2015 Customer and Community Satisfaction Survey Golden Empire Transit District Final Report

This page intentionally blank.

Moore & Associates, Inc. | 2015 2015 Customer and Community Satisfaction Survey Golden Empire Transit District Final Report

Section 1 Executive Summary

In spring 2015, Golden Empire Transit District (GET) conducted customer and community market research of its fixed-route and paratransit programs. The purpose of these system-wide surveys was to assess GET’s progress towards meeting its mission goal of consistently providing “safe, accessible, reliable, and affordable public transportation to diverse customers in the greater Bakersfield area.”

In recent years, service changes, operation and labor challenges, and public opinion have posed challenges for GET. Market research conducted in 2013 captured responses from the impacts of these service changes, thus producing data on the perceptions of GET reflective of some riders unhappy with change. As some time has passed since the internal and public challenges facing GET in recent years, responses to the survey were expected to be more normalized as riders have had a chance to adapt to the revised service.

The goal of this project was to assess the community’s opinion regarding the value and quality of GET services through the use of customer (intercept) and community (telephone and mail) surveys. The collected data could then be used to gain insight into rider needs, assess perceptions of GET and public transit throughout the community, and identify service improvements which might better address the community’s mobility needs. This survey was designed to produce the data needed to compare the results from the last surveys as well as the impact recent challenges have had on GET’s perceptions, ratings, and ridership behavior. Similar to the prior market research effort (conducted in 2013), the goal of the proposed survey was to gather information from customers and the community to assist in determining where GET is successfully meeting the needs of its customers and where improvements are needed.

In particular, GET wanted to achive the following objectives through a customer and community survey:

• Assess customer and community opinions regarding the value and quality of GET’s service, • Update customer profiles and travel patterns, and • Benchmark GET’s scores against other transit agencies similar in size and other characteristics.

The survey instruments were designed to allow the City to identify GET and GET-A-Lift strengths and weaknesses while developing strategies for enhancing service, and thus mobility, within the service area. Given the changes to factors that influence ridership, such as gas prices, employing market research to clearly identify strategies for maximizing GET’s impact on community mobility is particularly critical. Sound planning decisions can be problematic absent the presence of a solid foundation of quality, current data regarding travel patterns, fare media, the profile customer, and demand for public transit service. 1

Moore & Associates, Inc. | 2015 2015 Customer and Community Satisfaction Survey Golden Empire Transit District Final Report

Rider Survey The onboard survey was conducted between April 17 through April 20, 2015. The survey period was selected to ensure students and staff at Bakersfield College and CSU Bakersfield could participate.

A sample target of 3,450 was based on confirmed ridership data from two recent months. During our initial four-day survey fielding effort, it became evident that the actual number of unique riders did not reflect these estimates. While the weekday ridership reflected the estimates provided by GET, actual weekend ridership was considerably less than forecast. Based on informal ridership counts conducted from April 17-20, 2015, anecdotal evidence suggests that actual ridership during the second half of the month is considerably lower than first-half ridership. Initial survey collection yielded 2,322 valid responses. After discussion with GET staff, it was determined that the sampling target would be reduced to reflect actual ridership. It also was agreed that M&A would conduct the survey on a second Friday/Saturday/Sunday combination in early May. Survey fielding was conducted on May 1, 2, and 3, 2015, bringing the total number of valid responses to 2,999.

The onboard data collection was supplemented with an online survey linked to GET’s home page and promoted through the GET website. Both English and Spanish versions of the survey were available at the same URL. We employed Survey Monkey, an online survey tool, for all web-based survey efforts. Survey Monkey’s capabilities include the prevention of users from completing multiple surveys, presentation of results in an online format, the simple exportation of data into other programs including SPSS and Excel, and multiple layers of security to make sure each account and data set is private and secure. The online onboard survey produced 89 valid responses, which were included in the final survey sample total of 3,088.

Based on survey responses, the profile GET rider is an English-speaking Latino female who is 19 to 44 years old. She is not employed full-time and is not a student. She has an annual household income of $20,000 or less.

The 2015 profile closely resembles the rider profile arising from the 2013 Customer Survey. This profile rider walks to and from the bus stop and uses GET to travel to work or to personal business. She has been a GET customer for more than five years. She rides GET more than five times a week.

Survey data shows that GET rider satisfaction ratings have rebounded from the 2013 dip to surpass levels found in the 2009 survey cycle.

Community Telephone Survey In order to achieve a 95-percent confidence level, we collected a total of 512 valid phone surveys between May 18 and May 28, 2015. Bilingual surveyors presented each respondent an opportunity to complete the survey in either English or Spanish.

More than 13,688 residential land line phone numbers were compiled across the ten ZIP codes comprising the GET service area. Each number was called up to three times before being retired from the calling list. Numbers resulting in a fax machine or Internet tone were deleted. Residents who were contacted yet declined to participate were also removed from the database. 2

Moore & Associates, Inc. | 2015 2015 Customer and Community Satisfaction Survey Golden Empire Transit District Final Report

Respondents were asked whether they had ridden GET in the 90 days prior to the survey contact. Those answering affirmatively were asked follow-up questions regarding which GET service they patronized and other rider-specific questions. Those who said they had not ridden GET within the 90 days prior to the survey contact skipped past the rider-specific questions to the general awareness portion of the survey.

Based on the telephone survey data, the “typical” community survey respondent was likely to be retired, not a student, and not a recent user of GET services. Of the phone survey participants who had ridden GET in the prior 90 days, most said they ride three or more times per week and use GET to access healthcare or to get to work.

Overall, riders who participated in the community phone survey more satisfied with GET services than respondents to the 2013 phone survey, though their satisfaction levels are below levels found in the 2009 community survey.

GET-A-Lift Rider Survey Prior surveys of GAL customers had been handled in-house by GET staff. Moore & Associates prepared an updated 2015 survey instrument that was approved by GET staff.

To complete the GAL survey, Moore & Associates randomly selected customers contained within a database of approximately 1,200 GAL program registrants. The target sample was 200 valid responses.

A total of 210 valid surveys were collected between May 22 and June 10, 2015. Initially we expected to collect all survey data via telephone; however, our initial data collection efforts (60 phone call attempts) yielded few valid responses. Therefore, in order to confirm the validity of the survey instrument and complete the project within the agreed upon budget, we elected to send out 600 mailings to GAL registrants randomly selected from the database provided by GET. The mailer effort resulted in a sample of 135 valid responses, and renewed phone survey efforts resulted in 75 valid surveys via the telephone methodology. The combination of mailings and phone calls resulted in 210 valid surveys, exceeding the sample target.

In conducting the telephone survey, trained surveyor staff introduced themselves on behalf of Golden Empire Transit. Bilingual surveyors presented each respondent an opportunity to complete the survey in either English or Spanish.

Based on the survey data, the “profile” GAL rider is between 50 to 64 years of age and makes less than $20,000 per year. This rider is not a licensed driver and uses GAL because he or she doesn’t drive or doesn’t have access to a personal vehicle.

In each of the three surveys, responses reflected customers who have grown accustomed to service changes and seem to be happier with GET services than they were in 2013. The community survey also shows that a large majority of Bakersfield residents value public transit and are supportive of its mission.

The following section discusses the results of the onboard rider survey in depth. 3

Moore & Associates, Inc. | 2015 2015 Customer and Community Satisfaction Survey Golden Empire Transit District Final Report

This page intentionally blank.

Moore & Associates, Inc. | 2015 2015 Customer and Community Satisfaction Survey Golden Empire Transit District Final Report

Section 2 Onboard Rider Survey

OVERVIEW AND METHODOLOGY In spring 2015, Golden Empire Transit District (GET) conducted an on-board survey of its fixed-route transit service. The goal of this project was to assess the community’s opinion regarding the value and quality of GET fixed-route service to gain insight into rider needs and identify service improvements which might better address the community’s mobility needs.

In particular, GET wanted to assess customer opinions regarding the value and quality of GET’s service, update customer profiles and travel patterns, and benchmark GET’s scores against other transit agencies.

In recent years, service changes, operation and labor challenges, and public opinion have posed challenges for GET. Market research conducted in 2013 captured responses reflective of some riders unhappy with change. This survey was designed to produce the data needed to compare the results from the last surveys as well as the impact recent challenges have had on GET’s perceptions, ratings, and ridership behavior.

The following sections discuss the methodologies by which the onboard survey was developed and administered along with the data collected.

Project Overview Project Management A key component of our project management was the use of Basecamp, an online platform which allowed us to share documents and results with GET staff as well as document discussions among the project team. As-needed telephone conferences between GET staff and our project team were held during the project initiation, survey development, and data collection aspects of the engagement.

Survey Development Our project team created a specific survey instrument for the fixed-route service. The survey instrument was posted to Basecamp for GET staff review and approval. Following approval, it was translated into Spanish.

Sampling Plan We utilized a stratified random-sampling methodology to collect data that accurately represented all rider types on the fixed-route network. A formal sampling target was calculated based on system-wide ridership data provided by GET, which was based on actual ridership from two recent months. This sampling plan was later reduced to reflect current numbers of unique riders, a decision discussed in more detail in the Data Collection portion of Section 2. 5

Our sampling plan was weighted such that system-wide sampling targets ensured a confidence level of 95 percent and a ±5 percent margin of error.

Moore & Associates, Inc. | 2015 2015 Customer and Community Satisfaction Survey Golden Empire Transit District Final Report

Survey Administration Staffing/Recruitment Moore & Associates contracted with a local temporary staffing firm 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 authorized to work in the United States, our criteria for selection included the following:

• Fluency in English as well as Spanish, • 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 communicating 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 GET 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 the 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 April 16, 2015, prior to survey pre-test fielding. Eleven surveyors were trained as part of this engagement. Associated training materials were posted to Basecamp prior to the training. Each surveyor was assigned to a specific field supervisor for the duration of the engagement. Approximately 70 percent of surveyors were bilingual. Two of four field supervisors were bilingual. At least one bilingual supervisor was present during all data collection.

Data Collection Data collection reflected an onboard intercept methodology. All survey questionnaires were printed on 100-pound stock, thereby eliminating the need for clipboards. Survey instruments were printed double- sided, with English on one side and Spanish on the other. 6 Surveyors were easily identified by an identification badge worn on a laminated clip as well as a reflective vest. Prior to boarding the assigned vehicle, each surveyor was provided with a surveyor bag

Moore & Associates, Inc. | 2015 2015 Customer and Community Satisfaction Survey Golden Empire Transit District Final Report containing survey forms, sharpened pencils, a system map, a route-specific map and schedule, and an individual surveyor “paddle.” Each surveyor was also provided with the cell phone contact information for his/her 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. The use of project Control Sheets ensured an accurate snapshot of data collection activity onboard the vehicles. These Control Sheets allowed for the pairing of each survey response with its respective GET route. Therefore, response rate and survey time can be tracked and accounted for during the analysis.

Surveyors offered the bilingual (English/Spanish) survey to nearly 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 April 16, 2015 . A mystery field supervisor observed surveyors during the pretest process and worked to correct any observed issues before the surveyor was assigned to further collect data. A pretest sample of 10 percent of the survey target was achieved. The results of the survey pretest were posted to Basecamp. No significant issues were identified. Therefore, the pretest responses were incorporated into the total sample.

Survey fielding occurred from April 17 through April 20, 2015. Initial survey collection yielded 2,322 valid responses. The original sampling target of 3,450 was based on ridership data provided by GET, which was based on confirmed ridership data from two recent months. During our initial four-day survey fielding effort, it became evident that the actual number of unique riders did not reflect these estimates. While the weekday ridership reflected the estimates provided by GET, actual weekend ridership was considerably less than forecast. Based on informal ridership counts conducted from April 17-20, 2015, anecdotal evidence suggests that actual ridership during the second half of the month is considerably lower than first-half ridership. This observation was confirmed by several GET drivers. After discussion with GET staff, it was determined that the sampling target would be reduced to reflect actual ridership. It also was agreed that M&A would conduct the survey on a second Friday/Saturday/Sunday combination in early May. Survey fielding was conducted on May 1, 2, and 3, 2015, and 2,999 valid responses were collected.

The onboard data collection was supplemented with an online survey. An online version of the community survey was linked to GET’s home page and promoted through the GET website. Both English and Spanish versions of the survey were available at the same URL. A screener question was utilized to eliminate duplicate responses resulting from individuals participating in multiple methodologies. We employed Survey Monkey, an online survey tool, for all web-based survey efforts. Survey Monkey’s capabilities include the prevention of users from completing multiple surveys, presentation of results in an online format, and the simple exportation of data into other programs including SPSS and Excel. Most importantly, Survey Monkey employs multiple layers of security to make sure each account and data set is private and secure. The online onboard survey produced 89 valid responses, which were included in the final survey sample total of 3,088. 7

Moore & Associates, Inc. | 2015 2015 Customer and Community Satisfaction Survey Golden Empire Transit District Final Report

Data Processing Data Entry All survey data was entered into a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet using trained data entry personnel. Moore & Associates’ staff monitored the 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., the “California bus stop” being entered as “Calif”). 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 posted to Basecamp for GET staff review.

Geocoding Once the initial survey data was cleaned, corresponding location data was calculated, then geocoded by longitude and latitude for import into ArcGIS 10.0. Data formatting included standardization of street names, use of street types, and identification of precise boarding and alighting information based on cross-streets and/or landmarks.

Analytical Methods The SPSS database allowed our project team to compile simple frequencies as well as data cross- tabulations within each dataset. Data cross-tabulations allow comparisons between survey responses that can provide additional insight into customer profiles, travel patterns, perceptions of service, and demographics.

ANALYSIS AND KEY FINDINGS “Typical” Rider Profile By analyzing the simple frequencies arising from the collected data, we can develop a profile of the “typical” GET rider. This “typical” rider reflects data from across the system as a whole and for this reason may not be reflective of specific routes.

The profile GET rider is an English-speaking Latino female who is 19 to 44 years old. She is not employed full-time and is not a student. She has an annual household income of $20,000 or less.

The following analysis examines each survey question on a more in-depth basis, offering data cross- tabulations where appropriate to provide greater insight. Simple frequency data tables, along with the survey instruments, are included in the Appendix.

Moore & Associates, Inc. | 2015 2015 Customer and Community Satisfaction Survey Golden Empire Transit District Final Report

Question 1: What route are you telling us about today? The greatest share of respondents (21 percent) were surveyed onboard Route 22, which connects California State University Bakersfield, Downtown Bakersfield, and North High School. Routes 81 and 44 had the second and third highest number of total survey respondents.

Exhibit 2.1 Route 25.0% 21.0% 20.0% n = 3,088

15.0%

10.3% 9.2% 9.8% 10.0% 8.3% 6.7% 6.3% 6.4% 5.9% 5.0% 3.7% 3.1% 3.1% 3.4% 0.8% 1.5% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.2% 0.0%0.0% 0.0% 20 21 22 27 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 501 61 62 65 80 81 82 83 84 92 93 99

Moore & Associates, Inc. | 2015 2015 Customer and Community Satisfaction Survey Golden Empire Transit District Final Report

Question 2: Where did you board the bus today (bus stop)? Survey participants were asked to indicate the cross-streets and location of the bus stop where they boarded the bus for the sample trip. As could be expected, colleges, transit centers, and the Valley Plaza Mall comprised the top five boarding locations. Many intersections also proved to be popular boarding locations with survey takers. Exhibit 2.2 lists all the intersections or hubs that were listed by at least 10 survey takers.

Exhibit 2.2 Top Boarding Locations Location Frequency Bakersfield College 145 Downtown Transit Center 80 Southwest Transit Center 75 Valley Plaza 51 CSUB 25 California Ave. & Union Ave. 21 Chester Ave. & Roberts Ln. 19 Ming Ave. & Chester Ave. 17 California Ave. & Chester Ave. 16 Ming Ave. & Wible R d. 15 River Blvd. & Columbus St. 13 22 nd St. & Eye St. 13 Ca lifornia Ave. & Stockdale Hw y. 13 Mt. Vernon Ave. & Niles St. 12 Columbus St. & Mt. Vernon Ave. 11 34 th Street & Q Street 11 22 nd Street & Chester Ave. 11 Brundage Ln. & Chester Ave. 11 Monitor St. & Pacheco Road 11

Moore & Associates, Inc. | 2015 2015 Customer and Community Satisfaction Survey Golden Empire Transit District Final Report

Question 3: Where will you get off the bus today (bus stop)? Survey participants were asked to indicate the cross-streets, nearest landmark, and location of the bus stop where they would alight for the sample trip. Many hubs and intersections that appear on the list of boarding locations also appear on the list of alighting locations. Exhibit 2.3 lists all the intersections or hubs that were listed by at least 10 survey takers.

Exhibit 2.3 Top Alighting Locations Location Frequency Bakersfield College 151 Valley Plaza 111 Southwest Transit Center 100 Downtown Transit Center 91 Cal. State University Bakersfield 27 California Ave. & Chester Ave. 22 Ming Ave. & Wible R d. 16 California Ave. & Union Ave. 15 Mt. Vernon Ave. & Niles St. 14 Columbus St. & Mt. Vernon Ave. 13 Cal ifornia Ave. & Stockdale Hwy. 11 Ming Ave. & Stine Rd. 11 34 th St. & Q St. 10 Coffee R d. & Rosedale Hwy. 10

Moore & Associates, Inc. | 2015 2015 Customer and Community Satisfaction Survey Golden Empire Transit District Final Report

Question 4: Does this trip include a transfer? More than 80 percent of respondents indicated that the surveyed trip did not include a transfer. Among respondents who indicated that the surveyed trip did include a transfer, 94.1 percent indicated that they would transfer to/from another GET bus.

The number of survey participants whose sample trip did not include a transfer was up both from 2013, when 52.1 percent of riders said that they would not transfer, and 2009, when 46.8 percent reported no transfer. In all three surveys, the vast majority of transfers were to another GET bus.

Exhibit 2.4 Transfers Includes transfer, 19.7%

Doesn't include n = 3,057 transfer, 80.3%

Question 5: How did you get to the bus stop today? The vast majority of riders (71.3 percent) accessed their bus stop on foot. Nearly 37 percent of riders reported walking less than four blocks to their starting bus stop, while 34.7 percent walked more than four blocks. Nearly 15 percent of riders reported transferring from another bus.

Exhibit 2.5 Methods of Reaching Bus Stop to Begin Trip

40% 36.6% 34.7% 35% n = 2,948 30% 25% 20% 14.7% 15% 10% 6.5% 5% 2.2% 3.1% 2.2% 0% Walked Drove self Walked Rode bike Transfer Dropped Other more less than from off than 4 4 blocks another blocks bus 12

Moore & Associates, Inc. | 2015 2015 Customer and Community Satisfaction Survey Golden Empire Transit District Final Report

Question 6: What is the primary purpose of today’s trip? The most common response to this question was “work” (26.5 percent), followed closely by “personal business” (23.3 percent). “Shopping” (17.5 percent) and “school” (16.0 percent) also received a significant number of responses. The 2015 survey results were similar to those found in 2013 and 2009.

Exhibit 2.6 Trip Purpose 30% 26.5% n = 2,848 25% 23.3%

20% 17.5% 16.0% 15%

10% 7.9% 6.6% 5% 2.1%

0% Work Shopping Visiting School Healthcare Personal Other friends business

The specified “other” reasons were varied, with 19 responses. Just two of these responses were listed more than twice. “Going home” was cited by 46 respondents, and “church” was listed by 45 survey takers. Other responses included “check on dogs,” “having fun,” and “swap meet.”

Cross-tabulation: Transfers (Question 4) vs. Trip Purpose (Question 6) Riders who reported a transfer and riders who reported no transfer had similar trip purposes, as Exhibit 2.6.a shows. Differences appear in trip purposes among riders who were transferring to another GET bus and riders who were transferring to/from Kern-transit, as Exhibit 2.6.b shows. Riders transferring to a GET bus were more likely to be going to work (27.4 percent compared to 15.2 percent), while riders transferring to/from Kern Transit were more likely to be going to school (23.9 percent compared to 14.4 percent) or healthcare (15.2 percent compared to 8.3 percent). Exhibit 2.6.a Transfers vs. Trip Purpose

100% 1.1% 2.4% 90% 21.3% 24.0% 80% Other 8.6% 70% 6.1% Personal business 13.6% 60% 16.8% Healthcare 50% 7.6% 8.0% School 40% 19.0% 17.0% Visiting friends 30% 20% Shopping 28.9% 10% 25.8% Work 13 0% Transfer No transfer

Moore & Associates, Inc. | 2015 2015 Customer and Community Satisfaction Survey Golden Empire Transit District Final Report

Exhibit 2.6.b Transfers Specified vs. Trip Purpose

100% 2.3% 0.0% 90% 19.6% 23.2% 80% 15.2% Other 70% 8.3% Personal business 60% 14.4% Healthcare 23.9% 50% 5.8% School 40% 18.5% 6.5% Visiting friends 30% Shopping 19.6% 20% Work 27.4% 10% 15.2% 0% Another GET bus Kern Transit

Question 7: Why did you choose GET for this trip? The majority of respondents (62.4 percent) indicated that they chose to ride GET for the surveyed trip because they lacked a car. “Cost” was the persuading factor for 21.9 percent of survey participants. The 2015 survey results were similar to those found in 2013 and 2009.

Exhibit 2.7 Reason for Choosing GET

70% 62.4% n = 2,777 60%

50%

40%

30% 21.9% 20% 9.9% 10% 3.1% 2.7% 0% Cost Proximity to my Lack of car Avoid Other destination traffic/parking

Moore & Associates, Inc. | 2015 2015 Customer and Community Satisfaction Survey Golden Empire Transit District Final Report

Question 8: On a scale of one to five (where one equals “poor” and five equals “excellent”), please rate the following GET service attributes. Respondents were asked to rate eleven GET service attributes:

• Service frequency (how often the bus runs), • Time it takes to travel via transit, • Operating hours, • Comfort onboard vehicle, • Safety onboard vehicle, • Fare or cost, • Safety at bus stops, • Service reliability, • Service accessibility • Availability of service information, and • Overall satisfaction with the system.

Responses were aggregated and a mean rating was calculated, allowing the attributes to be compared to one another. Riders were most satisfied with safety onboard vehicles, comfort on vehicles, fare prices, and availability of service information. Conversely, riders were least satisfied with service operating hours, travel time, service reliability, and frequency of service.

Exhibit 2.8 provides mean ratings for each service attribute, and a comparison of the ratings from the 2015, 2013, and 2009 mean rating charts. Significantly, the mean rating for the attribute “overall satisfaction with GET” rose to 3.97, up 3.81 from 2009. The chart shows that the mean rating for each service attribute in 2015 was back up from the 2013 dip, and in 2015 the mean rating for each attribute surpassed the corresponding 2009 score.

Exhibit 2.8 Comparison of Service Attribute Ratings, 2015, 2013, 2009

2015 2013 2009 Attribute Mean Mean Mean Rating Rating Rating Frequency of service 3.85 3.29 3.72 Travel time via GET 3.71 3.15 3.52 Operating hours 3.52 3.15 3.46 Onboard comfort 4.07 3.72 3.94 Safety onboard vehicle 4.16 3.93 4.04 Cost 4.06 3.62 3.71 Safety at bus stop 3.94 3.54 3.76 Reliability of service 3.81 3.22 ** Accessibility of service 3.95 3.41 ** Availability of service info 4.02 3.58 3.96 Overall satisfaction with GET 3.97 3.41 3.81 15 ** Indicates an attribute that was not rated during the survey cycle.

Moore & Associates, Inc. | 2015 2015 Customer and Community Satisfaction Survey Golden Empire Transit District Final Report

To put the 2015 overall satisfaction mean rating increase in perspective, Exhibit 2.8.a shows the percentage of “excellent,” “good,” “neutral,” “fair” and “poor” responses for both 2015 and 2009. While the charts show that in 2015 and 2009 similar numbers of respondents selected “good” or “excellent,” in 2015 the largest percentage of respondents selected “excellent,” while in 2009 the largest number of respondents selected “good.” While the 2015 and 2009 overall satisfaction mean scores are only 0.16 apart, the increase in “excellent” responses and the decrease in “fair” and “poor” responses are significant.

Exhibit 2.8.a Breakdown of Overall Satisfaction Responses, 2015 and 2009

2015 – Overall Satisfaction Responses (Mean Rating 3.97) Poor, 4.7% Fair, 4.9%

Neutral, Excellent, 19.3% 40.6%

n = 2,901

Good, 30.6%

2009 – Overall Satisfaction Responses (Mean Rating 3.81) Poor, 3.3% Excellent, Fair, 11.1% 27.5%

Neutral, 14.2%

n = 3,920

Good , 44.0%

Moore & Associates, Inc. | 2015 2015 Customer and Community Satisfaction Survey Golden Empire Transit District Final Report

GET requested a comparison of its overall satisfaction score with the overall satisfaction scores of other public transportation agencies. Exhibit 2.8.b compares GET’s rating with recent ratings of LA Metro, Santa Clarita Transit, and the City of Tucson Sun Tran service.

While comparisons between agencies can provide anecdotal evidence about customer satisfaction, this evidence is somewhat unreliable given variances in between categories such as demographics, time of year the survey was conducted, differing operational conditions among agencies, etc. In the case of the peer agencies, their survey instrument provided respondents with four satisfaction-level responses, foregoing a “neutral” option, making an “apples-to-apples” comparison difficult. However, a mean rating on a five-point scale can be calculated by giving the highest satisfaction rating of each of these agencies a five-point worth, and the lowest a one-point worth, and entering a zero for the “neutral” satisfaction level.

Exhibit 2.8.b Comparison of Peer Agency Service Attribute Ratings

Mean Agency Rating GET - 2015 3.97 LA Metro - 2014 Spring 4.08 Santa Clarita - 2013 4.09 Tuc son Sun Tran - 2013 3.68

Exhibit 2.8.c shows the percentage of respondents who selected each of the ratings options for the overall satisfaction question.

Exhibit 2.8.c Breakdown of Peer Agency Overall Satisfaction Ratings

GET 2015 – Overall Satisfaction Responses (Mean Rating 3.97) Poor, 4.7% Fair, 4.9%

Neutral, Excellent, 19.3% 40.6%

n = 2,901

Good, 30.6%

Moore & Associates, Inc. | 2015 2015 Customer and Community Satisfaction Survey Golden Empire Transit District Final Report

LA Metro Spring 2014 – Overall Satisfaction Responses (Mean Rating 4.08) Question: Generally speaking, I am satisfied with Metro Rail/bus service

Strongly disagree, 5.0% Disagree, 9.0% Neutral, 0.0%

Strongly agree, 41.0%

n = 21,536 Agree, 45.0%

Santa Clarita 2013 – Overall Satisfaction Responses (Mean Rating 4.09) Question: Please indicate your satisfaction with Santa Clarita Transit’s commuter bus service characteristics.

Poor, 1.5% Fair, 11.0% Neutral, 0.0% Excellent, 35.8%

n = 545

Good, 51.7%

Moore & Associates, Inc. | 2015 2015 Customer and Community Satisfaction Survey Golden Empire Transit District Final Report

Tucson Sun Tran– 2013 Overall Satisfaction Responses (Mean Rating 3.68) Survey Question: On a scale of 1 to 4, rate the following Sun Tran service attributes — Overall Satisfaction

Poor, 10.1%

Excellent, 31.4% Fair, 16.5%

Neutral, 0.0%

n = 7,196

Good, 42.0%

Moore & Associates, Inc. | 2015 2015 Customer and Community Satisfaction Survey Golden Empire Transit District Final Report

Cross-tabulation: Overall Satisfaction with GET (Question 8k) vs. Route (Question 1) Exhibit 2.8.d shows the mean overall satisfaction rating of survey respondents broken down by route. Some other routes carried hundreds of riders who provided an overall satisfaction rating, while other routes featured just one or two riders who provided an overall satisfaction rating. Eliminating those routes with only a few responses (several of which were rated a perfect 5.00), we can see that most GET routes were near or above the system-wide mean rating of 3.97. The routes with highest scores being Route 42 (4.18 mean rating), Route 46 (4.16), and Route 41 (4.15), while the routes with the lowest scores were Route 47 (3.40), Route 61 (3.74), and Route 44 (3.80).

Exhibit 2.8.d Satisfaction vs. Route Mean Route Responses Rating 20 1 3.00 21 244 3.81 22 603 3.96 27 2 4.50 41 187 4.15 42 193 4.18 43 272 4.05 44 280 3.80 45 174 4.05 46 25 4.16 47 43 3.40 48 3 5.00 501 1 1.00 61 173 3.74 62 107 3.97 65 1 3.00 80 2 5.00 81 303 4.12 82 90 4.06 83 84 3.87 84 105 4.09 92 6 4.00 93 1 5.00 99 1 5.00 System 2,901 3.97

Moore & Associates, Inc. | 2015 2015 Customer and Community Satisfaction Survey Golden Empire Transit District Final Report

Cross-tabulation: Overall Satisfaction with GET (Question 8k) vs. Transfers (Question 4) Similar satisfaction levels were reported by riders who were transferring and riders who were not, as Exhibit 2.8.e shows. But riders transferring to/from Kern Transit were more likely to rate their overall satisfaction as “excellent” or “good”—79.5 percent compared to 69.0 percent. As exhibit 2.8.f shows, nearly 22 percent of riders transferring to another GET bus reported being neutral, compared to 6.8 percent of those transferring to/from Kern Transit. Exhibit 2.8.e Satisfaction vs. Transfers 100% 90%

80% 40.5% 40.6% 70% Excellent 60% Good 50% 25.3% Neutral 31.9% 40% Fair 30% Poor 22.9% 20% 18.4% 10% 6.4% 4.5% 0% 5.0% 4.5% Transfer No transfer

Exhibit 2.8.f Satisfaction vs. Transfer Specified 100% 90%

80% 39.9% 54.5% 70% Excellent 60% Good 50% 29.1% Neutral 40% Fair 25.0% 30% Poor 20% 21.6% 6.8% 10% 9.1% 5.5% 0% 3.9% 4.5% Another GET bus Kern Transit

Moore & Associates, Inc. | 2015 2015 Customer and Community Satisfaction Survey Golden Empire Transit District Final Report

Cross-tabulation: Overall Satisfaction with GET (Question 8k) vs. Trip Purpose (Question 6) In every category of trip purpose, the largest percent of riders rated their overall satisfaction with GET as “excellent.” Riders whose trip purpose was “visiting friends” were the most likely to rate their overall satisfaction with GET as “excellent” or “good” (78.1 percent). This is significant because a friendly visit does not necessarily involve the rigid schedule that may be involved with a trip to work or school.

The riders with the highest percentages of dissatisfaction were those on healthcare trips—13.0 percent of these riders indicated their satisfaction as “poor” or “fair.” Exhibit 2.8.g Satisfaction vs. Trip Purpose 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Work 4.8% 6.7% 19.0% 33.9% 35.7%

Shopping 5.4% 4.4% 18.3% 29.5% 42.5%

Visiting friends 2.8% 3.7% 15.3% 25.1% 53.0%

School 1.8% 4.3% 19.5% 32.0% 42.3%

Healthcare 6.5% 6.5% 21.1% 23.8% 42.2%

Personal business 5.4% 3.6% 20.3% 32.2% 38.5%

Other 1.7% 8.6% 17.2% 29.3% 43.1%

Poor Fair Neutral Good Excellent

Question 9: How important is cost in making your decision to ride GET? Cost was indicated to be “very important” in the decision to ride GET by 55.9 percent of respondents. Another 18.6 percent indicated that cost was “somewhat important.” These results are similar to those presented in the 2009 and 2013 surveys.

Exhibit 2.9 Importance of Cost

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Not important 5.8% n = 2,885 Somewhat unimportant 4.0%

Neither important or unimportant 15.7%

Somewhat important 18.6%

Very important 55.9% 22

Moore & Associates, Inc. | 2015 2015 Customer and Community Satisfaction Survey Golden Empire Transit District Final Report

Question 10: If GET introduced a 5- or 10-day pass for use on local bus service, would you…? Question 10 sought to gauge customer interest in new fare payment options, and specifically whether riders would purchase five- or ten-day passes if these options became available. One noticeable difference from the 2013 survey is the number of respondents who indicated an unwillingness to purchase either pass declined, from approximately 39 percent in 2013 to 28.8 percent in 2015. The 10- day pass was the most popular option among survey respondents, favored by 38.8 percent of respondents who answered Question 10. The 10-day pass also was preferred in 2013, by 33.9 percent of respondents.

Exhibit 2.10 Interest in New Passes

Unlikely to Likely purchase purchase a either, 28.8% 5-day pass, 32.4%

n = 2,625 Likely purchase a 10-day pass, 38.8%

Moore & Associates, Inc. | 2015 2015 Customer and Community Satisfaction Survey Golden Empire Transit District Final Report

Question 11: Which of the following possible service enhancements is most important to you? Of the six response options provided, the most popular answer was “more frequent service,” selected by 35.1 percent of respondents, up slightly from the 2013 survey, when it was selected by 32.1 percent of respondents. “More weekend service,” at 26.9 percent, was the second-most popular choice in 2015, up from 20.8 percent in 2013. Overall, the responses remained similar to the 2009 to 2015 surveys.

Exhibit 2.11 Preferred Service Enhancements 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%

More frequent service 35.1%

More weekend service 26.9%

Shorter travel time 10.7%

Later operating/service hours 19.0%

Earlier operating/service hours 4.9% n = 2,755 Different destination(s) 3.4%

Question 12: How many additional trips would you make each week if the selected improvement was made? More than 63 percent of survey respondents indicated that they would take at least three additional trips each week if their preferred improvement was made. An additional 19.6 percent of respondents indicated that they would make 1-2 more trips each week.

Exhibit 2.12 Additional Trips 45%

40% 38.2% n = 2,803 35%

30% 24.9% 25% 19.6% 20%

15% 13.3%

10% 3.9% 5%

0% No change Less than 1 1-2 trips 3-4 trips 5 or more trips 24

Moore & Associates, Inc. | 2015 2015 Customer and Community Satisfaction Survey Golden Empire Transit District Final Report

Cross-tabulation: Preferred Service Enhancement (Question 11) vs. Additional Trips (Question 12) Exhibit 2.12.a shows which service changes might result in the most increased ridership. Of the respondents who desire more frequent service, 68.1 percent would ride at least three additional times per week. Given that 147 said that they would ride 1-2 additional times per week, 382 riders said they would ride three-four more times per week, 245 said they would ride at least five more times per week, and this change would result in an at least an additional 2,518 trips per week.

Exhibit 2.12.a Service Enhancement vs. Additional Trips 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

More frequent service 13.2% 2.7% 16.0% 41.5% 26.6%

More weekend service 9.4% 5.1% 21.3% 37.8% 26.4%

Shorter travel time 22.5% 8.3% 20.4% 33.6% 15.2%

Later operating/service hours 9.9% 1.4% 21.6% 39.6% 27.6%

Earlier operating/service hours 16.7% 0.8% 18.2% 33.3% 31.1%

Different destination(s) 14.4% 11.1% 33.3% 31.1% 10.0%

No change Less than 1 1-2 trips 3-4 trips 5 or more trips

Question 13: How often do you ride GET? Nearly 57 percent of survey participants indicated that they ride GET five or more times per week. An additional 24.6 percent reported riding three to four times per week. Slightly more than seven percent of respondents reported riding less than once a week. These results were similar to those found in the 2009 and 2013 surveys.

Exhibit 2.13 Frequency of Ridership 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Less than once a week 7.2%

1-2 times a week 11.5% n = 2,761 3-4 times a week 24.6% 25 5 or more times a week 56.7%

Moore & Associates, Inc. | 2015 2015 Customer and Community Satisfaction Survey Golden Empire Transit District Final Report

Cross-tabulation: Overall Satisfaction with GET (Question 8k) vs. Frequency of Ridership (Question 13) Satisfaction levels were similar no matter the level of ridership. The highest percentage of riders who gave an “excellent” or “good” rating were those who reported riding three-four times per week (72.2 percent). Those who ride five times or more per week were the most likely to give a rating of “poor” or “fair,” a total that was slightly more than 10 percent. Riders who reported riding less than once a week were most likely to give “excellent” and “poor” overall satisfaction ratings.

Exhibit 2.13.a Satisfaction vs. Ridership Frequency 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Less than once a week 6.3% 3.7% 16.2% 29.8% 44.0%

1-2 times a week 4.2% 4.8% 22.6% 31.3% 37.1%

3-4 times a week 3.7% 5.1% 19.1% 32.2% 40.0%

5 or more times a week 5.0% 5.1% 18.5% 29.9% 41.4%

Poor Fair Neutral Good Excellent

Moore & Associates, Inc. | 2015 2015 Customer and Community Satisfaction Survey Golden Empire Transit District Final Report

Cross-tabulation: Transfer Specified (Question 4a) vs. Ridership Frequency (Question 13) The frequencies of rides per week is similar for both riders who transfer and riders who do not. However, Exhibit 2.13.b shows that there are differences between riders who transfer to another GET bus and riders who transfer to a Kern Transit bus. Riders who ride five times per week are the most likely to transfer to another GET bus (61.3 percent). Riders who ride less than once a week are much more likely to transfer to a Kern Transit bus (18.2 percent, compared to 3.9 percent for those who transfer to a GET bus).

Exhibit 2.13.b Transfer Specified vs. Ridership Frequency 100%

90% 31.8% 80%

70% 61.3% 60% 5 or more times a week

50% 31.8% 3-4 times a week

40% 1-2 times a week Less than once a week 30% 25.2% 18.2% 20%

10% 9.6% 18.2% 0% 3.9% Another GET bus Kern Transit

Moore & Associates, Inc. | 2015 2015 Customer and Community Satisfaction Survey Golden Empire Transit District Final Report

Question 14: How long have you been a GET customer? More than 52.1 percent of respondents reported being a GET customer for more than five years. The percentages of riders were fairly evenly split between the other options provided. The 2015 data was similar to that presented in the 2009 and 2013 surveys.

Exhibit 2.14 Length of Ridership

60% 52.1% n = 2,712 50%

40%

30%

20% 16.1% 16.7% 15.1%

10%

0% Less than 1 year 1-2 years 3-4 years 5 years or more

Question 15: How would you travel if GET were not available? If GET service were not available, nearly 33 percent of respondents indicated that they would make their current transit trip on foot, 26 percent indicated that they would rely on a friend or family member, and 17.8 percent would ride a bicycle. These results suggest that most GET riders are heavily dependent on the service, and without GET would depend on options that were slower (e.g., biking and walking) or potentially less dependable (e.g., getting a ride from a friend or family member). The 2015 results are similar to those presented in of 2009 and 2013.

Exhibit 2.15 Mobility Options

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%

Drive own vehicle 10.5%

Ride bicycle 17.8%

Friend/family member 26.0%

Walk 32.8%

Wouldn't make trip 9.4%

Taxi 3.2% n = 2,711 Other 0.4% 28

Moore & Associates, Inc. | 2015 2015 Customer and Community Satisfaction Survey Golden Empire Transit District Final Report

Question 16: How do you typically pay for your GET trip? The 31-day pass was the most common payment option among survey respondents (44.0 percent). Single-fare cash payment was the second-most common answer given by respondents (34.1 percent). The 2015 survey results are similar to those found in 2013. In 2009, the day pass (used by 33.0 percent of respondents) was more popular than cash (29.0 percent).

Exhibit 2.16 Fare Payment Method

Cash fare (single ride) 34.1% 31-day pass 44.0%

n = 2,698 Day pass 22.0%

Moore & Associates, Inc. | 2015 2015 Customer and Community Satisfaction Survey Golden Empire Transit District Final Report

Cross-tabulation: Transfers (Question 4) vs. Fare Payment Method (Question 16) Nearly 77 percent of survey respondents on a transfer trip used a 31-day pass or a day pass, while nearly 37 percent of riders who were not transferring reported paying single-ride cash fare.

Exhibit 2.16.a Transfers vs. Fare Payment Method 100% 90%

80% 42.6% 49.6% 70%

60% 31-day pass 50% 20.8% Day pass 40% 26.9% Cash fare (single ride) 30%

20% 36.7% 10% 23.5%

0% Transfer No transfer

As Exhibit 2.16.b shows, cash was the most popular payment method for riders who were transferring to/from Kern Transit. Exhibit 2.16.b Transfer Specified vs. Fare Payment Method 100% 90% 32.6% 80% 47.9% 70%

60% 18.6% 31 -day pass 50% Day pass 40% 25.0% Cash fare (single ride) 30% 48.8% 20% 27.1% 10%

0% Another GET bus Kern Transit

Moore & Associates, Inc. | 2015 2015 Customer and Community Satisfaction Survey Golden Empire Transit District Final Report

Cross-tabulation: Overall Satisfaction with GET (Question 8k) vs. Fare Payment Method (Question 16) Overall satisfaction scores were similar across all three fare payment methods. Riders using a day pass were most likely (41.5 percent) to rate their overall satisfaction as “excellent,” while riders paying in cash were most likely to rate their overall satisfaction as “excellent” or “good” (73.3 percent). Riders using the 31-day pass were most likely to rate their satisfaction as “poor” or fair” (10.3 percent).

Exhibit 2.16.c Satisfaction vs. Fare Payment Method 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Cash fare (single ride) 5.0% 3.6% 18.0% 32.4% 40.9%

Day pass 3.3% 5.2% 20.4% 29.6% 41.5%

31-day pass 4.7% 5.6% 18.9% 30.1% 40.7%

Poor Fair Neutral Good Excellent

Moore & Associates, Inc. | 2015 2015 Customer and Community Satisfaction Survey Golden Empire Transit District Final Report

Question 17: If GET offered fare payment by credit card and/or debit card, would you use it? Nearly 42 percent of respondents indicated that they would not take advantage of the option of fare payment by credit card and/or debit card, which was similar to the results when this question was asked in 2009. However, as in 2009, a significant number of respondents would take advantage of the option to pay with plastic. Nearly 33 percent of respondents indicated that they would pay with both credit and debit cards (32.8 percent), and another 21.7 percent indicated that they would pay by debit card only. A credit card-only payment option was the least popular, chosen by just 3.8 percent of respondents.

Exhibit 2.17 Willingness to Pay by Debit and/or Credit Card 45% 41.7% 40% n = 2,689 35% 32.8% 30%

25% 21.7% 20% 15% 10% 3.8% 5% 0% Debit card Credit card Both Neither

Question 18: What fare category typically applies to you? More than 79 percent of survey participants self-identified as payers of regular fare. The remaining 20.7 percent reported paying a discounted fare. These percentages have remained similar since 2009.

Exhibit 2.18 Fare Categories Senior/Disabled /Medicare discounted fare, 20.7%

32 Regular fare, n = 2,592 79.3%

Moore & Associates, Inc. | 2015 2015 Customer and Community Satisfaction Survey Golden Empire Transit District Final Report

Cross-tabulation: Overall Satisfaction with GET (Question 8k) vs. Fare Category(Question 18) Overall satisfaction ratings were similar between riders who pay regular fare and riders who pay discounted fare. Riders who pay with discounted fare were twice as likely to rate their satisfaction as “poor,” however, they also were slightly more likely to rate their overall satisfaction as “excellent.”

Exhibit 2.18.a Satisfaction vs. Fare Category 100%

90%

80% 40.7% 41.5%

70% Excellent 60% Good 50% Neutral 31.7% 26.3% 40% Fair

30% Poor 19.2% 20% 19.1% 10% 5.4% 4.7% 7.6% 0% 3.8% Regular fare Senior/Disabled/Medicare discounted fare

Moore & Associates, Inc. | 2015 2015 Customer and Community Satisfaction Survey Golden Empire Transit District Final Report

Question 19: What is your approximate household income? Nearly 77 percent of respondents cited an annual income less than $20,000, which was also the largest group in the 2013 and 2009 surveys. The 2014 median household income in Bakersfield was $56,204 (US Census Bureau). Of relevance is that of the 3,700 riders who responded to this question, more than one thousand declined to state their income. These “decline to state” responses are omitted from the results shown in Exhibit 2.19.

Exhibit 2.19 Household Income 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Less than $20,000 76.8%

$20,001 to $35,000 10.1%

$35,001 to $50,000 8.5%

$50,001 to $75,000 2.0%

$75,001 to $100,000 1.8% n = 2,048

More than $100,000 1.0%

Question 20: Are you…? More than 37 percent of respondents identified as “Latino.” "White" was the second-most common response (25.9 percent). Less than 4 percent declined to respond.

Exhibit 2.20 Race/Ethnicity 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%

Latino 37.4%

Black 15.1%

White 25.9%

Asian/Pacific Islander 3.0%

American Indian 4.2%

Other 3.4%

Decline to Respond 3.4% n = 3,088

Moore & Associates, Inc. | 2015 2015 Customer and Community Satisfaction Survey Golden Empire Transit District Final Report

Question 21: Language spoken at home Nearly 78 percent of respondents specified English as the language they speak at home, making it the most common language among GET riders. However, 23 percent of respondents reported speaking Spanish at home. The most frequently cited “other” language was American Sign Language/ASL, cited by 17 respondents.

Exhibit 2.21 Language Spoken at Home

Decline to respond, 13.0% Other, 2.4%

Spanish, 23.0%

English, 77.8%

n = 3,088

Question 22: Gender Responses to this question were fairly evenly split between female (43.5 percent) and male (40.6 percent). Nearly 16 percent declined to respond.

Exhibit 2.22 Gender

Decline to respond 15.9%

Male 40.6%

n = 3,088 Female 43.5% 35

Moore & Associates, Inc. | 2015 2015 Customer and Community Satisfaction Survey Golden Empire Transit District Final Report

Question 23: What is your age? More than 58 percent of respondents who answered Question 23 reported being between 19 and 44 years old, with 31.7 percent belonging to the 25 to 44 age group. The 2015 results are similar to the 2009 and 2013 surveys.

The 17 percent of 2015 riders who declined to respond are omitted from the chart below.

Exhibit 2.23 Age 35.0% 31.7% 30.0% 26.7% n = 2,556 24.5% 25.0%

20.0%

15.0% 11.2% 10.0% 5.9% 5.0%

0.0% 16 to 18 19 to 24 25 to 44 45 to 64 65 or older

Moore & Associates, Inc. | 2015 2015 Customer and Community Satisfaction Survey Golden Empire Transit District Final Report

Cross-tabulation: Age (Question 23) vs. Frequency of Ridership (Question 13) Exhibit 2.23.a shows the number of trips riders in each age group are likely to make per week. Riders 25 to 44 are the group most likely to ride five or more times per week (60.0 percent), while riders 16 to 18 are the group most likely to ride two times per week or less (27.6 percent). Riders 65 or older are the group most likely to ride three-four times per week (29.1 percent).

Exhibit 2.23.a Age vs. Ridership Frequency 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

16 to 18 12.5% 15.1% 22.6% 49.8%

19 to 24 7.5% 10.1% 25.4% 56.9%

25 to 44 6.1% 10.7% 23.2% 60.0%

45 to 64 5.3% 11.3% 26.6% 56.7%

65 or older 5.4% 13.5% 29.1% 52.0%

Decline to respond 9.7% 12.9% 21.4% 56.0%

Less than once a week 1-2 times a week 3-4 times a week 5 or more times a week

Moore & Associates, Inc. | 2015 2015 Customer and Community Satisfaction Survey Golden Empire Transit District Final Report

Cross-tabulation: Age (Question 23) vs. Length of Ridership (Question 14) Exhibit 2.23.b shows the number of times per week riders in each age group report being GET customers. As might be expected, large percentages of older riders report being customers for the longest amounts of time, including 71.0 percent of riders 65 or older riding for five years or more. Perhaps surprisingly, more than half of riders age 16 to 18 reported being customers for five years or more. Exhibit 2.23.b Age vs. Length of Ridership 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

16 to 18 26.6% 22.6% 16.4% 34.3%

19 to 24 18.8% 23.8% 18.8% 38.6%

25 to 44 12.9% 12.5% 15.1% 59.5%

45 to 64 12.5% 14.8% 13.2% 59.5%

65 or older 12.4% 8.3% 8.3% 71.0%

Decline to respond 18.4% 13.2% 12.0% 56.4%

Less than 1 year 1-2 years 3-4 years 5 years or more

Moore & Associates, Inc. | 2015 2015 Customer and Community Satisfaction Survey Golden Empire Transit District Final Report

Question 24: Where do you typically obtain information about GET services? Of the nine response options provided, “printed schedule” was the most common choice (27.3 percent), followed closely by “GET website” (25.6 percent). All options were chosen by at least 10 percent of respondents except for “no access” and “other,” which were both chosen by less than three percent of survey participants.

The most popular “other” response was “Google Maps,” specified by 14 respondents.

Exhibit 2.24 presents the results of the 2015 survey. Given that the riders were invited to check all that apply, the response percentages total more than 100 percent.

Exhibit 2.24 2015 Information Source

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

Printed schedule 27.3%

GET website 25.6%

At the bus stop 20.9%

No access 2.8%

Bus driver 18.6%

On the bus 15.2%

Customer call center 21.0%

Cell phone/mobile device 15.3%

Other 2.3%

Moore & Associates, Inc. | 2015 2015 Customer and Community Satisfaction Survey Golden Empire Transit District Final Report

By comparing the 2015 results to past surveys, a picture emerges of changing customer habits. While the printed schedule remains the top source, the use of the GET website has grown remarkably since 2009, when just 10 percent of riders reported using it.

Exhibit 2.24.a 2009 Information Source 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

Onboard vehicle 15.2% n = 3,702 GET website 10.0%

Schedule booklet 25.9%

Call GET office 17.4%

Bus stop 5.5%

Friend/family member 1.4%

Other 24.5%

Nearly one-fourth of 2009 respondents indicated “other” sources of information; 21 percent of these respondents indicated getting information at a transit center, and 19.4 percent reported already knowing the information. Nearly 10 percent reported finding the information online, but it isn't clear if this information source was the GET website or not.

It is harder to make a clear comparison between the 2015 data and the 2013 data because different information source options were provided. The 2013 survey options were “home,” “work,” “school,” “no access,” “library,” “cell/mobile,” and “other.” Despite the differences, some inferences can be made. The most popular answer in 2013 was “cell phone/mobile,” chosen by nearly 31 percent of respondents. This was believed to mean both phone calls, such as calling the customer call center, or using a smartphone to access the GET website. In 2015, cell phone/mobile device and customer call center were separate options; cell phone/mobile was indicated 15.3 percent of the time, while respondents stated that they use the call center 21.0 percent of the time, for a total of 38.3 percent of respondents.

Moore & Associates, Inc. | 2015 2015 Customer and Community Satisfaction Survey Golden Empire Transit District Final Report

One clear trend from 2013 to 2015 is that the number of riders who do not have access to information has dropped, from 9.5 percent in 2013 to 2.8 percent in 2015.

Exhibit 2.24.b 2013 Information Source

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%

27.8%

6.9% 6.4% Sample Size = 3,217 9.5%

1.9% 30.7%

16.6%

Question 25: What is your home ZIP code? Respondents indicated 89 different home ZIP codes, but most of these did not comprise a significant percentage of ridership. The top ten most common responses are provided below, along with their totals from the two prior onboard rider surveys.

Exhibit 2.25 ZIP Codes 2015 2015 2013 2009 ZIP code Total Total Total 93307 405 562 726 93304 366 355 525 93305 320 512 448 93309 270 341 424 93308 267 357 364 93306 241 392 342 93301 163 232 244 93313 78 94 117 93312 71 44 55 93311 43 37 46

Moore & Associates, Inc. | 2015 2015 Customer and Community Satisfaction Survey Golden Empire Transit District Final Report

Question 26: Are you employed? More than 43 percent of survey respondents self-identified as unemployed. Slightly more than 27 percent self-identified as working part-time, while 20 percent reported working full-time. The 2015 survey results are similar to those found in prior year onboard surveys.

Exhibit 2.26 Employment Status 50% 45% 43.1% n = 2,565 40% 35% 30% 27.1% 25% 20.0% 20% 15% 9.9% 10% 5% 0% Full-time Part-time Retired Unemployed

Question 27: Are you a student? Slightly more than 61 percent of survey participants reported that they are not students. Nearly 39 percent of respondents indicated that they attend school either full-time or part-time. The 2015 results are consistent with results from prior survey years.

Exhibit 2.27 College Participation

Full-time 22.0% n = 2,512

Not a student Part-time 61.2% 16.8%

Moore & Associates, Inc. | 2015 2015 Customer and Community Satisfaction Survey Golden Empire Transit District Final Report

Question 28: Do you own or regularly use a…? Respondents were asked to indicate if they own or regularly use a Smartphone, tablet, or computer. Nearly 57 percent of respondents reported regular access to a Smartphone, while 21.7 percent reported regular computer use. Less than 13 percent of respondents indicated that they regularly use a tablet.

Exhibit 2.28 Electronic Usage 60% 56.5% n = 3,088 50%

40%

30% 21.7% 20% 12.6% 10%

0% Smartphone Tablet Computer

Moore & Associates, Inc. | 2015 2015 Customer and Community Satisfaction Survey Golden Empire Transit District Final Report

This page intentionally blank.

Moore & Associates, Inc. | 2015 2015 Customer and Community Satisfaction Survey Golden Empire Transit District Final Report

Section 3 Community Telephone Survey

OVERVIEW AND METHODOLOGY Introduction The goal of the 2015 Community Telephone Survey was to gather information from the community to assist in determining where GET is successfully meeting the needs of the community and where improvements are needed. It was intended not only to determine whether current transit services provide the optimal mobility alternatives within the service area, but also to identify how public opinion may have changed since prior survey efforts.

Survey Development Moore & Associates based its 2015 survey instrument on the 2012 phone survey instrument. The revised form (2015 survey) was posted to Basecamp for GET staff review and approval. The form was subsequently translated into Spanish.

Survey Administration Data Collection A total of 512 valid phone surveys were collected between May 18 and May 28, 2015. A pre-test of the survey instrument resulted in the collection of 57 valid surveys, which were included in the overall data sample. Bilingual surveyors presented each respondent an opportunity to complete the survey in either English or Spanish. This number of samples ensures a confidence level of 95 percent and a ±4.3 percent margin of error.

More than 13,680 residential land line phone numbers were compiled across the ten ZIP codes comprising the GET service area. Each number was called up to three times before being retired from the calling list. Numbers resulting in a fax machine or Internet tone were deleted. Residents who were contacted yet declined to participate were also removed from the database.

Bilingual surveyors presented each respondent an opportunity to take the survey in either English or Spanish. Persons wishing to take the Spanish language version of the survey were able to do so. 45 New technologies and societal characteristics increasingly present significant challenges to telephone surveys. The prevalence of mobile phones, for example, and the ability of customers to move one

Moore & Associates, Inc. | 2015 2015 Customer and Community Satisfaction Survey Golden Empire Transit District Final Report

phone number to a different geographical area present complications to any weighted sampling plan. The decrease in traditional land lines due to households choosing to use only cell phones offers another challenge – there are simply fewer numbers to call in a random survey. Societal changes, such as fewer individuals or families dining at home in the evening, further limit access to respondents. Finally, conveniences such as caller ID allow residents to avoid calls from surveyors altogether if they so choose. The administration of telephone surveys requires more resources (numbers, surveyors, or time) than ever before, indicating that the viability of an unlimited random phone survey is diminishing. At a point in the future, other methodologies will need to be considered and given precedence. Alternative methodologies include online surveys, intercept surveys, and direct mail surveys.

Data Processing Data Entry Survey data was coded and entered into an MS Excel spreadsheet by our in-house survey team. The spreadsheet was then imported into Statistics Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS), where data was cleaned by trained staff.

Analytical Methods The SPSS database allowed our project team to compile simple frequencies. Simple frequencies provide the most basic market research data – how many people provided a certain answer, or how many times a specific response was provided to a survey question. Simple frequencies are valuable, as they provide important information about the surveyed population, yet they are also used as a basis for comparison when running cross-tabulations. Simple frequencies are presented in the Appendix for each question in the survey.

Screener Questions Through qualifier questions, surveyors limited participation to individuals age 16 or older residing within one of the ten ZIP codes included in the GET service area.

Respondents were next asked whether they had ridden GET in the 90 days prior to the survey contact. Those answering affirmatively were asked follow-up questions regarding which GET service they patronized and other rider-specific questions (Questions 2 through 8). Those who said they had not ridden GET within the 90 days prior to the survey contact skipped past the rider-specific questions to the general awareness portion of the survey (Questions 9 through 25).

ANALYSIS AND KEY FINDINGS The 2015 GET community phone survey respondent was likely to be retired, not a student, and not a recent user of GET services. Of the phone survey participants who had ridden GET in the prior 90 days, most said they ride three or more times per week and use GET to access healthcare or to get to work.

Overall, riders who participated in the community phone survey more satisfied with GET services than 2013 phone survey respondents, though their satisfaction levels have not yet returned to levels found in the 2009 community survey. 46 The findings show strong support among Metro Bakersfield residents for public transit services. More than 92 percent of survey participants believe public transit plays in an important role in the

Moore & Associates, Inc. | 2015 2015 Customer and Community Satisfaction Survey Golden Empire Transit District Final Report community’s quality of life; this level of support was also found among 2009 and 2013 survey respondents. Additionally, more than 60 percent of survey participants indicated that they would support a dedicated sales tax to increase or improve public bus service throughout the Bakersfield Metropolitan area, a percentage that indicates fairly solid political support, suggesting that such taxes may be politically feasible in the future. A sales tax measure could provide GET with a predictable revenue stream to fund ongoing transit improvements.

The following analysis examines each survey question on a more in-depth. Simple frequency data tables, along with the survey instruments, are included in the Appendix.

Moore & Associates, Inc. | 2015 2015 Customer and Community Satisfaction Survey Golden Empire Transit District Final Report

Question 1: In the last 90 days, have you ridden either GET’s fixed-route bus service or the GET-A-Lift paratransit service? More than 85 percent of valid phone survey respondents reported that they have not ridden either GET’s fixed-route bus service or the GET-A-Lift paratransit service. The remaining 14.5 percent indicated that they had ridden a GET fixed-route bus.

Exhibit 3.1 Used GET or GET-A-Lift in Last 90 Days

14.5%

No Yes, GET

85.5%

The 2015 community survey included a lower percentage of riders than the 2009 survey (14.5 percent in 2015 compared to 21.5 percent of respondents in 2009). The percentage of riders is always a result of random chance; collection of survey data concluded when the target sample of 500 was achieved, and there was no preset goal of riders versus non-riders. There were no changes in data collection methodology from the 2009 survey and the 2015 survey.

Those who had not ridden either the fixed-route or paratransit service were asked to specify a reason. Of these, 88.6 percent indicated that they do not ride the fixed-route or paratransit service because they have access to a personal vehicle. No other response was indicated more than 2.7 percent of the time.

Exhibit 3.1.a Reason For Not Riding GET Services

Does not go where I need to 3.2%

Takes too long (i.e., time on bus) 1.6%

Does not run/operate frequently enough 0.9%

Costs too much 0.7%

Don't know how to use it 2.0%

Have access to a personal vehicle 88.6%

Other (specify) 3.0% 48

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Moore & Associates, Inc. | 2015 2015 Customer and Community Satisfaction Survey Golden Empire Transit District Final Report

Rider Questions Questions 2 through 8 were specific to survey participants who indicated having ridden GET or GET-A- Lift within the past 90 days, and were not posed to non-riders. These questions were intended to gather information about ridership frequency, travel purpose, and information sources, as well as to rate various transit service attributes.

Question 2: How many times in a typical week do you ride GET? Most of the riders who participated in the phone survey indicated that they ride 3-4 times per week (32.5 percent), followed by those who indicated they typically ride five times or more per week (26.0 percent).

Exhibit 3.2 Frequency of Use Less frequently (i.e., once or twice a month), 1-2 times/week, 16.9% 24.7%

5 or more times/week, 26.0%

n = 435 3-4 times/week, 32.5%

Moore & Associates, Inc. | 2015 2015 Customer and Community Satisfaction Survey Golden Empire Transit District Final Report

Question 3: On a five-point scale (where one is “poor” and five is “excellent,” how would you rate your overall satisfaction with GET services? Overall, phone survey respondents were satisfied with GET services. GET services were rated as “good” or “excellent” by 68.0 percent of riders. Only 13.3 percent rated GET services as “fair” or “poor.” The mean rating for these responses was 3.79.

Exhibit 3.3 Overall Satisfaction

Poor, 9.3% Fair, 4.0%

Excellent, 33.3%

Neutral, 18.7%

n = 75

Good, 34.7%

Riders who took the community phone survey followed a different ratings pattern than riders who took the onboard survey. In the onboard survey, overall satisfaction in 2015 was higher than it had been in 2009 and 2013. While the overall satisfaction mean rating of 3.79 for phone respondents in 2015 was improved over the 3.49 mean rating in 2013, it was lower than the 4.20 in 2009. Possible reasons for this difference will be discussed in conjunction with Question 6.

Moore & Associates, Inc. | 2015 2015 Customer and Community Satisfaction Survey Golden Empire Transit District Final Report

Question 4: When riding GET, what is your most common trip purpose? “Healthcare” was identified as the most common trip purpose, indicated by 31.1 percent of respondents, followed by “work” (chosen by 23.0 percent) and “shopping” (16.2 percent). This was the first time across the three survey cycles that healthcare was the lone most-cited purpose; that selection increased about nine percent from the 2009 survey cycle and 15 percent from the 2013 cycle. The number of respondents who cited “personal business” as their trip purpose dropped about seven percent since 2013.

Exhibit 3.4 2015 Trip Purpose 35.0% 31.1% 30.0% n = 74 25.0% 23.0%

20.0% 16.2% 14.9% 15.0% 12.2% 10.0%

5.0% 2.7%

0.0% Work Shopping Visiting friends School Healthcare Personal business

Exhibit 3.4.a 2013 Trip Purpose

Other 10% Work 21%

Personal business 22%

Shopping 17%

Healthcare 16% School 10% Visiting friends 4%

Moore & Associates, Inc. | 2015 2015 Customer and Community Satisfaction Survey Golden Empire Transit District Final Report

Exhibit 3.4.b 2009 Trip Purpose

30% 24.8% 24.8% 22.6% 25%

16.1% 20%

15% 7.3%

10% 4.4%

0% Work School Shopping Healthcare Visiting friends Other

Moore & Associates, Inc. | 2015 2015 Customer and Community Satisfaction Survey Golden Empire Transit District Final Report

Question 5: When riding GET, what route or service do you use most often? The responses to this question varied widely among the relatively small number of survey participants who said they ride the bus. The most popular answers for the fixed-route service were Routes 22 and 45 (each mentioned ten times) and Route 81 bus (mentioned seven times). More than 22 percent of respondents said they most often ride the GET-A-Lift buses.

Exhibit 3.5 Most Frequently Used Route or Service 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%

Not sure 9.9% GET-A-Lift 22.5% 83 1.4% 81 7.0% 8 1.4% 61, 82, 84 1.4% 6 1.4% 52 1.4% 5 1.4% 48 1.4% 47, 83 1.4% 45, 46 1.4% 45 8.5% 44 2.8% 43, 81 1.4% 43 4.2% 42, 45 1.4% 42 2.8% 41, 43, 44 1.4% 41, 42 1.4% 4 1.4% 32 1.4% 22, 43 1.4% 22 9.9% 21, 45 1.4% 21, 44, 45, 81 1.4% 21, 44 1.4% 21, 41, 43 1.4% 21, 22, 43, 61 1.4% 17 1.4% 11, 22, 45 1.4%

Moore & Associates, Inc. | 2015 2015 Customer and Community Satisfaction Survey Golden Empire Transit District Final Report

Question 6: On a scale of one to five (wherein one equals “poor” and five equals “excellent”), please rate the following GET service attributes. Respondents were asked to rate their satisfaction levels with ten GET service attributes:

• Service frequency, • Time it takes to travel, • Operating hours, • Comfort onboard vehicle, • Safety onboard vehicle, • Fare or cost, • Safety at bus stops, • Service reliability, • Service accessibility, and • Availability of service information.

Exhibit 3.6 shows the mean ratings for each of these attributes in 2015, and their corresponding ratings in 2013 and 2009. In 2015, respondents indicated highest satisfaction levels with the attributes “safety onboard vehicle” (4.15 mean rating) and “onboard comfort” (4.11 mean rating). The lowest-scoring attributes were “safety at bus stop” (3.63 mean rating) and “travel time via GET” (3.64 mean rating).

Exhibit 3.6 Satisfaction Ratings 2015, 2013, 2009 2015 2013 2009 Attribute Mean Mean Mean Rating Rating Rating Frequency of service 3.93 3.36 4.16 Travel time via GET 3.64 3.33 3.83 Operating hours 3.73 3.26 3.91 Onboard comfort 4.11 3.95 4.43 Safety onboard vehicle 4.15 3.99 4.42 Cost 4.05 3.66 4.30 Safety at bus stop 3.63 3.77 ** Reliability of service 4.04 3.36 ** Accessibility of service 3.95 3.49 ** Availability of service info 4.08 3.73 4.26 Overall satisfaction (Question 3) 3.79 3.49 4.20

As was the case with “overall satisfaction” ratings in Question 3, the 2015 rider satisfaction ratings in the community phone survey were lower than the 2015 satisfaction ratings in the onboard rider survey. It is difficult to pinpoint a precise reason why, but there are several potential causes.

It is possible that phone survey respondents felt freer to criticize the service because they felt the phone survey provided more anonymity. Whereas an onboard respondent may have to hand over written responses to a surveyor (and thereby possibly have to justify critical responses), phone respondents were not face-to-face with the surveyor. 54

Moore & Associates, Inc. | 2015 2015 Customer and Community Satisfaction Survey Golden Empire Transit District Final Report

While the onboard survey was comprised of people who were using the service, the respondents who spoke over the phone may not be regular users, either because they have other options or because the service does not meet their needs all the time. In addition, infrequent riders might base their rating on a single trip that took place weeks ago. This could result in lower satisfaction ratings.

There are also possible differences in the way survey respondents process the provided responses when hearing the questions audibly or seeing them on paper. Over the phone, “fair” may sound like a positive response, but it appears less so when shown as the next-to-lowest rating option. Similarly, “good” on its own may sound like an appropriate choice for someone who is very satisfied, until it is visually compared to “excellent” (the highest rating option).

Question 7: On a scale of one to five (wherein one equals “not important” and five equals “very important”), how important a role does cost (the fare you pay) play in making your decision to ride GET or GET-A-Lift? Nearly 60 percent of respondents indicated that cost is “very important”; another 25.7 percent indicated that cost is “really important.” Less than 7 percent of riders chose “a little important” or “not important.” Cost has remained a very important factor for the majority of survey respondents since 2009.

Exhibit 3.7 Importance of Cost Not important, A little important, 4.1% 2.7% Important, 8.1%

Really important, Very important, 25.7% 59.5% n = 74

Moore & Associates, Inc. | 2015 2015 Customer and Community Satisfaction Survey Golden Empire Transit District Final Report

Question 8: Where have you typically obtained information regarding GET services? “Home” was the most common response, chosen by 44.6 percent of respondents. The percentage of people who selected “home” jumped nearly 30 percent from 2013. This rise appears to coincide with the removal of “other” option that was provided in 2013. The next most popular answer was “cell phone/mobile device,” chosen by 39.2 percent, which was about 4 percent less than in 2013. Slightly more than 4 percent of respondents cited having “no access.” Exhibit 3.8 2015 Information Source

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Home 44.6%

Work 8.1%

School 2.7% n = 74 No Access 4.1%

Library 1.4%

Cell phone/mobile device 39.2%

To allow for comparisons, we have included the charts from the 2013 and 2009 phone surveys below.

Exhibit 3.8.a 2013 Information Source

Sample Size = 255

Work, 1.2% Home, 15.7% School, 2.4%

Other, 32.9% No Access, 3.9% Library, 0.8%

Cell phone/mobile device, 43.1%

Moore & Associates, Inc. | 2015 2015 Customer and Community Satisfaction Survey Golden Empire Transit District Final Report

Exhibit 3.8.b 2009 Information Source

32.3% 35%

30%

25% 20.6%

20% 16.1% 14.8%

15% 9.0% 7.1% 10%

0% Onboard vehicleGET websiteSchedule booklet Bus stopFriend/family member Other

General Community Questions (Rider and Non-Rider) Questions 9 through 25 were asked of all survey respondents to gauge awareness of GET throughout the community, codify travel habits, and assess propensity to use public transit.

Question 9: Do you know the location of the GET bus stop nearest to your home? More than 76 percent of respondents indicated awareness of the location of the GET bus stop nearest their home. This suggests a widespread awareness of public transit within the Metro Bakersfield area. Awareness was also greater than 75 percent in 2013 and 2009.

Exhibit 3.9 Location of Nearest Stop Doesn't know location, n = 502 23.9%

Knows location, 76.1% 57

Moore & Associates, Inc. | 2015 2015 Customer and Community Satisfaction Survey Golden Empire Transit District Final Report

Question 10: What are your two most common methods of travel in and around Bakersfield? A large majority of respondents (69.8 percent) reported driving their own vehicle. The second most common response was public transit, selected by 18.2 percent of respondents. No other option was cited by more than 7 percent of respondents.

The percentage of respondents who reported driving their own vehicle was up more than 30 percent from the 2013 survey cycle, and nearly 25 percent from 2009. It is probable that the 2015 survey result is more indicative of the conditions in Bakersfield and that the prior survey cycles under-represented people who drive alone. According to the 2009 National Household Transportation Survey (NHTS), at a national level, people in the U.S. made more than 76 percent of their trips by driving alone. Although Bakersfield’s mode of transportation split likely differs somewhat from the mode split of the U.S. as a whole, and the measures of the two studies (percent of trips taken using a given mode versus most common mode used) are not identical, we find it unlikely that the difference would be as large as what we observed in 2013.

Exhibit 3.10 Most Common Methods of Travel

Public transit Carpool, 2.0% (GET or GET-A- Lift), 18.2%

n = 510 Ride bicycle, 3.3%

Walk, 6.7%

Drive own vehicle, 69.8%

Moore & Associates, Inc. | 2015 2015 Customer and Community Satisfaction Survey Golden Empire Transit District Final Report

Question 11: Do you have access to the internet at your home? Nearly 33 percent of respondents reported not having access to the internet at home, down seven percent from 2013, and down nearly 12 percent from the 2009 results. Though the percentage of respondents without internet access continues to decrease, access-less riders remain a significant percentage of GET ridership. This large proportion suggests that GET should continue to provide service information and advertisement of its service in traditional formats, including printed brochures, billboards, newspapers, etc. to ensure it maximizes the audience it can reach.

Exhibit 3.11 Access to the Internet at Home

No internet access, n = 506 32.8%

Has internet access, 67.2%

Moore & Associates, Inc. | 2015 2015 Customer and Community Satisfaction Survey Golden Empire Transit District Final Report

Question 12: Have you visited the GET website within the past 90 days? Nearly 89 percent of respondents reported they have not visited the GET website in the 90 days prior to the survey contact, which is similar to results found in 2013 and 2009. This low website visitation, combined with the high proportion of respondents who have internet in their home (67.2 percent), suggests that it is likely that GET riders are less likely to have internet in their home.

Exhibit 3.12 Visited GET Website in Last 90 Days

Has visited GET site, 11.2%

n = 502

Has not visited GET site, 88.8%

Moore & Associates, Inc. | 2015 2015 Customer and Community Satisfaction Survey Golden Empire Transit District Final Report

Question 13: Have you seen any advertising for GET within the past 90 days? More than half of all riders indicated they had seen GET advertising within the 90 days prior to the survey contact. Of these, the most common outlets were TV commercials (43.4 percent), onboard buses (35.9 percent), and newspaper advertisements (9.4 percent).

2015 was the first phone survey cycle in which the majority of respondents reported having seen GET advertising within the 90 days prior to the survey contact. The increase in the those who have seen advertising is relatively small—less than 8 percent more respondents reported seeing advertising in 2015 compared to 2013—but this suggests that recent advertising efforts have been more effective than in 2013. In 2009, slightly more than 50 percent of respondents had not seen GET advertising.

Exhibit 3.13 Seen GET Advertising in Past 90 Days

Haven't seen Have seen GET ads, GET ads, 49.8% 50.2%

n = 512

Exhibit 3.13.a Advertising Location – Other Specify Response Frequency Percentage At clubs 1 0.4% Benches 4 1.6% Billboards 8 3.1% Bus brochure 2 0.8% Coupon in mail 1 0.4% Facebook 3 1.2% Internet 3 1.2% Local radio 1 0.4% Mail card 3 1.2% Newspaper 24 9.4% Onboard buses 92 35.9% Radio 2 0.8% Strike when everything shut down 1 0.4% TV commercials 111 43.4% Total 256 100.0% 61

Moore & Associates, Inc. | 2015 2015 Customer and Community Satisfaction Survey Golden Empire Transit District Final Report

Question 14: If your typical/normal method of travel was not available, would you consider riding GET or GET-A-Lift? Nearly 74 percent of respondents indicated they would consider riding GET or GET-A-Lift if their typical method of travel was not available. This was similar to results found in 2013, but still lower than the results of the 2009 survey cycle, when 87.4 percent of respondents indicated that they would consider using GET or GET-A-Lift.

Exhibit 3.14 Consider Using GET or GET-A-Lift Wouldn't consider GET or Get-A-Lift, 26.3% n = 505

Would consider GET or Get-A- Lift, 73.7%

Moore & Associates, Inc. | 2015 2015 Customer and Community Satisfaction Survey Golden Empire Transit District Final Report

Question 15: What change, if any, could cause you to ride GET or GET-A-Lift? More than 33 percent of respondents reported that nothing would change their mind to cause them to ride GET or GET-A-Lift. “More frequent service” was the next most common response, indicated by 12.3 percent of respondents, followed by “shorter travel time” (11.2 percent) and “different destinations” (9.8 percent).

Exhibit 3.15 2015 Motivators to Begin Riding GET or GET-A-Lift

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%

Nothing would change my mind 33.1%

Other 4.7%

Different destination(s) 9.8%

Higher gas prices (specify price) 6.6%

Earlier operating service hours 6.7%

Later operating service hours 9.5%

Shorter travel time 11.2%

More weekend service 6.1%

More frequent service 12.3%

The percentage of respondents who would like to see more weekend service dropped from 19.0 percent in 2013 to 6.1 percent in 2015. The 6.1 percent is similar to the eight percent who selected that option in 2009. Similarly, the percentage of respondents who indicated that nothing would change their minds rose 20 percent from 2013 to 2015 to 33.1 percent, which was similar to the 38.4 percent who selected that service change in 2009. These two changes were the only two that saw such large shifts in the number of respondents who selected them.

For 2015 respondents most influenced by gas prices, five dollars/gallon seemed to be the magic number that would cause them to ride GET or GET-A-Lift. This figure was cited by 24 survey takers. Six respondents reported that four dollars/ gallon could be their threshold. No other price was indicated by more than three respondents.

Respondents who chose “different destinations” in 2015 were asked to specify which destination. The most common destination was “Rio Bravo,” specified by 11 respondents. The second most common response was “change back to old routes,” specified by six respondents. No other destination was specified by more than one respondent.

Loss of access to a vehicle might cause some survey participants to select public transit. Of the 23 respondents who chose “other” in 2015, six indicated that a significant change in their personal vehicle status (loss of license, breakdown, or other reason) could cause them to use GET services. 63

Moore & Associates, Inc. | 2015 2015 Customer and Community Satisfaction Survey Golden Empire Transit District Final Report

For reference, charts showing changes that could motivate riders to use GET or GET-A-Lift from the 2013 and 2009 surveys are provided below.

Exhibit 3.15.a 2013 Motivators to Begin Riding GET or GET-A-Lift

20% 19.0% 18% 16.3% Sample Size = 748 16% 13.3% 14% 12.3% 12% 10.4% 8.9% 10% 8.3% 7.4% 8% 6% 4.1% 4% 2% 0%

Exhibit 3.15.b 2009 Motivators to Begin Riding GET or GET-A-Lift

45% 38.4% 40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15% 11.1% 9.9% 8.7% 8.5% 7.9% 10% 5.9% 5.1% 3.8% 5% 0.7%

0% Bus stop More Shorter Later Earlier More Higher gas Different Nothing Other close to my frequent travel time operating operating weekend prices destinations would comment home service hours hours service change my mind

Moore & Associates, Inc. | 2015 2015 Customer and Community Satisfaction Survey Golden Empire Transit District Final Report

Question 16: If your employer offered discounted GET bus passes, would this cause you to begin riding the bus? Just more than half of survey respondents indicated that they would begin using public transit their employer provided a subsidized or discounted bus pass. This percentage was lower than in the 2009 and 2013 survey cycles, but the affirmative percentage has always been more than half. These results suggest that GET should consider a discount pass program for local major employers as a means to increase ridership.

Exhibit 3.16 Employer Subsidized Travel

Would not cause to ride, Would cause to 48.9% ride, 51.1%

n = 505

Question 17: Do you believe public transit plays an important role in your community’s quality of life? Overwhelmingly, Metro Bakersfield residents believe public transit plays an important role in the community’s quality of life. More than 92 percent of survey participants answered affirmatively. This percentage has been over 90 percent across all three of the most recent survey cycles.

Exhibit 3.17 2015 Importance of Public Transit Doesn't play important role, 7.6%

n = 502

Plays important role, 92.4% 65

Moore & Associates, Inc. | 2015 2015 Customer and Community Satisfaction Survey Golden Empire Transit District Final Report

Exhibit 3.17.a 2013 Importance of Public Transit

No, 5.5%

Yes, 94.5%

Sample Size = 766

Exhibit 3.17.b 2009 Importance of Public Transit No 3.4%

Yes 96.6%

Question 18: Would you support a dedicated sales tax supporting increased and/or improved public bus service throughout the Bakersfield Metropolitan area? More than 60 percent of survey participants indicated that they would support a dedicated sales tax to increase or improve public bus service throughout the Bakersfield Metropolitan area. This percentage has declined from the 69.7 percent of respondents who answered affirmatively in 2009 and from the 62.9 percent who answered affirmatively in 2013, but 60 percent still indicates fairly solid political support, suggesting that such taxes may be politically feasible in the future. A sales tax measure could provide GET with a predictable revenue stream to fund ongoing transit improvements.

Exhibit 3.18 2015 Support for Dedicated Sales Tax for Public Bus Service

Wouldn't n = 503 support, 39.6%

Would support, 60.4% 66

Moore & Associates, Inc. | 2015 2015 Customer and Community Satisfaction Survey Golden Empire Transit District Final Report

Exhibit 3.18.a 2013 Support for Dedicated Sales Tax for Public Bus Service

No, 37.1%

Yes, 62.9%

Sample Size = 766

Exhibit 3.18.b 2009 Support for Dedicated Sales Tax for Public Bus Service

No 30.3% Yes 69.7%

Moore & Associates, Inc. | 2015 2015 Customer and Community Satisfaction Survey Golden Empire Transit District Final Report

Question 19: Do you have a valid driver license? Nearly 80 percent of survey participants reported having a valid driver license, the highest percentage reported in each of the three most recent survey cycles. Exhibit 3.19 2015 Valid Driver License Doesn't have driver license, 20.1%

n = 503

Have driver license, 79.9%

Exhibit 3.19.a 2013 Valid Driver License

No, 39.4%

Yes, 60.6%

Sample Size = 766

Exhibit 3.19.b 2009 Valid Driver License No 30.6%

Yes 68 69.4%

Moore & Associates, Inc. | 2015 2015 Customer and Community Satisfaction Survey Golden Empire Transit District Final Report

Demographic Questions Demographic questions were asked of all respondents to gather additional information about the community. Respondents were given the opportunity to decline to respond to any or all of these questions.

Question 20: What is your age? More than 38 percent of phone survey participants reported being 65 or older, which was higher than this age group’s representation in 2009 and 2013. The second-most common response was the 45 to 64 age group, identified by nearly 24 percent of respondent. More than 16 percent declined to respond.

Exhibit 3.20 2015 Respondent Age 45%

40% 38.4%

35% n = 359 30%

25% 23.7%

20% 16.2% 15% 11.4% 10% 5.3% 5.0% 5%

0% 16 to 18 19 to 24 25 to 44 45 to 64 65 or older Decline to respond

Moore & Associates, Inc. | 2015 2015 Customer and Community Satisfaction Survey Golden Empire Transit District Final Report

Exhibit 3.20.a 2013 Respondent Age

40% 37.2% Sample Size = 689 35% 31.1% 30%

25%

20%

15% 13.8% 11.2%

10% 6.8% 5%

0% 16 to 18 19 to 24 25 to 44 45 to 64 65 or older

Exhibit 3.20.b 2009 Respondent Age

40.7% 45% 40% 35% 28.0% 30% 25%

20% 12.1% 15% 8.8% 10.3% 10% 5% 0% 16 to 18 19 to 24 25 to 44 45 to 64 65 and older

Moore & Associates, Inc. | 2015 2015 Customer and Community Satisfaction Survey Golden Empire Transit District Final Report

Question 21: What is your gender? Survey respondents were more likely to be female (59.3 percent) than male (37.9 percent), which was similar to the results of the 2009 and 2013 survey results. Females are somewhat overrepresented in our sample, given the 2007-2011 American Community Survey found that just over 50 percent of Bakersfield residents were female and just under 50 percent were male.

Exhibit 3.21 Respondent Gender Decline to respond, 2.7%

Male, 37.9%

Female, 59.3% n = 364

Question 22: Please indicate which languages are spoken in your home. This number of respondents who speak Spanish at home dropped slightly from 2013 to 17.6 and was down about 14 percent from the 31.1 who took the 2009 survey. However, Spanish speakers continue to make up a significant percentage of the Bakersfield community and GET ridership.

The percentage of respondents who identified “other” languages rose to 3.8 percent after comprising less than 1 percent of respondents in 2009 and 2013. Eleven “other” languages were specified, including American Sign Language, Arabic, and Hebrew, but no language was specified more than twice.

Exhibit 3.22 Languages Spoken At Home Decline to Other, 3.8% respond, 4.2%

Spanish, 17.6%

n = 512 English, 74.4% 71

Moore & Associates, Inc. | 2015 2015 Customer and Community Satisfaction Survey Golden Empire Transit District Final Report

Question 23: Are you employed? Perhaps corresponding to the high percentage of survey respondents who reported being 65 or older, nearly half of all phone survey respondents identified themselves as being retired. Twenty-four percent of respondents reported working full-time, down from 32.3 percent in 2013. The number of respondents who identified as being unemployed dropped from 2013 by more than half to 20.8 percent. Comparisons to 2009 are difficult because this question was phrased differently ( Are you either employed full-time outside the home or enrolled as a full-time student?).

Exhibit 3.23 2015 Employment Status

Unemployed, 20.8% Full-time, 24.2%

Part-time, 5.3%

n = 356

Retired, 49.7%

Exhibit 3.23.a 2013 Employment Status

Unemployed, Full-time, 32.3% 42.1%

Part-time, 12.9% Retired, 12.7%

Sample Size = 730

Moore & Associates, Inc. | 2015 2015 Customer and Community Satisfaction Survey Golden Empire Transit District Final Report

Question 24: Are you a student? Nearly 12 percent of survey participants self-identified as being a student, down from nearly 20 percent in 2013. Of these, nearly nine percent of 2015 respondents cited being enrolled full-time.

Comparisons to 2009 are difficult because this question was phrased differently ( Are you either employed full-time outside the home or enrolled as a full-time student?).

Exhibit 3.24 Student Status

Full-time, 8.7% Part-time, 2.8%

n = 356

Not a student, 88.5%

Moore & Associates, Inc. | 2015 2015 Customer and Community Satisfaction Survey Golden Empire Transit District Final Report

Question 25: What is your approximate annual household income? The majority of respondents (71.7 percent) declined to answer this question. The most common income bracket given was less than $20,000 (7.2 percent), followed by $20,001 to $35,000 (5.1percent) and $35,001 to $50,000 (4.7 percent).

Exhibit 3.25 2015 Annual Household Income 80.0% 71.7% 70.0%

60.0% n = 512 50.0%

40.0%

30.0%

20.0% 7.2% 10.0% 5.1% 4.7% 3.7% 3.3% 4.3% 0.0% Less than $20,001 to $35,001 to $50,001 to $75,001 to More than Decline to $20,000 $35,000 $50,000 $75,000 $100,000 $100,000 respond

Adjusted to remove those who declined to respond, the percentage of survey participants who make less than $20,000 rises to 25.5 percent. In 2013, more than half of respondents who provided an income figure were in this income bracket. Nearly 18 percent of those who provided an income make between $20,001 and $35,000. Exhibit 3.25.a 2015 Annual Household Income (Adjusted) 30% 25.5% 25% n = 145

20% 17.9% 16.6% 15.2% 15% 13.1% 11.7%

10%

0% Less than $20,001 to $35,001 to $50,001 to $75,001 to More than $20,000 $35,000 $50,000 $75,000 $100,000 $100,000 74

Moore & Associates, Inc. | 2015 2015 Customer and Community Satisfaction Survey Golden Empire Transit District Final Report

Exhibit 3.25.b 2013 Community Survey Respondent Household income (Adjusted)

60% 50.2% 50%

40%

30% 21.9% 20% 9.6% 11.0% 10% 4.6% 2.8% 0% Less than $20,001 to $35,001 to $50,001 to $75,001 to More than $20,000 $35,000 $50,000 $75,000 $100,000 $100,000

Exhibit 3.25.c 2009 Community Survey Respondent Household income (Adjusted)

43.1% 45%

40%

35%

30% 20.6% 25%

20% 12.7% 15% 11.0% 7.3% 10% 5.4%

0% Less than $20,001 $35,001 $50,001 $75,001 More $20,000 to to to to than $35,000 $50,000 $75,000 $100,000 $100,000

Moore & Associates, Inc. | 2015 2015 Customer and Community Satisfaction Survey Golden Empire Transit District Final Report

This page intentionally blank.

Moore & Associates, Inc. | 2015 2015 Customer and Community Satisfaction Survey Golden Empire Transit District Final Report

Section 4 GET-A-Lift Survey

OVERVIEW AND METHODOLOGY Introduction The 2015 GET-A-Lift Rider Survey asked personal and demographic questions of riders of the GET-A-Lift (GAL) paratransit program in order to develop a profile of who is using the GAL service and for what reasons. The goal was to gather information as a tool to determine where GAL is successfully meeting the needs of the community and where improvements are needed.

The following sections discuss the methodologies by which the GET-A-Lift program survey was developed and administered along with the data collected.

Survey Development Prior surveys of GAL customers had been handled in-house by GET staff. Moore & Associates prepared an updated survey instrument for GET staff consideration. The new survey instrument was posted to Basecamp for GET staff review and approval. Given the customer base, it was deemed unnecessary to translate the survey instrument into Spanish, but bilingual surveyors presented each respondent an opportunity to complete the survey in either English or Spanish.

Sampling Plan GET provided a database of approximately 1,200 GAL program registrants. To complete this task, Moore & Associates randomly selected registrants contained within the customer database. The target sample was 200 valid responses.

Survey Administration Data Collection A total of 210 valid surveys were collected between May 22 and June 10, 2015. Initially we expected to collect all survey data via telephone; however, our initial data collection efforts (60 phone call attempts) yielded few valid responses. Therefore, in order to confirm the validity of the survey instrument and complete the project within the agreed upon budget, we elected to send out 600 mailings to GAL registrants randomly selected from the database provided by GET. Every GAL customer who completed the survey was given a $5 gift card as a participation incentive. The mailer effort resulted in a sample of 77 135 valid responses.

Moore & Associates, Inc. | 2015 2015 Customer and Community Satisfaction Survey Golden Empire Transit District Final Report

Following review of the initial survey data, Moore & Associates restarted the telephone survey. While the response rate was somewhat improved, it was clear that the refusal/no connection rate was such that the registrant database was too small to support achievement of the desired sample size (not less than 200 valid responses). Ultimately, we collected 75 valid surveys via the telephone methodology. The combination of mailings and phone calls resulted in 210 valid surveys, exceeding the sample target. This number of samples ensures a confidence level of 95 percent and a ±5.9 percent margin of error.

Data Processing Data Entry All survey data was entered into a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet using trained in-house data entry personnel. Following data entry, simple frequencies were compiled and posted to Basecamp for GET review.

Analytical Methods The SPSS database allowed our project team to compile simple frequencies as well as data cross- tabulations 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.

ANALYSIS AND KEY FINDINGS Profile Rider Based on the survey data, the “profile” GAL rider is between 50 to 64 years of age and makes less than $20,000 per year. This rider is not a licensed driver and uses GAL because he or she doesn’t drive or doesn’t have access to a personal vehicle.

The following analysis examines each question in the GET-A-Lift survey.

Section A: Tell us about the eligibility assessment process. Section A attempted to gauge GET-A-Lift customers’ satisfaction with the eligibility assessment process. Respondents were asked to rate their level of agreement with five statements about the GAL eligibility assessment process:

• Easy to schedule the appointment, • Was treated fairly, • My questions were answered, • Process was not complicated, and • Overall, I am satisfied with the eligibility assessment process.

For each statement, respondents were asked to choose between five satisfaction levels, the lowest 78 being “strongly disagree” and the highest being “strongly agree.” Responses were aggregated and a mean rating was calculated, allowing the attributes to be compared to one another. All eligibility

Moore & Associates, Inc. | 2015 2015 Customer and Community Satisfaction Survey Golden Empire Transit District Final Report

assessment attributes received a mean rating of 4.26 or higher, meaning respondents agreed with the above statements about the eligibility assessment process. The mean ratings are provided in Exhibit 4.1.

Exhibit 4.1 Eligibility Assessment Satisfaction Ratings Mean Statement Rating Easy to schedule appointment 4.26 Was treated fairly 4.47 My questions were answered 4.43 Process not complicated 4.29 Overall satisfaction 4.41

The highest rated statement, “was treated fairly,” received a mean satisfaction rating of 4.47. Nearly 95 percent of survey respondents agreed or strongly agreed with that statement. Nearly 92 percent of survey respondents agreed or strongly agreed with the next highest-rated statement, “my questions were answered,” which received a 4.43 mean rating.

More than half of all respondents strongly agreed with the statement “Overall, I am satisfied with the eligibility assessment process,” and nearly 93 percent agreed or strongly agreed with it.

The lowest rated statement was “easy to schedule appointment,” with a 4.26 mean rating. Slightly more than 13 percent of respondents disagreed, strongly disagreed, or were neutral about this statement. Nearly 87 percent of survey takers agreed or strongly agreed.

Section B: Tell us about the ride reservation process. Section B attempted to gauge satisfaction levels with the GAL ride reservation process. Respondents were asked to rate their level of agreement with five statements about the GET-A-Lift ride reservation process service:

• Able to reach a customer representative when I call, • Customer representative is polite/friendly, • Reservation process is not complicated, • Generally able to get the desired travel times, and • Overall, I am satisfied with the reservation process.

For each statement, respondents were asked to choose between five ratings, the lowest being “strongly disagree” and the highest being “strongly agree.” Responses were aggregated and a mean rating was calculated, allowing the satisfaction levels with each statement to be compared to one another. The mean ratings are provided in Exhibit 4.2.

Moore & Associates, Inc. | 2015 2015 Customer and Community Satisfaction Survey Golden Empire Transit District Final Report

Exhibit 4.2 Ride Reservation Satisfaction Ratings Mean Attribute Rating Able to reach representative 4.07 Representative is polite/friendly 4.45 Reservation process not complicated 4.29 Generally able to get desired times 4.10 Overall satisfaction 4.30

A large majority of respondents agreed or strongly agreed with each of these statements. Respondents gave their highest marks for the politeness/friendliness of customer representatives (4.45 mean rating). Nearly 93 percent of customers agreed or strongly agreed that representatives are polite/friendly. The second highest rating went for overall satisfaction (4.30 mean rating); more than 90 percent of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that overall they are satisfied with the GAL ride reservation process.

“Able to reach representative” received the lowest mean rating, 4.07. Five percent of respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed with this statement, and another 16.9 percent were neutral. Nearly 9 percent of respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement “generally able to get desired ride times.”

Section C: Tell us about the ride. Section C attempted to measure customer satisfaction with the GAL ride experience. Respondents were asked to rate their level of agreement with five statements about the GET-A-Lift ride:

• Vans arrive on time, • Van drivers are courteous/helpful, • Van interiors are clean, • I feel safe while onboard the vans, and • Overall, I am satisfied with the ride.

For each statement, respondents were asked to choose between five ratings, the lowest being “strongly disagree” and the highest being “strongly agree.” Responses were aggregated and a mean rating was calculated, allowing the agreement levels of each statement to be compared to one another. The mean ratings are provided in Exhibit 4.3.

Moore & Associates, Inc. | 2015 2015 Customer and Community Satisfaction Survey Golden Empire Transit District Final Report

Exhibit 4.3 Ride Satisfaction Ratings Mean Attribute Rating Vans arrive on time 4.06 Van drivers are courteous/helpful 4.46 Van interiors are clean 4.55 I feel safe onboard vans 4.54 Overall satisfaction 4.48

Overall, GAL riders generally agreed with each statement about the ride experience. Nearly 98 percent of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that van interiors are clean, and nearly 96 percent agreed or strongly agreed that they feel safe onboard vans. Nearly 95 percent of survey participants agreed or strongly agreed that they were satisfied overall with the ride.

It should be noted that the statement “vans arrive on time” received the lowest mean score (4.06) of any statement measured about the eligibility assessment, ride reservation, and ride experiences. Slightly more than 8 percent of respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed that vans arrive on time, while another 12.4 percent of respondents were neutral.

Section D: Tell us about you. Section D was a multi-part question designed to gather data about rider demographics and trip preferences. Respondents were first asked three yes/no questions, then four multiple choice questions. Responses and analysis for each question are provided below.

Do you have access to a personal vehicle? The vast majority of GAL riders do not have access to a personal vehicle.

Exhibit 4.4 Personal Vehicle Access Has access, 12.0%

n = 209

No access, 88.0%

Moore & Associates, Inc. | 2015 2015 Customer and Community Satisfaction Survey Golden Empire Transit District Final Report

Are you currently a licensed driver? Slightly more than 74 percent of GAL riders are not licensed drivers.

Exhibit 4.5 Licensed Drivers

Licensed, 25.6%

n = 207 Not licensed, 74.4%

When comparing the responses of riders who do not have access to a personal vehicle and riders who do not have a driver license, we find that 93 percent of survey respondents would be considered ride dependent because they either do not have personal vehicle access or a driver license, or they have neither.

Do you typically ride with a PCA (Personal Care Attendant)? Nearly 76 percent of GAL riders make trips without the aid of a Personal Care Attendant.

Exhibit 4.6 Personal Care Attendants

Rides with PCA, 24.2%

n = 207 Doesn't ride with PCA, 75.8%

Moore & Associates, Inc. | 2015 2015 Customer and Community Satisfaction Survey Golden Empire Transit District Final Report

What is the primary reason for using GET-A-Lift? (choose one) Nearly 52 percent of all survey respondents reported that they use GET-A-Lift because they have limited access to a personal vehicle or because they do not drive. Slightly more than 26 percent of survey participants reported that they use GET-A-Lift because they prefer it.

The total number of responses to this question were greater than the number of valid surveys because many mail-in respondents selected more than one reason. Although they were instructed to choose only one, we included all responses in the results.

Exhibit 4.7 Motivators for Riding 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%

Limited or access to a personal vehicle 20.9%

Don't drive/no longer drive 31.0%

Other transportation services are too 8.7% expensive

Don't know about other options 5.9%

Prefer GET-A-Lift 26.1%

Other 7.3% n = 287

Nearly 86 percent of the 7.3 percent who selected “other” specified that they use GAL because they are disabled or have a medical condition, while slightly more than 14 percent indicated that they have no other option.

Moore & Associates, Inc. | 2015 2015 Customer and Community Satisfaction Survey Golden Empire Transit District Final Report

What is your most preferred service improvement? (choose one) The largest number of survey participants reported that they would prefer a shorter wait time for the GAL vehicle to arrive (26.7 percent). The second most common preferred improvement was “other,” selected by nearly 18 percent of respondents, followed by “longer service hours” (12.7 percent).

The total number of responses to this question was greater than the number of valid surveys because some mail-in respondents selected more than one improvement option. Although they were instructed to choose only one option, we included all responses in the results.

Exhibit 4.8 Preferred Service Improvement 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

Shorter travel time 6.8%

Shorter wait time for the vehicle to … 26.7%

Reservation process 11.9%

Customer phone support 9.3%

Larger service area 7.6%

Driver sensitivity/attitude 7.2% n = 236 Longer service hours 12.7%

Other 17.8%

Half of the survey participants who specified a longer-hours preference said that they would like service to last until 9 p.m., while 25 percent specified that they would like service to last until 10 p.m.

Of the respondents who selected “other,” 42 percent reported that they desire no improvement. Ten percent specified that they would like a shorter trip duration, and eight percent desired shorter reservation wait time.

Moore & Associates, Inc. | 2015 2015 Customer and Community Satisfaction Survey Golden Empire Transit District Final Report

What is your approximate annual household income? (choose one) Nearly 69 percent of survey participants reported that they make less than $20,000 per year. The second most-common response was $20,001 to $35,000, selected by 13.3 percent of respondents.

Exhibit 4.9 Household Income 80% 68.6% 70%

60%

50% n = 210 40%

30%

20% 13.3% 14.8% 10% 1.9% 0.5% 1.0% 0% Less than $20,001 to $35,001 to $50,001 to More than Decline to $20,000 $35,000 $50,000 $75,000 $100,000 answer

What is your age? (choose one) More than half of GAL survey participants were 65 or older (51.5 percent). The highest single percentage for any single age bracket was the 31.3 percent who identified as being 50 to 64.

Exhibit 4.10 Age 35% 31.3% 30.3% 30%

25% n = 208 21.2% 20%

15% 11.1% 10%

5% 2.9% 3.4%

0% 16-24 25-34 35-49 50-64 65-74 75 or older 85

Moore & Associates, Inc. | 2015 2015 Customer and Community Satisfaction Survey Golden Empire Transit District Final Report

This page intentionally blank.

Moore & Associates, Inc. | 2015 2015 Customer and Community Satisfaction Survey Golden Empire Transit District Final Report

Appendix A Survey Instruments

A-1

Moore & Associates, Inc. | 2015 2015 Customer and Community Satisfaction Survey Golden Empire Transit District Final Report

This page intentionally blank.

A-2

Moore & Associates, Inc. | 2015 2015 Customer and Community Satisfaction Survey Golden Empire Transit District Final Report

Exhibit A.1 Fixed-Route Survey (English and Spanish)

A-3

Moore & Associates, Inc. | 2015 2015 Customer and Community Satisfaction Survey Golden Empire Transit District Final Report

A-4

Moore & Associates, Inc. | 2015 2015 Customer and Community Satisfaction Survey Golden Empire Transit District Final Report

Exhibit A.2 Community Telephone Survey (English and Spanish) Golden Empire Transit 2015 Community Telephone Survey

Date of Survey:______Time of Survey: ______

Hello, my name is and I’m calling on behalf of Golden Empire Transit, Metro Bakersfield’s public transit service. We’re conducting a survey to ask the community’s attitudes and opinions regarding public transit service. Time to complete the survey is estimated at 5 minutes, may I continue?

Qualifiers: A. Are you 16 years of age or older? □1 Yes (If yes, continue with survey) □2 No (Ask to speak with member of household 16 years or older. If no one over the age of 16 is home, conclude survey.)

B. What is your residential zip code? □1 93301 □2 93304 □3 93305 □4 93306 □5 93307 □6 93308 □7 93309 □8 93311 □9 93312 □10 93313 □11 None of the above (Conclude survey.)

Survey: 1. In the last 90 days, have you ridden either GET’s fixed-route bus service or the GET-A-Lift paratransit service? □1 Yes (If yes, continue to Question 2.) □1 GET fixed-route □2 GET-A-Lift □2 No 1A. (If No) What is the primary reason you do not ride GET services? □1 Does not go where I need to □2 Takes too long (i.e., time on bus) □3 Does not run/operate frequently enough □ Costs too much 4 A-5 □5 Don’t know how to use it □6 Have access to a personal vehicle □7 Other (specify)______

Moore & Associates, Inc. | 2015 2015 Customer and Community Satisfaction Survey Golden Empire Transit District Final Report

(Jump to Question 9) Rider: 2. How many times in a typical week do you ride GET? □1 1-2 □2 3-4 □3 5 or more □4 Less frequently (i.e., once or twice a month)

3. On a five-point scale (where one is “poor” and five is “excellent”), how would you rate your overall satisfaction with GET services? □ 1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5

4. When riding GET, what is your most common trip purpose? □1 Work □2 Shopping □3 Visiting friends □4 School □5 Healthcare □6 Personal business □7 Other – specify: ______

5. When riding GET, what route or service do you use most often? □1 Specify route number ______□2 GET-A-Lift

6. On a scale of one to five (wherein one equals “poor” and five equals “excellent”), please rate the following GET service attributes. a. Service frequency □ 1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5 b. Time it takes to travel via GET □ 1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5 c. Operating hours □ 1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5 d. Comfort onboard vehicle □ 1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5 e. Safety onboard vehicle □ 1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5 f. Fare or cost □ 1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5 g. Safety at bus stops □ 1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5 h. Reliability of service □ 1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5 i. Accessibility of service □ 1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5 j. Availability of service info □ 1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5

7. On a scale of one to five (wherein one equals “not important” and five equals “very important”), how important a role does cost (the fare you pay) play in making your decision to ride GET or GET-A-Lift? A-6 □ 1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5

Moore & Associates, Inc. | 2015 2015 Customer and Community Satisfaction Survey Golden Empire Transit District Final Report

8. Where have you typically obtained information regarding GET services?

□1 Home □2 Work □3 School □4 No Access □5 Library □6 Cell phone/mobile device □7 Other: ______

Non-Rider/Both: 9. Do you know the location of the GET bus stop nearest to your home? □1 Yes □2 No

10. What are your two most common methods of travel in and around Bakersfield? □1 Drive own vehicle □2 Walk □3 Ride bicycle □4 Public transit (GET or GET-A-Lift) □5 Carpool □6 Other (specify): ______

11. Do you have access to the internet at your home? □1 Yes □2 No

12. Have you visited the GET website within the past 90 days? □1 Yes □2 No

13. Have you seen any advertising for GET within the past 90 days? □1 Yes, (specify where)______□2 No

14. If your typical/normal method of travel was not available, would you consider riding GET or GET-A-Lift? □1 Yes □2 No

15. What change, if any, could cause you to ride GET or GET-A-Lift? (select up to 2) □1 More frequent service □2 More weekend service □3 Shorter travel time □4 Later operating/service hours □5 Earlier operating/service hours A-7 □6 Higher gas prices (specify price) ______□7 Different destination(s) (specify destinations)______□8 Other – specify: ______

Moore & Associates, Inc. | 2015 2015 Customer and Community Satisfaction Survey Golden Empire Transit District Final Report

□9 Nothing would change my mind 16. If your employer offered discounted GET bus passes, would this cause you to begin riding the bus? □1 Yes □2 No

17. Do you believe public transit plays an important role in your community’s quality of life? □1 Yes □2 No

18. Would you support a dedicated sales tax supporting increased and/or improved public bus service throughout the Bakersfield Metropolitan area? □1 Yes □2 No

19. Do you have a valid driver license? □1 Yes □2 No

Demographics: The last group of questions includes demographic information and you may decline to respond.

20. What is your age? □1 16 to 18 □2 19 to 24 □3 25 to 44 □4 45 to 64 □5 65 or older □6 Decline to respond

21. What is your gender? □1 Male □2 Female □3 Decline to respond (If decline, attempt to answer via voice)

22. Please indicate which languages are spoken in your home (select all that apply). □1 English □2 Spanish □3 Other (specify)______□4 Decline to respond

23. Are you employed? □1 Full-time □2 Part-time □3 Retired □4 Unemployed

24. Are you a student? □1 Full-time □2 Part-time □3 Not a student

25. What is your approximate annual household income? □1 Less than $20,000 □2 $20,001 to $35,000 □3 $35,001 to $50,000 □4 $50,001 to $75,000 □5 $75,001 to $100,000 □6 More than $100,000 □ Decline to respond 7 A-8

That concludes our survey. Thank you for participating. The survey findings will be posted on GET’s website, GETBUS.org

Moore & Associates, Inc. | 2015 2015 Customer and Community Satisfaction Survey Golden Empire Transit District Final Report

Exhibit A.3 GET-A-Lift Survey

A-9

Moore & Associates, Inc. | 2015 2015 Customer and Community Satisfaction Survey Golden Empire Transit District Final Report

A-10

Moore & Associates, Inc. | 2015 2015 Customer and Community Satisfaction Survey Golden Empire Transit District Final Report

Appendix B Rider Survey Simple Frequencies

B-1

Moore & Associates, Inc. | 2015 2015 Customer and Community Satisfaction Survey Golden Empire Transit District Final Report

This page intentionally blank.

B-2

Moore & Associates, Inc. | 2015 2015 Customer and Community Satisfaction Survey Golden Empire Transit District Final Report

Survey Language Cum ulati Freq Pe Valid ve uen rce Perc Perc cy nt ent ent Val English 2,89 93. 93.8 93.8 id 8 8 Spanish 100. 190 6.2 6.2 0 Total 3,08 10 100.

8 0.0 0

Route Cum ulati Freq Pe Valid ve uen rce Perc Perc cy nt ent ent Val 20 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 id 21 255 8.3 8.3 8.3 22 21. 648 21.0 29.3 0 27 3 0.1 0.1 29.4 41 194 6.3 6.3 35.7 42 208 6.7 6.7 42.4 43 283 9.2 9.2 51.6 44 303 9.8 9.8 61.4 45 197 6.4 6.4 67.7 46 25 0.8 0.8 68.6 47 46 1.5 1.5 70.0 48 3 0.1 0.1 70.1 501 1 0.0 0.0 70.2 61 181 5.9 5.9 76.0 62 113 3.7 3.7 79.7 65 1 0.0 0.0 79.7 80 2 0.1 0.1 79.8 81 10. 318 10.3 90.1 3 82 96 3.1 3.1 93.2 83 95 3.1 3.1 96.3 84 106 3.4 3.4 99.7 92 7 0.2 0.2 99.9 93 100. 1 0.0 0.0 0 99 100. 1 0.0 0.0 0 Total 3,08 10 100. B-3 8 0.0 0

Moore & Associates, Inc. | 2015 2015 Customer and Community Satisfaction Survey Golden Empire Transit District Final Report

Q4. Does this trip include a transfer? Cum ulati Freq Pe Valid ve uen rce Perc Perc cy nt ent ent Val Yes 19. 603 19.7 19.7 id 5 No 2,45 79. 100. 80.3 4 5 0 Total 3,05 99. 100.

7 0 0 Mi System ssi 31 1.0 ng Total 3,08 10

8 0.0

Q4a. If trip includes a transfer, to/from: Cum ulati Freq Pe Valid ve uen rce Perc Perc cy nt ent ent Val Another GET bus 24. 754 94.1 94.1 id 4 Kern Transit 100. 47 1.5 5.9 0 Total 25. 100. 801 9 0 Mi System 2,28 74. ssi 7 1 ng Total 3,08 10

8 0.0

Q5. How did you get to the bus stop today? Cum ulati Freq Pe Valid ve uen rce Perc Perc cy nt ent ent Val Walked more than 4 blocks 1,02 33. 34.7 34.7 id 4 2 Drove self 65 2.1 2.2 36.9 Walked less than 4 blocks 1,07 34. 36.6 73.5 8 9 Rode bike 92 3.0 3.1 76.6 Transfer from another bus 14. 434 14.7 91.4 1 Dropped off 191 6.2 6.5 97.8 Other 100. 64 2.1 2.2 0 Total 2,94 95. 100. B-4

8 5 0 Mi System 140 4.5 ssi

Moore & Associates, Inc. | 2015 2015 Customer and Community Satisfaction Survey Golden Empire Transit District Final Report ng Total 3,08 10

8 0.0

Q6. What is the primary purpose for today's trip? Cum ulati Freq Pe Valid ve uen rce Perc Perc cy nt ent ent Val Work 24. 754 26.5 26.5 id 4 Shopping 16. 499 17.5 44.0 2 Visiting friends 226 7.3 7.9 51.9 School 14. 457 16.0 68.0 8 Healthcare 189 6.1 6.6 74.6 Personal business 21. 663 23.3 97.9 5 Other 100. 60 1.9 2.1 0 Total 2,84 92. 100.

8 2 0 Mi System ssi 240 7.8 ng Total 3,08 10

8 0.0

Q7. Why did you choose GET for this trip? Cum ulati Freq Pe Valid ve uen rce Perc Perc cy nt ent ent Val Cost 19. 609 21.9 21.9 id 7 Proximity to my destination 274 8.9 9.9 31.8 Lack of car 1,73 56. 62.4 94.2 4 2 Avoid traffic/parking 85 2.8 3.1 97.3 Other 100. 75 2.4 2.7 0 Total 2,77 89. 100.

7 9 0 Mi System 10. ssi 311 1 ng Total 3,08 10

8 0.0 Q7. Other - Specify Valid Cumulative B-5 Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid Can't Drive 2,987 96.7 96.7 96.7

Moore & Associates, Inc. | 2015 2015 Customer and Community Satisfaction Survey Golden Empire Transit District Final Report

Can't Drive 49 1.6 1.6 98.3 Cost Cost 1 0.0 0.0 98.3 Disability Disability Faster Than 4 0.1 0.1 98.5 Walking

Faster Than Walking Good for the 3 0.1 0.1 98.6 environment

Good for the It's Safe 2 0.1 0.1 98.6 environment It's Safe No other 1 0.0 0.0 98.7 option No other option Prefer Bus 32 1.0 1.0 99.7

Prefer Bus 5 0.2 0.2 99.9 Save Gas Save Gas 3 0.1 0.1 100.0 Work Work 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 Total Total 3,088 100.0 100.0

Q8a. Service Frequency Cum ulati Freq Pe Valid ve uen rce Perc Perc cy nt ent ent Val Poor 210 6.8 7.2 7.2 id Fair 208 6.7 7.1 14.3 Neutral 18. 564 19.4 33.7 3 Good 24. 763 26.2 59.9 7 Excellent 1,16 37. 100. 40.1 9 9 0 Total 2,91 94. 100.

4 4 0 Mi System ssi 174 5.6 ng Total 3,08 10

8 0.0

Q8b. Time it takes to travel via GET Cum ulati Freq Pe Valid ve uen rce Perc Perc cy nt ent ent Val Poor 229 7.4 7.9 7.9 id Fair 252 8.2 8.7 16.6 Neutral 21. B-6 650 22.4 38.9 0 Good 25. 785 27.0 66.0 4

Moore & Associates, Inc. | 2015 2015 Customer and Community Satisfaction Survey Golden Empire Transit District Final Report

Excellent 32. 100. 988 34.0 0 0 Total 2,90 94. 100.

4 0 0 Mi System ssi 184 6.0 ng Total 3,08 10

8 0.0

Q8c. Operating hours Cum ulati Freq Pe Valid ve uen rce Perc Perc cy nt ent ent Val Poor 13. 400 13.8 13.8 id 0 Fair 279 9.0 9.6 23.5 Neutral 18. 584 20.2 43.7 9 Good 22. 681 23.5 67.2 1 Excellent 30. 100. 948 32.8 7 0 Total 2,89 93. 100.

2 7 0 Mi System ssi 196 6.3 ng Total 3,08 10

8 0.0

Q8d. Comfort onboard vehicle Cum ulati Freq Pe Valid ve uen rce Perc Perc cy nt ent ent Val Poor 131 4.2 4.5 4.5 id Fair 116 3.8 4.0 8.5 Neutral 15. 484 16.7 25.3 7 Good 27. 859 29.7 54.9 8 Excellent 1,30 42. 100. 45.1 5 3 0 Total 2,89 93. 100.

5 8 0 Mi System ssi 193 6.3 ng Total 3,08 10

8 0.0 B-7

Q8e. Safety onboard vehicle

Moore & Associates, Inc. | 2015 2015 Customer and Community Satisfaction Survey Golden Empire Transit District Final Report

Cum ulati Freq Pe Valid ve uen rce Perc Perc cy nt ent ent Val Poor 119 3.9 4.1 4.1 id Fair 115 3.7 4.0 8.1 Neutral 13. 412 14.2 22.3 3 Good 25. 792 27.3 49.6 6 Excellent 1,46 47. 100. 50.4 0 3 0 Total 2,89 93. 100.

8 8 0 Mi System ssi 190 6.2 ng Total 3,08 10

8 0.0

Q8f. Fare or cost Cum ulati Freq Pe Valid ve uen rce Perc Perc cy nt ent ent Val Poor 149 4.8 5.1 5.1 id Fair 155 5.0 5.3 10.4 Neutral 16. 500 17.2 27.6 2 Good 22. 687 23.6 51.2 2 Excellent 1,42 46. 100. 48.8 0 0 0 Total 2,91 94. 100.

1 3 0 Mi System ssi 177 5.7 ng Total 3,08 10

8 0.0

Q8g. Safety at the bus stop Cum ulati Freq Pe Valid ve uen rce Perc Perc cy nt ent ent Val Poor 163 5.3 5.6 5.6 id Fair 191 6.2 6.6 12.2 Neutral 17. 549 18.9 31.1 8 B-8 Good 24. 753 25.9 57.1 4 Excellent 1,24 40. 42.9 100.

Moore & Associates, Inc. | 2015 2015 Customer and Community Satisfaction Survey Golden Empire Transit District Final Report

6 3 0 Total 2,90 94. 100.

2 0 0 Mi System ssi 186 6.0 ng Total 3,08 10

8 0.0

Q8h. Reliability of service Cum ulati Freq Pe Valid ve uen rce Perc Perc cy nt ent ent Val Poor 201 6.5 6.9 6.9 id Fair 246 8.0 8.5 15.4 Neutral 19. 598 20.6 36.0 4 Good 23. 723 24.9 61.0 4 Excellent 1,13 36. 100. 39.0 1 6 0 Total 2,89 93. 100.

9 9 0 Mi System ssi 189 6.1 ng Total 3,08 10

8 0.0

Q8i. Accessibility of service Cum ulati Freq Pe Valid ve uen rce Perc Perc cy nt ent ent Val Poor 162 5.2 5.6 5.6 id Fair 186 6.0 6.4 12.0 Neutral 16. 520 18.0 30.1 8 Good 25. 788 27.3 57.3 5 Excellent 1,23 39. 100. 42.7 2 9 0 Total 2,88 93. 100.

8 5 0 Mi System ssi 200 6.5 ng Total 3,08 10

8 0.0 B-9 Q8j. Availability of service info Freq Pe Valid Cum uen rce Perc ulati

Moore & Associates, Inc. | 2015 2015 Customer and Community Satisfaction Survey Golden Empire Transit District Final Report

cy nt ent ve Perc ent Val Poor 167 5.4 5.8 5.8 id Fair 151 4.9 5.2 11.0 Neutral 14. 455 15.8 26.8 7 Good 25. 784 27.2 54.0 4 Excellent 1,32 43. 100. 46.0 9 0 0 Total 2,88 93. 100.

6 5 0 Mi System ssi 202 6.5 ng Total 3,08 10

8 0.0

Q8k. Overall satisfaction with GET Cum ulati Freq Pe Valid ve uen rce Perc Perc cy nt ent ent Val Poor 135 4.4 4.7 4.7 id Fair 143 4.6 4.9 9.6 Neutral 18. 559 19.3 28.9 1 Good 28. 887 30.6 59.4 7 Excellent 1,17 38. 100. 40.6 7 1 0 Total 2,90 93. 100.

1 9 0 Mi System ssi 187 6.1 ng Total 3,08 10

8 0.0

Q9. How important is cost in making your decision to ride GET? Cum ulati Freq Pe Valid ve uen rce Perc Perc cy nt ent ent Val Not important 167 5.4 5.8 5.8 id Somewhat unimportant 116 3.8 4.0 9.8 Neither important or unimportant 14. 452 15.7 25.5 6 Somewhat important 17. 538 18.6 44.1 4 B-10 Very important 1,61 52. 100. 55.9 2 2 0 Total 2,88 93. 100.

Moore & Associates, Inc. | 2015 2015 Customer and Community Satisfaction Survey Golden Empire Transit District Final Report

5 4 0 Mi System ssi 203 6.6 ng Total 3,08 10

8 0.0

Q10.1 If GET introduced a 5 - or 10 -day pass for use on local bus service, would you... Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid Likely purchase a 5-day 851 27.6 100.0 100.0 pass

Valid Likely purchase a 10-day 1,018 33.0 100.0 100.0 pass

Valid Unlikely to 756 24.5 100.0 100.0 purchase either Total 3,088 100.0 100.0 100.0

Q11. Which of the following possible service enhancements is most important to you? Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid More frequent service 968 31.3 35.1 35.1 More weekend service 741 24.0 26.9 62.0 Shorter travel time 295 9.6 10.7 72.7 Later operating/service hours 523 16.9 19.0 91.7 Earlier operating/service hours 134 4.3 4.9 96.6 Different destination(s) 94 3.0 3.4 100.0 Total 2,755 89.2 100.0 Missing System 333 10.8 Total 3,088 100.0

Q12. How many additional trips would you make each week if the selected improvement was made? Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid No change 373 12.1 13.3 13.3 Less than 1 110 3.6 3.9 17.2 1-2 trips 550 17.8 19.6 36.9 3-4 trips 1,071 34.7 38.2 75.1 5 or more trips 699 22.6 24.9 100.0 B-11 Total 2,803 90.8 100.0 Missing System 285 9.2

Moore & Associates, Inc. | 2015 2015 Customer and Community Satisfaction Survey Golden Empire Transit District Final Report

Total 3,088 100.0 Q13. How often do you ride GET? Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid Less than once a week 199 6.4 7.2 7.2 1-2 times a week 317 10.3 11.5 18.7 3-4 times a week 679 22.0 24.6 43.3 5 or more times a week 1,566 50.7 56.7 100.0 Total 2,761 89.4 100.0 Missing System 327 10.6 Total 3,088 100.0

Q14. How long have you been a GET customer? Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid Less than 1 year 437 14.2 16.1 16.1 1-2 years 452 14.6 16.7 32.8 3-4 years 409 13.2 15.1 47.9 5 years or more 1,414 45.8 52.1 100.0 Total 2,712 87.8 100.0 Missing System 376 12.2 Total 3,088 100.0

Q15. How would you travel if GET were not available Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid Drive own vehicle 285 9.2 10.5 10.5 Ride bicycle 483 15.6 17.8 28.3 Friend/family member 704 22.8 26.0 54.3 Walk 889 28.8 32.8 87.1 Wouldn't make trip 254 8.2 9.4 96.5 Taxi 86 2.8 3.2 99.6 Other 10 0.3 0.4 100.0 Total 2,711 87.8 100.0 Missing System 377 12.2 Total 3,088 100.0

Q16. How do you typically pay for your GET trip? Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid Cash fare (single ride) 919 29.8 34.1 34.1 Day pass 593 19.2 22.0 56.0 31-Day pass 1,186 38.4 44.0 100.0 Total 2,698 87.4 100.0 Missing System 390 12.6 B-12 Total 3,088 100.0

Moore & Associates, Inc. | 2015 2015 Customer and Community Satisfaction Survey Golden Empire Transit District Final Report

Q17. If GET offered fare payment by credit card and/or debit card, would you use it? Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid Debit card 584 18.9 21.7 21.7 Credit card 101 3.3 3.8 25.5 Both 883 28.6 32.8 58.3 Neither 1,121 36.3 41.7 100.0 Total 2,689 87.1 100.0 Missing System 399 12.9 Total 3,088 100.0

Q18. What fare category typically applies to you? Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid Regular fare 2,055 66.5 79.3 79.3 Senior/Disabled/Medicare discounted 537 17.4 20.7 100.0 fare Total 2,592 83.9 100.0 Missing System 496 16.1 Total 3,088 100.0

Q19. What is your approximate annual household income? Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid Less than $20,000 1,572 50.9 50.9 50.9 $20,001 to $35,000 206 6.7 6.7 57.6 $35,001 to $50,000 174 5.6 5.6 63.2 $50,001 to $75,000 40 1.3 1.3 64.5 $75,001 to $100,000 36 1.2 1.2 65.7 More than $100,000 20 0.6 0.6 66.3 Decline to respond 1,040 33.7 33.7 100.0 Total 3,088 100.0 100.0

Q20. Are you - Valid Latino 1,155 37.4 100.0 100.0 Valid Black 467 15.1 100.0 100.0 Valid White 800 25.9 100.0 100.0 Valid Asian/Pacific Islander 93 3.0 100.0 100.0

Valid American Indian 131 4.2 100.0 100.0

Valid Other 104 3.4 100.0 100.0 B-13 Valid Decline to respond 133 4.3 100.0 100.0

Moore & Associates, Inc. | 2015 2015 Customer and Community Satisfaction Survey Golden Empire Transit District Final Report

Total 3,088 100.0 Q21. Language spoken at home - Spanish Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid English 2,403 77.8 100.0 100.0 Valid Spanish 710 23.0 100.0 100.0 Valid Other 73 2.4 100.0 100.0 Valid Decline to respond 401 13.0 100.0 100.0 Total 3,088 100.0

Q21. Other - Specify Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid 3,034 98.3 98.3 98.3

American Sign 17 0.6 0.6 98.8 Language Arabic 1 0.0 0.0 98.8 Burmese 2 0.1 0.1 98.9 Chinese 6 0.2 0.2 99.1 Dutch 1 0.0 0.0 99.1 French 4 0.1 0.1 99.3

German 2 0.1 0.1 99.3 Hindi 1 0.0 0.0 99.4 Hmong 1 0.0 0.0 99.4 Indian 2 0.1 0.1 99.4 Italian 1 0.0 0.0 99.5 Portuguese 3 0.1 0.1 99.6

Punjabi 5 0.2 0.2 99.7 Russian 2 0.1 0.1 99.8 Sinhala 1 0.0 0.0 99.8 Tagalog 5 0.2 0.2 100.0 Total 3,088 100.0 100.0

Q22. Gender Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid Male 1,254 40.6 40.6 40.6 B-14 Female 1,342 43.5 43.5 84.1 Decline to respond 492 15.9 15.9 100.0

Moore & Associates, Inc. | 2015 2015 Customer and Community Satisfaction Survey Golden Empire Transit District Final Report

Total 3,088 100.0 100.0 Q23. What is your age? Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid 16 to 18 285 9.2 9.2 9.2 19 to 24 682 22.1 22.1 31.3 25 to 44 810 26.2 26.2 57.5 45 to 64 627 20.3 20.3 77.8 65 or older 152 4.9 4.9 82.8 Decline to respond 532 17.2 17.2 100.0 Total 3,088 100.0 100.0

Q24. Where do you typically obtain information about GET services? Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid Printed schedule 844 27.3 100.0 100.0 Valid GET website 789 25.6 100.0 100.0

Valid At the bus stop 645 20.9 100.0 100.0 Valid No access 86 2.8 100.0 100.0

Valid Bus driver 575 18.6 100.0 100.0

Valid On the bus 469 15.2 100.0 100.0

Valid Customer call center 650 21.0 100.0 100.0 Valid Cell phone/mobile device 473 15.3 100.0 100.0

Valid Other 72 2.3 100.0 100.0

Q24. Other - Specify

Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid 3,036 98.3 98.3 98.3 Board Meeting 6 0.2 0.2 98.5 Computer 1 0.0 0.0 98.5 CSUB 1 0.0 0.0 98.6 Family B-15 2 0.1 0.1 98.6

Friend 12 0.4 0.4 99.0

Moore & Associates, Inc. | 2015 2015 Customer and Community Satisfaction Survey Golden Empire Transit District Final Report

Google Maps 14 0.5 0.5 99.5

Mobile App 6 0.2 0.2 99.7

News Media 3 0.1 0.1 99.8

Newspaper 1 0.0 0.0 99.8

Office Downtown 1 0.0 0.0 99.8

Other website 1 0.0 0.0 99.9 Other Website 1 0.0 0.0 99.9 Transit Centers 3 0.1 0.1 100.0 Total 3,088 100.0 100.0

Q25. What is your home zip code? Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid 23308 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 33022 1 0.0 0.0 0.1 43307 1 0.0 0.0 0.1 82209 1 0.0 0.0 0.2 82935 1 0.0 0.0 0.2 90008 1 0.0 0.0 0.2 90309 1 0.0 0.0 0.3 90581 2 0.1 0.1 0.4 91950 1 0.0 0.0 0.4 92313 1 0.0 0.0 0.5 92405 1 0.0 0.0 0.5 93004 1 0.0 0.0 0.5 93005 2 0.1 0.1 0.6 93009 2 0.1 0.1 0.7 93012 1 0.0 0.0 0.7 93108 1 0.0 0.0 0.8 93202 1 0.0 0.0 0.8 93203 4 0.1 0.2 1.0 93205 1 0.0 0.0 1.0 93207 1 0.0 0.0 1.1 93208 1 0.0 0.0 1.1 93209 2 0.1 0.1 1.2 93210 1 0.0 0.0 1.2 B-16 93211 1 0.0 0.0 1.3 93214 1 0.0 0.0 1.3 93215 9 0.3 0.4 1.7

Moore & Associates, Inc. | 2015 2015 Customer and Community Satisfaction Survey Golden Empire Transit District Final Report

93224 1 0.0 0.0 1.7 93240 3 0.1 0.1 1.9 93241 8 0.3 0.3 2.2 93243 3 0.1 0.1 2.3 93257 1 0.0 0.0 2.3 93263 13 0.4 0.5 2.9 93268 7 0.2 0.3 3.2 93280 20 0.6 0.8 4.0 93300 1 0.0 0.0 4.0 93301 163 5.3 6.7 10.7 93302 12 0.4 0.5 11.2 93303 12 0.4 0.5 11.7 93304 366 11.9 15.1 26.8 93305 320 10.4 13.2 40.0 93306 241 7.8 9.9 49.9 93307 405 13.1 16.7 66.6 93308 267 8.6 11.0 77.6 93309 270 8.7 11.1 88.7 93311 43 1.4 1.8 90.5 93312 71 2.3 2.9 93.4 93313 78 2.5 3.2 96.6 93314 23 0.7 0.9 97.6 93315 3 0.1 0.1 97.7 93317 4 0.1 0.2 97.9 93318 1 0.0 0.0 97.9 93319 2 0.1 0.1 98.0 93320 1 0.0 0.0 98.0 93321 2 0.1 0.1 98.1 93322 1 0.0 0.0 98.1 93323 1 0.0 0.0 98.2 93347 2 0.1 0.1 98.3 93348 1 0.0 0.0 98.3 93351 1 0.0 0.0 98.4 93359 1 0.0 0.0 98.4 93361 2 0.1 0.1 98.5 93368 1 0.0 0.0 98.5 93381 1 0.0 0.0 98.6 93384 1 0.0 0.0 98.6 93385 5 0.2 0.2 98.8 93387 1 0.0 0.0 98.8 93388 2 0.1 0.1 98.9 93389 1 0.0 0.0 99.0 93390 1 0.0 0.0 99.0 93394 1 0.0 0.0 99.1 93507 3 0.1 0.1 99.2 93509 2 0.1 0.1 99.3 B-17 93541 1 0.0 0.0 99.3 93555 1 0.0 0.0 99.3

Moore & Associates, Inc. | 2015 2015 Customer and Community Satisfaction Survey Golden Empire Transit District Final Report

93561 1 0.0 0.0 99.4 93701 1 0.0 0.0 99.4 93738 1 0.0 0.0 99.5 93765 1 0.0 0.0 99.5 93907 1 0.0 0.0 99.5 95105 1 0.0 0.0 99.6 95263 1 0.0 0.0 99.6 95303 1 0.0 0.0 99.7 95307 1 0.0 0.0 99.7 95308 2 0.1 0.1 99.8 95311 1 0.0 0.0 99.8 95511 1 0.0 0.0 99.9 96301 1 0.0 0.0 99.9 96694 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 99304 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 Total 2,428 78.6 100.0 Missing System 660 21.4 Total 3,088 100.0

Q26. Are you employed? Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid Full-time 512 16.6 20.0 20.0 Part-time 694 22.5 27.1 47.0 Retired 254 8.2 9.9 56.9 Unemployed 1,105 35.8 43.1 100.0 Total 2,565 83.1 100.0 Missing System 523 16.9 Total 3,088 100.0

Q27. Are you a student? Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid Full-time 552 17.9 22.0 22.0 Part-time 423 13.7 16.8 38.8 Not a student 1,537 49.8 61.2 100.0 Total 2,512 81.3 100.0 Missing System 576 18.7 Total 3,088 100.0

Q28.1 Do you own or regularly use a...? Frequency Percent Valid Smartphone 1,746 56.5 Tablet 388 12.6 B-18 Computer 670 21.7

Moore & Associates, Inc. | 2015 2015 Customer and Community Satisfaction Survey Golden Empire Transit District Final Report

Appendix C Community Telephone Survey Simple Frequencies

C-1

Moore & Associates, Inc. | 2015 2015 Customer and Community Satisfaction Survey Golden Empire Transit District Final Report

This page intentionally blank.

C-2

Moore & Associates, Inc. | 2015 2015 Customer and Community Satisfaction Survey Golden Empire Transit District Final Report

Qualifier.A Are you 16 years of age or older? Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid Yes (If yes, continue with survey) 512 100.0 100.0 100.0

Qualifier.B What is your residential zip code? Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid 93301 67 13.1 13.1 13.1 93304 130 25.4 25.4 38.5 93305 75 14.6 14.6 53.1 93306 205 40.0 40.0 93.2 93307 9 1.8 1.8 94.9 93308 3 0.6 0.6 95.5 93309 7 1.4 1.4 96.9 93311 8 1.6 1.6 98.4 93312 4 0.8 0.8 99.2 93313 3 0.6 0.6 99.8 None of the above 1 0.2 0.2 100.0 Total 512 100.0 100.0

In the last 90 days, have you ridden either GET's fixed -route bus service or the GET -A-Lift paratransit service? Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid No 438 85.5 85.5 85.5 Yes, GET 74 14.5 14.5 100.0 Total 512 100.0 100.0

Q1.A What is the primary reason you do not ride GET services? Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid Does not go where I need to 14 2.7 3.2 3.2 Takes too long (i.e., time on bus) 7 1.4 1.6 4.8 Does not run/operate frequently enough 4 0.8 0.9 5.7 Costs too much 3 0.6 0.7 6.4 Don't know how to use it 9 1.8 2.0 8.4 Have access to a personal vehicle 390 76.2 88.6 97.0 Other (specify) 13 2.5 3.0 100.0 Total 440 85.9 100.0 Missing System 72 14.1 Total 512 100.0 C-3

Moore & Associates, Inc. | 2015 2015 Customer and Community Satisfaction Survey Golden Empire Transit District Final Report

Q1.A Other (specify): Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid 503 98.2 98.2 98.2 Blind 1 0.2 0.2 98.4 Carpool 2 0.4 0.4 98.8 Just moved to Bakersfield 1 0.2 0.2 99.0 Not able to be exposed to UV lighting 1 0.2 0.2 99.2 Taxi 1 0.2 0.2 99.4 Walk 2 0.4 0.4 99.8 Work out of town 1 0.2 0.2 100.0 Total 512 100.0 100.0

Q2. How many times in a typical week do you ride GET? Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid 1-2 19 3.7 24.7 24.7 3-4 25 4.9 32.5 57.1 5 or more 20 3.9 26.0 83.1 Less frequently (i.e., once or twice a month) 13 2.5 16.9 100.0 Total 77 15.0 100.0 Missin System 435 85.0 g Total 512 100.0

Q3. On a five-point scale (where one is "poor" and five is "excellent"), how would you rate your overall satisfaction with GET services? Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid Poor 7 1.4 9.3 9.3 Fair 3 0.6 4.0 13.3 Neutral 14 2.7 18.7 32.0 Good 26 5.1 34.7 66.7 Excellent 25 4.9 33.3 100.0 Total 75 14.6 100.0 Missin System 437 85.4 g Total 512 100.0

Q4. When riding GET, what is your most common trip purpose? Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid Work 17 3.3 23.0 23.0 Shopping 12 2.3 16.2 39.2 Visiting friends 2 0.4 2.7 41.9 School 9 1.8 12.2 54.1 C-4 Healthcare 23 4.5 31.1 85.1 Personal business 11 2.1 14.9 100.0

Moore & Associates, Inc. | 2015 2015 Customer and Community Satisfaction Survey Golden Empire Transit District Final Report

Total 74 14.5 100.0 Missin System 438 85.5 g Total 512 100.0

Q5. When riding GET, what route or service do you use most often? Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid 441 86.1 86.1 86.1 11, 22, 45 1 0.2 0.2 86.3 17 1 0.2 0.2 86.5 21, 22, 43, 61 1 0.2 0.2 86.7 21, 41, 43 1 0.2 0.2 86.9 21, 44 1 0.2 0.2 87.1 21, 44, 45, 81 1 0.2 0.2 87.3 21, 45 1 0.2 0.2 87.5 22 7 1.4 1.4 88.9 22, 43 1 0.2 0.2 89.1 32 1 0.2 0.2 89.3 4 1 0.2 0.2 89.5 41, 42 1 0.2 0.2 89.6 41, 43, 44 1 0.2 0.2 89.8 42 2 0.4 0.4 90.2 42, 45 1 0.2 0.2 90.4 43 3 0.6 0.6 91.0 43, 81 1 0.2 0.2 91.2 44 2 0.4 0.4 91.6 45 6 1.2 1.2 92.8 45, 46 1 0.2 0.2 93.0 47, 83 1 0.2 0.2 93.2 48 1 0.2 0.2 93.4 5 1 0.2 0.2 93.6 52 1 0.2 0.2 93.8 6 1 0.2 0.2 93.9 61, 82, 84 1 0.2 0.2 94.1 8 1 0.2 0.2 94.3 81 5 1.0 1.0 95.3 83 1 0.2 0.2 95.5 GET-A-Lift 16 3.1 3.1 98.6 Not sure 7 1.4 1.4 100.0 Total 512 100.0 100.0 Q6.a Service frequency Valid Cumulative C-5 Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid Poor 7 1.4 9.5 9.5 Fair 4 0.8 5.4 14.9

Moore & Associates, Inc. | 2015 2015 Customer and Community Satisfaction Survey Golden Empire Transit District Final Report

Neutral 10 2.0 13.5 28.4 Good 19 3.7 25.7 54.1 Excellent 34 6.6 45.9 100.0 Total 74 14.5 100.0 Missin System 438 85.5 g Total 512 100.0 Q6.b Time it takes to travel via GET Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid Poor 6 1.2 8.1 8.1 Fair 6 1.2 8.1 16.2 Neutral 17 3.3 23.0 39.2 Good 25 4.9 33.8 73.0 Excellent 20 3.9 27.0 100.0 Total 74 14.5 100.0 Missin System 438 85.5 g Total 512 100.0

Q6.c Operating hours Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid Poor 6 1.2 8.1 8.1 Fair 7 1.4 9.5 17.6 Neutral 15 2.9 20.3 37.8 Good 19 3.7 25.7 63.5 Excellent 27 5.3 36.5 100.0 Total 74 14.5 100.0 Missin System 438 85.5 g Total 512 100.0

Q6.d Comfort onboard vehicle Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid Poor 3 0.6 4.1 4.1 Fair 2 0.4 2.7 6.8 Neutral 13 2.5 17.6 24.3 Good 22 4.3 29.7 54.1 Excellent 34 6.6 45.9 100.0 Total 74 14.5 100.0 Missin System 438 85.5 g Total 512 100.0

Q6.e Safety onboard vehicle C-6 Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent

Moore & Associates, Inc. | 2015 2015 Customer and Community Satisfaction Survey Golden Empire Transit District Final Report

Valid Poor 4 0.8 5.4 5.4 Fair 2 0.4 2.7 8.1 Neutral 11 2.1 14.9 23.0 Good 19 3.7 25.7 48.6 Excellent 38 7.4 51.4 100.0 Total 74 14.5 100.0 Missin System 438 85.5 g Total 512 100.0

Q6.f Fare or cost Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid Poor 5 1.0 6.8 6.8 Fair 4 0.8 5.5 12.3 Neutral 10 2.0 13.7 26.0 Good 17 3.3 23.3 49.3 Excellent 37 7.2 50.7 100.0 Total 73 14.3 100.0 Missin System 439 85.7 g Total 512 100.0

Q6.g Safety at bus stops Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid Poor 7 1.4 9.7 9.7 Fair 8 1.6 11.1 20.8 Neutral 13 2.5 18.1 38.9 Good 21 4.1 29.2 68.1 Excellent 23 4.5 31.9 100.0 Total 72 14.1 100.0 Missin System 440 85.9 g Total 512 100.0

Q6.h Reliability of service Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid Poor 3 0.6 4.1 4.1 Fair 4 0.8 5.4 9.5 Neutral 11 2.1 14.9 24.3 Good 25 4.9 33.8 58.1 Excellent 31 6.1 41.9 100.0 Total 74 14.5 100.0 Missin System 438 85.5 g C-7 Total 512 100.0

Moore & Associates, Inc. | 2015 2015 Customer and Community Satisfaction Survey Golden Empire Transit District Final Report

Q6.i Accessibility of service Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid Poor 5 1.0 6.8 6.8 Fair 6 1.2 8.1 14.9 Neutral 11 2.1 14.9 29.7 Good 18 3.5 24.3 54.1 Excellent 34 6.6 45.9 100.0 Total 74 14.5 100.0 Missin System 438 85.5 g Total 512 100.0

Q6.j Availability of service info Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid Poor 4 0.8 5.4 5.4 Fair 4 0.8 5.4 10.8 Neutral 10 2.0 13.5 24.3 Good 20 3.9 27.0 51.4 Excellent 36 7.0 48.6 100.0 Total 74 14.5 100.0 Missin System 438 85.5 g Total 512 100.0

Q7. On a scale of one to five (wherein one equals "not important" and five equals "very important"), how important a role does cost (the fare you pay) play in making your decision to ride GET or GET-A-Lift? Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid Not important 3 0.6 4.1 4.1 A little important 2 0.4 2.7 6.8 Important 6 1.2 8.1 14.9 Really important 19 3.7 25.7 40.5 Very important 44 8.6 59.5 100.0 Total 74 14.5 100.0 Missin System 438 85.5 g Total 512 100.0

Q8. How have you typically obtained information regarding GET services? Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid Home 33 6.4 44.6 44.6 Work 6 1.2 8.1 52.7 School 2 0.4 2.7 55.4 No Access 3 0.6 4.1 59.5 C-8 Library 1 0.2 1.4 60.8 Cell phone/mobile device 29 5.7 39.2 100.0

Moore & Associates, Inc. | 2015 2015 Customer and Community Satisfaction Survey Golden Empire Transit District Final Report

Total 74 14.5 100.0 Missin System 438 85.5 g Total 512 100.0

Q9. Do you know the location of the GET bus stop nearest to your home? Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid Yes 382 74.6 76.1 76.1 No 120 23.4 23.9 100.0 Total 502 98.0 100.0 Missin System 10 2.0 g Total 512 100.0

Q10. What are your two most common methods of travel in and around Bakersfield? Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid Drive own vehicle 356 69.5 69.8 69.8 Walk 34 6.6 6.7 76.5 Ride bicycle 17 3.3 3.3 79.8 Public transit (GET or GET-A-Lift) 93 18.2 18.2 98.0 Carpool 10 2.0 2.0 100.0 Total 510 99.6 100.0 Missin System 2 0.4 g Total 512 100.0

Q11. Do you have access to the internet at your home? Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid Yes 340 66.4 67.2 67.2 No 166 32.4 32.8 100.0 Total 506 98.8 100.0 Missin System 6 1.2 g Total 512 100.0

Q12. Have you visited the GET website within the past 90 days? Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid Yes 56 10.9 11.2 11.2 No 446 87.1 88.8 100.0 Total 502 98.0 100.0 Missin System 10 2.0 g Total 512 100.0 C-9

Q13. Have you seen any advertising for GET within the past 90 days?

Moore & Associates, Inc. | 2015 2015 Customer and Community Satisfaction Survey Golden Empire Transit District Final Report

Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid Yes, (specify where) 257 50.2 50.2 50.2 No 255 49.8 49.8 100.0 Total 512 100.0 100.0

Q13. Where have you seen the advertising? Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid 256 50.0 50.0 50.0 At clubs 1 0.2 0.2 50.2 Benches 4 0.8 0.8 51.0 Billboards 8 1.6 1.6 52.5 Bus brochure 2 0.4 0.4 52.9 Coupon in mail 1 0.2 0.2 53.1 Facebook 3 0.6 0.6 53.7 Internet 3 0.6 0.6 54.3 Local radio 1 0.2 0.2 54.5 Mail card 3 0.6 0.6 55.1 Newspaper 24 4.7 4.7 59.8 Onboard buses 92 18.0 18.0 77.7 Radio 2 0.4 0.4 78.1 Strike when everything shut down 1 0.2 0.2 78.3 TV commercials 111 21.7 21.7 100.0 Total 512 100.0 100.0

Q14. If your typical/normal method of travel was not available, would you consider riding GET or GET -A- Lift? Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid Yes 372 72.7 73.7 73.7 No 133 26.0 26.3 100.0 Total 505 98.6 100.0 Missin System 7 1.4 g Total 512 100.0

Q15 Combined

Response Frequency Percentage More frequent service 80 12.3% More weekend service 40 6.1% Shorter travel time 73 11.2% Later operating service hours 62 9.5% Earlier operating service hours 44 6.7% C-10

Higher gas prices (specify price) 43 6.6%

Moore & Associates, Inc. | 2015 2015 Customer and Community Satisfaction Survey Golden Empire Transit District Final Report

Different destination(s) (specify destinations) 64 9.8% Other (specify): 31 4.7% Nothing would change my mind 216 33.1% Total 653 100.0% Q15.a Specify price:

Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid 469 91.6 91.6 91.6 $10.00 1 0.2 0.2 91.8 $3.00 1 0.2 0.2 92.0 $3.41 1 0.2 0.2 92.2 $3.50 1 0.2 0.2 92.4 $3.75 2 0.4 0.4 92.8 $4.00 6 1.2 1.2 93.9 $4.33 1 0.2 0.2 94.1 $4.50 2 0.4 0.4 94.5 $4.75 3 0.6 0.6 95.1 $5.00 24 4.7 4.7 99.8 $6.00 1 0.2 0.2 100.0 Total 512 100.0 100.0 Q15. Other (specify): Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid 489 95.5 95.5 95.5 Better accessibility and more routes 1 0.2 0.2 95.7 Better transfer program 1 0.2 0.2 95.9 Bus stops are too far 3 0.6 0.6 96.5 Costs too much 1 0.2 0.2 96.7 Door-to-door service 1 0.2 0.2 96.9 If car broke down 3 0.6 0.6 97.5 Less bus stops 1 0.2 0.2 97.7 Longer routes 1 0.2 0.2 97.9 Lose access to vehicle 1 0.2 0.2 98.0 Lose driver licence 2 0.4 0.4 98.4 Lower cost 2 0.4 0.4 98.8 More bus seats 1 0.2 0.2 99.0 More polite drivers 1 0.2 0.2 99.2 Not sure 1 0.2 0.2 99.4 Safety on the bus 1 0.2 0.2 99.6 Smaller vehicles 1 0.2 0.2 99.8 Trips directly to medical services 1 0.2 0.2 100.0 Total 512 100.0 100.0 C-11

Q16. If your employer offered discounted GET bus passes, would this cause you to begin riding the bus?

Moore & Associates, Inc. | 2015 2015 Customer and Community Satisfaction Survey Golden Empire Transit District Final Report

Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid Yes 258 50.4 51.1 51.1 No 247 48.2 48.9 100.0 Total 505 98.6 100.0 Missin System 7 1.4 g Total 512 100.0

Q17. Do you believe public transit plays an important role in your community's quality of life? Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid Yes 464 90.6 92.4 92.4 No 38 7.4 7.6 100.0 Total 502 98.0 100.0 Missin System 10 2.0 g Total 512 100.0

Q18. Would you support a dedicated sales tax supporting increased and/or improved public bus service throughout the Bakersfield Metropolitan area? Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid Yes 304 59.4 60.4 60.4 No 199 38.9 39.6 100.0 Total 503 98.2 100.0 Missin System 9 1.8 g Total 512 100.0

Q19. Do you have a valid driver license? Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid Yes 402 78.5 79.9 79.9 No 101 19.7 20.1 100.0 Total 503 98.2 100.0 Missin System 9 1.8 g Total 512 100.0

Q20. What is your age? Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid 16 to 18 19 3.7 5.3 5.3 19 to 24 18 3.5 5.0 10.3 25 to 44 41 8.0 11.4 21.7 45 to 64 85 16.6 23.7 45.4 C-12 65 or older 138 27.0 38.4 83.8 Decline to respond 58 11.3 16.2 100.0

Moore & Associates, Inc. | 2015 2015 Customer and Community Satisfaction Survey Golden Empire Transit District Final Report

Total 359 70.1 100.0 Missin System 153 29.9 g Total 512 100.0

Q21. What is your gender? Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid Male 138 27.0 37.9 37.9 Female 216 42.2 59.3 97.3 Decline to respond (If decline, attemtp to answer via voice) 10 2.0 2.7 100.0 Total 364 71.1 100.0 Missin System 148 28.9 g Total 512 100.0

Q22 Combined

Response Frequency Percentage English 335 74.4% Spanish 79 17.6% Other 17 3.8% Decline to respond 19 4.2% Total 450 100.0%

Q22. Other (specify): Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid 497 97.1 97.1 97.1 African 1 0.2 0.2 97.3 American Sign Language 2 0.4 0.4 97.7 Arabic 2 0.4 0.4 98.0 French 2 0.4 0.4 98.4 German 2 0.4 0.4 98.8 Hebrew 1 0.2 0.2 99.0 Italian 1 0.2 0.2 99.2 Japanese 1 0.2 0.2 99.4 Latin 1 0.2 0.2 99.6 Portuguese 1 0.2 0.2 99.8 Russian 1 0.2 0.2 100.0 Total 512 100.0 100.0 Q23. Are you employed? Frequenc Valid Cumulativ y Percent Percent e Percent C-13 Valid Full-time 86 16.8 24.2 24.2 Part-time 19 3.7 5.3 29.5

Moore & Associates, Inc. | 2015 2015 Customer and Community Satisfaction Survey Golden Empire Transit District Final Report

Retired 177 34.6 49.7 79.2 Unemployed 74 14.5 20.8 100.0 Total 356 69.5 100.0 Missing System 156 30.5 Total 512 100.0

Q24. Are you a student? Frequenc Valid Cumulativ y Percent Percent e Percent Valid Full-time 31 6.1 8.7 8.7 Part-time 10 2.0 2.8 11.5 Not a student 315 61.5 88.5 100.0 Total 356 69.5 100.0 Missing System 156 30.5 Total 512 100.0

Q25. What is your approximate annual household income? Frequenc Valid Cumulativ y Percent Percent e Percent Valid Less than $20,000 37 7.2 10.5 10.5 $20,001 to $35,000 26 5.1 7.3 17.8 $35,001 to $50,000 24 4.7 6.8 24.6 $50,001 to $75,000 19 3.7 5.4 29.9 $75,001 to $100,000 17 3.3 4.8 34.7 More than $100,000 22 4.3 6.2 41.0 Decline to respond 209 40.8 59.0 100.0 Total 354 69.1 100.0 Missing System 158 30.9 Total 512 100.0

C-14

Moore & Associates, Inc. | 2015 2015 Customer and Community Satisfaction Survey Golden Empire Transit District Final Report

Appendix D GET-A-Lift Survey Simple Frequencies

D-1

Moore & Associates, Inc. | 2015 2015 Customer and Community Satisfaction Survey Golden Empire Transit District Final Report

This page intentionally blank.

D-2

Moore & Associates, Inc. | 2015 2015 Customer and Community Satisfaction Survey Golden Empire Transit District Final Report

GET-A-Lift 2015 Survey Simple Frequencies 6.11.2015 Eligibilty Assessment Process - Easy to schedule the appointment Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid Strongly Disagree 4 1.9 1.9 1.9 Disagree 9 4.3 4.3 6.2 Neutral 15 7.1 7.1 13.3 Agree 83 39.5 39.5 52.9 Strongly Agree 99 47.1 47.1 100.0 Total 210 100.0 100.0

Eligibilty Assessment Process - Was treated fairly Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid Strongly Disagree 2 1.0 1.0 1.0 Disagree 1 0.5 0.5 1.4 Neutral 8 3.8 3.8 5.3 Agree 83 39.5 39.7 45.0 Strongly Agree 115 54.8 55.0 100.0 Total 209 99.5 100.0 Missing System 1 0.5 Total 210 100.0

Eligibilty Assessment Process - My questions were answered Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid Strongly Disagree 2 1.0 1.0 1.0 Disagree 1 0.5 0.5 1.4 Neutral 14 6.7 6.7 8.1 Agree 80 38.1 38.3 46.4 Strongly Agree 112 53.3 53.6 100.0 Total 209 99.5 100.0 Missing System 1 0.5 Total 210 100.0

Eligibilty Assessment Process - Process was not complicated Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid Strongly Disagree 4 1.9 1.9 1.9 Disagree 8 3.8 3.9 5.8 Neutral 15 7.1 7.2 13.0 Agree 77 36.7 37.2 50.2 Strongly Agree 103 49.0 49.8 100.0 Total 207 98.6 100.0 Missing System 3 1.4 D-3 Total 210 100.0

Moore & Associates, Inc. | 2015 2015 Customer and Community Satisfaction Survey Golden Empire Transit District Final Report

Eligibilty Assessment Process - Overall, I am satisfied with the eligibility assessment process Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid Strongly Disagree 3 1.4 1.5 1.5 Disagree 2 1.0 1.0 2.4 Neutral 10 4.8 4.9 7.3 Agree 83 39.5 40.3 47.6 Strongly Agree 108 51.4 52.4 100.0 Total 206 98.1 100.0 Missing System 4 1.9 Total 210 100.0 Ride Reservation Process - Able to reach a customer representative when I call Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid Strongly Disagree 3 1.4 1.4 1.4 Disagree 8 3.8 3.9 5.3 Neutral 35 16.7 16.9 22.2 Agree 87 41.4 42.0 64.3 Strongly Agree 74 35.2 35.7 100.0 Total 207 98.6 100.0 Missing System 3 1.4 Total 210 100.0

Ride Reservation Process - Customer representative is polite/friendly Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid Strongly Disagree 2 1.0 1.0 1.0 Disagree 1 0.5 0.5 1.4 Neutral 12 5.7 5.7 7.2 Agree 79 37.6 37.8 45.0 Strongly Agree 115 54.8 55.0 100.0 Total 209 99.5 100.0 Missing System 1 0.5 Total 210 100.0

Ride Reservation Process - Reservation process is not complicated Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid Strongly Disagree 3 1.4 1.4 1.4 Disagree 7 3.3 3.3 4.8 Neutral 18 8.6 8.6 13.4 Agree 80 38.1 38.3 51.7 Strongly Agree 101 48.1 48.3 100.0 Total 209 99.5 100.0 Missing System 1 0.5 D-4 Total 210 100.0

Ride Reservation Process - Generally I am able to get the desired travel times

Moore & Associates, Inc. | 2015 2015 Customer and Community Satisfaction Survey Golden Empire Transit District Final Report

Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid Strongly Disagree 3 1.4 1.4 1.4 Disagree 15 7.1 7.2 8.6 Neutral 18 8.6 8.6 17.2 Agree 95 45.2 45.5 62.7 Strongly Agree 78 37.1 37.3 100.0 Total 209 99.5 100.0 Missing System 1 0.5 Total 210 100.0

Ride Reservation Process - Overall, I am satisfied with the reservation process Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid Strongly Disagree 3 1.4 1.4 1.4 Disagree 7 3.3 3.4 4.8 Neutral 10 4.8 4.8 9.7 Agree 91 43.3 44.0 53.6 Strongly Agree 96 45.7 46.4 100.0 Total 207 98.6 100.0 Missing System 3 1.4 Total 210 100.0

Tell Us About the Ride - Vans arrive on time Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid Strongly Disagree 2 1.0 1.0 1.0 Disagree 15 7.1 7.2 8.1 Neutral 26 12.4 12.4 20.6 Agree 91 43.3 43.5 64.1 Strongly Agree 75 35.7 35.9 100.0 Total 209 99.5 100.0 Missing System 1 0.5 Total 210 100.0

Tell Us About the Ride - Van drivers are courteous/helpful Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid Disagree 1 0.5 0.5 0.5 Neutral 12 5.7 5.8 6.3 Agree 84 40.0 40.6 46.9 Strongly Agree 110 52.4 53.1 100.0 Total 207 98.6 100.0 Missing System 3 1.4 Total 210 100.0 D-5

Tell Us About the Ride - Van interiors are clean

Moore & Associates, Inc. | 2015 2015 Customer and Community Satisfaction Survey Golden Empire Transit District Final Report

Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid Neutral 5 2.4 2.4 2.4 Agree 83 39.5 40.1 42.5 Strongly Agree 119 56.7 57.5 100.0 Total 207 98.6 100.0 Missing System 3 1.4 Total 210 100.0

Tell Us About the Ride - I feel safe while onboard the vans Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid Strongly Disagree 1 0.5 0.5 0.5 Disagree 1 0.5 0.5 1.0 Neutral 7 3.3 3.4 4.3 Agree 75 35.7 36.2 40.6 Strongly Agree 123 58.6 59.4 100.0 Total 207 98.6 100.0 Missing System 3 1.4 Total 210 100.0

Tell Us About the Ride - Overall, I am satisfied with the ride Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid Strongly Disagree 1 0.5 0.5 0.5 Disagree 2 1.0 1.0 1.5 Neutral 8 3.8 3.9 5.4 Agree 80 38.1 39.0 44.4 Strongly Agree 114 54.3 55.6 100.0 Total 205 97.6 100.0 Missing System 5 2.4 Total 210 100.0

Tell Us About You - Do you have access to a personal vehicle? Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid Yes 25 11.9 12.0 12.0 No 184 87.6 88.0 100.0 Total 209 99.5 100.0 Missing System 1 0.5 Total 210 100.0

Tell Us About You - Are you currently a licensed driver? Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent D-6 Valid Yes 53 25.2 25.6 25.6 No 154 73.3 74.4 100.0 Total 207 98.6 100.0

Moore & Associates, Inc. | 2015 2015 Customer and Community Satisfaction Survey Golden Empire Transit District Final Report

Missing System 3 1.4 Total 210 100.0

Tell Us About You - Do you typically ride with a PCA (Personal Care Attendant)? Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid Yes 50 23.8 24.2 24.2 No 157 74.8 75.8 100.0 Total 207 98.6 100.0 Missing System 3 1.4 Total 210 100.0

What is the primary reason for using GET-A-Lift? - Limited or no access to a personal vehicle Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid Limited or access to a personal vehicle 60 28.6 100.0 100.0 Missing System 150 71.4 Total 210 100.0

Primary reason for using GET-A-Lift - Combined Response Frequency Percent Limited or access to a personal vehicle 60 20.9% Don't drive/no longer drive 89 31.0% Other transportation services are too expensive 25 8.7% Don't know about other options 17 5.9% Prefer GET-A-Lift 75 26.1%

Other 21 7.3% Total 287 100.0% Specify: Other Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid 189 90.0 90.0 90.0 DISABLED 10 4.8 4.8 94.8 MEDICAL CONDITION 8 3.8 3.8 98.6 NO OTHER OPTION 3 1.4 1.4 100.0 Total 210 100.0 100.0

Preferred Service Improvement - Combined

Response Frequency Percent D-7 Shorter travel time 16 6.8% Shorter wait time for the vehicle to arrive 63 26.7%

Moore & Associates, Inc. | 2015 2015 Customer and Community Satisfaction Survey Golden Empire Transit District Final Report

Reservation process 28 11.9% Customer phone support 22 9.3% Larger service area 18 7.6%

Driver sensitivity/attitude 17 7.2% Longer service hours 30 12.7% Other 42 17.8% Total 236 100.0% Specify: Longer Service Hours Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid 202 96.2 96.2 96.2 10:00 PM 2 1.0 1.0 97.1 7:00 AM 1 0.5 0.5 97.6 8:00 AM 1 0.5 0.5 98.1 9:00 PM 4 1.9 1.9 100.0 Total 210 100.0 100.0

Specify: Other Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid 160 76.2 76.2 76.2 ACCESS CHURCH ON THURSDAY NIGHTS 1 0.5 0.5 76.7 ACCESS HEALTHCARE 1 0.5 0.5 77.1 ALLOW GROUP RESERVATIONS 1 0.5 0.5 77.6 EARLIER START TIME 1 0.5 0.5 78.1 FASTER ASSESSMENT PROCESS 1 0.5 0.5 78.6 IMPROVE DRIVER COURTESY 1 0.5 0.5 79.0 IMPROVE VEHICLES 2 1.0 1.0 80.0 LARGER SERVICE AREA 3 1.4 1.4 81.4 MORE VEHICLES 1 0.5 0.5 81.9 NO IMPROVEMENT DESIRED 21 10.0 10.0 91.9 NOTIFY CUSTOMERS WHEN VEHICLE ARRIVES 1 0.5 0.5 92.4 ONTIME PERFORMANCE 4 1.9 1.9 94.3 PROVIDE FREE SERVICE FOR PCA 1 0.5 0.5 94.8 SHORTER TRIP DURATION 5 2.4 2.4 97.1 SHORTER WAIT TIME - RESERVATION 4 1.9 1.9 99.0 SHORTER WAIT TIME - VEHICLE 1 0.5 0.5 99.5 SUNDAY SERVICE 1 0.5 0.5 100.0 Total 210 100.0 100.0

D-8 What is your approximate annual household income? Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent

Moore & Associates, Inc. | 2015 2015 Customer and Community Satisfaction Survey Golden Empire Transit District Final Report

Valid Less than $20,000 144 68.6 68.6 68.6 $20,001 to $35,000 28 13.3 13.3 81.9 $35,001 to $50,000 4 1.9 1.9 83.8 $50,001 to $75,000 1 0.5 0.5 84.3 More than $100,000 2 1.0 1.0 85.2 Decline to answer 31 14.8 14.8 100.0 Total 210 100.0 100.0

What is your age? Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid 16-24 6 2.9 2.9 2.9 25-34 7 3.3 3.4 6.3 35-49 23 11.0 11.1 17.3 50-64 65 31.0 31.3 48.6 65-74 63 30.0 30.3 78.8 75 or older 44 21.0 21.2 100.0 Total 208 99.0 100.0 Missing System 2 1.0 Total 210 100.0

D-9

Moore & Associates, Inc. | 2015