Summary Report

1
2003 Utah Customer Perception Survey

January 2004
Summary Report
eCallogy Corp.
2
Table of Contents

• Executive Summary..
  
• Purpose
  
• Methodology...
  
• Sample Size..
  
• Sample Characteristics.
  
• 2001 Results Summary
  ..
• 2002 Results Summary
  ..
• 2003 Results Summary
  ...
• State Results Summary
  
• Annual State Gap Analysis
  .
• State Correlation Analysis
  ..
• Regional Results Analysis
  .
• Region One (Box Elder, Davis north, Weber,
  Morgan, Cache, Rich) ......
• Region Two (Tooele, Salt Lake, Summit, Davis
  south)..
• Region Three (Juab, Utah, Wasatch, Duchesne,
  Uintah, Daggett)....
• Region Four (Carbon, Emery, Grand, San Juan,
  Sanpete, Sevier, Piute, Wayne, Garfield, Kane,
  Millard, Iron, Beaver, Washington)...
  

4 7 9 11 12 13 16 17 37 38
39 40 44 48
52 56
3
Table of Contents

• - Cedar City District (Cedar City
  District)....
• - Richfield District (Richfield
  District)...
• - Price District (Price
  District).
• Qualitative Results Summary....
  
• Potholes
  ..
• Highway Striping
  ..
• Overall Maintenance
  
• Appendix....
  .
• Survey.....
  .

62 63 67 68 69 70 12 12 12
4
Executive Summary

5
Executive Summary

• In 2003, the Utah Department of Transportation
  (UDOT) again partnered with eCallogy to execute
  an outbound calling survey that would objectively
  measure resident satisfaction levels with current
  highway maintenance procedures.
• This survey, the third in the series, provides
  insight into public perception of UDOT activities
  as well as a comparative measure against baseline
  statistics that were gathered during the 2001
  survey and activities executed by UDOT in 2003.
• Scoring for the survey was based on the following
  five point scale
• 1 poor
• 2 below average
• 3 fair
• 4 good
• 5 very good
• Scoring summaries for the entire state (see page
  6) were positive as a whole and rated higher
  overall in almost every area measured when
  compared to 2001 and 2002 results. There was
  only one survey question receiving lower scores
  when comparing 2002 and 2003 Snow Plowing
  (-4.98). Due to the increased frequency and
  amount of snow in 2003, this discrepancy was
  expected.
• Mean scores increased an average of 8.64 between
  2001 and 2003 and 5.09 between 2002 and 2003.
  The two questions with the lowest rating in 2002,
  Highway Striping (3.25) and Rest Areas (3.18)
  increased by over 11 in each area (3.63 and 3.54
  respectively). The question with the most
  positive rating related to the states highway
  signage in both 2001 and 2002 remained the
  highest rated score in 2003 (4.18).
• When performing t-test analysis (score
  correlation analysis) on each of the rated areas,
  it was shown that the increase in most mean
  scores was statistically significant (with less
  than a 5 chance of Type II error in sampling).
  This means that we are 95 sure that activities
  undertaken by UDOT in 2002 had an impact on the
  increased mean scores rather than sampling
  differences.
• Only one area had a lesser statistical
  significance Vegetation Control (94.1).

6
2002 Overall State Averages
GOOD
FAIR
7
Purpose

8
Purpose

• The purpose of this document is to summarize the
  survey that was completed by eCallogy for UDOT in
  2003.
• This first survey conducted in 2001 was to
  initially measure current resident perceptions as
  well as provide a baseline for comparing future
  survey results.
• The surveys that were conducted in 2002 and 2003
  have provided an objective measure of initiatives
  that have been undertaken by UDOT since the
  initial survey. The public perception of current
  UDOT initiatives, whether from UDOT activities,
  Public Relations, or reaction time will be seen
  in the comparison between 2001, 2002, and 2003
  results at both a state and regional level.
• In addition, changes in results have been tested
  for statistical significance to determine if
  differences in scores are due to sample
  differences or actual changes in overall public
  perception.

9
Methodology

10
Methodology

• UDOT provided eCallogy with an 18 question survey
  that was to be used to evaluate and objectively
  measure public perception of current maintenance
  activities. This survey was identical to the
  survey conducted in 2001 and 2002 with the
  inclusion of qualitative responses that were
  added to the 2002 survey questions related to
  pothole maintenance, highway striping, and
  overall maintenance. The qualitative portion of
  the survey was captured by our surveyors verbatim
  and has been collectively presented based on the
  information that was captured.
• The same four regions that were identified in
  2001 were used for the survey in 2003.
  Prospective respondents were identified based on
  their geographic location only. Surveys were
  conducted via telephone and both quantitative
  ratings and qualitative comments were captured
  with the use of a Computer Assisted Telephone
  Interview (CATI). Data was captured and random
  checks completed to assure that both response
  ranges and quantitative variables aligned with
  questioning data. Final data files were captured
  and analyzed at the state, regional, and district
  levels as defined in the initial Statement of
  Work.
• Traditional data analysis techniques (mean
  calculation, standard deviation, percentage) and
  explanatory statistical analysis techniques
  (t-stat correlation, gap analysis, one-way
  variance analysis) were used to interpret
  objective data obtained from the telephone
  survey. Statistical significance of 95, in
  addition to representative sampling, determined
  the number of surveys conducted in each region.
• A gap analysis was conducted for the overall
  state to compare changes in mean scores. In
  addition, gap analyses were performed for each
  region compared to 2002 state averages.
• T-stat correlation measures were also conducted
  for each region to compare year over year changes
  and to determine the probability that changes in
  scoring were due to UDOT activities and not due
  to sampling variables. Only one areas had less
  than 95 probability of correlation.

11
Sample Size

• In order to gain a statistically significant
  representation of resident perceptions, 3,001
  residents from four separate regions and three
  districts were randomly sampled and surveyed.
  Sample sizes in each region were based on
  population density to assure accurate
  representation of the entire population of Utah.
  
• In addition to representing population density,
  sample sizes were selected to create a
  statistically significant number of respondents
  (based on mean score and initial variance). A
  breakout of regional sampling is as follows
• Region 1 (Box Elder, Davis north, Weber,
  Morgan, Cache, Rich) - (n 550)
• Region 2 (Tooele, Salt Lake, Summit, Davis
  south) - (n 1553)
• Region 3 (Juab, Utah, Wasatch, Duchesne, Uintah,
  Daggett) - (n 515)
• Region 4 - (n 383)
• Cedar City District (Millard, Iron, Beaver,
  Washington) - (n 162)
• Richfield District (Sanpete, Sevier, Piute,
  Wayne, Garfield, Kane) - (n 159)
• Price District (Carbon, Emery, Grand, San Juan)
  - (n 62)
• Results from each region showed measurable
  variation among each region / district. Large
  sample sizes offset low variations in the overall
  scores in the establishment of statistically
  significant numbers. These variations are most
  apparent in the gap score analyses for each
  region and the confidence scores when comparing
  year over year mean scores.

12
Sample Characteristics

• Sample characteristics required only that an
  individual be a driver in the identified
  geographic area.
• Demographic information was not captured during
  this campaign at the request of UDOT, thus
  correlations with public perception and any
  demographic criterion are not included in this
  report.

13
2001 Results Summary

14
2001 State Results Summary
15
State of Utah Summary

• 2813 surveys were conducted in the state across
  four separate regions. Average results for each
  question rated above fair. However, only one
  question, that related to highway signage,
  averaged at the good rating.
• Comparing public perception, which was captured
  in the surveys, to differing statewide goals for
  the survey resulted in the following differences

Rating
Survey Question Percentage at or Above Rating
3
100
fair
3.25
88.9
3.5
44.4
3.75
5.6
4
5.6
good
16
2002 Results Summary

17
2002 State Results Summary
18
State of Utah Summary

• 2,512 surveys were conducted in the state across
  four separate regions. Average results for each
  question rated above fair. However, again only
  one question, that related to highway signage,
  averaged at the good rating. Significant
  improvements, can be seen in the percentage of
  questions that rated above key marks in 2002.
• Comparing public perception, which was captured
  in the surveys, to differing statewide goals for
  the survey resulted in the following differences

Rating
Survey Question Percentage at or Above Rating
3
100
fair
3.25
94.4
3.5
77.7
3.75
16.6
4
5.6
good
19
2003 Results Summary

20
2003 State Results Summary
21
2003 vs. 2001 State Results Summary
22
2003 vs. 2002 State Results Summary
23
State of Utah Summary

• 3,001 surveys were conducted in the state across
  four separate regions. Average results for each
  question rated above fair. However, again only
  one question, that related to highway signage,
  averaged at the good rating again in 2003.
  Results above several ratings increased
  noticeably in the different areas.
• Comparing public perception, which was captured
  in the surveys, to differing statewide goals for
  the survey resulted in the following differences

Rating
Survey Question Percentage at or Above Rating
3
100
fair
3.25
100
3.5
100
3.75
50.0
4
5.6
good
24
State of Utah
How would you rate the maintenance of potholes
and poor pavement?
16.10
Mean (?) 3.58 Standard Deviation (?) 1.04
45.63
23.20
9.83
5.23
Percentages equal less than 100 due to
not-applicable answers Mean calculations include
only those who responded with a quantifiable
answer. Standard deviations are calculated based
on sample representations of the entire
population.
25
State of Utah
How would you rate our roadside shoulder repair?
20.73
Mean (?) 3.84 Standard Deviation (?) 0.86
50.05
23.06
4.13
2.03
Percentages equal less than 100 due to
not-applicable answers Mean calculations include
only those who responded with a quantifiable
answer. Standard deviations are calculated based
on sample representations of the entire
population.
26
State of Utah
How would you rate our bridge repair?
24.10
Mean (?) 3.79 Standard Deviation (?) 0.92
37.97
32.13
3.80
2.00
Percentages equal less than 100 due to
not-applicable answers Mean calculations include
only those who responded with a quantifiable
answer. Standard deviations are calculated based
on sample representations of the entire
population.
27
State of Utah
How would you rate our highway striping (painted
lines)?
24.73
Mean (?) 3.63 Standard Deviation (?) 1.13
34.87
23.40
11.73
5.27
Percentages equal less than 100 due to
not-applicable answers Mean calculations include
only those who responded with a quantifiable
answer. Standard deviations are calculated based
on sample representations of the entire
population.
28
State of Utah
How would you rate other pavement markings such
as school crossings, turn arrows, crosswalks,
and others?
30.16
Mean (?) 3.94 Standard Deviation (?) 0.97
41.29
19.33
6.76
2.47
Percentages equal less than 100 due to
not-applicable answers Mean calculations include
only those who responded with a quantifiable
answer. Standard deviations are calculated based
on sample representations of the entire
population.
29
State of Utah
How do you rate our highway signs?
39.32
Mean (?) 4.18 Standard Deviation (?) 0.88
44.49
11.73
2.97
1.50
Percentages equal less than 100 due to
not-applicable answers Mean calculations include
only those who responded with a quantifiable
answer. Standard deviations are calculated based
on sample representations of the entire
population.
30
State of Utah
How do you rate our rest areas?
18.89
Mean (?) 3.54 Standard Deviation (?) 1.02
29.32
40.02
7.33
4.43
Percentages equal less than 100 due to
not-applicable answers Mean calculations include
only those who responded with a quantifiable
answer. Standard deviations are calculated based
on sample representations of the entire
population.
31
State of Utah
How do you rate the cleanliness of our roadsides?
17.33
Mean (?) 3.73 Standard Deviation (?) 0.89
48.55
25.46
6.76
1.90
Percentages equal less than 100 due to
not-applicable answers Mean calculations include
only those who responded with a quantifiable
answer. Standard deviations are calculated based
on sample representations of the entire
population.
32
State of Utah
How do you rate our fencing and/or sound walls?
20.53
Mean (?) 3.68 Standard Deviation (?) 0.95
36.49
35.25
4.50
3.23
Percentages equal less than 100 due to
not-applicable answers Mean calculations include
only those who responded with a quantifiable
answer. Standard deviations are calculated based
on sample representations of the entire
population.
33
State of Utah
How do you rate our vegetation control?
16.93
Mean (?) 3.61 Standard Deviation (?) 0.97
42.03
28.93
8.97
3.13
Percentages equal less than 100 due to
not-applicable answers Mean calculations include
only those who responded with a quantifiable
answer. Standard deviations are calculated based
on sample representations of the entire
population.
34
State of Utah
How do you rate our drainage and erosion control?
17.73
46.48
Mean (?) 3.72 Standard Deviation (?) 0.91
27.39
5.86
2.53
Percentages equal less than 100 due to
not-applicable answers Mean calculations include
only those who responded with a quantifiable
answer. Standard deviations are calculated based
on sample representations of the entire
population.
35
State of Utah
How do you rate our snowplowing?
27.69
Mean (?) 3.75 Standard Deviation (?) 1.12
38.96
19.01
8.77
5.57
Percentages equal less than 100 due to
not-applicable answers Mean calculations include
only those who responded with a quantifiable
answer. Standard deviations are calculated based
on sample representations of the entire
population.
36
State of Utah
How do you rate our traffic signals?
23.69
40.42
Mean (?) 3.75 Standard Deviation (?) 1.01
25.02
7.03
3.83
Percentages equal less than 100 due to
not-applicable answers Mean calculations include
only those who responded with a quantifiable
answer. Standard deviations are calculated based
on sample representations of the entire
population.
37
State of Utah
As you are driving our state roads, how would you
rate the overall safety of our roads?
16.53
Mean (?) 3.82 Standard Deviation (?) 0.80
56.15
21.49
4.37
1.50
Percentages equal less than 100 due to
not-applicable answers Mean calculations include
only those who responded with a quantifiable
answer. Standard deviations are calculated based
on sample representations of the entire
population.
38
State of Utah
How would you rate the overall reliability of our
roads?
21.77
Mean (?) 3.97 Standard Deviation (?) 0.75
57.43
17.40
2.47
0.93
Percentages equal less than 100 due to
not-applicable answers Mean calculations include
only those who responded with a quantifiable
answer. Standard deviations are calculated based
on sample representations of the entire
population.
39
State of Utah
As you are driving the state roads, how would you
rate the overall aesthetics of our roads?
17.06
Mean (?) 3.74 Standard Deviation (?) 0.85
47.68
28.02
5.83
1.40
Percentages equal less than 100 due to
not-applicable answers Mean calculations include
only those who responded with a quantifiable
answer. Standard deviations are calculated based
on sample representations of the entire
population.
40
State of Utah
How would you rate the overall comfort of our
roads?
14.30
Mean (?) 3.72 Standard Deviation (?) 0.81
50.72
28.36
5.63
1.00
Percentages equal less than 100 due to
not-applicable answers Mean calculations include
only those who responded with a quantifiable
answer. Standard deviations are calculated based
on sample representations of the entire
population.
41
State of Utah
How would you rate the overall maintenance of
state highways (interstates, state routes, etc.)?
15.27
Mean (?) 3.88 Standard Deviation (?) 0.72
57.33
24.00
3.00
0.40
Percentages equal less than 100 due to
not-applicable answers Mean calculations include
only those who responded with a quantifiable
answer. Standard deviations are calculated based
on sample representations of the entire
population.
42
Annual State Gap Analysis (2003 vs. 2002)
43
State Correlation Analysis

• Changes in mean scores can occur because of two
  separate causes. The first is due to sampling
  procedures and the second is due to some variable
  driving a change in the score- we can thus
  discredit the null hypothesis. Typically,
  confidence levels of 95 or higher are required
  to draw a strong correlation coefficient between
  scores.
• i.e. If 2003 scores are higher than 2002 scores
  and the confidence level is greater than 95, it
  can be concluded that some outside factor (UDOT
  activities) caused the change

Confidence Level
Question
2002 Score
Confidence Level
Question
2002 Score
94.1
Vegetation Control
3.51
99.9
Potholes
3.33
95.1
Drainage Control
3.62
99.9
Shoulder Repair
3.57
99.9
Snowplowing
3.95
99.7
Bridge Repair
3.65
99.9
Traffic Signs
3.54
99.9
Highway Striping
3.25
99.9
State Road Safety
3.65
99.9
Pavement Markings
3.75
99.9
Road Reliability
3.74
98.6
Highway Signs
4.07
99.8
Road Aesthetics
3.61
99.9
Rest Areas
3.18
99.9
Road Comfort
3.55
99.7
Roadside Cleanliness
3.54
99.9
Overall Maintenance
3.72
89.6
Sound Walls
3.36
44
Regional Results Analysis

45
Region One

• Region One consists of residents in Box Elder,
  Davis north, Weber, Morgan, Cache, and Rich
  counties. This region of the state represents
  roughly 20 of the total state population. As
  such, 550 surveys were conducted in this region.

46
Region One Gap Analysis

• A gap analysis was performed by comparing
  regional scores in Region One with the mean
  scores that were obtained at the state level.
• Region One had its most positive gap score in the
  question relating to rest areas (0.20) and its
  most negative gap score in the area related to
  current pavement marking activities (-0.13). A
  breakdown of gap scores is as follows

Gap Score
Percentage at or Above Gap Score
Gap Score
Percentage at or Above Gap Score
0
61.1
-0.25
100
0.05
33.3
-0.20
100
11.1
100
0.10
-0.15
5.6
100
0.15
-0.10
0.20
5.6
-0.05
94.4
47
Region One Gap Analysis
48
Region One Annual Correlation Analysis

• Changes in mean scores can occur because of two
  separate causes. The first is due to sampling
  procedures and the second is due to some variable
  driving a change in the score- we can thus
  discredit the null hypothesis. Typically,
  confidence levels of 95 or higher are required
  to draw a strong correlation coefficient between
  scores.
• i.e. If 2003 scores are higher than 2002 scores
  and the confidence level is greater than 95, it
  can be concluded that some outside factor (UDOT
  activities) caused the change

Confidence Level
Question
2003 Score
2002 Score
Confidence Level
Question
2002 Score
2003 Score
99.9
Vegetation Control
3.66
3.53
99.9
Potholes
3.33
3.58
99.9
Drainage Control
3.79
3.60
99.9
Shoulder Repair
3.64
3.91
99.9
Snowplowing
3.74
3.92
99.9
Bridge Repair
3.60
3.77
99.9
Traffic Signs
3.71
3.52
99.9
Highway Striping
3.16
3.58
99.9
State Road Safety
3.86
3.73
99.9
Pavement Markings
3.62
3.91
99.9
Road Reliability
4.01
3.73
99.9
Highway Signs
4.07
4.28
93.1
Road Aesthetics
3.71
3.61
99.9
Rest Areas
3.38
3.75
99.9
Road Comfort
3.77
3.54
99.9
Roadside Cleanliness
3.54
3.73
99.9
Overall Maintenance
3.91
3.72
99.9
Sound Walls
3.32
3.75
49
Region Two

• Region Two consists of residents in Tooele, Salt
  Lake, Summit, and Davis south counties. This
  region of the state represents roughly 45 of the
  total state population. As such, 1132 surveys
  were conducted in this region.

50
Region Two

• A gap analysis was performed by comparing
  regional scores in Region Two with the mean
  scores that were obtained at the state level.
• A breakdown of gap scores is as follows

Gap Score
Percentage at or Above Gap Score
Gap Score
Percentage at or Above Gap Score
0
22.2
-0.25
100
0.05
0
-0.20
100
0
100
0.10
-0.15
0
94.4
0.15
-0.10
0.20
0
-0.05
61.1
51
Region Two Gap Analysis
52
Region Two Annual Correlation Analysis

• Due to the changes in several scores, confidence
  levels were much higher this year than last.
  This means that the difference in scores is more
  likely to have occurred through activities of
  UDOT rather than sample variation. Only one
  area, snowplowing, scored lower in this area.

Confidence Level
Question
2003 Score
2002 Score
Confidence Level
Question
2003 Score
2002 Score
92.0
Vegetation Control
3.56
3.47
99.9
Potholes
3.60
3.39
86.9
Drainage Control
3.67
3.60
99.5
Shoulder Repair
3.85
3.51
99.9
Snowplowing
3.73
4.06
99.9
Bridge Repair
3.77
3.62
99.5
Traffic Signs
3.70
3.46
99.8
Highway Striping
3.58
3.24
99.9
State Road Safety
3.82
3.63
96.9
Pavement Markings
3.91
3.81
99.9
Road Reliability
3.94
3.73
91.1
Highway Signs
4.13
4.05
99.9
Road Aesthetics
3.69
3.57
99.9
Rest Areas
3.44
3.04
99.9
Road Comfort
3.71
3.56
99.9
Roadside Cleanliness
3.73
3.55
99.7
Overall Maintenance
3.86
3.70
99.9
Sound Walls
3.69
3.40
53
Region Three

• Region Three consists of residents in Juab, Utah,
  Wasatch, Duchesne, Uintah, and Daggett counties.
  This region of the state represents roughly 20
  of the total state population. As such, 515
  surveys were conducted in this region.

54
Region Three

• A gap analysis was performed by comparing
  regional scores in Region Three with the mean
  scores that were obtained at the state level.
• Region Three had its most positive gap score in
  traffic signals (0.15) and its most negative gap
  score in potholes (-0.15) when compared to state
  levels. A breakdown of gap scores is as follows

Gap Score
Percentage at or Above Gap Score
Gap Score
Percentage at or Above Gap Score
0
50.0
-0.25
100
0.05
22.2
-0.20
100
5.56
94.4
0.10
-0.15
5.56
94.4
0.15
-0.10
0.20
0
-0.05
88.9
55
Region Three Gap Analysis
56
Region Three Annual Correlation Analysis

• Again, it appears that the public perceives UDOT
  has taken less of an active role in the
  snowplowing this year. Every other area showed
  an increase in scores between 2003 and 2002.

Confidence Level
Question
2003 Score
2002 Score
Confidence Level
Question
2003 Score
2002 Score
99.9
Vegetation Control
3.62
3.46
99.9
Potholes
3.42
3.15
85.9
Drainage Control
3.72
3.66
99.4
Shoulder Repair
3.80
3.59
52.1
Snowplowing
3.75
3.77
96.9
Bridge Repair
3.85
3.72
97.9
Traffic Signs
3.90
3.64
99.9
Highway Striping
3.70
3.22
99.1
State Road Safety
3.82
3.68
99.9
Pavement Markings
4.01
3.67
99.2
Road Reliability
4.00
3.79
88.4
Highway Signs
4.21
4.14
99.2
Road Aesthetics
3.81
3.66
99.1
Rest Areas
3.53
3.20
99.9
Road Comfort
3.71
3.53
95.2
Roadside Cleanliness
3.68
3.47
99.7
Overall Maintenance
3.88
3.76
84.6
Sound Walls
3.69
3.30
57
Region Four

• Region Four consists of residents in Carbon,
  Emery, Grand, San Juan, Sanpete, Sevier, Piute,
  Wayne, Garfield, Kane, Millard, Iron, Beaver, and
  Washington counties. This region was further
  broken down into three separate districts
  depending on geographic location. District
  specific findings are reported compared to
  regional findings in the following pages. This
  region of the state represents roughly 15 of the
  total state population. As such, 383 surveys
  were conducted in this region.

58
Region Four

• A gap analysis was performed by comparing
  regional scores in Region Four with the mean
  scores that were obtained at the state level.
  Only 4 of the 18 questions asked in Region 4
  rated below state averages.
• A breakdown of gap scores is as follows

Gap Score
Percentage at or Above Gap Score
Gap Score
Percentage at or Above Gap Score
0
77.7
-0.25
100
0.05
38.9
-0.20
100
27.8
100
0.10
-0.15
5.6
88.9
0.15
-0.10
0.20
0
-0.05
88.9
59
Region Four Gap Analysis
60
Region Four Annual Correlation Analysis

• Changes in ratings in several areas for region 4
  were not as great, thus requiring a larger sample
  of surveys to determine statistical significance.
  Given the small number of surveys, the lesser
  differences resulted in a smaller confidence
  level.

Confidence Level
Question
2003 Score
2002 Score
Confidence Level
Question
2003 Score
2002 Score
50.1
Vegetation Control
3.71
3.71
99.9
3.37
Potholes
3.67
99.9
Drainage Control
3.80
3.63
99.9
Shoulder Repair
3.78
3.63
55.4
Snowplowing
3.86
3.88
89.9
Bridge Repair
3.84
3.76
94.7
Traffic Signs
3.79
3.69
99.9
Highway Striping
3.80
3.42
99.9
State Road Safety
3.80
3.50
92.2
3.90
Pavement Markings
3.99
99.9
Road Reliability
4.01
3.70
99.7
Highway Signs
4.23
4.07
99.9
Road Aesthetics
3.89
3.69
94.4
Rest Areas
3.66
3.28
98.9
Road Comfort
3.69
3.56
99.9
3.61
Roadside Cleanliness
3.80
99.9
Overall Maintenance
3.89
3.74
81.3
Sound Walls
3.55
3.37
61
Region Four, Cedar City District

• Cedar City District consists of residents in
  Millard, Iron, Beaver, and Washington counties.
  Within Cedar City District, 162 surveys were
  completed.
• A gap analysis was performed by comparing
  regional scores in Cedar City District with the
  mean scores that were obtained within Region
  Four.
• A breakdown of gap scores is shown in the
  following graph

62
Region Four , Cedar City District Gap Analysis
63
Region Four, Richfield District

• Richfield District consists of residents in
  Sanpete, Sevier, Piute, Wayne, Garfield, and Kane
  counties. Within Richfield District, 159
  surveys were completed.
• A gap analysis was performed by comparing
  regional scores in Richfield District with the
  mean scores that were obtained within Region
  Four.
• A breakdown of gap scores is shown in the
  following graph

64
Region Four , Richfield District Gap Analysis
65
Region Four, Price District

• Price District consists of residents in Carbon,
  Emery, Grand, and San Juan counties. Within
  Price District, 62 surveys were completed.
• A gap analysis was performed by comparing
  regional scores in Price District with the mean
  scores that were obtained within Region Four. Due
  to the low number of surveys taken in this
  district, gap scores were again dramatic.
• A breakdown of gap scores is on the following
  graph

66
Region Four , Price District Gap Analysis
67
Qualitative Results Summary

68
Qualitative Summary, Potholes

• Region One Comments in general referred to the
  quantity of potholes and the lack of attention
  that is given to them. Several comments referred
  to the lack of urgency to get these filled in a
  timely manner.
• There were no comments given for individuals who
  rated pothole maintenance above a fair rating.
  Sample specific comments are included below-

• Takes too long to fill
• With snowplowing there are more this year
• They let them get really bad before they are
  fixed
• Between Roy and Clearfield is horrible
• Need a lot of work
• 2700 S has a lot of potholes
• Overfilling potholes does not help
• They do not maintain the roads
• With weather, it isnt getting fixed
• It takes too long and no one responds
• Still too many
• Weather is hurting the repair efforts
• Old roads are never fixed until summer time

69
Qualitative Summary, Highway Striping

• Comments for Highway Striping were similar across
  all regions. There were two major areas that had
  needs for improvement- fading and frequency of
  painting.
• There were no comments that related specifically
  to those who were pleased with the striping
  efforts.

• Striping needs to be darker, it is hard to see at
  night
• Needs bigger school zones
• Hard to see in weather
• Confusing with construction, I follow the cars
  ahead of me
• They fade too fast
• Paint more than once a year
• Try some other material to keep them painted
  longer
• Weather makes it hard to see

70
Qualitative Summary, Overall Maintenance

• Again, similar comments reigned for each of the
  regions. Comments for needing improvement
  included

• Overall maintenance better than any other state I
  have been in
• Need to clean the shoulders better (2)
• Back streets have not been plowed all year (2)
• Need more pothole maintenance (7)
• Between Ogden 12th and 31st needs work and
  widening
• Good job given their limited budget
• On ramps are too short
• Signs are not reflective
• Need more lights on Washington
• On ramps are too short
• Trees could be trimmed from power lines
• Lots of road kill
• Striping needs to be more distinct (3)
• Too many trucks
• Sardine canyon is much better now
• Need more rest areas and cleaner
• We need better road materials, they are always
  torn up
• Install more left turn signals
• Lines are hard to see in bad weather

71
Appendix

72
Survey

• Survey questions were developed to objectively
  measure current public perceptions.

Individuals were asked why they gave their
rating on this question.
73
Survey

• Survey questions were developed to objectively
  measure current public perceptions.

Highlight
Question Verbiage
Individuals were asked why they gave their
rating on this question.
74
eCallogy Corp.