Mobility Survey Summary 2020 Sugar Land Mobility Survey B DRAFT April 2021 Community Survey About the Survey A public survey was used as a part of engagement efforts to identify The survey was designed to work in conjunction with data the needs, barriers, and priorities of the community. The survey was analysis to inform the City and project team prior to developing conducted in the fall of 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic. As recommendations. The summary presented here provides insights such, all engagement efforts used online methods. The City of Sugar to the survey responses in the context of the larger Mobility Master Land promoted the survey using a variety of tools and resources Plan, and specifically the Case for Action, which identifies why the in order to engage a broad spectrum of the community and have Plan is important to the City and critical components that will lead to robust feedback. The various survey promotions garnered 1,368 success and creating a new future for mobility in Sugar Land. This total responses and are identified below. document is intended to be a high-level overview and snapshot. The detailed survey results will be an ongoing resource for Plan » Yard signs at seven city parks, City Hall, and the University of Houston at Sugar Land development. This summary is presented in the following sections to facilitate easy understanding of the information: » Yard signs at some Mobility Task Force members’ houses » Who took the survey » Multiple posts on , , , Nextdoor, and TikTok » Community’s vision » Marquee sign graphics at Smart Financial Center, » How people get around Constellation Field, and Town Square Kiosks » Priorities for mobility » E-news (monthly email newsletter to residents who opt-in) » Technology and future trends » Posted on the City’s intranet » Distribution to Homeowners Associations (HOAs) and local businesses for further dissemination » Multiple posts on the Sugar Scoop City » Messages within utility bills mailed by the City » Presented to Mayor’s Youth Advisory Council » Mentioned at workshops with Planning & Zoning Commission and City Council » Message sent to Sugar Land 101 Alumni » Asked regional stakeholders to help spread the word Photos of survey advertisement signs placed at City Hall (left) and Memorial Park (right) Mobility Master Plan Community Feedback | B-2 DRAFT Who Took the Survey Figure 1 Respondents’ relationship to Sugar Land The information presented here highlights information 89% about the community members who responded to the survey. Overall, the survey received input from a wide Live in Sugar Land section of the community. Demographic information 19% was asked to better understand if the survey reached Work in Sugar Land the community as a whole and if there were variations in responses from various demographic groups. The figures in this section some of the key information about 12% Visits Sugar Land survey respondents. As shown in Figure 1, while the majority of respondents Business Owner live in Sugar Land, many perspectives from people who 8% visit, work, or go to school in the city were represented. 61% This diversity in relationships to the city ensure that the Student variety of trips and mobility needs made both daily and 5% of residents have infrequently are represented and can be factored into this lived in Sugar plan. Additionally, people who have lived in Sugar Land Land for more for various time periods provided input and perspectives than ten years with both history and fresh eyes (Figure 2). While a majority of respondents were white, perspectives Figure 2 Length of residency in Sugar Land from various races and ethnicities were provided (Figure 40% 3). Typically different cultures and races have differing experiences and views with transportation. This can impact 35% what is seen as barriers or desired needs and priorities. 30% Figure 3 Race/ethnicity of survey respondents 25% White 62% 20% Black/African American 3% 15% Asian/Asian American 18% 10% Prefer not to answer 14% 5% Other 4% 0 Hispanic/Latino 9% <1 1 - 3 4 - 5 6 - 10 11 - 20 20+ Less than 1% identified as American Indian or Alaska Native. Note: 10% of respondentsYears wereLived notin Sugar residents Land or chose not to respond Respondents could select all applicable options. to this question Mobility Master Plan Community Feedback | B-3 DRAFT male/female age male/female age

male/female age male/female age Figure 4 details the breakdown of gender and ages of survey Figure 4 Age and gender of survey participants participants. People of all different ages have variations in their needs and abilities for daily travel. Additionally, gender can have very real consequences on perceptions and mobility 25% 49% 46% needs. Overall, the split between female and male was very Male Female close. The age ranges were not all evenly represented, but generally there was a wide distribution ensuring that 20% perspectives of the community ranging from youth to seniors25% was provided. The chart shows the overall percentage of female and male respondents, as well as the percentage of 15% each gender by age group. 20% Household income can play an important role in understanding people’s50 transportation41 choices. Figure47 5 shows that44 survey 10% participants have a wide range of income levels. However, 57% 15% have household incomes over $100,000 per year. This indicates that choice is an important component of transportation mode 5% use. Components like comfort, ease of use, and reliability are typically associated with people who choose certain mobility10% options over others. 0% 17 and 18 - 25 26 - 35 36 - 45 46 - 55 56 - 65 66 - 75 76 and Prefer not younger older to answer Beyond these basic demographics, the survey respondents % of total survey respondents Note: 5% of respondents did also skewed towards highly educated and less than half of5% not identify a gender participants’ households have children in the home. These % of male respondents factors may also be associated with choice characteristics for % of female survey respondents mobility options. 0% 17 and 18 - 25 26 - 35 36 - 45 46 - 55 56 - 65 66 - 75 76 and Prefer not 51 67 57 62 younger $ older to answer Figure 5 Household income levels of survey participants 24% of households have one or 22% 20% % more children in the home 43 (age 18 or under) < $25,000 $25,000 - $35,000 - $50,000 - $75,000 - $100,00015 %- $150,000 - $200,000+ Prefer not Under 18/ $34,999 $49,999 $74,999 $99,999 $149,999 $199,999 to answer Still in school 43 57 36 52 $ 8% of participants 6% have a Bachelor’s 80% 2% 2% degree or higher <1% 1%

< $25,000 $25,000 - $35,000 - $50,000 - $75,000 - $100,000 - $150,000 - $200,000+ Prefer not Under 18/ $34,999 $49,999 $74,999 $99,999 $149,999 $199,999 to answer Still in school Mobility Master Plan Community Feedback | B-4 DRAFT Community’s Vision Figure 6 Top 5 community outcomes The Case for Action states that the Mobility Master Plan must “Define Improving safety for all road users a vision for mobility that aligns with the City’s transition from a phase of 1 83% significant growth to build-out within a rapidly growing region.” To define this vision, community needs and desires must be taken into account. The community survey asked many questions that can help identify themes Improving intersection operations that are useful in defining this vision from the community’s perspective. 2 71% The information presented here highlights how the community thinks about mobility, why they use various modes for their trips, and desired outcomes of this plan. Reducing travel delays WHAT ARE THE DESIRED OUTCOMES? 3 69% The community’s desired outcomes for this plan generally provide a nexus to the goals of this plan and a basis to evaluate priorities and needs. The survey provided eleven potential outcomes for people Encouraging healthy & active lifestyles to evaluate how important each are to the plan. The top five desired 4 68% outcomes are highlighted in Figure 6. The outcomes can be considered complementary in many ways and include safety, multiple modes, Providing the next generation with an efficiency, health, and environment. Beyond these top five, additional environmentally clean & financially outcomes that were in the next tier of importance and coordinate with 5 sound transportation system 62% the top five include providing affordable transportation options, increase choices for how to move around Sugar Land, and improve connections The percentage of respondents that identified the outcomes above as critical or very important are shown. The other to the greater Houston region. outcomes in order of importance are as follows: increasing choices for how to move around the city (61%), providing affordable transportation options (61%), improving connections to the greater Houston region (56%), reducing emissions/carbon footprint (50%), more and better access to highways (42%), and expanded parking availability at major destinations(41%). Attitudes on mobility • 94% of people feel safe driving a vehicle in Sugar Land • 59% of people do not believe that Sugar Land’s transportation system effectively balances the needs for automobile travel with the needs of people walking, biking, and using transit • 70% of people would like to reduce their personal level of energy consumption and carbon footprint • 54% of people do not believe that seniors, children, teenagers, and people without drivers licenses are served well by Sugar Land’s transportation system (48% do not believe the same for people with physical disabilities)

Mobility Master Plan Community Feedback | B-5 DRAFT City Streets State Highways Trac Signals Walking Local Transit Regional Transit Bikeways

WHAT IS SUPERIOR MOBILITY? Figure 7 Existing network efficiency by type The survey asked participants to define what “superior mobility” State Highways means to them. Responses ranged from maintaining the status City Streets quo in Sugar Land to transitioning to multimodal options that are safe for everyone, and even correlating land use with mobility Trac Signals options so that daily destinations are all within a 20-minute walk Walking or bike ride for neighborhoods throughout Sugar Land. While responses to define superior mobility varied widely in specifics, a Local Transit recurring theme was that of providing options that are accessible, safe, and inexpensive. Reducing congestion and improving traffic Regional Transit flow were other themes prominent in responses. Bikeways While respondents’ definition of superior mobility had a 0 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% prominence of multimodal themes, when asked to identify how effective current network types are at providing superior mobility, Very Ineective Ineective Eective Very Eective responses differed significantly and lead to greater understanding The figure here shows what percentage of respondents stated as to why people do not walk and bike as much as desired (based how effective the various network types are at providing on survey information). While every network type, except for superior mobility in Sugar Land. Networks with the most bikeways, was identified as at least 50% effective/very effective investment over time see the greatest levels of effectiveness. at providing superior mobility, city streets, state highways, and trip influence factors traffic signals were the most prominent Figure( 7). As this is where the most investments have historically been made, the correlation Figure 8 Top 5 influencers for how trips are made between efficacy can be better understood. Speed/time it takes to get there 61% WHAT INFLUENCES TRAVEL DECISIONS? Trip Distance Beyond the existence of a network, there are many factors 59% that influence people’s decisions on how they travel to daily destinations. Figure 8 shows the variety of factors that people think Weather (heat, rain) about when making decisions about whether to drive, walk, bike, 58% etc. Many of these factors can be impacted by this Plan. Some, Feeling of comfort & safety on route such as speed/time and trip distance relate to the availability of 51% facilities and development patterns. The most prominent factors influencing people’s decisions to drive, ride a bike, etc., include the Exercise feeling of comfort and safety and the condition of facilities. These 45% will be important to consider in developing recommendations if How people make decisions on which way they will travel the community desires to increase the number of people who can provides insight to what types of projects and improvements walk, bike, wheel, etc., to destinations throughout Sugar Land. to the network may be most needed or used in the community. Beyond these top five factors, the condition of streets/trails/ sidewalks, parking availability at destinations, and access to a vehicle were identified by 39%, 30%, and 24% respectively. Mobility Master Plan Community Feedback | B-6 DRAFT WHAT ARE THE BARRIERS? How People Get Around The community has identified more safe, multimodal options that The Case for Action states that the Mobility Master Plan must are also affordable transportation choices as desired outcomes. “Create safe, well-connected multi-modal networks for all people.” This translates to more abilities to walk and bike for a variety of This translates into safe places where people of any age and all trip purposes. In order to do that, it’s important to understand the abilities can feel comfortable walking, biking, and wheeling to daily barriers that the community experiences as to why they do not use destinations for a variety of trip purposes. The community survey those transportation options more. Figure 9 shows the percentage asked questions that can help identify how people currently travel of respondents that identified each type of barrier as impacting their desire or ability to walk or bike. and the barriers they face for walking and biking. The information presented here highlights this with information that supports the Responses have been divided into three categories: safety, needs from the community’s perspective. access, and other. Safety is a big factor with fast-moving, high- volume roadway crossings topping the list. For access, gaps in the sidewalk and bikeway network are impacting people’s abilities to comfortably walk or bike. The other primary barrier is trip distance. Trip distance can be improved by “shortcuts” for multimodal access to destinations in the short-term as well as adjusting future development patterns to have more daily destinations within a walkable or bikeable distance from neighborhoods and activity centers. It is worth noting that some people do enjoy driving, which underscores the need to ensure options for all modes, not only driving or biking or walking, etc. Effective transportation networks provide comprehensive options for the variety of mobility needs.

Figure 9 Barriers to Walking & Biking 3 Crossing fast moving, high volume traffic Gaps in safe, comfortable sidewalks or bikeways Trip distance

Drivers not following rules of the road Poor condition of sidewalks or bikeways Weather

Feeling of personal safety Lack of direct access to my destination I like to drive 3 ACCESS SAFETY OTHER Poor lighting male/female agemale/female age male/female age People ages 17 and under Women identified the feeling of identified weather, a lack of direct personal safety as a barrier at nearly access, and trip distance as twice the rate of men in the survey. barriers more than other groups. Mobility Master Plan Community Feedback | B-7 DRAFT 3

Walk Wheel Bike 6% HOW DO PEOPLE CURRENTLY TRAVEL? Figure 10 Frequency35% of mode use and cross-tab analysis insights by mode 20% 5% The survey information provides a more complete picture of the 24% Wheel 16%Bike various ways people take trips for a variety of reasons, beyond WalkWalk 23% Survey Data Insights 7% 20% just commuting to work. Figure 10 shows how often people use 35% 6% 20% various travel options. Options included Frequently (3 to 4 times 18% 82% 44% 24% » Residents walk at a rate 5% 16% a week), Sometimes (1 to 2 times a week), Rarely (1 to 2 times a higher than any other month), and Never. Overall, nearly 59% of people walk and 36% 23% group 7% 20% of people bike at least one time per week. Fewer people use a Workers walk at the 82% wheelchair or stroller, but over 10% do at least once per week 18% Walk » Wheel Bike 44% second highest rate, as well. Over 96% of people drive regularly and overwhelmingly 35% 6% 20% indicating sidewalks indicated it is easier to get around Sugar Land with a vehicle than 24% 5% 16% without one. are important near 23% 7% 20% businesses and In order to better understand who is currently using which modes, 18% 82% 44% a cross-tab analysis was performed against demographic data neighborhoods such as residents, visitors, and students, participants ages, and even gender. The following information highlights where data DriveDrive Carpool Transit Ride-hailing was of particular significance between various groups relating to 91% Survey Data Insights 4% 4% 1% the use of each mode. Driving is prevalent 6% » 6% 2% 5% among all ages. Workers Drive Carpool Transit Ride-hailing 1% and business owners16% P7% 35% 91% Drive drive frequently at a Carpool4% Transit 4% Ride-hailing 1% 2% 91% 74%4% 4% 87% 59% 6% slightly higher rate than6% 2% 1% 5% 6% residents and students. 6% 2% 5% 1% 1% 16%16% 7% 7% 35% 35% 2% 2% 74%74% 87% 87% 59% 59% It is easy to get around Sugar Land with a car: 85%

It is easy to get around Sugar Land without a car:

27% Frequently (3-4x/week) Frequently (3-4x/week) Sometimes (1-2x/week) How people currently get around reflects how easy or difficult Sometimes (1-2x/week) Rarely (1-2x/month) it is for people to use various modes. Survey participants Rarely (1-2x/month) Never indicate that driving is most prominent, likely because it is Frequently (3-4x/week)Never easier with direct access to destinations and fewer barriers. Sometimes (1-2x/week)

Mobility Master Plan RarelyCommunity (1-2x/month) Feedback | B-8 DRAFT Never

P Walk Wheel BikeWalk Wheel Bike 35% 6% 20%35% 6% 20% Figure 10 Frequency of mode use continued 24% 5% 16%24% 5% 16% Wheel 23% Walk Walk7% WheelWheel 20%23% Bike BikeBike7% 20% Survey Data Insights 35% 6% 6% 20% Survey Data Insights 18% 35% 82% 44% 20% 82% 21%18% of people who 44% 24% 5% » 5% 16% Visitors bike more 24% wheel (wheelchair/ 16% » 7% frequently than residents 23% 23% 7% stroller/etc.) frequently 20% 20% are82% between age 26-35, » Men bike at nearly 18% 18% Walk 82% Wheel significantly more than Bike 44% 44% double the rate of women 35% 6% any other age group 20% Walk 24% Wheel 5% 16% Bike 7% 35% 23% 6% 20% 20% 18% 82% 44% 24% 5% 16% P Drive 23% Carpool TransitTransit 7% DriveRide-hailing 20% CarpoolCarpool Transit Ride-hailing Survey Data Insights Survey Data Insights 91% 18% 4% 4%82% 91% 1% 44% 4% 4% 1% 6% 6% 2% » People6% age 26-355% use 6% » People age 25 and2% under 5% transit at a higher rate are most likely to carpool Drive Carpool Ride-hailing 1% Drive 16% Carpool7% than other1% ageTransit 35%groups PTransitRide-hailing16% at least once per 7%week. 35% 91% Drive Carpool with4% nearly 7%Transit riding Ride-hailing4% P 1% 2% 91% 74% 91% 4%87% 4% 2% 59%4%4% 1% 1%74% 87% 59% 6% frequently 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 2%2% 2% 5% 5% 5% 1% 16% 7% 35% 1% 1% 16% 16% 7% 7% 35% 35% 2% 74% 87% 59% 2% 2% 74% 74% 87% 87% 59% 59%

Drive Carpool Transit Ride-hailingRide-hailing 91% 4% 4% 1% Survey Data Insights 6% 6% 2% 5% » Approximately 10% of visitors use ridehailing at least once Frequently (3-4x/week)1% Frequently (3-4x/week)16% 7%Frequently (3-4x/week) 35% per week, compared to 8% of Sometimes (1-2x/week) Sometimes (1-2x/week) Sometimes (1-2x/week) 2% 74% 87% 59% business owners and 6% of Rarely (1-2x/month) residents Rarely (1-2x/month) Never Rarely (1-2x/month) Never Frequently (3-4x/week)Frequently (3-4x/week) Never Sometimes (1-2x/week)Sometimes (1-2x/week) MobilityRarely Master (1-2x/month) Plan Community Feedback | B-9 Rarely (1-2x/month) DRAFT Never Never

Frequently (3-4x/week) Sometimes (1-2x/week) Rarely (1-2x/month) P Never

P The City had previously heard from the community that traffic Priorities for Mobility congestion was an important issue so this survey asked community members what “improving traffic congestion” means to them. The In addition to inquiring about how people get around today, the responses spanned a wide range of possibilities from reducing the survey asked information that identifies community priorities. The number of vehicles on the roadways to adding lanes and capacity Case for Action includes “Prioritize safety, health, and sustainability for vehicles. However, the most popular opinions can be grouped to enhance quality of life” as a goal of the plan. Mobility options fit into into two areas: improving traffic flow at intersections and increasing each of those components and are important to understand from a multimodal options for people. community perspective. The information provided here focuses on information provided by the community regarding priorities for the Improving traffic flow at intersections received the majority of responses transportation network. overall and included ideas like improving signal timing, increasing the number of turn lanes, traffic circles instead of stop signs, having more WHAT IS MOST IMPORTANT TO THE COMMUNITY? route options, and focusing on the SH 6 corridor. Safety for all types of travel and mobility options that can allow people to get to destinations The community in Sugar Land has a wide variety of priorities. without a vehicle comprised a significant number of results as well. Participants were asked to rate each of the statements in Figure 11 on a scale from 1 to 9 with 1 being the highest priority. The statements Many of these comments also noted that options and reduced are shown from the community’s highest priority to lowest. While there congestion would improve quality of life in Sugar Land. The feedback was a lot of variation in priorities, overall, the focus is on traffic signals shows that while the community has a lot of differing ideas on what and street maintenance followed by a better bikeway network, safety reducing congestion means and the priorities for the City’s future improvements and traffic calming, and a better network of sidewalks. mobility, they are open to using a variety of methods to help reduce Transit for both regional and local services were lower on the list, but congestion. It is important to note that people who took the survey rated above freight planning and widening roadways. Overall these recognize that widening roads is rated as the lowest priority and will be priorities are consistent with many other needs and opinions from the the least effective to achieve the outcomes of this plan. community and are generally consistent with the Case for Action.

More than 65% of people stated: • They would walk more often if sidewalks What are survey participants willing to pay for? were wide, shaded and intersections were • Improved traffic signal systems & technology (58%) $ comfortable to cross • Better city-wide sidewalks (56%) • That Sugar Land would benefit from more • Better city-wide trail network (56%) frequent and direct commute services from • Expanded street maintenance programs (51%) Houston and other surrounding areas to • Better city-wide on-street bikeway network (49%) jobs in Sugar Land • They would bicycle more often if there was • Improved transit within Sugar Land (45%) a network of safe bikeways and trails • Add capacity and widen city streets (38%) (Percentages represent amount of people that agreed or strongly agreed) Mobility Master Plan Community Feedback | B-10 DRAFT

P 50 41 47 44

50 41 47 44

Figure 11 Community Priority Ranking The information below shows some of the differences between participants’ priorities. It helps understand some of the potential reasons for various priorities and that the overall 1 Traffic signal timing and coordination rankings of priorities do not tell the entire story of mobility 50 41 47 needs within44 Sugar Land. Specifically, those who are less likely to drive (seniors and students) focused on safety and Street maintenance 57 62 (potholes, pavement repair, drainage issues) 51 traffic calming67 as priorities more than other groups. 2 Operations 57% of people ages 66 - 75 A better network of safe, comfortable bikeways and trails 3 57% identified safety and traffic calming as a top 3 priority 51 67 57 62 4 Safety improvements and traffic calming projects 43 57 36% of36 people age52 17 and under prioritized transit A better network of sidewalks and accessible 36% service within Sugar Land

5 curb ramps / Multimodal Safety 51 67 57 62 (more than other groups) 43 57 36 52 Commuter transit service to and from 52% of students stated 6 destinations outside Sugar Land 52% safety and traffic calming were top 3 priority 7 Transit service within Sugarmale/female Land age Transit 43 57 36 52 Women... Freight planning for trucks and Identified a better network of sidewalks and 8 trains to move through the city accessible curbs as a higher priority than men

Roadway widening to add Prioritized transit in service within Sugar Land 9 vehicle capacity Capacity more than men

The priorities here highlight that while people in Sugar Land largely drive, they want other investments to make the current mobility options better and address multimodal gaps. Visitors, residents, and workers all identified more bikeways and trails as a top priority

Mobility Master Plan Community Feedback | B-11 DRAFT WHAT TECHNOLOGY ADVANCEMENTS ARE Technology & Future Trends IMPORTANT? Mobility needs for today are important, but looking towards the Technology is rapidly changing, requiring cities like Sugar Land future is essential to ensure that resources are best used and to think about how things like autonomous vehicles, intelligent leveraged. The Case for Action states that his plan must “Capitalize infrastructure, and micromobility can and should be incorporated on advancements in technology” and “Adapt to changing mobility into transportation choices. Most of the technology questions asked trends in a post pandemic future.” These two components are in this survey focused on gauging participants attitudes towards linked together as technology advancements have enabled remote autonomous vehicles, electric vehicles, and micromobility options. working and will continue to shape mobility options beyond the Overall, survey participants were split on whether or not autonomous COVID-19 pandemic. vehicles will be beneficial and a majority of people are not excited about the use of autonomous vehicles and their potential safety benefits. On the other end of the spectrum, more than 60% of respondents indicated that ride-hailing services (Lyft, Uber) are beneficial to mobility in Sugar Land and that expanding access to electric charging stations is important. As ride-hailing and electric vehicles are commonplace and people have more experience with 50 41 Feelings47 about 44autonomous vehicles them it tracks that they were seen as more favorable and beneficial. Just over a majority of participants identified traffic signals as effective. This correlates with the significant input regarding are excited to have deliveries made prioritized traffic signal timing and coordination. 47% by driverless automated vehicles 50 41 47 44 Opinions on technology and mobility P think automated vehicles offer 44% significant safety benefits 64% 61% 50 41 47 44

51 67 57 62 Think that ride-hailing Think expanding access are excited to ride in an services such as Uber and to electric vehicle charging 41% autonomous vehicle Lyft are a significant benefit stations is important

51 67 57 62 Survey participants were evenly split on whether 53% 51% 43 57 36 52 31 50 autonomous vehicles can offer potential benefits to Think signal timing operates Think micromobility overall mobility in Sugar Land 50 effectively along state options are important 57 62 51 Mobility67 Master Plan routes like US 90 and SH 6 Community Feedback | B-12 43 57 36 52 DRAFT 31

43 57 36 52

P

P mode to work pre and post covid

work from HOW HAS THE PANDEMIC CHANGED MOBILITY?home impacts on how they travel to work with 90% reporting working from home, an increase of 77%. Personal vehicle and transit use have The COVID-19 pandemic has reshaped how people think about personal both decreased, while walking and biking have increased. People mobility options and how businesses think about their workforcevehicle overall think that working from home, using delivery services, and location. The pandemic has caused significant impacts on walking and biking will continue in the future at rates higher than transportation trends and will continue to do so in the future.transit The experienced before COVID-19. Most other transportation modes survey asked several questions to participants regarding various and issues were overall identified as people thinking they will return technology uses in transportation and changing trends from bike to pre-covid levels. However, 39% of people think that transit usage COVID-19. The information here shows the impacts seen today will decrease from pre-pandemic levels in the long-term. as well as what survey participants think the long-term impacts on various mobility options will be. Sugar Land workers have seenwalk major

other COVID-19 mobility impacts and trends

ommute ode Share hange PRE-COVID CURRENT Change Work from home 13% 90% 67% Personal vehicle 87% 36% have increased Transit 14% 3% walking/biking Bike since March 2020 5% 6% Walk 1% 3% Participants were asked to identify all of the ways they commuted before the COVID-19 pandemic and during so percentages do Use will stay higher than pre-pandemic levels not necessarily add up to 100.

work from31 delivery service home demand transit traffic congestion parking walking and demand bike usage P P autonomous vehicle ride-hailing It is difficult to identify the fullP long-term impacts on travel from demand COVID-19, but it is anticipated that there will be many that need to be planned for. The opinions of post-pandemicP mobility trends shown here were identified by a majority of surveyP participants. Use will return to pre-pandemic Plevels Mobility Master Plan Community Feedback | B-13 DRAFT

P

P

P P

P