Current Mobility
We asked questions to gain insight into faculty and staff current mobility. This section contains responses to questions about access to motor vehicles, ownership of parking permits, attitudes toward parking convenience and cost.
Most of the faculty and staff surveyed have access to a motor vehicle (95 percent). Sixty-nine percent of respondents indicated they owned parking permits. This shows that many faculty and staff do not park in the MSUM parking lots either choosing not to or due to a lack of available parking permits.
Faculty and staff perceptions toward parking convenience were then analyzed. Approximately 60 percent of respondents indicated they felt parking convenience on campus was good, whereas 43 percent of respondents indicated parking convenience was either poor or fair (Figure 8).
Figure 8. Parking Convenience (n=115)
Approximately 35 percent of respondents indicated they thought parking costs were affordable, whereas 36 percent considered parking affordability poor with 29 percent considering parking affordability fair (Figure 9).
Figure 9. Parking Cost (n=115)
Utilization of MAT
A number of questions were asked to discern how faculty and staff view public transportation. We wanted a better understanding of their perceptions of the benefits of public transit, and if they had ever ridden public transportation.
First, survey respondents were asked if they have used and were familiar with the MAT. Less than 36 percent of respondents specified that they were familiar with MAT (Figure 10). This shows a large untapped market among MSUM faculty and staff.
Figure 10. Respondents familiar with MAT (n=115)
Faculty and staff were asked to identify what they believed were the benefits of public transportation on the MSUM campus. The top benefit among respondents was reduced parking demand, followed by reduced traffic congestion, and environmental concerns (Figure 11).
Figure 11. Benefits to Riding Public Transportation (n=115)
Among faculty and staff who have ridden a MAT bus, the outlook is quite positive. Better than 90 percent felt that the bus was clean, and almost 80 percent of respondents rated the other characteristics as favorable (Figure 12).
Figure 12. Faculty and Staff Experiences Riding MAT (n=41)
We also asked respondents about characteristics they might value as important for riding MAT. Reliability scored highest among categories at 90 percent followed by it serves the Fargo-Moorhead area (78 percent) and the drivers are friendly (78 percent) (Figure 13).
Figure 13. Valuable Characteristics of MAT (n=41)
Faculty and staff were asked what keeps them from using MAT bus service. The highest reported reason was their preference to drive, walk or ride their bike. It takes to long was the next answer of choice followed by no route where I need to go (Figure 14).
Figure 14. Factors that Discourage Use of MAT (n=74)
Respondents were asked how long they would wait for MAT. Fifty-nine percent reported they would wait 15 minutes, 14 percent would wait 30 minutes, and 27percent would not wait for a MAT bus (Figure 15).
Figure 15. Time Willing to Wait for MAT (n=115)
We asked faculty and staff to identify reasons they would ride MAT in the Fargo-Moorhead area. They were presented potential reasons and they were to reply "yes" or "no" for each reason. Just under 30 percent of respondents indicated they would use MAT to get around campus, and 16 percent indicated they would use MAT to get to and from campus (Figure 16).
Figure 16. Reasons to Use MAT (n=115)
Finally, faculty and staff were asked what they consider reasonable walking distance given a temperature above 32 degrees and above 32 degrees. Discrepancies began to occur at the half mile to one mile walking distance (Figure 17). Forty percent of respondents indicated they would walk between one-quarter and one mile if the temperature was above 32 degrees, but only 11 percent indicated they would walk the same distance in temperatures below 32 degrees. On-campus transit could increase ridership during winter months according to these results.
Figure 17. Reasonable Walking Distances in Given Temperatures (n=115)