Marin County, CA. Key Findings The NCS is presented by NRC in collaboration with ICMA

Similar documents
Bowling Green, KY Technical Appendices

The National Citizen Survey. Bowling Green, KY. Technical Appendices

St. Augustine, FL Trends over Time

WILMAPCO Public Opinion Survey Summary of Results

Bicycle-Pedestrian Master Plan Update

El Paso County 2040 Major Transportation Corridors Plan

Cascade Bicycle Club Strategic Plan

Perryville TOD and Greenway Plan

Eagan, MN. Supplemental Online Survey Results

CHAPTER 7.0 IMPLEMENTATION

Goals, Objectives, and Policies

SPRING 2001 STUDENT SURVEY ON BICYCLING

Vision Public Workshop: Findings

ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION

Favorable factors for bicycling and walking investments & plan implemtation. Road Map for Success

Sistrunk Corridor DOTMOCRACY SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION. Specifically, the objectives are to:

DKS & WASHINGTON COUNTY Washington County Transportation Survey

Evaluation of San Diego's First CicloSDias Open Streets Event

Summary Report: Built Environment, Health and Obesity

2011 Countywide Attitudinal and Awareness Survey Results

Hennepin County Bicycle and Pedestrian Planning

PEOPLE ARE PEDESTRIANS BY DESIGN JOIN THE MOVEMENT AT

2018 Citizen Perspectives Survey Report

Chapter 2. Bellingham Bicycle Master Plan Chapter 2: Policies and Actions

City of Novi Non-Motorized Master Plan 2011 Executive Summary

MTP BICYCLE ELEMENT UPDATE. November 2017

Online Open House Survey Report. December 2016

Incorporating Health in Regional Transportation Planning

Blue Ribbon Commission Report Recommendations on Pedestrian and Bicycle Infrastructure Improvements

AAMPO Regional Transportation Attitude Survey

Traffic Safety Barriers to Walking and Bicycling Analysis of CA Add-On Responses to the 2009 NHTS

Investment in Active Transport Survey

Living Streets Policy

A Holistic Approach to Community Connectivity. 50 th International Making Cities Livable Conference Portland, OR June 2013

Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission Transportation Survey

Introduction.

BUILDING THE CASE FOR TRAVEL OPTIONS IN WASHING TON COUNTY. Image: Steve Morgan. Image: Steve Morgan

The Florida Bicycle and Pedestrian Partnership Council

Wildlife Ad Awareness & Attitudes Survey 2015

The best indicator of an individual s and expanding access to parks and open space.

Bicycle Master Plan Goals, Strategies, and Policies

JEFFERSON COUNTY BIKE PLAN 2010: EMPHASIS SUMMARY

FACTS AND FIGURES: MAKING THE CASE FOR COMPLETE STREETS IN LEE COUNTY

Prioritizing Transportation Policy and Funding for Active Transportation, Safety, Equity and Health

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. Vision

2017 North Texas Regional Bicycle Opinion Survey

Transportation Issues Poll for New York City

TOWN OF PORTLAND, CONNECTICUT COMPLETE STREETS POLICY

Southern California Walking/Biking Research And Creative Evaluation

Incorporating Health in Regional Transportation Planning

Speed Limits Study and Proposal. Public Input Session: 8/14/13

Introduction to Safe Routes to School

APPENDIX A. Outreach Summary

2014 PA Resident Survey

Sue Shikaze Health Promoter, HKPR District Health Unit Chair, Haliburton County Communities in Action Committee

COUNCIL POLICY NAME: COUNCIL REFERENCE: 06/119 06/377 09/1C 10llC 12/1C INDEX REFERENCE: POLICY BACKGROUND


Pathways to a Healthy Decatur

CHAPTER 3: Vision Statement and Goals

Attachment A: Columbus Area Metropolitan Transportation Plan Objectives, Performance Measures, and Targets

TRENDS SEPTEMBER

CITY OF BLOOMINGTON COMPLETE STREETS POLICY

PEDALING FORWARD. A Glance at the SFMTA s Bike Program for SFMTA.COM

CANDIDATE QUESTIONNAIRE

A Matter of Fairness: ROCOG s Environmental Justice Protocol. What is Mobility Limitation?

VISION ZERO: What will it take?

13,351. Overall Statewide Results. How was the survey taken? Do you own or lease a personal vehicle? What is your primary means of transportation?

Balboa Area Transportation Demand Management

Lee s Summit Road Improvement Study Public Open House June 7, 2007 Summary of Comment Card Responses

Bike Share Social Equity and Inclusion Target Neighborhoods

TR NEWS. Public Health and Transportation. Innovation, Intervention, and Improvements NUMBER 299 SEPTEMBER OCTOBER 2015

Improve sidewalk/sewer drainage so it doesn't flood the streets. Improve the street lights far from each other

May 12, 2016 Metro Potential Ballot Measure Issue Brief: Local Return

Engagement Summary: Round 1

What HQ2 Finalist Cities Think about Amazon Moving to Town. Table of Contents

Goal 3: Foster an environment of partnerships and collaboration to connect our communities and regions to one another.

Among the key specific findings from the survey are the following:

Thank you for this opportunity to discuss with you how we can work together to make our streets more complete.

Strategies to Promote the Availability of Affordable Healthy Food and Beverages

NM-POLICY 1: Improve service levels, participation, and options for non-motorized transportation modes throughout the County.

Washington County Transportation Scientific Survey

Technical Working Group November 15, 2017

TOWARD AN ACTIVE INDIANA: WALKING AND BICYCLING IN THE HOOSIER STATE 2018 INDIANA MPO CONFERENCE SEPTEMBER 26, 2018

METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN OUTREACH: INTERACTIVE MAP SUMMARY REPORT- 10/03/14

Bikeway action plan. Bicycle Friendly Community Workshop March 5, 2007 Rochester, MN

SRTS Programs That Increase Walking and Bicycling to School

Central Hills Prairie Deer Goal Setting Block G9 Landowner and Hunter Survey Results

Vision. cultural identity, income group, neighborhood identity, or mobility level. Rendering by Robin Chiang

Building Great Neighbourhoods BELLEVUE AND VIRGINIA PARK

Among the key specific findings from the survey are the following:

Active Transportation Funding & the Next Transportation Bill

CML s 91 st Annual Conference June 18 21, 2013 Vail, Colorado. Why a Campaign? Learn More. City of Brush! 6/13/2013

The Role of MPOs in Advancing Safe Routes to School through the Transportation Alternatives Program

2020 K Street NW, Suite 410 Washington, DC (202)

2018 Santa Monica Resident Satisfaction Survey. November 2018

Elk Grove, CA Open-ended Responses

Lawrence Bike Share Feasibility Study

Northwest Parkland-Prairie Deer Goal Setting Block G7 Landowner and Hunter Survey Results

PETITION AND LETTER WRITING BEST PRACTICES

Transcription:

Marin County, CA Key Findings 2019 The NCS is presented by NRC in collaboration with ICMA

National Research Center, Inc. 25 years conducting survey research for local government Wrote the books on citizen surveying Industry pioneers Long-term partnership with ICMA Charter members of AAPOR Transparency Initiative

Focus Areas/Board Priorities Essential Very important Somewhat important Not at all important Investing in County infrastructure 56% 35% 9% 0% Improving disaster preparedness 49% 38% 13% 1% Preserving affordable housing 48% 29% 19% 4% Addressing climate change 48% 28% 16% 8% Eliminating inequities in County policies and programs 36% 38% 22% 4%

The NCS Community Livability Community Characteristics Governance Participation Private sector Residents Communities are partnerships among... Communitybased organizations Government

Facets of Community Livability Safety Mobility Economy Recreation and Wellness Natural Environment Built Environment Quality of Community Overall Education and Enrichment Community Engagement

The NCS & Marin County First iteration of The NCS for Marin County Random sample of 3,200 households 695 completed surveys; 22% response rate ±4% margin of error Expanded sample Open-ended question Web options Spanish Geographic comparisons Demographic comparisons Custom benchmarks

Voluntary Opt-in Survey Extensive outreach efforts, survey was available in English, Spanish & Vietnamese 3,068 responses received Majority of questions rated similarly Opt-in respondents reported higher levels of civic engagement County staff comparing with random sample results to discern any other areas of note

Voluntary Opt-in Survey Random Sample vs. Opt-in (Percent Positive Raw Responses Overlaid) 120% 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Random Sample Opt-in

Voluntary Opt-in Survey Top 10 percentile variances (Opt-in vs. Random Sample; Percent Positive Responses) 46% 40% 24% 15% 13% 10% 10% -11% -12% -20% Accessed Marin County s online payment center (for obtaining building permits, paying taxes or fees, making Parks reservations online, etc.) Contacted Marin County elected officials (inperson, phone, email or web) to express your opinion Attended a local public meeting Watched (online Campaigned or or on television) advocated for an a local public issue, cause or meeting candidate Contacted Marin County (inperson, phone, email or web) for help or information Volunteered your time to some group/activity in Marin County Recommend living in Marin County to someone who asks Observed a code Stocked supplies violation or in preparation other hazard in for an emergency Marin County (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.)

Subgroup Comparisons of Results Demographic subgroups Annual household income Race/ethnicity Age Gender Geographic subgroups Supervisorial District Incorporation status

National Benchmark Database

2018 National Benchmark Comparisons 19 received higher ratings 94 received similar ratings 13 received lower ratings

2018 County Benchmark Comparisons 33 received higher ratings 90 received similar ratings 3 received lower ratings

Key Focus Areas Legend Higher than national benchmark Similar to national benchmark Lower than national benchmark Most important Safety Built Environment Education and Enrichment Natural Environment Recreation and Wellness Mobility Economy Community Engagement

Key Finding #1 Residents enjoy a positive and healthy quality of life

Quality of Life 9 About 10 in rated excellent or good Overall quality of life Place to raise children Marin County as a place to live Neighborhoods

Loyalty to the Community 4in5 Recommend Marin County Remain in Marin County

Healthy Lifestyle 9 in 10 residents Visited a County park Participated in moderate or rigorous exercise Ate at least 5 fruits or vegetables a day

Key Finding #2 Marin County s economy is strong but affordability is a challenge Economy

Economic Ratings 77% 89% 69% Marin County as a place to visit Overall economic health Marin County as a place to work

Affordability and Housing Housing options 20% Cost of living Affordable quality housing 10% 7% Percent rated as excellent or good

Key Finding #3 Marin County s Natural Environment is highly regarded Natural Environment

Natural Environment 94% Overall natural environment 88% Drinking water 80% 87% 87% 86% Air quality Open space Preservation of natural areas Cleanliness Rated excellent or good

Natural Environment - Participation Recycled 97% Conserved water 93% Made home more energy efficient 79% Percent participating

Key Finding #4 While automobile traffic is a challenge in Marin County, pedestrian and bicycle travel shine Mobility

Aspects of Mobility Overall ease of travel 56% Travel by car 48% Public parking 45% Traffic flow 26% Travel by public transportation 23% Comparison to national benchmark: Higher Similar Lower Percent excellent or good

Walking and Biking 7 in 10 Paths and walking trails 6 in 10 Ease of walking Travel by bicycle Rated excellent or good

Special Topics

Barriers to Wildfire Safety Not a problem Minor problem Moderate problem Major problem Physical barriers to making your property wildfire safe 27% 25% 28% 20% The cost of making your property wildfire safe 17% 23% 34% 26% Neighbors maintaining a 100-foot clearance of trees, shrubbery, etc. around homes and roads for fire safety 11% 21% 38% 30%

Sources of Information During an Emergency Major source Minor source Not a source Marin County Sheriff s AlertMarin emergency notification system (www.alertmarin.org) 69% 21% 10% Local TV or radio 63% 25% 13% Communications via County social media (e.g., Facebook, Twitter, NextDoor, etc.) 49% 30% 21% Marin County Sheriff or fire agency website 41% 41% 18% Marin County website (www.marincounty.org) 31% 47% 23%

Actions to Address Climate Change Essential Very important Somewhat important Not at all important Protecting habitat, open spaces and marsh land 52% 29% 16% 3% Upgrading infrastructure (e.g., roads, utilities, etc.) to be more resistant to impacts from climate change 47% 32% 15% 6% Developing community-based programs and providing tools to assist landowners with long-term alternatives to flooding and heat waves 28% 38% 27% 8% Considering increased taxes or fees to provide matching funds to help get private funding for future climate-related risks 20% 26% 27% 27%

Top Priorities What do you think is the single biggest priority Marin County should focus on in the next two years? Cost of living Traffic/ infrastructure Environment Affordable living for all income levels Improving traffic congestion Climate change impacts Affordable housing Road repair and traffic Fire safety

Conclusions Marin County residents enjoy a positive and healthy quality of life The County s Economy is strong but affordability is a challenge Marin County s Natural Environment is highly regarded While automobile traffic is a challenge in Marin County, pedestrian and bicycle travel shine

Questions?

Thank you! National Research Center, Inc. 2955 Valmont Road Suite 300 Boulder, CO 80301 303-444-7863 nrc@n-r-c.com www.n-r-c.com