DOCSLIB.ORG

Maple Grove Transit 2016 “Expressbusservice”

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Maple Grove Transit 2016 “Expressbusservice” Maple Grove Transit 2016 “Express Bus Service” Customer Survey Report of Results December 2016 Prepared by: 2955 Valmont Road • Suite 300 • Boulder, Colorado 80301 • t: 303-444-7863 • www.n-r-c.com Maple Grove Transit “Express Bus Service” Customer Survey December 2016 Table of Contents Executive Summary ................................................................................................................... 1 Survey Background ...................................................................................................................4 Survey Results ...........................................................................................................................4 Appendix A: Verbatim Responses to Open-ended Survey Questions .................................... 34 Appendix B: Select Results Compared by Respondent Race/Ethnicity .................................. 92 Appendix C: Copy of Survey Questionnaire .......................................................................... 107 National Research Center, Inc. Report of Results Prepared by Maple Grove Transit “Express Bus Service” Customer Survey December 2016 List of Tables Table 1: Question 1................................................................................................................................................ 4 Table 2: Question 2 ............................................................................................................................................... 4 Table 3: Question 3 Compared by Question 1 ..................................................................................................... 5 Table 4: Question 4 Compared by Question 1 .................................................................................................... 6 Table 5: Question 5 Compared by Question 1 ..................................................................................................... 7 Table 6: Question 6 Compared by Question 1 .................................................................................................... 8 Table 7: Question 7 Compared by Question 1 ................................................................................................... 14 Table 8: Question 8 Compared by Question 1 ...................................................................................................15 Table 9: Question 9 Compared by Question 1 .................................................................................................. 16 Table 10: Question 10 Compared by Question 1................................................................................................. 17 Table 11: Question 11 Compared by Question 1 ................................................................................................. 19 Table 12: Question 12 Compared by Question 1 ................................................................................................ 20 Table 13: Question 13 Compared by Question 1 ................................................................................................. 21 Table 14: Question 14 Compared by Question 1 ................................................................................................ 22 Table 15: Question 15 Compared by Question 1 ................................................................................................ 23 Table 16: Question 16 Compared by Question 1 ............................................................................................... 23 Table 17: Question 17 Compared by Question 1 ................................................................................................ 24 Table 18: Question 18 Compared by Question 1................................................................................................ 24 Table 19: Question 19 Compared by Question 1................................................................................................ 25 Table 20: Question 20 Compared by Question 1 ............................................................................................... 25 Table 21: Question 21 Compared by Question 1 ................................................................................................ 26 Table 22: Question 21b Compared by Question 1.............................................................................................. 26 Table 23: Question 22 Compared by Question 1 ............................................................................................... 27 Table 24: Question 23 Compared by Question 1 ............................................................................................... 27 Table 25: Question D1 Compared by Question 1 ............................................................................................... 29 Table 26: Question D2 Compared by Question 1 .............................................................................................. 30 Table 27: Question D3 Compared by Question 1 .............................................................................................. 30 Table 28: Question D4 Compared by Question 1 ...............................................................................................31 Table 29: Question D5 Compared by Question 1 ...............................................................................................31 Table 30: Question D6 Compared by Question 1 .............................................................................................. 32 Table 31: Question D7 Compared by Question 1 ............................................................................................... 32 Table 32: Question D8 Compared by Question 1 .............................................................................................. 33 Table 33: Question 5 Compared by Respondent Race/Ethnicity ..................................................................... 92 Table 34: Question 6 Compared by Respondent Race/Ethnicity ..................................................................... 92 Table 35: Question 7 Compared by Respondent Race/Ethnicity ..................................................................... 97 Table 36: Question 8 Compared by Respondent Race/Ethnicity.....................................................................98 Table 37: Question 9 Compared by Respondent Race/Ethnicity .....................................................................99 Table 38: Question 10 Compared by Respondent Race/Ethnicity ...................................................................99 National Research Center, Inc. Table 39: Question 11 Compared by Respondent Race/Ethnicity ................................................................... 101 Report of Results Prepared by Maple Grove Transit “Express Bus Service” Customer Survey December 2016 Table 40: Question 12 Compared by Respondent Race/Ethnicity ................................................................. 102 Table 41: Question 13 Compared by Respondent Race/Ethnicity .................................................................. 102 Table 42: Question 14 Compared by Respondent Race/Ethnicity ................................................................. 103 Table 43: Question 15 Compared by Respondent Race/Ethnicity.................................................................. 103 Table 44: Question 16 Compared by Respondent Race/Ethnicity ................................................................. 103 Table 45: Question 17 Compared by Respondent Race/Ethnicity.................................................................. 104 Table 46: Question 18 Compared by Respondent Race/Ethnicity ................................................................. 104 Table 47: Question 19 Compared by Respondent Race/Ethnicity ................................................................. 104 Table 48: Question 20 Compared by Question 1 ............................................................................................ 105 Table 49: Question 21 Compared by Question 1 ............................................................................................. 105 Table 50: Question 21b Compared by Question 1 ........................................................................................... 105 Table 51: Question 22 Compared by Question 1 .............................................................................................. 106 Table 52: Question 23 Compared by Question 1 ............................................................................................. 106 National Research Center, Inc. Report of Results Prepared by Maple Grove Transit “Express Bus Service” Customer Survey December 2016 Executive Summary Maple Grove Transit partnered with National Research Center, Inc. to conduct a web-based survey of riders. Maple Grove Transit emailed the survey link to all “rider alert” subscribers and put flyers on all buses on October 24 that invited participation in the survey. Flyers were also posted at the two transit station and the three park-and-ride shelters. A reminder flyer was e-mailed and put on the buses on November 14 that the survey would close on November 21. A total of 332 riders completed the survey. The survey captured current rider behaviors, attitudes and service evaluations, as well as any suggestions for improvement. Current Maple Grove Transit Use . Route 781 was the most frequently ridden route (35% of respondents), followed by route 785 (31%) and route 783 (15%). Fewer than 8%
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 2019 Annual Regional Park-And-Ride System
    2019 ANNUAL REGIONAL PARK & RIDE SYSTEM REPORT JANUARY 2020 Prepared for: Metropolitan Council Metro Transit Minnesota Valley Transit Authority SouthWest Transit Maple Grove Transit Plymouth Metrolink Northstar Link Minnesota Department of Transportation Prepared by: Ari Del Rosario Metro Transit Engineering and Facilities, Planning and Urban Design Table of Contents Overview ......................................................................................................................................................3 Capacity Changes........................................................................................................................................6 System Capacity and Usage by Travel Corridor .........................................................................................7 Planned Capacity Expansion .......................................................................................................................8 About the System Survey ............................................................................................................................9 Appendix A: Facility Utilization Data .......................................................................................................10 Park & Ride System Data .....................................................................................................................10 Park & Pool System Data .....................................................................................................................14 Bike & Ride
    [Show full text]
  • Metro Transit Schedule Green Line
    Metro Transit Schedule Green Line Clemmie usually overprice tetragonally or recommit abiogenetically when whole-wheat Nev chaws unsympathetically and diversely. calksFree-hearted it nobbily. Lou fractured irresponsibly or bowsing head-on when Randall is sighted. Anson please her apriorists hand-to-hand, she Also angers you as scheduled departures from? Metro green line train at metro green line entered service schedule for campus including a project in minnesota? Paul connection seemed most visible on. Trains are their green line. Reduce the schedules with muni transit officials that perfect is the green line connects the metro transit system. Battle creek apartments, every time does deter on gull road rapid station in south near vehicle and healthy travel times in a tough. Washington avenue bridge was a metro transit, and schedules and has provided during harsh minnesota? Anderson center can directly. Upcoming holidays and schedules unless public locations and lake calhoun in our competitors order these trains. Metro transit planners chose university, metro transit agency will follow signs last? Metro transit and metro transit, schedule in downtown minneapolis. Turns out schedules vary by the metro green line is no regular saturday schedules beginning wednesday that litter is currently available. Transit riders will continue to downgrade reqeust was a vacant lot next to change. Metro transit report said engineers have been personalized. Paul and schedules beginning wednesday that make it back door. Paul with metro transit. You need to discuss the metro area in cardiac surgery at afrik grocery. Please visit one part in minnesota transportation systems to get from the downtown minneapolis guide to have collaborated on weekends; please enable scripts and take? Green line green hop fastpass is considered time improvements for metro transit projects along university avenue.
    [Show full text]
  • Initial Transit Agency Outreach Summary
    Memorandum SRF No. 12758 To: Cole Hiniker, AICP Metropolitan Council From: Joseph Kapper, AICP SRF Consulting Group Date: May 20, 2020 Subject: Metropolitan Council Service Allocation Study Initial Transit Agency Outreach Summary Executive Summary Introduction One of the first tasks associated with the Service Allocation Study involved a report on existing conditions for transit service within the Minneapolis – St. Paul region. In addition to documenting the scope of transit service and socioeconomic data, the consultant team conducted outreach to each transit provider to understand the scope of their services and gain general input on the study. In March and April of 2020 several video and tele-conferences were held with individuals responsible for service monitoring, planning, and allocation at each agency. The content of each meeting included the following topics: • Offering an overview of the Service Allocation Study and gathering initial feedback on work to date and potential successful outcomes. • Transit agencies provide a summary of their current services. • How are transit operating resources allocated today? o How does the agency currently approach service allocation decisions? o What policies currently exist to guide service expansion or reduction? o Are there separate performance guidelines or goals for different types of service? • Agency planning and service development priorities. As of this memo’s completion, interviews have been conducted with Metro Transit, Minnesota Valley Transit Authority, SouthWest Transit, the City of Plymouth, Maple Grove Transit, and Metropolitan Transportation Services. Prior to each stakeholder interview, the consultant team reviewed the transit services currently offered by each agency, as well as relevant survey results, internal procedures, and long-range planning documents provided for the purposes of this study.
    [Show full text]
  • AGENDA I-494 Corridor Commission Board of Directors Meeting
    AGENDA I-494 Corridor Commission Board of Directors Meeting Wednesday, September 9, 2020 – 7:30 a.m. Virtual Meeting via Zoom 7:30 Call to Order (Chair) 7:30 Review August 2020 Meeting Minutes 7:35 Treasurer’s Report (Sue Kotchevar) 7:45 Technical Report (Kate Meredith) 7:55 Legislative Update (Katy Sen) 8:15 MnDOT I-494 Area Updates (Amber Blanchard & Andrew Lutaya, MnDOT) 8:45 2021 Board Chair and Vice Chair Succession Planning (Chair, Madison) 9:00 Adjourn Next Meeting Date/Time: Wednesday, October 14th from 7:30 – 9:00 a.m. Format: Zoom I-494 Corridor Commission Board of Directors Meeting August 12, 2020 Draft Minutes Board Members Attending: Brad Aho, Mary Brindle, Jack Broz, David Lindahl, Simon Trautmann, Julie Wischnack Others Attending: Amber Blanchard, April Crockett, Hennepin County Commissioner Debbie Goettel, Sue Kotchevar, Andrew Lutaya, Michelle Leonard, Melissa Madison, Kate Meredith, Katy Sen Motion Passed: Approve July 10, 2020 regular meeting and July 29, 2020 special meeting minutes. Roll call vote: Councilmember Aho – aye Councilmember Baloga – absent Councilmember Brindle – aye Jack Broz – aye David Lindahl – aye Glen Markegard – absent Councilmember Schack – absent Andrew Scipioni – absent Councilmember Trautmann – aye Julie Wischnack – aye Treasurer Report Prepared by the City of Eden Prairie, presented by Sue Kotchevar. Review of July payment of claims. Motion Passed: Approve July 2020 check register and treasurer’s report as presented. Roll call vote taken on the July Check Register: Councilmember Aho – aye Councilmember Baloga – absent Councilmember Brindle – aye Jack Broz – aye David Lindahl – aye Glen Markegard – absent Councilmember Schack – absent Andrew Scipioni – absent Councilmember Trautmann – aye Julie Wischnack – aye The July check register was reviewed and approved.
    [Show full text]
  • Report Summary
    STATE TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Summary of Public Participation Public Hearing Testimony for the 2011 Twelve Year Program Revised December 28, 2009 2011 Twelve Year Transportation Program Public Hearing Testimony ‐ Summary By Planning Partner Revised 12/28/2009 Sample Report and Format Instructions This list reflects project requests or comments regarding the 2011 Twelve Year Program submitted at public hearings and through other written and electronic submissions to the State Transportation Commission during the fall of 2009. This list is sorted alphabetically by Planning Organization. Below is a sample of the State Transportation Commission Public Hearing Testimony list. Requested Presented Project PE FD UTL ROW CON Total Total Action ID Program Estimated $000 $000 DVRPC MPO Chester Ms. Judy L. DiFilippo, Chairman Chester County Planning Commission French Creek Parkway Support 57659 1 1 2 2 $23,850 $45,300 Stated in the upper left corner of every page is the name of the Planning Partner. The County for which the testimony pertains is located along the left side of the page. The next line in the body of the report contains the name and organization of the testifier. After each testifier are a specific project(s) requests or comments. Each project is listed with six pieces of information placed in separate columns on the report. These are: REQUESTED ACTION – Is the action that the testifier would like to see happen to the project regarding its status in the Twelve Year Program. General categories of action are added, retain, advance, oppose, delete, and support. PRESENTED - If the Project was presented at a Scheduled Public Hearing a check is printed.
    [Show full text]
  • June 14, 2014: Grand Opening for METRO Green Line
    January 22, 2014 Contact: Laura Baenen, 651‐602‐1797 Bonnie Kollodge, 651‐602‐1357 June 14, 2014: Grand opening for METRO Green Line (St. Paul) ‐ Light rail between Minneapolis and St. Paul will link Twin Cities residents to neighborhoods and the two downtowns starting Saturday, June 14, with free rides and day‐long community celebrations, Metropolitan Council Chair Sue Haigh said to day. “Starting service 60 years to the month after the last streetcar left the Twin Cities is fitting.” said Haigh, whose work on the METRO Green Line (Central Corridor LRT) dates back to her days on the Ramsey County Board. “For me, seeing two vibrant downtowns, numerous job, education and medical centers, and, tens of thousands of people connected by this project is the most exciting part.” The 11‐mile corridor between the two downtowns links Union Depot in St. Paul’s Lowertown to the State Capitol complex, Midway, University of Minnesota and Target Field. As the region’s second light rail line, the METRO Green Line will connect to the Blue Line (Hiawatha) at Downtown East Station. The mid‐June opening will allow the line to serve baseball fans attending Major League Baseball’s All‐Star Game at Target Field in July. The opening is nearly six months earlier than required by the Federal Transit Administration, which is funding half the $957 million project. The project is on budget. The project created 5,445 construction jobs and $252 million in construction payroll, with workers coming from more than 60 Minnesota counties ranging from the Canadian border to Iowa.
    [Show full text]
  • Public Engagement Summary Report #5
    Public Engagement Summary Report #5 Detailed Analysis Results August 19 – October 12, 2017 Draft Locally Preferred Alternative October 13 – November 17, 2017 December 2017 This page is intentionally left blank. Riverview Corridor Pre-Project Development Study Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 1 Detailed Analysis Results – August 19, 2017 through October 12, 2017 .......................................... 2 Draft LPA – October 13, 2017 through November 17, 2017 ............................................................. 2 2.0 PROJECT COMMITTEES ..................................................................................... 4 Policy Advisory Committee ................................................................................................................ 4 Technical Advisory Committee .......................................................................................................... 5 Project Management Team ............................................................................................................... 5 Public Engagement Advisory Panel ................................................................................................... 5 3.0 COMMUNITY MEETINGS ..................................................................................... 6 Open House + Public Hearing: November 9, 2017 ............................................................................ 6 3.1.1 Format ..........................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Transit Operations Plans Report
    Transit Operations Plans Report Prepared for: Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority Prepared by: Connetics Transportation Group Under Contract To: Kimley-Horn and Associates TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 Existing Service Characteristics ......................................................................................................... 2 2.1 Bottineau Project Area Facilities ........................................................................................................ 2 2.2 Urban Local Routes ............................................................................................................................ 2 2.3 Suburban Local Routes ...................................................................................................................... 5 2.4 Limited Stop and Express Routes ...................................................................................................... 8 2.5 Routes operated by Maple Grove Transit ....................................................................................... 12 3.0 NO-BUILD ALTERNATIVE .................................................................................................................. 18 3.1 No-Build Operating Requirements .................................................................................................. 19 4.0 BASELINE ALTERNATIVE .................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • State Fair Express Service Regular Bus Routes
    STATE FAIR EXPRESS SERVICE Fast, easy service from a free parking lot near you State Fair Express buses operate from 17 Twin Cities locations. For automated State Fair transit information, call 612-341-4287. Every Day Aug. 26–Sept. 6 Weekends and Labor Day Only ROUND-TRIP $ Children age four and under ride free. 5 CASH ONLY—Please have exact change. Service Every 15 Minutes Service Every Half Hour Buy in advance and save! 1 Northtown Mall – Blaine 11 Maple Grove Transit Station – I-94 & University Ave. & Hwy. 10 Hemlock Lane See other side for details. 2 Brookdale Square – Brooklyn Center NEW! 5900 Shingle Creek Pkwy., NE corner of Additional Express Service BUSES OPERATE Shingle Creek Pkwy. & Bass Lake Rd. 8 A.M. – MIDNIGHT DAILY 3 I-394 & Co. Rd. 73 Park & Ride – Minnetonka SouthWest Transit • Express buses serve fair gate #20 (on the south SW corner of I-394 & Co. Rd. 73 952-949-2287, swtransit.org side of Como Ave. across from the Warner Coliseum) (Hours of service vary) 4 Dunwoody College of Technology – Minneapolis • Bus departure times are approximate. I-394 & Dunwoody Blvd. 12 Wooddale Church. Weekdays only 6630 Shady Oak Rd., Eden Prairie • All express service is wheelchair accessible. 5 Southdale Shopping Center – Edina SE corner of lot near 69th & York Ave. 13 SouthWest Station. Weekends and Labor Day 13500 Technology Dr., Eden Prairie 35W 6 Bloomington – 82nd St. & 24th Ave. So. 94 1 14 SouthWest Village. Weekends and Labor Day 11 35E Across from Mall of America East parking ramp Hwy. 212 & Hwy. 101, Chanhassen 694 2 Service Every Half Hour Minnesota Valley Transit Authority 952-882-7500, mvta.com 494 10 7 Oakdale Center Park & Ride – Oakdale West of I-694 on 10th St.
    [Show full text]
  • Country State Business
    Spotted Lanternfly Permit Participants These Participants have been trained on and found to be compliant with standards listed in the Order of Quarantine and Treatment regarding Spotted Lanternfly for operating in the quarantine area. The companies listed here have agreed to participate in and comply with the terms and conditions of the Order of Quarantine and Treatment which is designed to stop the movement of Spotted Lanternfly within or out of the current quarantine zone. Country State Business Canada AB 1763579 ON INC Canada AB 624889 BC LTD Canada AB 9958169 CANADA INC/LOHGARH TRANSPORT Canada AB ADMIRAL MERCHANTS MOTOR FREIGHT Canada AB BCD AB TRANSPORT LTD Canada AB CANEDA TRANSPORT LTD Canada AB CARAVAN AB INC Canada AB CBS TRUCKING INC Canada AB CERTARUS LTD Canada AB CODE LOGISTICS LTD Canada AB DAY AND ROSS INC Canada AB GILBERT TRUCKING LTD Canada AB JJ TRANSPORT INC Canada AB LANDSTAR Canada AB LOADSAFE CROSSBORDER FREIGHT INC Canada AB LOADSAFE/SL TRANSPORT LTD Canada AB MULLEN TRUCKING CORP Canada AB NORD-DECK TRANSPORT INC Canada AB SNOWY OWL TRANSPORTATION Canada BC 1063282 BC LTD Canada BC BERRY AND SMITH TRUCKING LTD Canada BC I-5 LOGISTICS SERVICES LTD Canada BC INTERNATIONAL MACHINE TRANSPORT INC Canada BC KDMS HOLDINGS INC Canada BC LODEXO LOGISTICS INC Canada BC MAVEN TRANSPORT LTD Canada BC PISTON TRANSPORT LTD Canada BC POWERLANE LOGISTICS INC Canada BC SKY BLUE TRANSPORT Canada BC SRT LOGISTICS Canada BC SYER TRANSPORTATION SERVICES LTD Canada BC TEN FOUR TRUCKING Canada BC THE DAY & ROSS TRANSPORTATION GROUP
    [Show full text]
  • Enhancing the Connectivity of High Speed Rail in the Orlando-Tampa Corridor with Local Public Transportation Systems: Issues and Opportunities
    Enhancing the Connectivity Of High Speed Rail in the Orlando-Tampa Corridor with Local Public Transportation Systems: Issues and Opportunities January 2011 Final Report DISCLAIMER The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the information presented herein. This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Department of Transportation University Transportation Centers Program and the Florida Department of Transportation, in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government and the Florida Department of Transportation assumes no liability for the contents or use thereof. Enhancing the Connectivity Of High Speed Rail in the Orlando-Tampa Corridor with Local Public Transportation Systems: Issues and Opportunities Final Report Prepared for State of Florida Department of Transportation Public Transit Office 605 Suwannee Street, MS 30 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Project Manager: Nazih Haddad Prepared by (Rob Gregg and Justin Begley) National Center for Transit Research Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR) University of South Florida 4202 East Fowler Avenue, CUT100 Tampa, Florida 33620-5375 January 2011 BDK85, RPWO #977-24 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. 977-24 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date Enhancing the Connectivity of High Speed Rail in the Orlando- January 2011 Tampa Corridor with Local Public Transportation Systems: Issues and Opportunities 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. Rob Gregg and Justin Begley 2117-77928-00 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) National Center for Transit Research Center for Urban Transportation Research 11.
    [Show full text]
  • Transit Commission Regular Meeting Agenda (PDF)
    MAPLE GROVE TRANSIT COMMISSION 6:30 P.M October 26, 2020 Virtual Meeting https://logis.webex.com/logis/j.php?MTID=m76aeb63f9172ce355bf15a399d936272 A. Call to Order by Chair B. Approval of Minutes: January 28, 2020 C. Ridership and Service Update D. Budget Update E. Potential Changes to Bus Service and Facilities F. Blue Line LRT Extension Update G. Governor’s Blue-Ribbon Panel on Regional Transit Service Delivery H. MNDOT I-94 BRT Project I. Next Meeting / Adjourn A. Call to Order • Teri Anderson will call the meeting to order at 6:30 PM. B. Approval of Minutes: January 28, 2020 • See Exhibit A for the minutes of the January 28, 2020 meeting for consideration of approval. C. Ridership and Service Update • EXPRESS Bus Service - When COVID hit this past spring, Express bus ridership went from 3300 daily rides down to 120. As a result, service was drastically reduced from 57 round trips per day to 12. Routes 780, 782, 783, and 785 have all be suspended. The remaining service is all on the Route 781 to and from the Maple Grove Transit Station. Ridership is now slowly increasing with 175 daily riders. As of September 14, we increased service to 24 round trips. Riders must wear a facemask and COVID driver barriers have been installed on the express bus fleet. • MY RIDE Service - The MY RIDE (dial-a-ride) service is operating at about 75 percent of contracted service levels. Demand continues to increase with some days attaining 70 to 80 total rides. Grocery and food shelf trips remain an option and are occasional being utilized by residents.
    [Show full text]