HomeMy WebLinkAboutEast End Transit Survey
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
East End Transit Survey
Qualitative a. Quantitative
Transportation Surveys:
Five Towns on Long Island's East End
Prepared For:
Five Town Rural Transit, Inc
r:.r'( '~-\I!:D
F" . , ...
. 1 () 2005
'oJ,Url Town Cler~
Prepared By:
APPELR~SEARCH.LLC
MARKE'I'ING & POBUC OPINION SURVEYS
2452 Hilltop Road
Niskayuna, NY 12309
(518) 372-3200 . (518) 372-9051 (Fax) . steve@appelresearch.com
August 15, 2005
Five Town Rural Transit, Inc.
,;..:::/_~~ ,.:::;;-"
" '~'''''I;'Y, ,,~ ... -:,
Southold Town
Council Meeting
10 November 2005, 10:00 AM
Southold Town Hall
East End Transit Survey
,,~,<f
;'
-~, - . :1"':;;;;-
-"'" -"'
"Qualitative & Quantitative Surveys
on the East End of Long Island"
Prepared for:
Five Town Rural Transit, Inc.
By:
ApPEL RESEARCH, LLC
uantlta~ses:
4., une 2005 -...-"
;r 1,200 Respondents Total - :3% Margin of Error
". 5 Sub-Regions Created - 240 Interviews Each -
:6% Margin of Error -- Weighted
. East Hampton Town
. Riverhead Town
. Southold I Shelter Island Towns
. Southampton Town - West of Shinnecock Canal
. Southampton Town - East of Shinnecock Canal
". 42 Questions (partly derived from focus groups)
". Average Interview Duration - 16 Minutes
~;1(ve T~..ra.1 T~sft;1n~. _...
I. .. ....,., '" ~"
;r Formed as Ad-Hoc Citizen Committee - early 2004
f Incorporated as sOI(c)(3) - early 2005
.' Goal - Research & Develop East End Transit:
1. East End Transit Survey (Aug.Os)
2. East End Shuttle'" Development Proposal (Nov. 05)
" 10 Member Board of Directors from East End:
- Hank de ~Uia, Tom Neely, Hal Ross (Southampton)
- Kathy Cunningham, Tom Ruhle (East Hampton)
- Patricia Shillingburg (Shelter Island)
- Margaret Brown, John Rooney (SouthoId)
- Joey Mac Lellan, Vince Taldone (Riverhead)
I~nslt.~ Quallt.atl~:
,/ Fc)ct,;~)j"..~ ~12005 , -"
" Five Focus Groups Conducted (7-10 People Each):
1. Non-Resident Commuters to Jobs on East End
2. Pennanent East End Residents, Non-Commuters
3. Large Employers on East End
4. Second Homeowners on East End
5. Spanish-Speaking East End Residents
:r Three Purposes:
1. Open-Ended Responses, Idea Generation
2. Question Design for Quantitative Telephone Survey
3. Contact People Not Easily Reached by Telephone
I;~/ In===~... ,-,
". Routes and Schedules Do Not Make Sense
". Limited Hours, No Sunday Service
". Some Rude/Discourteous Drivers
". No Coordination with Other Transit Modes
:r Only 3% use Suffolk County Transit at least two times
per week
" 88% never use Suffolk County Transit, 7% only a few
times per year.
'-Grw,..,....,.... .....,
Z/I
, ,.
/'
LO~~nc1 Rail ~";;'"
-~ Usf .....-.,
-' Almost No One Uses URR for Intra-Regional
Travel
/ Infrequent Service - Not Geared to Regular
Users, except Weekenders
. Worse on North Fork
f 54% never use the URR, 35% only a few times per
year
'-.,.,. a,....,........my
I~Initial'b},~at PublQ'tuit..
/' CouldBe~nwed 6t1East End...-."",
According to Focus Group Respondents At First...
-' The Area is Too Spread Out Geographically
-' Many Employees Don't Work at Fixed Locations
(construction/renovation, landscaping, etc.)
, Not Enough East End Population to Warrant
Frequent Service
" Resistant East End Second Homeowners
-' Demand Limited to Transit-Dependent
~.CfGlt,.
, ..~ .'~,.:. 111'::.... '. .
/' Describe Pe~Y"dPIi~ J:anSit"S"yst~....
.~ 2nd Tier -- Important Components -
All Unprompted from Focus Groups
. Low Cost, Like SCT
. Extended Hours, Sunday Service
. Coordination of Bus and Train Schedules
. Amenities - Clean, Comfortable, Safe
. Parking
. Energy-Efficient, Non-Polluting
. No Exact Change Requirement
~~----_.
"
I~/ Lo~Q<:e {NYC~c;...
I' -Gen~l~tiw~on .....\-,
:~orth Fork - SUnrise Coach
:rSouth Fork - Hampton Jitney, Luxury Liner
. Significant Passenger Loads on All Unes
. Quick, Reliable, Flexible in Routes
. Frequent Service, Multiple EE and NYC Stops
. Comfortable, Oean, Safe
. Pricey, some say (but gasoline prices no)
.46% never use long distance buses, 41% only a
few times per year
. focuG......~.~
1~be~~Ii~g~~-.,
-' 151 Tier -- Most Important Components -
All Unprompted from Focus Groups
. Frequency of Service
. Reliability - On Time
. Accessibility of System - Proximity to
Routes
. Increased Speed
- ,...........
w
~-'jt
,.,....,.
.,
I
Wh~BJDye~W~
PlJb~aMit,Sjstetn
"-.-""
f Hard to Hire or Retain Employees
/ Forced to Pay Premium Salaries in
return for Long Commutes
-' High Parking Expenses
-' Tired and Harried Employees
/ Excessive and Unavoidable Lateness
-' Their Attempts to Improve the
Situation have Failed to Date
. Incentives to car pool, fare subsidies
.~!InfIcIr-'-_~~
"
~ast ~~eTM ppi.-OveraJL
I ........" #;1 """;--
f From Focus Groups, First Reaction Comments after
the New Transit Plan was Described:
. 'When does it start? We're ready."
. 'The interesting thing about this focus group.. is that
there is no negativity toward your transit plan.
Everybody wishes your group well and encourages
them to move forward."
. 'Everybody's going to benefit a lot .. The government,
the users, the environment."
.':!-c......
"
l~/The E~~uttleTM~.&ilr
I' con~l~~rMap """-:__
..
==
-._--
--
~=..-
.--
,/-
'r~ - "./...
,
. ~ ,
"
',~hoot1r~Q New ~~an~~ .
I' IUl~ """ #~. ....~,
y 1. "Convincing the MTA to Give Up the East End"
. .... not something they're going to relinquish easily,
since they are having their own budget crisis."
. 'They would throw everything at us."
. "Why hasn't URR had vision to accept there is need
for this kind of service?"
. Irony - East End trains are money-losers, says MTA.
.r Respondents - "Emphasize it's a Good Idea and
Develop our own Political Power." "Let us help."
. foaM .......
"
".~e~lt.~. UttleTM~..... .....J~......
J.' . ~I'8QQI1!1i'/ ~~"
OI,.,rrrMll'of.Newl'rlllllcnwllr~ r II JI""'"
--'" ....lI1DS--.-
eo_ ..- -
~-::~ -
1-2.. - i.:'-5'
Rrst,. create new pubUc authority to take over public
transit service on East End ,." ..,.
Newtntlnservlce 30 minutes new I ",,, "'"
Buses coordinate: with trains meel:tIlematstatlons '''' "'"
More;;rklM at train stations &. enhanced bui sti-. 18% .'"
FaresslmllartoSUfl'olkCou Transit '" 86%
.. tloiedllRRstlltIons "" '4%
New bus routes and enhanced 13% ""
Extended AM and PM hours and Suncl ...- "" "'"
New ~I:::nd buses, enSOV-ef'I'k:lent, non-ponutsng,
rulld for FederallH'ilnts ." .'"
SUsanal, passenger-only water taxis 23% .'"
-.....
..
l.~ HO~ WOUld~......' >
I' New~~e Syftem? ...,. -__
;r 4/5 times / week
/ 2/3 times / week
7%
} 22%
15%
/ A few times / month 29%
/ A few times / year 26%
;r Never 19%
f Don't Know
4%
.~s...,.,
I'
i/~<Shoot1r~ ~~~.~&:9lan"~ _,
7 2. "Getting People out of their cars"
. 'People are wedded to their cars. People demand total
convenience and control."
. Second Homeowners -- '1 use publiC transportation in
New York City all the time ... but I can't imagine using
these trains and buses to get where I'm going when I can
just pop into my car and drive."
:' Growing Incentive Not to Drive - Rising Fuel Prices.
/ Respondents: Success = Small Shift to Trains and
Buses = Major Reduction in Auto Congestion.
'- ..,.,.
I'
,1f{w Shufti~m Pr~ec:I
I ' Far Higher'ia~~t Transit ,",,-;,
Telephone Survey - 1 to 5 scale - 5 is best
/ WOrst it could be (1- 2..)
/ Average (...3...)
/ Best it could be (..4 - 5)
T........ S....,.
Current
52%
26%
22%
New
13%
25%
62%
"
,~st E~~Q.[l't just ~~
l,shuttle Svste~l.n'U~'l.Thev'l1 UMI.1t'"
;r 4/5 times/week
or 2/3 times/week
Combined Regular Use
or A few times/month
or A few times/year
or Never
T.............,._~..
Use Would Use
Current New
2% 7%
2% 15%
4% 22%
9% 29%
34% 26%
53% 19%
Would Use New
m If Free
13%
17%
30%
24%
21%
18%
'"
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table of Contents
.:. Il1tr()ctll~i()11 .............................................................................. :!
.:. Executive Summary ................................................................... 4
.:. Detailed Findings - Focus Groups............................................. 11
~ E)(i!itil1!J C:()l1ciiti()l1!i .............................................................. jLjL
~ The Perfect Public Transportation System ........................... 15
~ A New Public Transportation System for the East End ........ 19
~ Focus Group Composition of Groups .................................... 34
.:+ Detailed Findings -- Telephone Survey..................................... 35
~ E)(i!itil1!J C:()l1ciiti()l1!i .............................................................. ~Ei
~ Proposed Public Transportation System ............................... 38
~ Reasons to Support I Oppose Proposal................................ 48
~ Percentage of Cars Taken Off The Road ............................... 51
~ F=il1al Ftatil1~!i......................................................................... !i~
~ lWIetl1()cI()I()!llf......................................................................... !i4
>- Characteristics of Respondents ............................................ 57
ApPEL RESEARCH, LLC / MARKETING & PUBLIC OPINION SURVEYS
2452 HILLTOP RD, NISKAYUNA, NY 12309, (518) 372-3200' (518) 372-9051 (FAX)
STEVE@APPELRESEARCH.COM
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.:. Introduction
The towns of the East End of Long Island - East Hampton, Riverhead, Southampton,
Southold, and Shelter Island -- have experienced strong population growth in the past thirty
years, and projections indicate that the escalation will continue at a rapid pace. The growth
consists not only of 2nd homeowners, for whom "the Hamptons" is well known, but also of
primary residents, as well.
Total population within the five towns is expected to increase by 48% from January 1/
2003/ when saturation is reached. Even though this growth has been predictable, little has
been done to upgrade the transportation system in the region during the last thirty years.
Highway improvements through western Suffolk County have merely increased the numbers
of cars that can reach the East End's inadequate road system, which largely dates from the
forties. Public transportation exists - railroad, local buses, inter-regional jitneys, ferries,
and airports -- but they are geared more for visitors and seasonal residents than for
commuters to local jobs and other local activities. And like the highways, sizable increases
in usage are being reported by most of these forms of public transportation.
With the higher population comes economic growth, employment, and transportation
congestion. While the past transportation pattern for commuters had been almost
exclusively east to west, there is now, according to the 2000 US Census, a large contingent
of workers from outside the five towns who travel west to east into the East End (24/265/
compared to 17/411 who travel from the five towns out to the west). Still, much of the
commuting travel is relatively local, with 40,77439/599 workers both living and working in
the five towns, 31/417 in the town in which they reside, and 9/357 commuting to other East
End towns.
However, the April 2000 US Census, based on questions asked in April 2002/ understates
the magnitude of the data, and hence, the potential number of riders of a new transit
system. Thousands of travelers were not counted, including those with second homes, as
well as undocumented immigrants and seasonal workers. Furthermore, respondents were
asked, "Where did you work last week?," as opposed to where the job site was. Employees
often answered with the location of the employer. We also know that many contractors are
based in Brookhaven, but send workers to the five East End towns.
As part of the initial preparation, Five Town Rural Transit, Inc. (STRTC) has engaged Appel
Research, LLC, a marketing and public opinion research firm, to collect and evaluate opinion
data from various market segments in order to determine the level of support to a public
transportation proposal. The STRTC's proposal would reduce auto congestion by increasing
ApPEL RESEARCH, LLC / MARKETING & PUBLIC OPINION SURVEYS
2452 HILLTOP RD, NISKAYUNA, NY 12309, (518) 372-3200. (518) 372-9051 (FAX)
STEVE@APPELRESEARCH.COM
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
the number of employees, second home owners, guests, tourists and other recreational
travelers, etc., who will take public transportation to and from their destinations - saving
time and money. Based on population trends, workforce data, current public transportation
usage, and several transportation surveys, a reasonable working hypothesis indicates that
10 - 20% of automobile travel could be shifted to this new system.
The surveys reported here, therefore, measure attitudes and opinions toward this plan.
Using the data and analysis, the committee can fine-tune the details and present options
that will find acceptance in the communities and among stakeholders.
APPEL RESEARCH. LLC I MARKETING & PUBLIC OPINION SURVEYS
2452 HILLTOP RD, NISKAYUNA, NY 12309, (518) 372-3200. (518) 372-9051 (FAX)
STEVE@APPELRESEARCH.COM
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.. Executive Summary
~ Key Finding
Residents of the East End of Lona Island suooort overwhelminaly the proposed
oublic transoortation plan developed by Five Town Rural Transit, Inc., according to
the findings of a large 1,200 sample telephone survey and five focus groups.
Furthermore, this ooinion is shared by each of the oooulation segments studied --
region, age, income, work status, and other demographic groupings - with little
variation in findings. The sampling also prefers the proposed system to the current
system by a wide margin:
Rate the - current/proposed - public transportation system, using a 1 to 5 scale -
5 is best:
Worst it could be
Avera e
Best it could be
Current stem Pro
52%
26%
220/0
S stem
13%
25%
62%
More significantly, after the plan was described, many of the respondents reported
that they would use the new system freauently. We note that 22% would use the
proposed transit system at least twice per week, as compared to only 4% who
currently use publiC transportation that often. Putting it another way, the proposed
system would be used more than five times as much as the current one. The usage
jumps further, to 30%, when the possibility is explained that the system could be
operated with no fares at all:
How often -- do you/would you -- use public transportation on
Long Island's East End?
Use Current Would Use Would Use New
System New System System If Free
4/5 times per week 2% 7% 13%
2/3 times per week 2% 15% 17%
Combined Regular Use 4% 22% 30%
A few times per month 9% 29% 24%
A few times per vear 34% 26% 21%
Never 53% 19% 18%
Don't Know 1% 4% 7%
APPEL RESEARCH, LLC I MARKETING & PUBLIC OPINION SURVEYS
2452 HILLTOP RD, NISKAYUNA, NY 12309, (518) 372-3200. (518) 372-9051 (FAX)
STEVE@APPELRESEARCH.COM
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The population segment most likely to use the new system was younger residents,
while those retired were slightly less likely. There were no significant differences by
town.
~ Current State of Transportation on Long Island's East End
According to the telephone survey, 95% of the resident population relies primarily on
automobiles for transportation. In the focus groups, respondents emphasized the
steady increase in traffic congestion in recent years resulting in gridlock conditions,
especially during the morning drive-to-work period, and throughout the summer. We
also learned that businesses and employees are affected, both from convenience and
from economic viewpoints.
. With respect to public transportation, there are three major modes:
. Suffolk County Transit - Intra-regional transportation with a steady increase in
ridership, but respondents report the system as having routes and schedules
do not make sense, limited hours in the morning and evening, no Sunday
service, some rude drivers, and most significantly, no coordination with the
Long Island Rail Road (URR) or other forms of transDortation. Only 3% of
those participating in the telephone survey use Suffolk County Transit at least
two times per week, 7% use it only a few times per year, and 88% never use
Suffolk County Transit all. Only low-income residents take the Suffolk County
Transit buses with any frequency -- 14% use them at least two times per
week.
. Long Island Rail Road - Inter-regional transportation used by almost no one
for travel within the region. Its service is infrequent, and not geared to
regular users, except possibly weekenders. Residents on the North Fork
regard the LIRR even more harshly. Overall, we found that 54% of the
respondents never use the LIRR and 35% only a few times per year.
. Long distance buses - Inter-regional transportation provided by three (now
four) private services. Sunrise Coach covers the North Fork, while the
Hampton Jitney and the Hampton Luxury Liner run on the South Fork. The
respondents were generally favorable toward these services, informing us of
significant passenger loads on all lines, (especially on the Hampton Jitney).
They choose these services for their frequent service, speed, reliability, and
flexible routes. The private bus lines make multiple stops, and are
comfortable, clean, and safe. Some respondents suggest that the buses are
ApPEL RESEARCH. LLC / MARKETING & PUBLIC OPINION SURVEYS
2452 HILLTOP RD, NISKAYUNA, NY 12309, (518) 372-3200. (518) 372-9051 (FAX)
STEVE@APPELRESEARCH,COM
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
pricey, but increasing gasoline prices are making them more competitive.
Overall, 46% never use long distance buses, and 41% only a few times per
year.
By using single buses, instead of long trains, they can schedule far more runs
at more times, a clear advantage over the Long Island Rail Road.
. Can public transportation be improved?
After discussing the current transit system, the focus group respondents had their
doubts about whether the system could be significantly improved. They noted
that the area is too spread out geographically, many employees don't work at
fixed locations (construction/renovation, landscaping, etc.), population may not
be large enough to warrant frequent service, and demand is largely limited to the
transit-dependent. Also, 2nd homeowners would be resistant.
. What are the components of a perfect transportation system?
The respondents were asked if these local conditions could be overcome via
the development of a perfect public transportation system of their own design,
through an exercise in which each focus group participant was asked to come
up with components of an ideal public transportation system. They were then
told to rank these components in order of importance. The components were
grouped into two tiers, by level of importance:
. 1st Tier -- Most Important Components
D Frequency of service -- more runs, at better times
D Reliability - on time
D Accessibility of system - proximity to routes
D Increased speed -- quicker door-to-door trips - goal is to make them
faster than going by car
. 2nd Tier -- Most Important Components
D Low cost - same as Suffolk County Transit
D Extended morning and evening hours, Sunday service
D Coordination of bus and train schedules
D Amenities - clean, comfortable, safe
D Sufficient parking
D Energy-efficient, non-polluting equipment
D No exact change requirement
ApPEL RESEARCH, LLC / MARKETING & PUBLIC OPINION SURVEYS
2452 HILLTOP RD, NISKAYUNA, NY 12309, (518) 372-3200. (518) 372-9051 (FAX)
STEVE@APPELRESEARCH.COM
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~ The Proposal for a New Public Transportation System
. Description of the Proposal - Focus Groups
The Five Town Rural Transit proposal was described in 5-7 minutes in the focus
groups. As explained, the proposed system would consist of new shuttle train
service along the LIRR tracks, replacing the existing Long Island Rail Road on the
East End, from Mastic-Shirley to Montauk on the South Fork, and from
Ronkonkoma to Greenport on the North Fork. (After the surveys were conducted,
Mastic-Shirley was replaced by Speonk as the western terminus on the South
fork, owing to its existing railroad sidings). The main concept consists of rail
shuttles of one or two cars, running between hamlets at thirty-minute intervals,
which are met at the stations by bus shuttles to take passengers to final
destinations.
The explanation included the little-known information that residents of the five
East End towns now pay more than $60 million per year in taxes and surcharges
to the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA), largely from sales and
mortgage taxes. In return, they receive very little LIRR service. The new
system, which would replace and add to that service, is estimated to cost $20 -
$30 million per year in operating expenses - less than one-half of what the MTA
now receives from the people who would be served. (After the surveys were
conducted, the annual operating expense estimate range was adjusted upward,
to $30 - $40 million.)
. Reactions to the Proposal - Focus Groups
From the focus groups, first reaction comments after the plan was described
included, "When does it start? We're ready," and "The interesting thing about
this focus group ... is that there is no negativity toward the plan. Everybody
wishes your group well and encourages them to move forward." A common
thread was the appeal of the proposal to everyone. "Everybody's going to benefit
a lot ... the government, the users, the environment."
. Description of the Proposal - Telephone Survey
For the telephone survey, we offered the components one at a time in
consecutive questions, with each component building and having an impact on
the next:
ApPEL RESEARCH. LLC / MARKETING & PUBLIC OPINION SURVEYS
2452 HILLTOP RD, NISKAYUNA, NY 12309, (518) 372-3200. (518) 372-9051 (FAX)
STEVE@APPELRESEARCH.COM
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Components of a New Public Transportation System
Rate Each Com nent on a 1 to 5 scale - 5
Component Least
Favorable
1-2..
First, create new public authority to take over public transit
service on East End
New train service eve 30 minutes, new e ui ment
Buses coordinate with trains, meet them at stations
More arkin at train stations and at enhanced bus sto s
Fares similar to Suffolk Coun Transit
Reo en closed URR stations
New bus routes and enhanced sto s
Extended mornin and evenin hours and Sunda service
New trains and buses, energy-efficient, non-polluting, paid
for b Federal rants
Seasonal, assen er-onl water taxis
26% 49%
19% 68%
17% 70%
18% 67%
5% 86%
12% 74%
13% 71%
9% 80%
6% 87%
23% 65%
. Reactions to the Proposal - Telephone Survey
The first question related to the prospect of creating a new public authority to
assume control of existing public transportation, which was met somewhat
favorably, although the response was not overwhelming - not surprising given
the technical nature of this initial characteristic. Still, this was a necessary
precursor to what would follow.
Once the "every 30 minute" train service was mentioned, the support reached a
plateau and remained high. Only the seasonal, passenger-only water taxis had
support of below two-thirds of those questioned, but even that component
reached 65% (slightly less in East Hampton, but still a clear majority).
~ Further Discussion of the Proposal
. Operations
Focus group respondents were relieved that operations would be contracted out,
fearing that local government officials have little experience running such a
complex system. They also noted that Suffolk County Transit contracts their
ApPEL RESEARCH, LLC I MARKETING & PUBLIC OPINION SURVEYS
2452 HILLTOP RD, NI5KAYUNA, NY 12309, (518) 372-3200. (518) 372-9051 (FAX)
STEVE@APPELRE5EARCH.COM
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
operations to private vendors. Another issue of concern was the likely need for
maintenance yards, a potentially controversial issue the LIRR is now facing.
. Parking
Additional parking at railroad stations and enhanced bus stops is a popular part of
the plan, but focus group respondents point out that land is so expensive. One
suggestion offered was, "Could we use some of the money going to the MfA to
buy land for parking?" There is also a desire for Park & Ride lots, especially west
of the Shinnecock Canal for commuters coming from the west into the five towns.
. Why Employers would want a new public transit system
One of our focus groups consisted of representatives of large public and private
sector entities, who employ nearly 4,000 workers in the East End. They reported
on the difficulty in hiring and retaining employees, due to traffic congestion.
They are forced to pay premium salaries in return for long commutes and they
have to spend considerable sums for employee parking, on top of the customer
parking that most provide. On the human resources side, their employees are
often tired and harried, and lateness is excessive and unavoidable.
Attempts to improve the situation have failed, notably incentives to car pool, and
fare subsidies.
With the new system as described however, the employers adjust hours to meet
new transit schedules, and provide vans to shuttle employees to stops/stations
(although they hope the new routes would include their locations). "If I could
eliminate employee parking lots, I would pay for it," said one employer.
They offer their support for the plan. -- "You'll need us and all of our employees
and their friends and family to advocate for this plan."
~ Challenges to Enactment
. Convincing the MTA to give up the Long Island Rail Road
In the focus groups as well as in the telephone survey, respondents recognize
that the main structural issue - eliminating the MTA's role in Eastern Long Island
-- is one of the two biggest challenges. Focus group comments included "... not
something they're going to relinquish easily, since they are having their own
budget crisis." "They would throw everything at us." "Why hasn't the LIRR had
the vision to accept that there is a need for this kind of service?" The solution
ApPEL RESEARCH, LLC / MARKETING & PUBLIC OPINION SURVEYS
2452 HILLTOP RD, NISKAYUNA, NY 12309, (518) 372-3200. (518) 372-9051 (FAX)
STEVE@APPELRESEARCH.COM
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
offered was, "Emphasize that it's a good idea, and develop our own political
power." "Let us help."
. Getting people out of their cars
The other major challenge, this sentiment was best expressed by a focus group
respondent, who said, "People are wedded to their cars. People demand total
convenience and controL" It is possible that the recent increase in gasoline
prices might be incentive not to drive, but there has been little evidence so far.
The solution, we learned, was to generate a realistic understanding of the
objective - it is not necessary to get everyone off the road. A relatively small
shift to trains and buses leads to a major reduction in auto congestion.
ApPEL RESEARCH, LLC / MARKETING & PUBLIC OPINION SURVEYS
2452 HILLTOP RD, NISKAYUNA, NY 12309, (518) 372-3200. (518) 372-9051 (FAX)
STEVE@APPELRESEARCH.COM
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.:0 Detailed Findings - Focus Groups
~ Existing Conditions
The East End towns of Long Island are extremely car-dependent, with almost all point-
to-point to trips taken in personal automobiles. As the population has risen, there has
been a corresponding increase in traffic congestion -- and not just on the main roads.
The secondary roads are now crowded, as well. In fact, where once only the residents
knew the back roads, now, thanks to several annual publications detailing these routes,
as well as computerized mapping and GPS systems, the less-traveled roads have
become common knowledge.
As a result, travel times, including commuting times, have been lengthening. The
obvious bottlenecks, especially where the four-lane Sunrise Highway is reduced to two
lanes, are causing backups of tens of miles. Many solutions have been proposed,
usually in the nature of increased highway lanes, limits on intersections and curb cuts,
the more-modern roundabouts, or other traffic calming schemes. Not in the equation
until now, however, is another way to reduce traffic congestion - a logical, efficient
mass transportation system - that will actually take some cars off the road.
This is not to say there is no public transportation, but it serves limited constituencies,
most of whom are dependent upon it. Where all agree - users and non-users -- is its
inadequacy, as demonstrated by our respondents on a 10 to 1 scale (where 10 is the
best and 1 is the worst), and by the discussion that followed.
Rate the Current Public Transportation System Servicing Long Island's East
End on a 1 to 10 Scale -10 is Best It Could Be
J4vera e Mean Ratin for Focus Groll
Commuters: 2.2
Full-Time Resident Non-Commuters: 3.4
Lar e Em 10 ers: 0.3
2" Homeowners: 3.1
General ratin of service - res ndents had little rsonal ex.
Spanish Speaking Residents: 7.1
'All ratin 5 are for local buses
. Inter-Regional
Transporting people from the New York City area to the East End are two distinct
carriers --the Long Island Railroad, owned by the Metropolitan Transportation
APPEL RESEARCH, LLC / MARKETING & PUBLIC OPINION SURVEYS
2452 HILLTOP RD, NISKAYUNA, NY 12309, (518) 372-3200. (518) 372-9051 (FAX)
STEVE@APPELRESEARCH.COM
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Authority (MTA), and private bus companies, notably the Hampton Jitney,
Hampton Luxury Liner, and Sunrise Coach. (A fourth service began after the
telephone survey and focus groups were completed.)
While the long-distance bus lines generally provide reasonable service, the LIRR
does not, according to respondents. Many travelers, especially 2nd homeowners,
do not use either mode. "I would hate to be dependent on them." One reason
expressed was that there will always be a need to shop or carry cargo along the
way, neither of which is conducive to traveling on a railroad or long distance bus.
. Long Island Railroad
With respect to the Long Island Railroad, we had no regular users in our focus
groups. Second homeowners reported occasional use, but they see the train
as mostly for their guests. Commuters note that the services are too
infrequent and poorly scheduled for use by them. Moreover, there is no way
to get from the station to work and home at either end.
Separating the Long Island Railroad service into its two lines, North Fork
service from Ronkonkoma to Greenport is spotty, with only two trains
regularly scheduled per day (three on certain weekend days). The timing of
the runs is such that virtually no intra-region commuters can use it. The stops
are distant from each other, further adding to the inconvenience. With
rumors that the Long Island Railroad is considering an end to North Fork
service, few people may be including the train in their future transportation
plans.
The South Fork service is more frequent, but similarly not geared to most
commuters. While it is possible to travel from Patchogue or even Speonk west
to New York City on a daily basis, the number of trains running to the east
from those points is limited. Trains are simply scheduled at the wrong times.
From the respondents, we learned that only passengers heading from New
York City to the Hamptons on Friday and returning on Sunday are moderately
well served.
. Long Distance Buses
The Sunrise Coach on the North Fork, and the Hampton Jitney and Hampton
Luxury Liner services on the South Fork are more successful, generally
running hourly schedules and with significant passenger loads on all lines. All
the companies are flexible in their routes, able to travel on Long Island
Expressway HOV lanes and service roads to gain speed, when in traffic
ApPEL RESEARCH. LLC I MARKETING & PUBLIC OPINION SURVEYS
2452 HILLTOP RD, NISKAYUNA, NY 12309, (518) 372-3200. (518) 372-9051 (FAX)
STEVE@APPELRESEARCH.COM
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
congestion. Thus, they are usually on time, in terms of their published
schedule. They are also able to add buses to match demand.
They have many stops in Manhattan, compared to the Long Island Railroad,
which just has one. The buses run much more frequently than the railroad,
and have a customer-oriented staff, according to our respondents. The buses
themselves are relatively comfortable, clean, safe, and, of particular
importance to some, they place restrictions on cell phone use. On the
negative side, some respondents regard these buses as pricey. Up until
recently, we note that driving was cheaper, but this calculation may be
changing with the increased cost of gasoline. Some respondents, especially
on the North Fork, also complained that information on schedules and prices is
sometimes hard to locate.
. Intra-Regional
Local buses fall under the purview of Suffolk County Transit, and there appears to
be little knowledge of the system, except among the Spanish-speaking
respondents. The data indicates that ridership is increasing, and most of our
Spanish-speaking respondents were frequent passengers. Much of the detailed
discussion came from this group. While the SpaniSh-speaking users give a high
numerical rating to Suffolk County Transit (7 of 10, where 10 is the best and 1 is
the worst), it should be noted that our experience with SpaniSh-speaking
respondents in other areas indicates that they were more likely to rate services
positively than do other populations.
From the discussion, it was clear that the high numerical ratings do not reflect the
qualitative findings. In fact, we learned that there is little of Suffolk County
Transit to be praised. Users informed us that the routes, as designed, force
transfers to other routes (without any special coordination of timing), a process
that lengthens most trips. To travel a significant distance requires a half-day
commitment, in some instances. The respondents informed us that drivers are
frequently rude, and apparently, there is a rule that the bus doors remain closed
when the bus sits at the beginning of a run, no matter what the weather, until it
is about to leave. This policy, of course, leaves the passengers unnecessarily
exposed in the rain, wind, and snow. Even the new bus shelters came in for
criticism - they are too shallow to adequately protect passengers from the
weather.
We were also told that figuring out the routes and schedule times is difficult,
espeCially if the rider does not speak English. Furthermore, the service begins
later in the morning than is desired and ends early in the evening, and there is no
APPEL RESEARCH, LLC I MARKETING & PUBLIC OPINION SURVEYS
2452 HILLTOP RD, NISKAYUNA, NY 12309, (518) 372-3200. (518) 372-9051 (FAX)
STEVE@APPELRESEARCH.COM
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
service on Sundays. Given that so many jobs are in service sectors that require
early or late commutes (aside from the businesses that are open on Sundays),
employment opportunities are limited among those who do not have access to
automobiles. Respondents requested overwhelmingly that the period of service
should be extended to included earlier and later hours, and Sundays.
The nonusers were also aware of the need to take several different buses to a
destination. One reported, for example, that it takes four buses to go from
Montauk to Riverhead, where discount shopping is available.
. Can Public Transportation on the East End Be Improved?
During the course of the discussion on existing publiC transportation systems,
respondents expressed doubt that service could be improved enough to attract
more riders from their cars, and thus, reduce road congestion. For example, a
major source of traffic is contractors, who serve the continuing boom in
residential construction, renovation, and landscaping. Since the worksites are
typically in dispersed residential locations, there will always be a need for trucks
and cars. Thus, this population cannot be efficiently served by public
transportation. Other employees would not use even an improved system,
because it would never run frequently enough, or serve the specific locations to
which they travel, they report. This sentiment was offered by commuters who
were discussing the Shinnecock Canal bottleneck. Only a train could alleviate
traffic congestion, but the train simply does not run often enough to be useful.
Another major source of traffic is generated by 2nd homeowners (who will
probably not respond to economic incentives, if there are any). Business
representatives question whether the existing system can ever make an impact
on this segment.
On the technical side, we were told that public transportation of this kind could
never succeed in the East End of Long Island starting with the proposition that
there are simply too few people to support it. And since the users would only be
particular classes of people - notably the transit dependent - those without
access to an automobile due to the lack of a driver's license, disability, age, etc. --
such a system can never generate sufficient revenues.
But the commuters were vehemently in favor of a more-robust public
transportation system, even though they expressed doubts as to whether there
was enough publiC support to make the changes.
ApPEL RESEARCH, LLC / MARKETING & PUBLIC OPINION SURVEYS
2452 HILLTOP RD, NISKAYUNA, NY 12309, (518) 372-3200. (518) 372-9051 (FAX)
STEVE@APPELRESEARCH.COM
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
In addition, there are those who are transit-dependent due to economic or social
reasons. We included several respondents from this group in our focus groups,
especially the Spanish language session. This group, of course, would be highly
supportive of public transit improvements.
> The Perfect Public Transportation System
We asked respondents in all five groups to describe the attributes of a perfect
transportation system, one that a sizable portion of the population would regularly use,
and that at the same time, would take cars off the road, and relieve traffic congestion.
. Attributes in order of significance (the first four attributes are ranked roughly
equal and are grouped together):
. Frequency of service
The respondents in all five groups agree that unless they can get to their
destinations when they need to or want to, the transportation system will
never reach an acceptable level. The most frequent users, from the Spanish-
speaking session, expressed the hope that service could be scheduled every
15 minutes. The current non-users cite infrequency as a major disadvantage,
as compared to "on-demand" auto travel. Frequency of service was especially
important among those in the commuting group.
. Reliability
Goes hand in hand with frequency - the assurance that the buses come on
time. The frequent users complained that the current Suffolk County Transit
buses were often late, due to traffic congestion, and other reasons that were
not explained.
. Accessibility of the system
Ranked third, we note that respondents would all prefer routes that would
take them door-to-door, with no transfers. They are realistic enough to
recognize that routes have to serve significant numbers of passengers, which
makes the choices made by Suffolk County Transit bewildering to many.
While stops are available for most communities and many large population
centers (although not all - for example, the Tanger Outlet Mall, the routes
from point to point seem to defy logic. There were suggestions that rapid,
express bus service along major roads should be instituted, where transfers
would be available for more local travel. Instead, the buses wind their way
through major roads and back roads, slowing the trips and sometimes adding
to the transfers. Respondents also want a sizable number of stops, to
ApPEL RESEARCH. LLC / MARKETING & PUBLIC OPINION SURVEYS
2452 HILLTOP RD, NISKAYUNA, NY 12309, (518) 372-3200' (518) 372-9051 (FAX)
5TEVE@APPELRESEARCH.COM
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
eliminate long walks or transfers to cars. Spanish-speaking respondents, in
addition to their needs as employees, also want routes that are convenient to
shopping, especially important since most of the respondents did not have
automobiles. Second homeowners rate accessibility as the most important
attribute, ahead of frequency of service. Lack of routes near their homes are
a major barrier to significant use.
. Increased speed
All of these attributes lead to the desire for shorter trips in terms of elapsed
time, which ranked high among commuters and large employers. To get
commuters out of their cars, the system must allow for a door-to-door
commuting time that is, at least, slightly faster than current time via auto.
+++++
. Low cost
Inexpensive fare leads the next grouping of ideal attributes in order of
importance - a feature that ranks first among commuters. It has to be at
least competitive with driving, a goal getting increasingly easier with the
steady rise in the price of gasoline. Barely mentioned was the issue of
sources of revenue for such a system beyond the fare box, except among full-
time resident non-commuters and 2nd homeowners. There was a relatively
minor concern about increased government subsidies, which might be funded
from higher taxes.
. Extending the AM/PM service hours and adding Sunday Service
This was a highly popular attribute, especially among Spanish-speaking (for
work), full-time resident non-commuters, and 2nd homeowner respondents
(who were more interested in late night service).
. Coordination of bus and train schedules
The need for seamless transfers came up in most of the groups without
prompting, but it was not top-of-mind, initially. The concept is entirely absent
in eastern Long Island, but once the idea was raised, the question as to why
transportation modes are not already coordinated was anything but subtle.
There were lively discussions about this subject. The respondents noted that
bus lines and trains belong to different entities, each having their own routes
and schedules, coordinating with no one. The commuting group mused about
having a single entity to coordinate - if not control -- the entire system. Full-
time resident non-commuters advanced the idea that there should be a single
entity in charge, so that responsibility could be easily determined, with the
APPEL RESEARCH. LLC / MARKETING & PUBLIC OPINION SURVEYS
2452 HILLTOP RD, NISKAYUNA, NY 12309, (518) 372-3200. (518) 372-9051 (FAX)
STEVE@APPELRESEARCH.COM
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
added advantage of a single gateway for complaints. For the most part, the
discussion was about an intra-regional system, but the 2nd homeowners
mentioned desired integration between local and long distance systems.
. Basic information
Many respondents commented on the difficulty in finding information about
schedules, routes, and fares in the existing system. For a new system, it
would be presented on the Internet, through circulars, on bulletin boards, at
bus and rail stops, and at other easily found locations.
. Amenities
Under this general category, we found cleanliness, seating comfort, safety,
lighting, staff courtesy (the drivers would be screened, trained, and rated, like
any high end retail establishment), and space for luggage and packages to be
important attributes. The 2nd homeowners ranked these characteristics even
higher than frequent service. Bus shelters, with adequate wind protection and
posted schedules, were mentioned by the Spanish-speaking frequent users,
who were especially vocal about the need to provide comfort while waiting for
buses in inclement weather.
. Exact change
This policy of Suffolk County Transit is another inconvenience, which can be
especially onerous to new travelers, especially those who do not speak
English. Recognizing the security issue that fostered the exact change
movement initially, other transportation systems now have Metro cards (or the
equivalent) and machines that offer change. Respondents want that feature
in a system of their design.
. Parking
An ample, well-lit, secure place to leave cars at the train stations, and perhaps
at the bus stops, would increase ridership, especially among commuters.
Second homeowners discussed the possibility of long term parking at the train
stations with skepticism, noting the high cost of land. Shelter Island was
particularly problematic in this respect. And even with this added amenity,
few in this group would permanently move their cars from their New York City
garages to Long Island (and many already keep cars on both ends). Park-
and-ride services were popular among commuters and large employers.
APPEL RESEARCH, LLC / MARKETING & PUBLIC OPINION SURVEYS
2452 HILLTOP RD, NISKAYUNA, NY 12309, (518) 372-3200. (518) 372-9051 (FAX)
STEVE@APPELRESEARCH.COM
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
. Energy efficiency / clean environment
Only the full-time resident non-commuters brought up these twin goals on
their own, which would be accomplished by fewer cars on the road and new
mass transit equipment.
. Include auto traffic planning as part of the discussion
Also mentioned in the context of a perfect transportation system was the
consideration of how the discussion of improved public transit affects similar
discussions on auto traffic - a recognition that one affects the other. If there
were no congestion, major public transit plans would not be considered, most
respondents believe. There is no support for the notion that traffic congestion
can be solved completely. No one thought that more highway lanes, entry
tolls at the Shinnecock Canal, express routes along the LIRR right-of-way, etc.
would really solve the problem. They only hoped for some general
improvement.
. Consider the employer perspective
Recognizing that this group consists of important stakeholders with respect to
East End transportation, we invited nine representatives of large employers
located in the five East End towns, who collectively employ roughly 4,000
employees residing in central and western Suffolk County, as well as in the
East End. They were extremely pleased to participate, citing the importance
of transportation to the success of their businesses, hospitals, and
government entities.
All agreed that labor force commuting was a serious problem, and getting
worse. They note the inadequacy of existing public transportation, and they
regret the sheer acreage of land they need to set aside for employee parking.
Ultimately, employers recognize the effect congestion has on attracting and
retaining qualified staff, pointing out the premiums they are already paying in
the form of higher salaries. The situation becomes obvious to prospective
employees who are regularly late to initial job interviews, unaware of the
delays they will face.
Employers have been willing to take action to encourage public transportation
in the past, but so far, have had little success. The strategies that are
currently available -- fare and tax subsidies, shift flexibility to meet mass
transit schedules, and preferred parking for carpools - have had little success.
In some locales, disincentives have served to reduce traffic - congestion, and
unavailable or expensive parking lead the way. Employers, employees, and
resident East Enders do not want conditions to go that far.
ApPEL RESEARCH, LLC / MARKETING & PUBLIC OPINION SURVEYS
2452 HILLTOP RD, NISKAYUNA, NY 12309, (518) 372-3200. (518) 372-9051 (FAX)
STEVE@APPELRESEARCH.COM
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Aside from the parking and congestion, the sheer distance between homes
and their jobs adds to commute time. (The nine respondents in the
commuter focus group were asked their travel times and distances from home
to work. Averaging the responses, the group travels 28.78 miles from home
to work, taking 62 minutes, at an average speed of 27.85 mph.) For most
employers, affordable housing nearby for moderately-salaried employees is
simply not realistic. Housing prices have reached luxury resort levels.
Similarly, many employees cannot afford to own and operate cars, which
further reduces the labor pool. Speed is also a major consideration, which
makes the notion of a train barreling along at a pace faster than road traffic
very attractive.
Even if a new public transportation system would not attract employees,
commuters noted that customers would use it, which would help reduce traffic
congestion.
~ A New Public Transportation System for the East End
~ Description of plan
After a lengthy discussion in each of the focus groups about the state of existing
public transportation, followed by a respondent-generated list of attributes that
would constitute an ideal system, we then described the tentative plan, as devised
by Five Town Rural Transit, Inc. A new shuttle rail and bus transit entity would be
created with coordinated services that
would be combined into an efficient,
scheduled public transportation system,
with possible connections to water taxis
and passenger ferries. On the
presumption that the Long Island Rail
Road and Suffolk County Transit would
not develop such a service (the LIRR
specifically informed Southampton
officials a few years ago that it would
not), an East End Transportation
Authority would be established. The
new authority would acquire the LIRR
tracks and rights-of-way from Ronkonkoma to Greenport on the North Fork, and
from Mastic-Shirley (changed to Speonk after the surveys, and whose railroad yard is
pictured here) to Montauk on the South Fork from the Metropolitan Transportation
Authority. The corridors would become the east-west spine for the system.
ApPEL RESEARCH, LLC / MARKETING & PUBLIC OPINION SURVEYS
2452 HILLTOP RD, NISKAYUNA, NY 12309, (518) 372-3200' (518) 372-9051 (FAX)
STEVE@APPELRESEARCH.COM
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Coordinated schedules between trains and buses, with seamless transfers, would be
a key feature. Buses would meet the trains as they stop at every hamlet to take
people to (or least close to) their final destinations. In addition, bus routes and stops
would be established to take advantage of maximum demand. The rolling stock, as
an added benefit, would reduce emissions and be energy-efficient.
In some cases, where there are population centers that do not contain rail stations,
enhanced bus stops would be built with additional parking and other simple
amenities.
Five East End Lon Island Towns
..'
.
1/7(~ (~~
y/~' . /;\_- : ~1----~/
, "
/
///
/
'-/
Y-~~'-
I. . ~
",'
\
.~
_ .... ~cy,-
-- ~-',/\"'"
.' '--
\--
\ /""r-
/ I V
- -
..- ,
11..'-.
.."..
r.::,.-'~
_'~_<....T___ !
~...- ,
!!~=P""S"'P I
"~__5.......1
.._s..,., !
\
0\
",. ----'
_'~~_-'-r~
" w_r..,s",..
--
---
, ,
~-
~.
'"-
The operations would be financed by a portion of the more than $60 million in taxes
and surcharges that East Enders in the five towns currently pay to the Metropolitan
Transportation Authority as part of their regional obligation. Capital costs would be
covered primarily by federal and other grants earmarked for rural transportation, for
which the East End qualifies.
ApPEL RESEARCH, LLC / MARKETING [,. PUBLIC OPINION SURVEYS
2452 HILLTOP RD, NISKAYUNA, NY 12309, (518) 372-3200. (518) 372-9051 (FAX)
STEVE@APPELRESEARCH,COM
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~ Reaction to Plan
. Positive comments, generally
"When does it start? We're ready," was a typical reaction, not always at first, but
eventually. Once the system was described and discussed, all respondents in
all groups were extremely enthusiastic toward the plan.
Current transit users and potential users of the new system were the most eager
to proceed. The Spanish speaking respondents were particularly excited about
the concept, noting the money savings and convenience, and pointing out that
many of the components could be found in publiC transit in their countries of
origin. "I like that (the plan). It would be idea!." Furthermore, "Everybody's
going to benefit a lot -- the government, the users, the environment."
Commuters, both English and Spanish-speaking, commented in the context of
operating an automobile, discussing the opportunity of saving money, in lieu of
high gasoline prices, and other costs of driving. "I drive without a license. I pay
for my car $200 and $300 per month," said one respondent, who would welcome
the opportunity to use publiC transportation.
A full-time resident non-commuter offered this insight -- "The interesting thing
about this focus group - admittedly community leaders and activists are here -- is
that there is no negativity toward the plan. Everybody wishes your group of
people well and encourages them to move forward." Another remarked, "It's a
positive plan that offers a positive future."
Although 2nd homeowners did not appear initially to be very enthusiastic about
the plan, when challenged, the group insisted that we were reading them
incorrectly. In fact, they were very positive about the concept, noting that such a
system would be especially important to many, including those who are
dependent on public transportation, even if they themselves were not users.
~ Components of Plan
. Revenue to operate and acquire the system
Most respondents followed and accepted our logic -- since more than $60 million
in taxes (mostly mortgage and sales taxes) and surcharges is now assessed on
East Enders as part of the MTA region, some of this money can be used to fund
operations for the new system. (We used a $25 million annual expense estimate
for the new system in describing the plan). One 2nd homeowner, upon hearing
these figures, was outraged and suggested we make the information available to
local town officials, to encourage protests to the MTA.
APPEL RESEARCH, LLC I MARKETING & PUBLIC OPINION SURVEYS
2452 HILLTOP RD, NISKAYUNA, NY 12309, (518) 372-3200. (518) 372-9051 (FAX)
STEVE@APPELRESEARCH.COM
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
We asked if people might demand cuts in taxes and surcharges if operating costs
really were significantly less than the amount currently paid in taxes for public
transportation to the MTA, but no one thought there would be any pressure in
the regard. If the system were created, it would be so highly valued that any
movement toward tax savings would be overridden, suggested one business
representative. "I don't think people would be arguing for a decrease in taxes."
As for what to do with a surplus, should that occur, one respondent suggested
that a reserve budget for operations could be created with some of the difference
between the $25 million and the $60 million.
Concern for the initial capital costs was expressed in most groups. When the
statement that funding could be obtained from federal grants on the basis of the
region's status as a rural community, the 2nd homeowners suggested that this
component was so vital that it should be mentioned toward the top when
describing the plan. One full-time resident non-commuter, however, wondered if
the region would have trouble getting money from Washington, given the East
End's reputation for being the home of rich people.
. Expenses
Some respondents commented on the difficulty of making realistic expense
projections. Responding to our mention of a similar system in Cape Cod as a
source, a 2nd homeowner wondered whether the two really had much in common.
Our description noted that Cape Cod bus service spends about $10 million
annually for operations. From there, another $10-$20 million was added to cover
the annual operating expenses of the light rail service we were proposing.
Following the focus group sessions, we have learned that a similar light rail
system in Denver spends approximately $12 million in operating expenses per
year.
We were asked by a 2nd homeowner if we were counting the real costs - "It's
labor-intensive, so you have to count salaries, benefits, and retirement." "That's
a very low projected cost to run a system as complicated as this," said another.
Our response was to point out that even if our projections were off by $100%,
increasing them to $40-$50 million, we were still well under the more than $60
million that the East End sends to the MTA.
On the capital side, we were asked if we had considered the cost of purchasing
railroad right of way. The respondent believed that the MTA would invoke its
fiduciary responsibility, similar to that of the New York Jets / west side railroad
yards negotiation. One possible response is that the transaction would simply be
ApPEL RESEARCH, LLC / MARKETING & PUBLIC OPINION SURVEYS
2452 HILLTOP RD, NISKAYUNA, NY 12309, (518) 372-3200. (518) 372-9051 (FAX)
STEVE@APPELRESEARCH.COM
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
as asset transfer from one New York State-created public authority to another, as
opposed to a sale to a private (or even a joint public/private) entity. We note
that the MTA was not required to purchase the New York City Transit Authority
when it gained control of its subways and buses.
. Proposed Fares
. Single Fare vs. Charge by Distance
We did not find a clear consensus among respondents with respect to pricing
the service. Second homeowners and full-time resident non-commuters were
strongly in favor of fares increasing by distance traveled (rather than a single
fare), but business representatives and commuters were split. They leaned
toward charges by distance, based on the fairness issue, but they were
concerned that high charges for long distances would discourage workers
from using the system.
There is also an apprehension that charging by distance might be difficult,
technically. Assuming it would work on some kind of honor system, one
Spanish-speaking respondent favored a single fare, largely to mitigate against
cheating.
As for a fixed price, the suggestions ranged from $1 to $2.50.
. Volume discounts
All respondents favor frequent user discounts. Numerous comments were
made along the lines of encouraging use and getting more people out of their
cars.
There were some added benefits, we learned. One is that volume discounts
would help to keep a stable level of usage, which makes the system
requirements predictable and hence, easier to operate. Another was that
taking in money up front via monthly tickets improves cash flow.
. No Fares At All - Free Service
As we described how the operations of this new system would be funded, we
offered the possibility that fares might not be necessary at all. The logic is
twofold; First, in most American communities, the fare box only covers a small
percentage of the operating costs of transit systems (roughly 10%), so it is
reasonable to expect the bulk of the expenses would be obtained from other
sources, usually taxpayer subsidies. Second, residents of Long Island's East
End already subsidize the limited Long Island Rail Road service at an amount
that far exceeds the cost of operating this new bus, train, and water taxi
ApPEL RESEARCH, LLC / MARKETING & PUBLIC OPINION SURVEYS
2452 HILLTOP RD, NISKAYUNA, NY 12309, (518) 372-3200. (518) 372-9051 (FAX)
STEVE@APPELRESEARCH.COM
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
service. Therefore the subsidy system is already in place, large enough to
easily fund the operations budget, so it might be possible to avoid fares
altogether.
This proposal for no fares was accepted by three of the groups swiftly and
unanimously. "Free is good," said a 2nd homeowner. "This plan has the two
words in capitalism that work - new and free," replied a full-time resident
non-commuter. Commuters were especially enthusiastic. Several compared a
free service to the $200 to $300 per month they now spend on gasoline, "plus
the wear and tear on the car." Even a commuter who had been extremely
skeptical through the entire session came around with the offer of free
transportation. "Free makes it worthwhile." Of course, the length of
commuting time is still a significant factor - "I'd use it if I could save a half-
hour," said another commuter. Almost all the business representatives
favored the concept. "I absolutely agree. If it's free, if it's safe, you're going
to be flooded with people."
Only the Spanish-speaking participants were somewhat negative, largely along
the lines of disbelief. None could be convinced that it really could be free, or
if it started out free, that it would stay that way. "You're dreaming," was the
common attitude. "In United States, nothing is free." Furthermore, "If it's
that easy, if it's free, then I won't even be interested in getting on."
Still, the overwhelming response was in favor of free fares. "There is no
question that it would significantly increase acceptance and usage," said a full-
time resident non-commuter. "As long as it is well maintained, it will
encourage people that have never used it before," according to a business
representative.
Some of the respondents felt that free fares would make the system into a
tourist attraction, a novelty. A business representative offered, "People will
get on just to experience the ride." Second homeowners would use it more as
an "interesting way to get around."
As an added benefit, there would be a savings in administrative expenses - no
cost to collect fares, no tax incentive bookkeeping, we were told.
But there was as slight undercurrent from respondents who suggested that
the system should not be entirely free for all - perhaps just for commuters or
residents.
ApPEL RESEARCH, LLC / MARKETING & PUBLIC OPINION SURVEYS
2452 HILLTOP RD, NISKAYUNA, NY 12309, (518) 372-3200. (518) 372-9051 (FAX)
STEVE@APPELRESEARCH.COM
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
There were also several other negative comments, in addition to the
skepticism expressed by the Spanish-speaking respondents. For example,
increased use resulting from a policy of no fares, might mean increased
maintenance, wear and tear, which in turn means more expense to operate.
"My concern is that it will be let go [will deteriorate] - whether it's the
maintenance or the trains," said one participant.
One business representative argued against free fares. "No. If something is
free, there is no perceived value to the system." But several other
representatives in that focus group disagreed forcefully, stating that a service
specifically designed for the good of the community would be seen as having
significant value.
. Operations
As we described the plan, we mentioned that the new public authority would
probably contract out the system operations to an experienced operator. This
statement was met with relief among some respondents, who feared that
inexperienced people would take charge of a complex system. "Where are you
going to get qualified personnel to run this system", asked one respondent. We
mentioned that Suffolk County Transit does not run its own buses, and neither
would the East End Transportation Authority.
Still, there was skepticism. Concerning the sheer logistics of mini-buses meeting
trains, we were told, "Can you really execute this plan the way you're describing
it? I don't think so," said one full-time resident non-commuter, who nevertheless
favors the concept in principal.
Another potential problem is the need for maintenance yards, the location of
which might face community resistance. The Long Island Railroad is currently
facing this issue.
. Parking
The plan will need various parking options, including additional parking at train
stations, and parking at enhanced bus stops. Some of the respondents pointed
out some difficulties, including the complexities of acquiring land. One
suggestion was a transaction with the Metropolitan Transportation Authority --
"Could we use some of the money going to the MTA to buy land for parking? Or
just not pay it?"
Park and Ride lots were suggested, especially on the west side of the canal for
commuters heading from west to east.
APPEL RESEARCH, LLC I MARKETING & PUBLIC OPINION SURVEYS
2452 HILLTOP RD, NISKAYUNA, NY 12309, (518) 372-3200. (518) 372-9051 (FAX)
STEVE@APPELRESEARCH.COM
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
. Water Taxi service
Several respondents were excited at the prospect of integrating water taxes with
the system, with the caveat that the service must be limited to passengers and
seasonal. For example, the thought was expressed that water taxis would be
good for a Greenport to South Fork commute, ideally with a Three Mile Harbor
dock location.
. Negative Comments
To reiterate, almost all of the 43 participants of five focus groups enthusiastically
favor this public transportation plan. Still, we would have been remiss not to
have actively encouraged discussion as to why the components of the plan were
not right for the region, or why it could never succeed. Therefore, a portion of
each focus group session was devoted to "Shooting Holes in the Plan." Two
reasons offered for why the plan might fail predominated, according to the
respondents, followed by lesser barriers.
. First -- Convincing the MTA to give up the LIRR tracks and rights-of-way
The respondents were quick in all the groups to bring up this issue. "The
keystone of the plan is to dislodge the MTA. I'm pessimistic about that and
I'm usually an optimist ... it will take a major crisis to change things."
Taking a cue from recent news, we were informed that capturing $60 million
from the MTA right now "is not something they are going to relinquish easily,
since they're having their own budget crisis." Comments from all the groups
were similar to "They're not going to give up their tracks without a fight."
"They would throw everything they had at us to prevent this plan from
happening.
Ironically, we were told, the MTA will battle this plan, even while reducing
East End service - a money-loser for them, they say. One respondent
suggested that the LIRR might actually prefer to get out of providing service
to the East End. "They (the LIRR) think this is a big loss. They say they need
to get 500 passengers on a train to break even" and they're not getting close
to it. However, "they'd rather not lose the tax revenue."
Political power would be important as part of an effort to separate the MTA
from the East End. "You'd need a powerful government authority, like the
Suffolk County Water Authority, to pull it all together. Then you'd be
transferring the power from the MTA to another powerful political agency. It
needs a strong coordinating agency." While the MTA has acquired public
transportation authorities (the New York City Transit Authority, for example),
ApPEL RESEARCH. LLC / MARKETING & PUBLIC OPINION SURVEYS
2452 HILLTOP RD, NISKAYUNA, NY 12309, (518) 372-3200. (518) 372-9051 (FAX)
STEVE@APPELRESEARCH.COM
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
they don't often, if ever, relinquish any. Still, the MTA is a creation of the
State of New York, much as the proposed East End Transportation Authority
would be.
As a further argument in this plan's favor, a full-time resident non-commuter
noted that the plan recognizes the East End of Long Island as a rural area,
which allows some further separation from the rest of Suffolk County and the
MTA region.
Finally, one respondent offered a compromise, suggesting that the URR
should implement the system as proposed. "Why can't you cooperate with
the LIRR, integrating this system with the LIRR? Why hasn't the Long Island
Railroad had the vision to accept that there is a need for this kind of a service,
rather than continuing with what they do?"
. Second -- Getting people out of their cars
In our respondent's words, "People are wedded to cars. People demand total
convenience and control." No one wants to lose independence, we were told.
There were numerous comments about the need to be able to run errands
and carry cargo.
According to one business representative, for this to work in a significant way,
"we would have to 'retrain the animals,' to get people out of their cars." "In
Europe, everybody walks. Here, to go around the corner, you take a car,"
said another.
It might take a disincentive to drive, such as taxes, tolls, or (more likely), an
increase in the price of gasoline.
Second homeowners will be especially difficult to garner. "This system will
serve people who don't have cars, but I don't think anyone will leave their
cars at home and use this system. I use public transportation in New York
City all the time - it's easier and faster - but I can't imagine using these trains
and buses to get where I'm going when I can just hop into my car and drive."
+++++
. Other Reasons to Oppose the Plan
. Effect on Other Carriers
Simply put, the plan will be opposed by the people who now operate the
trains, the jitneys, and the local buses, according to a Spanish-speaking
ApPEL RESEARCH, LLC / MARKETING & PUBLIC OPINION SURVEYS
2452 HILLTOP RD, NISKAYUNA, NY 12309, (518) 372-3200. (518) 372-9051 (FAX)
STEVE@APPELRESEARCH.COM
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
respondent. There was also concern that private enterprise - Hampton
Jitney and Sunrise buses -- will lose out. They will naturally be in
opposition. However, it was suggested that long distance services will not
be as significantly affected as Suffolk County Transit's local service will be,
and these companies may qualify as a managers and providers of parts of
the new service.
. Opposition from Those Seeking a Highway Solution
For several decades, community leaders and public officials have been
meeting and setting forth plans with respect to mitigating the ever-
increasing traffic congestion. Several respondents suggested that there
was a need to consider the publiC transit plan in context of all traffic
solutions - highway widening, roundabouts, etc. "Why is this project not
integrated into this whole scheme of things?" asked a 2nd homeowner. It
was also suggest that some people who are tied to the highway expansion
plan will oppose this, figuring it will make it harder to widen roads. And in
order to maintain their relevance, "the New York State DOT (Department
of Transportation) would jump in after hearing about this plan, to put in
their own plan," according to a full-time resident non-commuter.
"It would mitigate against what has been proffered by other planners
working for the state - the plan for a four-lane highway. That the Sunrise
Highway needs to be extended all the way to Montauk," said a 2nd
homeowner. Or, "It's Unnecessary. What about building a toll road along
part of the LIRR right-of-way?"
. Overdevelopment Issues
On the one hand, "if you solve the transportation problem, it's just going
to increase development." Furthermore, it will be a temporary solution.
"You'll get some cars off the road, which will simply leave room for more
cars." On the other hand, "at some point, homeowners will max out, and
then tourism will become important. The plan becomes crucial at that
point." Another view expressed was that, without a viable public
transportation system, the congestion would be much worse when
population saturation was reached in a few decades, but with a system
similar to that proposed, the transportation mix might work.
. Geography
One possible hole in the plan is that at least some areas are simply too
spread out to have efficient routes. 'Given the low population density (on
the north fork), will we have enough riders?"
ApPEL RESEARCH, LLC I MARKETING & PUBLIC OPINION SURVEYS
2452 HILLTOP RD, NISKAYUNA, NY 12309, (518) 372-3200' (518) 372-9051 (FAX)
5TEVE@APPELRESEARCH.COM
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
. Too seasonal
The system would be economically unfeasible, since capacity would have
to be developed to meet peak demand, a condition that would exist for
only a few months in the summer. "People won't use it in winter, it's
mostly for peak season."
. Multiple Modes - A Negative for Some
Switching modes from trains to buses and back again was a negative, to
several respondents. Transfers might be annoying, hard to understand,
and risky if the schedule wasn't kept. From the perspective of a 2nd
homeowner, "A subway to a train to another train to a bus - it's just not
worth it."
. Too Radical
It was suggested that we were attempting to establish a system that is
better suited to urban centers. "It's different than the light rail system that
services a hub for outlying communities. This is radically different."
. Never Happen
This argument came only from the Spanish-speaking group. "I would be
happy just if you would fix where I'm waiting for the bus. And put more
scheduled hours of bus service. That would be enough. For all of us in
this room, in this place, it would be fabulous. We're not expecting more,
or demanding too much. This plan is fabulous and I'm much an
agreement and am grateful, but let us speak of a reality. He's (an
observer in the room) saying that it's been around for five years and we're
still waiting to see something to be implemented."
. Can the System Meet its Goals?
. Significant Increase in Usage by Multiple Groups
While some analysts may see public transportation in the East End as a
service provided for those dependent upon it, either due to disability, income,
age, etc., the hallmark of this plan is to greatly increase the usage by many
segments of riders.
The Spanish-speaking respondents, already current users, would continue to
use the new system, and they believe that this complex structure of
intertwined light rail and buses would attract "everybody. The Hispanic, the
North Americans, everybody. The African-Americans, tourists, the rich, and
the poor."
APPEL RESEARCH, LLC / MARKETING & PUBLIC OPINION SURVEYS
2452 HILLTOP RD, NISKAYUNA, NY 12309, (518) 372-3200. (518) 372-9051 (FAX)
STEVE@APPELRESEARCH.COM
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The plan was suggested as a "solution to low-income housing. You'd be
providing inexpensive transportation for low-income workers, so they could
afford the live here and ply their trades." And, "It would be a great system
for lower and lower-middle class people who don't have cars." Day laborers
might also be able to use the system.
And it would not just be for the benefit of the transit-dependent, according to
business representatives and their employees, the commuters. It is designed
to be popular among people who commute daily to fixed locations. "Daily
commuting people find value in this system," although they recognized that "it
might work for office workers, but not for construction workers."
A commuter reluctant to leave his car, said, "The population is growing fast,
and the transportation is going to increase, too. If this goes into place, I may
have to use it."
Second homeowners will probably never be significant public transportation
travelers, according to full-time resident non-commuters. "This plan is more
for those who live here than for those who are visiting or are 2nd
homeowners." Although, "Some 2nd homeowners will use it for the novelty."
Shelter Islanders are in a unique situation, since they must take a form of
public transportation to leave the island. There is a belief that some Shelter
Islanders would use new train service if the schedule allowed them to get to
it.
. Reduce Traffic Congestion
Ever-increasing traffic congestion is a prime impetus for this proposed system.
After describing and discussing the plan, we asked each respondent to
estimate the percent of cars that would be taken off the road following its full
implementation.
Averaae Percentage of Cars Taken off the Road
2nd Homeowners - 8.6%
Full-Time Resident Non-Commuters- 17.1%
Business Representatives - 15.9%
Spanish-speaking Residents - 60.1 %
(Question was not asked of Commuters)
APPEL RESEARCH, LLC / MARKETING & PUBLIC OPINION SURVEYS
2452 HILLTOP RD, NISKAYUNA, NY 12309, (518) 372-3200. (518) 372-9051 (FAX)
5TEVE@APPELRESEARCH.COM
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Several respondents presumed that Five Town Rural Transit, Inc. expected the
majority of drivers to switch to mass transit, and argued that such a result
was unlikely. (Actually, Five Town Rural Transit, Inc. estimates a 10%-20%
drop.) But all felt there would be some reduction. It was suggested that
there would be a gradual increase as the system matured and the traffic
increased. "Maybe I wouldn't use it immediately, but in five years, when the
traffic is really bad, I might."
Among those who might become riders were various worker categories. "This
plan might reduce the traffic caused by the 'trade parade.'''
There was some doubt about one segment: "This system might take a few of
the day workers, but most have automobiles or are part of car pools."
There would be a reduction in Spanish-speaking drivers who don't have
licenses and fear being stopped. "It would be relief not to have to drive."
. What's Good for Employees is Good for Business
The representatives of large employers were consistent in their belief that the
transit plan would be a boon for business. They feel that employees will
benefit as well, especially with gasoline at $2.35 per gallon. They also
recognize that as employers, they have certain obligations:
. They might choose to adjust their hours to meet the schedules.
. They need to be sensitive to employees who go out at lunch for errands.
. They might need vans to go back and forth from stops or stations,
although they hope the system can have direct links to some of the places
of employment. They also suspect that certain tax benefits might be
available.
. Simply put, they said that the new system resolves the objections of
employees - notably the routes and times.
Ultimately, "If I could eliminate employee parking lots, I would pay for it."
(Business Representatives)
And if the system were free, employees would be even more likely to use
it.
ApPEL RESEARCH, LLC / MARKETING & PUBLIC OPINION SURVEYS
2452 HILLTOP RD, NISKAYUNA, NY 12309, (518) 372-3200. (518) 372-9051 (FAX)
5TEVE@APPELRESEARCH.COM
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The business representatives remarked that everyone benefits, "even if they
don't use the system. There's a benefit in reduced traffic, in the environment,
in the convenience, to all of us ... and especially to employees."
They also want to participate in the selling of this idea. "You'll need us and all
of our employees and their friends and family to advocate for this plan."
Already in gear, they asked, "Do you have tallies of the number of employees
affected? Do you have projections?"
We also brought up a sensitive issue in the focus group of commuters. We
suggested that some workers would not take the train or bus due to class and
racial differences among the riders. This notion was rejected as out-of-hand.
'They're here to work, not to hit you on the head and steal your money."
. Description of Plan by Respondents
Noting the difficulty in describing this plan and imparting its flavor in a few words,
respondents were asked to give it a try:
"It's a very good local public transportation system ... coordinated with the MTA
... that will encourage people to travel intra and inter community, and reduce the
number of vehicles on the road, which will then encourage more people to come
out here."
"There's a plan to create a light rail and shuttle system in East End's five towns
which will alleviate congestion, particularly on the roads. You would finance it
through tax money that is already collected by the MTA from residents of the five
East End towns."
"It's a coordinated plan, ranging from Shirley to Montauk.
And finally, some encouragement -- "It's hard to sell it in two minutes, but they
would believe - in that time -- that there is a serious, sophisticated plan that is
gaining support among key groups."
. Miscellaneous Comments
. Would the LIRR run enough trains ... to meet the new trains? (2"d
homeowners)
APPEL RESEARCH. LLC I MARKETING & PUBLIC OPINION SURVEYS
2452 HILLTOP RD, NISKAYUNA, NY 12309, (518) 372-3200. (518) 372-9051 (FAX)
STEVE@APPELRESEARCH.COM
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
. "That little change at Hunter's Point is a dissuasion from taking the Long
Island Railroad out here." Would they fix it? (Z'" homeowners)
. Maybe SUNY will contribute, as a result of their new affiliation with
Southampton College? (Full-Time Resident non-commuters)
After the description and discussion of the proposal, the respondents were asked to
rate the plan, using the same 10 to 1 scale as used earlier to rate the existing public
transportation system. The ratings were much higher than those previously given of
the existing public transportation system:
Rate the Current Public Transportation System Servicing Long Island's
East End on a 1 to 10 Scale -10 is Best It Could Be
;4vera e Nean Ratin for Focus Grou.
Current 5 stem Pro
3.1
(General rating for the region -
respondents had little personal
ex. rience
Grou
2" Homeowners
Spanish Speaking
Residents
3.4
4.1
0.3
2.2
7.5
8.0
(Assumes free fares, or no more
than $3 r da
(Not specifically asked, but from the
discuss, a near-lO.O rating,
ualitative~
7.1
(All ratings are for local buses)
APPEL RESEARCH, LLC I MARKETING & PUBLIC OPINION SURVEYS
2452 HILLTOP RD, NISKAYUNA, NY 12309, (518) 372-3200. (518) 372-9051 (FAX)
STEVE@APPELRESEARCH.COM
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~ Focus Group Composition of Groups
Composition of Groups
Group Date I Time #of Moderator Location
Participants
2nd Homeowners Sunday, April 24 8 Steven Appel Southampton
10 AM - 12 AM Colleae
Full-time resident Sunday, April 24 7 Steven Appel Southampton
Non-Commuters 2PM-4PM Colleae
Large Employers Monday, April 25 9 Steven Appel Princess Diner-
Breakfast 8 AM - 10 AM Southampton
Commuters of Six Monday, April 25 9 Steven Appel Southampton
or More miles 5:30 PM - 7:30 Town Hall
PM
Spanish-Speaking Tuesday, April 10 Francesca Southampton
26 Moscatelli Town Hall
6PM-8PM
ApPEL RESEARCH, LLC / MARKETING & PUBLIC OPINION SURVEYS
2452 HILLTOP RD, NISKAYUNA, NY 12309, (518) 372-3200. (518) 372-9051 (FAX)
STEVE@APPELRESEARCH.COM
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.:. Detailed Findings -- Telephone Survey
> Existing Conditions
Not surprisingly, the initial survey finding is that the automobile is the method of choice
for transportation on the East End of Long Island. And since many highways in the
region have reached their stated capacity decades ago, with congestion increasing ever
since, it is similarly appropriate that an effort would be made to find alternatives.
When traveling around in your area, do you mainly use a car, a bus, a train,
or somethina else?
Car Bus Train Somethinq else Don't Know
Total 95% 20/0 0010 20/0 0%
Southamoton-East 91% 4% 1% 4% 0%
Suffolk COurltY Transit Users 63% 33% 0% 2% 2%
Income: <<I;25K 84% 13% 0% 4% 0%
By region, a few residents in the eastern part of Southampton Town use buses a bit
(probably the Hampton Jitney and Luxury Liner), but overall, the reliance on cars is
clear. Interestingly, better than three in five of those who are frequent Suffolk County
Transit (the local buses) rely mainly on automobiles.
Virtually no one considers the Long Island Rail Road as his or her primary means of
getting around. We also note that low-income residents are more likely than other to
regard buses as their major form of public transportation, but greater than 80% of this
group use cars primarily to travel within the region.
Next, we queried the respondents about their frequency of use with respect to three
public transportation modes:
How often do vou use the Lona Island Railroad?
4/5 Times 2/3 Times A Few times A Few Times Never Don't
per Week . oer Week oer Month per Year Know
Total 10/0 20/0 8% 35% 54% 10/0
East Hamoton 0% 0% 8% 28% 63% 1%
Riverhead 0% 1% 8% 45% 45% 1%
Aae: 66-74 0% 3% 7% 24% 65% 1%
Aae: 75+ 1% 2% 1% 24% 71% 1%
Income: <<I;25K 1% 1% 6% 21% 69% 1%
Income:$lOOK+ 1% 0% 10% 42% 45% 1%
ApPEL RESEARCH. LLC / MARKETING [, PUBLIC OPINION SURVEYS
2452 HILLTOP RD, NISKAYUNA, NY 12309, (518) 372-3200. (518) 372-9051 (FAX)
STEVE@APPELRESEARCH.COM
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
By defining "frequent usage" as at least two times per week, we see that only 3% of the
respondents can be found often riding on the LIRR. Even adding another 8% who say
they ride the railroad a few times per month, we confirm that a relatively small portion
of the population uses the Long Island Rail Road with any regularity, and even fewer in
East Hampton. Interestingly, the group with the highest usage, though still not a lot,
was those in households with incomes greater than $100,000, better than half of who
take a train at least a few times per year. Similar figures appear for Riverhead
residents.
Residents 75 years or older use all forms of public transportation less than other groups,
and will use the proposed system less, as well.
Frequent use of Suffolk County Transit is not much more than that of the Long Island
Railroad, but it is significant that far more people report no use of local buses at all,
88% to 54%.
How often do you use local buses, such as Suffolk County Transit?
4/5 Times 2/3 Times A Few times A Few Times Never Don't
per Week per Week per Month per Year Know
Total 20/0 10/0 20/0 7% 88% 00/0
Work Full lime 2% 1% 0% 5% 90% 0%
Income: <$25K 11% 3% 3% 13% 71% 0%
No Auto Access 17% 11% 3% 17% 53% 0%
Clearly, local buses have not had a significant impact on getting commuters out of their
cars, with the possible exception of low-income workers and those with no regular
access to automobiles (caution - small sample -- 36 respondents). More than half of
those who use Suffolk County Transit four or five times per week have incomes below
$25,000.
Long distance bus users have a similar profile to that of the LIRR, but there are some
differences among certain segments. For example, East Hampton residents are much
more likely to use the Hampton Jitney or the Hampton Luxury Liner, while Riverhead
residents can be found more often on the train, and rarely on the long distance buses.
APPEL RESEARCH, LLC / MARKETING [, PUBLIC OPINION SURVEYS
2452 HILLTOP RD, NISKAYUNA, NY 12309, (518) 372-3200. (518) 372-9051 (FAX)
5TEVE@APPELRESEARCH,COM
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
How often do you use long distance buses, such as the Hampton Jitney,
HamDton Luxury Liner, or Sunrise Coach?
4/5 TImes 2/3 TImes A Few times A Few Times Never Don't
per Week per Week per Month per Year Know
Total 1010 1010 100/0 41% 46% 0%
East Hampton 3% 2% 16% 52% 26% 1%
Riverhead 0% 1% 3% 25% 70% 1%
South old- 1% 1% 10% 43% 44% 0%
Shelter Island
Southampton 1% 2% 11% 43% 43% 0%
ColleQe Grad 2% 2% 13% 46% 37% 0%
Income: <$25k 3% 3% 3% 31% 60% 1%
Income: $25K- 1% 0% 9% 34% 55% 1%
$50K
There is little variation from the total by gender, age, and length of residence. Also, as
infrequently as low-income residents use this form of inter-regional transportation, they
use the other form, the LIRR, even less. The long distance bus usage goes up a bit
among college graduates and in East Hampton, but drops among Riverhead residents.
Having established that most residents of the East End use public transportation
sporadically, we then asked the respondents to rate public transportation, keeping in
mind that many were responding with limited information:
I'd like you to give me an overall rating of the current public transportation
system on the East End. Let's use a scale offrom five to one, where five is
the best it could be and one is the worst?
Worst It Best It
Could Be Average Could Be Average
1-2.. ..3.. ..4-5 (Mean)
Total 52010 260/0 22010 2.49
Riverhead 46% 29% 25% 2.68
Southampton-West 57% 21% 22% 2.39
Would use new system: 4/5 times per week 64% 20% 16% 2.17
Would use new system: 2/3 times per week 67% 14% 19% 2.18
Would use new system: rarely/never 43% 32% 26% 2.71
Age: 18-34 37% 34% 29% 2.91
Hiah School Grad or less 40% 29% 32% 2.83
No Auto Access 39% 18% 43% 3.21
In the above table, the right hand column represents an average, or mean, on the 1 to 5
scale. The midpOint is 3, making scores below that number negative. Only those with
ApPEL RESEARCH. LLC! MARKETING & PUBUC OPINION SURVEYS
2452 HILLTOP RD, NISKAYUNA, NY 12309, (518) 372-3200. (518) 372-9051 (FAX)
STEVE@APPELRESEARCH.COM
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
no regular access to an automobile (36 respondents) rated the current system on the
positive side. The youngest, and lowest educated respondents were most favorable,
probably because current public transportation works at least a little bit for them.
But overall, the respondents gave a fairly negative view. By geography, residents of
Southampton-west of the Shinnecock Canal rated the system the poorest, while
Riverhead residents rated the existing system higher, although still poorly.
> Proposed Public Transportation System
In the focus groups, we could hold the respondents' attention for five to seven minutes
while we described the proposed system, but on the telephone, we needed to approach
the description in a different way. Instead of attempting to describe the key
components all at once, we separated them into individual questions, with the
instruction that each question/component would build upon the previous
questions/components. In this way, we could establish a general "plateau" ranking of
the system, and note the differences between that plateau and each of the components.
A scale of 1 to 5 was used, with 5 as the best. The first three questions establish the
basic structure, and the remaining questions build upon that structure:
Rate Each Component on a 1 to 5 Scale - 5 is Most Favorable:
Percentaae who answered ''Most Favorable" f.. 4-5)
1. Create public authority 149%
2. New trains with service every 30 minutes 168%
3. Mini and laraer buses coordinate with trains 170%
4. More DarkinCl at train stations and bus StODS 167%
5. Fares similar to Suffolk Transit 186%
6. Reo Den closed URR stations 174%
7. New bus routes and enhanced stODS 171%
8. Extended AM/PM hours and Sundav service 180%
9. New trains/buses-enerav efficient, c1ean--from Fed arants 187%
10. Seasonal, passenCler-onlv water taxis 165%
APPEL RESEARCH, LLC / MARKETING [, PUBLIC OPINION SURVEYS
2452 HILLTOP RD, NrSKAYUNA, NY 12309, (518) 372-3200. (518) 372-9051 (FAX)
STEVE@APPELRESEARCH.COM
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Assigning those who answer "4" or "5" as "most favorable" toward the proposal, the
plateau appears to be slightly higher than 70% for most favorable. Note that the
rankings for each component are affected by the information already received in
previous questions.
We also computed a mean score. Since on a 1 to 5 scale, 3 is "average/, anything over
3 would be positive. The mean plateau is just over 4. (The "Don't Know" response is
excluded.)
These next tables provide more detail for each component. To begin, we asked the
respondents to rate a relatively innocuous one. Few respondents would have been
expected to have an expertise as to whether the establishing of a new public authority
would have much effect on public transportation. However, since the regard for the
current system is so low, it appears that any significant change is presumed to be an
improvement.
1. Let's suppose we make some major changes in the public transportation
system. To start, we set up a new organization - a public authority -- which
takes control of all public transportation - the rail and bus selVice -- on
Long Island's East End. How favorable would you be to a new organization
runnina Dublic transDOrtation?
Least Favorable Most Favorable Average
1-2.. .. 4-5 (Meanl
Total 26% 49% 3.36
<10 years living on East End 17% 61% 3.74
The respondents of the East End demonstrate a clear willingness to try another entity.
The next question introduces one of the key features the new system - frequent and
regular train service:
ApPEL RESEARCH, LLC / MARKETING & PUBLIC OPINION SURVEYS
2452 HILLTOP RD, NISKAYUNA, NY 12309, (518) 372-3200. (518) 372-9051 (FAX)
STEVE@APPELRESEARCH.COM
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2. The new authority sets up a ~ train system, with trains that run evelV
thirtv minutes in each direction, just for the East End, on the existina Long
Island Railroad tracks. The new trains would travel from Shirley to
Montauk, on the South Fork, and from Ronkonkoma to Greenport, on the
North Fork, and it would connect, at Shirley and Ronkonkoma, with the
existing URR to and from New York City. The trains would be smaller, but
with enough seating to handle the expected passenger load. How favorable
would YOU be to a new train sYStem that runs every thirtY minutes?
Least Favorable Most Favorable Average
1-2.. ..4-5 (Mean)
Total 190/0 68% 3.87
Riverhead 11% 76% 4.19
Current URR User 15% 72% 4.30
Current Suffolk Countv Transit User 16% 77% 4.08
Current Lona Distance Bus User 19% 74% 4.02
Aae: 18-34 11% 77% 4.21
Aae: 66-74 28% 59% 3.55
Commute: 6+ miles dailv 14% 74% 4.04
The approval ratings of the components mentioned thus far (new authority, regular and
frequent train service) ramp up substantially, to 68%, with a 3.87 mean. There is little
variation among segments, but it is worth noting that longer-distance commuters and
younger respondents are especially favorable toward the plan, while older respondents
tend to give lower ratings, at this point in the sequence of questions.
When the next key component is described, the favorability continues to climb:
3. The next step is to add new mini-buses, and the key feature is that when
the trains arrived at stations, there would be a coordinated schedule with
the mini-buses, so that they would be there to meet the train passengers
and take them on their way. How favorable would you be to a mini-bus and
train schedule coordinated tOt. ether in this wa}'?
Least Favorable Most Favorable Average
1-2.. ..4-5 (Mean)
Total 170/0 70% 3.95
Riverhead 11% 77% 4.18
Current Suffolk Countv Transit User 12% 87% 4.37
Coordination of services is an important feature of the system, and highly popular,
based on the results to the survey. And the means to accomplish it is by establishing a
single entity to run the trains and buses. Especially favorable are the current Suffolk
ApPEL RESEARCH. LLC / MARKETING & PUBLIC OPINION SURVEYS
2452 HILLTOP RD, NISKAYUNA, NY 12309, (518) 372-3200. (518) 372-9051 (FAX)
STEVE@APPELRESEARCH.COM
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
County Transit users, who by their responses, might see themselves using the
combination of buses meeting trains.
If the system has frequent and inexpensive service to popular destinations, then a
portion of the population will park their cars at train stations and bus stops and
patronize it:
4. There would be more parking at train stations and at some larger bus
stoDS. How favorable would you be to more oarkina?
Least Favorable Most Favorable Average
1-2.. ..4-5 (Mean)
Total 180/0 67% 3.86
East Hamoton 24% 62% 3.67
Riverhead 9% 82% 4.30
Commute: 6+ miles dailv 17% 69% 3.94
Respondents from Riverhead were more favorable toward parking at train stations and
bus stops than was anyone else - the only region of the five that had a mean of greater
than 4.00 (by a wide margin).
Costs to passengers is a major concern among potential users, and the suggestion that
fares would remain the same is popular:
5. The fares would be similar to what 5uffolk County Transit charges now-
about $:1..50 as the standard, with discount fares of 50 cents for elderly and
disabled, and $:1. for students. How favorable would you be to maintaining
current fares for the new, Dm ., rail and bus m?
Least Favorable Most Favorable Average
1-2.. ..4-5 (Mean)
Total 5010 86% 4.48
The results were an indication that current fares are reasonable - or at least that a
superior system should not cost more to passengers. The ratings on this question were
similar for all segments, including commuters, non-commuters, and all income groups.
The proposal would include reopening railroad stations that had been closed
(inexplicably, according to the focus group respondents) by the Long Island Rail Road:
APPEL RESEARCH, LLC / MARKETING & PUBLIC OPINION SURVEYS
2452 HILLTOP RD, NISKAYUNA, NY 12309, (518) 372-3200. (518) 372-9051 (FAX)
STEVE@APPELRESEARCH.COM
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
6. Some of the train stations that the Long Island Railroad has closed would
be reopened. How favorable would you be to reopening closed stations,
such as Quogue, Southampton College, Watermill, Calverton, and
Jamesport?
Least Favorable Most Favorable Average
1-2.. ..4-5 (Mean)
Total 120/0 740/0 4.13
Southold-Shelter Island 16% 66% 3.84
Southampton-East 12% 82% 4.29
Would use new system: 4-5 times 6% 87% 4.51
per week
Two of the station re-openings would occur in Southampton Town-east of the
Shinnecock Canal (Southampton College and Watermill), which may account for the
more-favorable responses from that region. Another point of significance is that
potential frequent users want to see the stations re-opened, increasingly the flexibility of
the new system and drawing new passengers.
From the focus groups, we learned that many residents do not use buses because their
routes simply do not take people to desired destinations, and for those who actually use
them, the rides can be long and arduous. The proposed system includes major changes
in the routing system:
7. New bus routes would be set up based on where people say they want to
go. How favorable would you be to new bus routes, which might also
include enhanced bus stops with parking in some of the following areas-
Wading River/Baiting Hollow, Cutchogue (KUTCH-OG), Orient, Flanders, Sag
Harbor, or Springs?
Least Favorable Most Favorable Average
1-2.. ..4-5 (Mean)
Total 13% 710/0 4.01
Riverhead 10% 76% 4.17
Income: $25K-$50K 5% 80% 4.33
The notion of bus routes that will take people where they want to go is especially
popular on Riverhead.
ApPEL RESEARCH, LLC I MARKETING & PUBLIC OPINION SURVEYS
2452 HILLTOP RD, NISKAYUNA, NY 12309, (518) 372-3200' (518) 372-9051 (FAX)
STEVE@APPELRESEARCH.COM
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Respondents in the focus groups noted that public transportation was not used for
getting to certain jobs, because the buses do not run early enough in the morning or
late enough in the evening. And since so much of the East End economy is based on
services that are open on Sunday, the lack of Sunday service further restricts
prospective users of public transportation:
8. The mini-buses and trains would have longer hours. They would start
earlier in the morning, and run later in the evening, and include Sunday
service. How favorable would vou be to lontler hours?
Least Favorable Most Favorable Average
1-2.. ..4-5 (Mean)
Total 90/0 80% 4.26
Ace: 18-34 7% 83% 4.43
Younger respondents were even more favorable toward extended hours.
Although the elements in the following question cannot be isolated individually, the
cumulative effect is very favorable:
9. Unlike the current trains and buses, there would be soarklina new trains
and mini-buses that use less fuel and are non-polluting, paid for by federal
grants for this kind of system. How favorable would you be to new, energy-
efficient, clean-oDeratina trains and mini-buses?
Least Favorable Most Favorable Average
1-2.. .. 4 -5 (Mean)
Total 60/0 800/0 4.53
Energy-efficiency, non-polluting rolling stock, and federal grants to pay for capital costs,
all enhance the attractiveness of the proposal.
As a third mode of public transportation, water taxis would be integrated into the
proposed system:
APPEL RESEARCH, LLC / MARKETING & PUBLIC OPINION SURVEYS
2452 HILLTOP RD, NISKAYUNA, NY 12309, (518) 372-3200. (518) 372-9051 (FAX)
STEVE@APPELRESEARCH.COM
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
10, Water taxis will be added, providing North Fork to South Fork service,
and along-the-fork service, coordinated with the mini-bus schedule, They
will be small, seasonal, and for oassenoers onlv?
Least Favorable Most Favorable Average
1-2.. ..4-5 (Mean)
Total 23% 65% 3.76
East HamDton 29% 57% 3.48
Though less popular than the other components, respondents register significantly on
the favorable side for water taxis. East Hampton respondents are somewhat less in
favor, but even they are highly positive. Note that the question restricts water taxis to
seasonal, non-auto, passenger service only.
It is worth noting that respondents from Riverhead were generally the most favorable
toward the individual components of the proposed transportation system.
But while favorability is important, the ultimate factor in the success of this proposal is
the likelihood of use, which was specifically measured in the next question:
Let's put all these features together, If there were trains that ran every 30
minutes, met by mini-buses, with added parking and stops, and water taxis,
run bva newauthoritv, how often do YOU think. ou would use it?
4/5 Times 2/3 TImes A Few times A Few TImes Never Don't
per Week ner Week per Month nerYear Know
Total 70/0 15% 29% 26% 19% 40/0
Aqe: 18-34 15% 20% 34% 22% 9% 1%
Ace: 66-74 1% 18% 30% 20% 24% 6%
Commute: <6 7% 12% 28% 30% 20% 3%
miles dailv
Commute: 6+ 12% 16% 30% 22% 16% 4%
miles dailv
Auto Access 7% 14% 29% 27% 19% 4%
No Auto 22% 22% 19% 14% 17% 6%
Access (36
resoondents)
By combining the "4/5 times per week" response with the "2/3 times per week"
response, we note that "frequent users," based on what they say they will do, represent
22% of all respondents. This figure climbs to 28% among longer distance commuters -
APPEL RESEARCH, LLC I MARKETING & PUBLIC OPINION SURVEYS
2452 HILLTOP RD, NISKAYUNA, NY 12309, (518) 372-3200. (518) 372-9051 (FAX)
STEVE@APPELRESEARCH.COM
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
a key target group in our study. This data indicates that heaviest users of the new
system will be those with longer commutes. The higher figure for 2/3 times per week
may be explained by commuters who anticipate they will drive occasionally for shopping
and other errands, a few times per week.
There was a strong consistency in the answers to this question in each of the towns,
except for a few differences in East Hampton. While the combined "a few times per
year" and "never" categories show 45% for the total sample, the figure is 55% in East
Hampton. Also, the frequent user totals for East Hampton are slightly reduced, as
compared to the entire region.
Lower income, younger respondents and current users of public transportation were
slightly more likely to indicate they would use the system frequently, but there was no
significant difference in full time vs. part time employees.
As an example of shifts in behavior when a new option becomes available, among those
who currently never use the LIRR, 12% would use the new system 4-5 times per week.
If it were free, that number jumps to 22%. Along those lines, frequent potential users
of the new system are most likely to condemn current system.
This next table compares the use of the current public transportation system to the
potential use of the proposed system, which, based on these responses, would have
considerably more passengers:
How often [do you / would you] use public transportation on Long Island's
East End?
Use Current Would Use
System Proposed System
4/5 times oer week 2% 7%
2/3 times oer week 2% 15%
A few times oer month 9% 29%
A few times per year 34% 26%
Never 53% 19%
Don't Know 1% 4%
We found that 220/0 of the respondents would become "frequent users"
(combined 4/5 times and 2/3 times per week) of the proposed system,
compared to 4010 who use the current system frequently.
ApPEL RESEARCH, LLC / MARKETING & PUBLIC OPINION SURVEYS
2452 HILLTOP RD, NISKAYUNA, NY 12309, (518) 372-3200' (518) 372-9051 (FAX)
STEVE@APPELRESEARCH.COM
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Next, we added (or rather, subtracted) a component to the proposal - the possibility of
a fare-free system. To make the statement credible, we included an explanation of
finances that would allow the new public authority to operated the system at no direct
cost to the passengers:
Let's add an element - suppose the cost to riders would be free. There
would be no fares at all. It could be done, by taking some of the 60 million
dollars per year that people in the five East End towns now send, through
sales and other taxes, to the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, which
operates the Long Island Railroad. The estimated annual cost to run the
!!!1J!!l system is 25 million dollars. so the new authority would take some of
the 60 million dollars to cover these costs. Asking the question again, how
often do vou think YOU would use the new .< . m if it were free?
4/5 Times 2/3 Times A Few Times A Few Times Never Don't
per Week ner Week per Month per Year Know
Total 13010 17010 24010 21010 18010 6010
East Hamoton 8% 12% 21% 30% 21% 8%
Aoe: 18-34 28% 26% 24% 15% 6% 6%
Aoe: 66-74 10% 16% 26% 17% 23% 8%
Commute: <6 13% 14% 22% 27% 19% 4%
miles dailv
Commute: 6+ 21% 17% 24% 16% 16% 6%
miles dailv
Children in 21% 16% 26% 23% 11% 3%
Household
Income: 17% 17% 29% 19% 16% 3%
<$100K
The frequent user category climbs from 22% to 30%, if the system were free:
ApPEL RESEARCH, LLC I MARKETING [, PUBLIC OPINION SURVEYS
2452 HILLTOP RD, NISKAYUNA, NY 12309, (51B) 372.3200. (51B) 372-9051 (FAX)
STEVE@APPELRESEARCH.COM
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
How often - do you/would you - use public
transportation on Long Island's East End?
100%
75%
At least two
times per 50%
week 30%
25%
4%
0%
Use Current Would Use New Would Use New
System System System If Free
Combining the three options, we note that just under 20% of the respondents will never
use the proposed system. Still, many who use currently never use public transportation
report that they will use the proposed system, especially if it were free:
How often [do you / would you] use publiC transportation on Long Island's
East End?
Use
Current
S stem
2%
2%
4%
9%
34%
53%
1%
Would Use
Proposed System
If Free
13%
17%
30%
24%
21%
18%
7%
Would Use
Proposed System
7%
15%
220/0
29%
26%
19%
4%
Before we suggested a system with no fares was possible, we asked respondents to
consider two methods of determining tariff levels:
ApPEL RESEARCH, LLC I MARKETING & PUBLIC OPINION SURVEYS
2452 HILLTOP RD, NISKAYUNA, NY 12309, (518) 372-3200. (518) 372-9051 (FAX)
STEVE@APPELRESEARCH.COM
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
About fares for this new system, do. yo.u think that there sho.uld be a single
fare, like the New Yo.rk City subways, where yo.u pay the same amo.unt, no.
matter ho.w far yo.u go., !lC sho.uld they be based o.n distance - the further
'Ou 0. the mo.re 'Ou ?
Total
Suffolk Coun Transit User
Suffolk Coun Transit Non-User
A e: 18-34
Income: <$25K
Same Amount
33%
69%
32%
48%
48%
Based on Distance
58%
21%
59%
48%
41%
Don't Know
gOlo
10%
9%
4%
11%
Most respondents favored a system of fares based on distance. The exception was
current local bus users.
> Reasons to Support / Oppose Proposal
Recognizing that this public transportation proposal would spark significant discussion,
we asked a series of questions that sought to measure various arguments both for and
against the plan. Beginning with the benefits accruing from the proposal, we combined
three key attributes into a single question, in order to obtain a ranking:
Total
A e: 18-34
A e: 75+
Income: <$25K
People would
switch, get
cars off the
road
320/0
31%
27%
26%
Better publiC
transportation
for those who
need or want it
440/0
35%
50%
60%
Don't
Know
7%
3%
11%
9%
Overall, "better transportation for those who need it (the transit-dependent) or want it
(commuters and others)" is the most important benefit, but there are some significant
differences among segments. Energy effiCiency/non-polluting is a somewhat stronger
argument among younger respondents, while the oldest residents and low-income
respondents regard better public transportation for those who need or want it as more
important, discounting energy efficiency.
ApPEL RESEARCH. LLC I MARKETING & PUBLIC OPINION SURVEYS
2452 HILLTOP RD, NISKAYUNA, NY 12309, (518) 372-3200. (518) 372-9051 (FAX)
STEVE@APPELRESEARCH.COM
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Next, we offered and measured several reasons to support or oppose the new system.
Starting with reasons to SUDDort, we asked a question specifically derived from the
discussion held in the full-time resident non-commuter focus group:
Reason to support plan: it's a well-thought-out, detailed plan, devised by
people in the area and by transportation experts, and it's backed by all of the
local elected officials and large employers in the five Long Island East End
towns,
Extremely Very Somewhat Not At All Don't
Convincing Convincina Convincing Convincing Know
Total 180/0 26% 34% 17% 40/0
East Hamoton 11% 25% 39% 20% 6%
ColleQe Grad 23% 26% 31% 16% 4%
Not unexpectedly, people are more likely to support an idea that has significant backing
from those who might garner respect. But specific benefits proved to be even stronger
reasons to support the plan:
Reason to support plan: It will reduce traffic congestion by getting some
Ie out of their cars and onto trains and buses,
Extremely Very Somewhat Not At All Don't
Convincing Convincina Convincina Convincina Know
Total 32% 26% 26010 15% 20/0
East Hamoton 26% 24% 26% 21% 2%
Would use new 54% 26% 8% 9% 2%
system: 4/5 times
oer week
AQe: 18-34 45% 24% 28% 3% 1%
The most frequent potential users, as to be expected, give the highest level of support
to the notion of reduced traffic congestion.
Another point raised frequently in the focus groups was that everybody benefits from a
viable public transportation system, a position that was confirmed among the telephone
survey respondents:
Reason to support plan: Everybody benefits, not just those who must take
Dublic transDOrtation,
Extremely Very Somewhat Not At All Don't
Convincina Convincina Convincing Convincina Know
Total 26% 270/0 30% 15% 3%
ApPEL RESEARCH. LLC I MARKETING & PUBLIC OPINION SURVEYS
2452 HILLTOP RD, NISKAYUNA, NY 12309, (518) 372-3200' (518) 372-9051 (FAX)
STEVE@APPELRESEARCH.COM
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
We then listed four reasons to oooose the plan, and the results were similar for each.
The focus group respondents had informed of us that there were two barriers were
especially difficult to overcome in establishing the proposed system. To begin, many
respondents recognize that convincing the MTA to yield their franchise will be hard, but
relatively few think it is not worth the effort:
Reason to oppose plan: The political opposition from the MTA or the Long
Island Railroad would be too powedul, so why waste time with something
that will never haDDen.
VerY Strono Somewhat Strono Not At All Strono Don't Know
Total 180/0 280/0 460/0 70/0
Ace: 18-34 11% 32% 47% 10%
High School 24% 30% 38% 8%
Grad or less
Collece Grad 16% 25% 53% 6%
Next, the telephone survey respondents believe, by a slight majority, that the limited
number of people who will actually get of their cars and onto the buses and trains is a
significant reason to oppose the plan, especially in Southampton-east of the Shinnecock
Canal. Defining "enough," however, is the key issue in this question:
Reason to oppose plan: Even if we had this system, you still wouldn't get
enouah Ie out of their cars to make it worthwhile.
VerY Strono Somewhat Strong Not At All Strono Don't Know
Total 230/0 27% 450/0 50/0
Southampton 33% 32% 27% 8%
East
Ace: 18-34 17% 34% 46% 2%
Ace: 66-74 33% 35% 27% 5%
Reti red 30% 32% 31% 6%
Commute: < 28% 29% 38% 5%
6 miles
Income: 34% 33% 30% 4%
<$25K
The contention that a high quality public transportation system would simply make the
area more attractive and bring more people has some traction among all segments:
Reason to oppose plan: If we have this new publiC transportation system, it
wouldiust attract more 'e to the area.
VerY Strono Somewhat Strong Not At All Strona Don't Know
Total 230/0 270/0 450/0 5%
APPEL RESEARCH, LLC / MARKETING & PUBLIC OPINION SURVEYS
2452 HILLTOP RD, NISKAYUNA, NY 12309, (518) 372-3200. (518) 372-9051 (FAX)
STEVE@APPELRESEARCH.COM
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The weakest opposition statement was the notion that there are those who wouldn't use
the system due to the inconvenience of multiple transfers, a significant point since the
proposal places a heavy emphasis on coordinated trains and buses, instead of the
current system of long bus rides but infrequent transfers. The respondents, however,
did not regard this concern as a "deal-breaker."
Reason to oppose plan: People wouldn't use the system because there
would be too man transfers from trains to mini-buses,
Ve Stron Somewhat Stron Not At All Stron
13% 29% 51%
Total
Don't Know
70/0
> Percentage of Cars Taken Off the Road
It has been suggested that a key benefit of the proposed public transportation system
would be reduced traffic congestion, based on drivers and passengers switching from
cars to trains and buses. It should be emphasized, however, that a random sample of
residents will not comprise the expertise of traffic engineers, but still, it is interesting to
note the number of cars taken off the road, as projected by those surveyed:
If this system were to be put into place, what percentage of cars would be
taken off the road because drivers would take publiC transportation ...
durinD;:a Ivnical non-slimmer weekdav?
1 - 10% 11 - 20% 21 - 30% 31+%
Total 440/0 220/0 17% 16%
Mean (Average) 19% / Median 15%
fComoutations in this table exdude Don't Knows)
Would use new System: 4/5 times Der week 21% 14% 21% 43%
Would use new svstem: rarelv/never 57% 19% 12% 11%
Male 51% 22% 15% 12%
Female 39% 21% 19% 20%
Aae: 18-34 27% 28% 16% 29%
Aae: 75+ 50% 16% 16% 18%
< 10 vears East End resident 34% 30% 17% 19%
Hiah school Grad or less 40% 20% 17% 24%
Colleae Grad 45% 24% 19% 13%
Income: <$25K 32% 19% 18% 31%
ApPEL RESEARCH, LLC / MARKETING & PUBLIC OPINION SURVEYS
2452 HILLTOP RD, NISKAYUNA, NY 12309, (518) 372-3200' (518) 372-9051 (FAX)
STEVE@APPELRESEARCH.COM
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
If this system were to be put into place, what percentage of cars would be
taken off the road because drivers would take public transportation ...
d,'rinn a tvDical summer weekend?
1 - 10% 11 - 20% 21 - 30% 31+%
Total 36% 16% 15% 33%
Average (Mean) 24% I Median 16%
rComoutations in this table exclude Dont Knows}
Would use new system: rarelv/never 76% 13% 14% 24%
Most imDortant benefit: qet cars off road 48% 14% 18% 43%
Ace: 18-34 25% 19% 13% 51%
Income: >$100K 17% 19% 21% 24%
Again, recognizing the lack of expertise of the respondents, the average projections --
19% for typical non-summer weekdays and 24% for typical summer weekends -
indicate that a significant number of cars would be taken off the roads.
> Final Ratings
In concluding the survey, we asked the respondents, -- now that they had received
considerable information about the proposed system, including arguments for and
against the system -- to rate the proposal, using the same scale as the one used earlier
to rate the existing system:
I'd like you to give me an overall rating of this new, coordinated, publiC
transportation system, using the same five to one scale we used earlier -
from five to one, where five is the best it could be and one is the worst?
Worst It Best It
Could Be Average Could Be Average
1-2.. ..3.. ..4-5 (Mean)
Total-Rate Current Svstem 52% 260/0 220/0 2.49
Total-Prooosed Svstem 130/0 25% 62% 3.72
Riverhead 8% 23% 68% 3.91
Current Transit Users 8% 21% 70% 3.99
Most important benefit: get cars 8% 22% 71% 3.89
off the road
Ace: 18-34 3% 22% 76% 4.05
Ace: 66-74 17% 29% 55% 3.57
Ace: 75+ 19% 24% 58% 3.51
Commute: 6+ miles dailv 10% 23% 68% 3.86
APPEL RESEARCH, LLC / MARKETING & PUBLIC OPINION SURVEYS
2452 HILLTOP RD, NISKAYUNA, NY 12309, (518) 372-3200. (518) 372-9051 (FAX)
STEVE@APPELRESEARCH.COM
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
100%
75%
50%
25%
Rate The - Current/Proposed -
Public Transit System:
62%
0%
Worst It Could Be
Best It Could Be
Average
.currentSyst~;;' 11II Proposed System]
There is a consistency among those who rate the proposed public transportation system
poorly -- almost all of them rarely or never use the LlRR.
ApPEL RESEARCH, LLC I MARKETING [, PUBLIC OPINION SURVEYS
2452 HILLTOP RD, NISKAYUNA, NY 12309, (518) 372-3200' (518) 372-9051 (FAX)
STEVE@APPELRESEARCH.COM
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
> Methodology
This survey of five towns in eastern Long Island was conducted for Five Town Rural
Transit, Inc., by Appel Research, LLC. This research assesses the opinions of full-time
residents within this geographic area toward transportation in general, existing public
transportation, and a proposal for an entirely new transportation system.
> Sample Design
In order to accomplish a reliable and representative measurement of the full-time
resident population of the five towns in eastern Long Island, a scientific random
probability sample was designed. The sample was comprised of 1,200 randomly
selected adults living within the sample area. The number of interviews designated
for each of five geographic areas was fixed at 240 each, and then weighted to match
the year-round population relative to the total year-round population of the area.
The 2000 United States Bureau of Census Data has been used to calculate sample
proportions for this stratified random sample design.
The five regions are:
1) East Hampton Town
2) Riverhead Town
3) Southold and Shelter Island Towns
4) Southampton Town -- east of the Shinnecock Canal
5) Southampton Town n west of the Shinnecock Canal
%
Year-Round
# % # % Population
Actual Actual Weighted Weighted Five Towns
Region Interviews Interviews Interviews Interviews C2000 Census}
East Hamoton 240 20% 189 16% 16%
Riverhead 240 20% 258 21% 22%
Southold-
Shelter Island 240 20% 222 18% 18%
Southampton-
East 240 20% 212 18% 18%
Southampton-
West 240 20% 322 27% 26%
Total - 1,200 100% 1,203 100% 100%
Five Towns
ApPEL RESEARCH, LLC / MARKETING & PUBLIC OPINION SURVEYS
2452 HILLTOP RD, NISKAYUNA, NY 12309, (518) 372-3200. (518) 372-9051 (FAX)
STEVE@APPELRESEARCH.COM
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Southampton Town totals are available for each question, but they are rarely shown
because the respondents did not vary in their opinions from those of the sample as a
whole.
> Sample Composition
Telephone numbers used in the sampling were generated by random-digit process, a
sampling technique that assures an equal, unbiased probability of inclusion in the
sample for all households with a telephone. In addition to the universe of published
telephone numbers, this procedure includes in the sample unlisted and newly
established telephone numbers.
The rigorous methods employed in composing the sample assured that each
household with a telephone had an equal probability of being selected for inclusion in
the sampling frame. The sample design and methodology maximize the likelihood
that the survey will be representative of the total population, and the subsequent
reliability of the inferences that are drawn.
In theory, the statistical sampling error associated with the overall findings based on
the probability sampling of 1,200 respondents is approximately ::I: 3 percentage
points. Simply put, this means that if we had interviewed every adult with a
household telephone residing within the five town area, the findings from this
complete census would not deviate from our sampling findings by more than the
maximum of ::I: 3 percentage points, 95 percent of the time (I.e., to a 95%
confidence level). We are confident that Appel Research, LLC's rigorous data
collection methods and sample design insure that the research findings are highly
representative and reliable indices and sentiments among the total population with
telephones living within the designated region. For each region, the sample size was
240, yielding a margin of error of slightly greater than ::1:6 percentage points.
ApPEL RESEARCH, LLC I MARKETING & PUBLIC OPINION SURVEYS
2452 HILLTOP RD, NISKAYUNA, NY 12309, (518) 372-3200' (518) 372-9051 (FAX)
STEVE~APPELRESEARCH.COM
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The following is offered as a guide:
Sample Margin Sample Margin Sample Margin Sample Margin
Size of Error Size of Size of Size of Error
Error Error
9,605 1% 267 6% 79 11% 38 16%
2,401 2% 196 7% 66 12% 33 17%
1,067 3% 150 8% 57 13% 30 18%
600 4% 118 9% 49 14% 27 19%
384 5% 96 10% 42 15% 24 20%
> Questionnaire Design
The survey questionnaire was custom designed to measure accurately and
comprehensively the objective as summarized above. The design, wording, and
order of the specific questions were all heavily influenced by the findings from the
five focus groups conducted beforehand. Five draft versions of the questionnaire
were written, and the final draft was pilot tested to ensure that the questionnaire
would be comprehensive, valid, and free from contextual biases. Adjustments were
incorporated into the questionnaire that was ultimately used. Pilot tested interviews
have not been included in the survey sample.
> Data Collection
All of the 1,200 interviews were conducted by professional staff interviewers from
central data collection facilities in New York City and in Florida. In addition to
regularly scheduled in-service training, the interviewers and supervisors involved in
this research project received training specific to this project before data collection
and over the course of the project. The completion time to administer
questionnaires averaged 16 minutes. Once selected, each telephone number was
attempted at least three times before it was discarded, to minimize
overrepresentation of easy-to-reach respondents (homebound, disabled, elderly, for
example). Each interview was verified by a supervisor. Data collection shifts were
limited to weekday afternoons and evenings. All interviews were completed between
June 8, 2005 and June 13, 2005.
To maximize co-operation of contacted residents and in order to minimize non-
response and self-selection biases, respondents were guaranteed anonymity for their
APPEL RESEARCH, LLC / MARKETING & PUBLIC OPINION SURVEYS
2452 HILLTOP RD, NISKAYUNA, NY 12309, (518) 372-3200' (518) 372-9051 (FAX)
STEVE@APPELRESEARCH.COM
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
participation in the research. To promote objectivity of responses to the survey
questionnaire, the sponsor of the research was not apparent to respondents and was
not disclosed.
> Data Processing Analysis
The interviews were conducted using a computer-aided telephone interviewing
system, in which questions are read from a computer screen, and responses are
entered directly into a database, eliminating data-transfer bias. Following
completion, the data was loaded into a specially designed software package for
comprehensive statistical analysis of the data, including descriptive frequencies,
crosstab relations, and multivariate analysis, to provide the clearest understanding
presentation of the research findings.
> Characteristics of Respondents
Characteristics of ReSDondents
Age 18-34 35-50 51-65 I 66-74 I 75+ I DK
10% 24% 33% 16% 14% 3%
Length of East End <10 Years I 10-25 Years I 25+ Years DK
Residence 15% 32% 51% 2%
Last Year of <H.S. Some
Education Grad H.S. Grad College 4 Year College Grad Post Grad DK
3% 23% 23% 29% 20% 2%
Work Status Don't DK
Work! 2%
Full Time Part Time Retired Other
43% 14% 36% 6%
Travel Daily to < 6 miles I 6+ Miles I Don't Travel Daily I DK
Fixed Location 30% 33% 33% 5%
Auto Access most Yes I No DK
times 95% 3% 3%
Children in Yes I No DK
Household 23% 75% 2%
Household Income $50K- $75K-
<$25K $25K-$50K $75K $100K >$100K DK/RF
7% 18% 18% 12% 17% 27%
Gender Male I Female
46% 54%
Region East Southold/ Southampton
Hampton Riverhead Shelter Town-East of Southampton Town-
Town Town Island Towns Canal West of Canal
16% 21% 18% 18% 27%
ApPEL RESEARCH, LLC / MARKETING & PUBLIC OPINION SURVEYS
2452 HILLTOP RD, NrSKAYUNA, NY 12309, (518) 372-3200. (518) 372-9051 (FAX)
STEVE@APPELRESEARCH.COM