Attachment A - 2025 Marketing Benchmark Report

Attachment A - Page 1

Contents

Executive Summary

Survey

Secondary Research

Conclusion

Introduction

Objectives of Benchmark Reporting

Marketing Activities Since the Previous Study

Benchmark Survey

Methodology

Community Representation

Survey Results

Key Takeaways

Secondary Research

Methodology

Report Findings

Key Takeaways

Summary and Conclusion

Appendix A: Sample Advertising Materials

Appendix B: Survey Questions

Appendix C: Crosstabulations from Consultant

Attachment A - Page 2

Executive Summary

In accordance with the department’s Five-Year Marketing Plan (2022-2026), Breeze Transit produces an annual Marketing Benchmark Report. The objective of the report is to measure progress toward the marketing goals of increasing 1) awareness of, 2) positive perceptions of, and 3) consideration to use, Sarasota County’s public transit system. The report includes both primary research (a survey) and secondary research (a review of community publications).

Survey

The baseline survey was executed in late 2021. In the years 2022 and 2023, Sarasota County adopted a new brand (Breeze) for the transit system, and subsequently initiated rebranding and marketing activities. Follow-up surveys were executed in 2023, 2024, and 2025.

Although the survey was primarily promoted and delivered online, in-person surveys were conducted at strategic locations. In 2025 a total of 1,999 respondents participated, resulting in 1,366 completed surveys and 633 partial responses. The survey sample is representative of Sarasota County’s demographics by gender, age, race, and income. In addition to overall progress, the survey results were analyzed for progress within four targeted markets: Leisure Seniors, ALICE Households, College Students, and Tourists. The sample size of College Students was not statistically significant; insights for this audience should only be considered anecdotally.

Awareness of Public Transit (Breeze) Brand

In 2021, 93% of respondents correctly provided the system brand “Sarasota County Area Transit” or “SCAT” as a write-in response (unaided recall). In 2023, 75% of respondents correctly selected the system brand “Breeze” from an answer bank (aided recall); 91% correctly selected “Breeze” in 2024. In 2025, the question format reverted to measure unaided awareness; 86% of respondents correctly provided the system brand “Breeze” as a write-in response. While the brand awareness of Leisure Seniors (84%) and ALICE Households (86%) was comparable to overall awareness, brand awareness among College Students (73% anecdotally) and Tourists (76%) was lower.

In the past year, there was an observed increase in awareness of Breeze routes (64% to 68%), and a significant increase in awareness of Breeze OnDemand (71% to 77%).

There was also an observed increased (61% to 65%) in the percentage of respondents who were able to correctly identify whether they live within ½ mile of a transit service (a Breeze route and/or Breeze OnDemand).

Perception of Public Transit (Breeze) Brand

The percentage of respondents who assigned the use of transit to “people like me” increased from 23% in 2024 to 29% in 2025; and the percentage who assigned the use of transit to people “not like me” remained at 2%. Leisure Seniors (from 23% to 31%), ALICE Households (from

Attachment A - Page 3

30% to 37%), and Tourists (from 16% to 37%) saw significant or dramatic gains in the “people like me” category.

Higher percentages of overall respondents assigned transit to every listed audience in 2025, excluding the “Not for me” option. This might suggest an increasingly diverse or widespread acceptance of local transit.

The percentage of overall respondents who have a positive perception of Sarasota County's transit system increased once again, from 52% to 57%. Compared to overall respondents, ALICE Households and Tourists were more likely to have a positive perception (63% and 69%, respectively). Leisure Seniors were slightly less likely (54%) and College Students were dramatically less likely (36% anecdotally) to have a positive perception.

For the third year in a row, cost is the primary feature contributing to positive perceptions (selected by 55% of 'positive' respondents in 2025 compared to 54% in 2024) and service area is the primary feature contributing to negative perceptions (72% of 'negative' respondents in 2025 compared to 67% in 2024). Significant wins (more positive and/or fewer negative assignments) were made within the Overall Travel Time and Service Frequency features.

Perceptions of ADA Accessibility suffered (fewer positive and/or more negative assignments).

Positive perceptions among Breeze route riders dramatically increased from 61% to 72% and remained about the same among Breeze OnDemand riders (66% versus 68%) and Breeze Plus riders (64% versus 66%). Positive opinions among non-riders also remained about the same (39% in 2024 versus 41% in 2025).

Consideration to use (Breeze) Public Transit

There was an observed increase in rider status among overall respondents, from 54% to 57%.

Rider status increased among Leisure Seniors (from 44% to 49%) but remained lower compared to overall respondents. There were observed increases in rider status for ALICE Households (from 66% to 70%), while rider status among College Students (61% anecdotally) and Tourists (58%) remained the same.

Rider Groups

A series of comparisons were made among Non-Riders, Route Riders, and OnDemand Riders.

• Both Route Riders and OnDemand Riders (“Riders”) are more likely than Non-Riders to belong to a single-person household.

• The average age of Route Riders is increasing, and the share of Route Riders who are “not in the labor force” is also increasing. The share of households with 3 or more members has been shrinking among Route Riders since 2023. This group is more likely than OnDemand Riders to consider transit appropriate for people with routine/predictable schedules and/or who are traveling in downtown areas or city centers. Positive opinions among Route Riders have been growing; this year, more Route Riders than OnDemand riders have a positive opinion of public transit. The attributes credited with shaping positive opinions fluctuate in this group from year to

Attachment A - Page 4 year; in 2025, they were more likely than OnDemand Riders to credit Service Frequency and Service Area for their positive opinions.

• OnDemand Riders include more Hispanic members than Non-Riders and Route Riders.

This group is less likely than Non-Riders and Route Riders to have an income over $100,000. They are more likely than Route Riders to consider transit appropriate for people who have limited incomes. This group is more likely than Route Riders to credit Cost, Convenience, Safety/Security, and Service Characteristics for shaping their positive opinions.

• Non-Riders trend older than Riders. Non-Riders are less likely than both Rider groups to have an income under $25k. They are less likely than Riders to be employed full-time, and more likely to belong to a two-person household. They are less likely than Riders to consider transit for “anyone” or for “people like me.” The percentage of positive opinions of public transit has improved among this group since 2021 but remains dramatically lower than the positive opinions held by Riders.

Secondary Research

Sarasota County continues to experience steady population growth, an aging demographic, and persistent financial pressure on households. Residents expect the local government to provide transportation solutions; however, transit is not top-of-mind for most residents. Support for transit is present among community health organizations and among community members who consistently advocate for a safe, multimodal transportation network.

Conclusion

There is sufficient evidence to claim that marketing efforts in 2025 were successful in increasing awareness, positive perception, and consideration to use local public transit. Some recalibrations of target audiences may produce even greater results. Secondary research suggests that the wider community could adopt public transit as a transportation solution, if awareness and understanding of transit options increase.

Attachment A - Page 5

Introduction

In 2021 Sarasota County’s transit department enlisted the aid of a marketing consultant to rebrand and market the transit system. As part of the rebranding effort, a baseline market study and survey were completed in the fall of 2021. The subsequent Five-Year Marketing Plan (2022-2027) established baseline measurements of the community’s 1) awareness of, 2) perception of, and 3) consideration to use, Sarasota County’s transit system. The Marketing Plan calls for a Benchmark Report to evaluate changes in the market each year. The report includes a survey and a review of community data and publications.

Objectives of Benchmark Reporting

This report documents the current community need for and public sentiment toward Sarasota County’s transit system, while also measuring changes in sentiment from one benchmark study to the next. Priority service features, service qualities that contribute to positive or negative perceptions, and differences across target markets should be used to inform future marketing activities.

Target markets identified in the Five-Year Marketing Plan and discussed in this report are:

• Leisure Seniors (those who are aged 65+ and living independently)

• ALICE Households (“Asset-Limited, Income-Constrained, Employed” households have working incomes above the federal poverty level but lower than the “Household Survival Budget” for Sarasota County)

• College Students (especially attending New College, Ringling College, or USF Sarasota- Manatee within the US 41 corridor)

• Visitors (more than 3 million per year, many of whom arrive without a car)

Marketing Activities Since the Previous Study

During the year 2025, these activities promoted the Breeze brand:

• Breeze branding was incorporated on facilities (Transit Administration and Cattlemen Station), in bus/trolley stop signage throughout the county, and in infotainment displays at Breeze stations.

• Multiple paid advertising campaigns were executed.

o Leisure Senior Campaign – “Seniors who know take Breeze” o ALICE Campaign – “Now we’re getting somewhere” o Try Transit/Earth Day Campaign – “Cleaner air, less stress, more community” o Back to College campaign o Advertisements targeting tourists were placed in the Visit Sarasota Guide, Siesta

Key Visitor Guide, Venice Area Guide, Allegiant’s in-flight “NonStop Life” summer issue, and at Siesta Beach.

• Strategic public-facing communications were executed in conjunction with the adoption and implementation of a new OnDemand fare structure and launch of the Transit Ambassador volunteer position.

• A summary Year in Review (Mapping our Milestones) report and wall tiles were prepared for internal promotion.

Attachment A - Page 6

• Breeze participated in outreach events, engaging with audiences through 1) an interactive digital puzzle of the System Map, 2) a bus cutout display for attendee photos,

3) themed vehicle decorations and 4) giveaway items.

Benchmark Survey

Methodology

Instrument

The benchmark survey contained 18 questions. A copy of the survey is included in Appendix B.

The questions were a mix of single-response, multiple-response, and write-in formats. Ten questions were designed to measure the respondent’s awareness of, perception of, and consideration to use Breeze services. The remaining questions collected demographic information about the respondents.

Deployment

The survey was primarily promoted and available online. The online instrument displayed questions in the user’s default browser language. The survey link was distributed through the Breeze Rider mobile app, the Breeze OnDemand email distribution list, and published on social media. The link via a QR code was also posted on buses and distributed for intercept surveys.

Intercept surveys were conducted at the New College campus, USF Sarasota-Manatee, USF Sarasota-Manatee, Sarasota Farmer’s Market, at the Siesta Key Crystal Classic and the Siesta Beach Pavilion, Marina Jack Yacht Basin, Bayfront Park, and a Big Cat Habitat event. In addition to the QR code, printed surveys in English and Spanish were available during the intercept surveys. A total of 38 printed surveys were collected.

To incentivize participation, a prize giveaway (folding bicycle) was advertised in conjunction with the survey. Paid boosts on social media were also used to increase participation.

Data Collection and Analysis

A total of 1,999 respondents participated in the survey. Anyone indicating they were under the age of 18 was not permitted to complete the questionnaire.

Analysis included the use of crosstabulations, comparison tables, pivot tables and significance testing at 95% confidence. Some charts/tables in this report will not add to 100% due to:

• Questions that allowed multiple selection responses (select all that apply).

• Rounding that was performed in the analysis.

Distribution Method Count Email, webpage, mobile app and (paid & unpaid) social media, Intercepts - QR code 1,970 Intercepts - Printed 29 Total 1,999

Attachment A - Page 7

*The “College Student” subset was not large enough to yield statistically significant results.

Sample Sizes and Confidence Level Data Set Definition Sample

Size Confidence Level

Overall All survey respondents 1,999 95% Positive Perception Respondents with a positive perception of public transit 938 95%

Leisure Seniors Respondents aged 65-79 and 80+, with a retired status

425 95%

ALICE Households Respondents with a full-time or part-time employed status, and a household size and income corresponding with the “ALICE Household Criteria” table below

458 95%

College Students* Respondents aged 18-24, with a status of attending school

49 NA

Tourists Respondents with a status of “visiting”

118 95%

Route Riders Respondents who indicated having ridden a Sarasota County route, but not OnDemand or Plus, more than once in the past year

252 95%

OnDemand Riders Respondents who indicated having ridden Breeze OnDemand, but not a route or Breeze Plus, more than once in the past year

388 95%

Non-riders Respondents who indicated they had not ridden public transit in Sarasota County more than once in the past year

633 95%

Attachment A - Page 8

ALICE Household Criteria Number of Members in Household

2022 Sarasota County Household Survival Budget

2025 Survey Age Bracket

2025 Survey Income Threshold

1 (Single Adult) $33,420* 18-24 25-44 45-64

Under $15,000 $15,000 - $24,999 $25,000 - $34,999

1 (Single Senior) $34,488 65-79 80+

Same as above

2 or 3 (Two Adults) $51,024 18-24 25-44 45-64

Above plus $24,000 - $34,999 $35,000 - $49,999

2 (Two Seniors) $58,752 65-79 80+

Same as above

4 (Two Adults, Two Children)

5+

$81,840 18-24 25-44 45-64 65-79 80+

Above plus $50,000 - $74,999

*It is likely that most single-person household respondents who selected $25k-$34,999 fall within the "less than $33,420" threshold and these respondents are therefore categorized as ALICE Households for purposes of this report.

Community Representation

The demographic characteristics of survey respondents were compared to 2020 Census Data to determine whether the 2025 survey sample is representative of the community.

Attachment A - Page 9

Gender

Although the gender distribution of survey respondents was more balanced than in previous years, the 2025 survey sample continues to reflect a greater percentage of females (and smaller percentage of males) when compared to Sarasota County’s population.

Age

The ratio of respondents under and over age 65 was within 5% of 2020 Census Data.

48% 52%

31%

65%

5%

32%

66%

2%

32%

68%

40%

60%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

Male Female Prefer not to answer

Gender

Sarasota County* 2021 Survey 2023 Survey 2024 Survey 2025 Survey

59%

41% 55%

45%

77%

24%

64%

36%

63%

37%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

18-65 years 65+ years

Age

2020 Census 2021 Survey 2023 Survey 2024 Survey 2025 Survey

Attachment A - Page 10

Race

A higher percentage of respondents identified as White when compared to 2020 Census Data, with similar percentages for Hispanic or Latino, Black or African American, and Asian.

Income

Higher percentages of respondents report a household income less than $49,999, and lower percentages report a household income greater than $100k, when compared to 2022 American Community Survey data.

81%

10% 5% 2% 0% 2%

83%

3% 2% 2% 0% 1%

77%

7% 5% 2% 1% 4%

86%

10% 6% 3% 1% 0%

87%

9% 6% 2% 2% 2% 0%

10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

100%

White Hispanic or Latino Black or African American

Asian American Indian or Alaska Native

Other

Race

Sarasota County 2020 Census 2021 Survey 2023 Survey 2024 Survey 2025 Survey

2022 ACS Data 2021 Survey 2023 Survey 2024 Survey 2025 Survey

Less than $24,999 13%

Less than $29,999 16%

Less than $29,999 18%

Less than $24,999

23% Less than $24,999

21%

$25k to $49,999 17%

$30k to $49,999 10%

$30k to $44,999 10%

$25k to $49,999

23% $25k to $49,999

22%

$50k to $74,999 18%

$50k to $69,999 13%

$45k to $69,999 15%

$50k to $74,999

17% $50k to $74,999

16%

$75k to $99,999 14%

$70k to $99,999 13%

$70k to $104,999 15%

$75k to $99,999

12% $75k to $99,999

14%

Over $100k 38% Over $100k 21% Over $105k 12%

Over $100k

26% Over $100k 27%

Prefer not to answer 28%

Prefer not to answer 28%

Attachment A - Page 11

Occupational Status

Clarifying descriptors were added to the response categories for this question in 2024, and the options “Other” and “Prefer not to answer” were removed. The 2023 percentages shown in the table below have been recalculated to reflect those removals.

Respondents in 2025 were essentially as likely to be retired (43%) as to be employed (44%).

The employed percentage is not far from the ACS 2019-2023 Five-Year Estimates, which places Sarasota County’s civilian labor force (aged 16+ years) at 48.7%; the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics cited a 4.7% unemployment rate for Sarasota County in September 2025, compared to a 6% unemployment rate of November 2025 survey respondents.

49%

13%

3% 2%

28% 35%

15%

5% 5% 4%

41%

31%

13% 6% 8%

3%

43%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Employed full-time

Employed part-time

Unemployed and seeking work

Visiting Attending school Not in the labor force

Status

2023 Survey 2024 Survey 2025 Survey

Attachment A - Page 12

Geography

The 2025 survey results demonstrate geographic diversity among respondents, with an increase in survey respondents from North Port West and a decrease in respondents from Greater Sarasota East.

Title VI and ADA Eligibility

Title VI and ADA laws mandate transportation access for individuals with disabilities and with Limited English Proficiency (LEP). The current survey instrument does not include questions regarding these characteristics. In the future it may be beneficial to collect information regarding ADA and LEP status. This would help to demonstrate and ensure inclusivity and accessibility for those parties.

0% 2% 2%

3% 5%

4% 9%

6% 9%

6% 12%

10% 10%

8% 15%

1% 2%

2% 3%

3% 4%

5% 6%

7% 8%

10% 11%

13% 13%

14%

0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16%

O. Casey Key or Manasota Key M. Lakewood Ranch

N. Interior County K. Sarasota City Islands

I. Siesta Key F. Osprey-Laurel-Nokomis

B. North Port West A. Englewood

L. Longboat Key G. Greater Sarasota Southeast

C. North Port East E. Venice City

J. Sarasota City Mainland H. Greater Sarasota East

D. Venice South

Which area best describes where you live?

2024 Survey 2025 Survey

Attachment A - Page 13

Survey Results

Awareness of Public Transportation Options in Sarasota County

System Brand Awareness

The survey was conducted in November 2025, approximately 2 ¼ years after launching the Breeze brand. This year the question “What is the current name of Sarasota County’s public transportation system?” was asked in an open-response format (unaided awareness) rather than the multiple-choice format of the 2023 and 2024 surveys. The 86% unaided recall rate is only 7% lower than the unaided recall rate under the SCAT brand, which had been in the community for more than 40 years.

While the brand awareness of Leisure Seniors and ALICE Households was similar to overall awareness, the awareness of College Students and Tourists was lower.

86% 84%

86%

73% 76%

65%

70%

75%

80%

85%

90%

Breeze

Unaided Awareness: Target Markets

Overall Leisure Seniors ALICE Households College Students Tourists

Attachment A - Page 14

Service Brand Awareness

Although service coverage areas remained consistent from 2024 to 2025, awareness of Breeze OnDemand continued to grow (from 71% to 77%). Awareness of Breeze routes also increased.

Breeze Hopper scooter rentals, Breeze Along bicycle rentals, and Breeze Surfer water taxi are not services provided through Breeze; it is encouraging to see low “awareness” reported for those services.

The chart below indicates that growth of service brand awareness among target markets is not keeping pace with the growth of overall service brand awareness. It would be helpful to review the survey data to determine what populations are experiencing increased awareness.

59% 58%

30% 23% 9% 6% 3%

64% 71%

30% 16% 7% 7% 4%

68% 77%

31% 18%

6% 6% 2% 0%

20% 40% 60% 80%

100%

Breeze fixed route buses or trolleys

Breeze OnDemand rideshare zones

Breeze Plus paratransit

I'm not sure Breeze Hopper scooter rentals

Breeze Along bicycle rentals

Breeze Surfer water taxi

Which of these services is/are available through Sarasota County’s public transit system? Please select all that apply.

2023 2024 2025

11% 13% 7%

-5%

5% 2% 1% 1%

6% 6%

-2%

2%3% 3%

18%

7%9%

-1% 0% -4%

-20%

-10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

Breeze fixed route buses or trolleys

Breeze OnDemand rideshare zones

Breeze Plus paratransit I'm not sure

Service Brand Awareness: Growth by Target Market

Overall Leisure Seniors ALICE Households College Students Tourists

Attachment A - Page 15

Awareness of Geographic Access to Service

Two survey questions work with one another to determine whether respondents who believe they live in proximity to a Breeze service actually do live in that proximity. A total of 1,396 respondents answered both questions. The shaded area corresponded to OnDemand zones and a ½ mile buffer along all Breeze routes. Sixty-five percent of respondents had answers that were in agreement (59% within ½ mile, 6% not within ½ mile), suggesting they have accurate awareness regarding service availability in their neighborhood. This is an observed improvement from the 61% of respondents whose answers were in agreement last year.

Because Breeze staff estimates that 80% of Sarasota County’s population lives within ½ mile of a Breeze route or Breeze OnDemand, considerable potential remains for converting more “I’m not sure (Stated or Incorrect)” results to “Yes” results.

Report Living within ½ mile of Breeze or Breeze OnDemand Yes I’m not sure No Report living or staying within shaded service area

Yes 825 = 59% 201 = 14% 98 = 7% I’m not sure 33 = 2% 21 = 2% 12 = 1% No 82 = 6% 36 = 3% 88 = 6%

Attachment A - Page 16

Perception of Breeze Transit

The transit department would like to change the perception that public transit is intended only for certain groups of people. Traditional transit user groups include those on limited incomes or who do not have access to a personal vehicle. Successful marketing campaigns help all individuals feel that transit is for “people like me,” as opposed to “not for me.”

Appropriate Audiences for Transit

Higher percentages of respondents assigned transit to each of the audiences in 2025, with the exception of “Not for me.” This might suggest an increasingly diverse or widespread acceptance of local transit.

Responses written in the “Other” option generally described existing answer options, along with people who have vehicles in the shop (a repeat from the 2024 survey), and people who cannot read.

4%

2%

20%

29%

34%

36%

40%

57%

58%

59%

73%

4%

2%

12%

23%

29%

27%

32%

52%

49%

54%

69%

3%

7%

15%

20%

28%

29%

30%

47%

47%

52%

64%

7%

12%

29%

46%

53%

59%

75%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Other - Write In

Not for me

People who are traveling without children/dependents

People who are like me

People who have routine or predictable schedules

People who have open or flexible schedules

People traveling in city centers/downtown areas

People who have impairments that prevent them from driving

People who have limited incomes

For anyone

People who do not have access to a personal vehicle

Which of these audiences do you feel Sarasota County's public transit system is most appropriate for? Please check all that apply.

2021 2023 2024 2025

Attachment A - Page 17

Transit is for “People Like Me”

The percentage of respondents who assigned the use of transit to “people like me” increased from 23% in 2024 to 29% in 2025. Leisure Seniors (from 23% to 31%), ALICE Households (from 30% to 37%), and Tourists (from 16% to 37%) saw significant or dramatic gains in the “people like me” category.

Important Service Features

The multiple-choice question from previous years, “What is the most important service feature?”, was removed from the 2025 survey. Opinions about the same concepts (frequency, cost, customer service) are revealed in the remaining question “Which of these qualities most impacts your positive/negative opinion about public transit?”

20% 27%

47%

31%

5%

23% 23% 30%

47%

16%

29% 31% 37% 39% 37%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Overall Leisure Seniors ALICE Households

College Students Tourists

Transit is for “People Like Me”: Target Audiences

2023 2024 2025

Attachment A - Page 18

Opinion of Public Transportation

The percentage of respondents with a positive perception of Sarasota County’s transit system increased once again, from 52% to 57%. While last year the increase was countered by a decrease in neutral opinions, this year the increase was countered by an observed decrease in negative opinions.

25% 47% 52% 57%

48%

43% 37% 36% 27%

11% 11% 7%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2021 2023 2024 2025

Opinion of Public Transportation

Positive Neutral Negative

Attachment A - Page 19

Positive perceptions increased among the tourist audience, and there was an observed increase among ALICE Households. Positive perceptions among Leisure Seniors remained lower than 2023 levels. While the College Students sample size was not large enough to be statistically significant, it appears that positive perceptions of public transportation have decreased among that group.

63% 58%

50% 50%53% 59% 56%

64% 54%

63%

36%

69%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

Leisure Seniors ALICE Households College Students Tourists

Positive Opinion of Public Transportation: Target Audiences

2023 2024 2025

Attachment A - Page 20

Qualities Impacting Perception

As a follow-up question, respondents were asked to select up to three criteria that most impacted their positive or negative perception. Safety/security and Cost were cited as positive attributes more than twice as often as they were negative attributes. Conversely, Service Area was cited more than twice as often for contributing to negative opinions. Service Frequency was also predominantly cited as a negative attribute.

Comparing responses from one year to the next, some attributes have garnered more or less positive or negative attention.

• WINS

o Fewer respondents assigned a negative perception based on Overall Travel

Time – 25% in 2024 compared to 19% in 2025. This may have been influenced by [marketing efforts related to] implementing a 20-minute frequency on Route 99, or gains in OnDemand productivity resulting from the change in fare structure.

o Similar to Overall Travel Time, fewer respondents assigned a negative perception based on Service Frequency (58% in 2024 versus 46% in 2025).

Despite this improvement, Service Frequency is the second-most cited reason for negative opinions of public transportation.

o Cost is consistently the most cited positive quality for Sarasota County’s public transportation system. In both 2024 and 2025, over half of respondents who had a positive opinion mentioned cost as a key factor (54% in 2024, 55% in 2025).

This is especially noteworthy because the cost of OnDemand fare increased in July 2025, tripling the fare for some trips.

• LOSSES:

o The percentage who attributed negative perceptions due to ADA Accessibility increased from 3% in 2024 to 8% in 2025.

55% 33%

19% 25% 28%

19% 13%

31% 23%

11% 30%

18% 72%

4% 46%

20% 13%

19% 22%

9% 8%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120%

Cost Service area (route/zone locations)

Cleanliness Service frequency (time until next pickup)

Simplicity of system (easy to find and… Customer service

Overall travel time Convenience compared to other modes of…

Safety/security ADA accessibility (use by individuals with…

Service characteristics (fixed schedule, on…

Qualities Impacting Perception: 2025 Overall

Positive Negative

Attachment A - Page 21 o Service Area received a significant increase in negative assignments in 2025 (72%) compared to 2024 (67%). The perception of limited coverage is a recurring theme in open-ended feedback. This suggests that more individuals are interested in geographic access to transit services.

54% 33%

22% 23% 26%

18% 10%

28% 26%

13% 29%

55% 33%

19% 25%

28% 19%

13% 31%

23% 11%

30%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120%

Cost Service area (route/zone locations)

Cleanliness Service frequency (time until next pickup)

Simplicity of system (easy to find and… Customer service

Overall travel time Convenience compared to other modes of…

Safety/security ADA accessibility (use by individuals with…

Service characteristics (fixed schedule, on…

Qualities Impacting Positive Perception

2024 2025

20% 67%

4% 58%

21% 14%

25% 26%

8% 3%

18% 72%

4% 46%

20% 13%

19% 22%

9% 8%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% 140% 160%

Cost Service area (route/zone locations)

Cleanliness Service frequency (time until next pickup)

Simplicity of system (easy to find and… Customer service

Overall travel time Convenience compared to other modes of…

Safety/security ADA accessibility (use by individuals with…

Qualities Impacting Negative Perception

2024 2025

Attachment A - Page 22

Significant differences among target audiences and significant changes from 2024 are listed here, for qualities cited by respondents who have a positive opinion of public transportation.

• LEISURE SENIORS

o Compared to Overall respondents: more likely to cite Service Characteristics

(36% vs 30%) and ADA Accessibility (18% vs 11%); less likely to cite Safety/Security (17% vs 23%) and Simplicity of System (23% vs 28%).

o Compared to 2024: more likely to cite Overall Travel Time (3% to 10%); less likely to cite Safety/Security (23% to 17%) and Service Area (38% to 33%).,

• ALICE HOUSEHOLDS: all categories were within 5% of the Overall respondents and 2024 responses from this audience.

• COLLEGE STUDENTS: N/A (sample size not statistically significant)

• TOURISTS:

o Compared to Overall respondents: more likely to cite Convenience (38% to 31%), Simplicity of System (33% to 28%), and Service Frequency (40% to 25%);

less likely to cite Service Characteristics (25% vs 30%), ADA Accessibility (5% to 11%) and Cleanliness (14% to 19%).

o Compared to 2024: more likely to cite Overall Travel Time (5% to 10%), Simplicity of System (21% to 33%), and Service Frequency (26% to 40%); less likely to cite Service Characteristics (39% to 25%), Convenience (51% to 38%), and Customer Service (23% to 17%).

Attachment A - Page 23

Respondents were invited to write additional details related to their perception of the transit system. Here is a summary of the comments provided by those who had a positive perception:

• Convenience and Accessibility: the option for those who don’t drive and the ease of booking rides; Breeze OnDemand and Breeze Plus were often cited for these characteristics.

• Affordability: the low cost of rides.

• Customer Service and Driver Friendliness: drivers were described as helpful, polite, friendly, and professional. Some respondents mention specific instances where drivers went above and beyond, such as assisting with boarding, providing information, or being especially courteous to seniors and people with disabilities.

54%

33%

14%

40%

33%

17%

10%

38%

22%

5%

25%

50%

30%

20%

10%

30%

30%

30%

40%

40%

0%

20%

56%

30%

19%

23%

28%

22%

14%

29%

27%

14%

29%

58%

33%

15%

24%

23%

17%

10%

34%

17%

18%

36%

55%

33%

19%

25%

28%

19%

13%

31%

23%

11%

30%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Cost

Service area (route/zone locations)

Cleanliness

Service frequency (time until next pickup)

Simplicity of system (easy to find and understand information)

Customer service

Overall travel time

Convenience compared to other modes of transportation

Safety/security

ADA accessibility (use by individuals with physical or cognitive impairments

Service characteristics (fixed schedule, on demand ride, curb to curb service, etc.)

Positive Qualities-Target Markets

Overall Leisure Seniors ALICE Households College Students Tourists

Attachment A - Page 24

• Cleanliness: clean vehicles and a comfortable ride; riders appreciate that buses and vans are well-maintained and air-conditioned, making the experience pleasant.

• Safety and Security: feeling safe, both due to the safety of the vehicles and the professionalism of the drivers.

*While there hasn’t been a change to Sarasota County’s overall ownership of the transit system, the attribution to a “new company” might refer to the rebranding of the system or the introduction of Breeze OnDemand (operated by a contractor).

Here is a summary of the comments provided by those who had a negative perception:

1. Long Wait Times: especially during peak hours or in certain zones.

2. Safety Concerns: feeling unsafe due to the presence of unhoused individuals on buses, lack of shelter at stops, or being dropped off in inconvenient or unsafe locations.

3. Driver Accountability: negative experiences with drivers, including language barriers, lack of local knowledge, or perceived unsafe driving.

4. Service Coverage and Frequency: Breeze and Breeze OnDemand do not serve their neighborhoods, especially in North Port, Englewood, and certain gated communities.

5. Cost and Affordability: recent fare increases, especially for Breeze OnDemand, which some say has become unaffordable for those on fixed or low incomes.

Consideration to Use Breeze Transit

Rider Status

Ridership among respondents continued to increase, with nearly 6 in 10 (57%) reporting they had ridden a Breeze service more than once in the past year. Although this isn’t a direct correlation with annual systemwide ridership, it might suggest that more riders are taking note of Breeze materials and/or are interested in engaging with the agency.

50% 50%52% 48%

54% 46%

57%

43%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Yes No

Ridership

2021 2023 2024 2025

Attachment A - Page 25

ALICE Households are more likely to have ridden Breeze when compared to Overall respondents and other target audiences. Ridership among ALICE Households and Tourists remained relatively steady. Although ridership among Leisure Seniors remains well below 2023 levels, it did increase from 44% to 49% in 2025; however, ridership within this audience is lower than ridership among overall respondents.

Service Ridden

Respondents who indicated they had used a public transit service more than once in the past year were asked which service(s) they had used. The share of OnDemand riders was higher than the share of route or Plus riders, which is consistent with previous years.

52% 57% 67% 69%

40% 54%

44%

66% 62% 59%57% 49%

70% 61% 58%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Overall Leisure Seniors ALICE Households

College Students Tourists

Have you used Sarasota County’s public transit system more than once in the past year (any/all Breeze services, before or under the Breeze name) Target Markets

2023 2024 2025

62%

48%

8%

59% 50%

9%

65%

46%

11%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Breeze OnDemand A Breeze route (including the free Breeze Siesta Key)

Breeze Plus

Which service(s) have you used more than once in the past year? Please select all that apply.

2023 2024 2025

Attachment A - Page 26

Significant differences among target audiences and significant changes from 2024 are listed here.

• LEISURE SENIORS

o Compared to Overall respondents: less likely to have ridden a Breeze route (40% vs 46%).

o Compared to 2024: more likely to have ridden Breeze OnDemand (61% to 66%), more likely to have ridden a Breeze route (40% to 47%).

• ALICE Households o Compared to Overall respondents: more likely to have ridden Breeze Plus, less likely to have ridden a Breeze route.

o Compared to 2024: more likely to have ridden Breeze Plus (11% to 16%).

• College Students: N/A (sample size not statistically significant

• Tourists o Compared to Overall respondents: more likely to have ridden a Breeze route (59% vs 40%); less likely to have ridden Breeze Plus (6% vs 11%).

o Compared to 2024: more likely to have ridden Breeze Plus (0% to 6%).

65%

11%

46%

66%

12%

40%

68%

16%

41%

71%

6%

29%

62%

6%

59%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

Breeze OnDemand Breeze Plus A Breeze route (including the free 77 Siesta Islander)

Which service(s) have you used more than once in the past year? Please select all that apply.

Target Markets

Overall Leisure Seniors ALICE Households College Students Tourists

Attachment A - Page 27

Differences Among Rider Groups

Additional analysis was performed based on the respondent’s status as a rider within each service category.

Demographics

Rider respondents are more likely to be age 25-44 than Non-Riders. Route riders are more likely than OnDemand riders to be aged 45-64. OnDemand Riders are observed as more likely than Route Riders to fall in the lowest (18-24 years) or highest (80+ years) age categories.

The age of Route Riders is trending up (fewer respondents under 44 years and more aged 65- 79).

Age - Route 2023 2024 2025 18 - 24 years 12% 7% 4% 25 - 44 years 31% 26% 19% 45 - 64 years 42% 41% 41% 65 - 79 years 13% 24% 33% 80+ years 3% 3% 3%

6%

36% 36%

8% 4%

19%

41%

33%

3%

8%

20%

36%

29%

7%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

18 - 24 years 25 - 44 years 45 - 64 years 65 - 79 years 80+ years

Age

Non-Rider Route Rider OnDemand Rider

Age - OnDemand 2023 2024 2025 18 - 24 years 10% 12% 8% 25 - 44 years 26% 17% 20% 45 - 64 years 40% 36% 36% 65 - 79 years 20% 29% 29% 80+ years 5% 6% 7%

Attachment A - Page 28

The Race distribution of Route Riders is similar to Non-Riders. OnDemand Riders are more likely than Non-Riders to be Black/African American or Hispanic/Latino.

Race distributions are generally within 5% of previous years for both Route Riders and OnDemand Riders.

Race - Route 2023 2024 2025 White 82% 83% 86% Black or African American 7% 5% 6% Hispanic or Latino 8% 13% 7% Asian 3% 4% 2%

89%

3% 7% 1%

86%

6% 7% 2%

79%

10% 12% 2%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

100%

White Black or African American Hispanic or Latino Asian

Race

Non-Rider Route Rider OnDemand Rider

Race - OnDemand 2023 2024 2025 White 84% 80% 79% Black or African American 5% 10% 10% Hispanic or Latino 7% 11% 12% Asian 3% 4% 2%

Attachment A - Page 29

Riders are more likely than Non-Riders to have annual household incomes under $25,000.

OnDemand Riders are more likely than Non-Riders and Route Riders to have an income under $35,000. Non-Riders are more likely than Riders to have an income between $75 - $99,999;

Non-Riders and Route Riders are dramatically more likely than OnDemand Riders to have an income greater than $100,000.

The distribution of household incomes was steady for both Route and OnDemand Riders from 2024 to 2025.

Income - Route 2024 2025 Under $15k 12% 13% $15k - $24,999 10% 10% $25k - $34,999 10% 7% $35k - $49,999 13% 12% $50k - $74,999 16% 14% $75k - $99,999 13% 11% $100k or more 26% 33%

5% 5% 9%

11%

18% 16%

36%

13% 10%

7%

12% 14%

11%

33%

14% 17%

14% 13% 15% 11%

17%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

Under $15k $15k - $24,999 $25k - $34,999 $35k - $49,999 $50k - $74,999 $75k - $99,999 $100k or more

Household Income

Non-Rider Route Rider OnDemand Rider

Income - OnDemand 2024 2025 Under $15k 17% 14% $15k - $24,999 16% 17% $25k - $34,999 16% 14% $35k - $49,999 13% 13% $50k - $74,999 14% 15% $75k - $99,999 9% 11% $100k or more 15% 17%

Attachment A - Page 30

Riders are more likely than Non-Riders to be employed full time, and equally as likely to be employed part time. Non-Riders are more likely to not participate in the labor force. Route Riders are more likely than OnDemand Riders to be employed full time, and less likely than OnDemand Riders to have exited the labor force.

The percentage of Riders who are employed full time has decreased since 2023, while the percentages who report they are visiting or are not in the labor force has increased. The increases among Route Riders are dramatic.

Occupation - Routes 2023 2024 2025 Employed full time 53% 47% 37% Employed part time 13% 10% 12% Unemployed seeking work 3% 7% 5% Visiting 1% 5% 10% Attending School 7% 3% 3% Not in labor force 23% 29% 35%

27%

12%

4% 8%

3%

47%

37%

12%

5% 10%

3%

35% 32%

13% 8% 7%

4%

40%

0% 5%

10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%

Employed full time Employed part time

Unemployed seeking work

Visiting Attending School Not in labor force

Occupational Status

Non-Rider Route Rider OnDemand Rider

Occupation - OnDemand 2023 2024 2025 Employed full time 40% 33% 32% Employed part time 14% 16% 13% Unemployed seeking work 6% 6% 8% Visiting 2% 5% 7% Attending School 4% 5% 4% Not in labor force 33% 35% 40%

Attachment A - Page 31

Riders are more likely than Non-Riders to belong to a single-person household; Non-Riders are dramatically more likely than Riders to belong to a two-person household. OnDemand Riders are more likely than Non-Riders and Route Riders to belong to a household with five or more members.

The share of single-person and two-person households has grown among Route Riders, while the share of households with 3 or more members has decreased. The share of two-person households has increased for OnDemand riders.

Household -- Routes 2023 2024 2025 1 23% 24% 32% 2 36% 42% 43% 3 19% 13% 14% 4 12% 13% 6%

5+ 11% 8% 5%

18%

57%

11% 10% 5%

32%

43%

14%

6% 5%

25%

41%

13% 10% 11%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

1 2 3 4 5+

Household Size

Non-Rider Route Rider OnDemand Rider

Household - OnDemand 2023 2024 2025

1 30% 29% 25% 2 33% 36% 41% 3 13% 14% 13% 4 15% 9% 10%

5+ 9% 11% 11%

Attachment A - Page 32

Perceptions

Riders were dramatically more likely than Non-Riders to consider transit appropriate for “anyone” and “people like me.” Route Riders were more likely than Non-Riders and OnDemand Riders to consider transit appropriate for people traveling in city centers and downtown areas.

Route Riders are more likely than OnDemand Riders to assign transit to people who have routine or predictable schedules. OnDemand Riders were more likely than Non-Riders and Route Riders to consider transit appropriate for people who have limited incomes.

While Riders expanded their scope of appropriate transit audiences in the past year, the expansion was more noteworthy among Route Riders than OnDemand Riders.

54%

21% 34% 34%

20%

40% 55% 58%

71%

3%

65%

33% 38% 40%

18%

49% 55% 55%

72%

1%

65%

36% 33% 30% 19%

32%

62% 55%

75%

1% 0%

10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Transit Audience

Non-Rider Route Rider OnDemand Rider

Audience - Routes 2024 2025 Anyone 14% 65% People like me 16% 33% Open/flexible schedules 19% 38% Routine/predictable schedules 24% 40% Without dependents 6% 18% City centers/downtown 22% 49% Limited incomes 33% 55% Impairments 33% 55% No personal vehicle 50% 72% Not me 1% 1%

Audience - OnDemand 2024 2025 Anyone 59% 65% People like me 33% 36% Open/flexible schedules 29% 33% Routine/predictable schedules 24% 30% Without dependents 13% 19% City centers/downtown 21% 32% Limited incomes 52% 62% Impairments 50% 55% No personal vehicle 70% 75% Not me 1% 1%

Attachment A - Page 33

Although Non-Riders are dramatically less likely than all Rider groups to have a positive opinion of local public transportation, previous reports show that positive perceptions have increased from 33% in 2021. More Route Riders have a positive opinion compared to other Rider groups.

Non-Riders are most likely to have a neutral opinion. Note that the sample size for Breeze Plus riders does not yield reliable confidence.

Positive opinions among Route Riders have increased 24% since 2023 (countered by a major shift in Neutral opinions). Opinions of Breeze OnDemand have remained consistent.

Opinion - Route 2023 2024 2025 Positive 50% 59% 74% Neutral 41% 30% 20% Negative 10% 11% 6%

41% 50%

9%

74%

20%

6%

68%

26%

6%

57%

40%

3%

69%

22%

10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Positive Neutral Negative

Opinion

Non-Rider n = 633

Route Rider n = 252

OnDemand Rider n = 388

Plus Rider n = 31

Multi-Rider n = 157

Opinion - OnDemand 2023 2024 2025 Positive 64% 67% 68% Neutral 28% 24% 26% Negative 8% 9% 6%

Attachment A - Page 34

Cost, Service Area and Service Characteristics are the top three qualities impacting positive perception for both riders and non-riders. Route Riders are more likely than OnDemand Riders to consider Service Area and Service Frequency as positive attributes [of their experience].

OnDemand Riders are more likely than Route Riders to consider Cost, Convenience, Safety/Security, and Service Characteristics as positive attributes [of their experience].

From 2024 to 2025, positive assignments by Route Riders increased within Cost, Service Area, and Simplicity. Positive assignments decreased within Cleanliness and Safety/Security.

There were no significant increases or decreases in positive assignments among OnDemand Riders.

Positive - Routes 2024 2025 Cost 41% 47% Service area 28% 46% Cleanliness 27% 21% Service frequency 32% 34% Simplicity 27% 32% Customer service 15% 19% Overall travel time 14% 16% Convenience 24% 27% Safety/security 29% 20% ADA accessibility 7% 8% Service characteristics 23% 22%

21% 15%

6% 9% 10% 7% 5% 14%

8% 7% 13%

47% 46%

21%

34% 32%

19% 16% 27%

20% 8%

22%

65%

24% 18% 20%

29% 19%

12%

35% 30%

8%

32%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Positive Attributes

Non-Rider Route Rider OnDemand Rider

Positive - OnDemand 2024 2025 Cost 67% 65% Service area 28% 24% Cleanliness 20% 18% Service frequency 17% 20% Simplicity 26% 29% Customer service 24% 19% Overall travel time 8% 12% Convenience 34% 35% Safety/security 27% 30% ADA accessibility 7% 8% Service characteristics 29% 32%

Attachment A - Page 35

The following chart is provided anecdotally; sample sizes for negative opinions were too small to yield desired confidence levels. The response option “Service Characteristics” was inadvertently removed from this question.

85%

2%

48%

24%

0% 15% 22%

6% 6% 0%0%

58%

8%

50%

25% 17% 17%

8% 8% 0% 0%

26%

61%

13%

39%

13% 22%

30% 13% 13% 13%

0% 0%

10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

Negative Attributes

Non-Rider n = 54

Route Rider n = 15

OnDemand Rider n = 23

Attachment A - Page 36

Rider Profile

Taking largest-share demographic data from the Rider subset, the 2023 Baseline Rider Profile was a White/Caucasian (75%) female (62%), aged 45 to 65 years (38%), employed full time (43%) with a household income of less than $29,999 (29%), living in either the City of North Port (18%) or the City of Sarasota (18%).

In 2024 the Rider Profile was a White (83%) female (63%), aged 45 to 64 years (38%), employed full time (38%) with a household income of $100k or more (20%), living in either the Venice South (14%) or Sarasota City Mainland (14%).

Using the same approach as above, the 2025 Rider Profile is a White (83%) female (56%), aged 45 to 64 years (38%), employed full time (34%) with a household income of less than $35,000 (41%), living in either Venice South (14%) or North Port East (13%).

Age Yes 18 to 24 years 6% 25 to 44 years 21% 45 to 64 years 38% 65 to 79 years 30% 80+ years 5%

Race 2025 White 83% Black or African American 9% Hispanic or Latino 11% Asian 3% Middle Eastern or North African 1% Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 1% American Indian or Alaska Native 2%

Income 2025 Under $15,000 14% $15,000-$24,999 16% $25,000-$34,999 11% $35,000-$49,999 13% $50,000-$74,999 14% $75,000-$99,999 12% $100,000 or more 20%

Status 2025 Employed full-time (including remote and/or self-employed) 34% Employed part-time (including remote and/or self-employed) 14% Unemployed and seeking work 8% Visiting 8% Attending school 4% Not in the labor force (retired/unemployed and not seeking work) 38%

Gender 2025 Male 44% Female 56%

Geography 2025 A. Englewood 6% B. North Port West 9% C. North Port East 13% D. Venice South 14% E. Venice City 10% F. Osprey-Laurel-Nokomis 4% G. Greater Sarasota Southeast 4% H. Greater Sarasota East 8% I. Siesta Key 6% J. Sarasota City Mainland 12% K. Sarasota City Islands 4% L. Longboat Key 7% M. Lakewood Ranch 1% N. Interior County 2% O. Casey Key or Manasota Key 0%

Attachment A - Page 37

Key Takeaways

Awareness

• After slightly more than two years post-rebrand, unaided recall of the “Breeze” brand is within 10 percentage points of pre-rebrand levels.

• Target audiences are demonstrating awareness levels similar to or less than overall respondents.

• Awareness of Breeze OnDemand continues to grow. Respondents are more familiar with Breeze OnDemand than Breeze routes.

• Target audiences are not demonstrating the same growth in service brand awareness as overall respondents.

• Accurate awareness of proximity to transit options is increasing.

Perception

• Although most respondents continue to assign the use of transit to people who do not have access to a personal vehicle, respondents are selecting more secondary audiences than in the past. Fewer respondents are selecting it is “not for me.”

• ALICE Households and Tourists are considerably more likely than overall respondents to consider transit for “people like me.”

• The percentage of respondents who have a positive opinion of public transit continues to increase, and the percentage who have a negative opinion decreased.

Consideration to Use

• Ridership among ALICE Households and Tourists remains strong. Ridership among Leisure Seniors improved but remains below 2023 levels.

• Tourists have increased their use of routes. Further research would be required to determine if this is related to the increased presence of Breeze trolleys.

• ALICE Households have increased their use of Breeze Plus. Further research would be required to determine if this is related to changing incomes in the community.

Rider Groups

• Although Riders tend to be younger than Non-Riders, the average age of Route Riders has been increasing.

• OnDemand Riders are more racially diverse than Non-Riders and Route Riders.

• While Route Riders have a share of members with a household income over $100,000 that is similar to Non-Riders, both Route Riders and OnDemand Riders are more likely than Non-Riders to have household incomes under $25,000.

• Riders are more likely than Non-Riders to be employed full time, and Non-Riders are more likely than Non-Riders to have exited the labor force. However, the distribution of Rider occupations shows a shift away from employment and toward “not in the labor force.”

• Riders…