dashboard report jan 2008
TRANSCRIPT
-
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
-
8/8/2019 Dashboard Report Jan 2008
2/130
Pulsar Advertising Southeastern Institute of Research2
Objectives &Methodology
-
8/8/2019 Dashboard Report Jan 2008
3/130
Pulsar Advertising Southeastern Institute of Research3
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
-
8/8/2019 Dashboard Report Jan 2008
4/130
Pulsar Advertising Southeastern Institute of Research4
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
-
8/8/2019 Dashboard Report Jan 2008
5/130
Pulsar Advertising Southeastern Institute of Research5
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.
-
8/8/2019 Dashboard Report Jan 2008
6/130
Pulsar Advertising Southeastern Institute of Research6
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
-
8/8/2019 Dashboard Report Jan 2008
7/130
Pulsar Advertising Southeastern Institute of Research7
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.
-
8/8/2019 Dashboard Report Jan 2008
8/130
Pulsar Advertising Southeastern Institute of Research8
DetailedFindings
-
8/8/2019 Dashboard Report Jan 2008
9/130
Pulsar Advertising Southeastern Institute of Research9
Detailed FindingsOutline of Presentation
Monitoring VDOT Performance
Satisfaction with VDOT: Overall Measures ofPerformance
Satisfaction with VDOT: Functional Areas
Contact with VDOT
511 Virginia
-
8/8/2019 Dashboard Report Jan 2008
10/130
Pulsar Advertising Southeastern Institute of Research10
MonitoringVDOT
Performance
-
8/8/2019 Dashboard Report Jan 2008
11/130
Pulsar Advertising Southeastern Institute of Research11
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.
-
8/8/2019 Dashboard Report Jan 2008
12/130
Pulsar Advertising Southeastern Institute of Research12
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.
^
-
8/8/2019 Dashboard Report Jan 2008
13/130
Pulsar Advertising Southeastern Institute of Research13
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
representativeof Virginia
population.
-
8/8/2019 Dashboard Report Jan 2008
14/130
Pulsar Advertising Southeastern Institute of Research14
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
representativeof Virginia
population.
4
in 646
in 4
in
-
8/8/2019 Dashboard Report Jan 2008
15/130
Pulsar Advertising Southeastern Institute of Research15
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
-
8/8/2019 Dashboard Report Jan 2008
16/130
Pulsar Advertising Southeastern Institute of Research16
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.
-
8/8/2019 Dashboard Report Jan 2008
17/130
Pulsar Advertising Southeastern Institute of Research17
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
representativeof Virginia
population.
-
8/8/2019 Dashboard Report Jan 2008
18/130
Pulsar Advertising Southeastern Institute of Research18
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.
-
8/8/2019 Dashboard Report Jan 2008
19/130
Pulsar Advertising Southeastern Institute of Research19
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 ?
-
8/8/2019 Dashboard Report Jan 2008
20/130
Pulsar Advertising Southeastern Institute of Research20
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
^
^
^
**
-
8/8/2019 Dashboard Report Jan 2008
21/130
-
8/8/2019 Dashboard Report Jan 2008
22/130
Pulsar Advertising Southeastern Institute of Research22
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.
-
8/8/2019 Dashboard Report Jan 2008
23/130
Pulsar Advertising Southeastern Institute of Research23
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.
-
8/8/2019 Dashboard Report Jan 2008
24/130
Pulsar Advertising Southeastern Institute of Research24
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?
-
8/8/2019 Dashboard Report Jan 2008
25/130
Pulsar Advertising Southeastern Institute of Research25
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
^
^ ^ ^
-
8/8/2019 Dashboard Report Jan 2008
26/130
Pulsar Advertising Southeastern Institute of Research26
Monitoring VDOTs Progress
Awareness (Contact with VDOT)90%*
Familiarity47%
Favorability(Satisfaction)
44 %
Trust45%
* Indicates astatisticallysignificant
decrease since2007, at a 9 5%
confidence level
-
8/8/2019 Dashboard Report Jan 2008
27/130
Pulsar Advertising Southeastern Institute of Research27
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.
-
8/8/2019 Dashboard Report Jan 2008
28/130
-
8/8/2019 Dashboard Report Jan 2008
29/130
Pulsar Advertising Southeastern Institute of Research29
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
-
8/8/2019 Dashboard Report Jan 2008
30/130
Pulsar Advertising Southeastern Institute of Research30
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
-
8/8/2019 Dashboard Report Jan 2008
31/130
Pulsar Advertising Southeastern Institute of Research31
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:
Da t a weig ht ed t o be
re p resen t a t ive of Virginia
popul a t ion .
NOTE: Per cen t ages
indi ca t e t hose ra t ing t heir
sa t isfa ct ion a 4 or a 5 .
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
-
8/8/2019 Dashboard Report Jan 2008
32/130
Pulsar Advertising Southeastern Institute of Research32
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:
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 t hose ra t ing t heir
sa t isfa ct ion a 4 or a 5 .
N o Significant Changes ArePosted for Tier 3 Attributes
Tier 3: Lowes t
sa t isfa ct ion ra t ings
-
8/8/2019 Dashboard Report Jan 2008
33/130
Pulsar Advertising Southeastern Institute of Research33
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
-
8/8/2019 Dashboard Report Jan 2008
34/130
Pulsar Advertising Southeastern Institute of Research34
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
-
8/8/2019 Dashboard Report Jan 2008
35/130
Pulsar Advertising Southeastern Institute of Research35
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%
-
8/8/2019 Dashboard Report Jan 2008
36/130
Pulsar Advertising Southeastern Institute of Research36
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
rat ing t he ir sat isf act ion a 4 or a .
*
* 2008 diff ers sign if icant ly
f rom 2007 at a
9
% con f iden ce le ve l
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?
-
8/8/2019 Dashboard Report Jan 2008
37/130
Pulsar Advertising Southeastern Institute of Research37
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%
-
8/8/2019 Dashboard Report Jan 2008
38/130
Pulsar Advertising Southeastern Institute of Research38
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
rat ing t he ir sat isf act ion a 4 or a .
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 ?
-
8/8/2019 Dashboard Report Jan 2008
39/130
Pulsar Advertising Southeastern Institute of Research39
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%
-
8/8/2019 Dashboard Report Jan 2008
40/130
Pulsar Advertising Southeastern Institute of Research40
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
rat ing t he ir sat isf act ion a 4 or a .
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?
-
8/8/2019 Dashboard Report Jan 2008
41/130
Pulsar Advertising Southeastern Institute of Research41
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%
Nort he rn Vi rginia
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
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 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%
-
8/8/2019 Dashboard Report Jan 2008
42/130
Pulsar Advertising Southeastern Institute of Research42
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
rat ing t he ir sat isf act ion a 4 or a .
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 ?
*
* 2008 diff ers sign if icant ly
f rom 2007 at a
9
% con f iden ce le ve l
**
-
8/8/2019 Dashboard Report Jan 2008
43/130
Pulsar Advertising Southeastern Institute of Research43
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
Nort he rn Vi rginia
Frede r icksbu rg
St aun t on
Br is t o l
Sa lem
Lynchbu rg
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 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%
-
8/8/2019 Dashboard Report Jan 2008
44/130
-
8/8/2019 Dashboard Report Jan 2008
45/130
-
8/8/2019 Dashboard Report Jan 2008
46/130
-
8/8/2019 Dashboard Report Jan 2008
47/130
Pulsar Advertising Southeastern Institute of Research47
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
Nort he rn Vi rginia
Richmond
Cu lpepe r
Br is t o l
St aun t on
Lynchbu rg
Sa lem
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 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%
-
8/8/2019 Dashboard Report Jan 2008
48/130
Pulsar Advertising Southeastern Institute of Research48
Q uality of the Ride
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?
-
8/8/2019 Dashboard Report Jan 2008
49/130
Pulsar Advertising Southeastern Institute of Research49
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
Nort he rn Vi rginia
Frede r icksbu rg
Sa lem
Br is t o l
St aun t on
Lynchbu rg
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 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%
-
8/8/2019 Dashboard Report Jan 2008
50/130
Pulsar Advertising Southeastern Institute of Research50
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?
* 2008 diff ers sign if icant ly
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 .
-
8/8/2019 Dashboard Report Jan 2008
51/130
Pulsar Advertising Southeastern Institute of Research51
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
Nort he rn Vi rginia
Frede r icksbu rg
Richmond
Cu lpepe r
Sa lem
St aun t on
Br is t o l
Lynchbu rg
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 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%
-
8/8/2019 Dashboard Report Jan 2008
52/130
Pulsar Advertising Southeastern Institute of Research52
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.
-
8/8/2019 Dashboard Report Jan 2008
53/130
Pulsar Advertising Southeastern Institute of Research53
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
Nort he rn Vi rginia
Cu lpepe r
Lynchbu rg
St aun t on
Sa lem
Br is t o l
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 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%
-
8/8/2019 Dashboard Report Jan 2008
54/130
Planning for Future Needs
-
8/8/2019 Dashboard Report Jan 2008
55/130
Pulsar Advertising Southeastern Institute of Research55
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
Nort he rn Vi rginia
Frede r icksbu rg
Richmond
Cu lpepe r
St aun t on
Sa lem
Br is t o l
Lynchbu rg
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 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%
-
8/8/2019 Dashboard Report Jan 2008
56/130
-
8/8/2019 Dashboard Report Jan 2008
57/130
-
8/8/2019 Dashboard Report Jan 2008
58/130
Pulsar Advertising Southeastern Institute of Research58
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 ?
* 2008 di ff ers signi f icantly
f rom 2007 at a 95% con f idence
le vel
*
-
8/8/2019 Dashboard Report Jan 2008
59/130
-
8/8/2019 Dashboard Report Jan 2008
60/130
Pulsar Advertising Southeastern Institute of Research60
Conclusion & Implication
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.
-
8/8/2019 Dashboard Report Jan 2008
61/130
Pulsar Advertising Southeastern Institute of Research61
SatisfactionWith VDOT:
Functional Areas
-
8/8/2019 Dashboard Report Jan 2008
62/130
Pulsar Advertising Southeastern Institute of Research62
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
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 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%
-
8/8/2019 Dashboard Report Jan 2008
63/130
Pulsar Advertising Southeastern Institute of Research63
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
representativeof Virginia
population.
* 2008 differssignificantly
from 2007 at a95% confidence
level
*
-
8/8/2019 Dashboard Report Jan 2008
64/130
Pulsar Advertising Southeastern Institute of Research64
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
-
8/8/2019 Dashboard Report Jan 2008
65/130
Pulsar Advertising Southeastern Institute of Research65
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
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 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
-
8/8/2019 Dashboard Report Jan 2008
66/130
Pulsar Advertising Southeastern Institute of Research66
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
representativeof Virginia
population.
Q 8 : Overall, how satisfied are you with :
* 2008 differssignificantly
from 2007 at a95% confidence
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.
-
8/8/2019 Dashboard Report Jan 2008
67/130
Pulsar Advertising Southeastern Institute of Research67
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
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 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%
Dat a weigh t edt o be
rep resen t a t iveof Vi rginia
popu la t ion .
Q uality of the Ride
-
8/8/2019 Dashboard Report Jan 2008
68/130
Pulsar Advertising Southeastern Institute of Research68
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
Data we igh ted to be
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 :
* 2008 differssignificantly
from 2007 at a95% confidence
level
*
Emergency Response
-
8/8/2019 Dashboard Report Jan 2008
69/130
Pulsar Advertising Southeastern Institute of Research69
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
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 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
rep resen t a t iveof Vi rginia
popu la t ion .
E R
-
8/8/2019 Dashboard Report Jan 2008
70/130
Pulsar Advertising Southeastern Institute of Research70
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 :
* 2008 differssignificantly
from 2007 at a95% confidence
level
*
*
Sig g d P t M ki g
-
8/8/2019 Dashboard Report Jan 2008
71/130
Pulsar Advertising Southeastern Institute of Research71
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
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
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
rep resen t a t iveof Vi rginia
popu la t ion .
-
8/8/2019 Dashboard Report Jan 2008
72/130
Pulsar Advertising Southeastern Institute of Research72
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
Data we igh ted to be
re p rese ntat ive of Virgini a
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
-
8/8/2019 Dashboard Report Jan 2008
73/130
Pulsar Advertising Southeastern Institute of Research73
Rest Areas & Welcome Centers
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
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 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%
Da t a weig ht edt o be
re pr esen t a t iveof Vi rginia
popu la t ion .
Rest Areas & Welcome Centers
-
8/8/2019 Dashboard Report Jan 2008
74/130
Pulsar Advertising Southeastern Institute of Research74
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
Data we igh ted to be
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 :
*
* 2008 differssignificantly
from 2007 at a95% confidence
level
**
Roadside Appearance
-
8/8/2019 Dashboard Report Jan 2008
75/130
Pulsar Advertising Southeastern Institute of Research75
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
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 13 : How sa t isfied a re you wi th :
68%
53%
49%
61%
Da t a weig ht edt o be
rep resen t a t iveof Vi rginia
popu la t ion .
Roadside Appearance
-
8/8/2019 Dashboard Report Jan 2008
76/130
Pulsar Advertising Southeastern Institute of Research76
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 :
* 2008 differssignificantly
from 2007 at a95% confidence
level
*
*
Management of Public Funds
-
8/8/2019 Dashboard Report Jan 2008
77/130
Pulsar Advertising Southeastern Institute of Research77
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
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 14 : Ove ra ll, ho w sa t isfied a re you wit h VDOT in rega rd t o:
32%
31%
23%
25%
Dat a weigh t edt o be
rep resen t a t iveof Vi rginia
popu la t ion .
Management of Public Funds
-
8/8/2019 Dashboard Report Jan 2008
78/130
Pulsar Advertising Southeastern Institute of Research78
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 :
* 2008 differssignificantly
from 2007 at a95% confidence
level
*
Driving Satisfaction Trust : The Derived Model
-
8/8/2019 Dashboard Report Jan 2008
79/130
Pulsar Advertising Southeastern Institute of Research79
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
-
8/8/2019 Dashboard Report Jan 2008
80/130
Pulsar Advertising Southeastern Institute of Research80
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
-
8/8/2019 Dashboard Report Jan 2008
81/130
Pulsar Advertising Southeastern Institute of Research81
Contactwith VDOT
-
8/8/2019 Dashboard Report Jan 2008
82/130
Pulsar Advertising Southeastern Institute of Research82
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?
* 2008 differssignificantly
from 2007 at a95% confidence
level^ 2007 differs
significantlyfrom 2006 at a95% confidence
level
*Data weightedto be
representativeof Virginia
population.
^
-
8/8/2019 Dashboard Report Jan 2008
83/130
Pulsar Advertising Southeastern Institute of Research83
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 ?
* 2007 di ff ers signi f icantly
f rom 2006 at a 95% con f idence
le vel
* *^
**
^
* *
-
8/8/2019 Dashboard Report Jan 2008
84/130
Pulsar Advertising Southeastern Institute of Research84
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
representativeof Virginia
population .
-
8/8/2019 Dashboard Report Jan 2008
85/130
Pulsar Advertising Southeastern Institute of Research85
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.
-
8/8/2019 Dashboard Report Jan 2008
86/130
Pulsar Advertising Southeastern Institute of Research86
Conclusion & Implication
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.
-
8/8/2019 Dashboard Report Jan 2008
87/130
Pulsar Advertising Southeastern Institute of Research87
511Virginia
U id d A f 511 Vi i i
-
8/8/2019 Dashboard Report Jan 2008
88/130
Pulsar Advertising Southeastern Institute of Research88
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
representativeof Virginia
population .
Unaided Awareness of Transportation
-
8/8/2019 Dashboard Report Jan 2008
89/130
Pulsar Advertising Southeastern Institute of Research89
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
Data we igh ted to be
re p rese ntat ive of Virgini a
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
-
8/8/2019 Dashboard Report Jan 2008
90/130
Pulsar Advertising Southeastern Institute of Research90
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
re p rese ntat ive of Virgini a
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
-
8/8/2019 Dashboard Report Jan 2008
91/130
Pulsar Advertising Southeastern Institute of Research91
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 .
-
8/8/2019 Dashboard Report Jan 2008
92/130
N early One-half or More of Residents of
-
8/8/2019 Dashboard Report Jan 2008
93/130
Pulsar Advertising Southeastern Institute of Research93
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 .
-
8/8/2019 Dashboard Report Jan 2008
94/130
Radio or TV Reports Are Mentioned
-
8/8/2019 Dashboard Report Jan 2008
95/130
Pulsar Advertising Southeastern Institute of Research95
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
representativeof Virginia
population .
-
8/8/2019 Dashboard Report Jan 2008
96/130
Pulsar Advertising Southeastern Institute of Research96
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 .
^*
^
* 2008 di ff ers signi f icantly
f rom 2007 at a 95% con f idence
level^ 2007 di ff ers signi f icantly
f rom 2006 at a 95% con f idence
level
N A N A
F ili it ith th T l h S i I
-
8/8/2019 Dashboard Report Jan 2008
97/130
Pulsar Advertising Southeastern Institute of Research97
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
-
8/8/2019 Dashboard Report Jan 2008
98/130
Pulsar Advertising Southeastern Institute of Research98
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
-
8/8/2019 Dashboard Report Jan 2008
99/130
Pulsar Advertising Southeastern Institute of Research99
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
representativeof Virginia
population.
Telephone only 7 %Online only 4%Both telephone 4%
online
U f 511 Vi i i I b t th
-
8/8/2019 Dashboard Report Jan 2008
100/130
Pulsar Advertising Southeastern Institute of Research100
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
-
8/8/2019 Dashboard Report Jan 2008
101/130
Pulsar Advertising Southeastern Institute of Research101
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
-
8/8/2019 Dashboard Report Jan 2008
102/130
Pulsar Advertising Southeastern Institute of Research102
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
-
8/8/2019 Dashboard Report Jan 2008
103/130
Pulsar Advertising Southeastern Institute of Research103
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
representativeof Virginia
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
-
8/8/2019 Dashboard Report Jan 2008
104/130
Pulsar Advertising Southeastern Institute of Research104
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
representativeof Virginia
population.
* 2008 differssignificantly
from 2007 at a95% confidence
level
As Reported in the Past, 511 Virginia
-
8/8/2019 Dashboard Report Jan 2008
105/130
Pulsar Advertising Southeastern Institute of Research105
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
asked of thosewho haveused 511 .
Data weightedto be
representativeof Virginia
population.
Repeat Usage of 511 Virginia
-
8/8/2019 Dashboard Report Jan 2008
106/130
Pulsar Advertising Southeastern Institute of Research106
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
asked of thosewho haveused 511 .
Data weightedto be
representativeof Virginia
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
* 2 differssignificantly
from 2 7 at a 5% confidence
level
*
*
Telephone Web site
While Users of 511 Virginia Both Telephone and
-
8/8/2019 Dashboard Report Jan 2008
107/130
Pulsar Advertising Southeastern Institute of Research107
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
representativeof Virginia
population.
NOTE: Q uestion
asked of thosewho haveused 511
more than onetime.
Additionally Frequency of Usage
-
8/8/2019 Dashboard Report Jan 2008
108/130
Pulsar Advertising Southeastern Institute of Research108
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
-
8/8/2019 Dashboard Report Jan 2008
109/130
Pulsar Advertising Southeastern Institute of Research109
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
representativeof Virginia
population.
Both Telephone and Online 511 Users Seek The Same Type ofInformation as in 2007, with a Few Exceptions. Overall, Interest
-
8/8/2019 Dashboard Report Jan 2008
110/130
Pulsar Advertising Southeastern Institute