I-15 CORE

On-Street Survey
First Quarter 2012

Compiled by
Brigham Young University
April 2012

Erik Westesen
Account Director

Thomas White
Account Executive

Natalie Sivertsen
Francesco Loli
Rebecca Lane
Account Coordinators

Rachel Cool

Manager, Bradley Public Relations

Table of Contents

Executive Summary........................................................................................2
Survey Instrument..........................................................................................4
Q1 2012 Survey Results - Demographic Responses.........................5
Q1 2012 Survey Results - Total..................................................................9

Question 1...............................................................................................10

Question 4...............................................................................................21
Area Specific Results...................................................................................23

Demographic Responses by Area.................................................24

Question 1 by area...............................................................................29

Question 4 by area..............................................................................45
Key Findings....................................................................................................53

Overall Results......................................................................................54

Detailed Results....................................................................................55

Executive Summary
This booklet contains the results of the man-on-the-street survey research carried out by
the Bradley Public Relations Agency at BYU in addition to phone survey research
conducted by Service Sampling International, for the first quarter of 2012.

Student volunteers and employees of the agency administered the surveys at retail and
grocery stores in each of the four areas established by UDOT: American Fork/Pleasant Grove,
Orem, Provo, and Spanish Fork/Springville (areas identified on the map on page 3). A total of
448 surveys were completed between March 24 - 31, 2012. Following collection, the data was
analyzed and compared to the three preceding quarters, as seen throughout this report.

Here, the results are broken down by question and by area. First, we have included the
demographic information of respondents included on the survey instrument (see page 4).
Next, we included graphs showing the overall results for questions 1 and 4 as compared
to Q2 2011 as well as Q3 and Q4 of 2011. Following this section we have provided the area
specific results for questions 1 and 4. Finally, we have summarized our key findings, with a
detailed look at overall trends.
For example, we observed an increase in the aggregate average score to 2.85 on a
five-point scale with 1.00 meaning the most negative and 5.00 meaning the most
positive. This was due in large part to a large increase in Spanish Fork/Springvilles
overall average score.

These results represent a collective opinion of those sampled. Their responses, as contained in this report, serve as a quick snapshot of current public opinion regarding the I-15
Core Corridor Expansion project. It is important to note that the results of this survey are
not statistically significant unless viewed as a whole; individual area samples are not substantial enough to stand alone.
Notes
Phone survey data is displayed separately from man-on-the-street data, and is not
included in the overall average scores.

Some graphical representations omit data labels (number above a graph bar indicating
value). This is due to the space required to show a whole years worth of data for certain
data sets. Specific values are available on the CD enclosed within this booklet. Scale
frequency has been increased to better compensate for this change.

Zone 1 - Lehi, American

Fork and Pleasant Grove
exits. Surveys completed at
American Fork WalMart and
nearby locations.

Zone 2 - Orem exits.

Surveys completed
at University Mall and
Costco.

Zone 3 - Provo exits.

Surveys completed on
BYU campus and nearby
locations in Provo.

Zone 4 - Springville
and Spanish Fork exits.
Surveys completed at
the Springville WalMart,
Maceys in Spanish Fork
and nearby locations.

Survey Instrument
Please answer the following questions based on your experience in the past month with
the I-15 CORE road construction project (on I-15 from Lehi Main Street to
Spanish Fork Main Street).
1. On a scale of one to five with one meaning completely disagree and five meaning completely agree,
please rate the project on the following:
Disagree

I feel safe when driving through the construction zones.

Compared to other road construction projects Ive experienced,

crews are maintaining a safe roadway.

Dust is kept under control.

Construction noise is kept under control.

Lane markings are clear.

Construction signs are easy to read.

The detour routes are clear and easy to navigate (or drive).

Access to I-15 on- and off-ramps has been maintained.

The construction crews are courteous.

Construction does not increase my travel time.

When compared to other roadway construction I have experienced,

the travel delays are reasonable.

2. Which city do you live in?

Alpine
American Fork
Cedar Hills
Eagle Mountain
Highland
Lehi
Lindon
Mapleton
Orem
Pleasant Grove
Payson
Provo
Santaquin
Saratoga Springs
Spanish Fork
Springville
Vineyard
Other (list)
_________________________
Refuse

Agree

Indifferent

3. What time(s) of the day do you drive on I-15 the most?

Choose all that apply:
Before 6 a.m.
6 a.m. to 9 a.m.
9 a.m. to 4 p.m.

4 p.m. to 7 p.m.
After 7 p.m.

4. Several methods are being used to help people stay informed about
construction activities. Of the following methods, which ones do
you use to stay informed about the I-15 construction project?
Choose all that apply:
Project e-mail updates
Project website updates
Electronic roadway signs
Door hangers/fliers
Radio messages
Television

Social media (Facebook, Twitter,

YouTube)
Local meetings/public events
Newspaper stories or advertisements
City newsletter/website

Thank you for your input! If you have additional comments or

concerns, please write them below or on the back of this page.

Q1 2012 Survey Results - Demographic Responses

0
to

n
O
re
ea
m
sa

nt
G
ro
ve

Pa
ys
on

Pr
ov
o
Sa
nt
Sa
a
ra
qu
to
in
ga
Sp
rin
Sp
gs
an
ish
Fo
rk
Sp
rin
gv
ille
Ot
he

Vi
r/
n
ey
No
ar
n-
d
Re
sp
on
se

Pl

do

le

ap

Lin

Le
hi

nd

ai

ills

10.00%

Other/Non-Response

Vineyard

Springville

50

Spanish Fork

Saratoga Springs

10

Santaquin

70

Provo

Payson

27

Pleasant Grove

90

Orem

12

Mapleton

la

gh

Hi

nt

ou

rk

ne

Fo

pi

r H

da

Ce
gle

Ea

Al
n

ica

er

Am

35.00%

Lindon

40

Lehi

20

Highland

Eagle Mountain

Cedar Hills

30

American Fork

10

Alpine

2. Which city do you live in?

On the Street Survey Results

30.00%

25.00%

20.00%

15.00%

Q4 2011

Q1 2012

5.00%

0.00%

Phone Survey Results

100

88

80

66

60

41

33
29
19
23

14

3. What time(s) of day do you drive on I-15 the most? Select all that apply.
40.00%

Travel Times by Quarter

35.00%

30.00%

25.00%
Q2
Q3

20.00%

Q4
Q1
15.00%

10.00%

5.00%

0.00%

Before 6 am

40.00%

6-9am

9-4pm

4-7pm

a6er 7 pm

Phone Sample Travel Times

Q1 2012
36.13%

35.00%

29.58%

30.00%

Number of Respondents

25.00%
21.68%
20.00%

15.00%

9.24%

10.00%

5.00%

0.00%

3.36%

Before 6 am

6-9 am

9-4 pm

4-7 pm

a7er 7 pm

Q1 2012 Survey Results - Total

Graphical Representations of Questions
Comparative Q2 2011-Q1 2012

10

1, p1: I feel safe when driving through the construction zones. (Scale of 1-5
with 1 meaning completely disagree and 5 meaning completely agree):
40%

I Feel Safe - On the Street

35%

32.6%
30.8%

30%

31.8%
30.2%

32.0%
31.6%
30.8%

26.8%

25%

Q2 2011
19.9%

20%

20.9%

Q3 2011

19.6%

Q4 2011

18.0%

Q1 2012
14.4%

15%

12.9%

13.5%

10.3%

10%
7.1%

6.3%

5.9%
4.6%

5%
0%

I Feel Safe Street v. Phone

40.00%
35.00%
30.00%
25.00%
Street Survey Percentages

20.00%

Phone Survey Percentages

15.00%
10.00%
5.00%
0.00%

11

1, p2: Compared to other road construction projects Ive experienced, crews

are maintaining a safe roadway. (Scale of 1-5 with 1 meaning completely disagree and 5 meaning completely agree):
Maintain Safe Roadway - On the Street

35%

33.3%
30.0%

30%

29.1%

28.4%

27.9%

26.7%

25%
20.1%

20%

15%

19.2%

Q3 2011

17.6%

Q4 2011
Q1 2012

14.7%
12.4%
11.0%

10.9%

10.0%
8.8%

10%

5%

0%

40.00%

Maintain Safe Roadway Street v. Phone

35.00%
30.00%
25.00%
Street Surveys Percentages

20.00%

Phone percentages
15.00%
10.00%
5.00%
0.00%

12

1, p3: Dust is kept under control (Scale of 1-5 with 1 meaning completely disagree and 5 meaning completely agree):
40%

Dust - On the Street

35%

37.6%

32.8%

32.8%

30.9%

30%
26.7%
25.5%

24.8%

25%

23.3%

Q2 2011

21.7%

21.3%
19.9%

20%

10%

Q4 2011
Q1 2012

16.5%
15.4%

14.6%

15%

Q3 2011

13.0%
9.9%

10.2%

9.6%
7.7%
6.1%

5%
0%

45.00%

Dust - Street v. Phone

40.00%
35.00%
30.00%
25.00%

Street Surveys Percentages

Phone Percentages

20.00%
15.00%
10.00%
5.00%
0.00%

13

1, p4: Construction noise is kept under control. (Scale of 1-5 with 1 meaning
completely disagree and 5 meaning completely agree):
40%

Noise - On the Street

34.6%

35%

35.9%

32.9%

31.2%
30.0%

30%

29.5%
27.5%
25.0%

25%

22.9%

Q2 2011

22.6%
20.5%

20%

Q3 2011
Q4 2011
Q1 2012

15.8%

15%
11.2%

10%

8.3%

7.6%

6.8%

10.8%

10.8%
9.7%

6.3%

5%
0%

45.00%

Noise - Street v. Phone

40.00%
35.00%
30.00%
25.00%

Street Surveys Percentages

Phone Percentages

20.00%
15.00%
10.00%
5.00%
0.00%

14

1, p5: Lane markings are clear. (Scale of 1-5 with 1 meaning completely disagree and 5 meaning completely agree):
Clear Lane Markings - On the Street

45%
39.0%

40%
35%

38.1%
33.8%

28.9%

30%

29.1%

30.4%

Q3 2011
Q4 2011

25%

Q1 2012

20%
14.2%

15%

16.3%

15.3%

15.2%
11.7%
11.4%

10%

7.8%
5.1%

5%
0%

45.00%

3.6%

Clear Lane Markings - Street v. Phone

40.00%
35.00%
30.00%
25.00%

Street Surveys Percentages

Phone Percentages

20.00%
15.00%
10.00%
5.00%
0.00%

15

1, p6: Construction signs are easy to read. (Scale of 1-5 with 1 meaning completely disagree and 5 meaning completely agree):
Clear Lane Markings - On the Street

45%
39.0%

40%
35%

38.1%
33.8%

28.9%

30%

29.1%

30.4%

Q3 2011
Q4 2011

25%

Q1 2012

20%
14.2%

15%

16.3%

15.3%

15.2%
11.7%
11.4%

10%

7.8%
5.1%

5%
0%

35.00%

3.6%

Easy to Read - Street v. Phone

30.00%

25.00%

20.00%
Street Surveys Percentages
Phone Percentages

15.00%

10.00%

5.00%

0.00%

16

1, p7: The detour routes are clear and easy to navigate (or drive). (Scale of 1-5
with 1 meaning completely disagree and 5 meaning completely agree):
40%

Detours - On the Street

35.1%

35%
30.9%
28.9%

30%

27.7%
26.0%
24.5%

25%

25.7%

25.8%

24.1%
Q2 2011

21.8%

20%

20.6%

Q3 2011

20.6%

Q4 2011

18.6%

17.8%
15.2%

15%

Q1 2012

14.5%

10%

7.4%
6.2%
4.6% 4.1%

5%
0%

40.00%

Detours - Street v. Phone

35.00%
30.00%
25.00%
Street Surveys Percentages

20.00%

Phone Percentages
15.00%
10.00%
5.00%
0.00%

17

1, p8: Access to I-15 on- and off-ramps has been maintained. (Scale of 1-5 with
1 meaning completely disagree and 5 meaning completely agree):
Ramps - On the Street

30%

28.5%

28.0%

26.0%
25.2%

25%

24.7%

24.0%

23.4%

23.0%

23.2%

21.6%

20%

20.3%

19.3%

19.8%
18.1%

17.1%

Q2 2011
Q3 2011

15.6%

15%

Q4 2011
Q1 2012

11.0%
10.2%

10%

9.0%

8.6%

5%

0%

40.00%

Ramps - Street v. Phone

35.00%
30.00%
25.00%
Street Surveys Percentages

20.00%

Phone Percentages
15.00%
10.00%
5.00%
0.00%

18

1, p9: The construction crews are courteous. (Scale of 1-5 with 1 meaning completely disagree and 5 meaning completely agree):
Ramps - On the Street

30%

28.5%

28.0%

26.0%
25.2%

25%

24.7%

24.0%

23.4%

23.0%

23.2%

21.6%

20%

20.3%

19.3%

19.8%
18.1%

17.1%

Q2 2011
Q3 2011

15.6%

15%

Q4 2011
Q1 2012

11.0%
10.2%

10%

9.0%

8.6%

5%

0%

50.00%

Crews - Street v. Phone

45.00%
40.00%
35.00%
30.00%
Street Surveys Percentages

25.00%

Phone Percentages
20.00%
15.00%
10.00%
5.00%
0.00%

19

1, p10: Construction does not increase my travel time. (Scale of 1-5 with 1
meaning completely disagree and 5 meaning completely agree):
60%

Travel Delays - On the Street

50.7%

50%

40%

47.1%

46.8%

40.7%

Q2 2011
Q3 2011

30%

Q4 2011

26.3%

Q1 2012

22.8%

22.7%

20.8%

20%
16.3%
12.6%

13.1%

10%

12.5%

11.2%

8.6%

9.5%

8.8%

7.4%

8.0%

8.6%

5.6%

0%

50.00%

Travel Delays - Street v. Phone

45.00%
40.00%
35.00%
30.00%
Street Surveys Percentages

25.00%

Phone Percentages
20.00%
15.00%
10.00%
5.00%
0.00%

20

1, p11: When compared to other roadway construction I have experienced, the

travel delays are reasonable. (Scale of 1-5 with 1 meaning completely disagree
and 5 meaning completely agree):
Reasonable Delays - On the Street

35%

32.7%

32.3%

30.6%

30%
27.0%
26.3%
24.3%

25.0%

25%

21.4%

21.7%
Q2 2011

19.6%

20%

18.9%
16.5%

Q3 2011

18.5%

Q4 2011

16.3%

15.9%

Q1 2012

15%
12.6%
11.3%

10.8%

10.6%

10%
7.8%

5%

0%

40.00%

Reasonable Delays - Street v. Phone

35.00%
30.00%
25.00%
Street Surveys Percentages

20.00%

Phone Percentages
15.00%
10.00%
5.00%
0.00%

21

Snapshot of preferred communications methods across all areas; Q1 2012 (percentage):

70%

Preferred Comm - On the Street

60%

50%

47.2%
41.5%
41.4%

42.2%

38.7%
36.9% 37.3%

40%
34.2%

Q3 2011
Q4 2011

30%

Q1 2012

20%
15.2%

10%

9.3% 9.1% 8.7%

15.8%
12.0%

11.1%
7.7%

4.1%

0%

Q2 2011

Project email
updates

Project website
updates

7.1%
5.1%

7.3%

Electronic roadway Door hangers/iers

signs

Radio messages

Preferred Comm (con-nued) - On the Street

45%
38.3%

40%
35%

40.1%

34.9%

30.9%

30%

Q2 2011
25.8%

Q3 2011

25%

Q4 2011
20.6%
19.1%

20%

11.6%

12.4%

11.2%
10.4% 10.0%

10%
5%
0%

1.8%

Television

Socia media

Q1 2012

17.2%

16.9%

15%

18.4%

3.7% 2.7%

Mee<ngs

11.7%

3.5%

Newspaper

City newsleEer

22

Preferred Comm - Phone

70%

64.0%

60%
50%

43.9%

40%
Q1 2012

30%
20%

14.8%

13.3%

10.7%
10%
0%

Project email
updates

Project website
updates

Electronic roadway Door hangers/iers Radio messages

signs

Preferred Comm (con-nued) - Phone

50%
45%

43.6%

40%
33.7%

35%
30%
25%

18.1%

20%
15%
8.2%

10%

6.9%

5%
0%

Television

Socia media

Mee<ngs

Newspaper

City newsleEer

Q1 2012

23

Area Specific

Graphical Representations of Questions

Scale in this section is actual number of responses
and/or average from actual number of responses

24

American Fork / Lehi (Past 2 Quarters)

American Fork Sample CiKes

35
30
25
20
15
10

Q3 2011

Other/Non-Response

Vineyard

Springville

Spanish Fork

Saratoga Springs

Santaquin

Provo

Payson

Pleasant Grove

Orem

Mapleton

Lindon

Lehi

Highland

Eagle Mountain

Cedar Hills

American Fork

Alpine

Q4 2011

American Fork Sample Travel Times

60
Q4
2011
50

47

Number of Respondents

44
40
32
30

20

17
14

10

Before 6 am

6-9am

9-4pm

4-7pm

a4er 7 pm

25

Orem (Past 2 Quarters)

Orem Sample CiMes

45

42

40
35

35

32

31

30
25
20
15

12

10

8
5

70

0 0

Other/Non-
Response

Vineyard

Springville

Spanish Fork

0 0

Saratoga
Springs

Santaquin

Provo

Pleasant
Grove

Orem

Mapleton

Lindon

Eagle
Mountain

Highland

0 0

Payson

Lehi

3 3

Cedar Hills

Alpine

3 3

American
Fork

5
0

Orem Sample Travel Times

Q4 2011
Q1 2012

63

63

60
51
50
Number of Respondents

13

45

40

43

37

35

30
23
20
12
10
2
0

Before 6 am

6-9am

9-4pm

4-7pm

a4er 7 pm

26

Provo (Past 2 Quarters)

Provo Sample CiPes

90

83
78

80
70
60
50
40
30

25

20

Springville

0 0

Other/Non-
Response

2 2

Vineyard

1 2

Spanish Fork

0 0

64

Q4 2011
Q1 2012

50
Number of Respondents

0 0

Saratoga
Springs

0 0

Santaquin

1 0

Provo

Provo Sample Travel Times

70

60

Payson

Eagle Mountain

0 0

Pleasant Grove

Cedar Hills

1 1

Orem

American Fork

1 2

Mapleton

0 0

Lindon

0 0

Lehi

1 0

Alpine

0 0

Highland

10

47
40

40

38

34

32

30

30

24

20

10

7
3

Before 6 am

6-9am

9-4pm

4-7pm

a5er 7 pm

27

Springville / Spanish Fork (Past 2 Quarters)

Springville Sample CiOes

80

72

70

65

60
50
40
30

Q4 2011
Q1 2012

Other/Non-Response

Saratoga Springs

0 0

Vineyard

0 0

Spanish Fork

Santaquin

55

51
46

40

Provo

Payson

0 0

10

Springville Sample Travel Times

50

Number of Respondents

Pleasant Grove

Lehi

60

0 1

4 3

Orem

0 0

Mapleton

0 0

Lindon

0 0

Highland

American Fork

0 0

Eagle Mountain

1 0

Cedar Hills

0 0

Alpine

10
0

14

12

Springville

20

48

36
30

30

25
21

20
11
10

Before 6 am

6-9am

9-4pm

4-7pm

a5er 7 pm

28

Phone Survey

Phone Survey Results

100

88

90
80
70

66

60
50

41
33

29

27

23

19

Q1 2012

Spanish Fork

Santaquin

Provo

Payson

Pleasant Grove

Orem

Mapleton

Lindon

Lehi

Highland

Phone Sample
Travel Times
36.13%

35.00%
29.58%

30.00%
25.00%
Number of Respondents

21.68%

20.00%
15.00%
9.24%

10.00%
5.00%
0.00%

3.36%

Before 6 am

6-9 am

9-4 pm

4-7 pm

a7er 7 pm

Other/Non-Response

40.00%

9
4

Eagle Mountain

Alpine

American Fork

10

14

10

Saratoga Springs

12

Cedar Hills

20

Vineyard

30

Springville

40

29

Question 1 by area:

On a scale of one to five with one meaning completely disagree and five meaning
completely agree, please rate the project on the following:

30

Area responses to Question 1 Categories by area (averages on a 1-5 scale):

American Fork
Q2 2011
5
4.75
4.5
4.25
4
3.75
3.5
3.25
3
2.75
2.5
2.25
2
1.75
1.5
1.25
1

Safe

Dust

Noise

Easy to read Clear and

signs
navigable
detours

Q3 2011

Ramps

Q4 2011

Crews
courteous

Q1 2012

No delays Reasonable Overall

delays
response

Safe
roadway

Clear lane
markings

Safe
roadway

Clear lane
markings

Orem
Q2 2011
4
3.75
3.5
3.25
3
2.75
2.5
2.25
2
1.75
1.5
1.25
1

Safe

Dust

Noise

Easy to read Clear and

signs
navigable
detours

Q3 2011

Ramps

Q4 2011

Crews
courteous

Q1 2012

No delays Reasonable Overall

delays
response

31

Provo
Q2 2011
5
4.75
4.5
4.25
4
3.75
3.5
3.25
3
2.75
2.5
2.25
2
1.75
1.5
1.25
1

Safe

Dust

Noise

Easy to read Clear and

signs
navigable
detours

Q3 2011

Ramps

Q4 2011

Crews
courteous

Q1 2012

No delays Reasonable Overall

delays
response

Safe
roadway

Clear lane
markings

Spanish Fork
Q2 2011

Q3 2011

Q4 2011

Q1 2012

Easy to read Clear and

signs
navigable
detours

Ramps

Crews
courteous

No delays Reasonable
delays

5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1

Safe

Dust

Noise

Overall
response

Safe
roadway

Clear lane
markings

32

Phone
Q1 2012
5
4.5

3.99

4
3.5

3.38

3.38

3.18

3.01

4.07

3.98

3.32

3.54

2.87

2.61

2.53

2.5
2
1.5
1

Safe

Dust

Noise

Easy to read Easy to

signs
follow

Clear and
navigable
detours

Ramps

Crews
No delays Reasonable Overall
courteous
delays
response

Safe
roadway

Clear lane
markings

Average aggregate Question 1 responses by area (averages of all Question 1

categories on a 1-5 scale):
5

Q2 2011

Q3 2011

Q4 2011

Q1 2012

4.5
4
3.5
3

3.32
2.87 2.94
2.73 2.7 2.75 2.76

2.94

2.98 2.94

3.02

2.93 2.91
2.77

2.7

2.85

2.94
2.86 2.77 2.85

2.5

2.5
2
1.5
1

American Fork

Orem

Provo

Spanish Fork

All

Phone

1.25

1.5

1.75

2.25

2.5

2.75

3.25

3.5

3.75

4.25

4.5

4.75

Safe

2.34

Dust

3.54

Noise

3.51

Easy to read
signs

2.72

Clear and
navigable
detours

2.39

Q2 2011

Ramps

2.95

Q3 2011

Crews
courteous

3.66

Q4 2011

2.10

No delays

Q1 2012

Reasonable
delays

2.93

3.09

2.11

Overall Safe roadway Clear lane

response
markings

2.94

Average responses to all Question 1 categories regardless of area (1 to 5 scale):

33

34

I feel safe when driving through the construction zones (average response on a
1 to 5 scale):
5

4.5
4
3.5
Q2 2011

3.01

Q3 2011

2.47

2.5

2.6

2.42

2.48

2.28

Q4 2011

2.47 2.39

2.51

2.38

2.37

2.37

2.19

2.12

2.07

Q1 2012

2.2

1.97

2
1.5
1

American Fork

Orem

Provo

Spanish Fork

Phone
Provo - "Safe"

American Fork - "Safe"

60

45
39

40
35
30

51

38

50

38

43

32
30

40

28

25

25

30

23

24

20

33

25
23

19

15

18

16

15

10

4
1
1

20

18

18

16
14

13

31

35
33

31
30

20

20

21

35

28

28

27
24

22

23

10

10

8
6

18

16

15

13

35

20

15
5

32

25

19

37

30
22

40

40

25

Orem - "Safe"

36
32

45

41

35

7
6

42

40

24

22

Spanish Fork - "Safe"

30

27

10

45

28
21

20
9

29
28

14

10
5
0

10
10
8

11
4

35

Compared to other road construction projects Ive experienced, crews are

maintaining a safe roadway (average response on a 1 to 5 scale):
4

3.54

3.5

3.23

3.05 2.97
2.95

3.19

3.11 3.19 3.09

3.14 3.09

2.85

2.57

2.5
2

Q3 2011
Q4 2011

1.5

Q1 2012

1
0.5
0

American Fork

Orem

Provo

Spanish Fork

American fork - "Maintain Safe Roadway"

35

32

33

Provo - "Maintain safe roadway"

45

33

33

21

21

33

30

24

12

10

10
7

15

15

15
14
12
11

13

10
6

33

20

25

17
13

12

10

10

20
15
10

30

24

25

19

35
34

30

15

39

35

27

18

10

40

40

32

28

25

45
33

31

30

Orem - "Maintain safe roadway"

Spanish Fork - "Maintain Safe Roadway"

35

23
21

20

20

14

14
14

33
27

25

16

15

40

35

26

20

41

40

30
25

Phone

19

18

15
14

12
9

10
10

10

5
0

36

Dust is kept under control (average response on a 1 to 5 scale):

5

4.5
3.99

3.75

3.66
3.5
3.44 3.54

3.37 3.47 3.42

3.5

3.55

3.5

3.44 3.49

3.29

3.25

3.11

3.24

Q2 2011

Q3 2011
Q4 2011

2.5

Q1 2012

2
1.5
1

American Fork

Orem

Provo

Spanish Fork

Phone

Provo - "Dust"

American Fork - "Dust"

45

40
36

35

35

32

31

30

28
26

19

19
17

13

16

14

13

11

19
18
14
13
11
8

9
6

36

40
34

23
21

15
13
8

25
21

15

14
10

10

23

22

21
19

18
16

17

15

14

9
5

30

29

20

20

29

29

25

34
33

32

33

32

30

37

35

50

10
7

Orem - "Dust"
57

22

24

20

40

60

30

28
27

26

25

Spanish Fork - "Dust"

29

20

10

10

30

15

11

20

36
34

25

20

10

38

35

25

15

40

40

37

Construction noise is kept under control (average response on a 1 to 5 scale):

5

4.5
3.98

4
3.4

3.5

3.59

3.52 3.46
3.38

3.49

3.7 3.71

3.6

3.59

3.45
3.31

3.31

3.38

3.65

3.21

Q2 2011

Q3 2011
Q4 2011

2.5

Q1 2012

2
1.5
1

American Fork

Orem

Provo

Spanish Fork

Phone

American Fork - "Noise"

40

Provo - "Noise"
45

38

37

36

35

40

36
32

30

35

29
27

25

24

20
17

15

12

10

5
0

16

14

10
5

27

22

20

17
13

12

11

8
5

45

45

45

40

40

37

35

40

22
21

20

11

13

13

12
11
10

27

25

28
26

27

20

16

15

12

12

13

30
28

23

20
10

34
32

30

29

23

12

36

35

29

25

40

40

35

30

50

50

10

Orem - "Noise"

Spanish Fork - "Noise"

15

19

19

30
28

30
29

25

36

33

30

15

13

10

41

40

10

38

Lane markings are clear (average response on a 1 to 5 scale):

3

2.5

2.5

2.33

2.24

2.14 2.15
2.05

2.07

2.04

1.99 1.96

2.61

2.48 2.49

1.5

Q3 2011
Q4 2011
Q1 2012

0.5

American Fork

Orem

Provo

Spanish Fork

Provo - "Lane Markings Clear"

American fork - "Lanes markings clear"

50

60

47

45

50
40

40

49

37

30
25

27

14

10

13

14

11

19

12

11

Orem - "Lane markings clear"

60

50
45

50
37

38

48

37

35

40

31

30
25

30

24
19

31
22

24

16

10

10

5
2

15

11

4
3
2

16

16

13

14

10

28

20

15

15

34

39

20

12

Spanish Fork - "Lane Markings Clear"

40

19

3
2

19

13

10

11

28

26

15

15

36
33

20

20

37

35

39

39

30

45

Phone

6
4

39

Construction signs are easy to read (average response on a 1 to 5 scale):

5

4.5
4
3.5
3

2.69

2.66

2.63

2.5

Q2 2011

2.92

2.91

Q3 2011

2.77

2.68

2.63

2.53

2.42

3.18

3.12

3.04

2.44

2.63

2.52

Q4 2011
Q1 2012

2.29

2
1.5
1

American Fork

Orem

Provo

Spanish Fork

Provo - "Easy to Read"

American Fork - "Easy to Read"

50

45

45

40

40

40

35
31

30
25

24

25
21

21

22
19
17

18

10
8
7

25

20

20

24

16

8
7

26

19

20

12

5
3

25

13

15

8
6

10

5
0

26
27

21

24

19

20

15

29
29

25

19

10

32

30

24

15

37

35

25
23

40

30

24

20

45

35

25

15
14

14

10

Orem - "Easy to Read"

33

25

24
23

19

50

40

30

21

17

Spanish Fork - "Easy to Read"

30

29

25

31

30

25
15

15

10

33

30

25 25

27

15

25

35

35

30
28

20

35

Phone

19
17

16

18

16

16

12
11
10

40

The detour routes are clear and easy to navigate (or drive) [average response
on a 1 to 5 scale]:
5

4.5
4
3.5
Q2 2011

2.87

2.94

3
2.64
2.47 2.45
2.41

2.5

2.77

2.73
2.56

2.58

2.49

Q3 2011

2.65

Q4 2011

2.39
2.35

2.32

Q1 2012

2.21

2.14

2
1.5
1

American Fork

Orem

Provo

Spanish Fork

Phone
Provo - "Detours"

American Fork - "Detours"

60

50
45

50

40
35
30

25

25

32

32

32

30

40

32

35

29

29
25

23

22

21

20

20

15

25

26

26

29
25

22

20

19
17

16

6
3
1

17

12

10

10
9
8
3

Orem - "Detours"

Spanish Fork - "Detours"

50

38

46

46

45

35

32

30

40

32

29

27

26

26
22

24

15
8

8
7
5
4

5
3

24

22

21

21

20

17

19

15

10

10

26

25
20

36

30

23

19

40

35

29

23

20

28
26

20
19
18

25

31

30

10

40

48

16
17

14

13

10

10
7

5
0

41

Access to I-15 on- and off-ramps has been maintained (average response on a 1
to 5 scale):
5

4.5
4
3.38

3.5
2.93

2.79 2.76

2.72
2.55

2.5

2.96

2.91

2.79

2.89

3.09

2.92 2.9

Q2 2011

Q3 2011

2.72

Q4 2011

2.5

Q1 2012

2.22

2
1.5
1

American Fork

Orem

Provo

Spanish Fork

Phone

American Fork - "Ramps"

Provo - "Ramps"
45

40
35
30

27

26

26

26

26

18

18

20
15

15

10

21
20

18
17

14
13
13
10

Orem - "Ramps"
40

40
35

35
32

30

32
29

27

26

17

15

22
21

21

20

30
28

24

23

23
21

20

17

15

15

14

13
11

10

29

27

26

25

25

20

34

30

29

25

20

14

Spanish Fork - "Ramps"

35

23

21

25

26

22

10

8
7

29

27

26

25

20

15

32

30

25
24

19

39

35

28

28

25
20

40

34
32

19

18

17

26

18

16

14

13
12

10

11

5
2

42

The construction crews are courteous. (average response on a 1 to 5 scale):

5

4.5
4.07

3.96

4
3.58 3.57

3.66

3.67

3.59

3.85
3.54

3.5

3.65

3.85

3.74
3.6

3.67

3.56

3.42
3.14

Q2 2011

Q3 2011
Q4 2011

2.5

Q1 2012

2
1.5
1

American Fork

Orem

Provo

Spanish Fork

Phone

Provo - "Crews"

American Fork - "Crews"

60

50
45

50

41

40

37

35

35

30

25

33

30

25
24
23

20

32

30

30

28

28
27 25

28

24

20

15
10
5

10

9
8

5
2

5 5
3

Orem - "Crews"

Spanish Fork - "Crews"

60

50

47

46

45

50

50

40

47

36

35

33

31

30

33

23

20

23

20
19

19

15
10
5

5
2

31

30

33

30
23

20

35

30

10

8
6

39

40

29
26

25

43

41
40

40

34

32

30

50

20

7
2

20

9
7
5
3

43

Construction does not increase my travel time. (average response on a 1 to 5

scale):
5

4.5
4
3.5

Q2 2011
Q3 2011

Q4 2011

2.53

2.46

2.5

2.29

2.21
2.05

2.34

2.12

2.03

1.95

2.32

2.28

1.98

2.06
1.85

1.76

Q1 2012

2.23

1.88

1.5
1

American Fork

Orem

Provo

57
55

53

80
70

50
46

50
30

31

30

40

22

20

21

10

7
5
4

6
4

27

22

16
10

14
9

10

15
14

11
10 10
6

9
5

Orem - "Time Delays"

70

70

61

60

59

50

48

45

42

44

40

38

30

30

29
28
25

20

18

10
0

33
28

Spanish Fork - "Time Delays"

40

35

20

13

11

10
9

46
42

30

18

10

50

67

60

40

Phone

Provo - "Travel Delays"

American Fork - "Time Delays"

60

60

Spanish Fork

15
11

10

10
6

15

13

10
0

21

18

16

12

19

20

19

16
14

27

12

11
6

44

When compared to other roadway construction i have experienced, the travel

delays are reasonable. (average response on a 1 to 5 scale):
5

4.5
4
3.38

3.5

3.27
3.09
2.8 2.77
2.61

2.71

3.12 3.09

Q3 2011

2.82

2.7

Q4 2011
2.53

2.46

2.5

Q2 2011

3.15

3.02

2.95

3.17

Q1 2012

2
1.5
1

American Fork

Orem

Provo

Spanish Fork

Provo - "Reasonable"

American fork - "Reasonable"

40

40

35

35

34
33
31

30
25

21

18

15

16

15

15
11
9
8
6

10
5
0

14
12

10

5
1

30

32

31 31
28

20

42

38

30
26

23

20

25

22

20
18

16

15
12

35

26

25

40

35

12

14

14

10

5
0

17

16

Orem - "Reasonable"

37

30

27

14

45

40

10

28
26

19

Spanish Fork - "Reasonable"

15

29

22
21

19

38

21

20

18

15

29
25

25

24

20

38

30

25

24

21

32

31

27

Phone

20

26

20
21
18

15
10

27
27

26
26

24
23

15

14
14

11
10

10

10

45

Question 4 by area:

Several methods are being used to help people stay informed about construction activities.
Of the following methods, which ones do you use to stay informed about the I-15
construction project? Choose all that apply:
Metric is actual number of responses out of ~100 respondent sample. Because each
sample is out of ~100, this is essentially interchangeable with a percentage.

46

American Fork
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

Email

Website

Electronic

Roadway Signs Door Hangers

Radio

TV

Local Events


Social Media
Newspapers City Website

TV

Local Events


Social Media
Newspapers City Website

Orem
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

Email

Website

Electronic

Roadway Signs Door Hangers

Radio

47

Provo
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

Email

Website

Roadway signs Door Hangers

Radio

TV

Social Media Local Events Newspapers City Website

Spanish Fork
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

Email

Website

Electronic

Roadway Signs Door Hangers

Radio

TV

Local Events


Social Media
Newspapers City Website

48

Free Response by area:

American Fork:

When freeway traffic is bad- city driving is out of control!

The blind entrances onto freeway are a huge hazard. The rock chips suck!
I dont travel South very often. Im not too sure of the road conditions that direction.
I was almost in an accident.
When exits are changed you need to give better notice to allow change of lanes. Ive missed exits

because I didnt see signage and didnt know exits were earlier than expected.
The streets are ridiculous to drive on. They are unsafe and packed- too many accidents.
It is Bullshit. I have drove I-15 on several occassions and barrells have been blowing into oncoming
traffic.
Not SAFE! I used to own an excavation company and we had to have a traffic control plan approved by
UDOT. Where is UDOT NOW?
Thank you for changing my tire. Im so greatful!
Where is the planning?
The worst signing and etc is going south and turning off to university exit or staying on I-15.
I dont drive on I-15 very often. I try to stay in AF as much as possible

Orem:

I have to drive it anyway so it doesnt matter

I wish they would hurry up and finish so we can move on with our lives!
I dont travel a lot.

Spanish Fork:

Working on all the major side roads and frontage roads as well as the free way makes it difficult and
frustrating.

Provo:

I wish the signs were easier to notice (i.e. Provo Center Street, exit). They blend in with the orange all
around The removal of old lane lines, addition of temp lines, cones, and varying asphalt colors make it
hard to navigate and understand traffic pattern. I do appreciate the work being done and understand the
necessity but the everywhere-ness of it is tiresome and very inconvenient. If it were clearer and if I had
done more to be informed, it would be better. The lanes are rough to understand.
The main thing they could improve is road signs and lane markings. Sometimes you cant tell what your
lane is, creating increased danger. Lack of advanced warning, in particular lane reduction, seem to be the
biggest cause of traffic jams. Drivers dont have enough warning to change lanes, leading to backing up
when they try to change at the last moment.

49

Phone Free Response by area:

American Fork:

I wish it was done.

The lane marking are confusing at the off-ramps on the Southbound route in the University highway.
Its really unsafe. Theyre splitting exits, and its just dangerous.
They have done a remarkable job to maintain the safety and cleanliness of the road, even if the
construction is still going on.
The previous lane marking wasnt erased clearly causing the previous lane and the current lane markings to
be combined.
There was a sign that says 21 miles north of Lehi, but it was not. Their signs are confusing. They need to
do something on it. When my friend drove there, she was lost because of the wrong sign. We need to
have a traffic light badly.
I had an accident on the freeway. I had a very positive response from Provo officer on the highway. The
lane markings is extremely difficult and people are getting highly confused, especially when it rains. They
need to figure out a better way to mark the current lane and get rid of the old lane.

Orem:
On various road sides, there are signs that say so many minutes that way and so many minutes this way.
I cant say that impacts the drivers decision. I dont think that it is helpful one way or another. Its a big
waste of money. UDOT is doing a good job, though.
I am grateful and feel wonderful that they have done this, but I feel anxious when I am riding on the road.
They are changing the channels that we are going through, and it fills me with so much anxiety. I really
need to focus and be attentive because the lines are very obvious that it is filled. Overall, UDOT has done a
very good job, and it is a challenging job. The electronic signs are good. The crews were courteous. Its a
good thing that there are no accidents that have happened.
They need more patrolmen because we used to travel on that road.
Theyve got to accommodate commuter traffic at high traffic times. They cannot arbitrarily close major
thoroughfares without proper advanced warning, like University parkways.
Sometimes, the lane markings are hard to determine at night.
By using orange paint in remarking construction lanes, there is greater visibility that would result for the
drivers.
Signs are clearly done in roads. In Spanish Fork, I do not feel safe in that area.
The entrance to Provo is too slow in the I-15. There is traffic congestion.
The only concern I have is on the center street in Orem. The lights there and on the 12th West are not
coordinated well, so there is a huge backup.
Its about widening the road to have three to six lanes. It should only take two months, and thats the
most.
We think they have a very good job in traffic control considering that it is a complex project. They have
done it very well.
My only concern is that there is that one section on the 15th south near 1600 north on ramps wherein
lines are not clear. I do not know where my lane is clearly going.

50
What bothers me the most is the narrow lanes. It is very challenging and dangerous when passing through
big trucks. Secondly, there are no emergency lanes. The third one is theres a lot of debris, which is kind of
dangerous.
I would like to see more information on the stops, what they are going to make as well as where and when.
I hope they will have more advertisements about the construction.

Provo:
Its the Provo Center Street. The design of the freeway they made was confusing. Some parts are
dangerous. If I am driving from the East to West, I have to turn left. Theres a crowded and dangerous
part.
The lanes are too narrow.
Last night around 7 PM, we entered the 8-North Entrance Freeway in Orem and the green light was on. My
husband thinks the green light slows things down.
Weve been calling from someone in UDOT about the ramp on 1600 road that was closed. It causes traffic.
The wait time is way too long.
It is about where they do the lane split. They have to put more signs ahead or make it clearer. There
should be clearer warning for what is to come.

Spanish Fork:
I want to have them make sure that the lanes in Spanish Fork off-ramp are not horrible. My car has to tip
sideways slightly, which is dangerous. They should level the asphalt better and make it concrete.
Aside from not being able to see the markings on the lanes, they are doing a pretty good job. There is
an unevenness of the road and the paving of the asphalt from old to new, but considering the size of the
project, they are doing a good job.
They are doing wonderfully except for the uneven surfaces in Springville and Orem, which are a lot.
There was so much of the debris that was torn up and all of those were unsafe.
It would be the rock trucks. They accidentally threw over the road and hit my car and windshield.

51

52

53

Key Findings
Summary of results

54

Overall Results

The average of all Q1 2012 responses gathered in the four man-on-the-street surveys was
2.94 on a five-point scale. This shows an increase from the last quarter, which yielded an
overall average of 2.85.
The most negative geographic area in Q1 2012 was American Fork/Lehi receiving a 2.76.
Although American Fork also experienced the most negative in overall score it is
improving. The area of Provo yielded the most significant decrease in overall score going
from 3.02 to 2.77, whereas in Q4 2011 it scored as the most positive geographical area.
Scores decreased in the following questions: Maintain safe roadways, Noise, Lane
markings clear, Easy to read, Detours, Travel delays, and Reasonable.

The most positive geographic area in Q1 2012 was Orem with a score of 2.94 on a fivepoint scale. There was an increase on every question except for Lane markings clear and
Travel delays.

Five categories in Question 1 increased in average score from Q1 2012. The four categories
that yielded a decrease in score from Q1 2012 were Noise, Detours, Reasonable delays,
and Clear lane markings. Dust and No delays were the two categories that maintained
their scores from Q4 2011.
Construction crews are courteous received the highest average response with a score of
3.66 on a five-point scale. No delays was the weakest point once again in Q1 2012 with
an average of 2.1 on a five-point scale.

We saw a general increasing trend in all the communication method categories except
Project email updates and Project website updates. Electronic roadway signs emerged as
the communication method most used again at 47.2%. Television emerged second place at
40.1% and Radio at third place with 37.3%. The most significant increase in preferred communication method was Newspapers which increased from 17.2% in Q4 2011 to 25.8% in Q1 2012.

55

Detailed Results
An Increase in Overall Average

The largest contributing factor for an increase in overall average score was the significant
increase in score in Orem.


Orem was the area with the most positive growth receiving

a 2.94 on a five-point scale, up from 2.7 in Q4 2011.


American Fork experienced increases in overall scores.


Five out of 11 categories in Question 1 increased in score from Q4 2011.
If Provo had not experienced such a drastic decrease in score, the project would have
achieved a greater overall average.


The most positive geographic area in Q1 2012 was Orem with a score of 2.94

on a five-point scale, increasing on all but two questions.


American Fork experienced growth in their average overall response score

from 2.75 in Q4 2011 to 2.76 on a five-point scale.
Most Improvement

The Question 1 category that experienced the most positive growth in Q1 2012 as
compared to Q4 2011 was Ramps.


In American Fork Ramps increased to 2.93, from 2.72 Q4 in 2011.


In Orem Ramps increase to 2.96, from 2.76 in Q4 2011.

Provo and Springville remained about the same.
Most Decline

When asked to agree or disagree with the statement The detour routes are clear and easy
to navigate, people responded more negatively to this statement than Q4 2011.

American Fork received 2.41, down from 2.32 in Q4 2011, based on a five-
point scale

Springville received 2.39, down from 2.58 in Q4 2011, based on a five-point
scale.

Provo received 2.35, down from 2.58 in Q4 2011, based on a five-point scale.

Orem recieved 2.49, up from 2.21 in Q4 2011, based on a five-point scale.

56

Communication
In Q1 2012, respondents generally still look to electronic roadway signs and traditional
media sources like television and radio more than non-traditional media sources; however,
Newspaper experienced the most positive growth. The most significant decline in the
percentage points was seen in Project website updates. Social media the category that
showed the largest decrease in category Q4 2011 showed significant increase in Q1 2012.

Television experienced positive growth of 1.8%. Television

experienced growth in percentage points in all four areas except Provo.


Electronic roadway signs was reported as the most used method of

communication in Provo, American Fork and Spanish Fork.


The most used method of non-traditional communication was Social media at
16.9%.


Local meetings/public events experienced an overall increase of 0.8%, with

increases in all areas except for Springville.


Project email updates experienced a 1% decline, much of it coming from

American Fork and Orem.


Door hangers/fliers experienced a 2.2% increase. The most significant de

cline came from American Fork.


Radio messages experienced a 0.4% increase, with increase in America Fork

and decrease in Springville.


Newspapers experienced a 8.6% increase, with the most significant

increases in Orem and Springville.

57

Recommendations
Something Accomplishable

The following are recommendations that may help UDOT increase the publics perception
about the project. The following areas are reasonable and accomplishable.
Improvements in Provo

Provo received the largest decrease in overall ratings. The most significant decreases were
in the categories of Clear lane markings, No delays, Noise, Easy to read signs, and
Clear and navegable detours. The following comments highlight the general feeling in
Provo, and the need for a focus on improvement in the area.
I wish the signs were easier to notice (i.e. Provo Center Street, exit). They blend in with
the orange all around The removal of old lane lines, addition of temp lines, cones, and
varying asphalt colors make it hard to navigate and understand traffic pattern. The
lanes are rough to understand.
The main thing they could improve are road signs and lane markings. Sometimes you
cant tell what your lane is, creating increased danger. Lack of advanced warning, in
particular lane reduction, seem to be the biggest cause of traffic jams. Drivers dont
have enough warning to change lanes, leading to backing up when they try to change at
the last moment.
Communication Campaign

A significant number of complaints were expressed in the Free Response section of the
survey regarding delays. Although the delays cannot be eliminated until the project is
done, the reason for the delays can be better communicated.

This may be done through the most effective methods of preferred communication shown
in the Preferred Communication charts. Radios messages, Television, and Electronic
Roadway Signs, have highest percentages of preference in receiving notifications
regarding the I-15 construction areas.
With a recent increase in the Newspaper category, now might be the best time to utilize
newspapers in helping drivers understand the need for construction and why it causes
traffic delays.