monterey - salinas transit · monterey-salinas transit – marina area service study moore &...

MONTEREY - SALINAS TRANSIT

MARINA AREA SERVICE STUDY

FINAL REPORT

SEPTEMBER 2009

MONTEREY-SALINAS TRANSIT – MARINA AREA SERVICE STUDY

MOORE & ASSOCIATES

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 01

2. CUSTOMER SURVEY ANALYSIS 05

3. COMMUNITY SURVEY ANALYSIS 35

TABLE OF CONTENTS 4. CSUMB SURVEY ANALYSIS 57

5. PATRONAGE ANALYSIS 83

6. SERVICE PLAN 91


MOORE & ASSOCIATES

Exhibit No. Exhibit Title Page

Exhibit 2.1 Four-Month MST Ridership 8

Exhibit 2.2 On-Board Survey Sampling 8

Exhibit 2.3 Respondent Residence Location 10

Exhibit 2.4 Route Selection 11

Exhibit 2.5 Transfer Used 12

Exhibit 2.6 Trip Purpose 13

Exhibit 2.7 Typical Route vs. Trip Purpose 14

Exhibit 2.8 Number of Children under the Age of 16 Traveling with Rider 15

Exhibit 2.9 Ridership Frequency 15

Exhibit 2.10 Typical Route vs. Ridership Frequency 16

Exhibit 2.11 Length of Use 17

Exhibit 2.12 Typical Route vs. Length of Use 18

Exhibit 2.13 Transportation Alternatives 19

Exhibit 2.14 Typical Route vs. Transportation Alternatives 20

Exhibit 2.15 Transit Stop Access 21

Exhibit 2.16 Fare Type 22

Exhibit 2.17 Alternative Fare Payment Preference 23

Exhibit 2.18 Trip Purpose vs. Awareness of CSUMB Free Bus Zone 24

Exhibit 2.19 Typical Route vs. Awareness of CSUMB Free Bus Zone 25

Exhibit 2.20 Initial Source of Rider’s Awareness 26

Exhibit 2.21 Initial Source of Rider’s Awareness – Other 26

Exhibit 2.22 Language vs. Initial Source of Awareness 27

Exhibit 2.23 Rider Information Outlets 28

Exhibit 2.24 Rider Information Outlets – Other 28

Exhibit 2.25 Language vs. Information Outlets 29

Exhibit 2.26 Customer Information Telephone Service Rating 30

Exhibit 2.27 Website Rating 31

Exhibit 2.28 Service Attribute Rating 31


MOORE & ASSOCIATES

Exhibit 2.29 Selection Motivator 33


Exhibit 3.2 Respondent Residence Location – Other 39

Exhibit 3.3 Barriers to Usage 41

Exhibit 3.4 Propensity to Ride vs. Employment Category 42

Exhibit 3.5 Propensity to Ride vs. Household Income 43

Exhibit 3.6 Preferred Enhancement 43

Exhibit 3.7 Alternate Public-Transit Services Used 45

Exhibit 3.8 Awareness of CSUMB Free Bus Zone vs. Employment 46

Exhibit 3.9 Service Attribute Importance 47

Exhibit 3.10 Advertising Source 48

Exhibit 3.11 Preferred Mode 49

Exhibit 3.12 Print Outlet 49

Exhibit 3.13 Age Distribution 50

Exhibit 3.14 Persons Under the Age of 16 Traveling With Respondent 51

Exhibit 3.15 Household Income 52

Exhibit 3.16 Employment Status 53

Exhibit 3.17 Education 54


Exhibit 4.2 Respondent Category vs. Residence Location 61

Exhibit 4.3 Patronized MST in Last 60 Days 62

Exhibit 4.4 Respondent Category vs. Patronized MST in Last 60 Days 63

Exhibit 4.5 Reason for Not Using MST 64

Exhibit 4.6 Residence Location vs. Reason for Not Using MST 65

Exhibit 4.7 Respondent Category vs. Reason for Not Using MST 66

Exhibit 4.8 Propensity to Ride MST 67

Exhibit 4.9 Respondent Category vs. Propensity to Ride MST 68

Exhibit 4.10 Preferred Service Enhancement 69

Exhibit 4.11 Characteristic Preference 70

Exhibit 4.12 Other Transit Service 71

Exhibit 4.13 CSUMB Fare-Free Zone 71

Exhibit 4.14 Nearest Bus Stop 72


MOORE & ASSOCIATES

Exhibit 4.15 Ride-Dependency 73

Exhibit 4.16 Respondent Category 74

Exhibit 4.17 Days on Campus 74

Exhibit 4.18 Time Arriving on Campus 75

Exhibit 4.19 Time Departing Campus 76

Exhibit 4.20 Use of CSUMB Shuttle 76

Exhibit 4.21 CSUMB Shuttle Frequency of Use 77

Exhibit 4.22 Most Frequent Off-Campus Destinations 78

Exhibit 4.23 Off-Campus Mode 79

Exhibit 4.24 Access to Campus 80

Exhibit 4.25 Discount Fare Option 81

Exhibit 5.1 Marina On-Call Common Origins 85

Exhibit 5.2 Marina On-Call Common Origins Map 87

Exhibit 5.3 Marina On-Call Common Destinations Map 88

Exhibit 5.4 Customer Survey Respondent Home Zip Codes 89

Exhibit 6.1 Current Route 2X 93

Exhibit 6.2 Current Route 12 94




Exhibit 6.6 Current MST On-Call Marina 98

Exhibit 6.7 Current CSUMB Shuttle 99

Exhibit 6.8 Current Service in Marina 100

Exhibit 6.9 Current Service in Marina with Quarter-Mile Buffers 101

Exhibit 6.10 Proposed Marina Circulator 105

Exhibit 6.11 Proposed Marina Circulator Sample Schedule 106

Exhibit 6.12 Near-Term Service in Marina 107

Exhibit 6.13 Near-Term Service in Marina with Quarter-Mile Buffers 108

Exhibit 6.14 Proposed Route 25 110

Exhibit 6.15 Proposed Route 25 Sample Schedule 111

Exhibit 6.16 Route 16 Sample Schedule 113

Exhibit 6.17 Route 20 Sample Schedule 115


MOORE & ASSOCIATES

Exhibit 6.18 Proposed Route 25 Sample Schedule 116

Exhibit 6.19 Mid-Term Service in Marina 117

Exhibit 6.20 Mid-Term Service in Marina with Quarter-Mile Buffers 118

Exhibit 6.21 Proposed Route 27 121

Exhibit 6.22 Long-Term Service in Marina 123

Exhibit 6.23 Long-Term Service in Marina with Quarter-Mile Buffers 124


MOORE & ASSOCIATES

This Page Intentionally Left Blank.


MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 1

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY



CHAPTER 1 – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The goal of the Marina Area Service Study is to evaluate how well MST’s

Marina-area fixed-route service meets current demand, assess how well it

is likely to meet future demand, and develop service modifications to better

serve public transit customers in the near-term as well as forecast future.

To this end, Moore & Associates fielded three separate surveys: a

passenger survey conducted onboard MST buses traveling throughout the

service area; a community survey conducted at several high-traffic points

within Marina; and a web-based survey open to the Cal State University –

Monterey Bay faculty, staff, and student body. The purpose of these efforts

was to codify perceptions, travel patterns, desired enhancements, and

respondent demographics. These market research efforts were

supplemented with interviews with stakeholders, MST staff, and riders.

Market research efforts completed in conjunction with this study were

fruitful. The community-intercept survey yielded 266 valid responses, the

onboard survey 755, and the web-based CSUMB survey 519. The

respective response rates allowed for a high degree of confidence in the

results. Given the three different surveys each targeted a separate segment

of the population, the results proved valuable in analyzing the differences

between riders, non-riders, and members of the CSUMB community (i.e.,

students, faculty, and staff). Results from the customer survey revealed

existing transit travel patterns and demographics, service satisfaction, as

well as channels through which MST can improve service delivery and

retain customers. The community and CSUMB surveys each provided

valuable information about riders and non-riders within Marina as well as

the CSUMB campus. Results helped target service planning efforts more

accurately and allowed for the development of effective market-driven

service enhancements.



To supplement the preceding market research efforts, Moore & Associates

also analyzed patronage patterns onboard MST buses. We examined

origin and destination data for MST’s Marina On-Call service for the

months of August 2008 and February 2009 as well as origin data from the

customer survey conducted onboard MST buses in March 2009. The data

was used to determine where trips are currently being made, ensuring

service planning efforts to effectively address demand patterns.

Recommendations arising from the market research activities and analysis

of patronage patterns were split into near, mid, and long-term strategies.

The three time frames serve different purposes. Near-Term

recommendations focus on addressing immediate needs, mid-term

recommendations are aimed at crafting a comprehensive approach

toward service delivery within the Marina Service Sector, and long-term

recommendations address forecast demand for transit service associated

with the continued build-out of the former Fort Ord community. Taken

collectively, the recommendations are designed to enhance MST’s service

delivery strategy in the Marina Service Sector, though given the Marina

Transit Exchange functions as a gateway for many routes linking Salinas

and Monterey, other portions of the service area stand to realize benefits

as well. Primary obstacles to implementation including availability of

funding (both capital and operating) and restrictive turning movements out

of the Dunes Shopping Center (i.e., vehicles cannot make a left turn from

the Shopping Center parking lot northbound onto Second Avenue).



2. CUSTOMER SURVEY ANALYSIS



CHAPTER 2 – CUSTOMER SURVEY ANALYSIS

This chapter presents key findings and analysis from the customer survey

conducted onboard Monterey-Salinas Transit (MST) in March 2009. The

survey sought to collect data regarding demographics, assess rider

satisfaction, perceptions and characteristics, and identify preferred service

enhancements.

Moore & Associates conducted an intercept survey of MST customers on-

board MST vehicles traveling throughout Marina during the week of March

2, 2009. Survey instruments were developed to solicit information from

current MST riders. The survey was designed to:

• Identify the needs, perceptions, concerns, and any barriers to use

of Marina’s transit rider population;

• Identify service improvements associated with existing users;

• Identify marketing strategies and appropriate media outlets

designed to maximize impact; and

• Develop a profile of transit patrons traveling through Marina,

including travel patterns and demographics.

Methodology

For the purposes of the study, the Marina area is defined as the area along

Military Avenue from the south, extending north through California State

University at Monterey Bay (CSUMB) north to Marina. It stretches from

Highway 1 on the coast to the East Garrison community. Included in the

study area are MST’s Marina Transit Exchange and Edgewater Transit

Exchange.

Survey instruments were developed to develop a comprehensive analysis of

transportation demand as well as travel patterns within the Marina area.

To complement the information gathered in MST’s 2006 Short Range

Transit Plan (SRTP), this survey was also designed to evaluate how well



MST’s bus service in and around the Marina/CSUMB area is meeting

patron demand with respect to on-time performance, safety, and

convenience. Data collected through the on-board survey will be used to:

• Analyze present and anticipated development and travel patterns,

• Support development of a series of new and revised alignments

that would better serve existing and future transit customers, and

• Attract additional ridership.

The on-board survey instrument was crafted using specific transit-based

query recommendations from MST staff in concert with Moore &

Associates. The survey was developed in English and Spanish and included

information regarding the rider’s trip that day as well as feedback

regarding MST’s services in general. Though secondary, the survey also

contained demographic information to help gain insight on such items as

the rider’s approximate residential location and access to other mobility

options. This information will support analysis of where service is found to

be most effective, while also assisting in the development of service

enhancements aimed at increasing MST ridership.

The on-board surveys were completed over the course of four days:

Monday, March 2 through Thursday, March 5, 2009. All surveyors

boarded and disembarked for their survey shift at the Marina Transit

Station located at Reservation Road and De Forest Road. Data was

collected via a self-administered approach and included four Moore &

Associates’ field supervisors and a team of 20 trained, bilingual surveyors.

To ensure survey results were relevant, only which traveled to, from or

through Marina were surveyed. All persons 16 years of age or older

boarding a MST bus on the designated routes were invited to participate.

Surveyor staff introduced themselves on behalf of Monterey-Salinas Transit

and requested each respondent’s permission before initiating the survey.

Each respondent was given the option of completing the survey themselves

or having assistance from one of the bilingual surveyors on-board. Self-



administered surveys were reviewed to ensure each was completed

properly before deeming it valid. After each survey was completed, the

surveyor thanked each respondent for their participation and concluded

the survey session.

A total of 755 surveys were collected across the five routes traveling

through Marina: Routes 2X, 16, 20, 27, and the MST On-Call Marina. The

sample targets for each route were calculated using recent ridership data,

wherein those routes with higher ridership were assigned a higher quota

than those with lower ridership. Survey administration was modified slightly

for Route 20 as it accounted for more than 75 percent of the aggregate

ridership amongst the target routes. Though Route 20 still accounted for

the highest number of valid surveys, Moore & Associates adjusted surveyor

staffing levels to ensure the other routes were sufficiently sampled. It should

also be noted that although Routes 6 and 12 provide some service within

parts of the Marina area, ridership was not considered significant, and

therefore excluded from the sampling plan.

Exhibit 2.1 Four-Month MST Ridership

Route Sept-Dec 2008 Ridership Ridership PercentageMonterey-Salinas (20) 202,612 76.5%Monterey-Marina (16) 46,900 17.7%Watsonville-Marina (27) 6,816 2.6%MST On Call Marina 4,430 1.7%Pebble Beach Express (2X) 4,141 1.6%

Exhibit 2.2 On-Board Survey Sampling

Route Survey Respondents Percentage of RespondentsMonterey-Salinas (20) 371 49.1%Monterey-Marina (16) 271 35.9%Watsonville-Marina (27) 60 7.9%MST On Call Marina 35 4.6%Pebble Beach Express (2X) 18 2.4%

Based on 2007 Census data, Marina has a population of approximately

25,378, yielding a 95-percent confidence level and a ±3.51 percent



margin of error. As expected, the highest number of surveys were

completed on Routes 20 (371) and 16 (271), and the lowest on Route 2X

(18). Of the 755 valid responses, 687 surveys were completed in English

(91 percent) and 68 in Spanish (9 percent).

Rider Profile

In analyzing the most frequently occurring responses, a profile of the

“typical” Monterey-Salinas Transit customer was developed. While this

profile does not reflect any single customer, it is representative of the

responses provided by MST riders during the survey period. Though the

primary intent of this survey was not to gain demographic insight into

current MST riders, some demographic information was obtained.

Based on the on-board survey data, the “typical” MST Marina rider lives

within Marina’s 93933 zip code (39.2 percent) and first became aware of

MST service by seeing the vehicles traveling around town (45.1 percent).

Once becoming a rider, they have ridden consistently at a rate of

approximately four or more days per week (62.4 percent) for at least a

year (59.8 percent). In the absence of MST service, they would rely on a

friend or family member for travel (42.3 percent). While traveling on the

most frequently used route – Route 20 (50.7 percent) – they typically walk

less than three blocks to reach the originating bus stop (50.2 percent).

Boarding the bus, they typically use cash fare (61.6 percent) and are most

likely traveling to either school (34.2 percent) or work (32.8 percent).

Although they have internet access at home (65 percent), they have not

likely visited the MST website (69.2 percent), nor have they used “Google

Transit” to plan a trip or access information regarding MST’s services (83.8

percent). Instead, the “typical” rider obtains information about MST on-

board the bus (44.4 percent) and has probably never used MST’s customer

information telephone service (57.2 percent). Given the profile rider

probably does not have a driver license (56 percent) or access to a

personal vehicle (63.8 percent), they rely on MST and are therefore

considered ride-dependent.



Though this Marina Area Service Study focuses primarily on the Marina

community, results from the on-board survey reveals a wide range of

residential location distribution. Respondents were asked to specify

residence zip code. Given the survey was conducted on routes primarily

serving the Marina area, the majority of respondents indicated residing in

Marina (39.2 percent). Within Exhibit 2.3 are other locations that yielded

significant results including Seaside (17.4 percent), Salinas (aggregate

16.9 percent across three zip codes), Monterey (6.8 percent), Castroville

(3.8 percent), Watsonville (3.2 percent) and Pacific Grove (1.7 percent). It

should be noted there were a total of 43 other zip codes indicated by

respondents. However, each yielded less than a one-percent response rate

and therefore was not considered statistically significant. Those 43 were

combined and included in Exhibit 2.3 under “Total Other” (11.1 percent).

Exhibit 2.3 Respondent Residence Location

City Zip Code Respondents PercentageMarina 93933 209 39.2%Seaside 93955 93 17.4%Monterey 93940 36 6.8%Salinas 93901 34 6.4%Salinas 93906 33 6.2%Salinas 93905 23 4.3%Castroville 95012 20 3.8%Watsonville 93950 17 3.2%Pacific Grove 95076 9 1.7%Total Other Various 59 11.1%

Travel Patterns

Several questions were posed regarding travel patterns. The resulting

information will help MST develop service improvements best suited to their

customers’ needs. Riders were asked which MST route/service do you ride

most often and were provided seven options to choose from: Pebble Beach

Express (Route 2X), Monterey-Salinas (Route 20), Marina On-Call,

Edgewater-Ryan Ranch (Route 6), Watsonville-Marina (Route 27),

Monterey-Marina (Route 16), and Other. Exhibit 2.4 indicates the



Monterey-Salinas Route 20 (50.7 percent) and Monterey-Marina Route 16

(33.7 percent) yielded the highest results, which is comparable to the

results found in both the 2008 ridership data (Exhibit 2.1) and the Survey

Sampling (Exhibit 2.2). It should be noted the information gained from

responses to this question provides additional insight into travel patterns

given the route the respondent most often uses can vary significantly from

the route the respondent was on at the time of the survey. Only 34

respondents selected the other option and the results were too diverse to

develop meaningful conclusions. Of those other routes selected, Route 1

(17.6 percent) and Routes 9, 23, and 28 (14.7 percent each) were the

most commonly-cited.

Exhibit 2.4 Route Selection

1.6%

50.7%

5.1%

1.1%

7.8%

33.7%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

Pebble BeachExpress (2X)

Monterey-Salinas (20) MST On Call Marina Edgewater-RyanRanch (6)

Watsonville-Marina(27)

Monterey-Marina (16)

Riders were asked if the surveyed trip included a transfer, and were then

asked to specify their selection if yes was their response. Participants were

given four options: Another MST bus/line, Santa Cruz Metro, RIDES (MST’s

ADA transportation service), or other. More than half of all respondents

indicated their trip did include a transfer (57.4 percent). Among those

responding yes, the vast majority originated from another MST/bus line



(87.7 percent). Among the 433 respondents to select yes, not one rider

indicated other (i.e., another transit service) as their means of transfer.

Exhibit 2.5 Transfer Used

87.7%

5.0%7.1%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

Another MST bus/line Santa Cruz Metro RIDES

The majority of respondents indicated school (34.1 percent) or work (32.8

percent) as their primary trip purpose. This was followed by personal

business (18.1 percent), shopping (9.1 percent), and medical (5.8 percent)

respectively. These results are consistent with market research conducted

by Moore & Associates in other California communities.



Exhibit 2.6 Trip Purpose

32.8%

18.1%

5.8%

9.1%

34.1%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%

Work Personal Business School Shopping Medical

To gain further insight into patron travel behavior, we performed a data

cross-tabulation comparing respondents’ typical route and trip purpose.

The results reveal Route 16 is used overwhelmingly for school-related trips

(43.2 percent), which can be attributed to the fact it is the only traditional

fixed-route serving CSUMB that operates across the entire service day.

Routes 2X and 6 are typically used for work-related purposes (50.0 percent

for both). Marina On-Call is used equally often for personal business and

school-related trips (25.8 percent for each), while never used for medical

reasons. Route 20 is used nearly equally as-often for work and school-

related trips (33.6 and 33.2 percent, respectively).



Exhibit 2.7 Typical Route vs. Trip Purpose

50.0%

33.6%

35.5%

50.0%

38.3%

29.0%

10.0%

20.2%

25.8%

16.7%

21.3%

10.1%

10.0%

33.2%

25.8%

16.7%

23.4%

43.2%

10.0%

8.4%

12.9%

14.2%

20.0%

4.6%

16.7%

17.0%

3.6%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Pebble Beach Express (2X)

Monterey-Salinas (20)

MST On Call Marina

Edgewater-Ryan Ranch (6)

Watsonville-Marina (27)



Riders were asked whether or not they were traveling with any person

under the age of 16, and if so, to specify how many. This query was posed

to assist in the development of service alternatives which may be beneficial

to riders traveling with children, as well as to further understand the travel

patterns of current riders. Though the majority of respondents indicated

they were not traveling with any children (88.4 percent), those stating they

were cited only one child as the most common response (40.5 percent).

Four or more was cited least often (12.6 percent).



Exhibit 2.8 Number of Children under the Age of 16 Traveling with Rider

1 40.5%2 30.3%3 16.4%4 or more 12.6%

Participants were also asked how often they typically ride MST. The top

response was four or more days per week (62.3 percent), followed by 2-3

days per week (22.1 percent). This reveals riders are not only using the

service consistently, but view MST as the “preferred” transportation option

for a significant share of their trips. This is considered to be a positive

finding in that MST is having success retaining existing riders.

Exhibit 2.9 Ridership Frequency

62.3%

22.1%

4.3% 4.0%

7.3%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

4 or more days per week 2-3 days per month 2-3 days per week 1 day per week 1 day per month or less

A data cross-tabulation was run to compare frequency of usage with trip

purpose. This revealed riders using the service to travel to work are most

likely to ride four or more days per week (42.2 percent). Riders using MST

to travel to school were also more likely to use the service four or more

times per week (38.7 percent). Shopping (4.4 percent) and medical (4.4



percent) trip purposes yielded the lowest responses for persons most likely

to ride four or more days per week.

An additional data cross-tabulation was conducted between typical route

and frequency of usage. Of particular note, there are no infrequent riders

(one day per week or less) using either Route 2X or Route 6, indicating

riders come to rely heavily on these services for their daily trips. Route 2X,

in particular, is skewed heavily toward daily trips (88.9 percent), which

reflects its commute-oriented structure. The Marina On-Call service has a

higher-than-average rate of everyday usage (70.4 percent). Routes 16 and

20 are most likely to be used on a less frequent basis.

Exhibit 2.10 Typical Route vs. Ridership Frequency

88.9%

64.1%

70.4%

57.1%

61.7%

53.4%

7.9%

28.6%

8.5%

7.4%

11.1%

19.4%

22.2%

14.3%

21.3%

31.4%

3.8%

3.7%

4.4%

4.8%

3.7%

2.1%

3.4%

6.4%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%



MST On Call Marina




4 or more days per week 2-3 days per month 2-3 days per week 1 day per month or less 1 day per week

When asked how long they had been an MST customer, 59.8 percent of

respondents stated they have used MST for more than one year. Among



the less frequent responses were less than three months (14.4 percent) and

3-6 months (9.2 percent). These results, much like those regarding service

frequency, reveal MST excels at retaining patrons.

Exhibit 2.11 Length of Use

14.4%16.5%

9.2%

59.8%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

Less than 3 months 6-12 months 3-6 months More than 1 year

To analyze patron length of use more deeply, we conducted a data cross-

tabulation between typical route used and length of use. Results reveal

more respondents have been riding Route 20 for more than a year (63.3

percent), while the highest concentrations of new riders can be found on

Route 2X. This highlights that service’s value as a potential tool for

attracting new riders (i.e., new riders find it approachable and easy-to-

use), though it also has the lowest concentration of long-term riders (20.0

percent). Route 6 has the lowest concentration of new riders among the six

routes surveyed (14.3 percent), followed closely by Route 20 (14.9

percent). It should be noted, however, that while Route 20 has a relatively

low incidence of new riders, it has the highest ridership in the MST system,

and as such the total number of riders is significantly greater than Route

2X.



Exhibit 2.12 Typical Route vs. Length of Use

30.0%

14.9%

21.9%

14.3%

19.1%

13.9%

30.0%

14.6%

25.0%

28.6%

19.1%

18.7%

20.0%

7.3%

9.4%

14.3%

12.8%

10.5%

20.0%

63.3%

43.8%

42.9%

48.9%

56.9%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%



MST On Call Marina




Less than 3 months 6-12 months 3-6 months More than 1 year

Respondents were asked how they would make the surveyed trip if MST

were not available. Many cited reliance on family/friend (42.3 percent) as

their most common transportation alternative. This was followed by

walk/bicycle (24.8 percent), drive self (13.3 percent), would not make trip

(11.5 percent), and carpool (7.9 percent). Riders were also given the

opportunity to respond to this question by selecting other. Only two other

options were cited, both of which yielded similar results. Of the eleven

respondents selecting the other option, six riders stated they would

hitchhike while the other five stated they would use a taxi. These results

further confirm the majority of surveyed riders are ride-dependent.



Exhibit 2.13 Transportation Alternatives

13.3%

7.9%

42.3%

11.5%

24.8%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%

45.0%

Drive Self Carpool Rely on family/friend Would not make trip Walk/bicycle

To further analyze respondent transportation alternatives, we conducted a

data cross-tabulation with “typical route.” The results reveal the highest

concentrations of “choice” riders (i.e., respondents having access to

mobility options and transit) are on Routes 2X and 6 (25.0 percent and

33.3 percent). The highest concentrations of ride-dependent patrons were

on Routes 16 and 27 (7.1 and 11.6 percent, respectively).

Delving further into the results, assuming patrons indicating they would

walk or bicycle are using MST for shorter trips, the routes most often used

for short trips include Route 27 and Marina On-Call (32.6 percent and

30.8 percent, respectively). Given it has a high concentration of

respondents who would drive themselves, no one on Route 6 indicated

they would walk or bicycle if the service was unavailable.



Exhibit 2.14 Typical Route vs. Transportation Alternatives

25.0%

15.3%

15.4%

33.3%

11.6%

7.1%

12.5%

8.2%

7.7%

16.7%

4.7%

6.5%

50.0%

44.7%

38.5%

50.0%

34.9%

45.8%

10.6%

7.7%

16.3%

11.9%

12.5%

21.2%

30.8%

32.6%

28.6%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%



MST On Call Marina




Drive Self Carpool Rely on family/friend Would not make trip Walk/bicycle

Survey participants were asked how they typically access MST at the

individual stop level. Among the responses specified, walked less than

three blocks was cited as the most common response (50.2 percent). The

next highest response was walked more than three blocks (39.5 percent),

yielding similar results. A modest number indicated they either rode a bike

(5.3 percent) or drove self (4.9 percent) as their means of accessing the

bus stop. Though many riders board and alight buses at multiple stops, we

observed the Marina Transit Exchange had little or no designated long-

term parking for transit riders. Parking at this station is primarily either

handicapped restricted or 15-minute parking (i.e., pick up/ drop off), both

of which are monitored by on-site security personnel. While it may be

difficult to quantify the direct effects this has on patronage, we believe it is

reasonable to assume this policy could act as a barrier to possible transit

use.



Respondents were also given the option to select transferred from another

bus and then were asked to specify the route from which they transferred.

Only 45 respondents selected this option, noting 19 different route/transfer

combinations including two transferring from the CSUMB shuttle (4.4

percent of transfers) and one respondent transferring from MST’s DART

service (2.2 percent of transfers). Though all numerically modest, the two

most noteworthy transfers were cited as Route 20 (22.2 percent of

transfers) and Route 27 (11.1 percent of transfers). All other cited transfers

were well below 10 percent and not considered significant enough to

warrant further analysis.

Exhibit 2.15 Transit Stop Access

4.9% 5.3%

39.5%

50.2%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

Drove self Rode bike Walked more than 3 blocks Walked less than 3 blocks

Fare Preferences

More than 60 percent of respondents cited paying their fare using the

standard cash fare. Payment through the use of a monthly pass (24.8

percent) was the next most commonly cited fare used, followed by discount

fare (7.4 percent) and free fare (6.2 percent). Discounted fares are about

half of the regular fare and are available to:



• Individuals 47" tall to 18 years old,

• Individuals 65 years or older,

• Individuals with disabilities, and

• Medicare cardholders.

The free fare only applies to children up to 46 inches tall. A maximum of

three children, 46 inches tall or less, can ride free with a fare-paying

passenger.

Exhibit 2.16 Fare Type

61.5%

24.8%

7.4%6.2%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

Cash Fare Monthly Pass Discount Free

To garner input regarding changes to fare policy, survey participants were

asked if available, which of the following payment methods do you prefer.

This question was posed to riders in an effort to analyze awareness for

introducing new fare media options. Each option includes the use of a

payment card which, if implemented, the rider would board the bus and

simply swipe the card as payment. The fare would then be immediately

deducted from the Debit Card, Credit Card, or Pre-Paid Fare Card. This

eliminates the need for the customer to have the exact cash fare or the

need to travel to a ticket outlet to purchase daily or monthly passes. This



form of fare payment is relatively new to the transit industry and provides

greater convenience to patrons while minimizing administrative burden.

Among the options respondents were given, the pre-paid fare card was the

most commonly-cited (54.7 percent), followed by debit card (33.3

percent), and credit card (11.8 percent).

Exhibit 2.17 Alternative Fare Payment Preference

33.3%

11.8%

54.7%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

Debit Card Credit Card Pre-paid Fare Card

Information Awareness

At the request of MST, we queried riders regarding their awareness of the

free bus zone at CSUMB, which allows anyone to board MST buses for free

at any stop in the CSUMB central and east residential campuses. Noting

that 34.1 percent of respondents indicated their primary trip purpose as

school, the data revealed the majority of riders were aware of this service

(53.2 percent). A data cross-tabulation was run to compare respondent

trip purpose with service awareness. Sixty-three percent stated their primary

trip purpose was school knew about this CSUMB service, which was the

highest result of the cross-tabulation. Those least likely to know about this

service were respondents citing personal business as their primary trip

purpose (61.9 percent responding no).



Exhibit 2.18 Trip Purpose vs. Awareness of CSUMB Free Bus Zone

50.9%

63.0%60.9%

44.4%

49.1%

61.9%

39.1%

55.6%

38.1% 37.0%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%


Yes No

To clarify the results of this question, another data cross-tabulation was

conducted between awareness of the CSUMB fare-free zone and typical

route used. Results reveal awareness of the free-fare zone varies

dramatically depending upon which route the patron typically uses. Patrons

using Route 2X are virtually unaware of the zone (11.1 percent), while

patrons on Route 16 are much more familiar (78.5 percent). Patrons using

other routes are generally split evenly.



Exhibit 2.19 Typical Route vs. Awareness of CSUMB Free Bus Zone

11.1%

36.5%

53.8%

50.0%

48.8%

78.5%

88.9%

63.5%

46.2%

50.0%

51.2%

21.5%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%



MST On Call Marina




Yes No

Riders were questioned as to how they first became aware of MST and

were then given five possible choices (88.9 percent): employer, saw

vehicles, advertising, don’t recall, phone book, and other (11.1 percent).

Of the 88.9 percent selecting the stipulated options, the most common

response was saw vehicles (45.1 percent) followed by don’t recall (34.8

percent), advertising (9.0 percent), employer (8.5 percent), and phone

book (2.6 percent). The 11.1 percent selecting other cited various other

information sources, family being the most common (39.4 percent). It is

clear MST is its own best current advertising platform.



Exhibit 2.20 Initial Source of Rider’s Awareness

8.5%

45.1%

9.0%

34.8%

2.6%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%

45.0%

50.0%

Employer Saw vehicles Advertising Don't recall Phone Book

Exhibit 2.21 Initial Source of Rider’s Awareness – Other

Family 39.4%School 21.1%Friend 19.7%Internet 5.6%Social worker 5.6%Common sense 4.2%Rider guide 4.2%

To enhance marketing and outreach efforts, we conducted a data cross-

tabulation between language and initial source of awareness of MST.

Spanish speakers were more likely to learn of the service via advertising,

employer, or the phone book than were English speakers. English speakers

were most likely to learn of MST service by seeing the vehicles around

town.



Exhibit 2.22 Language vs. Initial Source of Awareness

7.9%

14.0%

46.5%

30.0%

7.9%

20.0%

35.3%

30.0%

2.3%

6.0%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

English

Spanish

Employer Saw vehicles Advertising Don't recall Phone Book

Riders were questioned about where they typically obtain information

regarding MST services. Similar to transit market research conducted in

other California communities, respondents indicated they find MST

information on-board vehicles (44.4 percent). This was followed by MST

website (30.2 percent), MST telephone line (13.8 percent), employer (6.6

percent), and CSUMB (4.9 percent). Respondents were also given the

option to select other, and then specify a different promotional outlet. A

total of 7.4 percent selected other as an option and the MST rider guide

was the most commonly-cited other response (63.0 percent).



Exhibit 2.23 Rider Information Outlets

6.6%

44.4%

13.8%

30.2%

4.9%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%

45.0%

50.0%

Employer On-board vehicles MST telephone line MST website CSUMB

Exhibit 2.24 Rider Information Outlets – Other

Rider guide 63.0%Family 10.9%Friend 8.7%Internet 8.7%School 4.3%Social worker 4.3%

To improve marketing and outreach efforts, we conducted a data cross-

tabulation between language and rider information outlets. The results

indicate some significant differences in how English and Spanish speakers

access information. No Spanish speakers cited obtaining information via

the website, while one-third of English speakers indicated doing so. English

speakers were nearly three times more likely to get information through

CSUMB. However, the overwhelming means by which Spanish speakers

access information about MST was onboard the buses themselves.



Exhibit 2.25 Language vs. Information Outlets

6.7%

5.6%

41.6%

72.2%

13.2%

20.4%

33.3% 5.2%

1.9%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

English

Spanish

Employer On-board vehicles MST telephone line MST website CSUMB

Respondents were queried whether or not they have utilized the MST

customer information telephone service. The majority indicated they had

not (57.2 percent). This data is consistent with findings that the majority of

riders state they receive their information on-board vehicles (44.4 percent).

Those indicating using the service (42.7 percent) were asked to rate it. The

results reveal the majority of those using the telephone service consider it

to be good (41.2 percent) or excellent (23.2 percent). These results reveal

MST’s customer information telephone service is meeting customers’

needs, but may also have room for improvement. Those that were neutral

comprised 13.3 percent, while those believing the service to be fair made

up 13.9 percent. Poor garnered the fewest responses (8.2 percent).



Exhibit 2.26 Customer Information Telephone Service Rating

Poor 8.2%Fair 13.9%Neutral 13.3%Good 41.2%Excellent 23.2%

Riders were asked whether or not they had visited the MST website within

60 days prior to survey contact. Much like the telephone service question,

the majority of riders had not visited MST’s website within the prior 60 days

(69.1 percent). When data cross-tabulations were run between this and

respondents indicating they had internet access in their home (65.0

percent), only 27.0 percent of those riders with internet access had visited

the MST website. Again, those indicating they had visited the website were

also asked to rate it. Results closely mirrored those shown in the telephone

service results; wherein good was the most common response (52.5

percent). The second highest response was excellent (20.5 percent),

followed by neutral (14.5 percent), fair (10.0 percent), and poor (2.5

percent).

The survey also sought to learn if riders had utilized “Google Transit” to

plan a trip or to obtain information regarding MST’s services. Again, the

majority indicated they had not used this service (83.7 percent). Data

cross-tabulations were run between Google Transit and home internet

access, with only 13.4 percent cross-over.



Exhibit 2.27 Website Rating

Poor 2.5%Fair 10.0%Neutral 14.5%Good 52.5%Excellent 20.5%

Service Attributes

Respondents were asked to rate, on a scale on one to five (wherein one

equals poor and five equals excellent), an array of service attributes.

Ratings equate to the following satisfaction indicators:

• 5=Excellent

• 4=Good

• 3=Neutral

• 2=Fair

• 1=Poor

All responses were rated similarly and no response fell below three

(neutral). The highest rated attribute was safety on-board (4.07), which was

rated slightly higher than “good.” The lowest rated attribute was cost

(3.09) which fell slightly higher than “neutral.” Though the majority of

respondents indicated they opt to ride MST given absence of a personal

vehicle (63.8 percent) over cost (10.7 percent), cost still seems to be a

significant influencer in how current riders view the service.

Exhibit 2.28 Service Attribute Rating

Attribute AverageOn-time performance 3.84Cost 3.09Convenience 3.79Hours of operation 3.60Comfort on-board 3.94Safety on-board 4.07Seating availability 3.95Frequency of service 3.63Proximity of bus stop to your destination 3.91Connectivity with other transit 3.88



While the data reveal the majority of patrons are satisfied with MST’s

service attributes, attention still needs to be paid to the perception that

certain attributes carry with them. Though cost may not necessarily be a

deciding factor for current riders, the perception is that fares could always

be lower. Issues such as this can benefit from simple marketing techniques

presenting the customer with costs associated with other, less cost-efficient

means of transportation or services. By providing the rider with insight into

MST’s cost-value, this perception may be neutralized.

Demographics

Because this survey was designed to be as “non-intrusive” to MST riders as

possible, minimal demographic information was requested. Of the few

demographic-based questions, riders were queried as to internet access at

home. The majority of respondents stated that they did have internet

access (65 percent), which can be useful when developing new and

innovative forms of marketing and online services for current and future

riders. As previously detailed in this chapter, the rider was also asked to

provide their home zip code, to which 93933 (Marina) was the most

commonly-cited response (39.2 percent). Refer to Exhibit 2.3 for a more

detailed account of the data.

Respondents were queried as to the principle motivating factor influencing

their selection of MST. The majority selected lack of car (63.8 percent).



Exhibit 2.29 Selection Motivator

10.7%

18.6%

63.8%

6.8%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

Cost Proximity to my destination Lack of car Avoid traffic/parking

Respondents were also asked whether or not they have a valid driver

license and whether or not they had access to a personal vehicle. The

majority of respondents had neither a valid driver license (56.0 percent),

nor access to a personal vehicle (73.7 percent). Data cross-tabulations for

both of these responses were run against their stated motivation. A total of

84.2 percent cited their selection of MST was motivated by a lack of car

also had no access to a personal vehicle, while only 59.2 percent of

respondents who cited the same influences had no valid driver license.

Of the total survey sample, only 19 percent of respondents cited that they

had both a valid driver license and access to a personal vehicle.

Approximately 48 percent were found to be completely ride-dependent,

meaning they have neither a valid driver license nor access to a personal

vehicle.



3. COMMUNITY SURVEY ANALYSIS



CHAPTER 3 – COMMUNITY SURVEY ANALYSIS

This chapter presents key findings and analysis from the community

intercept survey conducted on behalf of Monterey-Salinas Transit (MST) in

March 2009. Key survey findings focus on demographics, non-rider

perceptions and characteristics, as well as barriers to possible use of MST.

Moore & Associates conducted a community intercept survey at retail

locations of persons residing specifically in Marina, across the week of

March 2, 2009. Survey instruments were developed to solicit information

chiefly from the transit non-rider population. The instruments were

developed through a process that maintained a set of distinct goals specific

to the population of Marina. These goals included:

• Transition non-riders into potential and regular users of MST

services;

• Identify the needs, perceptions, concerns, and barriers to use of

Marina’s transit non-rider population;

• Identify service enhancements aimed at attracting new transit riders

and improving mobility for existing transit users;

• Identify marketing strategies and appropriate media outlets aimed

at maximizing service communication; and

• Develop a valid community-based profile of the Marina area

including demographics, perceptions, travel patterns, and lifestyle.

Methodology

During our project initiation meeting, Moore & Associates and MST staff

determined that a minimum of 200 community-based intercept surveys

were necessary to achieve the project’s goals and provide a valid and

detailed profile of Marina’s non-rider population. The intercept survey

instrument was developed and tested for validity by requiring the

respondent to verify he or she was at least 16 years of age. After the

minimum age was verified, respondents were asked to complete the rest of



the survey in either English or Spanish. Though the intercept survey was

primarily developed to gain insight into the perceptions of the non-rider

community in the Marina area, non-rider and rider questions were both

included. On an aggregate basis, sixty percent had not used MST’s

services within 60 days of the survey contact, while the remaining forty

percent indicated doing so.

The intercept surveys were completed over the course of two days:

Tuesday, March 3 and Wednesday, March 4. It was also determined

through discussions with MST staff that two key locations would yield the

greatest probable participation:

• Wal-Mart – located at 150 Beach Road, and

• Save Mart – located at 210 Reservation Road.

In an effort to maximize participation, each respondent was offered the

opportunity to be entered into a random drawing for a one hundred dollar

gift certificate from the respective location depending on where the survey

was administered. To be entered into the drawing, respondents were asked

to simply provide their names and phone numbers and were assured the

information gathered would not be used for any other purposes other than

notification of award. Over the two-day period, 266 valid surveys were

completed between the two locations. Based on 2007 Census data,

Marina has a population of approximately 25,378, yielding 95-percent

confidence level and a ±5.98 percent margin of error.

Though this Marina Area Service Study focuses primarily on the Marina

community, results from the survey show a wide range of residential

location distribution. Respondents were queried as to the location of their

residence and were given six options: Marina, Sand City, Salinas, Seaside,

Monterey, and “Other.” Eighty-six percent of respondents selected one of

the five specified location options while the remaining fourteen percent

selected “Other” option. Given the location at which the community

surveys were administered, Marina yielded the highest response of the five



specified location options (70.9 percent); followed by Seaside (12.4

percent), Salinas (8.3 percent), Monterey (6.9 percent) and Sand City (1.4

percent).


70.9%

1.4%

8.3%

12.4%

6.9%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

Marina Sand City Salinas Seaside Monterey

Those respondents selecting “Other” were asked to specify their residential

location. The data from respondents that selected this option yielded a

wide array of locations.



Exhibit 3.2 Respondent Residence Location – Other

Location PercentCarmel 1.5%Castroville 5.6%Fort Orsa 0.4%Gonzales 0.8%Montgomery 0.4%Moss Landing 0.8%Pacific Grove 1.5%Prundale 0.4%San Francisco 0.4%Santa Cruz 0.4%Scotts Valley 0.4%Soledad 0.4%Watsonville 0.8%Total 13.5%

Community Profile

By compiling the most frequently-cited responses, a profile of a “typical”

Marina resident was developed. It should be noted this profile does not

represent any single community respondent, but rather is a microcosm of

responses received.

The “typical” Marina area non-rider is female (52.5 percent) between the

ages of 45 and 54 years (26.0 percent). She speaks English (93.6

percent), which also happens to be the primary language spoken in her

household (87 percent). She is employed full-time (33.1 percent) and

though she declined to state her personal income (25.6 percent), her

approximate household income is $20,000 or less per year (24.4 percent).

Her highest level of education is twelfth grade (22.2 percent). She has a

valid driver license (81.8 percent) and access to a vehicle for personal use

(84.1 percent). Although she probably does not subscribe to a newspaper

(72.4 percent), if she did it would be the Monterey County “Herald.” When

she listens to the radio, she prefers 102.5 FM (16.2 percent), has internet

access at home (69.8 percent), but has never visited the MST website (80.4

percent), nor planned a trip using “Google Transit” (86.6 percent).

Because she is a non-rider with a valid driver license and access to a

vehicle, she relies on her vehicle as her preferred mode (75.3 percent).



Non-Rider Responses

Fewer respondents identified themselves as “non-riders” than identified in

similar intercept surveys conducted by Moore & Associates in other

California communities. Combined responses from both Save Mart and

Wal-Mart revealed only sixty percent of respondents had not ridden MST

within the prior 60 days. Community intercept surveys are aimed primarily

at the non-rider population by selecting intercept locations that are

generally auto-friendly, with high traffic and large parking lots. Though

these locations selected by MST and Moore & Associates met those criteria,

we learned many respondents were no stranger to MST’s services. Though

non-riders were still in the majority, it was important to identify the barriers

to usage that exist among Marina residents.

Survey results regarding barriers to use revealed responses common

among transit non-riders throughout California. It is no secret many

individuals still prefer their personal vehicle versus public transit. This

pattern was evident in Marina. When queried as to the primary reason the

respondent had not used MST within the prior 60 days, the most

frequently-cited response was vehicle for personal use (76.4 percent).

When we compared this with the incidence of respondents – both riders

and non-riders – who were asked whether or not they simply had access to

a vehicle, the response was comparable (81.6 percent of the combined

rider and non-rider responses indicated they did have access to a vehicle

for personal use). The next most frequently-cited reason for not using

transit was does not go where I need it to go (14.0 percent). It should be

noted respondents were also given the option to check the other category

and then specify their response. However, only four respondents selected

this option and all cited different reasons for not riding transit. Therefore,

such responses were not considered significant enough to make a valid

finding.



Exhibit 3.3 Barriers to Usage

14.0%

3.4% 2.2%0.6%

3.4%

76.4%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

Does not go where Ineed it to go

Does not runfrequently enough

Does not travel whereI need it to

Is unreliable Costs too much Have a vehicle forpersonal use

Non-rider respondents were then asked to indicate the whether or not they

would consider using MST if their normal method of travel was not

available. The majority of respondents cited yes (81.0 percent), followed by

maybe (12.2 percent), and finally no (6.9 percent). Respondents were next

asked to indicate the likelihood of using MST within the three months by

using a five-point scale, wherein one equaled “not likely” and five “very

likely”.

The average response, or mean score, was calculated so as to assign an

aggregate value to “transit propensity.” The average rating was 2.71,

revealed the “profile” respondent is between “somewhat unlikely” and

“neutral” (or undecided). These results are slightly higher than responses

received from other similar transit market research efforts, wherein findings

suggest the average respondent is usually “unlikely” to ride public transit if

they identify themselves as non-riders.

Data cross-tabulations were run in an effort to gain further insight

regarding respondents’ tendency to choose whether or not to ride MST.



Using demographic data gathered through the intercept surveys, we

compared certain answers with the rating scale detailed above. The first

comparison we made was the respondents’ likelihood to use MST versus

their employment status. Exhibit 3.4 shows respondents employed part-time

have the greatest likelihood of using MST’s services within the next three

months (3.5 rating). Those least likely to use MST were respondents

identifying themselves as retired (2.11 rating). It should be noted that some

questions in the intercept survey, including the employment question, also

provided respondents the option to decline to respond, to which some (but

very few) cited as their response. Therefore, these responses were not

included in this analysis.

Exhibit 3.4 Propensity to Ride vs. Employment Category

Category RatingEmployed-part time 3.50Homemaker 2.92Self-employed 2.84Unemployed, looking for work 2.72Employed-full time 2.56Student 2.33Retired 2.11

Next we compared the respondents’ likelihood to ride with household

income. Fairly typical results were realized, finding that respondents more

likely to use MST’s services within the next few months indicated an income

in the lower categories provided. Results indicated that those more likely to

ride MST have a lower household income than those less likely to ride,

which is often the case in other transit market research efforts. Though

usually found in the lowest income bracket, respondents most likely to use

MST were found to be in the second lowest category, earning an

approximate household income of $20,001-$30,000 (3.38 rating). Again,

decline to respond was also offered as an option when questioned as to

household income. In this case, the majority of respondents selected this

response over any other option (25.6 percent). The data generated in



Exhibit 3.5 only includes those responses where an income amount was

cited.

Exhibit 3.5 Propensity to Ride vs. Household Income

Category Rating$20,000 and below 3.06$20,001-$30,000 3.38$30,001-$40,000 2.07$40,001-$50,000 3$50,001-$75,000 2.5$75,001-$100,000 2.73More than $100,000 2.67

One of the primary goals of this survey was to identify service

enhancements, which, if introduced, could result in increased ridership.

Here again, the survey yielded responses similar to those realized with

other California transit programs. Respondents indicated if they had a bus

stop closer to their house, they might be more willing to ride MST (26.3

percent). The data also indicate a high percentage of respondents could

not be attracted regardless of potential improvement.

Exhibit 3.6 Preferred Enhancement

26.3%

11.6%

10.1%

7.6%

11.6%

8.1%

24.7%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

Bus stop closer tomy house

More frequentservice

Shorter travel time Earlier operatinghours

Later operatinghours

More weekendservice

Nothing wouldchange my mind



This question also provided respondents with the option to indicate if a

different destination might encourage their use of MST, and then to specify

their response. Though most respondents did not select this option, the few

that did cited that service to Big Sur, Carmel, Old Lighthouse, Scotts Valley,

Wal-Mart (location unspecified) and Target (location unspecified) could

encourage their use of MST.

Respondents were then invited to compare MST with other transit services

in the region. First, respondents were asked if they had ridden any other

transit service besides MST within the prior 90 days. The majority had not

(77.5 percent). If the respondent indicated positively, they were then asked

to select one of three options: Santa Cruz Metro, California State

University—Monterey Bay Transportation and Parking Services (CSUMB

TAPS), or RIDES (MST’s ADA service). Respondents were then asked to

compare these alternate services with MST. Of the 22.5 percent of non-

riders indicating use of one of these alternative transit services, Santa Cruz

Metro was the most common response (38.1 percent). Though the majority

of respondents responded don’t know (44.9 percent), those that did

compare the services cited MST as better (27.5 percent).



Exhibit 3.7 Alternate Public-Transit Services Used

38.1%

33.3%

28.6%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%

Santa Cruz Metro CSUMB TAPS RIDES

Per MST’s request, we queried respondents regarding awareness of the

fare-free zone at CSUMB, which allows free boarding of MST buses at any

stop in the CSUMB central and east campuses. Noting that only nine

percent of respondents indicated being a student, response data found

that the majority of all respondents were not aware of the fare-free zone

(79.1 percent). A data cross-tabulation was run to contrast respondents’

employment with awareness (of the zone). Fourteen percent who stated

they were students knew about the zone. Those most likely to know about

the zone were employed part-time (33.3 percent). Here again, respondents

who selected decline to respond to their employment situations were not

included in the analysis.



Exhibit 3.8 Awareness of CSUMB Free Bus Zone vs. Employment

20.0%

9.1%

73.9%71.4%

80.0%

90.9%

28.6%

14.3%

26.1%33.3%

22.0%

85.7%

78.0%

66.7%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

Employed-full time Employed-parttime

Self-employed Student Retired Homemaker Unemployed,looking for work

Yes No

To both attract new riders and enhance mobility for existing ones, it is

critical to determine which specific transit-related variables are most

important. With this in mind, the intercept survey included another rating

scale, much like the one detailed above. This scale was aimed at soliciting

preferences as to which transit-based factors respondents consider most

important.

• Cost,

• Service frequency (how often the bus operates),

• Service schedule (times the bus operates), and

• Service coverage (where the bus travels).

Respondents were asked to indicate on a five-point scale (one being “not

important” and five being “very important”), to rate each variable (as they

pertain to the respondents selection of MST as a travel option). Though

similar as to relative importance, the findings suggest cost is the least

important to non-riders in deciding whether or not to use MST (3.57

rating), while service coverage is the most important (4.24 rating).



Exhibit 3.9 Service Attribute Importance

Attribute RatingService Coverage (where the bus travels) 4.24Service Schedule (times the bus operates) 4.12Service Frequency (how often the bus runs) 4.11Cost 3.57

Non-Rider Segmentation

Non-riders with an approximate household income of $30,000 or less may

be the easiest population to mode shift. These respondents showed the

greatest propensity to patronize MST compared with other income

categories. Though cost was the least important influencer, many factors

can play a role in transitioning a non-rider into a rider. Transit ridership

growth potential among this income category can be realized as the costs

associated with owning/operating a personal vehicle grow and the

economy weakens. As the burden of relying on single-occupant

automobiles climbs, strategic marketing campaigns are more effective,

and can inform potential riders of the benefits of transit over driving. Once

a patron has shifted to transit, long-term success can only be realized if

service quality is maintained.

The least likely respondent exhibiting a propensity to use MST is either

retired, student, or employed full-time with a household income of $30,000

or more. The majority of these individuals have access to an automobile

for personal use, have a valid driver license, and state their preferred

mode of transportation is their personal vehicle. One positive finding is

that when the respondent was asked which of the preferred enhancements

might persuade them to patronize MST, nothing would change my mind

was not the most popular option (24. 7 percent). Rather bus stop closer to

my house was the most requested enhancement (26.3 percent). MST could

benefit from an expanded service area (potentially beyond the standard

fixed-route service), system-wide re-route (aimed at reducing travel time),

or the addition of bus stops within the Marina service area (to enhance

transit accessibility).



Rider/Non-Rider Responses

As previously noted, the intercept survey also included questions applicable

to Marina residents at-large, regardless of their transit usage. This section

included querying the respondent as to whether or not they had seen any

advertising for MST within 90 days of the survey. Respondents cited a fairly

even distribution, with the majority noting some MST advertising (53.4

percent). Among those who responded positively, they were then asked to

specify where they had seen such advertising. While the results were

varied, the most common responses were T.V. (40.3 percent) or on the bus

(37.7 percent). Other responses were numerically modest.

Exhibit 3.10 Advertising Source

Source PercentTV 40.3%Bus 37.7%Print 7.8%Marina 3.9%Radio 3.9%KSBW 2.6%Downtown Monterey 1.3%Online 1.3%Work 1.3%

Next respondents were asked whether or not they knew the location of the

MST bus stop nearest to their residence. The majority indicated they knew

where the nearest stop was located (83.2 percent). This is a very positive

finding, given it reveals residents recognize the MST bus stop signs and

express unaided awareness of the service.

As noted above, the majority of respondents indicated they drove a car as

their preferred mode of transportation (75.3 percent). Respondents were

queried as to other preferred forms of transportation. Though not as

significant as the personal automobile, respondents indicated their next

transportation option used by bus/rail (13.1 percent).



Exhibit 3.11 Preferred Mode

75.3%

2.8%1.2%

13.1%

1.2% 0.4%

6.0%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

Drive own vehicle Carpool Vanpool Bus, rail Bicycle Motorcycle Walk

Respondents were then asked if they currently subscribe to a newspaper, to

which to the majority indicated in the negative (72.4 percent). This may be

attributed to the proliferation of online news forums. Those indicating

subscribing to a newspaper (27.6 percent) were asked to specify which

paper. The majority cited The Herald – Monterey County’s local newspaper

(81.5 percent). The respondents were then asked which radio stations they

listened to most often. The two most common responses were 102.5 FM

(22.9 percent) and 105.1 FM (11.7 percent).

Exhibit 3.12 Print Outlet

Print Media Outlet PercentSalinas Californian 9.3%Financial Times 1.9%Monterey County Herald 81.5%San Jose Mercury News 7.4%

Survey participants were asked to share information regarding their online

usage. First, they were asked to indicate whether or not they had access to

the internet at home, to which the majority indicated positively (69.8



percent). Among those indicating having internet access at home, they

were then asked if they had visited the MST website within the prior 30

days, and/or if they had ever used “Google Transit” to plan a MST trip or

obtain other MST service information. Most had not visited MST’s website

within the prior 30 days (80.4 percent), and less than 14 percent had used

Google Transit.

Demographics

The final set of questions focused on demographic information.

Information such as age, gender, income, language, employment,

education, driver license and vehicle access were included to develop a

profile of the Marina non-transit rider. The typical respondent is between

the ages of 45-54 years old (26.0 percent) and female (52.5 percent). Age

and gender were fairly evenly distributed, which is similar to other transit

market research and confirms a valid non-biased sample.

Exhibit 3.13 Age Distribution

15.5%

18.5%

14.0%

26.0%

14.0%

9.8%

2.3%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

16-24 years old 25-34 years old 35-44 years old 45-54 years old 55-64 years old 65 and older Decline to respond

Critical to our analysis was information regarding persons traveling with

children 16 years and younger. Respondents were asked for this



information and if a yes was stated, they were then asked to specify how

many children were traveling with them. The majority of respondents

indicated they were not traveling with children under the age of 16 (71.8

percent). Of the balance (28.2 percent), respondents were usually only

traveling with one child (59.2 percent).

Exhibit 3.14 Persons Under the Age of 16 Traveling With Respondent

Number Percent1 59.2%2 16.9%3 7.0%4 or more 16.9%

Though household income has been discussed throughout this chapter, it

has only been noted when comparing the likelihood to use MST versus the

respondents’ stated income. Exhibit 3.15 illustrates the complete

breakdown of the respondents’ household income, including those who

indicated decline to state. This information reveals the majority of

respondents either decline to state (25.6 percent) or indicated an income

of $20,000 or less (24.4 percent). The fewest number of respondents

indicated making more than $100,000 (2.6 percent), which is reflective of

other transit market research conducted in California.



Exhibit 3.15 Household Income

24.4%

9.4%

12.8%

10.2%

7.5% 7.5%

2.6%

25.6%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

$20,000 andbelow

$20,001-$30,000

$30,001-$40,000

$40,001-$50,000

$50,001-$75,000

$75,001-$100,000

More than$100,000

Decline torespond

Respondents were also asked to indicate the primary language spoken

within their household. English was the most common response (87.0

percent), followed by Spanish (11.5 percent). It should be noted

respondents were also given the option to respond with other, and then

specify any language. Though a few respondents did select this option,

each language specified was under a half percent and not considered

statistically significant. These results suggest that there are minimal

language barriers to non-riders understanding MST materials as MST

provides all public information in both English and Spanish.

The majority of respondents indicated being employed full-time (33.1

percent). The remaining 66.9 percent were all fairly evenly distributed as

Exhibit 3.16 illustrates. These employment categories reflect reported

income and age distribution.



Exhibit 3.16 Employment Status

33.1%

10.2% 10.2%9.0%

12.4%

6.8%

11.7%

6.8%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

Employed-fulltime

Employed-parttime

Self-employed Student Retired Homemaker Unemployed,looking for work

Decline torespond

Education statistics were included to gain insight into the non-rider profile;

assessing who, where, and in what manner transit information should be

presented to the target customer. The typical Marina non-rider has the

equivalent of a high school degree (22.2 percent), followed by a 2-year

college degree (18.8 percent), grade school/some high school (16.2

percent), 4-year college degree (13.5 percent), graduate/professional/or

doctoral degree (10.9 percent), technical/vocational school degree (7.5

percent), and some graduate school (3.8 percent).



Exhibit 3.17 Education

16.2%

22.2%

7.5%

18.8%

13.5%

3.8%

10.9%

7.1%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

Grade s

choo

l/som

e high

scho

ol

High sc

hool

gradu

ate

Techn

ical/v

ocati

onal

scho

ol

2-yea

r coll

ege d

egree

4-yea

r coll

ege d

egree

Some g

radua

te sc

hool

Gradua

te, pr

ofess

ional,

or do

ctoral

degre

e

Declin

e to r

espo

nd

Lastly, respondents were queried as to whether or not they hold a valid

driver license and had access to a vehicle for personal use. As expected,

the majority of respondents indicated they did have a driver license (81.1

percent) and also access to a vehicle for personal use (84.1 percent).

These two variables may be the greatest barriers to transit usage in the

Marina service area. A data cross-tabulation of persons without a license

nor access to a vehicle for personal use was conducted to calculate a

percentage of respondents considered to be completely ride-dependent.

Of the total survey sample, 78 percent revealed they had both a valid

driver license and access to a vehicle for personal use. This information is

reflective of data discussed within the employment, education, and income

level categories. Only 12 percent were found to be completely ride-

dependent, meaning they have neither a valid driver license nor access to

a vehicle for personal use. Ride-dependent individuals who do not use

public transit often have few mobility options. They typically rely on others

for personal travel or use other, non-motorized modes of transportation

such as walking or bicycling. Many times, barriers common to the ride-



dependent can be as simple as lack of knowledge or understanding of

transit services or schedules. This lack of knowledge can create a lack of

confidence by the ride-dependent, discouraging their use of otherwise

viable transit options. In many cases, these persons can be educated

about transit services around them and can transition smoothly into riders

who eventually become regular transit patrons. Effective transit-training

paired with effective marketing and public outreach can be the answer to

gaining “choice” riders and retaining current users.



4. CSUMB SURVEY ANALYSIS



CHAPTER 4 – CSUMB SURVEY ANALYSIS

This chapter presents key findings and analysis from the web survey of

California State University at Monterey Bay (CSUMB) students, faculty, and

staff conducted on behalf of Monterey-Salinas Transit (MST) in May 2009.

Key survey findings focus on mobility patterns, non-rider perceptions and

characteristics, and potential barriers to use of MST services.

Moore & Associates fielded a web survey of CSUMB students, faculty, and

staff across a two-week span beginning May 1 and ending May 15, 2009.

The survey instrument was designed to solicit information from the CSUMB

community, containing both a mix of rider and non-rider opinions and

perceptions. The instrument was developed through a process that

maintained a set of distinct goals specific to enhancing mobility for the

university’s sizeable population of both residents (students) and employees.

These goals included:

• Transition non-riders into regular users of MST services;

• Identify the needs, perceptions, concerns, and barriers to use of

CSUMB’s non transit-rider population;

• Identify service enhancements aimed at attracting new transit riders

and improving mobility for existing transit users; and

• Develop a valid community-based profile of CSUMB students,

faculty, and staff including perceptions and travel patterns.

Methodology

During the project initiation meeting, Moore & Associates and MST staff

agreed a survey of CSUMB students, faculty, and staff would be critical in

identifying service enhancements aimed at improving mobility within the

Marina study area. It was determined a web-based survey would be the

most cost-effective method of distribution. Working closely with CSUMB

and MST staff, Moore & Associates determined the most effective avenue

for driving traffic to the survey would be through the use of the university’s



sizeable database of email addresses. Text was developed and emails

were sent to all current students, faculty, and staff advising of the

availability of the survey, including a link to the website hosting the survey.

Prior to fielding, the instrument was pre-tested. The effort included a

qualifier question requiring the respondent to verify he or she was at least

16 years of age. Though the survey was primarily developed to gain

insight into the perceptions of the CSUMB non-rider community, non-rider

and rider questions were both included. A sample of 519 valid responses

was realized.

Although this Marina Area Service Study focuses primarily on the Marina

community, results from the survey show a wide range of residential

locations. Respondents were queried as to the location of their residence

and were given seven options: Marina, Salinas, Seaside, Monterey,

Residence Halls, East Campus Housing, and Other. Nearly 88 percent of

respondents selected one of the six specified location options while the

remainder selected the other option. Given the survey’s target audience,

Residence Halls was the most commonly-cited response (32 percent),

followed by Marina (21.8 percent). Other common responses included

Seaside (14.1 percent) and East Campus Housing (15.7 percent).




21.8%

6.0%6.9%

23.0%

15.7%

12.5%

14.1%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

Marina Seaside Monterey Salinas Residence Halls East CampusHousing

Other

To provide a clearer picture of the relationship between respondent

category and residence location, we performed a data cross-tabulation

between the two. The results are largely predictable, with only students

living in residence halls; older students, staff, and faculty living in east

campus housing and off campus. Among off-campus locations, Seaside

and Marina were the most common. Younger students, in general, prefer

Seaside over Marina, while older students prefer Marina over Seaside.



Exhibit 4.2 Respondent Category vs. Residence Location

3.4%

6.4%

4.5%

27.3%

5.6%

18.5%

26.3%

11.4%

12.8%

9.1%

28.8%

30.6%

29.6%

28.9%

35.8%

26.1%

23.4%

15.9%

7.6%

13.9%

7.4%

5.3%

6.8%

5.6%

11.1%

10.5%

11.4%

4.3%

9.1%

6.1%

5.6%

14.8%

7.9%

11.4%

67.0%

51.1%

29.5%

12.1%

11.1%

2.1%

25.0%

16.7%

27.8%

18.5%

21.1%

25.2%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Freshman

Sophomore

Junior

Senior

5th Year

Graduate Student

Faculty

Staff

Other Marina Seaside Monterey Salinas Residence Halls East Campus Housing

On an aggregate basis, nearly seventy percent had not ridden MST within

60 days prior to the survey contact.



Exhibit 4.3 Patronized MST in Last 60 Days

30.4%

69.6%

Yes

No

To analyze these results more effectively, we conducted a data cross-

tabulation between respondent category and exposure to MST in last 60

days. The results reveal freshmen and juniors were most likely to have used

MST within the last two months (52.3 percent and 45.5 percent,

respectively). Staff were the least likely to have used MST in that period

(17.7 percent).



Exhibit 4.4 Respondent Category vs. Patronized MST in Last 60 Days

52.3%

31.9%

45.5%

19.7%

27.8%

22.2%

26.3%

17.7%

47.7%

68.1%

54.5%

80.3%

72.2%

77.8%

73.7%

82.3%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Freshman

Sophomore

Junior

Senior

5th Year

Graduate Student

Faculty

Staff

Yes No



Non-Riders

A follow-up question was posed to those respondents indicating not having

ridden MST within the 60 days prior to the survey contact. The most

frequent response was access to a vehicle for personal use (67 percent).

This figure represents the percentage of the surveyed population not

dependent upon transit for basic mobility. Such respondents could prove

particularly resistant to efforts to attract them as customers moving

forward. However, the remaining 33 percent represent potential future

“choice” riders. Such respondents would ride MST should certain

adjustments be made, such as new or altered alignments (6.3 percent),

fare reductions (2.9 percent), or increased frequency (13.5 percent). These

responses provide valuable insight into future service enhancements which

MST could address to increase ridership within the CSUMB community.

“Choice” riders tend to be more affluent, better educated, and more

interested in using transit for its environmental benefits than many ride-

dependent persons.

Exhibit 4.5 Reason for Not Using MST

6.3%3.2% 2.9%

13.5%

0.9%

6.3%

67.0%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

Does not go wherei need it to

Does not travelwhere I need it to

Cost to much Does not runfrequently enough

Unreliable Vehicle forpersonal use

Other



To analyze the relationship between where respondents live and the

primary reason they do not ride MST, we performed a data cross-

tabulation. The most common response across all residence locations was

vehicle for personal use. Salinas had the lowest incidence of this response

(51.7 percent), while residence halls had the highest (75.4 percent). The

next most common response across all categories was does not run

frequently enough.

Exhibit 4.6 Residence Location vs. Reason for Not Using MST

7.8%

5.5%

6.1%

4.8%

10.3%

5.8%

5.7%

23.5%

4.8%

10.3%

5.9%

5.7%

12.1%

3.4%

3.9%

22.0%

9.1%

19.0%

20.7%

11.6%

7.5%

2.9%

1.9%

56.9%

67.0%

69.7%

71.4%

51.7%

75.4%

71.7%

3.0%

2.2%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Other

Marina

Seaside

Monterey

Salinas

Residence Halls

East Campus Housing

Other Does not go where i need it to Does not travel where I need it toCost to much Does not run frequently enough UnreliableVehicle for personal use

Another data cross-tabulation was conducted to delve more deeply into the

results. Results reveal graduate students were least likely to indicate they

have access to a personal vehicle (28.6 percent), while juniors were most

likely (80.8 percent). Those not citing vehicle for personal use as the

primary reason they don’t ride can be “choice” riders who will respond



favorably to service enhancements aimed at addressing their mobility

needs.

Exhibit 4.7 Respondent Category vs. Reason for Not Using MST

6.8%

9.4%

3.7%

11.5%

9.5%

14.8%

4.9%

3.8%

7.4%

19.0%

14.8%

6.8%

3.7%

3.8%

14.3%

4.5%

6.3%

3.8%

4.8%

3.7%

4.5%

12.5%

7.7%

14.8%

26.9%

23.8%

22.2%

9.7%

75.0%

71.9%

80.8%

68.5%

57.7%

28.6%

44.4%

73.8%

4.5%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Freshman

Sophomore

Junior

Senior

5th Year

Graduate Student

Faculty

Staff

Other Does not go where i need it to Does not travel where I need it to Cost to muchDoes not run frequently enough Unreliable Vehicle for personal use

Respondents were then asked whether they would ride MST if their typical

mode of travel was unavailable. The results of this question were

encouraging, with 70.4 percent responding affirmatively. Interestingly, only

5.1 percent responded negatively. We believe this reveals area residents

choose not to use MST due to reasons related to a preference for their

current mode of travel versus a fear of using transit. MST remains an

attractive alternative should their current mode not be available. A targeted

marketing campaign could convince some of these respondents to “try

transit” for at least a portion of their local travel.



Exhibit 4.8 Propensity to Ride MST

70.4%

5.1%

24.5%

Yes

No

Maybe

To more effectively analyze the relationship between respondent category

and whether they would consider using MST, we performed a data cross-

tabulation. Results reveal Faculty are the most likely to not consider using

the service (10.5 percent), while all fifth-year students would at least

consider it. Graduate students were the most likely to consider using the

service (77.8 percent), and seniors were the least likely (62.1 percent).



Exhibit 4.9 Respondent Category vs. Propensity to Ride MST

64.8%

70.2%

70.5%

62.1%

72.2%

77.8%

76.3%

75.8%

2.3%

6.4%

4.5%

4.5%

7.4%

10.5%

4.8%

33.0%

23.4%

25.0%

33.3%

27.8%

14.8%

13.2%

19.4%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Freshman

Sophomore

Junior

Senior

5th Year

Graduate Student

Faculty

Staff

Yes No Maybe

Survey participants were asked to identify the “most preferred” service

enhancement. Consistent with result of the question regarding reasons for

not riding MST, respondents cited more frequent service as their top

enhancement (39.3 percent). This was followed by shorter travel time (30.8

percent) and cheaper fares/passes (30.4 percent). Other numerically-

significant responses include later evening service (22.7 percent) and more

weekend service (20.2 percent). These results provide MST with clear

insight into service enhancements holding the greatest return-on-

investment for MST.



Exhibit 4.10 Preferred Service Enhancement

39.3%

30.8%

7.5%

22.7%

20.2%

30.4%

13.1%13.7%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%

45.0%

Stop closer tohome

More frequentservice

Shorter traveltime

Earlier morningservice

Later eveningservice

More weekendservice

Cheaperfares/passes

Nothing wouldchange my

mind

Respondents identifying themselves as non-riders were asked to rank four

service characteristics (cost, service frequency, service schedule, and

service coverage) on a four-point scale (where one equals not important

and four equals very important). The averages for the four attributes were

similar, ranging from 2.42 for cost and 3.08 for coverage. Marketing MST

as a low-cost alternative to car travel would appear to have less impact

than communicating the convenience of new services/service

enhancements.



Exhibit 4.11 Characteristic Preference

2.73 2.74

3.08

2.42

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

Cost Service Frequency Service Schedule Service Coverage

To gain additional insight into current travel patterns among “non-riders,”

the survey asked whether they had used another transit service (other than

MST) within the 90 days prior to survey contact. More than thirty percent

responded positively. Therefore, this subgroup is likely the best target for

future service enhancements and marketing efforts targeting the CSUMB

community.

Respondents indicating affirmatively were then asked to cite the specific

service used. Among the most commonly-cited responses were CSUMB

TAPS (39.2 percent), BART (19.6 percent), Santa Cruz Metro (15.0

percent), and RIDES (5.2 percent).



Exhibit 4.12 Other Transit Service

31.3%

68.7%

Yes

No

Nearly 60 percent of survey participants were aware of MST’s fare-free

zone at CSUMB, which includes the CSUMB central and east residential

campuses.

Exhibit 4.13 CSUMB Fare-Free Zone

58.8%

41.2%

Yes

No



More than 75 percent knew the location of the MST bus stop closest to

their house. The fact that 25 percent indicated they didn’t know the

location of the nearest bus stop reveals a continued unfamiliarity regarding

MST service specifics.

Exhibit 4.14 Nearest Bus Stop

77.4%

22.6%

Yes

No

Riders and Non-Riders

Among all survey respondents, the most common language cited was

English (88.1 percent), followed by bilingual (6.4 percent), and Spanish

(3.4 percent). This reveals there is less demand for bilingual collateral

within the CSUMB subset of the overall Marina service area.

Nearly 80 percent indicated having both a valid driver license as well as

access to a vehicle for personal use. Approximately 10 percent indicated

having neither access to a personal vehicle nor a valid driver license,

revealing total ride-dependency. The balance (12 percent) revealed they

were partially ride-dependent (i.e., lack either a valid driver license or

access to a vehicle). These results do not reflect findings from either the



community survey or the onboard survey. The CSUMB community is

significantly less ride-dependent than respondents to either of the other

surveys. Our analysis revealed ridership growth among members of the

CSUMB community will require service enhancements focusing on “choice”

riders, and promoting MST as a “green” alternative that is not only less

expensive than the single-occupant vehicle, but also reduces impact on the

environment.

Exhibit 4.15 Ride-Dependency

Yes NoYes 78.9% 11.1%No 0.9% 9.1%

Access to Vehicle

Driver License

Survey participants were asked to identify the category to which they were

associated. The most common response was staff (26.4 percent), followed

by freshman (18.7 percent). On an aggregate basis, students comprised

the largest share (65.5 percent).

Students, traditionally fall into the “ride dependent” category given many

core services are available on-campus (i.e., food, shelter, housing, health

services). Faculty, in particular, are traditionally “choice” riders, should they

use transit at all.



Exhibit 4.16 Respondent Category

18.7%

10.0%

7.7%

5.7%

8.1%

26.4%

9.4%

14.0%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior 5th Year GraduateStudent

Faculty Staff

Given the nature of the CSUMB academic calendar, the vast majority of

respondents typically attend/teach classes or work on campus on

weekdays, particularly Monday through Thursday.

Exhibit 4.17 Days on Campus

75.0%

45.1%

3.1% 3.9%

76.3%76.3%77.7%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday



The majority arrive on campus between 7:30 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. (45.5

percent), with nearly all arriving prior to noon (86.4 percent).

Exhibit 4.18 Time Arriving on Campus

14.9%

45.5%

26.0%

6.9%

2.2%

4.6%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%

45.0%

50.0%

6:00 a.m. to 7:30 a.m. 7:30 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. 9:00 a.m. to 12:00p.m.

12:00 p.m. to 3:00p.m.

3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. 5:00 p.m. or later

The most commonly-cited departure time cited was between 4:00 p.m.

and 6:00 p.m., with nearly all (87 percent) leaving after 4:00 p.m. These

data, combined with preceding data, reveal commute patterns to and from

campus resemble those of the traditional workweek, with clearly-defined

weekday peak-hours.



Exhibit 4.19 Time Departing Campus

0.9% 1.3%2.6%

39.6%

24.5%22.9%

8.2%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%

45.0%

6:00 a.m. to 10:00p.m.

10:00 a.m. to12:00 p.m.

12:00 p.m. to 2:00p.m.

2:00 p.m. to 4:00p.m.

4:00 p.m. to 6:00p.m.

6:00 p.m. to 8:00p.m.

8:00 p.m. or later

Among all survey respondents, 26.6 percent indicated they had used the

CSUMB shuttle within the month prior to the survey contact.

Exhibit 4.20 Use of CSUMB Shuttle

26.6%

73.4%

Yes

No



As a follow-up, survey participants were then asked how often they

typically use the on-campus shuttle. The most common response was one

day per week or less (57.9 percent), revealing a dearth of regular users

among the respondent sample. The CSUMB shuttle is not frequently used

for respondents’ day-to-day mobility needs.

Exhibit 4.21 CSUMB Shuttle Frequency of Use

17.5%

24.6%57.9%

4 or more days per week

2-3 days per week

1 day per week or less

Survey participants were asked about their most frequent off-campus

destination. Among the most frequently-cited locations were Monterey

(30.9 percent) and Marina (22.1 percent). Neighboring Santa Cruz

garnered 5.7 percent.



Exhibit 4.22 Most Frequent Off-Campus Destinations

7.6%

22.1%

12.8%11.7%

30.9%

10.2%

5.7%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

Other Marina Seaside Sand City Monterey Salinas Santa Cruz

To identify common travel modes within the CSUMB community,

respondents were asked how they typically get the off-campus destinations.

The most common response was drive self (70.3 percent), which reveals a

significant number of ‘choice’ riders within the sample. Other common

responses include carpool/rideshare (14.5 percent) and MST (9.3 percent).



Exhibit 4.23 Off-Campus Mode

70.3%

14.5%

3.0%0.7%

9.3%

2.0%0.2%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

Drive Self Carpool/rideshare Walk/bicycle CSUMB Shuttle MST RIDES Other

Respondents were also asked about how they typically travel to campus.

Again, the most common response was drive self (59.2 percent). The

variance between this response and the one analyzed above is due likely

to a disproportionate response rate from students residing on campus,

traveling between class and their residence halls. This conclusion is borne

out by increases in walk/bicycle and CSUMB Shuttle coupled with a

decrease in the use of MST.



Exhibit 4.24 Access to Campus

59.2%

15.6%

5.0% 5.4%

1.5%

4.8%

8.5%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

Drive Self Carpool/rideshare Walk/bicycle CSUMB Shuttle MST RIDES Other

Finally, respondents were asked if they would be more likely to ride MST

to/from campus (versus using their personal vehicle) if CSUMB offered a

low-cost bus pass to students, faculty, and staff. Nearly 50 percent

indicated they would definitely use MST should a discount fare option be

made available. Another 34.6 percent indicated they would consider using

MST for at least a portion of their “local” trips (should the low-cost pass

become available). Taken together, these data reveal an important

ridership growth opportunity for MST.



Exhibit 4.25 Discount Fare Option

49.4%

16.0%

34.6%

Yes

No

Maybe



5. PATRONAGE ANALYSIS



CHAPTER 5 – PATRONAGE ANALYSIS

This chapter analyses origin and destination data culled from MST’s

Marina On-Call service for the months of August 2008 and February 2009

as well as origin data from the customer survey conducted onboard MST

buses in March 2009.

Marina On-Call Common Origins and Destinations

In analyzing patronage patterns on the Marina On-Call service, Moore &

Associates acquired trip sheets for two non-consecutive months. Every trip

made during the two months was analyzed, resulting in a clear picture of

how patrons use the service spatially.

The five most common origins identified through our analysis were:

• Marina Transit Exchange,

• Third Avenue and Imjin Parkway,

• Dunes Shopping Center,

• CSUMB Quad, and

• Department of Defense building.

These locations are all significant trip generators. The Marina Transit

Exchange is the only time-point used by the Marina On-Call service and

the only location served by another MST route on a regular basis (Route 16

travels through CSUMB, but doesn’t serve the Quad). Route 12 and 2X

serve the Dunes Shopping Center and the Department of Defense

building, but only make a handful of trips a day, leaving the Marina On-

Call services as the only “Route” to serve them for a full service day.

The five most common destinations identified through our analysis were:

• Marina Transit Exchange,

• Third Avenue and Imjin Parkway,

• Dunes Shopping Center,



• Department of Defense building, and

• Fort Ord Commissary.

The list of the 24 most frequent origins and destinations is below.

Exhibit 5.1 Marina On-Call Common Origins

LocationOrigin Count

Destination Count Total

Marina Transit Exchange 917 795 17123rd Avenue & Imjin Parkway 321 285 606The Dunes Shopping Center 168 167 335Department of Defense 102 148 250CSUMB Quad 111 98 209Commissary 71 120 191California Road & Reservation Road 81 50 131Wal-Mart 71 31 102V.A. Clinic 31 58 89Carmel Avenue & Crescent Avenue 52 36 883306 Del Monte Boulevard 26 60 866th Avenue & A Street 64 8 72Reindollar Avenue & Eddy Street 28 27 55Del Monte Boulevard & Palm Avenue 18 24 42Library 17 23 40Save Mart 13 22 35Del Monte Boulevard & Cosky Drive 14 19 33Hillcrest Avenue & Sunset Avenue 16 12 28Reindollar Avenue & Sunrise Circle 16 8 24Cardoza Avenue & Abdy Way 17 5 22Reindollar Avenue & Redwood Drive 5 14 19Reservation Road & Crescent Avenue 13 4 17Reindollar Avenue & Kennedy Court 5 12 17Reservation Road & Bayer Street 3 12 15

The geographical distribution of common trip origins can be split into three

areas: Marina proper, the Dunes Shopping Center, and CSUMB/DOD.

There are no popular commonly-occurring origins outside of those three

areas.



The following common origins and destinations within Marina proper are

not currently covered by MST fixed-routes (or within one-quarter mile of a

traditional fixed-route):

• Reindollar Avenue & Eddy Street,

• Reindollar Avenue & Sunrise Circle,

• Reindollar Avenue & Redwood Drive, and

• Reindollar Avenue & Kennedy Court.

Third Avenue and Imjin Parkway is the only location in the Dunes Shopping

Center area not covered by a fixed route, though the Dunes Shopping

Center itself is only served by Routes 2X and 12, which do not operate for

a complete service day.

The CSUMB/DOD area in particular lacks access to MST fixed-routes. The

following origins/destinations are not covered:

• Department of Defense building,

• Commissary, and

• CSUMB Quad.

Service planning efforts should focus on delivering new mobility options to

significant Marina On-Call origins/destinations not currently covered by

MST fixed-routes. Taken collectively, these data provide a clear picture of

the demand for transit service in those areas.

Exhibits 5.2 and 5.3 display the geographic distribution of common origins

and destinations, respectively.



Exhibit 5.2 Marina On-Call Common Origins Map



Exhibit 5.3 Marina On-Call Common Destinations Map



Customers by Zip Code

Onboard customer survey respondents were asked to cite their home zip

code. Given the surveyed routes travel primarily between Marina,

Monterey, and Salinas, 93933 (Marina) was the most frequently-cited

response. Other common responses included 93955 (Seaside/Sand City),

93901 (Southwestern Salinas), and 93906 (North Salinas).

Results reinforce the fact that the corridor between Salinas and Monterey

(with Marina at the midpoint) is the most common commute pattern in the

region. The results are displayed in the map below.

Exhibit 5.4 Customer Survey Respondent Home Zip Codes



6. SERVICE PLAN



CHAPTER 6 – MARINA AREA SERVICE PLAN

The Strategic Development Center (SDC) of Marina Development Services

Department has predicted rapid growth within the Marina area of

Monterey County across the next ten to fifteen years. In September 2008,

the SDC forecast 11,000 new residents, 12,400 new jobs, and 4,500 new

housing units, as well as 1,400 acres of redeveloped land during that time

period. While the current recession has stalled some of the forecast

development, it remains critical Monterey-Salinas Transit account for this

growth through the development of a comprehensive service plan.

MST currently offers a variety of service options within the Marina Service

Sector. The options are detailed below:

• Marina On-Call: Demand-response service with coverage between

Martina, the Dunes, and CSUMB.

• Route 2X: Limited-stop express route operating between Pebble

Beach and Salinas with stops at the Marina Transit Exchange and

the Dunes.

• Route 12: Military-oriented route operating between the southern

portion of the Marina Service Sector (including the Dunes) and the

Naval School.

• Route 16: Fixed-route operating between Marina and Monterey,

with service to CSUMB.

• Route 20: Fixed-route providing local service between Salinas and

Monterey. It is the most productive route in the MST system.

• Route 27: Fixed-route operating between Watsonville and Marina.

• Route 71: Military-oriented route operating between Marina and

the Presidio of Monterey.

• Route 72: Military-oriented route operating between North Salinas

and the Presidio of Monterey.

• Route 74: Military-oriented route operating between Preston Park

and the Presidio of Monterey.



Exhibit 6.1 Current Route 2X



Exhibit 6.2 Current Route 12



Exhibit 6.6 Current MST On-Call Marina



Exhibit 6.7 Current CSUMB Shuttle



Exhibit 6.8 Current Service in Marina



Exhibit 6.9 Current Service in Marina with Quarter-Mile Buffers

This chapter details a series of proposed service enhancements aimed at

improving mobility, enhancing the efficiency of transit service delivery, and

increasing ridership within the Marina Service Sector. It is split into three

sections:

• Near-term recommendations (Implemented by July 1, 2011)

• Mid-term recommendations (implemented by July 1, 2014)

• Long-term recommendations (Implemented in FY 2014/15 and

after).

The three time frames serve different purposes. Near-Term

recommendations focus on addressing immediate needs, mid-term

recommendations are aimed at crafting a comprehensive approach



toward service delivery within the Marina Service Sector, and long-term

recommendations are designed to address forecast demand for transit

service associated with the continued build-out of Fort Ord. Taken

collectively, the recommendations are designed to enhance MST’s service

delivery strategy in the Marina Service Sector, though given Marina serves

as a gateway for many routes heading between Salinas and Monterey,

other portions of the service area stand to realize benefits as well.

Working with MST staff, we identified the following priorities for service

development (in no particular order):

• Strengthen MST long-line service.

• Leverage value of Marina Transit Exchange.

• Enhance mobility for Marina residents.

• Increase market share in/to CSUMB.

• Increase productivity of service between Salinas and Marina.

• Increase productivity of service between Marina and Monterey.

Near-Term Recommendations

Looking at the Marina Transit Exchange as the primary nexus for transit

service within the Marina Service Sector, it is important to understand the

relative demand of other destinations/origins. Other significant trip

generators in MST’s service area that are of interest to members of the

Marina community are:

• Salinas,

• Monterey,

• The Dunes Shopping Center,

• CSUMB, and

• Castroville/Watsonville.

Service delivery between the Marina Transit Exchange and these locations

vary. Connections between Salinas and Marina as well as Monterey and

Marina are strong: Routes 2X and 20 serve Salinas; and Routes 2X, 16,



and 20 serve Monterey. Castroville and Watsonville are served by Route

27, which makes trips every two hours between Watsonville in Santa Cruz

County and the Marina Transit Exchange (with some local service in

Marina). Service between the Marina Transit Exchange and CSUMB is only

available via Route 16, which provides local service between Marina and

downtown Monterey. The only service between Marina and the Dunes

Shopping Center is Route 2X, which makes three one-way, peak-direction

trips in the morning and three in the evening. The Dunes and CSUMB are

also served by the Marina On-Call demand-response service.

The most pressing needs identified through market research and

discussions with MST staff are:

• Transfer required for trips between CSUMB and Salinas,

• Limited transit service to the Dunes, and

• Ineffectiveness of Marina On-Call service.

These needs present an exciting opportunity to begin reconfiguring MST’s

service delivery strategy in and around Marina. Given funding for the

Marina On-Call service is set to expire within the horizon for near-term

recommendations, it is logical to consider a comprehensive approach

toward improving local service within Marina; enhancing connections

between CSUMB and Salinas; bringing CSUMB intra-campus transit

service under MST’s umbrella; and creating a more frequent connection

between CSUMB, the Dunes Shopping Center, and Marina.

The near-term recommendations will focus on improving connections

between CSUMB, the Dunes Shopping Center, and Marina. We propose

the introduction of a new alignment, Route 25. We propose a two-phase

introduction of Route 25 given funding constraints. The first phase of Route

25’s implementation consists of a “Marina Circulator” traveling between

the Marina Transit Exchange and CSUMB via the Dunes Shopping Center.

The second phase of the route’s implementation is included within the

“Mid-Term Recommendations” section of this chapter. The route would



travel from the Marina Transit Exchange to CSUMB via the Dunes

Shopping Center. It begins its trip at the Marina Transit Exchange and then

takes Crescent Avenue south to Carmel Avenue East. The bus would then

travel south along California until taking Imjin Parkway west to the Dunes

Shopping Center. Given limited turning motions available within the Dunes

parking lot, the bus would be forced to then travel south along Second

Avenue until it reaches the CSUMB campus. The bus would then do a loop

through the campus and then follow the alignment in reverse back to the

Marina Transit Exchange.

Notably absent from the return trip is a stop at the Dunes Shopping

Center. This can be attributed to the limited nature of turning movements

out of the Dunes parking lot where the MST stop is located. Buses are

forced to make a right-hand turn onto Second Avenue from the parking

lot, taking them toward CSUMB. This works well on the Marina to CSUMB

trip, but would require the bus to travel a significant distance out of its way

(i.e., southbound) on the northbound return trip. This is due to the

presence of a median blocking left-hand turns onto northbound Second

Avenue from the Dunes parking lot. This streetscape design decision

severely impacts MST’s ability to effectively serve the Dunes Shopping

Center. We recommend clearing a path through the median for left-hand

turns onto northbound Second Avenue, if only for buses. This would allow

for significantly improved access to the Dunes Shopping Center. In the

interim, we recommend buses traveling northbound on Second Avenue

intending to serve the Dunes Shopping Center include a stop on Second

Avenue. While this alternative would require a significant walk into the

Dunes Shopping Center, it is the most effective means of serving that

location coming from the south.



Exhibit 6.10 Proposed Marina Circulator



Estimated total mileage for a round trip is 10.4 miles, with an approximate

running time of fifty-five minutes. The proposed route would operate every

hour from 6:30 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on weekdays. No Saturday service

would be offered initially. This level of service translates to 12.5 Vehicle

Service Hours each weekday. At MST’s NTD-report rate of $101.66/VSH in

2007, this would amount to approximately $6,353 per week or $324,041

annually.

Exhibit 6.11 Proposed Marina Circulator Sample Schedule

Divarty/ Engineer

Durham/ 6th

Divarty/ Engineer

6:30 AM 6:40 AM 6:50 AM 6:57 AM 7:07 AM 7:25 AM7:30 AM 7:40 AM 7:50 AM 7:57 AM 8:07 AM 8:25 AM8:30 AM 8:40 AM 8:50 AM 8:57 AM 9:07 AM 9:25 AM9:30 AM 9:40 AM 9:50 AM 9:57 AM 10:07 AM 10:25 AM

10:30 AM 10:40 AM 10:50 AM 10:57 AM 11:07 AM 11:25 AM11:30 AM 11:40 AM 11:50 AM 11:57 AM 12:07 PM 12:25 PM12:30 PM 12:40 PM 12:50 PM 12:57 PM 1:07 PM 1:25 PM1:30 PM 1:40 PM 1:50 PM 1:57 PM 2:07 PM 2:25 PM2:30 PM 2:40 PM 2:50 PM 2:57 PM 3:07 PM 3:25 PM3:30 PM 3:40 PM 3:50 PM 3:57 PM 4:07 PM 4:25 PM4:30 PM 4:40 PM 4:50 PM 4:57 PM 5:07 PM 5:25 PM5:30 PM 5:40 PM 5:50 PM 5:57 PM 6:07 PM 6:25 PM6:30 PM 6:40 PM 6:50 PM 6:57 PM 7:07 PM 7:25 PM

Marina Transit

Exchange

Marina Transit

Exchange

The Dunes

CSUMB



Exhibit 6.12 Near-Term Service in Marina



Exhibit 6.13 Near-Term Service in Marina with Quarter-Mile Buffers

Mid-Term Recommendations

The primary goal of mid-term recommendations is to bolster service

delivery within Marina through improvements to existing services. This

would reduce service gaps within the Marina Service Sector and promote

increased ridership, thus leading to increased fare revenue and improved

farebox recovery.

Given near-term recommendations focus on the introduction of new

service, mid-term recommendations will focus on responding to customer

desire for increased frequency and improved connections. We propose

accomplishing this through replacing the Marina Circulator with Route 25



operating between Salinas and CSUMB as well as increased frequency

along existing routes.

The Marina Circulator discussed in the “Near-Term Recommendations”

section of this chapter is an intermediary step leading to the ultimate goal

of improving connections between Salinas and CSUMB. Route 25 serves as

the complete realization of that goal, expanding upon the local service

between Marina and CSUMB with service to Salinas.

Route 25 would, however, suffer from the same connection problem to the

Dunes Shopping Center as does the Marina Circulator. Buses are forced to

make a right-hand turn onto Second Avenue from the parking lot, taking

them toward CSUMB. This works well on the Marina to CSUMB trip, but

would require the bus to travel a significant distance out of its way (i.e.,

southbound) on the northbound return trip. This is due to the presence of a

median blocking left-hand turns onto northbound Second Avenue from the

Dunes parking lot. This streetscape design decision severely impacts MST’s

ability to effectively serve the Dunes Shopping Center. We recommend

clearing a path through the median for left-hand turns onto northbound

Second Avenue, if only for buses. This would allow for significantly

improved access to the Dunes Shopping Center.



Exhibit 6.14 Proposed Route 25



Estimated total mileage for a round trip is 28.5 miles, with an approximate

running time of one hour, forty minutes. This equates to a fifty-minute one-

way trip between Salinas and CSUMB with stops in Marina and at the

Dunes Shopping Center. The proposed route would operate every hour

from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. on weekdays. No Saturday service would be

offered initially. This level of service translates to 27.5 Vehicle Service

Hours each weekday. At MST’s NTD-report rate of $101.66/VSH in 2007,

this would amount to approximately $13,978 per week or $712,890

annually.

Exhibit 6.15 Proposed Route 25 Sample Schedule

Divarty/ Engineer

Durham/ 6th

Divarty/ Engineer

6:00 AM 6:20 AM 6:35 AM 6:45 AM 6:55 AM 7:05 AM 7:15 AM 7:30 AM 7:50 AM7:00 AM 7:20 AM 7:35 AM 7:45 AM 7:55 AM 8:05 AM 8:15 AM 8:30 AM 8:50 AM8:00 AM 8:20 AM 8:35 AM 8:45 AM 8:55 AM 9:05 AM 9:15 AM 9:30 AM 9:50 AM9:00 AM 9:20 AM 9:35 AM 9:45 AM 9:55 AM 10:05 AM 10:15 AM 10:30 AM 10:50 AM10:00 AM 10:20 AM 10:35 AM 10:45 AM 10:55 AM 11:05 AM 11:15 AM 11:30 AM 11:50 AM11:00 AM 11:20 AM 11:35 AM 11:45 AM 11:55 AM 12:05 PM 12:15 PM 12:30 PM 12:50 PM12:00 PM 12:20 PM 12:35 PM 12:45 PM 12:55 PM 1:05 PM 1:15 PM 1:30 PM 1:50 PM1:00 PM 1:20 PM 1:35 PM 1:45 PM 1:55 PM 2:05 PM 2:15 PM 2:30 PM 2:50 PM2:00 PM 2:20 PM 2:35 PM 2:45 PM 2:55 PM 3:05 PM 3:15 PM 3:30 PM 3:50 PM3:00 PM 3:20 PM 3:35 PM 3:45 PM 3:55 PM 4:05 PM 4:15 PM 4:30 PM 4:50 PM4:00 PM 4:20 PM 4:35 PM 4:45 PM 4:55 PM 5:05 PM 5:15 PM 5:30 PM 5:50 PM5:00 PM 5:20 PM 5:35 PM 5:45 PM 5:55 PM 6:05 PM 6:15 PM 6:30 PM 6:50 PM6:00 PM 6:20 PM 6:35 PM 6:45 PM 6:55 PM 7:05 PM 7:15 PM 7:30 PM 7:50 PM7:00 PM 7:20 PM 7:35 PM 7:45 PM 7:55 PM 8:05 PM 8:15 PM 8:30 PM 8:50 PM8:00 PM 8:20 PM 8:35 PM 8:45 PM 8:55 PM 9:05 PM 9:15 PM 9:30 PM 9:50 PM

Salinas Transit Center

CSUMBSalinas Transit Center

Marina Transit

Exchange

The Dunes

The Dunes

Marina Transit

Exchange

This new alignment would dramatically improve connections between

Salinas and CSUMB, while also improving access between CSUMB and the

Dunes as well as Marina and the Dunes. The alignment also supplants a

significant portion of the Marina On-Call service’s coverage area. The

loop within the CSUMB campus also covers a sizeable portion of the

CSUMB Campus Shuttle’s alignment.

We recommend regular monitoring of Route 25’s effectiveness at the

individual stop level. Identifying those portions of the route are more



productive would allow MST to tweak the alignment in out years to better

serve the community. This should be done on at least a quarterly basis

using either ride checks or APC data.

Frequency plays a significant role in whether a transit program can attract

new “choice” riders. Increased frequency translates to increased flexibility

for patrons in regards to choosing a travel time. The customer survey

(Chapter 2) revealed nearly 64 percent of riders choose MST because they

lack access to a motor vehicle. Only 13 percent indicated they would drive

themselves if MST was not available. This indicates a high level of ride-

dependence among transit customers within Marina.

To expand its customer base and increase its share of the trips made within

Marina, MST should implement service enhancements targeted toward

“choice” riders. “Choice” riders have access to a personal vehicle, but

would elect to use transit for some or all of their trips should service be

more convenient. “Choice” riders demand more amenities (onboard

vehicles and at bus stops), more frequent service, more convenient fare

media, and are typically more technologically savvy than ride-dependent

patrons. They also respond well to targeted marketing efforts highlighting

the convenience, environmental sustainability, and cost-related benefits of

transit.

To attract new riders from a broader spectrum of the population, we

recommend MST increase frequency along Routes 16, 20, and 25.

To increase MST’s share of trips made within the Marina Service Sector, we

propose increasing weekday frequency along three major alignments:

Routes 16, 20, and proposed Route 25. These routes serve significant

destinations and population centers and serve as the backbone of transit

service within the Marina Service Sector.



We propose doubling the frequency of service along Route 16. Given

frequent requests for shorter headways within the Marina and CSUMB

communities, this step would result in significant increases in ridership and

fare revenue. Doubling frequency to 30 minutes would require an

additional two buses until 7:15 p.m., at which point headways would

revert to hourly.

A sample schedule for the proposed enhancement is below.

Exhibit 6.16 Route 16 Sample Schedule

Monterey Transit Plaza

Edgewater Transit

Exchange

CSUMB 4th/Divarty

Imjin/ Reservation

Marina Transit Exchange


Imjin/ Reservation

CSUMB 4th/Divarty

Edgewater Transit

Exchange


-- 6:11 AM 6:28 AM 6:47 AM 6:56 AM 6:36 AM 6:41 AM 6:58 AM 7:15 AM 7:25 AM6:30 AM 6:41 AM 6:58 AM 7:17 AM 7:26 AM 7:06 AM 7:11 AM 7:28 AM 7:45 AM 7:55 AM7:00 AM 7:11 AM 7:28 AM 7:47 AM 7:56 AM 7:36 AM 7:41 AM 7:58 AM 8:15 AM 8:25 AM7:30 AM 7:41 AM 7:58 AM 8:17 AM 8:26 AM 8:06 AM 8:11 AM 8:28 AM 8:45 AM 8:55 AM8:00 AM 8:11 AM 8:28 AM 8:47 AM 8:56 AM 8:36 AM 8:41 AM 8:58 AM 9:15 AM 9:25 AM8:30 AM 8:41 AM 8:58 AM 9:17 AM 9:26 AM 9:06 AM 9:11 AM 9:28 AM 9:45 AM 9:55 AM9:00 AM 9:11 AM 9:28 AM 9:47 AM 9:56 AM 9:36 AM 9:41 AM 9:58 AM 10:15 AM 10:25 AM9:30 AM 9:41 AM 9:58 AM 10:17 AM 10:26 AM 10:06 AM 10:11 AM 10:28 AM 10:45 AM 10:55 AM

10:00 AM 10:11 AM 10:28 AM 10:47 AM 10:56 AM 10:36 AM 10:41 AM 10:58 AM 11:15 AM 11:25 AM10:30 AM 10:41 AM 10:58 AM 11:17 AM 11:26 AM 11:06 AM 11:11 AM 11:28 AM 11:45 AM 11:55 AM11:00 AM 11:11 AM 11:28 AM 11:47 AM 11:56 AM 11:36 AM 11:41 AM 11:58 AM 12:15 PM 12:25 PM11:30 AM 11:41 AM 11:58 AM 12:17 PM 12:26 PM 12:06 PM 12:11 PM 12:28 PM 12:45 PM 12:55 PM12:00 PM 12:11 PM 12:28 PM 12:47 PM 12:56 PM 12:36 PM 12:41 PM 12:58 PM 1:15 PM 1:25 PM12:30 PM 12:41 PM 12:58 PM 1:17 PM 1:26 PM 1:06 PM 1:11 PM 1:28 PM 1:45 PM 1:55 PM1:00 PM 1:11 PM 1:28 PM 1:47 PM 1:56 PM 1:36 PM 1:41 PM 1:58 PM 2:15 PM 2:25 PM1:30 PM 1:41 PM 1:58 PM 2:17 PM 2:26 PM 2:06 PM 2:11 PM 2:28 PM 2:45 PM 2:55 PM2:00 PM 2:11 PM 2:28 PM 2:47 PM 2:56 PM 2:36 PM 2:41 PM 2:58 PM 3:15 PM 3:25 PM2:30 PM 2:41 PM 2:58 PM 3:17 PM 3:26 PM 3:06 PM 3:11 PM 3:28 PM 3:45 PM 3:55 PM3:00 PM 3:11 PM 3:28 PM 3:47 PM 3:56 PM 3:36 PM 3:41 PM 3:58 PM 4:15 PM 4:25 PM3:30 PM 3:41 PM 3:58 PM 4:17 PM 4:26 PM 4:06 PM 4:11 PM 4:28 PM 4:45 PM 4:55 PM4:00 PM 4:11 PM 4:28 PM 4:47 PM 4:56 PM 4:36 PM 4:41 PM 4:58 PM 5:15 PM 5:25 PM4:30 PM 4:41 PM 4:58 PM 5:17 PM 5:26 PM 5:06 PM 5:11 PM 5:28 PM 5:45 PM 5:55 PM5:00 PM 5:11 PM 5:28 PM 5:47 PM 5:56 PM 5:36 PM 5:41 PM 5:58 PM 6:15 PM 6:25 PM5:30 PM 5:41 PM 5:58 PM 6:17 PM 6:26 PM 6:06 PM 6:11 PM 6:28 PM 6:45 PM 6:55 PM6:15 PM 6:26 PM 6:43 PM 7:02 PM 7:11 PM 6:36 PM 6:41 PM 6:58 PM 7:15 PM 7:25 PM6:45 PM 6:56 PM 7:13 PM 7:32 PM 7:41 PM 7:21 PM 7:26 PM 7:43 PM 8:00 PM 8:10 PM7:15 PM 7:26 PM 7:43 PM 8:02 PM 8:11 PM 8:21 PM 8:26 PM 8:43 PM 9:00 PM 9:10 PM8:15 PM 8:26 PM 8:43 PM 9:02 PM 9:11 PM 9:21 PM 9:26 PM 9:43 PM 10:00 PM 10:10 PM9:15 PM 9:26 PM 9:43 PM 10:02 PM 10:11 PM 10:21 PM 10:26 PM 10:43 PM 11:00 PM 11:10 PM

10:15 PM 10:26 PM 10:43 PM 11:02 PM 11:11 PM

Monterey-Salinas Transit Route 20 is currently the most productive route in

the system. It carries more than 50,000 riders each month, more than four

times as many riders as the next most productive route traveling through



Marina. It serves as the backbone of MST’s service between Salinas and

Monterey. It runs frequently, approximately every 20 minutes during peak

hours. We recommend leveraging the success of this route through

increasing peak-hour frequency to every 15 minutes. This would result in

significantly improved flexibility for transit patrons and improve transfers to

other lines. Increasing frequency to every 15 minutes during peak hours

would require seven buses during peak-hour service.

A sample schedule for increased frequency on Route 20 is below.



Exhibit 6.17 Route 20 Sample Schedule


Edgewater Transit

Exchange





Edgewater Transit

Exchange


6:00 AM 6:15 AM 6:33 AM 6:53 AM 5:05 AM 5:26 AM 5:40 AM 5:58 AM6:15 AM 6:30 AM 6:48 AM 7:08 AM 5:45 AM 6:06 AM 6:23 AM 6:38 AM6:30 AM 6:45 AM 7:03 AM 7:23 AM 6:10 AM 6:31 AM 6:45 AM 6:59 AM6:45 AM 7:00 AM 7:18 AM 7:38 AM 6:40 AM 7:01 AM 7:15 AM 7:29 AM7:00 AM 7:15 AM 7:33 AM 7:53 AM 7:00 AM 7:21 AM 7:38 AM 7:53 AM7:15 AM 7:30 AM 7:48 AM 8:08 AM 7:15 AM 7:32 AM 7:51 AM 8:08 AM7:30 AM 7:45 AM 8:03 AM 8:23 AM 7:30 AM 7:47 AM 8:06 AM 8:23 AM8:00 AM 8:15 AM 8:33 AM 8:53 AM 7:45 AM 8:02 AM 8:23 AM 8:38 AM8:15 AM 8:30 AM 8:48 AM 9:08 AM 8:00 AM 8:17 AM 8:38 AM 8:53 AM8:30 AM 8:45 AM 9:03 AM 9:23 AM 8:15 AM 8:32 AM 8:53 AM 9:08 AM8:45 AM 9:00 AM 9:18 AM 9:38 AM 8:45 AM 9:06 AM 9:23 AM 9:38 AM9:00 AM 9:15 AM 9:33 AM 9:53 AM 9:00 AM 9:21 AM 9:38 AM 9:53 AM9:15 AM 9:30 AM 9:48 AM 10:08 AM 9:15 AM 9:34 AM 9:48 AM 10:02 AM9:45 AM 10:00 AM 10:18 AM 10:38 AM 9:30 AM 9:51 AM 10:08 AM 10:23 AM10:15 AM 10:30 AM 10:48 AM 11:08 AM 9:45 AM 10:06 AM 10:23 AM 10:38 AM10:45 AM 11:00 AM 11:18 AM 11:38 AM 10:00 AM 10:21 AM 10:38 AM 10:53 AM11:15 AM 11:30 AM 11:48 AM 12:08 PM 10:15 AM 10:36 AM 10:53 AM 11:08 AM11:45 AM 12:00 PM 12:18 PM 12:38 PM 10:45 AM 11:06 AM 11:23 AM 11:38 AM12:15 PM 12:30 PM 12:48 PM 1:08 PM 11:15 AM 11:36 AM 11:53 AM 12:08 PM12:45 PM 1:00 PM 1:18 PM 1:38 PM 11:45 AM 12:06 PM 12:23 PM 12:38 PM1:15 PM 1:30 PM 1:48 PM 2:08 PM 12:15 PM 12:36 PM 12:53 PM 1:08 PM1:45 PM 2:00 PM 2:18 PM 2:38 PM 12:45 PM 1:06 PM 1:23 PM 1:38 PM2:15 PM 2:30 PM 2:48 PM 3:08 PM 1:15 PM 1:36 PM 1:53 PM 2:08 PM2:45 PM 3:00 PM 3:18 PM 3:38 PM 1:45 PM 2:06 PM 2:23 PM 2:38 PM3:15 PM 3:30 PM 3:48 PM 4:08 PM 2:15 PM 2:36 PM 2:53 PM 3:08 PM3:45 PM 4:00 PM 4:18 PM 4:38 PM 2:48 PM 3:09 PM 3:26 PM 3:41 PM4:00 PM 4:15 PM 4:33 PM 4:53 PM 3:15 PM 3:36 PM 3:53 PM 4:08 PM4:15 PM 4:30 PM 4:48 PM 5:08 PM 3:45 PM 4:06 PM 4:23 PM 4:38 PM4:30 PM 4:45 PM 5:03 PM 5:23 PM 4:18 PM 4:39 PM 4:56 PM 5:11 PM4:45 PM 5:00 PM 5:18 PM 5:38 PM 4:33 PM 4:54 PM 5:11 PM 5:26 PM5:18 PM 5:33 PM 5:51 PM 6:11 PM 4:48 PM 5:09 PM 5:26 PM 5:41 PM5:33 PM 5:48 PM 6:06 PM 6:26 PM 5:03 PM 5:24 PM 5:41 PM 5:56 PM5:48 PM 6:03 PM 6:21 PM 6:41 PM 5:18 PM 5:39 PM 5:56 PM 6:11 PM6:03 PM 6:18 PM 6:36 PM 6:56 PM 5:33 PM 5:52 PM 6:05 PM 6:17 PM6:18 PM 6:33 PM 6:51 PM 7:11 PM 5:48 PM 6:09 PM 6:26 PM 6:41 PM6:33 PM 6:48 PM 7:06 PM 7:26 PM 6:18 PM 6:37 PM 6:53 PM 7:05 PM6:48 PM 7:03 PM 7:21 PM 7:41 PM 6:33 PM 6:52 PM 7:08 PM 7:20 PM7:15 PM 7:30 PM 7:48 PM 8:08 PM 6:48 PM 7:09 PM 7:26 PM 7:41 PM8:15 PM 8:30 PM 8:48 PM 9:08 PM 7:15 PM 7:36 PM 7:52 PM 8:08 PM9:15 PM 9:30 PM 9:48 PM 10:08 PM 8:20 PM 8:43 PM 8:52 PM 9:08 PM10:15 PM 10:30 PM 10:48 PM 11:08 PM 9:15 PM 9:36 PM 9:52 PM 10:08 PM11:15 PM 11:27 PM 11:42 PM 12:00 AM 10:15 PM 10:36 PM 10:48 PM 11:02 PM

Should performance monitoring reveal significant demand for Route 25,

we recommend increasing frequency to 30-minute headways. This would

allow the route to transition from a service primarily for ride-dependent



patrons to one more able to attract trips from “choice” riders.

Implementing this service would require four buses.

Exhibit 6.18 Proposed Route 25 Sample Schedule

Divarty/ Engineer

Durham/ 6th

Divarty/ Engineer

6:00 AM 6:20 AM 6:35 AM 6:45 AM 6:55 AM 7:05 AM 7:30 AM 7:50 AM6:30 AM 6:50 AM 7:05 AM 7:15 AM 7:25 AM 7:35 AM 8:00 AM 8:20 AM7:00 AM 7:20 AM 7:35 AM 7:45 AM 7:55 AM 8:05 AM 8:30 AM 8:50 AM7:30 AM 7:50 AM 8:05 AM 8:15 AM 8:25 AM 8:35 AM 9:00 AM 9:20 AM8:00 AM 8:20 AM 8:35 AM 8:45 AM 8:55 AM 9:05 AM 9:30 AM 9:50 AM8:30 AM 8:50 AM 9:05 AM 9:15 AM 9:25 AM 9:35 AM 10:00 AM 10:20 AM9:00 AM 9:20 AM 9:35 AM 9:45 AM 9:55 AM 10:05 AM 10:30 AM 10:50 AM9:30 AM 9:50 AM 10:05 AM 10:15 AM 10:25 AM 10:35 AM 11:00 AM 11:20 AM

10:00 AM 10:20 AM 10:35 AM 10:45 AM 10:55 AM 11:05 AM 11:30 AM 11:50 AM10:30 AM 10:50 AM 11:05 AM 11:15 AM 11:25 AM 11:35 AM 12:00 PM 12:20 PM11:00 AM 11:20 AM 11:35 AM 11:45 AM 11:55 AM 12:05 PM 12:30 PM 12:50 PM11:30 AM 11:50 AM 12:05 PM 12:15 PM 12:25 PM 12:35 PM 1:00 PM 1:20 PM12:00 PM 12:20 PM 12:35 PM 12:45 PM 12:55 PM 1:05 PM 1:30 PM 1:50 PM12:30 PM 12:50 PM 1:05 PM 1:15 PM 1:25 PM 1:35 PM 2:00 PM 2:20 PM1:00 PM 1:20 PM 1:35 PM 1:45 PM 1:55 PM 2:05 PM 2:30 PM 2:50 PM1:30 PM 1:50 PM 2:05 PM 2:15 PM 2:25 PM 2:35 PM 3:00 PM 3:20 PM2:00 PM 2:20 PM 2:35 PM 2:45 PM 2:55 PM 3:05 PM 3:30 PM 3:50 PM2:30 PM 2:50 PM 3:05 PM 3:15 PM 3:25 PM 3:35 PM 4:00 PM 4:20 PM3:00 PM 3:20 PM 3:35 PM 3:45 PM 3:55 PM 4:05 PM 4:30 PM 4:50 PM3:30 PM 3:50 PM 4:05 PM 4:15 PM 4:25 PM 4:35 PM 5:00 PM 5:20 PM4:00 PM 4:20 PM 4:35 PM 4:45 PM 4:55 PM 5:05 PM 5:30 PM 5:50 PM4:30 PM 4:50 PM 5:05 PM 5:15 PM 5:25 PM 5:35 PM 6:00 PM 6:20 PM5:00 PM 5:20 PM 5:35 PM 5:45 PM 5:55 PM 6:05 PM 6:30 PM 6:50 PM5:30 PM 5:50 PM 6:05 PM 6:15 PM 6:25 PM 6:35 PM 7:00 PM 7:20 PM6:00 PM 6:20 PM 6:35 PM 6:45 PM 6:55 PM 7:05 PM 7:30 PM 7:50 PM6:30 PM 6:50 PM 7:05 PM 7:15 PM 7:25 PM 7:35 PM 8:00 PM 8:20 PM7:00 PM 7:20 PM 7:35 PM 7:45 PM 7:55 PM 8:05 PM 8:30 PM 8:50 PM7:30 PM 7:50 PM 8:05 PM 8:15 PM 8:25 PM 8:35 PM 9:00 PM 9:20 PM8:00 PM 8:20 PM 8:35 PM 8:45 PM 8:55 PM 9:05 PM 9:30 PM 9:50 PM

Marina Transit

Exchange



Marina Transit

Exchange

The Dunes

CSUMB



Exhibit 6.19 Mid-Term Service in Marina



Exhibit 6.20 Mid-Term Service in Marina with Quarter-Mile Buffers



Long-Term Recommendations

Long-term recommendations focus on planning for forecast growth within

the Marina Service Sector, specifically in and within the former Fort Ord.

The long-term redevelopment plans for Fort Ord call for significant

housing and commercial development as well as essential services, such as

a new hospital. Accommodating this growth will require enhancements to

existing service, alignment adjustments, as well as the introduction of new

routes.

The goal of the long-term recommendations is to supplement existing

service as well as near- and mid-term recommendations to create a

comprehensive approach toward transit service delivery within Marina and

Fort Ord/CSUMB. To that end, we propose the following

recommendations:

• Realign Route 27 to better serve CSUMB, and

• Introduce a dedicated local Marina circulator.

These recommendations are discussed in more detail below.

Realign Route 27

Route 27 currently provides service between Marina and

Watsonville in Santa Cruz County. The route currently carries

approximately 2,000 riders each month, about one-sixth what

Route 16 carries and one-twentieth of Route 20. Given this Plan’s

increased focus on CSUMB as a major trip origin/destination, we

propose realigning Route 27 to extend it to CSUMB. This would

result in improved connections between Watsonville, Castroville,

and CSUMB as well as provide an alternate path for those looking

to travel between Marina and CSUMB. Given the route currently

provides some local service in the western portion of Marina and

has 13-minute layovers at the Marina Transit Exchange, we believe

it is possible to re-route the alignment directly from Castroville into



the Marina Transit Exchange, and then on to CSUMB via California

Avenue.

We recommend this change be accompanied by performance

monitoring to determine its net effect. Should patrons stop using

the service as a result, we recommend reverting to the current

alignment. However, should ridership increase, we recommend

increasing frequency along the route to transition it from a

primarily “life-line” service to a more mainstream service capable

of attracting “choice” riders.

A map of the proposed realignment is below.



Exhibit 6.21 Proposed Route 27



Marina Circulator

We believe poor patronage on the Marina On-Call service – the

community’s only local service – is due in large part to the fact it is

a demand-response service. Demand-response programs provide

a great deal of convenience in regards to origin and destination,

while fixed-route programs provide less convenience in terms of

origin/destination at the expense of improved reliability and

capacity. Demand-response programs are typically much less cost-

effective on a per-passenger basis than fixed-route programs and

also present a significant barrier to entry as there is no posted

schedule.

Given the Marina On-Call service is funded through a relatively

short-term grant which is set to expire in the next fiscal year, we

propose MST consider transitioning to a dedicated, fixed-route

circulator within Marina.

A good example of a viable community circulator service is Santa

Monica Big Blue Bus’ new Mini Blue service. The Mini Blue service

consists of four neighborhood circulators using smaller, 30-foot

low-floor coaches. The buses run frequently (every 15-20 minutes)

and fares are only 50 cents (versus 75 cents for regular Big Blue

Bus lines).

We recommend MST consider implementing the service as a trial to

replace the MST On-Call service as well as serve new or expanding

residential/commercial developments within Fort Ord. The service

should be offered at a reduced fare and operate every half-hour. It

should serve key points between the Marina and Edgewater Transit

Exchanges, including the Dunes Shopping Center, the Department

of Defense building, the Marina library, and CSUMB.



Exhibit 6.22 Long-Term Service in Marina



Exhibit 6.23 Long-Term Service in Marina with Quarter-Mile Buffers

monterey - salinas transit · monterey-salinas transit – marina area service study moore &...

Documents