UDOT Q1 2012 Report

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/Springville’s 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 year’s 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 I’ve 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 F

ork

Cedar H

ills

Eagle

Mounta

in

Highla

nd

Lehi

Lindon

Mapleton

Orem

Pleasa

nt Grove

Payso

n

Provo

Santa

quin

Sarat

oga S

prings

Spanish

Fork

Springville

Vineyard

Other/N

on-‐Re

sponse

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

Alpi

ne

Am

erican

For

k

Ced

ar H

ills

Eag

le M

ount

ain

Hig

hlan

d

Leh

i

Lin

don

Map

leto

n

Ore

m

Ple

asan

t Gro

ve

Pay

son

Pro

vo

San

taqu

in

Sar

atog

a Sp

rings

Spa

nish

For

k

Spr

ingv

ille

Vin

eyar

d

Oth

er/N

on-‐R

espo

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 I’ve 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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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<ngs Newspaper City newsleEer

Preferred Comm (con-nued) -‐ On the Street

Q2 2011

Q3 2011

Q4 2011

Q1 2012

9.3% 11.1%

42.2%

4.1%

34.2%

9.1%

15.2%

41.4%

7.1%

38.7%

8.7%

15.8%

41.5%

5.1%

36.9%

7.7%

12.0%

47.2%

7.3%

37.3%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Project email updates

Project website updates

Electronic roadway signs

Door hangers/fliers Radio messages

Preferred Comm -‐ On the Street

Q2 2011

Q3 2011

Q4 2011

Q1 2012

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<ngs Newspaper City newsleEer

Preferred Comm (con-nued) -‐ Phone

Q1 2012

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

Amer

ican

For

k

Ceda

r Hills

Eagle M

ount

ain

High

land

Lehi

Lind

on

Map

leto

n

Ore

m

Plea

sant

Gro

ve

Pays

on

Prov

o

Sant

aquin

Sara

toga

Spr

ings

Span

ish For

k

Sprin

gville

Vine

yard

Oth

er/N

on-‐R

espo

nse

American Fork Sample CiKes

Q3 2011 Q4 2011

14

32

47 44

17

0

10

20

30

40

50

60


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

Alpi

ne

Amer

ican

Fo

rk

Ceda

r Hill

s

Eagl

e M

ount

ain

High

land

Lehi

Lind

on

Map

leto

n

Ore

m

Plea

sant

Gr

ove

Pays

on

Prov

o

Sant

aqui

n

Sara

toga

Sp

rings

Span

ish F

ork

Sprin

gvill

e

Vine

yard

Oth

er/N

on-‐

Resp

onse

Orem Sample CiMes

12

23

45

63

43

2

37

51

63

35

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70


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

Alpi

ne

Amer

ican

For

k

Ceda

r Hill

s

Eagl

e M

ount

ain

High

land

Lehi

Lind

on

Map

leto

n

Ore

m

Plea

sant

Gro

ve

Pays

on

Prov

o

Sant

aqui

n

Sara

toga

Sp

rings

Span

ish F

ork

Sprin

gvill

e

Vine

yard

Oth

er/N

on-‐

Resp

onse

Provo Sample CiPes

3

24

40

47

32

7

34 30

64

38

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70


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

Alpi

ne

Amer

ican

For

k

Ceda

r Hill

s

Eagl

e M

ount

ain

High

land

Lehi

Lind

on

Map

leto

n

Ore

m

Plea

sant

Gro

ve

Pays

on

Prov

o

Sant

aqui

n

Sara

toga

Spr

ings

Span

ish F

ork

Sprin

gvill

e

Vine

yard

Oth

er/N

on-‐R

espo

nse

Springville Sample CiOes

11

36

46 48

21

6

30

55

51

25

0

10

20

30

40

50

60


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

Alpi

ne

Am

erican

For

k

Ced

ar H

ills

Eag

le M

ount

ain

Hig

hlan

d

Leh

i

Lin

don

Map

leto

n

Ore

m

Ple

asan

t Gro

ve

Pay

son

Pro

vo

San

taqu

in

Sar

atog

a Sp

rings

Spa

nish

For

k

Spr

ingv

ille

Vin

eyar

d

Oth

er/N

on-‐R

espo

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





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





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





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


Easy to follow




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

signs

Clear a

nd

navigable

detours

Ramps

Crew

s courteou

s No de

lays

Reason

able

delays

Overall

respon

se

Safe ro

adway Clear lane

markings

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 I’ve 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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


Door Hangers



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


Door Hangers



City Website

Spanish Fork

48

Free Response by area:American Fork:

• Whenfreewaytrafficisbad-citydrivingisoutofcontrol!• Theblindentrancesontofreewayareahugehazard.Therockchipssuck!• Idon’ttravelSouthveryoften.I’mnottoosureoftheroadconditionsthatdirection.• Iwasalmostinanaccident.• Whenexitsarechangedyouneedtogivebetternoticetoallowchangeoflanes.I’vemissedexits

becauseIdidn’tseesignageanddidn’tknowexitswereearlierthanexpected.• Thestreetsareridiculoustodriveon.Theyareunsafeandpacked-toomanyaccidents.• ItisBullshit.IhavedroveI-15onseveraloccassionsandbarrellshavebeenblowingintooncoming

traffic.• NotSAFE!Iusedtoownanexcavationcompanyandwehadtohaveatrafficcontrolplanapprovedby

UDOT.WhereisUDOTNOW?• Thankyouforchangingmytire.I’msogreatful!• Whereistheplanning?• TheworstsigningandetcisgoingsouthandturningofftouniversityexitorstayingonI-15.• Idon’tdriveonI-15veryoften.ItrytostayinAFasmuchaspossible

Orem:

• Ihavetodriveitanywaysoitdoesn’tmatter• Iwishtheywouldhurryupandfinishsowecanmoveonwithourlives!• Idon’ttravelalot.

Spanish Fork: • Workingonallthemajorsideroadsandfrontageroadsaswellasthefreewaymakesitdifficultand frustrating.

Provo:

• Iwishthesignswereeasiertonotice(i.e.ProvoCenterStreet,exit).TheyblendinwiththeorangeallaroundTheremovalofoldlanelines,additionoftemplines,cones,andvaryingasphaltcolorsmakeithardtonavigateandunderstandtrafficpattern.Idoappreciatetheworkbeingdoneandunderstandthenecessitybuttheeverywhere-nessofitistiresomeandveryinconvenient.IfitwereclearerandifIhaddonemoretobeinformed,itwouldbebetter.Thelanesareroughtounderstand.

• Themainthingtheycouldimproveisroadsignsandlanemarkings.Sometimesyoucan’ttellwhatyourlaneis,creatingincreaseddanger.Lackofadvancedwarning,inparticularlanereduction,seemtobethebiggestcauseoftrafficjams.Driversdon’thaveenoughwarningtochangelanes,leadingtobackingupwhentheytrytochangeatthelastmoment.

49

Phone Free Response by area:

American Fork:

• Iwishitwasdone.• Thelanemarkingareconfusingattheoff-rampsontheSouthboundrouteintheUniversityhighway.• It’sreallyunsafe.They’resplittingexits,andit’sjustdangerous.• Theyhavedonearemarkablejobtomaintainthesafetyandcleanlinessoftheroad,evenifthe

constructionisstillgoingon.• Thepreviouslanemarkingwasn’terasedclearlycausingthepreviouslaneandthecurrentlanemarkingsto

becombined.• Therewasasignthatsays21milesnorthofLehi,butitwasnot.Theirsignsareconfusing.Theyneedto

dosomethingonit.Whenmyfrienddrovethere,shewaslostbecauseofthewrongsign.Weneedtohaveatrafficlightbadly.

• Ihadanaccidentonthefreeway.IhadaverypositiveresponsefromProvoofficeronthehighway.Thelanemarkingsisextremelydifficultandpeoplearegettinghighlyconfused,especiallywhenitrains.Theyneedtofigureoutabetterwaytomarkthecurrentlaneandgetridoftheoldlane.

Orem:

• Onvariousroadsides,therearesignsthatsaysomanyminutesthatwayandsomanyminutesthisway.Ican’tsaythatimpactsthedriver’sdecision.Idon’tthinkthatitishelpfulonewayoranother.It’sabigwasteofmoney.UDOTisdoingagoodjob,though.

• Iamgratefulandfeelwonderfulthattheyhavedonethis,butIfeelanxiouswhenIamridingontheroad.Theyarechangingthechannelsthatwearegoingthrough,anditfillsmewithsomuchanxiety.Ireallyneedtofocusandbeattentivebecausethelinesareveryobviousthatitisfilled.Overall,UDOThasdoneaverygoodjob,anditisachallengingjob.Theelectronicsignsaregood.Thecrewswerecourteous.It’sagoodthingthattherearenoaccidentsthathavehappened.

• Theyneedmorepatrolmenbecauseweusedtotravelonthatroad.• They’vegottoaccommodatecommutertrafficathightraffictimes.Theycannotarbitrarilyclosemajor

thoroughfareswithoutproperadvancedwarning,likeUniversityparkways.• Sometimes,thelanemarkingsarehardtodetermineatnight.• Byusingorangepaintinremarkingconstructionlanes,thereisgreatervisibilitythatwouldresultforthe

drivers.• Signsareclearlydoneinroads.InSpanishFork,Idonotfeelsafeinthatarea.• TheentrancetoProvoistooslowintheI-15.Thereistrafficcongestion.• TheonlyconcernIhaveisonthecenterstreetinOrem.Thelightsthereandonthe12thWestarenot

coordinatedwell,sothereisahugebackup.• It’saboutwideningtheroadtohavethreetosixlanes.Itshouldonlytaketwomonths,andthat’sthe

most.• Wethinktheyhaveaverygoodjobintrafficcontrolconsideringthatitisacomplexproject.Theyhave

doneitverywell.• Myonlyconcernisthatthereisthatonesectiononthe15thsouthnear1600northonrampswherein

linesarenotclear.Idonotknowwheremylaneisclearlygoing.

50

• Whatbothersmethemostisthenarrowlanes.Itisverychallenginganddangerouswhenpassingthroughbigtrucks.Secondly,therearenoemergencylanes.Thethirdoneisthere’salotofdebris,whichiskindofdangerous.

• Iwouldliketoseemoreinformationonthestops,whattheyaregoingtomakeaswellaswhereandwhen.Ihopetheywillhavemoreadvertisementsabouttheconstruction.

Provo:

• It’stheProvoCenterStreet.Thedesignofthefreewaytheymadewasconfusing.Somepartsaredangerous.IfIamdrivingfromtheEasttoWest,Ihavetoturnleft.There’sacrowdedanddangerouspart.

• Thelanesaretoonarrow.• Lastnightaround7PM,weenteredthe8-NorthEntranceFreewayinOremandthegreenlightwason.My

husbandthinksthegreenlightslowsthingsdown.• We’vebeencallingfromsomeoneinUDOTabouttherampon1600roadthatwasclosed.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 except“Project 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 public’s 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 can’t 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 don’t 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.

Documents

UDOT Q1 2012 Report