UDOT Quaterly Report
Post on 20-Nov-2015
17 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
Transcript
I-15 COREOn-Street Survey
First Quarter 2012
Compiled by
Brigham Young UniversityApril 2012
Erik WestesenAccount Director
Thomas WhiteAccount Executive
Natalie SivertsenFrancesco LoliRebecca Lane
Account Coordinators
Rachel CoolManager, Bradley Public Relations
Table of ContentsExecutive Summary........................................................................................2Survey Instrument..........................................................................................4Q1 2012 Survey Results - Demographic Responses.........................5Q1 2012 Survey Results - Total..................................................................9 Question 1...............................................................................................10 Question 4...............................................................................................21Area Specific Results...................................................................................23 Demographic Responses by Area.................................................24 Question 1 by area...............................................................................29 Question 4 by area..............................................................................45Key Findings....................................................................................................53 Overall Results......................................................................................54 Detailed Results....................................................................................55
2
Executive Summary
This booklet contains the results of the man-on-the-street survey research carried out by the Bradley Public Relations Agency at BYU in addition to phone survey researchconducted by Service Sampling International, for the first quarter of 2012.
Student volunteers and employees of the agency administered the surveys at retail and grocery stores in each of the four areas established by UDOT: American Fork/Pleasant Grove, Orem, Provo, and Spanish Fork/Springville (areas identified on the map on page 3). A total of 448 surveys were completed between March 24 - 31, 2012. Following collection, the data was analyzed and compared to the three preceding quarters, as seen throughout this report.
Here, the results are broken down by question and by area. First, we have included the demographic information of respondents included on the survey instrument (see page 4). Next, we included graphs showing the overall results for questions 1 and 4 as compared to Q2 2011 as well as Q3 and Q4 of 2011. Following this section we have provided the area specific results for questions 1 and 4. Finally, we have summarized our key findings, with a detailed look at overall trends.
For example, we observed an increase in the aggregate average score to 2.85 on a five-point scale with 1.00 meaning the most negative and 5.00 meaning the most positive. This was due in large part to a large increase in Spanish Fork/Springvilles overall average score.
These results represent a collective opinion of those sampled. Their responses, as con-tained in this report, serve as a quick snapshot of current public opinion regarding the I-15 Core Corridor Expansion project. It is important to note that the results of this survey are not statistically significant unless viewed as a whole; individual area samples are not sub-stantial enough to stand alone.
NotesPhone survey data is displayed separately from man-on-the-street data, and is not included in the overall average scores.
Some graphical representations omit data labels (number above a graph bar indicating value). This is due to the space required to show a whole years worth of data for certain data sets. Specific values are available on the CD enclosed within this booklet. Scale frequency has been increased to better compensate for this change.
3
Zone 1 - Lehi, American Fork and Pleasant Grove exits. Surveys completed at American Fork WalMart and nearby locations.
Zone 2 - Orem exits. Surveys completed at University Mall and Costco.
Zone 3 - Provo exits. Surveys completed on BYU campus and nearby locations in Provo.
Zone 4 - Springville and Spanish Fork exits. Surveys completed at the Springville WalMart, Maceys in Spanish Fork and nearby locations.
4
Survey Instrument
1. On a scale of one to five with one meaning completely disagree and five meaning completely agree,please rate the project on the following:
Please answer the following questions based on your experience in the past month with the I-15 CORE road construction project (on I-15 from Lehi Main Street to Spanish Fork Main Street).
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
Indifferent Agree
2. Which city do you live in?
Alpine American Fork Cedar Hills Eagle Mountain Highland Lehi Lindon Mapleton Orem Pleasant Grove Payson Provo Santaquin Saratoga Springs Spanish Fork Springville Vineyard Other (list)
_________________________ Refuse
4. Several methods are being used to help people stay informed about construction activities. Of the following methods, which ones do you use to stay informed about the I-15 construction project? Choose all that apply:
4 p.m. to 7 p.m. After 7 p.m.
Before 6 a.m. 6 a.m. to 9 a.m. 9 a.m. to 4 p.m.
Project e-mail updates Project website updates Electronic roadway signs Door hangers/fliers Radio messages Television
Social media (Facebook, Twitter, YouTube)
Local meetings/public events Newspaper stories or advertisements City newsletter/website
Thank you for your input! If you have additional comments or concerns, please write them below or on the back of this page.
I feel safe when driving through the construction zones.
Compared to other road construction projects Ive experienced,
crews are maintaining a safe roadway.
Dust is kept under control.
Construction noise is kept under control.
Lane markings are clear.
Construction signs are easy to read.
The detour routes are clear and easy to navigate (or drive).
Access to I-15 on- and off-ramps has been maintained.
The construction crews are courteous.
Construction does not increase my travel time.
When compared to other roadway construction I have experienced,
the travel delays are reasonable.
Disagree
3. What time(s) of the day do you drive on I-15 the most? Choose all that apply:
5
Q1 2012 Survey Results - Demographic Responses
6
2. Which city do you live in?
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
Alpine
American Fork
Cedar Hills
Eagle Mountain
Highland
Lehi
Lindon
Mapleton
Orem
Pleasant Grove
Payson
Provo
Santaquin
Saratoga Springs
Spanish Fork
Springville
Vineyard
Other/Non-Response
On the Street Survey Results
Q4 2011
Q1 2012
9
27
5 2
12
33
10
4
88
29
19
66
9 7
41
23
2
14
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Alpine
American
Fork
Ced
ar Hills
Eagle M
ountain
Highlan
d
Leh
i
Lindo
n
Map
leton
Orem
Pleasan
t Grove
Payson
Provo
San
taqu
in
Saratog
a Sprin
gs
Spa
nish Fork
Springville
Vineyard
Other/N
on-Respo
nse
Phone Survey Results
7
3. What time(s) of day do you drive on I-15 the most? Select all that apply.
3.36%
21.68%
36.13%
29.58%
9.24%
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
40.00%
Before 6 am 6-9 am 9-4 pm 4-7 pm a7er 7 pm
Num
ber o
f Respo
nden
ts
Phone Sample Travel Times Q1 2012
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
40.00%
Before 6 am 6-9am 9-4pm 4-7pm a6er 7 pm
Travel Times by Quarter
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q1
8
9
Q1 2012 Survey Results - Total
Graphical Representations of Questions Comparative Q2 2011-Q1 2012
10
1, p1: I feel safe when driving through the construction zones. (Scale of 1-5 with 1 meaning completely disagree and 5 meaning completely agree):
26.8%
31.8%
19.9%
14.4%
7.1%
32.6% 31.6%
19.6%
10.3%
5.9%
30.8% 30.8%
20.9%
12.9%
4.6%
30.2%
32.0%
18.0%
13.5%
6.3%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
1 2 3 4 5
I Feel Safe - On the Street
Q2 2011
Q3 2011
Q4 2011
Q1 2012
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
40.00%
1 2 3 4 5
I Feel Safe Street v. Phone
Street Survey Percentages
Phone Survey Percentages
11
1, p2: Compared to other road construction projects Ive experienced, crews are maintaining a safe roadway. (Scale of 1-5 with 1 meaning completely dis-agree and 5 meaning completely agree):
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
40.00%
1 2 3 4 5
Maintain Safe Roadway Street v. Phone
Street Surveys Percentages
Phone percentages
14.7%
20.1%
27.9% 28.4%
8.8%
10.9%
19.2%
33.3%
26.7%
10.0%
12.4%
17.6%
30.0% 29.1%
11.0%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
1 2 3 4 5
Maintain Safe Roadway - On the Street
Q3 2011
Q4 2011
Q1 2012
12
1, p3: Dust is kept under control (Scale of 1-5 with 1 meaning completely dis-agree and 5 meaning completely agree):
9.9%
16.5%
25.5%
32.8%
15.4%
9.6%
13.0%
26.7%
30.9%
19.9%
6.1%
14.6%
21.7%
32.8%
24.8%
7.7%
10.2%
23.3%
37.6%
21.3%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
1 2 3 4 5
Dust - On the Street
Q2 2011
Q3 2011
Q4 2011
Q1 2012
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
40.00%
45.00%
1 2 3 4 5
Dust - Street v. Phone
Street Surveys Percentages
Phone Percentages
13
1, p4: Construction noise is kept under control. (Scale of 1-5 with 1 meaning completely disagree and 5 meaning completely agree):
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
40.00%
45.00%
1 2 3 4 5
Noise - Street v. Phone
Street Surveys Percentages
Phone Percentages
8.3%
11.2%
30.0%
34.6%
15.8%
7.6%
10.8%
31.2%
27.5%
22.9%
6.8%
9.7%
25.0%
35.9%
22.6%
6.3%
10.8%
29.5%
32.9%
20.5%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
1 2 3 4 5
Noise - On the Street
Q2 2011
Q3 2011
Q4 2011
Q1 2012
14
1, p5: Lane markings are clear. (Scale of 1-5 with 1 meaning completely dis-agree and 5 meaning completely agree):
33.8%
28.9%
14.2% 15.2%
7.8%
38.1%
29.1%
16.3%
11.4%
5.1%
39.0%
30.4%
15.3% 11.7%
3.6%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
1 2 3 4 5
Clear Lane Markings - On the Street
Q3 2011
Q4 2011
Q1 2012
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
40.00%
45.00%
1 2 3 4 5
Clear Lane Markings - Street v. Phone
Street Surveys Percentages
Phone Percentages
15
1, p6: Construction signs are easy to read. (Scale of 1-5 with 1 meaning com-pletely disagree and 5 meaning completely agree):
33.8%
28.9%
14.2% 15.2%
7.8%
38.1%
29.1%
16.3%
11.4%
5.1%
39.0%
30.4%
15.3% 11.7%
3.6%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
1 2 3 4 5
Clear Lane Markings - On the Street
Q3 2011
Q4 2011
Q1 2012
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
1 2 3 4 5
Easy to Read - Street v. Phone
Street Surveys Percentages
Phone Percentages
16
1, p7: The detour routes are clear and easy to navigate (or drive). (Scale of 1-5 with 1 meaning completely disagree and 5 meaning completely agree):
18.6%
25.7%
28.9%
20.6%
6.2%
26.0%
30.9%
20.6%
15.2%
7.4%
27.7%
25.8% 24.1%
17.8%
4.6%
24.5%
35.1%
21.8%
14.5%
4.1%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
1 2 3 4 5
Detours - On the Street
Q2 2011
Q3 2011
Q4 2011
Q1 2012
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
40.00%
1 2 3 4 5
Detours - Street v. Phone
Street Surveys Percentages
Phone Percentages
17
1, p8: Access to I-15 on- and off-ramps has been maintained. (Scale of 1-5 with 1 meaning completely disagree and 5 meaning completely agree):
19.3%
28.5%
19.8%
23.4%
9.0%
21.6%
25.2%
23.0%
18.1%
8.6%
17.1%
24.0%
24.7%
23.2%
11.0%
15.6%
20.3%
28.0%
26.0%
10.2%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
1 2 3 4 5
Ramps - On the Street
Q2 2011
Q3 2011
Q4 2011
Q1 2012
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
40.00%
1 2 3 4 5
Ramps - Street v. Phone
Street Surveys Percentages
Phone Percentages
18
1, p9: The construction crews are courteous. (Scale of 1-5 with 1 meaning com-pletely disagree and 5 meaning completely agree):
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
40.00%
45.00%
50.00%
1 2 3 4 5
Crews - Street v. Phone
Street Surveys Percentages
Phone Percentages
19.3%
28.5%
19.8%
23.4%
9.0%
21.6%
25.2%
23.0%
18.1%
8.6%
17.1%
24.0%
24.7%
23.2%
11.0%
15.6%
20.3%
28.0%
26.0%
10.2%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
1 2 3 4 5
Ramps - On the Street
Q2 2011
Q3 2011
Q4 2011
Q1 2012
19
1, p10: Construction does not increase my travel time. (Scale of 1-5 with 1 meaning completely disagree and 5 meaning completely agree):
40.7%
26.3%
16.3%
11.2%
5.6%
50.7%
20.8%
8.6%
7.4%
12.5%
47.1%
22.8%
12.6%
8.0%
9.5%
46.8%
22.7%
13.1%
8.8% 8.6%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
1 2 3 4 5
Travel Delays - On the Street
Q2 2011
Q3 2011
Q4 2011
Q1 2012
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
40.00%
45.00%
50.00%
1 2 3 4 5
Travel Delays - Street v. Phone
Street Surveys Percentages
Phone Percentages
20
1, p11: When compared to other roadway construction I have experienced, the travel delays are reasonable. (Scale of 1-5 with 1 meaning completely disagree and 5 meaning completely agree):
11.3%
19.6%
26.3%
32.3%
10.6%
25.0% 24.3%
27.0%
15.9%
7.8%
16.5%
18.9%
30.6%
21.4%
12.6%
16.3%
18.5%
32.7%
21.7%
10.8%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
1 2 3 4 5
Reasonable Delays - On the Street
Q2 2011
Q3 2011
Q4 2011
Q1 2012
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
40.00%
1 2 3 4 5
Reasonable Delays - Street v. Phone
Street Surveys Percentages
Phone Percentages
21
Snapshot of preferred communications methods across all areas; Q1 2012 (per-centage):
34.9%
11.6%
1.8%
20.6%
10.4%
30.9%
19.1%
3.7%
18.4%
10.0%
38.3%
12.4%
2.7%
17.2%
11.2%
40.1%
16.9%
3.5%
25.8%
11.7%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
Television Socia media Mee
22
10.7% 14.8%
64.0%
13.3%
43.9%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Project email updates
Project website updates
Electronic roadway signs
Door hangers/fliers Radio messages
Preferred Comm - Phone
Q1 2012
43.6%
8.2%
6.9%
33.7%
18.1%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
Television Socia media Mee
23
Area SpecificGraphical Representations of Questions
Scale in this section is actual number of responses and/or average from actual number of responses
24
American Fork / Lehi (Past 2 Quarters)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Alpine
American
Fork
Ceda
r Hills
Eagle Mou
ntain
Highland
Lehi
Lind
on
Map
leton
Orem
Pleasant Grove
Payson
Provo
Santaq
uin
Saratoga Springs
Span
ish Fork
Sprin
gville
Vine
yard
Other/N
on-Respo
nse
American Fork Sample CiKes
Q3 2011 Q4 2011
14
32
47 44
17
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Before 6 am 6-9am 9-4pm 4-7pm a4er 7 pm
Num
ber o
f Respo
nden
ts
American Fork Sample Travel Times
Q4 2011
25
Orem (Past 2 Quarters)
1
3 3 2
0 1 1
0
42
2 2
31
1 0
4 2
0
12
2 3 3
5
0
3
0
2
32
1 1
35
2
0
8
1 0
13
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Alpine
American
Fork
Ceda
r Hills
Eagle
Mou
ntain
High
land
Lehi
Lind
on
Map
leton
Orem
Pleasant
Grove
Payson
Provo
Santaq
uin
Saratoga
Sprin
gs
Span
ish Fork
Sprin
gville
Vine
yard
Other/N
on-
Respon
se
Orem Sample CiMes
12
23
45
63
43
2
37
51
63
35
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Before 6 am 6-9am 9-4pm 4-7pm a4er 7 pm
Num
ber o
f Respo
nden
ts
Orem Sample Travel Times Q4 2011 Q1 2012
26
Provo (Past 2 Quarters)
0 1 0 0 1 1 0 2
8
1 0
83
0 0 1 2
0 3
0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0
25
0 0
78
0 0 2 2
0
9
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Alpine
American
Fork
Ceda
r Hills
Eagle Mou
ntain
High
land
Lehi
Lind
on
Map
leton
Orem
Pleasant Grove
Payson
Provo
Santaq
uin
Saratoga
Sprin
gs
Span
ish Fork
Sprin
gville
Vine
yard
Other/N
on-
Respon
se
Provo Sample CiPes
3
24
40
47
32
7
34 30
64
38
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Before 6 am 6-9am 9-4pm 4-7pm a5er 7 pm
Num
ber o
f Respo
nden
ts
Provo Sample Travel Times
Q4 2011 Q1 2012
27
Springville / Spanish Fork (Past 2 Quarters)
0 1 0 0 0 0 0
12
4 0 0
5
0 0
6
72
0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 3
0
6
0
7
0
65
14
0
10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Alpine
American
Fork
Ceda
r Hills
Eagle Mou
ntain
High
land
Lehi
Lind
on
Map
leton
Orem
Pleasant Grove
Payson
Provo
Santaq
uin
Saratoga Springs
Span
ish Fork
Sprin
gville
Vine
yard
Other/N
on-Respo
nse
Springville Sample CiOes
11
36
46 48
21
6
30
55
51
25
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Before 6 am 6-9am 9-4pm 4-7pm a5er 7 pm
Num
ber o
f Respo
nden
ts
Springville Sample Travel Times Q4 2011 Q1 2012
28
Phone Survey
9
27
5 2
12
33
10
4
88
29
19
66
9 7
41
23
2
14
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Alpine
American
Fork
Ced
ar Hills
Eagle M
ountain
Highlan
d
Leh
i
Lindo
n
Map
leton
Orem
Pleasan
t Grove
Payson
Provo
San
taqu
in
Saratog
a Sprin
gs
Spa
nish Fork
Springville
Vineyard
Other/N
on-Respo
nse
Phone Survey Results
3.36%
21.68%
36.13%
29.58%
9.24%
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
40.00%
Before 6 am 6-9 am 9-4 pm 4-7 pm a7er 7 pm
Num
ber o
f Respo
nden
ts
Phone Sample Travel Times Q1 2012
29
Question 1 by area:On a scale of one to five with one meaning completely disagree and five meaning
completely agree, please rate the project on the following:
30
Area responses to Question 1 Categories by area (averages on a 1-5 scale):
1 1.25 1.5
1.75 2
2.25 2.5
2.75 3
3.25 3.5
3.75 4
4.25 4.5
4.75 5
Safe Dust Noise Easy to read signs
Clear and navigable detours
Ramps Crews courteous
No delays Reasonable delays
Overall response
Safe roadway
Clear lane markings
American Fork Q2 2011 Q3 2011 Q4 2011 Q1 2012
1 1.25 1.5
1.75 2
2.25 2.5
2.75 3
3.25 3.5
3.75 4
Safe Dust Noise Easy to read signs
Clear and navigable detours
Ramps Crews courteous
No delays Reasonable delays
Overall response
Safe roadway
Clear lane markings
Orem Q2 2011 Q3 2011 Q4 2011 Q1 2012
31
1 1.25 1.5
1.75 2
2.25 2.5
2.75 3
3.25 3.5
3.75 4
4.25 4.5
4.75 5
Safe Dust Noise Easy to read signs
Clear and navigable detours
Ramps Crews courteous
No delays Reasonable delays
Overall response
Safe roadway
Clear lane markings
Provo Q2 2011 Q3 2011 Q4 2011 Q1 2012
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
Safe Dust Noise Easy to read signs
Clear and navigable detours
Ramps Crews courteous
No delays Reasonable delays
Overall response
Safe roadway
Clear lane markings
Spanish Fork Q2 2011 Q3 2011 Q4 2011 Q1 2012
32
Average aggregate Question 1 responses by area (averages of all Question 1 categories on a 1-5 scale):
3.01
3.99 3.98
3.18 2.87
3.38
4.07
2.53
3.38 3.32 3.54
2.61
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
Safe Dust Noise Easy to read signs
Easy to follow
Clear and navigable detours
Ramps Crews courteous
No delays Reasonable delays
Overall response
Safe roadway
Clear lane markings
Phone Q1 2012
2.73
2.87 2.98
2.85 2.86 2.7
2.94 2.94
2.5
2.77 2.75 2.7
3.02 2.93
2.85 2.76
2.94 2.77
2.91 2.94
3.32
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
American Fork Orem Provo Spanish Fork All Phone
Q2 2011 Q3 2011 Q4 2011 Q1 2012
33
Aver
age
resp
onse
s to
all Q
uest
ion
1 ca
tego
ries
rega
rdle
ss o
f are
a (1
to 5
scal
e):
2.34
3.54
3.51
2.72
2.39
2.95
3.66
2.10
2.93
2.94
3.09
2.11
1 1.25
1.5
1.75
2 2.25
2.5
2.75
3 3.25
3.5
3.75
4 4.25
4.5
4.75
5
Safe
Dust
Noise
Easy to
read
sig
ns
Clea
r and
na
vigable
detours
Ramps
Crew
s courteou
s No de
lays
Reason
able
delays
Overall
respon
se
Safe ro
adway
Clea
r lan
e marking
s
Q2 20
11
Q3 20
11
Q4 20
11
Q1 20
12
34
I feel safe when driving through the construction zones (average response on a 1 to 5 scale):
32
28
25
16
9
39
38
15
8
5
30
24 23
23
1
38
25
19 18
4 0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
1 2 3 4 5
American Fork - "Safe"
32
35
22
14
8
24
28
23
16
10
37
40
18
4
8
27
35
28
11 10
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
1 2 3 4 5
Orem - "Safe"
21
43
18
20
6
28
33
22
13
6
29 27
24
16
7
28
51
14
18
8
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
1 2 3 4 5
Provo - "Safe"
32 33
22
13
8
42
30
20
5 3
31
36
21
10
3
41
31
19
13
6
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
1 2 3 4 5
Spanish Fork - "Safe"
2.47
2.38 2.51
2.37
2.07
2.6
2.37
1.97
2.42
2.12
2.47
2.19 2.28
2.48 2.39
2.2
3.01
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
American Fork Orem Provo Spanish Fork Phone
Q2 2011
Q3 2011
Q4 2011
Q1 2012
35
Compared to other road construction projects Ive experienced, crews are maintaining a safe roadway (average response on a 1 to 5 scale):
16
21
32
24
12 14 14
33 33
7
21
14
26
33
10
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
1 2 3 4 5
American fork - "Maintain Safe Roadway"
10
12
34 35
10
15
24
40
18
10 9
19
39
30
14
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
1 2 3 4 5
Orem - "Maintain safe roadway"
15
21
15
40
11
6
23
33
27
14 13
20
41
33
12
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
1 2 3 4 5
Provo - "Maintain safe roadway"
19
28
33
17
3
10
18
31 32
10
12
25
27
33
13
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
1 2 3 4 5
Spanish Fork - "Maintain Safe Roadway"
2.95
3.23 3.11
2.57
3.05
2.85
3.19 3.14 2.97
3.19 3.09 3.09
3.54
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
American Fork Orem Provo Spanish Fork Phone
Q3 2011
Q4 2011
Q1 2012
36
Dust is kept under control (average response on a 1 to 5 scale):
11
19
28
35
17
11
4
13
31
36
16 13 14
19
32
26
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
1 2 3 4 5
American Fork - "Dust"
14
18
22
36
21
5
16
29
32
19
9
20
15
30
33
5
17
29
37
23
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
1 2 3 4 5
Orem - "Dust"
8
13
29
38
19
6
18
25 26
27
5
14
20
36
28
9 11
34
40
24
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
1 2 3 4 5
Provo - "Dust"
10
22
32
34
10
15
8
29
34
14
7
13
23
33
25
7 3
21
57
21
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
1 2 3 4 5
Spanish Fork - "Dust"
3.25 3.29 3.44
3.11
3.37 3.44 3.49
3.24
3.47 3.54
3.66 3.55
3.42 3.5 3.5
3.75
3.99
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
American Fork Orem Provo Spanish Fork Phone
Q2 2011
Q3 2011
Q4 2011
Q1 2012
37
Construction noise is kept under control (average response on a 1 to 5 scale):
6
14
37
36
17
12 13
27
29
24
6 5
36
38
16
10 9
32
29
24
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
1 2 3 4 5
American Fork - "Noise"
12
16
28
34
20
3
13
32
27 26
12
10
27
30
28
3
9
40
36
23
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
1 2 3 4 5
Orem - "Noise"
11
8
29
41
19
4
8
33
27
30
5
13
17
40
28
12
19
30
36
22
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
1 2 3 4 5
Provo - "Noise"
7
11
37
40
13 12
10
35
29
13
5
12
23
40
21
3
11
29
45
22
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
1 2 3 4 5
Spanish Fork - "Noise"
3.4
3.31
3.45
3.38 3.38
3.59 3.7
3.21
3.52 3.49
3.71
3.59 3.46
3.6
3.31
3.65
3.98
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
American Fork Orem Provo Spanish Fork Phone
Q2 2011
Q3 2011
Q4 2011
Q1 2012
38
Lane markings are clear (average response on a 1 to 5 scale):
39
27
15 13
11
39
37
14
9
2
49
27
14 11
3
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
1 2 3 4 5
American fork - "Lanes markings clear"
28 31
16
15 11
48
24 22
9
4
39 34
16
16
6
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
1 2 3 4 5
Orem - "Lane markings clear"
26
36
13
19
8
33
28
12
19
11
47
37
19
12
4
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
1 2 3 4 5
Provo - "Lane Markings Clear"
45
24
14
15
2
37
31
19
10
4
38 37
19
13
3
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
1 2 3 4 5
Spanish Fork - "Lane Markings Clear"
2.33 2.5 2.48
2.05 1.99 2.04
2.49
2.14 1.96
2.24 2.07
2.15
2.61
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
American Fork Orem Provo Spanish Fork Phone
Q3 2011
Q4 2011
Q1 2012
39
Construction signs are easy to read (average response on a 1 to 5 scale):
40
27
21
15
7
21
30
25
19
10
31
28
18 17
7
24 25
25
22
8
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
1 2 3 4 5
American Fork - "Easy to Read"
25
32
24 19
11
17
19
26
21
18
37
16
26
16
12 16
27
29
29
10
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
1 2 3 4 5
Orem - "Easy to Read"
30
24
14
31
7
17 19
16
35
15
20 21 23
25
14
25
33
24
29
8
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
1 2 3 4 5
Provo - "Easy to Read"
33
35
12
15
13
25
30
19
20
6
19
26
23
25
8
25 24
30
24
5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
1 2 3 4 5
Spanish Fork - "Easy to Read"
2.29
2.63 2.63
2.44
2.69
3.04 3.12
2.52 2.42
2.53
2.92 2.77
2.66
2.91
2.68 2.63
3.18
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
American Fork Orem Provo Spanish Fork Phone
Q2 2011
Q3 2011
Q4 2011
Q1 2012
40
The detour routes are clear and easy to navigate (or drive) [average response on a 1 to 5 scale]:
25
32 32
18
3
30 29
21 19
6
25
32
23 20
1
32
29
22 20
1 0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
1 2 3 4 5
American Fork - "Detours"
46
21
19
14
7
22
36
17 16
10
40
26
24
13
4
21
46
20 17
7
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
1 2 3 4 5
Orem - "Detours"
12
28
31
29
8
16
35
22 19
10
26 26 25
17
9
26
48
25
17
3 0
10
20
30
40
50
60
1 2 3 4 5
Provo - "Detours"
19
26
32
23
8
38
26
24
8
4
23 22
27
23
5
29
32
29
10
7
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
1 2 3 4 5
Spanish Fork - "Detours"
2.47
2.64
2.94
2.77
2.45 2.56
2.73
2.14
2.41
2.21
2.58 2.65
2.32
2.49 2.35
2.39
2.87
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
American Fork Orem Provo Spanish Fork Phone
Q2 2011
Q3 2011
Q4 2011
Q1 2012
41
Access to I-15 on- and off-ramps has been maintained (average response on a 1 to 5 scale):
32
26
20
24
8
28 28 26
15
8
18
27 26 25
5
18 19
26
34
7
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
1 2 3 4 5
American Fork - "Ramps"
14
34
23 26
13
18
26
27
19
11
24
28
21
18 16 17
23
30
29
12
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
1 2 3 4 5
Orem - "Ramps"
18
32
21
26
10
21
22
20
25
14 14
26
29
20
13
17
27
39
23
13
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
1 2 3 4 5
Provo - "Ramps"
20
32
22
26
8
35
27
21
15
2
14
17
25
32
11
17
21
29 29
13
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
1 2 3 4 5
Spanish Fork - "Ramps"
2.55
2.91
2.79 2.72
2.5
2.79 2.89
2.22
2.72 2.76
2.92 3.09
2.93 2.96 2.9 3
3.38
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
American Fork Orem Provo Spanish Fork Phone
Q2 2011
Q3 2011
Q4 2011
Q1 2012
42
The construction crews are courteous. (average response on a 1 to 5 scale):
4
8
41
34
23
6 9
32
35
23
5 7
30 33
25
4
9
37
30
24
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
1 2 3 4 5
American Fork - "Crews"
7 9
30
31 33
8
5
35
30
23
7 7
50
20
23
2 3
47
39
20
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
1 2 3 4 5
Orem - "Crews"
2
5
28
43
28
5 5
40
28
24
3 2
41
30
27
5
6
50
32
25
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
1 2 3 4 5
Provo - "Crews"
2 4
23
46
33
19
6
36
20
19
6
5
31 33
26
2
8
23
47
29
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
1 2 3 4 5
Spanish Fork - "Crews"
3.58 3.67
3.85 3.96
3.57 3.54 3.6
3.14
3.66
3.42
3.74 3.67
3.59 3.65 3.56
3.85
4.07
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
American Fork Orem Provo Spanish Fork Phone
Q2 2011
Q3 2011
Q4 2011
Q1 2012
43
Construction does not increase my travel time. (average response on a 1 to 5 scale):
46
30
21
8
5
57
22
10
6
10
53
31
9
4 4
55
18
11 13
7
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
1 2 3 4 5
American Fork - "Time Delays"
45
18
6
11
21
61
16 13
5
12
44
27
19
6
15
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
1 2 3 4 5
Orem - "Time Delays"
35
33
16 15
6
46
27
10 9 10
42
22
14 14 11
67
28
9
5
10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
1 2 3 4 5
Provo - "Travel Delays"
48
29
14 11
6
59
18
9
4
10
38
25
16
10
12
42
28
19
15
6
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
1 2 3 4 5
Spanish Fork - "Time Delays"
2.05 2.21
2.28
2.06 1.95
2.46
2.12
1.88 1.76
1.98
2.32 2.34
2.03
2.29
1.85
2.23
2.53
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
American Fork Orem Provo Spanish Fork Phone
Q2 2011
Q3 2011
Q4 2011
Q1 2012
44
When compared to other roadway construction i have experienced, the travel delays are reasonable. (average response on a 1 to 5 scale):
14
20
27
38
10
24
26
26
15
10
23
26 27
21
10
14
18
42
26
11
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
1 2 3 4 5
Orem - "Reasonable"
15
24
31 32
8
27
31
25
16
6
21
18
33
18
11
24
15
34
21
9
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
1 2 3 4 5
American fork - "Reasonable"
8
21
26
38
14
25
19
28
22
8
14
16
29
27
17
19
29
38
21
12
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
1 2 3 4 5
Provo - "Reasonable"
12
20
30 32
14
26 23
31
12
8 10
18
37
22
14 15
20
31
28
16
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
1 2 3 4 5
Spanish Fork - "Reasonable"
2.95 3.09
3.27 3.15
2.46 2.61
2.7
2.53
2.8 2.71
3.17 3.12
2.77
3.02
2.82
3.09
3.38
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
American Fork Orem Provo Spanish Fork Phone
Q2 2011
Q3 2011
Q4 2011
Q1 2012
45
Question 4 by area:
Several methods are being used to help people stay informed about construction activities. Of the following methods, which ones do you use to stay informed about the I-15
construction project? Choose all that apply:
Metric is actual number of responses out of ~100 respondent sample. Because each sample is out of ~100, this is essentially interchangeable with a percentage.
46
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65
Email Website Electronic Roadway Signs
Door Hangers
Radio TV Social Media
Local Events Newspapers
City Website
American Fork
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65
Email Website Electronic Roadway Signs
Door Hangers
Radio TV Social Media
Local Events Newspapers
City Website
Orem
47
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
Email Website Roadway signs Door Hangers Radio TV Social Media Local Events Newspapers City Website
Provo
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
Email Website Electronic Roadway Signs
Door Hangers
Radio TV Social Media
Local Events Newspapers
City Website
Spanish Fork
48
Free Response by area:American Fork:
Whenfreewaytrafficisbad-citydrivingisoutofcontrol! Theblindentrancesontofreewayareahugehazard.Therockchipssuck! IdonttravelSouthveryoften.Imnottoosureoftheroadconditionsthatdirection. Iwasalmostinanaccident. Whenexitsarechangedyouneedtogivebetternoticetoallowchangeoflanes.Ivemissedexits
becauseIdidntseesignageanddidntknowexitswereearlierthanexpected. Thestreetsareridiculoustodriveon.Theyareunsafeandpacked-toomanyaccidents. ItisBullshit.IhavedroveI-15onseveraloccassionsandbarrellshavebeenblowingintooncoming
traffic. NotSAFE!Iusedtoownanexcavationcompanyandwehadtohaveatrafficcontrolplanapprovedby
UDOT.WhereisUDOTNOW? Thankyouforchangingmytire.Imsogreatful! Whereistheplanning? TheworstsigningandetcisgoingsouthandturningofftouniversityexitorstayingonI-15. IdontdriveonI-15veryoften.ItrytostayinAFasmuchaspossible
Orem:
Ihavetodriveitanywaysoitdoesntmatter Iwishtheywouldhurryupandfinishsowecanmoveonwithourlives! Idonttravelalot.
Spanish Fork: Workingonallthemajorsideroadsandfrontageroadsaswellasthefreewaymakesitdifficultand frustrating.
Provo:
Iwishthesignswereeasiertonotice(i.e.ProvoCenterStreet,exit).TheyblendinwiththeorangeallaroundTheremovalofoldlanelines,additionoftemplines,cones,andvaryingasphaltcolorsmakeithardtonavigateandunderstandtrafficpattern.Idoappreciatetheworkbeingdoneandunderstandthenecessitybuttheeverywhere-nessofitistiresomeandveryinconvenient.IfitwereclearerandifIhaddonemoretobeinformed,itwouldbebetter.Thelanesareroughtounderstand.
Themainthingtheycouldimproveisroadsignsandlanemarkings.Sometimesyoucanttellwhatyourlaneis,creatingincreaseddanger.Lackofadvancedwarning,inparticularlanereduction,seemtobethebiggestcauseoftrafficjams.Driversdonthaveenoughwarningtochangelanes,leadingtobackingupwhentheytrytochangeatthelastmoment.
49
Phone Free Response by area:
American Fork:
Iwishitwasdone. Thelanemarkingareconfusingattheoff-rampsontheSouthboundrouteintheUniversityhighway. Itsreallyunsafe.Theyresplittingexits,anditsjustdangerous. Theyhavedonearemarkablejobtomaintainthesafetyandcleanlinessoftheroad,evenifthe
constructionisstillgoingon. Thepreviouslanemarkingwasnterasedclearlycausingthepreviouslaneandthecurrentlanemarkingsto
becombined. Therewasasignthatsays21milesnorthofLehi,butitwasnot.Theirsignsareconfusing.Theyneedto
dosomethingonit.Whenmyfrienddrovethere,shewaslostbecauseofthewrongsign.Weneedtohaveatrafficlightbadly.
Ihadanaccidentonthefreeway.IhadaverypositiveresponsefromProvoofficeronthehighway.Thelanemarkingsisextremelydifficultandpeoplearegettinghighlyconfused,especiallywhenitrains.Theyneedtofigureoutabetterwaytomarkthecurrentlaneandgetridoftheoldlane.
Orem:
Onvariousroadsides,therearesignsthatsaysomanyminutesthatwayandsomanyminutesthisway.Icantsaythatimpactsthedriversdecision.Idontthinkthatitishelpfulonewayoranother.Itsabigwasteofmoney.UDOTisdoingagoodjob,though.
Iamgratefulandfeelwonderfulthattheyhavedonethis,butIfeelanxiouswhenIamridingontheroad.Theyarechangingthechannelsthatwearegoingthrough,anditfillsmewithsomuchanxiety.Ireallyneedtofocusandbeattentivebecausethelinesareveryobviousthatitisfilled.Overall,UDOThasdoneaverygoodjob,anditisachallengingjob.Theelectronicsignsaregood.Thecrewswerecourteous.Itsagoodthingthattherearenoaccidentsthathavehappened.
Theyneedmorepatrolmenbecauseweusedtotravelonthatroad. Theyvegottoaccommodatecommutertrafficathightraffictimes.Theycannotarbitrarilyclosemajor
thoroughfareswithoutproperadvancedwarning,likeUniversityparkways. Sometimes,thelanemarkingsarehardtodetermineatnight. Byusingorangepaintinremarkingconstructionlanes,thereisgreatervisibilitythatwouldresultforthe
drivers. Signsareclearlydoneinroads.InSpanishFork,Idonotfeelsafeinthatarea. TheentrancetoProvoistooslowintheI-15.Thereistrafficcongestion. TheonlyconcernIhaveisonthecenterstreetinOrem.Thelightsthereandonthe12thWestarenot
coordinatedwell,sothereisahugebackup. Itsaboutwideningtheroadtohavethreetosixlanes.Itshouldonlytaketwomonths,andthatsthe
most. Wethinktheyhaveaverygoodjobintrafficcontrolconsideringthatitisacomplexproject.Theyhave
doneitverywell. Myonlyconcernisthatthereisthatonesectiononthe15thsouthnear1600northonrampswherein
linesarenotclear.Idonotknowwheremylaneisclearlygoing.
50
Whatbothersmethemostisthenarrowlanes.Itisverychallenginganddangerouswhenpassingthroughbigtrucks.Secondly,therearenoemergencylanes.Thethirdoneistheresalotofdebris,whichiskindofdangerous.
Iwouldliketoseemoreinformationonthestops,whattheyaregoingtomakeaswellaswhereandwhen.Ihopetheywillhavemoreadvertisementsabouttheconstruction.
Provo:
ItstheProvoCenterStreet.Thedesignofthefreewaytheymadewasconfusing.Somepartsaredangerous.IfIamdrivingfromtheEasttoWest,Ihavetoturnleft.Theresacrowdedanddangerouspart.
Thelanesaretoonarrow. Lastnightaround7PM,weenteredthe8-NorthEntranceFreewayinOremandthegreenlightwason.My
husbandthinksthegreenlightslowsthingsdown. WevebeencallingfromsomeoneinUDOTabouttherampon1600roadthatwasclosed.Itcausestraffic.
Thewaittimeiswaytoolong. Itisaboutwheretheydothelanesplit.Theyhavetoputmoresignsaheadormakeitclearer.There
shouldbeclearerwarningforwhatistocome.
Spanish Fork:
IwanttohavethemmakesurethatthelanesinSpanishForkoff-ramparenothorrible.Mycarhastotipsidewaysslightly,whichisdangerous.Theyshouldleveltheasphaltbetterandmakeitconcrete.
Asidefromnotbeingabletoseethemarkingsonthelanes,theyaredoingaprettygoodjob.Thereisanunevennessoftheroadandthepavingoftheasphaltfromoldtonew,butconsideringthesizeoftheproject,theyaredoingagoodjob.
TheyaredoingwonderfullyexceptfortheunevensurfacesinSpringvilleandOrem,whicharealot. Therewassomuchofthedebristhatwastornupandallofthosewereunsafe. Itwouldbetherocktrucks.Theyaccidentallythrewovertheroadandhitmycarandwindshield.
51
52
53
Key Findings
Summary of results
54
Overall ResultsThe average of all Q1 2012 responses gathered in the four man-on-the-street surveys was 2.94 on a five-point scale. This shows an increase from the last quarter, which yielded an overall average of 2.85.
The most negative geographic area in Q1 2012 was American Fork/Lehi receiving a 2.76. Although American Fork also experienced the most negative in overall score it isimproving. The area of Provo yielded the most significant decrease in overall score going from 3.02 to 2.77, whereas in Q4 2011 it scored as the most positive geographical area. Scores decreased in the following questions: Maintain safe roadways, Noise, Lane markings clear, Easy to read, Detours, Travel delays, and Reasonable.
The most positive geographic area in Q1 2012 was Orem with a score of 2.94 on a five-point scale. There was an increase on every question except for Lane markings clear and Travel delays.
Five categories in Question 1 increased in average score from Q1 2012. The four categories that yielded a decrease in score from Q1 2012 were Noise, Detours, Reasonable delays, and Clear lane markings. Dust and No delays were the two categories that maintained their scores from Q4 2011.
Construction crews are courteous received the highest average response with a score of 3.66 on a five-point scale. No delays was the weakest point once again in Q1 2012 with an average of 2.1 on a five-point scale.
We saw a general increasing trend in all the communication method categories exceptProject email updates and Project website updates. Electronic roadway signs emerged as the communication method most used again at 47.2%. Television emerged second place at 40.1% and Radio at third place with 37.3%. The most significant increase in preferred communi-cation method was Newspapers which increased from 17.2% in Q4 2011 to 25.8% in Q1 2012.
55
Detailed ResultsAn Increase in Overall Average
The largest contributing factor for an increase in overall average score was the significant increase in score in Orem. Orem was the area with the most positive growth receiving a 2.94 on a five-point scale, up from 2.7 in Q4 2011. American Fork experienced increases in overall scores. Five out of 11 categories in Question 1 increased in score from Q4 2011.
If Provo had not experienced such a drastic decrease in score, the project would have achieved a greater overall average. The most positive geographic area in Q1 2012 was Orem with a score of 2.94 on a five-point scale, increasing on all but two questions. American Fork experienced growth in their average overall response score from 2.75 in Q4 2011 to 2.76 on a five-point scale.
Most Improvement
The Question 1 category that experienced the most positive growth in Q1 2012 ascompared to Q4 2011 was Ramps. In American Fork Ramps increased to 2.93, from 2.72 Q4 in 2011. In Orem Ramps increase to 2.96, from 2.76 in Q4 2011. Provo and Springville remained about the same.
Most Decline
When asked to agree or disagree with the statement The detour routes are clear and easy to navigate, people responded more negatively to this statement than Q4 2011. American Fork received 2.41, down from 2.32 in Q4 2011, based on a five- point scale Springville received 2.39, down from 2.58 in Q4 2011, based on a five-point scale. Provo received 2.35, down from 2.58 in Q4 2011, based on a five-point scale. Orem recieved 2.49, up from 2.21 in Q4 2011, based on a five-point scale.
56
Communication
In Q1 2012, respondents generally still look to electronic roadway signs and traditional media sources like television and radio more than non-traditional media sources; however, Newspaper experienced the most positive growth. The most significant decline in the percentage points was seen in Project website updates. Social media the category that showed the largest decrease in category Q4 2011 showed significant increase in Q1 2012. Television experienced positive growth of 1.8%. Television experienced growth in percentage points in all four areas except Provo. Electronic roadway signs was reported as the most used method of communication in Provo, American Fork and Spanish Fork. The most used method of non-traditional communication was Social media at 16.9%. Local meetings/public events experienced an overall increase of 0.8%, with increases in all areas except for Springville. Project email updates experienced a 1% decline, much of it coming from American Fork and Orem. Door hangers/fliers experienced a 2.2% increase. The most significant de cline came from American Fork. Radio messages experienced a 0.4% increase, with increase in America Fork and decrease in Springville. Newspapers experienced a 8.6% increase, with the most significant increases in Orem and Springville.
57
RecommendationsSomething Accomplishable
The following are recommendations that may help UDOT increase the publics perception about the project. The following areas are reasonable and accomplishable.
Improvements in Provo
Provo received the largest decrease in overall ratings. The most significant decreases were in the categories of Clear lane markings, No delays, Noise, Easy to read signs, and Clear and navegable detours. The following comments highlight the general feeling in Provo, and the need for a focus on improvement in the area. I wish the signs were easier to notice (i.e. Provo Center Street, exit). They blend in with
the orange all around The removal of old lane lines, addition of temp lines, cones, and varying asphalt colors make it hard to navigate and understand traffic pattern. The lanes are rough to understand.
The main thing they could improve are road signs and lane markings. Sometimes you cant tell what your lane is, creating increased danger. Lack of advanced warning, in particular lane reduction, seem to be the biggest cause of traffic jams. Drivers dont have enough warning to change lanes, leading to backing up when they try to change at the last moment.
Communication Campaign
A significant number of complaints were expressed in the Free Response section of the survey regarding delays. Although the delays cannot be eliminated until the project is done, the reason for the delays can be better communicated.
This may be done through the most effective methods of preferred communication shown in the Preferred Communication charts. Radios messages, Television, and Electronic Roadway Signs, have highest percentages of preference in receiving notificationsregarding the I-15 construction areas.
With a recent increase in the Newspaper category, now might be the best time to utilize newspapers in helping drivers understand the need for construction and why it causes traffic delays.
top related