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 |
|---|---|
| Ratings Excellent | Percentage 16% |
| Ratings Good | Percentage 50% |
| Ratings Only Fair | Percentage 25% |
| Ratings Poor | Percentage 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 |
|---|---|
| Year 2001 | Combined Rating 48% |
| Year 2002 | Combined Rating 57% |
| Year 2003 | Combined Rating 68% |
| Year 2004 | Combined Rating 64% |
| Year 2005 | Combined Rating 65% |
| Year 2006 | Combined Rating 53% |
| Year 2007 | Combined Rating 55% |
| Year 2010 | Combined Rating 52% |
| Year 2011 | Combined Rating 57% |
| Year 2012 | Combined Rating 62% |
| Year 2014 | Combined Rating 64% |
| Year 2015 | Combined Rating 66% |
| Year 2016 | Combined Rating 70% |
| Year 2017 | Combined Rating 70% |
| Year 2018 | Combined Rating 63% |
| Year 2019 | Combined Rating 59% |
| Year 2021 | Combined Rating 57% |
| Year 2022 | Combined Rating 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Satisfaction Rating by Total All respondents (n = 455) | Excellent/Good 66% | Fair 25% | Poor 9% |
Overall Rating by Subgroup - Usage of Muni-Currently
| Satisfaction Rating by Usage of Muni – Currently^ | Excellent/Good | Fair | Poor |
|---|---|---|---|
| Satisfaction Rating by Usage of Muni – Currently^ 5 or more days/week (n = 93) | Excellent/Good 68% | Fair 24% | Poor 9% |
| Satisfaction Rating by Usage of Muni – Currently^ Several times a week (n = 146) | Excellent/Good 65% | Fair 27% | Poor 8% |
| Satisfaction Rating by Usage of Muni – Currently^ Once a week (n = 54) | Excellent/Good 67% | Fair 26% | Poor 7% |
| Satisfaction Rating by Usage of Muni – Currently^ Three times a month or less (n = 162) | Excellent/Good 64% | Fair 25% | Poor 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Satisfaction Rating by Trip Purpose Work / School (n = 217) | Excellent/Good 61% | Fair 30% | Poor 9% |
| Satisfaction Rating by Trip Purpose Personal Business (n = 28) | Excellent/Good 71% | Fair 18% | Poor 11% |
| Satisfaction Rating by Trip Purpose Other Purpose (n = 307) | Excellent/Good 68% | Fair 24% | Poor 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Satisfaction Rating by Income Less than $25,000 (n = 37) | Excellent/Good 73% | Fair 14% | Poor 14% |
| Satisfaction Rating by Income $25,000 - $49,999 (n = 49) | Excellent/Good 80% | Fair 18% | Poor 2% |
| Satisfaction Rating by Income $50,000 - $74,999 (n = 62) | Excellent/Good 71% | Fair 19% | Poor 10% |
| Satisfaction Rating by Income $75,000 - $99,999 (n = 55) | Excellent/Good 67% | Fair 26% | Poor 7% |
| Satisfaction Rating by Income $100,000 or more (n = 252) | Excellent/Good 60% | Fair 30% | Poor 10% |
Overall Rating by Subgroup - Household Size
| Satisfaction Rating by Household Size | Excellent/Good | Fair | Poor |
|---|---|---|---|
| Satisfaction Rating by Household Size 1 person (n = 165) | Excellent/Good 72% | Fair 19% | Poor 9% |
| Satisfaction Rating by Household Size 2 people (n = 145) | Excellent/Good 63% | Fair 24% | Poor 12% |
| Satisfaction Rating by Household Size 3-4 people (n = 101) | Excellent/Good 60% | Fair 36% | Poor 4% |
| Satisfaction Rating by Household Size 5 or more people (n = 22) | Excellent/Good 73% | Fair 18% | Poor 9% |
Overall Rating by Subgroup - Zone
| Satisfaction Rating by Zone | Excellent/Good | Fair | Poor |
|---|---|---|---|
| Satisfaction Rating by Zone 1 (n = 89) | Excellent/Good 66% | Fair 24% | Poor 10% |
| Satisfaction Rating by Zone 2 (n = 149) | Excellent/Good 69% | Fair 20% | Poor 11% |
| Satisfaction Rating by Zone 3 (n = 76) | Excellent/Good 61% | Fair 30% | Poor 9% |
| Satisfaction Rating by Zone 4 (n = 85) | Excellent/Good 65% | Fair 29% | Poor 6% |
| Satisfaction Rating by Zone 5 (n = 50) | Excellent/Good 68% | Fair 26% | Poor 6% |
Usage of Muni
Found on page 4.
| Frequency of Usage | % in 2022 |
|---|---|
| Frequency of Usage Several times a week | % in 2022 52% |
| Frequency of Usage About once a week | % in 2022 12% |
| Frequency of Usage 1-3 times a month | % in 2022 21% |
| Frequency of Usage Less than once a month | % in 2022 14% |
| Frequency of Usage | % in 2021 |
|---|---|
| Frequency of Usage Several times a week | % in 2021 37% |
| Frequency of Usage About once a week | % in 2021 15% |
| Frequency of Usage 1-3 times a month | % in 2021 21% |
| Frequency of Usage Less than once a month | % in 2021 27% |
| Frequency of Usage | % in 2019 |
|---|---|
| Frequency of Usage Several times a week | % in 2019 61% |
| Frequency of Usage About once a week | % in 2019 11% |
| Frequency of Usage 1-3 times a month | % in 2019 21% |
| Frequency of Usage Less than once a month | % in 2019 6% |
Trip Purpose
Found on page 4.
| Trip Purpose | % |
|---|---|
| Trip Purpose Commute to work/Work Related | % 45% |
| Trip Purpose Recreation/Entertainment/Restaurant/Visit Friends | % 43% |
| Trip Purpose Personal/Medical Appointments | % 36% |
| Trip Purpose Shopping | % 36% |
| Trip Purpose 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Service Attribute Accessibility for persons with disabilities | % in 2022 81% | % in 2021 79% | % in 2019 71% |
| Service Attribute Operator (driver) helpfulness | % in 2022 73% | % in 2021 70% | % in 2019 66% |
| Service Attribute Trips take a reasonable amount of time | % in 2022 65% | % in 2021 57% | % in 2019 61% |
| Service Attribute Cleaning Muni vehicles^ | % in 2022 57% | % in 2021 60% | % in 2019 49% |
| Service Attribute Frequency of service | % in 2022 51% | % in 2021 45% | % in 2019 50% |
| Service Attribute Communication with the public^^ | % in 2022 51% | % in 2021 50% | % in 2019 48% |
| Service Attribute Accurate arrival estimates | % in 2022 49% | % in 2021 45% | % in 2019 50% |
| Service Attribute Reliability/On-time performance | % in 2022 47% | % in 2021 42% | % in 2019 44% |
| Service Attribute Safety and security from crime while onboard or waiting for Muni* | % in 2022 42% | % in 2021 38% | % in 2019 Not Available |
| Service Attribute Managing crowding on Muni vehicles | % in 2022 37% | % in 2021 38% | % in 2019 31% |
| Service Attribute Feeling safe & secure waiting at a Muni stop* | % in 2022 Not Available | % in 2021 Not Available | % in 2019 50% |
| Service Attribute Feeling safe & secure from crime on a Muni vehicle* | % in 2022 Not Available | % in 2021 Not Available | % in 2019 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 | % |
|---|---|
| Response Yes | % 24% |
| Response Maybe | % 7% |
| Response No | % 69% |
Mode Selection
Found on page 8.
What mode(s) of transportation are you using now instead of Muni?
| Mode | % |
|---|---|
| Mode Drive | % 83% |
| Mode Ride hailing (e.g. Uber/Lyft) | % 21% |
| Mode Walk | % 17% |
| Mode Carpool | % 14% |
| Mode Bicycle | % 9% |
| Mode Other public transit (e.g. BART, SamTrans) | % 6% |
| Mode 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 | % |
|---|---|
| Purpose Eat out/Social/Recreation/Entertainment | % 31% |
| Purpose Work | % 29% |
| Purpose Shopping | % 23% |
| Purpose 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 | % |
|---|---|
| Incentives Increased frequency | % 22% |
| Incentives More direct routes/coverage of city/Fewer transfers/Bring back discontinued routes | % 17% |
| Incentives Faster trips | % 15% |
| Incentives More on-time/reliable | % 13% |
| Incentives Safer from crime onboard/at stop | % 11% |
| Incentives Less crowding onboard | % 8% |
| Incentives Fewer homeless/mentally unstable passengers | % 5% |
| Incentives Prefer to drive/walk/bike (General) | % 5% |
| Incentives 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 | % |
|---|---|
| Sources Check online | % 64% |
| Sources Use an app | % 40% |
| Sources Call 311/online form | % 19% |
| Sources Ask Muni driver/station agent | % 15% |
| Sources Ask a friend/colleague/family member | % 9% |
| Sources Contact Muni via social media | % 4% |
| Sources Visit the SFMTA Customer Service Center | % 4% |
Online Sources
Found on page 10.
| Online Sources | % |
|---|---|
| Online Sources SFMTA Website | % 74% |
| Online Sources Internet search | % 36% |
| Online Sources Next Bus/Umo website | % 5% |
| Online Sources Google Maps website | % 4% |
| Online Sources 511 Website | % 2% |
App Sources
Found on page 10.
| App Sources | % |
|---|---|
| App Sources Next Bus/Umo App | % 36% |
| App Sources MuniMobile | % 26% |
| App Sources Transit | % 17% |
| App Sources Google Maps app | % 14% |
| App Sources 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 | % |
|---|---|
| How informed Very informed | % 14% |
| How informed Somewhat informed | % 46% |
| How informed Not too informed | % 23% |
| How informed 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 | % |
|---|---|
| How familiar Very familiar | % 23% |
| How familiar Somewhat familiar | % 49% |
| How familiar Not too familiar | % 18% |
| How familiar 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 | % |
|---|---|
| Satisfaction Rating Very Satisfied | % 13% |
| Satisfaction Rating Somewhat Satisfied | % 38% |
| Satisfaction Rating Neutral | % 18% |
| Satisfaction Rating Somewhat Dissatisfied | % 19% |
| Satisfaction Rating Very Dissatisfied | % 12% |