In August 2024, the Center for Worker Justice of Eastern Iowa conducted a transportation access survey during Back-to-School community events held between August 17 and August 21. The survey collected data from 62 respondents across Johnson County, with questionnaires administered in four languages: English, Spanish, Arabic, and French. This report analyzes the findings to identify transportation barriers, assess their impact on employment outcomes, and examine the relationship between transit access and economic opportunity for low-wage workers and immigrant communities in the region.

The survey consisted of ten questions addressing residence duration, housing type, transportation methods, transit usage patterns, barriers to public transportation use, motivations for transit consideration, and employment impacts related to transportation limitations. Respondents were able to select multiple options for several questions, particularly those related to transit barriers and motivations, allowing for a comprehensive understanding of the multifaceted nature of transportation challenges.

Demographic Composition and Geographic Distribution

The survey captured responses from residents across Johnson County, with the majority concentrated in Iowa City. Of the 62 respondents, 48 (77.4%) resided in Iowa City, 9 (14.5%) in Coralville, 2 (3.2%) in North Liberty, and 1 (1.6%) in Tiffin. This distribution reflects both the survey locations and the residential patterns of the population served by the Center for Worker Justice.

Respondents' length of residence in Johnson County varied considerably. Eight individuals (12.9%) had lived in the county for less than one year, 22 (35.5%) for one to five years, 22 (35.5%) for six to ten years, and 10 (16.1%) for eleven years or more. The substantial representation of both newer arrivals and established residents indicates that transportation challenges affect both those adjusting to the area and those with extended local experience.
Housing arrangements among respondents included apartment buildings (25 respondents, 40.3%), single-family houses (14, 22.6%), mobile home parks (12, 19.4%), duplex housing (9, 14.5%), and one individual residing in a hotel (1.6%). The representation of mobile home park residents warrants particular attention, as this population constituted nearly one-fifth of the sample. Respondents identified residence in nine distinct mobile home communities: Modern Manor, Cole Community, Hilltop, Iowa River, Regency, Sunrise, Holiday Lodge, Lake Ridge, and Saddlebrook.

The linguistic diversity of survey responses reflects the immigrant composition of the surveyed population. Spanish was the language of 21 surveys (33.9%), Arabic of 22 surveys (35.5%), English of 16 surveys (25.8%), and French of 3 surveys (4.8%). The predominance of Spanish and Arabic responses, together accounting for 69.4% of surveys, indicates that the findings primarily represent the experiences of immigrant communities, though a substantial English-speaking cohort is also included.

Transportation Methods and Usage Patterns

Analysis of primary transportation methods reveals that personal vehicle use dominates among respondents, though public transit plays a significant role for a substantial minority. Forty-six respondents (74.2%) identified their car or truck as their primary transportation method. Eleven respondents (17.7%) indicated public transit as their primary method. Two individuals (3.2%) relied primarily on carpooling with others, and one (1.6%) on walking or cycling. Two respondents indicated using multiple methods without designating a primary mode.

Despite the high rate of personal vehicle use, a considerable number of respondents indicated experience with or consideration of public transit. When asked about reasons for using or considering bus service, 44.4% of respondents cited lower cost compared to other options, suggesting that financial constraints make public transit an attractive alternative even for current vehicle owners. This finding indicates that the 74.2% vehicle use rate may reflect necessity rather than preference, and that demand for improved public transit likely exceeds current usage levels.
Among those who use or have considered using public transit, the most frequently cited trip purposes were commuting to work or school (34 mentions), shopping (17 mentions), transporting children to school (15 mentions), and social visits (11 mentions). The high frequency of work and school commutes underscores the role of public transit in enabling economic participation and educational access. The 15 households using transit for school transportation indicate that public transit supplements school district transportation services, filling gaps in coverage or schedule alignment.

School destinations accessed via public transit included numerous elementary schools across the district: Weber or Weaber Elementary (6 mentions), Borlaug Elementary (2 mentions), and single mentions each of Alexander, Shimek, Hoover, and Northwest Elementary. Secondary schools included Southeast Junior High (1 mention), Northwest Junior High (2 mentions), City High (1 mention), West High (1 mention), and Coralville Central (1 mention). One respondent indicated commuting to Kirkwood Community College. This distribution demonstrates that families throughout the school district rely on public transit for educational access.

Barriers to Public Transit Utilization

Respondents identified multiple barriers to public transit use, with many selecting several options. The most frequently cited barrier was the distance to the nearest bus stop, with 24 respondents (38.7%) indicating that long walks to stops pose a significant challenge. This "first mile/last mile" problem represents the most prevalent infrastructure gap identified in the survey.

Nineteen respondents (30.6%) reported that buses do not operate when they need them, indicating schedule inadequacy relative to work shifts, school hours, or other time-sensitive commitments. Thirteen respondents (21.0%) stated that bus routes do not serve their destinations, revealing fundamental gaps in network coverage. Ten respondents (16.1%) cited excessive trip duration, suggesting that current routing or frequency makes transit time-inefficient compared to driving. Nine respondents (14.5%) noted the absence of shelter at bus stops during adverse weather conditions, a significant concern given Iowa's climate extremes. Two respondents (3.2%) expressed safety concerns regarding bus use.

These barriers do not operate independently but rather compound one another. A respondent living far from a bus stop who must wait without shelter for an infrequently running bus faces a cumulative burden that makes transit use increasingly difficult. The interaction of these factors helps explain why some individuals who would prefer to use public transit for economic or environmental reasons ultimately rely on personal vehicles despite the associated costs.
The geographic concentration of certain barriers merits attention. Mobile home park residents were disproportionately likely to cite long walks to bus stops, reflecting the peripheral location of many such communities relative to transit routes. Spanish-speaking respondents more frequently mentioned multiple concurrent barriers, with several indicating three or more impediments to transit use.

Motivations for Public Transit Consideration

Despite the identified barriers, respondents articulated numerous reasons for considering or using public transit. Cost emerged as the dominant motivation, with 27 respondents (43.5%) citing lower expense compared to alternative transportation options. This finding aligns with the economic circumstances of low-wage workers and indicates that public transit demand would likely increase substantially if service quality improved to overcome current barriers.
Sixteen respondents (25.8%) valued not having to worry about parking, a practical concern in areas with limited or expensive parking. Fifteen respondents (24.2%) cited environmental benefits of bus use, indicating sustainability awareness even among populations facing economic constraints. Thirteen respondents (21.0%) considered transit safer than driving in adverse weather conditions. Ten respondents (16.1%) believed transit to be generally safer than personal driving.

Nine respondents (14.5%) explicitly stated they lack a driver's license, making public transit or other alternatives to personal driving necessary rather than optional. Five Spanish-speaking respondents wrote "no tengo carro" (I don't have a car) in their surveys, indicating absolute economic constraint rather than transportation preference. These findings suggest that for approximately 14.5% to 22.6% of the surveyed population (depending on whether those without cars also lack licenses), transit is not a choice but a necessity driven by legal or economic barriers to vehicle ownership.

The environmental concerns expressed by 24.2% of respondents represent a notable finding given the population's economic circumstances. This indicates that transit improvements framed around both economic accessibility and environmental sustainability could resonate with this community.

Employment Impacts of Transportation Barriers

The survey's most consequential finding relates to employment outcomes. When asked whether they had ever lost a job or been unable to accept employment due to transportation difficulties, 21 respondents (33.9%) answered affirmatively. Of these, 12 individuals (19.4% of the total sample) reported experiencing such employment loss more than once. Only 41 respondents (66.1%) indicated this had never occurred.

This 33.9% rate of transportation-related employment loss represents a substantial economic impact. The finding indicates that transportation barriers directly impede labor force participation and economic mobility for more than one-third of the surveyed population. For the 19.4% who experienced this outcome multiple times, transportation inadequacy constitutes a recurring barrier to economic stability rather than an isolated incident.

Notably, this impact extended beyond those who rely exclusively on public transit. Of the 21 individuals reporting transportation-related employment loss, 15 primarily used personal vehicles. This suggests that vehicle ownership alone does not eliminate transportation-related employment barriers. Possible explanations include vehicle unreliability, inability to afford fuel or maintenance for certain job locations or schedules, or mismatch between residential location and available employment opportunities that neither personal vehicles nor public transit adequately address.
One Spanish-speaking respondent added a note regarding question ten: "He llegado tarde" (I have arrived late). This annotation suggests that the employment impact may extend beyond complete job loss to include tardiness-related employment difficulties, which can lead to disciplinary action, reduced hours, or termination over time.

The employment impact data must be understood in the context of the surveyed population's economic circumstances. As low-wage workers, respondents have limited financial buffers to absorb employment loss and fewer alternative employment options. A single instance of transportation-related job loss can therefore trigger housing instability, food insecurity, or other cascading economic consequences. The finding that 19.4% experienced this multiple times suggests a pattern of recurring economic disruption linked directly to transportation inadequacy.

Mobile Home Park Residents: A Case Study in Geographic Isolation

The 12 mobile home park residents (19.4% of the sample) merit specific analysis due to their distinct transportation challenges. These respondents resided in nine different parks: Modern Manor (2 residents), Cole Community (3 residents), Hilltop (2 residents), Iowa River (2 residents), and single residents each in Regency, Sunrise, Holiday Lodge, Lake Ridge, and Saddlebrook.

Mobile home park residents cited long walks to bus stops at higher rates than the overall sample, reflecting the peripheral location of many manufactured housing communities. These parks typically developed on less expensive land at municipal edges, accessible by car but often poorly integrated into public transit networks. The result is that residents who chose this housing for its relative affordability face hidden transportation costs in terms of time, physical effort, and reduced access to employment and services.

Four of the 12 mobile home park residents (33.3%) reported losing job opportunities due to transportation difficulties, a rate consistent with the overall sample's 33.9%. However, given the small sample size, this finding suggests that geographic isolation does not necessarily increase employment loss rates beyond the already substantial impact experienced by the broader low-wage worker population. Rather, mobile home park residents experience the same employment barriers as others in the survey but with the additional burden of longer access times to transit stops and other services.

Language, Immigration Status, and Transportation Navigation

The multilingual nature of the survey responses provides insight into how language intersects with transportation access. The 21 Spanish-speaking respondents (33.9% of the sample) included several who added handwritten notes in Spanish. Multiple surveys included "no tengo carro" as an explanation for transit consideration. The 22 Arabic-speaking respondents (35.5% of the sample) constituted the largest single language group. Many had lived in Johnson County for six to ten years, indicating an established community that has navigated transportation challenges over an extended period. The three French-speaking respondents (4.8% of the sample) represented a smaller community presence but contribute to the overall picture of linguistic diversity in Johnson County's immigrant population.

Nine respondents (14.5%) explicitly stated they lack driver's licenses. In the context of immigrant communities, unlicensed status may reflect various factors including immigration status barriers to obtaining licenses, cost barriers to license acquisition and vehicle ownership, or ongoing licensing processes for recent arrivals. Regardless of cause, this population requires transportation alternatives to personal driving, making public transit quality directly determinative of their mobility and economic opportunity.

Service Gaps and Infrastructure Deficiencies

The barrier data reveals specific, addressable deficiencies in current public transit infrastructure and service design. The 38.7% of respondents citing long walks to stops indicates insufficient stop density, particularly in residential areas including mobile home parks. Standard transit planning often prioritizes commercial corridors and high-density residential areas, leaving lower-density neighborhoods and peripheral communities underserved.

The 30.6% reporting that buses do not run when needed indicates schedule inadequacy relative to actual travel demand. Low-wage workers often have non-traditional schedules including early morning, late evening, weekend, and variable shifts. If transit service concentrates on traditional commute hours, it fails to serve a substantial portion of the workforce. The employment loss data supports this interpretation: if one-third of respondents have lost jobs due to transportation, schedule-job mismatch represents a critical failure.

The 21.0% citing routes that do not serve their destinations indicates fundamental network design limitations. This may reflect routes designed primarily to serve the University of Iowa and downtown Iowa City, with insufficient coverage of dispersed employment sites including retail, food service, healthcare, and other sectors where low-wage workers are concentrated.
The 16.1% reporting excessive trip duration suggests that current routing may involve unnecessary detours, inefficient transfer requirements, or insufficient frequency that extends total travel time. When transit trips take substantially longer than driving the same route, only those without alternatives will choose transit, limiting ridership and potentially creating a downward spiral of service cuts due to low utilization.

The 14.5% lacking shelter at stops represents a straightforward infrastructure deficit. Bus stop shelters are a relatively low-cost improvement that substantially enhances rider comfort and willingness to use transit, particularly in regions with harsh weather. The absence of shelters at frequently used stops represents an underinvestment in transit infrastructure.

Economic and Community Implications

The survey findings document substantial unmet transportation needs with economic consequences extending beyond individual hardship. When 33.9% of respondents have lost employment opportunities due to transportation barriers, the impact includes foregone wages, reduced household income, decreased consumer spending, and diminished tax revenue. For employers, transportation barriers create hiring and retention challenges, particularly for service sector positions requiring early morning, evening, or weekend availability.

The concentration of these barriers among immigrant and low-wage worker populations raises equity concerns. Transportation infrastructure that adequately serves middle and upper-income residents who can afford reliable personal vehicles while failing to serve those dependent on public transit or lacking resources for vehicle ownership represents a systemic inequity with intergenerational consequences.

Children in the 15 households using public transit for school access experience educational impacts when transit service fails or is inadequate. Missed school days due to transportation unreliability, inability to participate in after-school activities due to lack of return transportation, and parental stress about ensuring children reach school all affect educational outcomes. Transportation inadequacy thereby translates into educational inequity.

The environmental awareness expressed by 24.2% of respondents suggests latent demand for transit among those who would choose it for sustainability reasons if service quality improved. This indicates potential for expanding transit ridership beyond those who use it by necessity, which could improve system economics through increased farebox revenue and economies of scale in service provision.

Comparative Context and Limitations

This survey captured experiences of 62 individuals engaged with the Center for Worker Justice, an organization focused on low-wage workers' rights and immigrant community support. The sample therefore represents a specific population subset rather than a random sample of Johnson County residents. The findings should be understood as documenting experiences of low-wage workers and immigrant families rather than the general population's transportation patterns.

The survey's concentration at Back-to-School events may have resulted in over-representation of families with school-age children, potentially explaining the relatively high number of respondents who use transit for school-related trips. However, this does not diminish the validity of findings regarding employment impacts, transit barriers, or infrastructure gaps, as these affect families with and without children.

The multilingual survey administration enabled participation from Spanish, Arabic, and French-speaking populations who might otherwise be excluded from transportation planning input. However, the survey did not capture experiences of other linguistic communities in Johnson County, potentially including Southeast Asian, African (non-Arabic speaking), or other immigrant populations.

The survey's timing in August 2024 captured transportation patterns and challenges at a specific moment. Seasonal variation in transportation needs and challenges may not be fully reflected. Winter transportation challenges, for instance, may be even more severe than suggested by August responses.

Implications for Transportation Planning and Policy

The survey findings support several evidence-based recommendations for improving transportation access in Johnson County. The high rate of long walks to bus stops indicates need for increased stop density and route expansion, particularly in underserved residential areas and mobile home park communities. The 30.6% reporting inadequate service timing indicates need for expanded service hours, increased frequency, and greater weekend service to align with diverse work schedules.

The 21.0% reporting route coverage gaps suggests need for comprehensive network redesign based on actual origin-destination patterns of low-wage workers, not only traditional commute patterns. This might involve transit access to dispersed employment sites in retail, hospitality, healthcare, and service sectors rather than concentration on downtown and university destinations.

The 14.5% lacking weather protection at stops indicates need for systematic shelter installation, prioritized according to ridership levels and exposure to harsh weather. This represents a tangible infrastructure investment with immediate rider experience benefits.

The economic impact data—33.9% losing employment opportunities due to transportation—provides justification for viewing transit improvements as economic development investments rather than mere service expenditures. Enhanced transportation access that reduces this employment loss rate would yield returns in increased household income, reduced social service needs, enhanced employer workforce access, and greater tax revenue.

The multilingual survey data indicates need for comprehensive language access in transit information, including multilingual route maps, schedules, real-time information systems, and customer service. This represents a relatively low-cost improvement with substantial impact on immigrant communities' ability to navigate the system effectively.

The mobile home park resident data suggests need for targeted service improvements to manufactured housing communities, potentially including specialized circulator routes, microtransit services, or partnerships with housing authorities to ensure affordable housing is not de facto inaccessible due to transportation isolation.

Conclusion

The August 2024 transportation survey conducted by the Center for Worker Justice documents substantial transportation barriers facing low-wage workers and immigrant communities in Johnson County. The finding that 33.9% of respondents have lost employment opportunities due to transportation difficulties represents a direct connection between infrastructure inadequacy and economic outcomes. The identified barriers—long walks to stops, inadequate service timing, insufficient route coverage, excessive trip duration, and lack of weather protection—are specific, documented impediments that can be addressed through evidence-based transit planning and investment.

The survey's multilingual nature and focus on immigrant communities reveals that transportation access functions as a determinant of economic integration and opportunity for newcomer populations. When transit systems fail to serve these communities effectively, they create barriers to labor force participation, educational access, and community engagement that perpetuate economic marginalization.

Current transportation infrastructure in Johnson County appears designed primarily to serve those who own reliable personal vehicles, with public transit functioning as a supplementary service rather than a comprehensive mobility system. For the substantial population that cannot afford vehicles, lacks driver's licenses, or would prefer transit for economic or environmental reasons, this creates a fundamental accessibility gap with measurable economic consequences.
Addressing these transportation barriers requires recognizing transit not as an amenity but as essential infrastructure for economic opportunity, viewing transit investment as economic development rather than expenditure, and ensuring that transportation planning incorporates the actual needs and travel patterns of low-wage workers and immigrant communities. The survey data provides specific, actionable findings to guide such planning and investment decisions.

Survey conducted by the Center for Worker Justice of Eastern Iowa, August 17-21, 2024. Analysis completed December 2024.

Survey Period: December 3-10, 2025 | Total Responses: 21

The Community Transportation Committee conducted an electronic survey between December 3-10, 2025 to assess transportation needs and concerns among local residents. The survey was distributed electronically through University of Iowa channels.

Twenty-one individuals responded to the survey, with 19 identifying as current University of Iowa students, faculty, or employees, and 2 identifying as community residents from Iowa City and Coralville. Responses were received from residents primarily in ZIP codes 52245 (9 respondents) and 52240 (7 respondents). Smaller numbers came from ZIP codes 52246 (3 respondents), 52241 (1 respondent), and 52322 (1 respondent).

Key Findings:

Overwhelming Support for Funding Transit Improvements

When asked if they would support a local tax increase to fund improved public transportation, 83% of respondents expressed definite or probable support. Eleven respondents (48%) indicated "Yes, definitely," eight respondents (35%) indicated "Yes, probably," three respondents (13%) were unsure, and notably, zero respondents opposed the tax increase. This strong support crosses income levels and includes both frequent users and those who rarely use current services.

Extended Service Hours: The Top Priority

The most consistent and urgent request from respondents was for extended service hours, particularly in the evening and late-night periods. When asked about the likelihood of using 24-hour bus service, the majority selected "Very likely" or "Somewhat likely." Respondents frequently identified evening hours from 6 PM to 10 PM and late night hours from 10 PM to 5 AM as times when they need public transportation but find current service inadequate.

One respondent noted: "I often work late hours and wish the bus went later because sometimes I am at work until around 8pm." This concern is particularly relevant given that most Iowa City Transit routes make their last departures from downtown between 9:35 PM and 9:45 PM on weekdays. Another respondent directly stated the core issue: "Expand hours and frequency, they end too early and don't come often enough."

When asked how they would most likely get home if leaving work or class late with no buses available, walking was the most common response, followed by using Uber/Lyft or taxi services, biking or scootering, or other unspecified methods.

Nite Ride Service Transformation

Multiple respondents specifically referenced the transformation of Nite Ride Express from an on-demand door-to-door service to the current fixed-route UI Nite Ride system. When asked if they used Nite Ride Express before service was discontinued in fall 2025, two respondents indicated "Yes." Among those who had used the service, reported work or study time lost was less than one hour per week.

While University-affiliated respondents have access to services like UI Nite Ride, which operates from 9 PM to 4 AM, Cambus On-Demand until 12:30 AM, and Hawk Vouchers, community members without University affiliation have limited options after Iowa City Transit stops running at 11:20 PM on weekdays. Trip Connect serves some evening needs but is limited to specific trip types, operates only Sunday through Friday, and ends at midnight.

The transformation from an on-demand door-to-door service to the fixed-route UI Nite Ride system, while addressing student feedback about reliability and speed, appears to have left some riders missing the flexibility of the previous model. The Hawk Vouchers program provides an alternative for UI students but is not available to faculty, staff, or community members, creating an equity gap in access to late-night transportation options.

Major Geographic Coverage Gaps

Respondents identified significant areas with inadequate or absent transit coverage, including:

• Coralville neighborhoods north of I-80
• Rural Johnson County communities, with Tiffin and Oxford specifically mentioned
• Limited service to residential neighborhoods in Iowa City
• Inadequate connectivity between Iowa City, Coralville, and North Liberty transit systems 

One respondent described commute challenges: "When I do take the bus to work, it's a 10 minute walk to the stop, and a five minute walk from the bus to my job. I live in downtown and work on the Eastside. It's only a 15 minute drive if I use my personal vehicle."

A Coralville resident noted: "Coralville bus service does not serve neighborhoods north of I-80. If it did & ran routes to UI Campus ridership may increase." The rural respondent from ZIP code 52322 stated: "I live in rural Johnson County, and the buses don't service that area" and requested: "Get electric buses back! Extend the service to Tiffin and Oxford."

One respondent captured the connectivity problem: "If I need to walk a certain distance to get to the bus stop, I might as well walk to work or where I am going. In addition, the close proximity and association of cities (Iowa City, Coralville, North Liberty) when it comes to University of Iowa work makes it hard to just have Iowa City offer free bus services but need to pay and transfer to the other services."

Mixed Reactions to 2021 Route Changes

When asked how they felt about changes made to Iowa City bus routes in 2021, responses were divided. Five respondents reported being very satisfied, another five were somewhat satisfied, three remained neutral, one was somewhat dissatisfied, and seven indicated either they were not in Iowa City at the time or were unsure about the changes. No respondents reported being very dissatisfied.

When asked to describe specific problems experienced from the 2021 route changes:

• Seven respondents reported less frequent service or service that doesn't run when needed
• Five respondents indicated that buses no longer serve their area or stop locations changed
• Four respondents found routes more confusing or harder to understand
• Individual respondents mentioned longer travel time to destination, more crowded buses, and the need to transfer between buses where no transfer was previously required

Persistent Information and Communication Problems

Several respondents mentioned difficulties with information systems. Comments included references to the Transit app being "hard to use," timetables not listing sufficient departure times, outdated schedules remaining posted at stops, and challenges understanding route structures.
One respondent noted: "Iowa City transit left up the old time table at my stop until I notified them multiple times and they took it down but never replaced it." Another stated that "The Transit app is hard to use" and noted that "Route is more confusing/harder to understand" and "Time table doesn't list a lot of times, so it's hard to know when the bus will be at my stop."

Safety and Service Quality Concerns

Several respondents mentioned safety-related concerns affecting their transit use. One respondent noted concerns about crowded spaces with "questionable, undocumented, or nonexistent air ventilation and filtration practices" related to COVID-19, stating "Since Covid, I don't like to be in crowded places with questionable, undocumented, or nonexistent air ventilation and filtration practices."

Another described experiences on crowded rush-hour buses where male passengers occupy double seats with backpacks and characterized some behavior as "creepy," noting "Other big issue is men on the bus. They sit in the double-seater on the aisle seat and put their backpacks on the seat next to them during the rush hour. Or they are creepy."

Operational concerns mentioned by respondents included:

• Inconsistent timing and route reliability, with one noting "Inconsistent timing of routes/stops day-to-day"
• "Lack of IC Transit driver training" as a problem
• Difficulty determining if buses will run during bad weather: "It is hard to know in bad weather if the bus will be running"
• The 30-minute intervals during rush hour described as too long
• "Overcrowded buses during rush times" with suggestions for "Offering more routes during the busy demand times"

Transit Use Frequency

The frequency of public transportation use varied among respondents. Two respondents reported using transit daily, eight used it a few times a week, four used it once a week, five used it rarely, and two never used public transit. This distribution indicates that most survey respondents were active transit users, though not all used the system with the same frequency.

Transportation Mode Choices and Factors

Respondents reported using multiple modes of transportation rather than relying exclusively on one method. When asked what modes they use most often, common combinations included walking, car, bus, and bike/scooter, with choices varying based on circumstances. The factors most frequently cited as influencing transportation choice were weather, convenience, cost, environmental impact, and safety, in that order of frequency.

Income and Transportation Patterns

Analysis of responses by household income shows variation in transit use and priorities. Respondents with household incomes under $50,000 more frequently reported daily or several-times-per-week transit use and more commonly cited cost as a primary transportation factor. This group also placed greater emphasis on evening and late-night service availability.

Respondents with household incomes of $100,000 or more more frequently reported using transit once a week or rarely and were more likely to identify convenience as the primary factor. This group showed greater concern with environmental impact, with one respondent stating they drive an EV and "will not use fossil fuel-powered transportation." Despite these differences in usage patterns, support for funding transit improvements was broadly distributed across income levels.

Respondent Suggestions for Improvement

When asked about the biggest problems with public transportation in Johnson County and how to improve it, respondents provided specific recommendations:

Service Hours and Frequency:

• "Expand hours and frequency, they end too early and don't come often enough"
• Add or extend evening service
• Reduce intervals between buses during rush hour

Geographic Coverage:

• "Get electric buses back! Extend the service to Tiffin and Oxford"
• "Coralville bus service does not serve neighborhoods north of I-80. If it did & ran routes to UI Campus ridership may increase"
• Improve connectivity to underserved areas
• Better serve residential neighborhoods
• Address "Lack of buses running through neighborhoods"

Information and Communication:

• Improve Transit app usability
• Update posted schedules promptly when changes occur
• Better communicate about service disruptions in bad weather
• Simplify route structures and timetables
• Improve "Connectivity to CID" (College and Dubuque area)

Service Quality:

• Improve driver training
• Add routes during peak demand to reduce overcrowding
• Restore electric bus service
• Improve "timeliness of routes, consistency of buses"

​Conclusions

Survey respondents expressed clear priorities for improving public transportation in Johnson County, with the most consistent request being extended service hours, particularly in the evening and late-night periods. The 2021 route changes produced mixed results, with approximately half of respondents expressing satisfaction while others reported problems with service frequency, route clarity, stop locations, and information systems.
Geographic gaps in service affect both urban neighborhoods, particularly in Coralville north of I-80 and Iowa City residential areas, and rural communities. The lack of seamless integration between Iowa City Transit, Coralville, and North Liberty systems creates additional barriers for riders traveling across city boundaries.

Many respondents who already own cars still choose to use public transportation when it is convenient, reliable, and available at the times they need it. This means the potential for increased ridership is far greater than the current numbers suggest. The barrier is not a lack of interest in transit, but a system that too often fails to match the schedules, geography, and clarity required for people to make transit a practical part of their daily routines.

The high level of support for tax increases to fund transit improvements (83% expressing definite or probable support) suggests community willingness to invest in enhanced public transportation. This support crosses income levels and includes both frequent users and those who rarely use current services. The fact that no respondents opposed a tax increase for transit improvements is notable, though the small sample size and self-selected nature of respondents should be considered when interpreting this finding.

Addressing the priorities identified in this survey—including extended service hours, improved geographic coverage, better information systems, and enhanced service reliability—could potentially increase ridership among both current users and those who currently find personal vehicles more convenient for most trips. However, any planning decisions based on this survey should be supplemented with additional outreach to underrepresented populations and communities, particularly non-University-affiliated community members, residents of underserved areas, and those who do not currently use public transportation.

​Survey Limitations and Considerations

This survey has several important limitations that should be considered when interpreting results:

Sample Size and Representativeness: The sample size of 21 respondents is small and not statistically representative of Johnson County's population. The heavy concentration of University-affiliated respondents (91% of the sample) means results primarily reflect the experiences of individuals with access to university-specific transit services not available to the general community.

Underrepresented Populations: Respondents from underserved areas, non-transit users, and community members without University affiliation are underrepresented or absent from the sample. Only one respondent came from rural Johnson County, and only one came from Coralville, limiting the survey's ability to capture the full range of transportation needs across the county.

Self-Selection Bias: The self-selected nature of survey participation likely means respondents have higher levels of transit engagement and use than the general population. The survey captures the perspectives of current transit users and individuals already engaged with transportation issues, but does not necessarily reflect the needs and priorities of non-users or residents in areas with no current service.

Geographic Coverage: Geographic coverage is concentrated in core service areas, particularly ZIP codes 52245 and 52240, with minimal representation from rural areas, Coralville, North Liberty, and other Johnson County communities.

Interpretation: The findings should be understood as representing the views of active transit users and those already invested in public transportation, rather than the broader community.

Note: Current Transportation Services in Johnson County

Several public transportation services currently operate in Johnson County with varying hours and eligibility requirements. Iowa City Transit operates Monday through Friday with most routes making their last departures from downtown between 9:35 PM and 9:45 PM, with service ending around 10:00-10:15 PM depending on the route. On Saturdays, most routes make their last departures between 6:05 PM and 6:45 PM, with service ending between 7:00 PM and 7:40 PM. There is no Sunday service. Cambus, operated by the University of Iowa, runs fixed routes during the academic year until 12:30 AM on weekdays and offers an on-demand shuttle service from 8:45 PM to 12:30 AM on weekdays. These services are available to University-affiliated riders.

UI Nite Ride operates from 9 PM to 4 AM daily on fixed routes with set stops, serving campus locations for riders with University IDs. This service was transformed from the previous Nite Ride Express on-demand door-to-door model in fall 2025. The Hawk Vouchers program replaced the door-to-door component of Nite Ride Express, providing UI students with five $5 Uber/Lyft vouchers per semester for rides between 9 PM and 5 AM within a 5-mile radius of campus.

Trip Connect operates Sunday through Friday from 5 PM to midnight with no Saturday service, providing on-demand rides for trips to work, school, training, and childcare only, at $2 per ride. SEATS paratransit provides scheduled rides from 5:30 AM to 11:00 PM for eligible riders, with rural service Monday through Friday from 7:00 AM to 5:00 PM.