This page provides accessible interpretations of charts and graphs within the 2022 Muni Customer Satisfaction Survey Executive Summary and Questionnaire.
Overall Rating of Muni Service
Trending: Overall Rating of Muni Service
Overall Rating by Subgroup - Map
Overall Rating by Subgroup - Total
Overall Rating by Subgroup - Usage of Muni-Currently
Overall Rating by Subgroup - Trip Purpose
Overall Rating by Subgroup - Income
Overall Rating by Subgroup - Household Size
Overall Rating by Subgroup - Zone
Usage of Muni
Trip Purpose
Attribute Chart
Service Attributes
Gender Harassment
Mode Selection
Trip's Main Purpose When Muni Not Selected
Incentives for Muni Use
Information Sources
Online Sources
App Sources
How informed do you feel about Muni projects
Familiarity with SFMTA Responsibilities
Satisfaction with the SFMTA
Overall Rating of Muni Service
Found on page 1
| Ratings | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Excellent | 16% |
| Good | 50% |
| Only Fair | 25% |
| Poor | 9% |
A circle surrounds the excellent and good ratings for a combined score of 66%
Trending: Overall Rating of Muni Service
Found on page 2
Excellent and Good Ratings Combined
| Year | Combined Rating |
|---|---|
| 2001 | 48% |
| 2002 | 57% |
| 2003 | 68% |
| 2004 | 64% |
| 2005 | 65% |
| 2006 | 53% |
| 2007 | 55% |
| 2010 | 52% |
| 2011 | 57% |
| 2012 | 62% |
| 2014 | 64% |
| 2015 | 66% |
| 2016 | 70% |
| 2017 | 70% |
| 2018 | 63% |
| 2019 | 59% |
| 2021 | 57% |
| 2022 | 66% |
Overall Rating by Subgroup - Map
Found on page 2
Overall City Rating – 66% Excellent/Good
Zone 1 – 66% Excellent/Good
- South of Market
- Parts of the Financial District
- Castro/Upper Market
- Mission District
- Bernal Heights
- Potrero Hill
- Mission Bay
Zone 2 – 69% Excellent/Good
- Marina District
- Russian Hill
- North Beach
- Pacific Heights
- Western Addition/Panhandle/Haight-Ashbury
- Downtown/Civic Center
- Nob Hill
- Chinatown
- Parts of the Financial District
Zone 3 – 61% Excellent/Good
- Presidio
- Seacliff/Outer Richmond
- Inner Richmond/Presidio Heights
- Golden Gate Park/Outer Sunset/Inner Sunset
Zone 4 – 65% Excellent/Good
- Parkside
- Lakeshore/Ocean View
- West of Twin Peaks/Diamond Heights
- Noe Valley/Twin Peaks/Glen Park
Zone 5 – 68% Excellent/Good
- Balboa Park/Outer Mission
- Excelsior/Visitacion Valley
- Bayview
Overall Rating by Subgroup - Details
The following tables communicate data found on page 3
Overall Rating by Subgroup - Total
| Satisfaction Rating by Total | Excellent/Good | Fair | Poor |
|---|---|---|---|
| All respondents (n = 455) | 66% | 25% | 9% |
Overall Rating by Subgroup - Usage of Muni-Currently
| Satisfaction Rating by Usage of Muni – Currently^ | Excellent/Good | Fair | Poor |
|---|---|---|---|
| 5 or more days/week (n = 93) | 68% | 24% | 9% |
| Several times a week (n = 146) | 65% | 27% | 8% |
| Once a week (n = 54) | 67% | 26% | 7% |
| Three times a month or less (n = 162) | 64% | 25% | 11% |
^ Respondents who answered Q2 (“Since the start of the Pandemic, March 2020, how often have you ridden Muni”) between five days a week or more and less than once a week
Overall Rating by Subgroup - Trip Purpose
| Satisfaction Rating by Trip Purpose | Excellent/Good | Fair | Poor |
|---|---|---|---|
| Work / School (n = 217) | 61% | 30% | 9% |
| Personal Business (n = 28) | 71% | 18% | 11% |
| Other Purpose (n = 307) | 68% | 24% | 8% |
Note: More than one response was allowed for the trip purpose categories.
Overall Rating by Subgroup - Income
| Satisfaction Rating by Income | Excellent/Good | Fair | Poor |
|---|---|---|---|
| Less than $25,000 (n = 37) | 73% | 14% | 14% |
| $25,000 - $49,999 (n = 49) | 80% | 18% | 2% |
| $50,000 - $74,999 (n = 62) | 71% | 19% | 10% |
| $75,000 - $99,999 (n = 55) | 67% | 26% | 7% |
| $100,000 or more (n = 252) | 60% | 30% | 10% |
Overall Rating by Subgroup - Household Size
| Satisfaction Rating by Household Size | Excellent/Good | Fair | Poor |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 person (n = 165) | 72% | 19% | 9% |
| 2 people (n = 145) | 63% | 24% | 12% |
| 3-4 people (n = 101) | 60% | 36% | 4% |
| 5 or more people (n = 22) | 73% | 18% | 9% |
Overall Rating by Subgroup - Zone
| Satisfaction Rating by Zone | Excellent/Good | Fair | Poor |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 (n = 89) | 66% | 24% | 10% |
| 2 (n = 149) | 69% | 20% | 11% |
| 3 (n = 76) | 61% | 30% | 9% |
| 4 (n = 85) | 65% | 29% | 6% |
| 5 (n = 50) | 68% | 26% | 6% |
Usage of Muni
Found on page 4.
| Frequency of Usage | % in 2022 |
|---|---|
| Several times a week | 52% |
| About once a week | 12% |
| 1-3 times a month | 21% |
| Less than once a month | 14% |
| Frequency of Usage | % in 2021 |
|---|---|
| Several times a week | 37% |
| About once a week | 15% |
| 1-3 times a month | 21% |
| Less than once a month | 27% |
| Frequency of Usage | % in 2019 |
|---|---|
| Several times a week | 61% |
| About once a week | 11% |
| 1-3 times a month | 21% |
| Less than once a month | 6% |
Trip Purpose
Found on page 4.
| Trip Purpose | % |
|---|---|
| Commute to work/Work Related | 45% |
| Recreation/Entertainment/Restaurant/Visit Friends | 43% |
| Personal/Medical Appointments | 36% |
| Shopping | 36% |
| School/University | 7% |
Attribute Chart
Found on page 5.
The attribute chart divides into four quadrants which represent the respondent's rating of the service attributes on the x axis and the impact of importance that rating has on their overall satisfaction score:
- The upper left quadrant represents attributes with "Low Rating/High Impact (Opportunities for Improvement)"
- The upper right quadrant represents attributes with "High Rating/High Impact (Doing Well)"
- The lower left quadrant represents attributes with "Low Rating/Low Impact (Lower Priority)"
- The lower right quadrant represents attributes with "High Rating/Low Impact (Exceeding Expectations)"
The list below breaks out where the attributes fit in each quadrant and includes the percentage of respondents saying that service attribute was excellent or good.
Low Rating/High Impact (Opportunities for Improvement)
- Providing reliability (on-time performance) - 47%
- Communicating with the public - 51%
- Safety and security from crime while onboard or waiting for Muni - 42%
High Rating/High Impact (Doing Well)
- Providing frequent service - 51%
- Trips taking a reasonable amount of time - 65%
- Vehicle Cleanliness - 57%
Low Rating/Low Impact (Lower Priority)
- Managing Crowding - 37%
- Providing accurate arrival predictions - 49%
High Rating/Low Impact (Exceeding Expectations)
- Helpful drivers/operators - 73%
- Providing access for people with disabilities - 81%
Service Attributes
Found on page 6.
The table below shows how the Muni service attributes have rated over the past three years the survey has been conducted.
| Service Attribute | % in 2022 | % in 2021 | % in 2019 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Accessibility for persons with disabilities | 81% | 79% | 71% |
| Operator (driver) helpfulness | 73% | 70% | 66% |
| Trips take a reasonable amount of time | 65% | 57% | 61% |
| Cleaning Muni vehicles^ | 57% | 60% | 49% |
| Frequency of service | 51% | 45% | 50% |
| Communication with the public^^ | 51% | 50% | 48% |
| Accurate arrival estimates | 49% | 45% | 50% |
| Reliability/On-time performance | 47% | 42% | 44% |
| Safety and security from crime while onboard or waiting for Muni* | 42% | 38% | Not Available |
| Managing crowding on Muni vehicles | 37% | 38% | 31% |
| Feeling safe & secure waiting at a Muni stop* | Not Available | Not Available | 50% |
| Feeling safe & secure from crime on a Muni vehicle* | Not Available | Not Available | 48% |
^ In 2019, this was phrased as “Vehicle cleanliness”
^^ In 2019, this was phrased as “Communication with riders”
* In 2019, this was two questions: “Feeling safe & secure from crime on a Muni vehicle” and “Feeling safe & secure waiting at a Muni stop*
Gender Harassment
Found on page 7.
Are you aware Muni currently has policies in place meant to prevent gender-based harassment while onboard or waiting for Muni?
| Response | % |
|---|---|
| Yes | 24% |
| Maybe | 7% |
| No | 69% |
Mode Selection
Found on page 8.
What mode(s) of transportation are you using now instead of Muni?
| Mode | % |
|---|---|
| Drive | 83% |
| Ride hailing (e.g. Uber/Lyft) | 21% |
| Walk | 17% |
| Carpool | 14% |
| Bicycle | 9% |
| Other public transit (e.g. BART, SamTrans) | 6% |
| Taxi | 3% |
Trip's Main Purpose When Muni Not Selected
Found on Page 8.
Think of a recent trip when you could have used Muni, but did not, what was the main purpose of your trips?
| Purpose | % |
|---|---|
| Eat out/Social/Recreation/Entertainment | 31% |
| Work | 29% |
| Shopping | 23% |
| Other | 17% |
Note: More than one response was allowed.
Base – Have not ridden Muni in the past three years (n=77)
Incentives for Muni Use
Found on Page 9.
What could Muni do to get you to try transit for this type of trip?*
| Incentives | % |
|---|---|
| Increased frequency | 22% |
| More direct routes/coverage of city/Fewer transfers/Bring back discontinued routes | 17% |
| Faster trips | 15% |
| More on-time/reliable | 13% |
| Safer from crime onboard/at stop | 11% |
| Less crowding onboard | 8% |
| Fewer homeless/mentally unstable passengers | 5% |
| Prefer to drive/walk/bike (General) | 5% |
| Make it easier to carry groceries/tools/personal material | 4% |
*Partial list, only responses 4% or greater overall are shown.
Information Sources
Found on page 10.
If you needed information about Muni, how would you obtain this information?*
| Sources | % |
|---|---|
| Check online | 64% |
| Use an app | 40% |
| Call 311/online form | 19% |
| Ask Muni driver/station agent | 15% |
| Ask a friend/colleague/family member | 9% |
| Contact Muni via social media | 4% |
| Visit the SFMTA Customer Service Center | 4% |
Online Sources
Found on page 10.
| Online Sources | % |
|---|---|
| SFMTA Website | 74% |
| Internet search | 36% |
| Next Bus/Umo website | 5% |
| Google Maps website | 4% |
| 511 Website | 2% |
App Sources
Found on page 10.
| App Sources | % |
|---|---|
| Next Bus/Umo App | 36% |
| MuniMobile | 26% |
| Transit | 17% |
| Google Maps app | 14% |
| Routsey | 11% |
*Partial list, only responses 4% or greater overall are shown
How informed do you feel about Muni projects
Found on page 10.
| How informed | % |
|---|---|
| Very informed | 14% |
| Somewhat informed | 46% |
| Not too informed | 23% |
| Not at all informed | 17% |
Familiarity with SFMTA Responsibilities
Found on page 11.
- In 2022, nearly three-quarters (73%) are very/somewhat familiar with the SFMTA and its responsibilities.
- Half of respondents (51%) were at least somewhat satisfied with SFMTA’s management of transportation in San Francisco.
| How familiar | % |
|---|---|
| Very familiar | 23% |
| Somewhat familiar | 49% |
| Not too familiar | 18% |
| Not at all familiar | 10% |
Satisfaction with the SFMTA
Found on page 11.
How satisfied are you with the job SFMTA does with managing transportation in San Francisco?
| Satisfaction Rating | % |
|---|---|
| Very Satisfied | 13% |
| Somewhat Satisfied | 38% |
| Neutral | 18% |
| Somewhat Dissatisfied | 19% |
| Very Dissatisfied | 12% |