Mass.gov  
  Office Of Transporation Planning Massachusetts Department of transporation
We Move Massachusetts - Shaping Our Future We Move Massachusetts - Shaping Our Future We Move Massachusetts - Shaping Our Future

Documents

3.0 Questionnaire

As noted in Section 1.2, Approach and Outreach, this research effort is qualitative in nature. The intention was to reach a large number of Environmental Justice and Title VI populations since these populations were not strongly represented during the YMM process. Most of the surveys were conducted online, and the team collaborated with community leaders to provide paper or telephone questionnaires when access to the internet was limited.

1,893 respondents participated in the questionnaire. While not all of the 26 questions were completed in full by each respondent, the team is confident that the results provided valuable themes and topics to be investigated related to existing transportation challenges in the Commonwealth.

3.1 Methodology

While the advantages of online surveys are that they save time and can provide access to diverse groups of individuals, sampling issues result. All of the demographic information provided by respondents is self-reported, and the non-response rate is difficult to estimate. For example, we do not know how many people learned about the survey and chose not to complete it. There is also a self-selection bias in terms of who responds to the questionnaire, primarily people who already have an interest in transportation issues or otherwise have the time or inclination to participate. Therefore, the results of the survey are not intended to be statistically significant using scientific sampling methods.

The results of the questionnaire provide insight, however, into existing transportation challenges these communities face and can help to generate hypotheses for future work. Combined with the themes of the interviews, the results focus on elements of the list of challenges and solutions identified in the YMM process. The data outline specific difficulties and suggest solutions in new voices that MassDOT sought to hear.

In addition to typical demographic categories (age, race, gender, income, etc.), the team was also interested in analyzing the data based on several subcategories specific to this effort.

  • Environmental Justice (EJ): Respondent lives in a municipality that has an EJ population (Source: MA Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs, 2000 Census); see Section 3.2.4 for a definition.
  • Environmental Justice Plus: Respondent lives in a municipality that meets at least 3 of the 4 Environmental Justice criteria (Source: MA Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs, 2000 Census); see Section 3.2.4 for details.
  • MPO Live: Respondent lives in one of the 13 Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Regions in the Commonwealth. (Pembroke and Stoughton are members of both the Boston and Old Colony MPOs. For the purposes of this effort, they were designated as Old Colony only.)
  • MPO Work: Respondent works in one of the 13 Metropolitan Planning (MPO) Regions in the Commonwealth.
  • Geographic Region: In WMM, the project team wanted to differentiate urban areas from rural areas of the state. These areas were developed by running a spatial query that compared the urban areas to each township. For towns on the margin, professional judgment was applied to determine which urban town belonged by considering where the heart of the population was located. (See Appendix G for this breakdown.) These individual urban regions were then collapsed into two categories: Statewide Urban and Boston. Rural remained the third category.
  • Low-Income: Respondents who reported less than $25,000/year in household income.
  • Non-English: Respondents who completed the questionnaire in a language other than English.
  • Non-white: Respondents who did not report “White” as their race.

3.2 Respondents

3.2.1 Demographics

The team compared the self-reported demographic characteristics of the respondents to the 2010 Census data. When looking at the data as a whole, it is apparent that while outreach was more successful than past efforts to Environmental Justice and Title VI groups, there needs to be increased outreach to these populations. Specifically, there was significantly less participation by African-American and Hispanic individuals than the team had hoped for. On the other hand, there was an over-representation of highly educated individuals; see Tables 3.1–3.7.

Table 3.1 Demographic Results of Respondents Compared to 2010 Census

Demographic

MA Census (2010)

Questionnaire

<= 18

21.7%

0%

>=65

13.8%

11%

Female

51.6%

49.6%
(This does not include the 310 individuals who did not respond to the question.)

White

80.4%

88%

Black, African-American

6.6%

3%

American Indian or Alaskan Native

.3%

1%

Asian American

5.3%

3%

Hawaiian or Pacific Islander

0.0%

0%

Hispanic

9.6%

4%

Median Income

$64,509

empty cell.

Under $25,000

empty cell.

7.6%

$25,000-$50,000

empty cell.

10.8%

Table 3.2 Ages of Respondents

Response

Percentage

Count

Under 18

0%

7

18-24

5%

82

25-34

20%

317

35-44

18%

291

44-54

23%

363

55-64

23%

372

65 or older

11%

176

Total

empty cell.

1608

Table 3.3 Education of Respondents

Response

Percentage

Count

Less than high school graduate

2%

7

High school graduate

4%

82

Some college/technical/vocational school

13%

317

4-year college graduate

25%

291

Some post-graduate work

13%

363

Post-graduate degree

44%

372

Total

empty cell.

1606

Table 3.4 Ethnicity of Respondents

Response

Percentage

Count

Hispanic or Latino

4%

61

Not Hispanic or Latino

96%

1497

Total

empty cell.

11558

Table 3.5 Language of Survey

empty cell.

Percentage

Count

English

94%

1849

Spanish

1.2%

22

Portuguese

0.2%

3

Vietnamese

0.3%

5

Haitian Creole

0%

0

Table 3.6 Race of Respondents

Response

Percentage

Count

White

88%

1388

African-American, Black

3%

41

Asian

3%

41

American-Indian, Alaskan Native

1%

8

Native Hawaiian, or other Pacific Islander

0%

2

Other (Top other response: respondents who identify as multi- or biracial – either as a category or specifically (e.g., African-American/white). See Appendix H for the complete list of responses.

6%

100

Total

empty cell.

1580

Table 3.7 Income of Respondents

Response

Percentage

Count

Under $25,000

10%

144

$25,000 to just under $50,000

14%

204

$50,000 to just under $75,000

18%

270

$75,000 to just under $100,000

20%

301

$100,000 to just under $150,00

24%

352

$150,000 or more

15%

226

Total

empty cell.

1497

Table 3.8 Number of Vehicles (per household) of Respondents

Response

Percentage

Count

None

16%

256

One

36%

573

Two

37%

589

Three or more

12%

192

Total

empty cell.

1610

The analysis shows that 78% of respondents who do not own any vehicles have two or fewer individuals in the household. In fact, 48% of respondents who do not own vehicles are the only member of their households. As household size increases, the number of vehicles also increases.

3.2.2 Geographic Region

As noted in the Approach and Outreach section, it was very important that this effort include participants from all regions in the Commonwealth. Respondents were asked to include the zip code where they lived and where they worked or went to school. This information was then broken out by MPO Region (see below). ("Not Valid" refers to municipalities outside of Massachusetts.) Comparing the breakdown of respondents against 2010 forecasted household data (Table 3.9) demonstrates that the Boston Region was overestimated in the questionnaire and the Southeastern MPO was underrepresented. Comparing the employment breakdown (Table 3.10) demonstrates that the Boston region is overrepresented and the Pioneer Valley region is underrepresented.

Table 3.9 Comparison of MPO Region of Respondents (Live) and 2010 Household Data

MPO Region

Respondents (Live) Percent (Frequency)

2010 Household Forecast by Region

Berkshire

1.7% (32)

1.6% (52,400)

Boston

55.6% (1045)

30.8% (1,035,191)

Cape Cod

1.1% (20)

1.8% (58,556)

Central Mass

5.7% (108)

4.6% (154,017)

Franklin

1.9% (36)

0.8% (24,228)

Martha’s Vineyard

0.1% (1)

0.1% (3,872)

Merrimack Valley

1.5% (29)

2.7% (92,524)

Montachusett

2.6% (48)

2.1% (69,688)

Nantucket

0.1% (1)

0.1% (2,155)

Northern Middlesex

1.0% (18)

2.2% (74,983)

Old Colony

1.1% (21)

2.7% (90,883)

Pioneer Valley

8.2% (154)

6.0% (202,280)

Southeastern Mass

0.1% (41)

5.5% (184,633)

Other/non-Massachusetts

0.6% (11)

N/A

No Response/Not Valid

16.7% (314)

N/A

Source: Office of Transportation Planning.
Note: The total of the regions do not equal the statewide total because two towns have dual membership in the Boston and Old Colony MPO.

Table 3.10 Comparison of MPO Region to Respondents (work) and 2010 Employment Data

MPO Region

Respondents (Work/School) Percent (Frequency)

2010 Employment Forecast by Region

Berkshire

1.4% (26)

2.0% (60,900)

Boston

55.1% (1035)

57.6% (1,793,400)

Cape Cod

1.4% (26)

2.9% (88,900)

Central Mass

6.0% (113)

7.2% (224,000)

Franklin

1.1% (20)

0.8% (25,800)

Martha's Vineyard

0.1% (1)

0.2% (7,700)

Merrimack Valley

0.9% (17)

4.1% (128,700)

Montachusett

1.7% (32)

2.5% (78,500)

Nantucket

0.1% (1)

0.2% (5,731)

Northern Middlesex

1.1% (21)

3.6% (112,000)

Old Colony

1.1% (20)

4.0% (124,400)

Pioneer Valley

0.3% (5)

8.1% (251,200)

Southeastern Mass

8.5% (159)

7.4% (229,400)

Other/non-Massachusetts

1.6% (30)

N/A

No Response/Not Valid

19.9% (373)

N/A

Source: Office of Transportation Planning.
Note: The totals of the regions do not equal the statewide total because two towns have dual membership in the Boston and Old Colony MPOs.

In addition to breaking out the respondents by MPO region, the team broke them out by the geographic regions developed for WMM (see Appendix G).

Table 3.11 Geographic Region (Live) of Respondents

Geographic Region (Live)

Percent (Frequency)

Boston

60.5% (1137)

Statewide Urban

18.2% (342)

Rural

4.0% (75)

Non-Massachusetts

0.6% (11)

No Response/Not Valid

16.7% (314)

3.2.3 Environmental Justice

The Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EOEEA) uses specific criteria to define cities and towns in Massachusetts as Environmental Justice (EJ) communities. The elements used to label a community as EJ are income, minority, foreign-born, and Lacking English. The following criteria is used to define each element, respectively: (1) household earns 65 percent or less of the statewide household median income; (2) 25 percent or more of the residents are a minority; (3) 25 percent or more of the residents are foreign-born; and (4) 25 percent or more the residents are lacking English language proficiency. If a town or city has one or more of these elements, it is considered an EJ community (Based on the 2000 Census, 108 of 351 communities in Massachusetts are considered EJ). For study purposes, the team has also developed an “EJ Plus” category. To be considered EJ plus, a community must have three or more EJ elements (2000 Census); see Table 3.12.

Slightly more than 65% of respondents live in EJ communities, while almost 50% live in EJ plus communities (see table below).

Table 3.12 Respondents Who Live in Environmental Justice Areas

Environmental Justice

Percent (Frequency)

EJ (Respondent lives in a municipality that has an EJ population (Source: MA Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs, 2000 Census))

65.7% (1235)

EJ Plus (Respondent lives in a municipality that meets at least three of the four Environmental Justice criteria (Source: MA Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs, 2000 Census))

48.3% (907)

3.3 Respondents’ Transportation Choices

3.3.1 Transportation Mode

An important aspect of the questionnaire was to find out the type of transportation choices respondents typically make. They were first asked to report their primary mode of transportation when making a typical trip (going to work, shopping, etc.). More than 50 percent of respondents (see Table 3.13) reported that they use a personal car for these trips and 23 percent said they used public transportation.

Table 3.13 Typical Trip of Respondents

Response

Percentage

Count

Personal car

51%

914

Someone else’s car

2%

42

Bus or other form of public transportation (ferry, train, light rail)

23%

409

Private shuttle/Private bus service

1%

10

Walking

8%

138

Bicycle

11%

204

Taxi

0%

7

Other (Top other responses include “staff,” “staff car,” or “support staff.” See Appendix H for a complete list of “Other” responses.)

3%

57

Total

empty cell.

1497

3.3.2 Non-work Trips

On average, respondents report making about 7 non-work or school-related trips per week (Table 3.14). Of these trips, on average, they say they drive about 4 of them.

Table 3.14 Average Number of Trips per Week

Response

Mean

# Trips/week (non-work)

7.49

# Trips/week – driving

4.41

3.3.3 Frequency of Public Transportation Use

Respondents were also asked about the frequency of their public transportation use. Consistent with results from the previous question, most of the respondents are not regular public transportation users. Over 50% of respondents reported they use public transportation less than one day per week (see Table 3.15).

Table 3.15 Typical Trip of Respondents

Response

Percentage

Count

Never

12%

220

Less than one day per year

7%

120

Less than one day per month, but at least one day every year

21%

379

Less than one day per week, but at least one day every month

16%

283

1-3 days per week

15%

264

4-5 days per week

16%

285

6-7 days per week

13%

242

Total

empty cell.

1793

Walking is used much more frequently as a mode. Almost 68% of respondents say that on a weekly basis, they walk at least 10 minutes to get to a destination. For bicycling, the numbers shift back. Only 27% of respondents bicycle weekly to reach a destination.

3.4 Transportation Attitudes

The team was interested in existing attitudes toward these different travel modes. Why are most respondents choosing to use their personal vehicles?

3.4.1 Transportation Factors

Respondents were asked to rate which factors were important to them, using a scale from “1” (“Not at all important”) to “10” (“Extremely important”). While, on average, nearly all factors were rated quite highly for all respondents, “reducing pollution/conserving energy” was seen as the least important factor. The two most important factors were “travel time” and “convenience/flexibility.”

Table 3.16 Average Rating of Transportation Factors

empty cell.

Mean

Travel time

8.10

Cost

7.21

Convenience/flexibility

8.58

Comfort and safety

7.77

Reduce pollution/conserve energy

6.75

3.4.2 Enviornmental Justice and Title VI Populations

Because of MassDOT’s interest in EJ and Title VI populations, it was also important to analyze these attitudes by different subgroup; see Table 3.17. Subgroups that did not show much variation from all respondents were “Non-white,” “Non-English,” “Seniors,” “EJ (Live),” “EJ Plus,” or whether they lived in the Boston region. (There may not be much variation seen between “All respondents” and “Boston” because so many respondents live in the Boston region.)

There is variation in the importance of travel time savings among the three geographic regions. Travel time savings is much less important to rural respondents. Cost is relatively more important to low-income, non-white, and low education respondents. Convenience/flexibility is relatively less important to non-English and rural respondents. Comfort/safety is relatively more important to non-white, low educated, and statewide urban respondents. See Table 3.17 for the breakout by subgroups.

Table 3.17 Average Rating of Transportation Factors by Subgroup

 

Low-Income

Non-White

Non-English

Seniors

EJ (Live)

EJ + (live)

Rural

Statewide Urban

Boston

Low Education

Travel time

7.54

8.32

8.37

7.77

8.14

8.17

6.73

8.21

8.12

7.84

Cost

7.94

8.23

7.56

6.75

7.24

7.26

6.92

7.51

7.05

7.85

Convenience/flexibility

8.28

8.82

7.71

8.49

8.64

8.63

7.88

8.62

8.65

8.55

Comfort and safety

7.90

8.28

7.38

7.89

7.75

7.68

7.47

8.31

7.62

8.28

Reduce pollution/conserve energy

7.15

6.83

6.88

6.82

6.92

6.96

6.31

6.97

6.80

6.92

3.4.3 Respondents Who Do Not Use Public Transportation

Respondents who answered that they use public transportation less than 1 day a week were then prompted to answer a series of questions about why they do not use it. (As a result, 786 respondents were not prompted to answer this question.) Of the responses (see Table 3.18), most said they do not use public transportation because it does not go where they want it to go and because they like the personal car convenience. Least important factors were issues of safety (either for waiting or while on the public transportation).

Table 3.18 Reasons Respondents Do Not Use Public Transportation

Response

Percent who Agree (Frequency

Does not run frequently enough

28.7% (539)

Does not go where I want it to go

35.7% (670)

Too slow

24.2% (454)

Station/stop too far away

23.4% (440)

Do not feel safe walking/waiting

9.9% (186)

Uncomfortable/unsafe on public transportation

8.4% (158)

Like personal car convenience

39.2% (737)

Need to make many stops

27.0% (508)

Service hours do not work with my schedule

22.7% (427)

Respondents who answered that the “service hours do not work with my schedule” were also prompted to be specific about the kinds of schedule changes they want to see. Many of these respondents pointed to a need for more frequent service and expanded hours (later nights and early mornings). This was true for bus and commuter rail. They also pointed to the unpredictability of the service.

Respondents were also asked if there were any other reasons people do not use public transportation. Many pointed to the unpredictable and unreliable service and the convenience of using a personal car. Some also addressed issues of crowding (lack of seats), personal disability issues, and the perceived stigma in using public transportation. (See Appendix H for Open-Ended Responses and Appendix I for Word Clouds.)

3.5 Attitudes toward Roadways

Respondents were asked a series of questions about what kinds of roadway improvements (if any) they would like to see happen. They were asked to agree or disagree with each type of improvement. The majority of respondents only agreed with one type of roadway improvement – upgrading traffic signals. The responses are listed in Table 3.19. 48% of respondents wanted to see improvement on snow removal.

Table 3.19 Desired Types of Roadway Improvements

Response

Percent Agree (Frequency)

Add more travel lanes

26.0% (489)

Add carpool lanes to the highway system

36.2% (681)

Upgrade traffic signals

54.5% (1024)

Increase number of “Fast Lane” lanes

32.1% (604)

Improve snow removal

48.5% (912)

Respondents were also asked an open-ended question about other types of roadway improvements they would like to see in their region. For all respondents, improved bike lanes was the most popular option, but many other respondents pointed to the need for better roadway maintenance – specifically the fixing of potholes. (See Appendix H for Open-Ended Responses and Appendix I for Word Clouds.)

3.6 Attitudes toward Walking

Respondents were asked what changes would make walking easier in their community, with “1” being “Not at all important” and “10” being “Extremely important.” Of the choices listed in Table 3.20, pedestrian safety and enforcing laws governing pedestrians were seen as least important by all respondents on average. Respondents were also asked an open-ended question about other changes that would make walking easier in their community.

Table 3.20 Average Rating of Factors to Improve Walking

Response

Mean

More facilities

7.07

Improve existing facilities

7.58

Enforce laws governing motorists

7.18

Enforce laws governing pedestrians

5.59

Enforce laws governing bicyclists

6.23

Provide pedestrian safety education

4.95

Improve snow removal

7.38

These attitudes were also examined by subgroups (see Table 3.21). Respondents believe that of all the factors listed, improving existing facilities (reconstruct existing sidewalks and curb ramps for increased accessibility) is the most important change to make walking easier in the community. Providing more facilities is more important among low-income, non-English, and statewide urban respondents. In general, rural respondents rated these factors relatively lower than other respondents. Much more variation was seen around the issue of pedestrian enforcement and safety education than the other factors. This was much more important to non-English, statewide urban and low education respondents. Non-English respondents placed relatively more importance on snow removal than other subgroups.

Table 3.21 Average Rating of Factors to Improve Walking by Subgroup

empty cell.

Low-Income (Respondents who reported less than $25,000/year in household income)

Non-White

Non-English

Seniors

EJ Community

EJ + Community

Rural

Statewide Urban

Boston

Low Education

More facilities

7.61

7.17

7.64

6.70

7.01

6.94

6.59

7.72

6.91

7.34

Improve existing facilities

8.06

7.82

7.73

7.26

7.64

7.69

6.63

7.88

7.57

7.83

Enforce laws governing motorists

7.71

7.54

6.46

7.07

7.36

7.47

6.48

7.14

7.24

7.63

Enforce laws governing pedestrians

6.11

6.01

7.25

6.07

5.64

5.53

4.72

6.77

5.31

6.59

Enforce laws governing bicyclists

6.72

6.89

8.07

6.71

6.30

6.31

4.90

6.78

6.16

6.89

Provide pedestrian safety education

6.33

5.38

7.08

5.34

4.97

4.87

4.22

6.03

4.64

6.19

Improve snow removal

7.74

7.74

9.07

7.27

7.53

7.58

6.78

7.67

7.29

7.82

All respondents were also asked an open-ended question about other suggestions to improve walking in their communities. Better sidewalks and traffic calming measures (including more crosswalks) were noted. Respondents also noted that the questionnaire did not ask about improvements for bicycling. For these, some pointed to more (and safer) bike lanes. (See Appendix H for Open-Ended Responses and Appendix I for Word Clouds.)

3.7 Attitudes toward Funding

All respondents were asked a series of questions about Massachusetts spending money on various priorities, with “1” being “Not at all important” and “10” being “Extremely important.” When asked to rate the importance of spending money on various priorities, “improving existing rail and transit services” and “maintaining existing roads, highways and bridges” were given the highest ratings (see Table 3.22). “Building new roads and highways” was overwhelmingly perceived as less important among all the respondents.

Table 3.22 Average Rating of Transportation Funding Priorities

Response

Mean

Maintain existing roads, highways, bridges

8.57

Improve existing roads, highways, bridges

7.68

Build new roads and highways

4.17

Maintain existing bicycle facilities

7.47

Improve existing bicycle facilities

7.49

Maintain existing sidewalks and paths

8.46

Improve existing sidewalks and paths

8.30

Build new sidewalks and paths

8.00

Sustain the existing level of transit services

8.46

Improve existing rail and transit services

8.68

Expand public transit services

8.46

Improve services for seniors and disabled

7.80

These attitudes were also examined by subgroup, with the results in Table 3.23. There is a lot of variation among geographic regions regarding the issue of improving existing roads, highways, and bridges. This factor is much more important to statewide urban and rural communities than it is to respondents who live in Boston. There is variation by subgroup around the issue of building new roads and highways. It is much more important to non-English respondents, and relatively more important to low-income, statewide urban, and less educated respondents. Sustaining the existing level of transit services is relatively less important for non-English respondents. Improving services for the disabled and seniors is much more important for low-income and non-English respondents than others.

Table 3.23 Average Rating of Transportation Funding Priorities by Subgroup

empty cell.

Low-Income (Respondents who reported less than $25,000/year in household income)

Non-White

Non-English

Seniors

EJ Community

EJ + Community

Rural

Statewide Urban

Boston

Low Education

Maintain existing roads, highways, bridges

7.99

8.45

8.00

8.79

8.48

8.42

9.06

8.73

8.45

8.68

Improve existing roads, highways, bridges

7.83

7.90

8.50

7.81

7.55

7.45

8.45

8.46

7.36

8.26

Build new roads and highways

5.33

4.65

7.75

4.43

4.04

3.86

4.64

5.28

3.76

5.49

Maintain existing bicycle facilities

7.53

6.85

8.73

7.38

7.58

7.64

7.09

7.07

7.61

6.76

Improve existing bicycle facilities

7.83

6.77

8.53

7.41

7.61

7.70

7.17

7.00

7.66

6.77

Maintain existing sidewalks and paths

8.60

8.13

9.06

8.50

8.50

8.55

8.35

8.37

8.51

8.23

Improve existing sidewalks and paths

8.40

7.88

8.11

8.19

8.33

8.40

8.29

8.22

8.34

8.14

Build new sidewalks and paths

8.26

7.27

8.33

7.87

8.03

8.10

8.08

7.91

8.08

7.74

Sustain the existing level of transit services

8.27

7.99

7.44

8.43

8.58

8.70

7.82

7.75

8.75

7.92

Improve existing rail and transit services

8.85

8.39

7.81

8.88

8.78

8.82

8.65

8.55

8.76

8.27

Expand public transit services

8.63

8.07

8.13

8.41

8.54

8.59

8.97

8.67

8.39

8.24

Improve services for seniors and disabled

8.91

7.67

9.18

8.38

7.83

7.80

8.55

8.19

7.61

8.31

3.8 Other Transportation Options

Respondents were then asked open-ended question about how transportation options could be improved to serve them better. Many called for increased and more reliable service, maintenance and repair of existing infrastructure, improvements to bicycle lanes and facilities, and system expansions (Commuter Rail to New Bedford and Springfield). (See Appendix H for Open-Ended Responses and Appendix I for Word Clouds.)

3.9 Summary

Information gathered from the WMM questionnaire is generally consistent with attitudes seen in the YMM effort, although there is much more specificity in the recommendations. With regard to the public transportation system (bus, commuter rail, etc.), most of the respondents still reported using cars as their primary vehicles. They said this was due to issues of reliability, limited service hours, convenience and the fact that the existing public transportation system does not take them where they need to go.

With regard to roadway improvements, there is a strong desire to see increased maintenance of existing infrastructure. Respondents pointed to poor road quality and potholes as important concerns. In some cases, they would like to see widening of specific roads, but maintenance is of higher priority than expansion efforts.

There is overwhelming support from respondents for increased bicycle infrastructure, such as dedicated bike paths and traffic calming measures. For pedestrians, many communities point to lack of sidewalks and crosswalks and poor lighting. There is a strong desire for these types of improvements as well as traffic calming efforts.

Although there was not a scientific sample done of this questionnaire, the preliminary data does indicate that specific geographic regions in the Commonwealth may have different priorities. Respondents in the Statewide Urban region demonstrate more overall dissatisfaction with their existing transportation. This is unsurprising since they have the densities of cities without much of the same infrastructure. Future research in these communities should be considered.

Translation Disabled  | Translation Support
Home | About Us | Employment | Contact Us | Site Policies Copyright © 2014 Commonwealth of Massachusetts