dashboard report jan 2008

8/8/2019 Dashboard Report Jan 2008

1/130

Pulsar Advertising Southeastern Institute of Research1

Customer Satisfaction StudyWave II

April 2008

Southeastern

Institute ofResearch

Part of PulsarAdvertising

Contract Team

Draft #1


2/130


Objectives &Methodology


3/130


Objectives

This research is designed to track and monitor theperceptions and responses of Virginia residents inregard to VDOT.

Specific objectives include:

Monitor residents expectations and perceptions ofVDOT on critical issues across all areas of Virginia

Provide guidance for VDOTs outreachcommunications program across the state

Monitor perceptions of VDOT across the state Monitor changes in perceptions over time

Provide data on resident satisfaction with VDOTthat is reported regularly in the VDOT Dashboard


4/130


Methodology

Random telephone survey conducted across Virginia

Designed to track key measures of contact, familiarity,satisfaction, and trust of VDOT

Survey includes diagnostic questions to understand thenature of the contact

Interviews conducted with 1,800 residents of theCommonwealth Sample of 200 in each of VDOTs nine Districts

Wave II Interviews were conducted January/February2008

Wave I interviews were conducted in May 2007 one yearafter the previous wave of the Omnibus

The next wave of this research is scheduled to beconducted in June


5/130


Methodology

By design, each of VDOTs nine Districts is equallyrepresented in the sample. In terms of population,this causes some Districts to be over-represented andsome to be under-represented. This means that thesample is not representative of Virginias population

distribution. To correct for this inaccuracy, the datahave been weighted.

Weighting is a standard statistical procedure thatallows for the correction of distributions in the sampledrawn to approximate those of the population fromwhich it is drawn.

In this report, weighted data are used for the totalsample. When results are reported for each District,unweighted data are utilized.

The weighting rationale is outlined on the following

slide.


6/130


Methodology

District

Actualproportion of

Virginiapopulation

Designedproportion of

sample

Weightedproportion of

sample

Bristol 5% 11.1% 5%

Hampton Roads 23% 11.1% 23%Richmond 15% 11.1% 15%

NorthernVirginia

26% 11.1% 26%

Lynchburg 5% 11.1% 5%

Salem 9% 11.1% 9%

Staunton 7% 11.1% 7%Fredericksburg 5% 11.1% 5%

Culpeper 5% 11.1% 5%

N ote: In order to make appropriate comparisons with 2006 data, thetotal sample reported for 2006 has also been weighted.

Weighting Rational for 2007 and 2008 Samples


7/130


Methodology

For some measures in this study, comparable data areavailable from 2006. In those instances, the resultsfrom the three waves of data are comparedstatistically to determine if there is statisticalevidence that there is a difference over the three

years and, thus, that the difference is not due tochance.

A red asterisk ( *) is used to indicate that thedifference between 2008 and 2007 is statisticallysignificant.

A red carrot ( ^ ) is used to indicate that the differencebetween 2007 and 2006 is statistically significant.

All significance testing is conducted using a 95% levelof confidence.


8/130


DetailedFindings


9/130


Detailed FindingsOutline of Presentation

Monitoring VDOT Performance

Satisfaction with VDOT: Overall Measures ofPerformance

Satisfaction with VDOT: Functional Areas

Contact with VDOT

511 Virginia


10/130


MonitoringVDOT

Performance


11/130


Monitoring VDOTs Progress

Awareness (Contact with VDOT)

Familiarity

Favorability(Satisfaction)

Trust

In previous waves of theOmnibus study, theresearch measured

growth of awareness,familiarity, favorability,and trust of VDOT. The2007 and 2008 studies

reported in thisdocument continue to

monitor VDOTsperformance on these

key measures.


12/130


Even Though a Slight Drop in the Level of ContactIs Reported in this Wave, Most Residents of

Virginia Report that They Have Had Some Form ofContact with VDOT Over the Past Year

93% 90%96%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2006 2007 2008

Q15: Tell me, in which of the following ways have you come into contact with VDOTduring the past year?

* 2008 differssignificantly

from 2007 at a95% confidence

level^

2007 differssignificantlyfrom 2006 at a95% confidence

level

*Data weightedto be

representativeof Virginia

population.

^


13/130


About Half of the Residents of Virginia AreFamiliar with VDOT and the Work It Does

Q5: Overall, how familiar would you say you are with VDOT and the work it does?

" "1 %

"3"35%

"5"--Veryamiliar15%

"4"3 %

"1"--Not Veryamiliar

6%About half (47%) say

that theyare familiarwith VDOT.

18% are notfamiliar

with VDOTand its

work.

Data weightedto be


population.


14/130


Familiarity with VDOT Has Remained Stableover the Past Few Years

Q5: Overall, how familiar would you say you are with VDOT and the work it does?

6

13

33

14

6 1

3

3

16

6

1

35

3

15

33

4

6

1

1 ot veryfamiliar

3 4 5"-- Veryfamiliar

6

Data weightedto be


population.

4

in 646

in 4

in


15/130


The Highest Level of Familiarity Is Postedfor Bristol, at 58%; The Lowest Level Is

Reported at 41% in Fredericksburg

28

29

2

2

!

! 0

! 5

! 0

!

2!

! 5

20

2

0 20 0 0 80 ! 00

" # $ d $ # i % & s ' ( # )

0 ( 1 2 $ 2 $ #

Ri % h 3 o 4 d

5 6 7 ( 4 6 o 4

8 o # 6 h $ # 4 9

i # ) i 4 i 7

Ly4 %

h' ( # )

H 7 3 2 6 o 4 Ro 7 ds

5 7 1 $ 3

B# is 6 o 1

R 7 6 i 4 ) o @ A A o 4 ! B 5 s % 7 1 $ R 7 6 i 4 ) o @ A 5 A o 4 ! B 5 s % 7 1 $ B B 9

$ # y @ 7 3 i 1 i 7 #

58 C

D

7C

D E C

Q 5 : Ov F G H I I , how P H Q i I i H G wo R I d yo R s H y yo R H G F wi S hT

DOT H U d S h F wo G V i S do F s?

5 D C

D 8 C

D E C

D D C

D W C

D X C


16/130


Familiarity Has N ot Changed SignificantlyAcross Any of the Districts

45%50% 49%

56%

43% 43%50%

46%52% 51%

42% 42% 44%

58%54%

48% 47% 46% 46% 44%41%

45%44%

49%49% 50%

43%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Bristol Salem HamptonRoads

Lynchburg NorthernVa.

Staunton Richmond Culpeper Fred'burg

2006 2007 2008

NOTE: Percentages

indicate those rating their f amiliarity a

4 or a 5.

Q 5: Overall , ho w f amiliar would you say you are w ith VDOT and the wor k it does ?

Although f amiliarity may beincreasing in Bristol anddecreasing in Y ynchburg.


17/130


N early Half of Virginians AreSatisfied with VDOT

Q ` : Thinking about VDOT overall, how satisfied are you with VDOT overall?

" a "b

c

d

"b "a e d

" f "--Not at allsatisfied

b d

" g "f g d

" e "--Veryh atisfied

i d

Data weightedto be


population.


18/130


After Improving from 2006 to 2007,Satisfaction with VDOT Has Remained

Steady Over the Past Year

6%12%

29 %

10%5%

13%

35% 37%

10%4%

12%

40%35%

9%

42%

0%

20 %

40%

60%

80%

100 %

"1"--Not p t p q q r p t i r fi s t

"2" "3" "4" "5"--Vs ryr p t i r fi s t

200 6 2007 200 8

Q 6 : Thinking p bout VDOT ov s r p q q , h ow r p t i r fi s t p r s you wi t h VDOT ov s r p q q ?

39% in 200 6 v . 47% in 2007 tat i t icall y ignific ant

incr ase .Sat isf act ion r e main ed

consta n t fr om 2007 to 200 8.

Data we igh ted to be

re pr ese ntat ive of Virgini a

popu lat ion.


19/130


Satisfaction Runs from a High of 66% inLynchburg to a Low of 33% in Hampton Roads

27 %

32%

37%

42%

41%

44%

42%

40%

49%

6%

7%

10%

6%

10%

17%

19%

17%

13%

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

Hamp t o u Roads

Nort h v r u w

ir x i u ia

Ri y hmo u d

r v d v r i y s r x

t aun t on

Cu

pv

pv

r

a v m

Br is t o

Lync h ur x

R a t ing o "4" on 1 5 s ca v R a t ing o "5" on 1 5 s ca v w

v ry s a t is i v d

66%

59 %

59 %

48%

47%

33%

54%54%

39%

Q 6 : Thi nk ing ab ou t

DOT ov ra , how s a t is i d ar you wi t h

DOT ov ra ?


20/130


Satisfaction with VDOT Has IncreasedSignificantly in Fredericksburg; It Has

Decreased Significantly in Staunton

57%53% 52%

46% 45%

36%40%

33%27%

66%

58%55%

49%

38%

46%

36%

59% 59%54% 54%

48%

39%33%

45%

65%66%

47%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Lynchburg Bristol Salem Staunton Culpeper Fred'burg Richmond NorthernVa.

HamptonRoads

2006 2007 2008

NOTE: Percentages

indicate those rating their

overall satis f action a 4 or a 5.

Q 6: Thin king about VDOT overall , ho w satis f ied are you with VDOT overall ?

* 2008 di ff ers signi f icantly

f rom 2007 at a

95% con f idence le vel

^ 2007 di ff ers signi f icantly

f rom 2006 at a 95% con f idence

le vel

^

^

^

**


21/130


22/130


Following an Increase in 2007, Trust in VDOTHas Remained Stable over the Past Year

11 16

3

14 6

13

3 3

1 6

13

3 3

13

3

4

6

1

"1"--Do no r st a a ll

" " "3" "4" " "--T r st ver yj k h

6 l

Q a : To wh a e xt e nt do yo r st VDOT o do he r ight hing f or he peo p le o f Virgini a in re gar d o j anaging he st a e s roa d and highw ay syst e j ?

Tr m st in n rea se d f ro o 3

in 200 6

o 44

in 2007 ast a

isti n a lly signifi n ant in n rea se .

Tr m st re o a in e d n onst ant

f ro o 2007

o 200 .

Da

a we ight e d

o bere pre se nt a

iveof Virgini a

popm

la

ion.


23/130


Satisfaction Plays an ImportantRole in the Development of Trust

Q5a : To what extent do you trust VDOT to do the right thing for the people of Virginia in regard to managing the states road and highway system?

13%

55 % 2 %

0% 20 % 40% 60% 0% 100 %

ot atisfied

atisfied

ating of 4 on 1 z 5 scale ating of 5 on 1 z 5 scale z z Trust { ery mu ch

3%

|

atisfied rated their

o } erallsatisfa ction

with VDOT 4 or 5 on a 1 ~ 5 scale. ot

|

atisfied rated it 1, 2 , or 3.

14%

3% of those who are satisfied with VDOT o erall also trust VDOT.In contrast, only 14% of those who are not satisfied trust VDOT.

This isconsistentwith 200 7

when

0% of those satisfiedalso trusted

VDOT } s. only13% of thosenot satisfied.


24/130


Trust Is Highest in Lynchburg (64%) andLowest in Hampton Roads (34%)

25 %

34%

33%

35%

36%

35%

30%

33%

38%

9%

8%

11%

13%

15%

16%

23%

21%

26%

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

Hamp t on Roads

Nort h rn

irginia

Fr d r ick bu rg

Richmond

t aun t on

Cu

p

p

r

Br is t o

a m

Lync hbu rg

R a t ing o "4" on 1 5 s ca R a t ing o "5" on 1 5 s ca

ru t v ry muc h

64%

48%

34%

51%

54%

51%

44%

53%

42%

Q 5a : o wh a t xt n t do yo u tr u t

DO t o do t h r igh t t hi ng or t h p op o

irginia in r ga rd t o manag ing t h st a t s road an d hi ghw ay sys t m?


25/130


N o Significant Improvements inTrust Are Posted for Any of the

Districts over the Past Year

57%

41%

50%44%

38%41%

29% 30% 31%

55%60%

56%

46%

36%42%

36%

53% 51% 48%44%43%

62%54%

34%

51%

64%

42%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Lyn ch bu l

t l t un t n Culp p R

ch nd Fred 'bu rg Nor th ernVa .

am pt onR oads

2006 2007 2008

NOTE: Per cen tages

ndi ca te th ose ra t ing th eir

t rust a 4 or a 5 .

Q 5a : To wha t e xt en t do yo u t ru st VDOT t o do th e rig ht th ing f or th e peo ple of Virginia in regard t o managing th e st a t e s road and h ighway sys t em ?

^ 2007 di ff ers signi f ican t ly

f rom 2006 a t a

95% con f iden ce le ve l

^

^ ^ ^


26/130


Monitoring VDOTs Progress

Awareness (Contact with VDOT)90%*

Familiarity47%

Favorability(Satisfaction)

44 %

Trust45%

* Indicates astatisticallysignificant

decrease since2007, at a 9 5%

confidence level


27/130


Conclusion & Implication

Conclusion : While a decrease in contact with VDOT isposted in this wave of research, overall contact withVDOT remains high. About 9 out of 10 Virginiaresidents have had some form of contact with VDOTover the past year. Levels of familiarity, satisfactionand trust have not changed significantly this wave although a few significant changes are posted forcertain individual Districts.

Implication : Through its far-reaching presence, VDOTcontinues to have considerable potential to influenceperceptions of the organization. Continue to work togrow satisfaction and trust by taking advantage ofevery form of contact between VDOT and Virginiaresidents. Since overall levels of satisfaction and trusthave not been declining in recent waves of the study,take advantage of this positive environment to growoverall imagery of VDOT.


28/130


29/130


VDOTs Most Favorable Satisfaction Ratings Tier 1 Tend to be for Physical and Material Components of the

Roadways Rather than for Planning and Management

19%

18%

20%

22%

29%

33%

32%

30%

34%

41%

37%

43%

39%

7%

8%

7%

10%

12%

12%

13%

16%

16%

17%

22%

17%

28%

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

Manag eme nt o f pub lic fund s

Plann ing f o r fu ture nee s

Maint e nan ce and c on struc tion o f roadway s

R e sp on si e to n ee s/p refere nce s o f ci t ize ns

Maint e nan ce and c on struc t ion o f bri e s

Q ua lity o f ri e

ra ffic manag eme nt / inci e nt re sp on se

Commu n ic at ing

Sa fe ty o f Vir in ia' s road s and hi hway s

App e a ran ce o f road si e

Si ns and pav eme nt ma rki ng s

Cle an line ss o f hi hway s and roadway s

R e st a re a s and w e lc o me ce nt er s

R at ing o f "4" on 1-5 scale R at ing o f "5" on 1- 5 scale -- Ver y sat isfie

Q 4: How sat isfie a re yo u w it h VDO in re a r to :

67%

60%

58%

59%

50%

46%45%

45%

41%

32%

27%

26%

26%

Data w ei h t e

to be

re pre se ntat ive of Vir in ia

popu lat ion .

ier 1: Hi he st

sat if acta ionrat ing s

Tier 2: Moder at e

sat isf act ionrat ing s

Tier 3: ow e st

sat isf act ionrat ing s


30/130


63% 62% 61%52%

59%50%

63% 60% 58%67%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

R es t areas/we lc omec en ters

Clean liness of hig hways and

roadways

igns and pa emen tmar kings

App earan c e of roadside

afe ty of Virginia 'sroads and hig hways

2007 2008

Q 4: How sa t isfied are yo u wi th VDOT in regard t o:

Da t a weig ht ed t o be

re p resen t a t i e of Virginia

popul a t ion .

NOTE: Per cen t ages

indi ca t e th ose ra t ing th eir

sa t isfa ct ion a 4 or a 5 .

Satisfaction with Rest Areas andWelcome Centers Has Increased

Significantly Since Last Year

*

* 2008 differs signifi can t ly

from 2007 a t a 95% confiden ce

le e l

Tier 1: Highes t

sa t ifa ct aionra t ings


31/130


44% 46% 44% 45% 44%45%44% 45% 41%46%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Comm uni c a t ing Traffi cmanagemen t/in c iden t

res ponse

Q ua lity of ride

ain tenan c e andc ons truct ion of bridges

2006 2007 2008

Q4: How sa t isfied are yo u wit h VDOT in regard t o:


re p resen t a t ive of Virginia

popul a t ion .


indi ca t e t hose ra t ing t heir


Satisfaction Levels of These Tier 2Attributes Have N ot Changed

Since the Last Wave

Tier 2: Modera te

sa t isfa ct ion ra t ings

N A N A


32/130


32%27% 30% 25%28% 28% 24%26%

34%27% 26%

32%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

R es ponsi e to needs/ prefsof c it iz ens

Main tenan c e andc ons truct ion of roadways

Planning for f uture needs Managemen t of publ icf unds

2006 2007 2008

Q 4: How sa t isfied are yo u wi t h VDOT in regard t o:


re p resen t a t i e of Virginia

popul a t ion .


indi ca t e t hose ra t ing t heir


N o Significant Changes ArePosted for Tier 3 Attributes

Tier 3: Lowes t

sa t isfa ct ion ra t ings


33/130


Rest Areas and Welcome Centers

Rest Areas and Welcome Centers Earn Higher Levelsof Satisfaction in Bristol, Lynchburg,

Fredericksburg, Hampton Roads and Richmond

38 -

37 -

39 -

35 -

45 -

39 -

43 -

38 -

37 -

24 -

25 -

24 -

28 -

32 -

29 -

36 -

38 -

25 -

0 - 20 - 40 - 60 - 80 - 100 -

S

g

S

d

d

d k g

g

B

g f "4" 1- g f "5" 1- --

f d

Q 4 : w f d w DOT g d d w g d d g w g ?

75

74

72

63

63

62

70

71

62


34/130


Rest Areas and Welcome CentersImprovement for the Statewide Rating of Rest Areas andWelcome Centers Is Driven by Significant Improvements

among Residents in Fredericksburg and Hampton Roads

73%

69% 8% 60%

67%

%61% 60%

7 % 74% 72% 71% 70%63% 63% 62% 62%68%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Bri

l chbu rg Fred' bu rg HamptonRoads

R ich mond Sa lem Nort hernVirg inia

Culpeper Sta unton

2007 2008

NOTE: Per centages

ind icate t hose

rat ing t he ir sat isf act ion a 4 or a .

Q4h : How sat isf ied are ou w it h VDOT in regard to t he rest areas and we lcome centers along t h e roads and hi ghways in Virg in ia?

* *

* 2008 diff ers sign if icant ly

f rom 2007 at a

9

% con f iden ce le ve l


35/130


Cleanliness of the Highways and RoadwaysResidents of Salem Post the Highest Levels of Satisfaction

with Cleanliness of Highways and Roadways, Followed

Closely by Staunton and Northern Virginia

41%

44%

29 %

43%

40%

43%

48%

47%

40%

11%

10%

28%

15%

17%

16%

17%

27 %

18%

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

Richmond

Fre de r ick bu rg

Br is t o

Cu pe pe r

Lync hbu rg

Hamp t on Roads

Nort he rn Virginia

St aun t on

Sa e m

R a t ing o "4" on 1-5 s ca e R a t ing o "5" on 1-5 s ca e -- Ve ry s a t is ie d

Q 4j : How s a t is ie d are you wi t h VDOT in re ga rd t o ov e ra c e an ine o hi ghw aysan d roadw ays i n Virgin ia?

67%

64%

64%

58%

57 %

52 %

58%60%

54%


36/130


Cleanliness of the Highways and Roadways

Satisfaction with Rest Areas Has Decreased inStaunton over the Past Year

73% 7 %

67% 8% 9% 61%

7%

47% 4%

9%64%67% 64%

2% 7% 8% 8%

60%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Sa lem Sta unton Nort hernVirg inia

HamptonRoads

Lyn chbu rg C ulpeper Br isto l Fred' bu rg R ich mond

2007 2008

NOTE: Per centages

ind icate t hose


*


f rom 2007 at a

9


There is a sligh t , bu t not sign if icant , increase in

Freder icksbu rg .

Q4 j : How sat isf ied are yo u w it h VDOT in regard to overa ll clean liness of hi ghways and road ways in Virg in ia?


37/130


Signs and Pavement MarkingsResidents of Staunton, Lynchburg, and Salem AreMost Satisfied with Signs and Pavement Markings;Residents of Hampton Roads Are Least Satisfied

24%

38%

40%

46%

39%

34%

41%

41%

48%

25%

16%

19%

18%

34%

29%

30%

25%

28%

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

Hamp t ads

Nort r

r a

Fr de r sbu r

mond

Cu lpepe r

r st o l

a lem

Lynchbu r

t aun t on

Ra t ng of "4" on 1 -5 sca le Ra t ng of "5" on 1 -5 sca le -- Ve ry sa t sfied

Q 4 l: How sa t isfied a re you w it h VDOT in rega rd t o t he signs and pa vemen t ma r ingson Vi rginia s roads and high ways ?

73%

71%

70%

64%

59%

49%

67%

68%

54%


38/130


Signs and Pavement Markings

Satisfaction with Signs and Pavement Markings HasRemained Stable Over the Past Year in All Districts

77%73%

6 %70%

67%70%

% 6%

73% 71% 70%68% 67% 64%

9% 4%

49% 6%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Sta unton Lyn chbu rg Sa lem Br isto l Culpeper R ich mond Fred' bu rg Nort hernVirg inia

HamptonRoads

2007 2008

NOTE: Per centages

ind icate t hose


Q4l: How sat isf ied are you w it h VDOT in regard to t h e signs and pa vement mar kings on Virg in ia s roads and hi gh ways ?


39/130


Roadside Appearance

Residents of Staunton and Salem Tend to Be MostSatisfied with Roadside Appearance

41%

41%

40%

43%

32%

42%

43%

38%

50%

11%

16%

17%

15%

17%

17%

27%

18%

26%

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

Frede r icksbu rg

Richmond

Hamp t on Roads

Nort he rn Vi rginia

Br is t o l

Lynchbu rg

Cu lpepe r

a lem

St aun t on

Ra t ing of "4" on 1 -5 sca le Ra t ing of "5" on 1 -5 sca le -- Ve ry sa t isfied

Q 4k : How sa t isfied a re you wit h VDOT in rega rd t o t he appea rance of t he roadsidea long roads and high ways in Vi rginia ?

68%

65%

60%

58%

57%

52%

58%

59%

57%


40/130


Roadside Appearance

Satisfaction with Roadside Appearance HasRemained Stable Over the Past Year in All Districts

74%

61% 8% 60% 61%

6 %60%

8%68% 6 %

60% 8%

7% 2%

47%

8% 9% 7%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Sta unton Sa lem C ulpeper Lyn chbu rg Br isto l Nort hernVirg inia

HamptonRoads

R ich mond Fred' bu rg

2007 2008

NOTE: Per centages

ind icate t hose


Q4k: How sat isf ied are you wit h VDOT in regard to t h e appearan ce of t he roads ide along roads and hi ghways in Virg in ia?


41/130


Safety of the Roads and Highways

Residents of Lynchburg and Bristol Post theMost Favorable Satisfaction Scores for Safety

31%

28%

39%

39%

39%

38%

34%

40%

43%

13%

17%

12%

14%

17%

21%

21%

20%

15%

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


Hamp t on Roads

Frede r icksbu rg

St aun t on

Richmond

Cu lpepe r

Sa lem

Br is t o l

Lynchbu rg


Q 4m : How sa t isfied a re you wit h VDOT in rega rd t o t he safe t y of Vi rginia s roadsand high ways ?

63%

61%

55%

53%

51%

44%

54%

55%

45%


42/130


Safety of the Roads and Highways

Satisfaction with Road and Highway SafetyHas Decreased in Staunton and N orthern

Virginia and Increased in Fredericksburg

6 % 9%

% 7% 3%

67%

41% 42%

63% 61% 3%

1%4 % 44%

% % 4% %

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Lyn chbu rg Br isto l Salem C ulpeper R ich mond Sta unton Fred' bu rg HamptonRoads

Nort hernVirg inia

2007 2008

NOTE: Per centages

ind icate t hose


Q4m: How sat isf ied are yo u wit h VDOT in regard to t he sa f ety of Virg in ia s roads and hi ghways ?

*


f rom 2007 at a

9


**


43/130


Communications

The Highest Levels of Satisfaction withCommunications Are Posted for Lynchburg and

Salem; The Lowest Are Hampton Roads and Culpeper

30%

27%

30%

33%

33%

32%

29%

27%

31%

10%

14%

15%

13%

17%

22%

27%

26%

14%

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

Cu lpepe r

Hamp t on Roads

Richmond


Frede r icksbu rg

St aun t on

Br is t o l

Sa lem

Lynchbu rg


Q 4f : How sa t isfied a re you wit h VDOT in rega rd t o communica t ing t o you , t ha t is keeping you info rmed abou t tr anspo rt a t ion changes t ha t impac t you ?

57%

54%

51%

46%

45%

40%

47%

49%

41%


44/130


45/130


46/130


47/130


Q uality of the Ride

The Highest Levels of Satisfaction with Qualityof the Ride Are Posted for Salem and

Lynchburg; The Lowest Is in Hampton Roads

25%

35%

33%

33%

42%

36%

43%

41%

39%

7%

6%

9%

10%

22%

17%

23%

25%

15%

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

Hamp t on Roads

Frede r icksbu rg


Richmond

Cu lpepe r

Br is t o l

St aun t on

Lynchbu rg

Sa lem


Q 4g : How sa t isfied a re you w it h VDOT in rega rd t o o ve ra ll qua lit y of t he r idee xpe r ienced on t he roads and high ways of Vi rginia ?

64%

64%

60%

43%

42%

32%

57%

58%

41%


48/130



Levels of Satisfaction with Quality of theRide on Virginia Highways and Roads IsComparable to Last Year In All Districts

58% 60%67% 61%

52%

39%43%

33%

64% 64%60% 58% 57%

43% 41%

32%34%42%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Sa lem Lyn chbu rg Sta unton Br isto l Culpeper R ich mond Nort hernVirg inia

Fred' bu rg HamptonRoads

2007 2008

NOTE: Per centages

ind icate t hose

rat ing t he ir sat isf act ion a 4 or a 5 .

Q4g: How sat isf ied are yo u w it h VDOT in regard to overa ll quality of t h e r ide e xper ien ced on t h e roads and hi ghways of Virg in ia?


49/130


Maintenance and Construction of BridgesThe Highest Level of Satisfaction with Bridges IsReported for Lynchburg, In Contrast to HamptonRoads which Has the Lowest Satisfaction Level

20%

29%

29%

35%

35%

25%

31%

35%

33%

11%

10%

11%

8%

21%

16%

14%

22%

11%

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

Hamp t on Roads

Cu lpepe r

Richmond


Frede r icksbu rg

Sa lem

Br is t o l

St aun t on

Lynchbu rg


Q 4i : How sa t isfied a re you w it h VDOT in rega rd t o main t enance and cons tr uc t ion of br idges in Vi rginia ?

55%

49%

47%

43%

40%

31%

46%

46%

39%


50/130


Maintenance and Construction of Bridges

Satisfaction with Bridge Maintenance andConstruction Has Decreased in Several Districts,

Although It Has Increased in Fredericksburg

60% 61%55 % 56%

30%

43% 41%46%

55 %49% 47% 46% 46% 43% 40% 39%

31%32%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Lyn chbu rg Sta unton Br isto l Salem Fred' bu rg Nort hernVirg inia

R ich mond C ulpeper HamptonRoads

2007 2008

NOTE: Per centages

ind icate t hose

rat ing t he ir sat isf act ion a 4 or a 5 .

Q4i: How sat isf ied are you w it h VDOT in regard to ma intenan ce and constr uc t ion of br idges in Virg in ia?


f rom 2007 at a

95% con f iden ce le ve l

* * *

Note t he de creases in Sta unton and Salem are stat ist ica lly sign if icant; and , t he increase in Freder icksbu rg is stat ist ica lly sign if icant .


51/130


Responsiveness to Citizens NeedsLynchburg Residents Are More Likely than Residents in

Other Districts to Be Satisfied with VDOTsResponsiveness to their Needs and Preferences

14%

22%

26%

24%

29%

26%

32%

26%

32%

7%

7%

6%

9%

17%

12%

19%

21%

8%

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

Hamp t on Roads


Frede r icksbu rg

Richmond

Cu lpepe r

Sa lem

St aun t on

Br is t o l

Lynchbu rg


Q 4e : How sa t isfied a re you wit h VDOT in rega rd t o being responsi ve t o t he needsand p refe rences of t he ci t izens of Vi rginia ?

53%

45%

44%

33%

32%

21%

37%

43%

29%


52/130


Responsiveness to Citizens NeedsSatisfaction with VDOTs Responsiveness HasIncreased Significantly in Fredericksburg and

Decreased Significantly in Bristol

5 2% 5 0%

38 % 39%33 %

4 5 %

24%

48 %44 %

27%29% 2 8%

35 %

5 8%

21 %

29%

45 %

33 %37%

21%

29%32%

43 %44 %45 %

5 3 %

33 %

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Lynchb ur $ Bri % t & l Stau n t & n Sale ' Cul ( epe r R ich ' & nd Fre d 'bur $ ) & rth e rnVir $ in ia

Ha ' p t & nR & a d %

200 6 2007 200 8

0 OTE: Pe rc e n t a 1 e 2

indic a t e th 3 2 e

ra ti n1

th e ir2 a ti 2 f acti 3 n a 4 3 r a 5 .

Q 4e : H4 w 5 ati 5 fie d are y 4 u with VDOT in re 6 ard t 4 : Be in 6 re 5 p 4 n 5 ive t 4 th e n ee d 5 an d pre f e re n ce 5 4 f th e citi ze n 5 4 f Vir 6 in ia?

*

* 200 8 diff e r 7 7 i 8 n ific an t ly

fr 9 @ 2007 at a

95% c9

n fid e nce le ve l^ 2007 diff e r 7

7 i 8 n ific an t ly fr 9 @ 2007 at a 95% c9 n fid e nce

le ve l

^

^ *

The dr 3 p in 2 a ti 2 f acti 3 n in R ich A 3 ndrep 3 rt e d i n 2007 c 3 n ti nue 2 in t 3 200 8.


53/130


Maintenance and Construction of the Roadways & HighwaysSatisfaction with Maintenance and Construction of

Roadways and Highways Is Fairly Low in AllDistricts, Especially Hampton Roads

11%

16%

20%

24%

24%

24%

29%

22%

25%

4%

6%

6%

6%

11%

7%

16%

14%

7%

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

Hamp t on Roads

Richmond

Frede r icksbu rg


Cu lpepe r

Lynchbu rg

St aun t on

Sa lem

Br is t o l


Q 4b : How sa t isfied a re you wit h VDOT in rega rd t o main t enance and cons tr uc t ion of t he road ways and high ways ac ross Vi rginia , inc luding ensu r ing qua lit y design andcomp le t ion of p ro j ec t s on t ime and on budge t?

39%

38%

36%

30%

26%

15%

31%

35%

22%


54/130

Planning for Future Needs


55/130


Planning for Future NeedsHighest Levels of Satisfaction for VDOT

for Working with Communities to Plan for the FutureAre Posted for the More Rural, Less Densely Populated

Areas: Lynchburg and Bristol

11%

17%

21%

18%

24%

22%

21%

27%

32%

6%

5%

4%

9%

10%

12%

15%

13%

6%

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

Hamp t on Roads


Frede r icksbu rg

Richmond

Cu lpepe r

St aun t on

Sa lem

Br is t o l

Lynchbu rg


Q 4a : How sa t isfied a re you w it h VDOT in rega rd t o working w it h communi t ies , st akeho lde rs and businesses t o p lan fo r Virginia s fu t u re tr anspo rt a t ion needs ?

45%

42%

33%

27%

25%

17%

30%

32%

22%


56/130


57/130


58/130


Management of Public FundsSatisfaction with Management of Public Funds HasRemained Fairly Stable Since the Last Wave of this

Research with the Exception of Fredericksburg WhichPosts a Statistically Significant Improvement

38% 38% 35%29%

26%20%

28%

15%

36%31%

35%

24%29%

14%

42% 40%34% 33%

27% 24% 23% 23%18%19%18%

41%

19%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Bristol Lynchburg Salem Staunton Richmond NorthernVirginia

Culpeper Fred'burg HamptonRoads

2006 2007 2008

NOTE: Percentages

indicate those

rating their satis f action a 4 or a 5 .

Q 4d : How satis f ied are you with VDOT in regard to : Management of public f unds in regard to the road and high way system in Virginia ?



le vel

*


59/130


60/130



Conclusion : Satisfaction ratings for VDOT continue tovary across Districts. Some differences sometimespositive, sometimes negative are posted for individualDistricts. For example, satisfaction with VDOTcommunications in Northern Virginia has bounced backthis wave after falling slightly in 2007. But, satisfactionwith communication continues to be down in Culpeper.

Satisfaction with construction and maintenance of bridgesis down this wave in Staunton and Salem, but it is up inFredericksburg.

Implication : There will be changes in satisfaction scoresfrom wave to wave. The value of this tracking study isthat it will allow us to monitor changes over time so thata change that is reported in only one wave may not be asmeaningful as a change either positive or negative that continues for several waves. Examine the data foreach wave carefully and try to understand changes postedfor one wave within the context of that District. But, donot assume that a change reported in only one wave isindicative of either problems or successes.


61/130


SatisfactionWith VDOT:

Functional Areas


62/130


Communications

In Regard to Communications, VDOT IsRated Most Favorably for Accuracy and

Least Favorably for Amount of Information

21%

25%

29%

32%

35%

9%

14%

12%

14%

13%

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

Amoun t of info rma t ion

Ease of ob t aininginfo rma t ion

Time liness of info rma t ion

Usefu lness of info rma t ion

Accu racy of info rma t ion


Q 7 : Ne xt, le t s th in k abou t some s pecific as pec t s of V DOT communica t ions and th einfo rma t ion pr ovided by V DOT. Again , please t e ll me how sa t isfied you a re w ith VDOT in rega rd t o:

48%

46%

39%

41%

Da t a weig ht edt o be

re pr esen t a t iveof Vi rginia

popu la t ion .

30%


63/130


46% 42% 39% 36%30%

48% 46% 41% 39%30%

0%

20 %

40%

60%

80%

100 %

AB B ura B y of inf orm at ion

Use f ulness of inf orm at ion

Timel iness of inf orm at ion

C ase of obta ining

inf orm at ion

Amou nt of inf orm at ion

2007 200 8

Communications

Satisfaction with Usefulness of Information HasIncreased Significantly Since Last Wave

Q 7 : Next, lets think about some specific aspects of VDOT communications and theinformation provided by VDOT. Again, please tell me how satisfied you are withVDOT in regard to :

Data weightedto be


population.



level

*


64/130


Slightly More than a Third Say They HaveReceived Sufficient Information from VDOT

4%

14%

21%

1 D %

7%

4%

2%

11%

18%

2%

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

More information than needed

All of information needed

Most of information needed

Some of information needed

Less information than needed

Somewhat less information than needed

Much less information than needed

Very little

Received no information

Don't know

Q 1 E a: Think a bout the amount of information you have received from VD OT abouttrans portation , p lannin g, construction , and traffic related issues . Would you saythat you have received :

Data wei ghtedto be

re p resentativeof Vir ginia

population .

39%

68% of those no t satisfied with theamount of information they have

received from VD OT have notreceived enough information to

meet their needs.

Maintenance


65/130


MaintenanceResidents Are Equally Likely to Be Satisfied with

VDOTs Regular Maintenance of the Roadways andIts Response to Unexpected Maintenance N eeds

29%

31%

11%

10%

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

VDOT's abi lit y t o mee tunexpec t ed

main t enance needs

VDOT's regu larmain t enance of roadways and

highways


Q 8: Ove ra ll, how sa t isfied a re you wi t h :

41%

40%

Dat a weigh t edt o be

rep resen t a t iveof Vi rginia

popu la t ion .

Maintenance


66/130


42 F 36 F

41 F 40 F

0 F

20 F

40 F

60F

G 0 F

100 F

VDOT's re g H lar I a intenance o f road ways and highw ays

VDOT's a P ility to I ee t H nex pe ctedI a inte nance need s

2007 200 G

Maintenance

While Satisfaction with Regular Maintenance HasRemained Stable Since the Last Wave of the Study,Satisfaction with Meeting Unexpected Maintenance

N eeds Has Increased Significantly

Data weightedto be


population.

Q 8 : Overall, how satisfied are you with :



level

*

Note : Wording for these questions changedslightly in 2008. Thus, differences between

2007 and 2008 may be due to changes inthe questionnaire rather than actual

changes in ratings.


67/130


Q uality of the RideOn Measures of the Quality of the Ride, the Highest Level

of Satisfaction Is Posted for Smoothness of Ride

But, Other Measures of Q uality of Ride Have Lower Levels of Satisfaction

22%

27%

26%

37%

8%

8%

9%

12%

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

Managemen t of tr affic conges t ion

Managemen t of p rojec t s t o minimi Q e tr afficde lays and dis rup t ions

Day-t o -day f low of tr affic

Smoo t hness of r ide


Q 9: Now, t hin k abou t t he qua lit y of t he r ide e xpe r ienced on Vi rginia roads andhighways . How sa t isfied a re you wi t h :

49%

35%

30%

35%



popu la t ion .



68/130


49%

31% 33% 30%

49%

35% 35% 30%

0%

20 %

40%

60%

80%

100 %

Smoot hn ess of ri de Day-to-da y f low of t raffi R

Manageme nt of proje R ts to

minimi ze t raffi R

dela ys anddisrupt ions

Manageme nt of t raffi R R ongest ion

2007 200 8


re p rese ntat ive of Virgini a

populat ion.

Q y

Satisfaction with Day-to-Day Flow ofTraffic Has Increased Significantly Since

the Last Wave of Research

Q 9 : Now, think about the quality of the ride experienced on Virginia roads andhighways. How satisfied are you with :



level

*

Emergency Response


69/130


E mergency ResponseThe Highest Levels of Satisfaction with VDOT in Regard to EmergencyResponse Are Posted for Being Prepared for Inclement Weather andSnow Removal; Satisfaction Is Somewhat Lower for Management of

Traffic during Incident Response

29%

32%

38%

37%

40%

12%

13%

14%

19%

21%

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

Managemen t of tr affic f low du r ing inciden t

response

Abi lit y t o reso lS e tr affic inciden t s

Time ly response t o tr affic inciden t s

Snow remova l

Being p repa red fo r inc lemen t wea t he r


Q 10 : Based on you r e xpe r ience and pe rcep t ions , how sa t isfied a re you wi t h VDOT in rega rd t o:

61%

56%

45%

41%

52%

Da t a weigh t edt o be


popu la t ion .

E R


70/130


63 %T U %

V T %V W

% 39 %

61 %T 6%

T X %V T %

V

1%

Y %

X Y %

V Y %

60 %

` 0%

100 %

a ein g pre pare b fo r incle men c

we a c d er

Snow re mo val T ime le

re f pon f e c oc raff ic

inc i b en c f

Abili c e c ore f olve c raff ic

inc i b en c f

g anage men c of c raff ic flo w

b urin g inc i b en c re f pon f e

X 007 2008

Dah

a wei g i h

ep

h

o b e re p re q en

h

ah

ive of Vir gini a

populah

ion .

E mergency ResponseSignificant Improvements in Regard to Emergency ResponseAre Posted for Two Measures: Timely Response to Traffic

Incidents and Ability to Resolve Traffic Incidents

Q 10 : Based on your experience and perceptions, how satisfied are you with VDOTin regard to :



level

*

*

Sig g d P t M ki g


71/130


Signage and Pavement MarkingsReadability and Visibility of Signs Receive the Highest

Marks for Signage and Pavement Markings Attributes,While Lighting Receives the Lowest Rating

38%

43%

43%

44%

42%

42%

41%

18%

19%

20%

20%

30%

31%

23%

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

Ligh t ing on roadways & highways

Condi t ion of pavemen t ma rkings

Qua lit y of pavemen t ma rkings

Visibi lit y of pavemen t ma rkings

Roads & highways c lea rl y ma rked

Visibi lit y of signs

Readabi lit y of signs


Q11 : Think now abou t signage and pavemen t ma rkings on Vi rginia roadways andhighways . How sa t isfied a re you wi t h :

72%

65%

63%

56%

64%

72%

62%

Da t a weigh t edt o be


popu la t ion .


72/130


74% 71%64% 62% 63% 61%

54% 56%62%63%64%65%

72 %72 %

0%

20 %

40%

60%

80%

100 %

R eadab ilit yof sign s

Visibilit y of sign s

R oads &high wa ys

r lea r lymark ed

Visibilit y of pave me ntmarking s

Qual it y of pave me ntmarking s

Condit ionof

pave me ntmarking s

s igh t ing onroadwa ys &

high wa ys

2007 200 8



populat ion.

Signage and Pavement MarkingsSatisfaction with Signage and Pavement Markings

Has Remained Steady Since Last Year

Q 11 : Think now about signage and pavement markings on Virginia roadways andhighways. How satisfied are you with :

Rest Areas & Welcome Centers


73/130



Satisfaction with Rest Areas & WelcomeCenters Is Highest for Signs Indicating

Locations and Lowest for N umber Available

33%

35%

38%

38%

35%

41%

40%

20%

22%

22%

25%

27%

37%

29%

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

Numbe r of res t areas & we lcome cen t e rs

Ameni t ies avai lab le

Safe t y

Clean liness

Trave le r info rma t ion avai lab le

Condi t ion

Signs indica t ing loca t ions


Q 12 : Wha t abou t th e res t a reas and we lcome cen t e rs on Vi rginia roads andh ighways ? How sa t isfied a re you wi th th e res t a reas and we lcome cen t e rs in rega rdt o:

77%

64%

60%

53%

63%

68%

57%


re pr esen t a t iveof Vi rginia

popu la t ion .



74/130


76%

61% 63% 60%55 % 54%

46%

77 %68% 64% 63% 60% 57% 53%

0%

20 %

40%

60%

80%

100 %

Sign sin di t at inglo t at ions

Condit ion Travele rinf orm at ionava ilab ile

Clea nlin ess Saf et y Ame ni t iesava ilable

Numbe r of rest areas &

wel t omet e nte rs

2007 200 8


re pr ese ntat ive of Virgini a

populat ion.

Rest Areas & Welcome CentersSignificant Improvements Are Posted this Wavefor the Condition and Safety of Rest Areas and

Welcome Centers and the Number Available

Q 12 : What about the rest areas and welcome centers on Virginia roads andhighways? How satisfied are you with the rest areas and welcome centers in regardto :

*



level

**

Roadside Appearance


75/130


ppIn Regard to Litter Removal, Residents Are Most Happy

with the Appearance of Plants, Grasses, and Flowers andLeast Happy with the Appearance of Construction Sites

37%

38%

40%

42%

12%

15%

21%

26%

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

Appea rance of cons tr uc t ion si t es

Fre u uency of litt e rremova l

Fre u uency of mowing

Appea rance of p lan t s,grasses and f lowe rs


Q 13 : How sa t isfied a re you wi th :

68%

53%

49%

61%



popu la t ion .

Roadside Appearance


76/130


67 v

w w v

w 2 v 44 v

6 x v 61 v

w 3 v 4 y v

0 v

20 v

40 v

60 v

x 0 v

100 v

App eara nce o f plant s gra sse s and

f lower s

Freq e ncy of owing

Freq e ncy of litt erre ova l

App eara nce o f cons t r ct ion site s

2007 200 x

Da t a we igh t edt o be

re p re se n t a t iveof Virgin ia

pop la t ion.

Roadside Appearance

Significant Improvements Are Posted thisWave for Frequency of Mowing andAppearance of Construction Sites

Q 12 : What about the rest areas and welcome centers on Virginia roads andhighways? How satisfied are you with the rest areas and welcome centers in regardto :



level

*

*

Management of Public Funds


77/130


Satisfaction Levels for Measures of BudgetManagement Are Fairly Low, Ranging from 23% for

Completing Projects on Budget to 32% for Building

Projects that Are Solutions to Community Needs

17%

18%

23%

23%

6%

7%

8%

9%

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

Comp le t ing p rojec t son budge t

Deve loping budge t st ha t give p r io r it y t oimpo rt an t p rojec t s

Comp le t ing p rojec t son t ime

Bui lding p rojec t s t ha tare so lu t ions t o

communi t y needs


Q 14 : Ove ra ll, ho w sa t isfied a re you wit h VDOT in rega rd t o:

32%

31%

23%

25%



popu la t ion .

Management of Public Funds


78/130


32 % 28 % 26 % 24 %32 % 31 %

25 % 23 %

0%

20 %

40 %

60 %

80 %

100 %

uil ing proj e c a are olu ion

o commu ni

nee

om ple ingproj e c on ime

Deve loping bu ge a give priori o

impor an proj e c

Comple ingproj e c on bu ge

2007 2008

Da

a w ei g

e

o b e re p re en

a

ive of Vir gini a

popula

ion .

Management of Public FundsAlthough the Level of Satisfaction Is Still Quite Low for

Completing Projects on Time, A StatisticallySignificant Increase Is Posted for this Wave

Q 14 : Overall, how satisfied are you with VDOT in regard to :



level

*

Driving Satisfaction Trust : The Derived Model


79/130


Trust of VDOTOverall satisfactionwith VDOT

Communications

Traffic man. incidentresponse

Planning withcommunities

R esponsive toneeds of citi zens

Q uality of ride

Management of public funds

Safety of roadways

Maintenance construction

Accuracy

sefulness

Timeliness

Ease of obtaining

Amount

R egular maint.

nexpectedmaint.

Bridge maint.

Driving Satisfaction Trust : The Derived Model.07 1

.2 10

.20 3

.08 1

.22 1

.324

.2 12

.108

.155

.07 6

.077

.111

.080

.0 54

.080

.2 68

.787

Driving Satisfaction Trust : The Derived Model


80/130


Trust of VDOTOverall satisfactionwith VDOT

Communications

Traffic man. incidentresponse

Planning withcommunities

R esponsive toneeds of citi zens

Q uality of ride

Management of public funds

Safety of roadways

Maintenance construction

Accuracy

sefulness ( 42% 46%)

Timeliness

Ease of obtaining

Amount

R egular maint.

nexpected maint.(36 % 40%)

Bridge maint.

Driving Satisfaction Trust : The Derived Model.07 1

.2 10

.20 3

.08 1

.22 1

.324

.2 12

.108

.155

.07 6

.077

.111

.080

.0 54

.080

.2 68

.787


81/130


Contactwith VDOT


82/130


As N oted Earlier, Although the Level of ContactHas Decreased this Wave, N early All Virginians

Have Some Form of Contact with VDOT

93% 90%96%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2006 2007 2008

Q15: Tell me, in which of the following ways have you come into contact with VDOTduring the past year?



level^ 2007 differs

significantlyfrom 2006 at a95% confidence

level

*Data weightedto be


population.

^


83/130


Significant Decreases in Contact Are Posted forLynchburg, Hampton Roads, Culpeper, N orthern

Virginia, Fredericksburg, and Richmond

90%93%

96% 94%90%

93% 93%90% 90%

98% 97% 97% 97% 96% 95%

87%90% 89% 91%

94% 93% 93%91%

88%90% 87%90%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Lynchburg HamptonRoads

Culpeper NorthernVa.

Fred'burg Richmond Staunton Bristol Salem

2006 2007 2008About 9 of 10 residents

ha ve had some f orm of contact w ith VDOT over

the past year regardless

of the District in

which they live.

Q 15 : Tell me , in which of the f ollo wing ways ha ve you come into contact with VDOTduring the past year ?



le vel

* *^

**

^

* *


84/130


Just As Reported in the Past, Virginia ResidentsTend N ot to Initiate Contact with VDOT

72%68%68%

63%40%

31%

21%15%

11%

11%10%

8%8%

6%5%

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

Read or heard about VDOT in news

Visited Virginia Interstate rest area

VDOT road c rews

Electronic message boards

Encountered Safety Service Patrols

Searched VDOT website

Received mail from VDOT

Called VDOT

Visited a VDOT office

Called 511 telephone service

Called the Highway Helpline

Accessed 511 online

Sent email to VDOT

Attended VDOT public meeting

Sent a letter to VDOT

Q 15 : Now, lets tal k about any contact you might have had with VDOT in the pastyear . Tell me , in which of the following ways have you come into contact with VDOTduring the past year ?

Contact viaElectronicMessageBoards is

significantlylower than the2007 level of

75%. No otherdifferences

are significantat the 95%confidence

level .

11% have called 511 ; and , 8% have accessed

511 online

Data weightedto be


population .


85/130


Districts Vary Slightly in the Typeof Contact Residents Have with VDOTResidents of Hampton Roads are less likely than the other Districts, specificallyBristol, Lynchburg, and Staunton, to have called a VDOT office.

Salem residents are more likely to have called 511 than other Districts,especially Lynchburg and Culpeper.

Residents of Bristol are more likely to have visited a VDOT office than otherDistricts, especially Richmond and Hampton Roads.

N orthern Virginia residents are most likely to have searched the VDOT Website, and Bristol residents are least likely.

N orthern Virginia residents are also the most likely to receive mail from VDOT.

Residents in Bristol are more likely than other Districts, especially Staunton, tohave attended a public meeting.

Residents in N orthern Virginia and Hampton Roads are more likely than otherDistricts, especially Lynchburg, to have encountered electronic messageboards on the highways.

Lynchburg residents are less likely than others, especially Salem and HamptonRoads, to have visited a rest area.


86/130



Conclusion : Although nearly all Virginians have someform of contact with VDOT, level of contact hasdecreased this wave. Decreases are posted for six ofVDOTs nine Districts.

Implication : Although a decrease in contact with VDOT isposted this wave, this decrease may not be meaningful orindicative of problems. It may simply reflect a normalsettling of the data or may reflect a seasonaldifference. Since previous waves of this study have notbeen conducted on a regular schedule, it is not yetpossible to identify seasonal differences. As the study isconducted at regular intervals in the future, it will bepossible to examine the data for seasonal differences.


87/130


511Virginia

U id d A f 511 Vi i i


88/130


Unaided Awareness of 511 VirginiaTelephone Is 18%; It Is 12% for the Web Site

9%7%

11%12%

16%17%18%

20%25%25%

27%27%

30%46%

49%53%

58%63%64%

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

Don't knowOther

Text messages

511 Virginia - online

Podcasts

Blogs

511 Virginia - telephone

511 Virginia (not specific)

Public meetings

GPS

Regular mail

Emails

Workplace

Word of mouth

Internet (non-specific)

Billboards

Radio

TelevisionNewspaper

Q 20 : Now, think about the various sources of information about transportation andtraffic available to the public . What sources of travel and transportation have youheard of ?

Combined , totalunaided awareness

of 511 Virginia is26%.

Data weightedto be


population .

Unaided Awareness of Transportation


89/130


38%43%

36%

20 %

31%

10%3%

64% 63%58%

53%49% 46%

30%

0%

20 %

40%

60%

80%

100 %

News pape r Telev ision R ad io Billboa rds Inte rn et(non-

spe ifi

ord of mout h

ork p la e

2007 200 8



populat ion.

Unaided Awareness of TransportationInformation Sources Is Up This Wave

Across the Board

Q 20 : Now, t hink about t he va ri ous sou r es of inf orm at ion about t ransportat ion and t raffi ava ilable to t he publ i .

hat sou r es of t ravel and t ransportat ion h ave you hea rd of?

All of t hese yea r-to- yea r

hanges are stat ist i all y

signifi ant at a 95% onfi de n e

level


90/130


5% 4% 4% 5% 4% 3%

25%16%

27 % 27 % 25%20 % 18%

12%7% 9%

0%

20 %

40%

60%

80%

100 %

Em a ils R e gula rm ail

Meet ing 511(no nspe j )

511tele pho ne

511 o nline Othe r Do n't kn ow

2007 200 8

Data we igh te dto be


populat ion.

Unaided Awareness of TheseSources Is Up As Well

Q 20 : Now, t hink about t he vari ous sou r k es of inf orm at ion about t ransportat ion andt raffi k available to t he publi k . Wh at sou r k es of t ravel and t ransportat ion h ave you hea rd of?

But , t he p ropor t ions sa ying so me ot he r sou r l e of inf orm at ion

and d on t kn ow a re dow n.

All of t hese yea r- to -yea r

m hanges are stat ist i m all y

signifi m ant at a 95% m onfid e n m e

le vel

I T t l N l H lf f Vi i i


91/130


In Total, N early Half of VirginiansAre Aware of 511 Virginia

56%

18%

26%

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

Not aware of 511

Virginia

Aided awareness of 511 Virginia

Unaided awarenessof 511 Virginia

Q 20 : Now, t h in k abou t t he vario u s so u rces of infor mation a bou t trans portation andtraffi c avai lable to t he publ ic. What so u rces of tra ve l and trans portation have you heard of ? Q 21 : Prior to t h is inter view , had you e ver heard of or read a bou t 511 , 511 Virginia , or 511 Virginia . org ?

44% are aware of 511 Virginia

Data weig h tedto be

re p resentati veof Virginia

popul ation .


92/130

N early One-half or More of Residents of


93/130


N early One-half or More of Residents ofSalem, Bristol, Staunton, Hampton Roads,and Richmond Are Aware of 511 Virginia

31 %

34 %

31 %

33 %

2 %

22 %

24%

17%

20 %

20 %

16 %

22 %

13 %

1 %

1 %

1 %

2 %

14 %

0% 20 % 40% 60% 0% 100 %

Sa e m

r ist o

St aun t on

am t on oad s

ic mon z

{ re z er ick sbu rg

Cu e er

| yn } bu rg

~ orther n

irginia

Unaid e z a are ne ss of 11

ir ginia

id e z a arne ss of 11

irginia

Q 20 : o , th in k about the variou s so urce s of in f ormat ion abou t tr ans ort a t ion an tr a ff ic avai ab e t o the ub ic . W hat so urce s of tr avel an tr an s ort a t ion h ave you he ar of? Q 21 : Pr ior t o th is in ter view , h ad you e ver he ar of or re ad abou t 11,

11

irgin ia , or 11

irgin ia . org?

6%

4%

1%

4 %

47%

41 %

37%

3 %

33 %

Abou t one -th ir

of re sid e n t s of Cul e er ,

ynch bu rg, an

orther n irgin ia a re aware of

11 irgin ia .


94/130

Radio or TV Reports Are Mentioned


95/130


pMost Often as the Tools Found Most

Useful for Traffic Information

16%

1%

2%

3%

4%

6%

7%

20%

42%

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

Do not use any of these tools

VDOT toll-free Highway Helpline

511 Virginia Web site

511 Virginia telephone service

VDOT traffic cameras

VDOT Web site

Highway Advisory Radio

VDOT highway message signs

Radio or TV traffic reports

Q 22 : Which of the following tools do you find most useful for providing you withtraffic information to plan your routes when traveling ?

3% said 511 telephone ismost useful ; and , 2% saidthe 511 Web site is most

useful .

Data weightedto be


population .


96/130


Usefulness of 511 Has RemainedFairly Stable Over the Past Year

39%

30%

5% 4% 2% 1%

16%

42%

20%

5% 4% 3% 2% 2% 1%

19%

42%

7% 6% 4% 3% 2% 1%

16%20%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Radio or TVtra

icreports

VDOThigh waymessage

signs

High wayAdvisory

Radio

VDOT Website

VDOT tra

iccameras

511 Virginiatelephone

service

511 VirginiaWeb site

VDOT toll-

ree High wayHelpline

Do not useany o

thesetools

2006 2007 2008

Q 22 : Which o the f ollo wing tools do you f ind most use f ul f or providing you with tra ff ic in f ormation to plan your routes when traveling ?

Data weighted to be

representative

of Virginia population .

^*

^



level^ 2007 di ff ers signi f icantly


level

N A N A

F ili it ith th T l h S i I


97/130


Familiarity with the Telephone Service IsSlightly Higher than That of the Web Site

3 %

%

%

3 %

%

%

%

36 %

3 %

%

%

%

% % % 60 % 0 % 00 %

D n' kn w

a ing " " -- N ve ry f am ilia r

" "

"3 "

" "

a ing " " --

e ry f am ilia r

D n' kn w

a ing " " -- N ve ry f am ilia r

" "

"3 "

" "

a ing " " --

e ry f am ilia r

Te leph ne

Web sit e

Q 3 : Ove ra ll, h w f am iliar are y u w it h t he t e leph ne se rvice? Q : Ove ra ll, h w f am iliar are y u wit h t he n line se rvice, s me ti mes ca lled

irgin ia r

irgin ia. rg?

Da t a we igh t ed t be

rep resen t a ti ve f irgin ia

p pu la ti n.

NOTE: Q ues ti n

asked f t h se wh a re

awa re f .

Familiarity with 511 Virginia Both


98/130


Online and Telephone HasRemained Fairly Stable

9% 7% 6% 7%

11 %5%

3%

10 %

0%

20 %

40 %

60 %

80 %

100 %

2007 2008 2007 2008

R t in 5"

R t in "4"

Telepho ne Web sit e

Q 23 : Over ll, how f mili r re you wi t h t he 511 t elepho ne service? Q 24 : Over ll, how f mili r re you wi t h t he 511 on line service, some t imes c lled 511 Vir in i or 511 Vir in i .or ?

D t wei ht ed t o be

represe n t t ive of Vir in i

popul t ion .

* 2008 differs si n ific n t ly

from 2007 t 95 % co n fide nce

level.

NOTE:Q ues t ion

sked of t hose who re

w re of 511 .19 % 18 %

9%12 %

15% f Vi i i R id t H U d


99/130


15% of Virginia Residents Have Used511 Virginia

Q 25a : Have you ever called or logged onto 511 Virginia for traffic or travelerinformation?

No85%

Yes15%

Data weightedto be


population.

Telephone only 7 %Online only 4%Both telephone 4%

online

U f 511 Vi i i I b t th


100/130


13% 15%

0%

20 %

40%

60%

80%

100 %

Usa ge of 511 Virgini a

2007 200 8

Use of 511 Virginia Is about theSame This Year as Last

Q 25a : Have you e ve r c alle d or l ogge d ont o 511 Virgini a f or tr affic or tr ave le rinf orm ati on?

Dat a we ight e dt o be

re pr ese nt a tiv e of Virgini a

popul a ti on.

2007 200 8Te le ph one only 7 % 7%Onlin e only 3% 4%

Both t e le ph one 3% 4% onlin e

Residents of Staunton, Salem and HamptonRoads Are Most Likely to Have Ever Called or


101/130


Roads Are Most Likely to Have Ever Called orLogged Onto 511 Virginia; Residents of

Lynchburg Are Least Likely

9%

10 %

11 %

14 %

16 %

16 %

19%

2 1%

23%

0% 2 0% 40 % 6 0% 80 % 100 %

L

hbu rg

u lpepe r

Nor the r Virgi ia

Frede r i bu rg

Br i to l

R i h o d

Ha pto Road

Stau to

Sa le

Q 2 5a: Have ou e ve r a lled or logged o to 511 Virgi ia f or t ra ffi or t rave le r i f or at io ?

A Significant Increase in Usage of 511 Virginia Is


102/130


1 %

21% 1 %1 % 13 % 13 %

6%

13 %10%

23% 21%

9%

16 %10%11 %

14 %16 %19%

0%

20%

40%

60%

0%

100%

Sale m Sta

nt

n Ha m pt

nR a ds

R ichm

nd Br ist

l

r ed 'b

r

N

rt he rnVir inia

C

lpepe r L

nc hb

r

2007 200

g g gPosted for Salem; Usage of 511 Has Remained Fairly

Constant in Other Districts

Q a : Have eve r calle d r l e d nt 11 Vir in ia f r tr aff ic r tr avele r inf rm at i n?

* 2 00 di ffe r ssi n if ican t l

f r m 2 007 at a9 %c nf id ence

level.

*

A di rec t i nal, b t n t si n if ican t , inc rease in

sa e is p st e d f r N rt he rn Vir in ia.

Just as Reported in the Past, Both Specific


103/130


p , pMedia (e.g., Highway Sign) and Word of Mouth

Prompt the Use of 511 Virginia

Q 25b : What prompted you to use 511 ?

NOTE: Q uestion

asked of thosewho haveused 511 .Only mostfre quentmentions

shown.

Data weightedto be


population.

2008

Highway sign 26%

Word of Mouth 22%

Advertisement 13%

Traffic 12%

Web Link 10%

Weather 7%

Trip planning 3%

Brochure 3%

VDOT Map 3%

Dont know 3%

Motorists Are More Likely to Have Been Prompted to Use511 Vi i i b Hi h Si h Th H B i


104/130


511 Virginia by Highway Signs than They Have Been inthe Past; and, Use of Other Media Such as Advertising

and Web Links Seems to Be Growing as Well2007 2008

Highway sign 11% 26% *

Word of Mouth 14% 22%

Advertisement 8% 13%

Traffic 16% 12%

Web Link 6% 10%

Weather 7% 7%

Trip planning 6% 3%

Brochure 1% 3%

VDOT Map - 3%

Dont know 4% 3%

Q 25b : What prompted you to use 511 ?

NOTE: Q uestion

asked of thosewho haveused 511 .

Only mostfre quentmentions

listed. Onlymost fre quentmentions are

shown.

Data weightedto be


population.



level

As Reported in the Past, 511 Virginia


105/130


Users Both Telephone and Online Tend to Be Repeat Users

Frequency of Using 511

Telephoneservice

Onlineservice

Used one time 19% 28%

Used more than once 81% 70%

Q 27 : How many times have you used the 511 telephone service, once or more thanonce? Q 32 : How many times have you used the 511 online service, once or morethan once?

NOTE: Q uestion


Data weightedto be


population.

Repeat Usage of 511 Virginia


106/130


Telephone Is Increasing; RepeatUsage of the Web Site Is Stable

Q 27 : How many times have you used the 511 telephone service, once or more thanonce? Q 32 : How many times have you used the 511 online service, once or morethan once?

NOTE: Q uestion


Data weightedto be


population.

3 %

%

2 %

71%

1 %

1%

2 %

7 %

%

2 %

%

%

%

1 %

Used one time Used morethan once

Used one time Used morethan once

2 7 2


from 2 7 at a 5% confidence

level

*

*

Telephone Web site

While Users of 511 Virginia Both Telephone and


107/130


g pOnline Tend To Use the Service More than Once,They Tend to Use It Less Often than Once a Month

Frequency of Using 511

Telephoneservice

Onlineservice

Less often than once a month 75% 67%

Several times a month butnot every week

16% 16%

About once a week 5% 9%

More than once a week 3% 3%

Q 28a /Q 33 a : How often would you say you use the 511 telephone /online service?

Data weightedto be


population.

NOTE: Q uestion

asked of thosewho haveused 511

more than onetime.

Additionally Frequency of Usage


108/130


Additionally, Frequency of UsageAppears to Be Going Down

68 %

6 %

% %

67 %

%

6 % %

75 %

6 %

5 % %

67 %

6 % %

%

%

%

%

60 %

80 %

00 %

Less oft en

ha n o nc ea m o n

h

evera l

imes am o n

h

Onc e a

ee Mo re

ha n

o nc e a ee

Less oft e n

han o nc ea m o n

h

evera l

imes am o n

h

Onc e a

ee Mo re

han

o nc e a ee

007 2008

* 2008 di ff ers signif ican ly

f rom 2007 a a

5 % con f ide nc e leve l

*

Te le phone We b si e

Q 28 a/ Q a: How oft e n wo u ld you sa y you u se he 511 e le phone/ on line serv ice ?

Da a we igh e d o be

re p rese n a ive of Virgin ia

popu la ion.

NOTE:

Q ues

ion as e d of hose who have u se d 511

more han one ime .

Telephone and Online Users Are Seeking Information about TrafficConditions Especially Telephone Users; Online Users Are More


109/130


p y p ;Likely than Telephone Users to Be Seeking Weather Informationand Trip Planning Information But, Still, Online Users Are Most

Often Seeking Information about Traffic ConditionsR eason for sing 511

Telephone service Online service

Traffic conditions 66 % 48%

R oad conditions 32% 32%

Alternate routes 2 4% 22%

Weather 14 % 28%

Public transportation / transit info 7% -

Trip planning 4% 15%

Location of traveler services 3% 7%

Other 3% 4%

Nothing in particular - 5%Dont know 1% 5%

Q 28b c : Which of the following best describes the type of information you wereseeking when you called 511 telephone service? Q 33 b c : Which of the followingbest describes the type of information you were seeking when you used 511 onlineservice?

NOTE: Q uestion

asked of thosewho have

used eachservice.

Data weightedto be


population.

Both Telephone and Online 511 Users Seek The Same Type ofInformation as in 2007, with a Few Exceptions. Overall, Interest


110/130

Pulsar Advertising Southeastern Institute

dashboard report jan 2008

Documents