Customer Satisfaction: Fiscal Year 2007 Survey of Missouri Adults Tracker Measures:5A, 12J, 13C, 17D and 18B

Home , KALM, KCMQ, KCXL, KDRO, KFAQ, KGRC

Organizational Results Research Report June 2007 OR07.011

Customer Satisfaction: Fiscal Year 2007 Survey of Missouri Adults Tracker Measures:5a, 12j, 13c, 17d and 18b

Prepared by Missouri Transportation Institute and Missouri Department of Transportation FINAL REPORT

RI06-019

Customer Satisfaction: Fiscal Year 2007 Survey of Missouri Adults Tracker Measures:5a, 12j, 13c, 17d and 18b

Prepared for the Missouri Department of Transportation Organizational Results

by Missouri Transportation Institute University of Missouri-Rolla

June 2007

The opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed in this publication are those of the principal investigators. They are not necessarily those of the Missouri Department of Transportation and the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. This report does not constitute a standard or regulation.

TECHNICAL REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE

1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. OR 07-011 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date Customer Satisfaction: June 2007 Fiscal Year 2007 Survey of Missouri Adults Tracker Measures:5a, 12j, 13c, 17d and 18b 6. Performing Organization Code

MoDOT 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. OR 07-011 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. University of Missouri-Rolla RI06-019 1870 Miner Circle Rolla, Missouri 65409 11. Contract or Grant No.

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered Missouri Department of Transportation Final Report Organizational Results P. O. Box 270-Jefferson City, MO 65102 14. Sponsoring Agency Code MoDOT 15. Supplementary Notes The investigation was conducted in cooperation with the U. S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration.

16. Abstract Using the 2006 survey as a baseline, the investigators collaborated with MoDOT to finalize the survey questions to be asked. A professional calling center was contracted to obtain a representative sample of each of the 10 MoDOT Districts, with a minimum of 350 respondents per District. Potential respondents were contacted through random digit dialing (RDD) from May 14 through May 30. 89,064 calls were made, of which interviewers were able to talk to 7,514 people. A total of 3,636 interviews were completed and usable for the study. 17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement Customer satisfaction No restrictions. This document is available to the public through National Technical Information Center, Springfield, Virginia 22161 19. Security Classification (of this report) 20. Security Classification (of this page) 21. No. of Pages 22. Price Unclassified Unclassified 114 2007 Customer Satisfaction Survey Report MTI/UMR

Table of Contents Table of Tables ...... v Executive Summary...... 1 Summary of Tracker Results ...... 1 Other Results...... 2 Summary of Public Expectations...... 3 Summary of Public Transportation Priorities and Funding Perspectives ...... 3 Summary of How Missourians Obtain Transportation Related News...... 4 Process ...... 5 Tracker Results ...... 8 Tracker Measure 5a: Overall Customer Satisfaction...... 8 Tracker Measure 12j – Satisfaction with Transportation Options...... 10 Tracker Measure 13c – Inclusion in Decision-Making Process ...... 12 Tracker Measure 17d –MoDOT as Missouri’s Transportation Expert...... 14 Tracker Measure 18b – MoDOT Produces Timely Information ...... 16 Tracker Measure 18b – MoDOT Produces Accurate Information ...... 18 Tracker Measure 18b – MoDOT Produces Understandable Information...... 20 Other Results...... 22 MoDOT and Public Expectations ...... 22 Public Priorities for Transportation and Perspectives on Funding ...... 31 Public Priorities for Transportation ...... 31 Public Perspectives on Funding...... 33 How Missourians Obtain Their Transportation Related News...... 51 Appendix A: Survey Questions ...... 53 Questions and Results – Ignoring “Not Sure” Respondents...... 54 Questions and Results – Including “Not Sure” Respondents ...... 60 Appendix B: Additional Details on Transportation Related News...... 65 District 1...... 66 District 2...... 70 District 3...... 75 District 4...... 79 District 5...... 82

Page i 2007 Customer Satisfaction Survey Report MTI/UMR

District 6...... 86 District 7...... 89 District 8...... 93 District 9...... 97 District 10...... 101

Page ii 2007 Customer Satisfaction Survey Report MTI/UMR

Table of Figures Figure 1: Tracker Measure 5a...... 1 Figure 2: Primary Source of Transportation Related News...... 4 Figure 3: 5a - Overall Results ...... 8 Figure 4: 5a - Three Year Comparison...... 8 Figure 5: 5a - District Results...... 9 Figure 6: 12j - Overall Results ...... 10 Figure 7: 12j - Three Year Comparison...... 10 Figure 8: 12j - District Results...... 11 Figure 9: 13c - Overall Results ...... 12 Figure 10: 13c - Three Year Comparison...... 12 Figure 11: 13c - District Results...... 13 Figure 12: 17d - Overall Results...... 14 Figure 13: 17d - Three Year Comparison ...... 14 Figure 14: 17d - District Results ...... 15 Figure 15: 18b(T) - Overall Results...... 16 Figure 16: 18b(T) - Three Year Comparison ...... 16 Figure 17: 18b(T) - District Results ...... 17 Figure 18: 18b(A) - Overall Results...... 18 Figure 19: 18b(A) - Three Year Comparison...... 18 Figure 20: 18b(A) - District Results...... 19 Figure 21: 18b(U) - Overall Results ...... 20 Figure 22: 18b(U) - Three Year Comparison...... 20 Figure 23: 18b(U) - District Results...... 21 Figure 24: Roadsides – Mowing ...... 23 Figure 25: Roadsides – Snow Removal...... 24 Figure 26: Roadsides – Litter Control...... 25 Figure 27: Visibility – Work Zone Navigation...... 26 Figure 28: Visibility –Signs ...... 27 Figure 29: Visibility –Stripe Brightness...... 28 Figure 30: Traffic Control – Work Zone Travel Delays...... 29 Figure 31: Traffic Control – Traffic Recovery...... 30

Page iii 2007 Customer Satisfaction Survey Report MTI/UMR

Figure 32: Transportation Priorities – Maintenance over Roadsides...... 34 Figure 33: Transportation Priorities –More Roads vs. Maintenance ...... 35 Figure 34: Transportation Priorities –Importance of More or Better Maintenance ...... 36 Figure 35: Transportation Priorities – Maintenance vs. Expansion vs. Improving Safety ...... 37 Figure 37: Transportation Priorities – State Roads – Reducing Traffic Jams ..... 38 Figure 38: Transportation Priorities – State Roads – Road Shoulders ...... 39 Figure 39: Transportation Priorities – Alternative Transportation – Van Services for Seniors ...... 40 Figure 40: Transportation Priorities – Alternative Transportation – Bus Service 41 Figure 41: Transportation Priorities – Alternative Transportation – Train/Light- Rail Services ...... 42 Figure 42: Transportation Priorities – Alternative Transportation – Options Such as Bicycle Trails...... 43 Figure 43: Transportation Priorities – Larger Highways vs. Smaller Roads...... 44 Figure 45: Transportation Priorities – Intersection Photography...... 45 Figure 46: Public Funding Perspective – Tolls...... 46 Figure 47: Public Funding Perspective – Local Contribution vs. State Only Funding ...... 47 Figure 48: Public Funding Perspective – Perceived Adequacy of MoDOT Revenue ...... 48 Figure 49: Public Funding Perspective – Percentage Supporting Additional Taxation/Fees ...... 49 Figure 50: Public Funding Perspective – Numbers Supporting Additional Taxation/Fees ...... 50 Figure 51: Primary Source of Transportation Related News ...... 51 Figure 52: Primary Source of Transportation Related News by District...... 52

Page iv 2007 Customer Satisfaction Survey Report MTI/UMR

Table of Tables Table 1: Summary of Tracker Measures...... 2 Table 2: Summary of How MoDOT Meets Public Expectations ...... 3 Table 3: Completed Calls by Gender and District...... 5 Table 4: Hypothetical Example of Two Calculation Methods...... 6 Table 5: Summary of How MoDOT Meets Public Expectations ...... 22 Table 6: Public Priorities of Where MoDOT Should Do More or Better ...... 32 Table 7: Primary Source of Transportation News...... 65 Table 8: Print Media Options for District 1 ...... 66 Table 9: Radio Media Options for District 1...... 66 Table 10: TV Media Options for District 1 ...... 67 Table 11: Other Media Options for District 1 ...... 69 Table 12: Print Media Options for District 2...... 70 Table 13: Radio Media Options for District 2...... 70 Table 14: TV Media Options for District 2 ...... 73 Table 15: Other Media Options for District 2 ...... 74 Table 16: Print Media Options for District 3...... 75 Table 17: Radio Media Options for District 3...... 75 Table 18: TV Media Options for District 3 ...... 77 Table 19: Other Media Options for District 3 ...... 78 Table 20: Print Media Options for District 4...... 79 Table 21: Radio Media Options for District 4...... 79 Table 22: TV Media Options for District 4 ...... 81 Table 23: Other Media Options for District 4 ...... 81 Table 24: Print Media Options for District 5...... 82 Table 25: Radio Media Options for District 5...... 82 Table 26: TV Media Options for District 5 ...... 84 Table 27: Other Media Options for District 5 ...... 85 Table 28: Print Media Options for District 6...... 86 Table 29: Radio Media Options for District 6...... 86 Table 30: TV Media Options for District 6 ...... 88 Table 31: Other Media Options for District 6 ...... 88

Page v 2007 Customer Satisfaction Survey Report MTI/UMR

Table 32: Print Media Options for District 7...... 89 Table 33: Radio Media Options for District 7...... 89 Table 34: TV Media Options for District 7 ...... 91 Table 35: Other Media Options for District 7 ...... 92 Table 36: Print Media Options for District 8...... 93 Table 37: Radio Media Options for District 8...... 93 Table 38: TV Media Options for District 8 ...... 95 Table 39: Other Media Options for District 8 ...... 96 Table 40: Print Media Options for District 9...... 97 Table 41: Radio Media Options for District 9...... 97 Table 42: TV Media Options for District 9 ...... 99 Table 43: Other Media Options for District 9 ...... 100 Table 44: Print Media Options for District 10...... 101 Table 45: Radio Media Options for District 10...... 101 Table 46: TV Media Options for District 10...... 102 Table 47: Other Media Options for District 10 ...... 104

Page vi 2007 Customer Satisfaction Survey Report MTI/UMR

Executive Summary 3,636 phone interviews were conducted for MoDOT between May 14 and 30 to obtain Tracker Measures 5a, 12j, 13c, 17d, and 18b for 2007. A few other questions of interest to MoDOT were also asked as part of this study. A more accurate means of calculating the satisfaction measures was utilized this year (details on page 6). The results from this survey were compared with the results from the previous two years when the same question was asked. In these cases, the previous years’ results were recalculated to be consistent with this year’s study.

Summary of Tracker Results Overall customer satisfaction with MoDOT remains high and continues to improve.

Figure 1: Tracker Measure 5a

Overall Customer Satisfaction with MoDOT

90%

80%

70% 16.3% 24.8% 13.4% 60%

50%

40%

30% 58.7% 55.7% 54.3%

20%

10%

0% 2005 Total Satisfied (69.1%) 2006 Total Satisfied (75%) 2007 Total Satisfied (79%)

Satisfied Very Satisfied

With one exception, all of the Tracker Measures showed improvements from the 2006 study. In addition to the overall satisfaction question, Measures 17d and 18b also showed a large improvement from previous results.

Page 1 2007 Customer Satisfaction Survey Report MTI/UMR

Table 1: Summary of Tracker Measures 2005 2006 2007 5a - Overall Customer Satisfaction 69.1% 75.0% 79.0% 12j - Satisfaction with Transportation Options 70.8% 74.7% 67.2% 13c - Inclusion in Decision-Making Process 51.1% 58.5% 62.9% 17d - MoDOT as Missouri's Transportation Expert 82.0% 81.5% 86.7% 18b - MoDOT Provides Timely Information 74.0% 77.6% 86.5% 18b - MoDOT Provides Accurate Information 75.0% 76.8% 84.5% 18b - MoDOT Provides Understandable Information 73.7% 76.0% 85.7% Measure 12j, Satisfaction with Transportation Options was the only measure to decline from previous results. The survey instrument was not designed to probe for “why?” certain measures may be changing, but strictly to assess the current measures themselves.1 However, in the opinions of the researchers, it is very likely that the relatively high cost of fuel has caused more people to investigate alternatives to driving their own vehicles and that this is responsible for most or all the decline in Measure 12j.

Other Results In addition to the Tracker Measures, twenty-eight other questions were asked of the respondents. For reporting purposes, the results of these non-Tracker questions were classified as 1) assessing how well MoDOT is meeting the public’s expectations, 2) the public’s priorities for transportation and funding, and 3) how Missourians obtain their transportation-related news.

1 Phone surveys are not well suited for research that probes underlying causes as this type of questioning requires flexibility and training beyond that of the typical caller.

Page 2 2007 Customer Satisfaction Survey Report MTI/UMR

Summary of Public Expectations MoDOT is clearly satisfying the majority of Missourians when it comes to meeting expectations for clean roadsides, visible indicators, and traffic control.

Table 2: Summary of How MoDOT Meets Public Expectations

Summary of Public Transportation Priorities and Funding Perspectives When it comes to public priorities for transportation, one message was very clear. When given a choice between better maintaining the current infrastructure or building new infrastructure, the majority of Missourians preferred to better maintain the existing highways and bridges.

The overwhelming majority of Missourians (82.9%) opined that all state highway projects should be paid for completely from statewide revenue sources. A plurality of respondents (46.4%) did not feel knowledgeable enough to determine if MoDOT received enough revenue to perform its duties. Out of the 1,949 respondents who answered the question, 59.9% thought MoDOT received ample revenue.

Considering the entire sample, support for additional taxation and fees ranged from 4.7% to 12.6% of the population with an increase in the general sales tax showing the most support (12.6%). The general conclusion suggested by the data is that there is limited receptivity to new taxes/fees even among the respondents who believe the department is not adequately funded. While this was not directly asked, the results suggest that those who feel MoDOT needs more funding would primarily support using more of the State’s existing tax revenue for MoDOT.

Page 3 2007 Customer Satisfaction Survey Report MTI/UMR

Summary of How Missourians Obtain Transportation Related News While television is the single largest medium, it is used by less than 50% of Missourians for obtaining transportation related news.

Figure 2: Primary Source of Transportation Related News

Q5. Primary Source of Transportation Related News None, 4.2% Other, 5.3% Word of Mouth, 7.0%

Print Media, 9.3%

TV, 47.6%

Radio, 26.7%

Page 4 2007 Customer Satisfaction Survey Report MTI/UMR

Process Using the 2006 survey as a baseline, the investigators collaborated with MoDOT to finalize the survey questions to be asked. A professional calling center was contracted to obtain a representative sample of each of the 10 MoDOT Districts, with a minimum of 350 respondents per District. Potential respondents were contacted through quasi- random dialing from May 14 through May 30.2 89,064 calls were made, of which interviewers were able to talk to 7,514 people, a contact rate of 8.4%. From these 7,514 contacts, a 48.4% response rate was obtained – a total of 3,636 residents agreed to participate and completed the interviews used in this study.

Table 3: Completed Calls by Gender and District Men Women Total SE3 District 1 170 192 362 5.1% District 2 182 193 375 5.0% District 3 171 197 368 5.1% District 4 178 180 358 5.1% District 5 181 184 365 5.1% District 6 190 180 370 5.0% District 7 175 185 360 5.1% District 8 180 193 373 5.0% District 9 172 178 350 5.1% District 10 163 192 355 5.1% Missouri 1,762 1,874 3,636 1.9%

2 The dialing was not completely random as the calling center was instructed to obtain a minimum of 350 respondents per District having at least one licensed driver. Based on their experience, the calling center also filtered out all households on the federal Do Not Call list. While it is legal to call these numbers on behalf of a government agency, the calling center said that the overwhelming majority of these households refuse to take surveys of any type and that these citizens usually get angry when they are called. Thus, the calling center obtained a representative random sample of the households with at least one registered driver who were not on the federal Do Not Call list for each of the 10 Districts. 3 The standard error for the findings for individual districts ranges from 5% to 5.1%. The standard error for the statewide findings is 1.9%. All of these standard errors are at a 95% confidence interval.

Page 5 2007 Customer Satisfaction Survey Report MTI/UMR

The results from this survey were compared with the results from the previous two years when the same question was asked. The percentages vary slightly from previous reports because earlier studies included “not sure” results as part of their calculations. The principle investigator believes that a more accurate satisfaction measure may be calculated by only including the respondents who actually have an opinion, so the previous years’ results were recalculated to be consistent with this year’s study.

Table 4: Hypothetical Example of Two Calculation Methods Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Very Dissatisfied 12 7 15 Dissatisfied 20 25 17 Satisfied 45 50 35 Very Satisfied 23 18 33 Not Sure/No Opinion 7 21 15 Total Respondents 107 121 115 Total Respondents with Opinions 100 100 100 Old Satisfaction Rate 63.6% 56.2% 59.1% New Satisfaction Rate 68.0% 68.0% 68.0% Table 4 uses a hypothetical example to show the difference between the two methods. In Year 1, 107 respondents provided input, of whom seven did not have an opinion. In Year 2, 121 respondents provided input, including twenty-one folks without an opinion on this question. Finally, in Year 3, 115 respondents provided input with fifteen people not having an opinion. Under the original satisfaction assessment method, the satisfaction rate was calculated by summing the two satisfaction options and then dividing by the total number of respondents. With the new satisfaction assessment method, the satisfaction rate is calculated by summing the two satisfaction options and then dividing by the total number of respondents with opinions. This change eliminates fluctuations based upon the number of people surveyed who have no opinion. Under the new method, only changes from dissatisfied to satisfied (and visa versa) will change the measure. This change increases the accuracy of the Tracker measures by only monitoring actual changes in respondent opinion.4

4 Statistically it also reduces the role of standard error, since this method reduces the number of effective variables from three (satisfaction, no opinion, dissatisfaction) to two (satisfaction and dissatisfaction).

Page 6 2007 Customer Satisfaction Survey Report MTI/UMR

Appendix A: Survey Questions lists the actual survey questions and summarizes the results. The questions are presented twice. The first time, Questions and Results – Ignoring “Not Sure” Respondents on page 54, uses the new calculation method. The second listing, Questions and Results – Including “Not Sure” Respondents on page 60 uses the old method. This second section is listed to help people better understand the differences between the two methods. It is recommended that people only use numbers from the first (preferred) set of numbers. If people have a desire to use the second set of numbers, they should first review their reasoning with Organizational Results.

Page 7 2007 Customer Satisfaction Survey Report MTI/UMR

Tracker Results

Tracker Measure 5a: Overall Customer Satisfaction Figure 3: 5a - Overall Results

2007 Overall Customer Satisfaction with MoDOT

90%

80%

70% Very Satisfied 24.8%

60%

50%

40%

30% Satisfied 54.3%

20% Very Unsatisfied 7.8%

10% Unsatisfied 13.2%

0% Total Satisfied (79%) Total Unsatisfied (21%)

Figure 4: 5a - Three Year Comparison

Overall Customer Satisfaction with MoDOT

90%

80%

70% 16.3% 24.8% 13.4% 60%

50%

40%

30% 58.7% 55.7% 54.3%

20%

10%

0% 2005 Total Satisfied (69.1%) 2006 Total Satisfied (75%) 2007 Total Satisfied (79%)

Satisfied Very Satisfied

Page 8 2007 Customer Satisfaction Survey Report MTI/UMR

Figure 5: 5a - District Results

5a. Overall Customer Satisfaction with MoDOT 70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0% Very Unsatisfied Unsatisfied Satisfied Very Satisfied District 1 7.5% 18.1% 50.0% 24.4% District 2 10.2% 13.2% 53.6% 23.1% District 3 3.8% 15.0% 52.5% 28.7% District 4 16.7% 20.9% 47.9% 14.5% District 5 7.2% 13.1% 59.7% 20.0% District 6 8.2% 11.9% 57.5% 22.3% District 7 5.3% 10.7% 52.8% 31.1% District 8 3.5% 8.2% 59.8% 28.6% District 9 8.7% 9.6% 51.9% 29.8% District 10 7.5% 11.6% 56.3% 24.5% Missouri 7.8% 13.2% 54.3% 24.8%

Page 9 2007 Customer Satisfaction Survey Report MTI/UMR

Tracker Measure 12j – Satisfaction with Transportation Options Figure 6: 12j - Overall Results

2007 Percent of Customers Satisfied with Transportation Options

80%

70%

60%

Strongly 29.0% 50%

40%

30%

Strongly Disagree 21.6% 20% 38.2%

10% Disagree 11.2%

0% Total Agreement (67.2%) Total Disagreement (32.8%)

Figure 7: 12j - Three Year Comparison

Percent of Customers Satisfied with Transportation Options

80%

70%

14.6% 21.1% 60%

29.0% 50%

40%

30% 56.3% 53.7%

20% 38.2%

10%

0% 2005 Total Agree (70.8%) 2006 Total Agree (74.7%) 2007 Total Agree (67.2%)

Agree Strongly Agree

Page 10 2007 Customer Satisfaction Survey Report MTI/UMR

Figure 8: 12j - District Results

12j. Customers Satisfied With Transportation Options 45%

40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

0% Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree District 1 14.2% 13.3% 41.1% 31.4% District 2 26.8% 11.2% 36.4% 25.6% District 3 20.1% 9.1% 37.2% 33.7% District 4 25.8% 12.6% 38.1% 23.5% District 5 22.3% 9.7% 42.3% 25.7% District 6 22.2% 10.1% 40.8% 26.9% District 7 21.2% 15.7% 33.1% 30.0% District 8 17.3% 10.8% 39.3% 32.5% District 9 27.1% 8.7% 36.5% 27.8% District 10 19.0% 10.7% 36.6% 33.8% Missouri 21.6% 11.2% 38.2% 29.0%

Page 11 2007 Customer Satisfaction Survey Report MTI/UMR

Tracker Measure 13c – Inclusion in Decision-Making Process Figure 9: 13c - Overall Results

2007: Percent of Customers Who Feel MoDOT Includes Them in Transportation Decision-Making Process 70%

60%

Strongly Agree 20.5% 50%

40%

30% Strongly Disagree 18.4%

Agree 42.4% 20%

10% Disagree 18.7%

0% Total Agreement (62.9%) Total Disagreement (37.1%)

Figure 10: 13c - Three Year Comparison

Percent of Customers Who Feel MoDOT Includes Them in Transportation Decision-Making Process

70%

60%

20.5% 50% 14.5% 11.1%

40%

30%

44.0% 20% 40.0% 42.4%

10%

0% 2005 Total Agree (51.1%) 2006 Total Agree (58.5%) 2007 Total Agree (62.9%)

Agree Strongly Agree

Page 12 2007 Customer Satisfaction Survey Report MTI/UMR

Figure 11: 13c - District Results

13c. Percent of Customers Who Feel MoDOT Includes Them in 60% Transportation Decision-Making Process

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0% Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree District 1 16.2% 23.0% 40.3% 20.5% District 2 21.5% 19.8% 36.6% 22.1% District 3 19.6% 17.0% 40.2% 23.2% District 4 26.4% 23.4% 38.6% 11.5% District 5 14.3% 20.3% 46.2% 19.2% District 6 25.3% 17.8% 41.4% 15.5% District 7 17.8% 18.2% 39.1% 24.9% District 8 11.7% 18.1% 49.6% 20.6% District 9 15.0% 14.6% 45.3% 25.1% District 10 15.3% 14.2% 47.3% 23.1% Missouri 18.4% 18.7% 42.4% 20.5%

Page 13 2007 Customer Satisfaction Survey Report MTI/UMR

Tracker Measure 17d –MoDOT as Missouri’s Transportation Expert Figure 12: 17d - Overall Results

2007: Percent of Customers Who View MoDOT as Missouri's Transportation Expert 100%

90%

80%

70% Strongly 43.7% 60% A

50%

40%

30%

Agree 20% 43.0%

10% Strongly Disagree 5.3% Disagree 7.9% 0% Total Agreement (86.7%) Total Disagreement (13.3%)

Figure 13: 17d - Three Year Comparison

Percent of Customers Who View MoDOT as Missouri's Transportation Expert

100%

90%

80%

70% 33.7% 32.9% 43.7% 60%

50%

40%

30% 48.3% 48.6% 20% 43.0%

10%

0% 2005 Total Agree (82%) 2006 Total Agree (81.5%) 2007 Total Agree (86.7%)

Agree Strongly Agree

Page 14 2007 Customer Satisfaction Survey Report MTI/UMR

Figure 14: 17d - District Results 17d. MoDOT is The Primary Transportation Expert in Missouri 60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0% Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree District 1 4.6% 8.1% 37.8% 49.5% District 2 5.6% 6.6% 45.1% 42.8% District 3 2.7% 9.9% 38.4% 49.0% District 4 9.2% 7.7% 48.3% 34.9% District 5 5.5% 9.8% 46.9% 37.8% District 6 4.6% 8.6% 45.2% 41.6% District 7 5.0% 6.1% 43.2% 45.7% District 8 4.7% 6.0% 43.6% 45.6% District 9 7.1% 8.3% 39.1% 45.5% District 10 5.0% 8.6% 42.1% 44.3% Missouri 5.3% 7.9% 43.0% 43.7%

Page 15 2007 Customer Satisfaction Survey Report MTI/UMR

Tracker Measure 18b – MoDOT Produces Timely Information Figure 15: 18b(T) - Overall Results

2007: MoDOT Provides Timely Information

100%

90%

80%

70% Strongly Agree 34.2%

60%

50%

40%

30% Agree 52.3% 20%

10% Strongly Disagree 4.8% Disagree 8.7% 0% Total Agreement (86.5%) Total Disagreement (13.5%)

Figure 16: 18b(T) - Three Year Comparison

MoDOT Provides Timely Information

100%

90%

80%

70% 34.2% 17.7% 22.5% 60%

50%

40%

30% 56.3% 55.1% 52.3% 20%

10%

0% 2005 Total Agree (74%) 2006 Total Agree (77.6%) 2007 Total Agree (86.5%)

Agree Strongly Agree

Page 16 2007 Customer Satisfaction Survey Report MTI/UMR

Figure 17: 18b(T) - District Results 18b. MoDOT Provides Timely Information 60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0% Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree District 1 4.7% 8.1% 51.3% 35.9% District 2 3.4% 7.7% 52.1% 36.8% District 3 4.5% 8.1% 51.6% 35.8% District 4 9.0% 14.3% 57.0% 19.7% District 5 4.6% 8.9% 53.8% 32.6% District 6 3.4% 9.6% 54.8% 32.2% District 7 4.9% 6.9% 49.0% 39.2% District 8 3.6% 7.2% 49.3% 40.0% District 9 5.7% 7.7% 52.0% 34.6% District 10 5.0% 9.0% 52.3% 33.7% Missouri 4.8% 8.7% 52.3% 34.2%

Page 17 2007 Customer Satisfaction Survey Report MTI/UMR

Tracker Measure 18b – MoDOT Produces Accurate Information Figure 18: 18b(A) - Overall Results

2007: MoDOT Provides Accurate Information

90%

80%

70% Strongly 37.0% A 60%

50%

40%

30%

Agree 47.6% 20%

Strongly Disagree 5.5% 10% Disagree 10.0% 0% Total Agreement (84.5%) Total Disagreement (15.5%)

Figure 19: 18b(A) - Three Year Comparison

MoDOT Provides Accurate Information

90%

80%

70% 20.8% 23.9% 37.0% 60%

50%

40%

30% 54.2% 52.8% 47.6% 20%

10%

0% 2005 Total Agree (75%) 2006 Total Agree (76.8%) 2007 Total Agree (84.5%)

Agree Strongly Agree

Page 18 2007 Customer Satisfaction Survey Report MTI/UMR

Figure 20: 18b(A) - District Results 18b. MoDOT Provides Accurate Information 60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0% Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree District 1 4.7% 11.4% 45.1% 38.8% District 2 4.4% 10.3% 45.0% 40.3% District 3 5.5% 9.7% 46.2% 38.6% District 4 9.8% 14.8% 47.9% 27.5% District 5 5.0% 11.9% 48.4% 34.6% District 6 4.3% 9.0% 54.3% 32.4% District 7 6.6% 5.2% 44.9% 43.3% District 8 3.3% 7.3% 51.2% 38.2% District 9 7.6% 8.3% 44.1% 39.9% District 10 4.5% 11.8% 47.8% 36.0% Missouri 5.5% 10.0% 47.6% 37.0%

Page 19 2007 Customer Satisfaction Survey Report MTI/UMR

Tracker Measure 18b – MoDOT Produces Understandable Information Figure 21: 18b(U) - Overall Results

2007: MoDOT Provides Understandable Information

90%

80%

70% Strongly Agree 36.5%

60%

50%

40%

30% Agree 49.2% 20%

Strongly Disagree 5.4% 10% Disagree 9.0% 0% Total Agreement (85.7%) Total Disagreement (14.3%)

Figure 22: 18b(U) - Three Year Comparison

MoDOT Provides Understandable Information

90%

80%

70% 36.5% 21.1% 23.7% 60%

50%

40%

30% 52.6% 52.3% 49.2% 20%

10%

0% 2005 Total Agree (73.7%) 2006 Total Agree (76%) 2007 Total Agree (85.7%)

Agree Strongly Agree

Page 20 2007 Customer Satisfaction Survey Report MTI/UMR

Figure 23: 18b(U) - District Results 18b. MoDOT Provides Understandable Information 60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0% Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree District 1 5.5% 8.5% 46.5% 39.5% District 2 3.9% 6.6% 51.8% 37.7% District 3 5.9% 7.1% 48.4% 38.6% District 4 8.7% 17.3% 48.4% 25.6% District 5 5.4% 9.6% 49.8% 35.1% District 6 3.8% 9.5% 53.6% 33.1% District 7 5.1% 8.4% 42.4% 44.1% District 8 3.2% 5.6% 51.9% 39.2% District 9 6.6% 7.0% 48.7% 37.7% District 10 5.8% 10.4% 49.4% 34.4% Missouri 5.4% 9.0% 49.2% 36.5%

Page 21 2007 Customer Satisfaction Survey Report MTI/UMR

Other Results In addition to the Tracker Measures, twenty-eight other questions were asked of the respondents. The questions were asked in a particular manner to maximize survey reliability. For example, certain answers were rotated to prevent order effects and questions with the same potential answers (e.g., Strongly Agree, Somewhat Agree, Somewhat Disagree, Strongly Disagree) were asked together. The actual survey questions may be viewed in Appendix A: Survey Questions on page 53.

For reporting purposes, the results of these twenty-eight non-Tracker questions were placed in one of three areas. The first classification is for questions that assess how well MoDOT is meeting the public’s expectations. The second classification is for questions that provide feedback on the public’s priorities for transportation and funding. The final classification provides insight into how Missourians obtain their transportation- related news.

MoDOT and Public Expectations Marketers define satisfaction as meeting or exceeding expectations. By this definition, MoDOT is clearly satisfying the majority of Missourians when it comes to meeting expectations for clean roadsides, visible indicators, and traffic control.

Table 5: Summary of How MoDOT Meets Public Expectations

Page 22 2007 Customer Satisfaction Survey Report MTI/UMR

Figure 24: Roadsides – Mowing

60% Q2h. MoDOT Roadsides Meet Customer Expectations for Mowing

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0% Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree District 1 8.7% 10.8% 38.4% 42.2% District 2 11.6% 11.9% 42.9% 33.6% District 3 14.0% 8.0% 36.6% 41.4% District 4 11.5% 10.0% 48.5% 30.0% District 5 9.0% 10.1% 46.4% 34.5% District 6 6.8% 8.9% 43.5% 40.8% District 7 9.4% 11.4% 46.0% 33.1% District 8 7.0% 10.7% 45.1% 37.2% District 9 13.5% 11.4% 37.4% 37.7% District 10 11.8% 7.9% 43.8% 36.5% Missouri 10.3% 10.1% 42.8% 36.7%

Page 23 2007 Customer Satisfaction Survey Report MTI/UMR

Figure 25: Roadsides – Snow Removal

50% Q2i. MoDOT Roads Meet Customer Expectations for Snow Removal 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree District 1 6.5% 9.6% 41.4% 42.5% District 2 8.6% 6.9% 41.8% 42.7% District 3 8.4% 8.7% 38.3% 44.7% District 4 18.2% 9.8% 42.4% 29.7% District 5 11.2% 10.1% 42.5% 36.2% District 6 7.6% 7.6% 45.2% 39.5% District 7 11.0% 8.1% 40.7% 40.1% District 8 8.2% 9.6% 40.8% 41.4% District 9 10.6% 5.4% 47.4% 36.6% District 10 6.5% 4.8% 45.2% 43.5% Missouri 9.7% 8.1% 42.5% 39.7%

Page 24 2007 Customer Satisfaction Survey Report MTI/UMR

Figure 26: Roadsides – Litter Control

60%Q2j. MoDOT Roadsides Meet Customer Expectations for Litter Control

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0% Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree District 1 8.6% 11.8% 45.7% 33.9% District 2 6.7% 11.5% 44.9% 36.8% District 3 8.2% 8.5% 42.0% 41.4% District 4 13.1% 9.9% 49.4% 27.6% District 5 6.3% 10.9% 46.4% 36.4% District 6 9.5% 9.5% 49.6% 31.5% District 7 6.6% 18.4% 43.5% 31.4% District 8 8.6% 10.0% 48.7% 32.6% District 9 11.5% 10.0% 43.0% 35.5% District 10 10.6% 10.0% 45.6% 33.8% Missouri 9.0% 11.0% 45.9% 34.1%

Page 25 2007 Customer Satisfaction Survey Report MTI/UMR

Figure 27: Visibility – Work Zone Navigation

70% Q2m. MoDOT Provides Enough Signs & Directions in Work Zones

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0% Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree District 1 1.7% 3.4% 36.9% 58.0% District 2 2.2% 5.0% 36.0% 56.8% District 3 3.1% 4.5% 34.7% 57.7% District 4 6.7% 7.2% 44.9% 41.2% District 5 2.3% 4.0% 35.2% 58.5% District 6 5.1% 4.5% 41.0% 49.4% District 7 2.3% 4.0% 33.6% 60.1% District 8 2.7% 3.8% 37.0% 56.4% District 9 3.0% 4.7% 34.4% 57.9% District 10 2.6% 4.6% 36.3% 56.6% Missouri 3.1% 4.6% 37.0% 55.3%

Page 26 2007 Customer Satisfaction Survey Report MTI/UMR

Figure 28: Visibility –Signs

80% Q2o. MoDOT Signs are Big Enough & Bright Enough

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0% Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree District 1 1.9% 2.5% 29.2% 66.4% District 2 0.8% 2.4% 32.6% 64.1% District 3 1.6% 3.6% 32.1% 62.6% District 4 4.6% 5.4% 38.4% 51.6% District 5 1.4% 2.5% 30.4% 65.7% District 6 2.5% 3.3% 33.1% 61.1% District 7 1.7% 1.4% 30.5% 66.4% District 8 1.4% 3.3% 31.6% 63.7% District 9 1.4% 1.7% 29.9% 67.0% District 10 2.3% 2.3% 28.9% 66.6% Missouri 2.0% 2.9% 31.7% 63.5%

Page 27 2007 Customer Satisfaction Survey Report MTI/UMR

Figure 29: Visibility –Stripe Brightness

60% Q2p. MoDOT Stripes are Bright Enough

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0% Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree District 1 3.7% 7.1% 35.1% 54.1% District 2 5.2% 7.7% 37.2% 50.0% District 3 4.7% 9.9% 33.8% 51.6% District 4 6.1% 9.0% 41.3% 43.6% District 5 3.7% 6.5% 38.3% 51.5% District 6 6.9% 6.4% 38.5% 48.2% District 7 2.3% 7.1% 35.2% 55.4% District 8 4.3% 6.0% 38.3% 51.4% District 9 4.3% 8.1% 33.9% 53.6% District 10 5.7% 7.2% 36.2% 50.9% Missouri 4.7% 7.5% 36.8% 51.0%

Page 28 2007 Customer Satisfaction Survey Report MTI/UMR

Figure 30: Traffic Control – Work Zone Travel Delays

60% Q2n. Travel Delays Through MoDOT Work Zones are Reasonable

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0% Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree District 1 5.9% 5.0% 48.2% 40.9% District 2 2.0% 6.2% 49.3% 42.6% District 3 4.5% 6.2% 44.2% 45.1% District 4 11.9% 14.2% 47.8% 26.1% District 5 3.2% 8.4% 50.3% 38.2% District 6 10.9% 10.6% 49.3% 29.2% District 7 4.5% 6.6% 45.1% 43.9% District 8 4.0% 7.4% 45.3% 43.3% District 9 4.6% 5.0% 49.8% 40.6% District 10 4.0% 4.9% 51.7% 39.3% Missouri 5.5% 7.4% 48.1% 39.0%

Page 29 2007 Customer Satisfaction Survey Report MTI/UMR

Figure 31: Traffic Control – Traffic Recovery

70% Q2q. Traffic Returns to Normal in a Reasonable Amount of Time

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0% Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree District 1 4.4% 4.1% 52.2% 39.4% District 2 4.3% 6.2% 47.4% 42.2% District 3 4.6% 9.0% 44.9% 41.4% District 4 12.7% 9.9% 51.9% 25.6% District 5 2.8% 5.6% 57.6% 34.0% District 6 11.6% 11.9% 52.1% 24.4% District 7 3.6% 5.9% 52.1% 38.3% District 8 4.7% 9.4% 50.7% 35.1% District 9 4.8% 3.5% 55.1% 36.5% District 10 4.3% 4.6% 44.6% 46.5% Missouri 5.8% 7.1% 50.8% 36.3%

Page 30 2007 Customer Satisfaction Survey Report MTI/UMR

Public Priorities for Transportation and Perspectives on Funding Determining the public’s priorities for transportation issues, and their willingness to pay for their priorities, is a sensitive issue. In order to better understand this topic, MoDOT requested that this topic be addressed in several types of questions. Respondents were asked to indicate their agreement with some questions (Questions 2f, 2k, 2l), and prioritize from several options (Questions 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, and 9). In addition, the respondents who believed MoDOT did not receive enough revenue were also asked about their support for various methods of increasing funding (Questions 8a, 8b, 8c, and 8d).

Public Priorities for Transportation One message was very clear. When given a choice between better maintaining the current infrastructure or building new infrastructure, the majority of Missourians always preferred to better maintain the existing highways and bridges. In Question 2l, 72.1% of respondents agreed that MoDOT needs to spend less money on roadsides and use the savings to build and maintain the roadways. In Question 4, 76.1% of the sample preferred for MoDOT to do a better job of maintaining existing highways vs. build more lanes and highways (23.9%). Questions 6a and 7 also reinforced this preference for better maintenance over new construction.

In Question 6, respondents were read a list of ways to improve transportation in Missouri. They were specifically asked to:

…keep in mind that we are not asking about the overall importance of the topic, but the importance that Missouri do more or better than it presently does in each area. Also keep in mind that asking for any increase in resources in one area requires either a decrease in resources another area or the need for the state to raise taxes to pay for it.

Page 31 2007 Customer Satisfaction Survey Report MTI/UMR

Thus, Table 6 should be read as indicating that approximately sixty percent of the public strongly believes that MoDOT needs to do more in terms of maintaining and improving the overall quality of Missouri transportation (60.0%) and providing more or better van services for senior citizens (61.1%). Approximately half of Missourians clearly believed that MoDOT should do more or better in terms of reducing time spent in congestion (50.6%) and paving road shoulders (50.0%).

Table 6: Public Priorities of Where MoDOT Should Do More or Better

In Question 7, respondents clearly expressed their feelings on the relative priority of maintaining existing highways and bridges, expanding and building new highways, and improving highway safety. Maintaining the existing infrastructure was the public’s highest priority (56.9%). Improving highway safety scored second (it was the highest priority of 34.1% of respondents), while expanding and building new highways was the public’s lowest priority out of these three options (only 9.1% made this their highest priority). The fact that 56.9% of Missourians believed that maintaining the existing infrastructure should be a higher priority than spending on improving highway safety is an indication of both the great importance most Missourians place on better maintenance and how safe Missourians currently feel on their highways.

Question 9 revealed that Missourians were almost evenly split when it came to expressing preferences for constructing and maintaining the larger highways (47.2%) or constructing and maintaining the smaller mostly two lane roads (52.8%).

68.7% of respondents agreed there should be cameras at intersections that photograph people who run red lights (Question 2k).

Page 32 2007 Customer Satisfaction Survey Report MTI/UMR

Public Perspectives on Funding When asked independently of other funding questions (Question 2f), 55.1% of respondents agreed that tolls are a fair way to pay for interstate highway and major bridge improvements. However, when given the choice between two funding philosophies, the overwhelming majority of Missourians (82.9%) opined that all state highway projects should be paid for completely from statewide revenue sources vs. the minority opinion (17.1%) that local communities should tax themselves to pay for a portion of the state highway projects that happen in their area (Question 3).

A plurality of respondents (46.4%) did not answer Question 8, indicating that they did not feel knowledgeable enough to determine if MoDOT received enough revenue to perform their duties. Out of the 1,949 respondents who answered the question, 59.9% thought MoDOT received ample revenue. Considering the entire sample, support for additional taxation and fees ranged from 4.7% to 12.6% of the population with an increase in the general sales tax showing the most support (12.6%).5 The general conclusion suggested by the data is that there is limited receptivity to new taxes/fees even among the respondents who believe the department is not adequately funded. While this was not directly asked, the results suggest that those who feel MoDOT needs more funding would primarily support using more of the State’s existing tax revenue for MoDOT.

5 781 people answered “No” on Q8 and were asked Questions 8a to 8d. Per MoDOT instructions, those who answered “Yes” on Q8 (1,168 people) were not asked Questions 8a to 8d. On their own judgment, the calling center also skipped questions Q8a to 8d for those who answered “Not Sure” on Question 8 (1,687 respondents). So the “Yes” and “No” calculations for the Q8a to 8d summary are calculated from the total pool of 3,636 respondents, of which 781 of whom answered these four questions.

Page 33 2007 Customer Satisfaction Survey Report MTI/UMR

Figure 32: Transportation Priorities – Maintenance over Roadsides

Q2l. MoDOT Should Favor Maintenance over Roadsides 45%

40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

0% Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree District 1 10.3% 15.9% 38.1% 35.6% District 2 10.5% 16.3% 38.8% 34.5% District 3 9.1% 18.8% 34.5% 37.6% District 4 6.4% 14.4% 37.6% 41.6% District 5 10.1% 15.1% 39.9% 34.9% District 6 11.4% 18.7% 35.8% 34.2% District 7 13.5% 22.2% 36.0% 28.3% District 8 11.6% 19.1% 38.1% 31.3% District 9 12.8% 16.4% 34.9% 35.9% District 10 11.6% 14.6% 37.9% 35.9% Missouri 10.7% 17.2% 37.2% 35.0%

Page 34 2007 Customer Satisfaction Survey Report MTI/UMR

Figure 33: Transportation Priorities –More Roads vs. Maintenance

Q4. Build More Roads vs. Better Maintain Existing 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Build More Better Maintain District 1 10.3% 89.7% District 2 18.8% 81.2% District 3 23.4% 76.6% District 4 22.5% 77.5% District 5 29.8% 70.2% District 6 34.1% 65.9% District 7 22.8% 77.2% District 8 33.5% 66.5% District 9 24.6% 75.4% District 10 20.1% 79.9% Missouri 23.9% 76.1%

Page 35 2007 Customer Satisfaction Survey Report MTI/UMR

Figure 34: Transportation Priorities –Importance of More or Better Maintenance

50% Q6a. Importance of More or Better Maintenance 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Not Important A Little Important Somewhat Important Very Important Essential District 1 8.0% 3.0% 30.6% 41.5% 16.9% District 2 5.9% 5.0% 29.2% 42.5% 17.4% District 3 7.0% 4.1% 27.0% 40.2% 21.7% District 4 4.8% 4.2% 24.2% 43.2% 23.6% District 5 6.7% 10.0% 31.8% 36.1% 15.5% District 6 5.2% 6.7% 24.1% 42.7% 21.2% District 7 6.6% 3.5% 31.1% 36.2% 22.6% District 8 6.5% 5.6% 32.8% 37.2% 17.9% District 9 4.4% 5.1% 28.8% 44.0% 17.7% District 10 4.7% 5.0% 28.3% 44.1% 18.0% Missouri 6.0% 5.2% 28.8% 40.8% 19.3%

Page 36 2007 Customer Satisfaction Survey Report MTI/UMR

Figure 35: Transportation Priorities – Maintenance vs. Expansion vs. Improving Safety

Q7. Missourians Pick Their Highest Priorities from Three Options

60% 56.9%

50%

40% 34.1%

30%

20%

9.1% 10%

0% Taking Care of the Existing Highways Expanding and Building New Improving Highway Safety and Bridges Highways

Page 37 2007 Customer Satisfaction Survey Report MTI/UMR

Figure 36: Transportation Priorities – State Roads – Reducing Traffic Jams

Q6g. Reduce Time Spent in Traffic Jams

45%

40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

0% Not Important A Little Important Somewhat Important Very Important Essential District 1 17.1% 5.6% 31.1% 34.5% 11.8% District 2 20.5% 8.0% 28.7% 29.7% 13.1% District 3 15.7% 5.8% 26.8% 35.7% 16.0% District 4 8.5% 5.8% 27.0% 36.4% 22.4% District 5 12.3% 7.1% 35.3% 33.4% 12.0% District 6 5.5% 5.2% 26.8% 42.3% 20.1% District 7 13.8% 10.6% 31.2% 30.9% 13.5% District 8 13.8% 7.3% 29.6% 33.7% 15.5% District 9 15.1% 6.7% 28.4% 36.5% 13.4% District 10 13.4% 7.5% 24.9% 39.0% 15.1% Missouri 13.5% 6.9% 29.0% 35.2% 15.4%

Page 38 2007 Customer Satisfaction Survey Report MTI/UMR

Figure 37: Transportation Priorities – State Roads – Road Shoulders

45% Q6f. Pave More Road Shoulders on State Roads

40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

0% Not Important A Little Important Somewhat Important Very Important Essential District 1 12.87% 7.31% 30.70% 33.92% 15.20% District 2 13.76% 7.58% 32.30% 33.71% 12.64% District 3 9.38% 6.45% 27.57% 41.64% 14.96% District 4 15.63% 8.85% 33.63% 25.07% 16.81% District 5 11.82% 8.65% 31.41% 32.85% 15.27% District 6 15.68% 9.47% 29.88% 29.59% 15.38% District 7 13.49% 8.50% 26.69% 32.55% 18.77% District 8 10.48% 10.20% 31.73% 30.03% 17.56% District 9 8.18% 8.18% 23.94% 38.18% 21.52% District 10 9.44% 7.08% 28.61% 37.76% 17.11% Missouri 12.08% 8.23% 29.68% 33.51% 16.49%

Page 39 2007 Customer Satisfaction Survey Report MTI/UMR

Figure 38: Transportation Priorities – Alternative Transportation – Van Services for Seniors

60% Q6c. Provide More or Better Van Services for Senior Citizens

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0% Not Important A Little Important Somewhat Important Very Important Essential District 1 8.2% 9.4% 23.6% 38.2% 20.6% District 2 8.3% 5.2% 30.7% 36.5% 19.3% District 3 8.8% 6.5% 25.3% 41.2% 18.2% District 4 6.4% 4.6% 27.4% 38.7% 22.9% District 5 8.4% 6.9% 31.6% 31.9% 21.2% District 6 7.3% 5.0% 21.4% 45.2% 21.1% District 7 8.9% 5.8% 25.5% 35.1% 24.6% District 8 7.6% 7.4% 29.1% 39.1% 16.8% District 9 5.8% 6.5% 17.2% 49.8% 20.6% District 10 7.9% 4.5% 17.2% 47.4% 23.0% Missouri 7.8% 6.2% 25.0% 40.3% 20.8%

Page 40 2007 Customer Satisfaction Survey Report MTI/UMR

Figure 39: Transportation Priorities – Alternative Transportation – Bus Service

40% Q6b. Offer More or Better Bus Services

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

0% Not Important A Little Important Somewhat Important Very Important Essential District 1 20.3% 8.4% 29.9% 28.0% 13.5% District 2 19.1% 12.0% 29.3% 26.5% 13.0% District 3 26.5% 8.3% 26.9% 26.5% 11.7% District 4 12.9% 9.7% 28.0% 31.4% 17.9% District 5 19.1% 9.7% 28.8% 24.8% 17.6% District 6 12.0% 9.0% 23.5% 36.7% 18.7% District 7 19.0% 8.0% 24.0% 31.3% 17.7% District 8 16.4% 8.2% 27.8% 33.8% 13.9% District 9 17.3% 6.9% 25.6% 35.7% 14.4% District 10 19.0% 7.5% 26.5% 34.0% 13.1% Missouri 18.2% 8.8% 27.0% 30.8% 15.2%

Page 41 2007 Customer Satisfaction Survey Report MTI/UMR

Figure 40: Transportation Priorities – Alternative Transportation – Train/Light-Rail Services

40% Q6d. Provide More or Better Train or Light-Rail Services

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

0% Not Important A Little Important Somewhat Important Very Important Essential District 1 26.1% 11.9% 27.1% 23.4% 11.6% District 2 24.1% 8.2% 29.0% 24.4% 14.3% District 3 23.2% 9.2% 29.9% 27.1% 10.5% District 4 23.0% 10.5% 25.9% 23.6% 16.9% District 5 23.4% 7.5% 31.3% 25.0% 12.8% District 6 11.8% 6.7% 25.2% 36.4% 20.0% District 7 24.9% 13.0% 27.0% 22.5% 12.6% District 8 27.1% 11.9% 22.9% 25.9% 12.2% District 9 22.4% 9.9% 28.2% 26.2% 13.3% District 10 24.2% 10.1% 27.9% 26.9% 10.8% Missouri 23.0% 9.8% 27.4% 26.2% 13.6%

Page 42 2007 Customer Satisfaction Survey Report MTI/UMR

Figure 41: Transportation Priorities – Alternative Transportation – Options Such as Bicycle Trails

Q6e. Offer More Alternative Transportation Options Such as 40% Developing Routes/Trails for Bicycles 35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

0% Not Important A Little Important Somewhat Important Very Important Essential District 1 31.4% 18.9% 25.1% 16.8% 7.8% District 2 36.7% 16.1% 23.0% 14.9% 9.3% District 3 33.7% 13.6% 27.5% 17.5% 7.7% District 4 25.7% 12.6% 27.2% 23.7% 10.8% District 5 34.9% 17.6% 22.9% 16.1% 8.5% District 6 27.2% 10.4% 28.7% 24.1% 9.6% District 7 27.5% 13.8% 29.3% 20.1% 9.3% District 8 27.7% 14.1% 34.3% 17.0% 6.9% District 9 35.6% 12.5% 22.2% 22.8% 6.9% District 10 32.8% 11.8% 24.5% 22.6% 8.4% Missouri 31.3% 14.1% 26.5% 19.5% 8.5%

Page 43 2007 Customer Satisfaction Survey Report MTI/UMR

Figure 42: Transportation Priorities – Larger Highways vs. Smaller Roads

Q9. Missourians Pick Road Priorities from Two Options 60%

50%

40%

30%

52.8% 47.2%

20%

10%

0% Larger Highways Smaller Roads

Page 44 2007 Customer Satisfaction Survey Report MTI/UMR

Figure 43: Transportation Priorities – Intersection Photography

60% Q2k. Photographs Should Be Taken in Intersections

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0% Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree District 1 17.8% 11.7% 25.9% 44.6% District 2 18.0% 11.2% 25.1% 45.7% District 3 23.4% 8.9% 21.7% 46.0% District 4 25.2% 10.4% 19.6% 44.8% District 5 21.9% 12.3% 26.9% 38.9% District 6 24.4% 7.6% 26.6% 41.5% District 7 20.5% 12.4% 21.5% 45.6% District 8 22.2% 10.5% 24.5% 42.7% District 9 14.4% 7.7% 26.1% 51.8% District 10 22.4% 9.6% 23.0% 45.1% Missouri 21.1% 10.2% 24.1% 44.6%

Page 45 2007 Customer Satisfaction Survey Report MTI/UMR

Figure 44: Public Funding Perspective – Tolls

40% Q2f. Tolls Are Fair for Paying for Highways & Bridges

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

0% Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree District 1 27.0% 11.4% 34.0% 27.6% District 2 27.2% 12.5% 36.3% 24.1% District 3 34.9% 15.9% 30.9% 18.3% District 4 26.6% 16.0% 32.6% 24.8% District 5 32.0% 15.7% 28.8% 23.5% District 6 33.4% 14.0% 30.7% 21.9% District 7 35.2% 12.9% 25.5% 26.5% District 8 32.4% 16.4% 25.9% 25.3% District 9 28.7% 11.6% 35.5% 24.2% District 10 33.0% 12.1% 32.4% 22.5% Missouri 31.0% 13.9% 31.2% 23.8%

Page 46 2007 Customer Satisfaction Survey Report MTI/UMR

Figure 45: Public Funding Perspective – Local Contribution vs. State Only Funding Q3. Funding Sources for State Highway Projects 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Local Contribution State Only District 1 13.0% 87.0% District 2 15.4% 84.6% District 3 20.2% 79.8% District 4 17.4% 82.6% District 5 16.0% 84.0% District 6 20.6% 79.4% District 7 15.9% 84.1% District 8 23.4% 76.6% District 9 12.3% 87.7% District 10 16.0% 84.0% Missouri 17.1% 82.9%

Page 47 2007 Customer Satisfaction Survey Report MTI/UMR

Figure 46: Public Funding Perspective – Perceived Adequacy of MoDOT Revenue

Q8. Does MoDOT Receive Enough Money for Responsibilities?

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0% No Yes District 1 40.5% 59.5% District 2 46.4% 53.6% District 3 40.4% 59.6% District 4 40.5% 59.5% District 5 36.8% 63.2% District 6 35.2% 64.8% District 7 41.0% 59.0% District 8 39.9% 60.1% District 9 37.3% 62.7% District 10 42.3% 57.7% Missouri 40.1% 59.9%

Page 48 2007 Customer Satisfaction Survey Report MTI/UMR

Figure 47: Public Funding Perspective – Percentage Supporting Additional Taxation/Fees (support shown in green)

Q8a-d: Support for Measures to Increase MoDOT Funding

100%

90%

80%

70%

60% 78.4% 78.4% 78.4% 78.4%

50%

40%

30%

20% 4.7% 7.6% 12.6% 10.7% 10% 16.9% 13.9% 9.0% 10.9% 0% Increase Car General Sales Tax Increase Fuel Tax Toll Roads Registration Fees Skipped Question 78.4% 78.4% 78.4% 78.4% Yes 12.6% 4.7% 10.7% 7.6% No 9.0% 16.9% 10.9% 13.9%

Page 49 2007 Customer Satisfaction Survey Report MTI/UMR

Figure 48: Public Funding Perspective – Numbers Supporting Additional Taxation/Fees (support shown in green)

Q8a-d: Support for Measures to Increase MoDOT Funding

100%

90%

80%

70%

60% 2,852 2,852 2,852 2,852

50%

40%

30%

20% 171 277 457 389 10% 613 507 327 395 0% Increase Car General Sales Tax Increase Fuel Tax Toll Roads Registration Fees Skipped Question 2,852 2,852 2,852 2,852 Yes 457 171 389 277 No 327 613 395 507

Page 50 2007 Customer Satisfaction Survey Report MTI/UMR

How Missourians Obtain Their Transportation Related News Television is the dominant means by which Missourians receive transportation related news. However, While TV is the single largest medium for reaching Missourians, it is used by less than 50% of respondents for obtaining transportation related news.

Figure 49: Primary Source of Transportation Related News

Q5. Primary Source of Transportation Related News None, 4.2% Other, 5.3% Word of Mouth, 7.0%

Print Media, 9.3%

TV, 47.6%

Radio, 26.7%

Respondents were also asked to provide additional detail about how they received transportation related news. This information, along with information by District, is available in Appendix B: Additional Details on Transportation Related News, starting on page 65. Based on these responses, the television viewing audience is quite segmented with Missourians using a large number of different channels for their transportation news.

Page 51 2007 Customer Satisfaction Survey Report MTI/UMR

Figure 50: Primary Source of Transportation Related News by District

60% Q5. Primary Source of Transportation Related News

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0% None Other Print Media Radio TV Word of Mouth District 1 3.9% 4.4% 9.7% 30.4% 45.6% 6.1% District 2 5.1% 5.3% 8.3% 33.9% 38.7% 8.8% District 3 3.0% 6.0% 9.8% 29.6% 44.6% 7.1% District 4 3.4% 5.3% 5.0% 27.4% 52.8% 6.1% District 5 6.0% 6.0% 10.1% 29.0% 40.5% 8.2% District 6 3.2% 4.6% 8.6% 29.5% 50.5% 3.5% District 7 5.6% 5.6% 13.6% 19.2% 48.3% 7.8% District 8 3.5% 4.0% 9.7% 26.3% 50.7% 5.9% District 9 4.3% 6.0% 8.6% 24.3% 48.9% 8.0% District 10 3.7% 5.4% 9.6% 17.2% 55.5% 8.7% Missouri 4.2% 5.3% 9.3% 26.7% 47.6% 7.0%

Page 52 2007 Customer Satisfaction Survey Report MTI/UMR

Appendix A: Survey Questions The results from this survey were compared with the results from the previous two years when the same question was asked. The percentages may vary slightly from previous years report because Abacus Associates include “not sure” results as part of their calculations. We believe that a more accurate satisfaction measure only includes the respondents who actually have an opinion, so we recalculated the previous years’ results to be consistent with this year’s study. However, there are times where people may want to know what percentage of people did not have an opinion. Therefore we have listed the survey questions twice. The first time that the survey questions are listed, the percentages are calculated as we recommend – that is, without counting the “not sure” respondents. The second time that the survey questions are listed we also show the percentages for the “not sure respondents”.

Page 53 2007 Customer Satisfaction Survey Report MTI/UMR

Questions and Results – Ignoring “Not Sure” Respondents Since we believe that a more accurate satisfaction measure only includes the respondents who actually have an opinion, we recommend that these numbers are the ones to be used in MoDOT documents.

Gender: Male: 48.5% Female: 51.5%

Q1. To start, how satisfied are you with the job the Missouri Department of Transportation, also known as MoDOT is doing—would you say you are very satisfied, somewhat satisfied, somewhat dissatisfied, or very dissatisfied with MoDOT?

Very satisfied 24.8% Somewhat satisfied 54.3% Somewhat dissatisfied 13.2% Very dissatisfied 7.8%

Page 54 2007 Customer Satisfaction Survey Report MTI/UMR

Q2. I am going to read you a series of short statements about transportation in Missouri and about the Missouri Department of Transportation, that is MoDOT. Please tell me whether you agree or disagree with the statement I have just read. If you don't know how you feel about a particular statement, just say so and we’ll go on. Strongly Smwht Smwht Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Disagree a) MoDOT provides timely information to citizens about road projects, highway conditions, and work zones...... 34.2% 52.3% 8.7% 4.8% b) MoDOT provides accurate information to citizens about road projects, highway conditions, and work zones...... 37.0% 47.6% 10.0% 5.5% c) MoDOT provides understandable information to citizens about road projects, highway conditions, and work zones....36.5% 49.2% 9.0% 5.4% d) MoDOT takes into consideration your needs and views in its transportation decision-making ...... 20.5% 42.4% 18.7% 18.4% e) MoDOT is the primary transportation expert in Missouri ....43.7% 43.0% 7.9% 5.3% f) Tolls are a fair way to pay for interstate highway and major bridge improvements ...... 23.8% 31.2% 13.9% 31.0% g) You are satisfied with the transportation options available to you besides your own personal vehicle...... 29.0% 38.2% 11.2% 21.6% h) MoDOT roadsides meet my expectations for mowing ...... 36.7% 42.8% 10.1% 10.3% i) MoDOT roads meet my expectations for snow removal ...... 39.7% 42.5% 8.1% 9.7% j) MoDOT roadsides meet my expectations for litter control...34.1% 45.9% 11.0% 9.0% k) I believe there should be cameras at intersections that photograph people who run red lights...... 44.6% 24.1% 10.2% 21.1% l) MoDOT needs to spend less money on roadsides and use the savings to build and maintain the roadways...... 35.0% 37.2% 17.2% 10.7% m) MoDOT provides enough signs and directions in work zones ...... 55.3% 37.0% 4.6% 3.1% n) Travel delays through MoDOT work zones are reasonable 39.0% 48.1% 7.4% 5.5% o) MoDOT signs are big enough and bright enough for me..... 63.5% 31.7% 2.9% 2.0% p) MoDOT stripes are bright enough for me ...... 51.0% 36.8% 7.5% 4.7% q) After a traffic incident, traffic returns to normal in a reasonable amount of time...... 36.3% 50.8% 7.1% 5.8%

Page 55 2007 Customer Satisfaction Survey Report MTI/UMR

Q3. When it comes to state highway projects in Missouri, which of these following statements comes closer to your opinion? [ROTATE]

a. Local communities should tax themselves to pay for a portion of the state highway projects that happen in their area...... 17.1% or b. All state highway projects should be paid for completely from statewide revenue sources ...... 82.9%

Q4. If more money were available for highways, would you rather [ROTATE] build more lanes and highways or do a better job of maintaining existing highways?

a. Build more lanes and highways ...... 23.9% or b. Do a better job of maintaining existing highways ... ……76.1%

Q5. What is your primary source of transportation related news? None 4.2% Other 5.3% Print Media 9.3% Radio 26.7% TV 47.6% Word of Mouth 7.0%

5a.______

Page 56 2007 Customer Satisfaction Survey Report MTI/UMR

Q6. I am going to read you a list of ways to improve transportation in Missouri. In thinking about Missouri's priorities for the future, I would like you to tell me how important it is that Missouri do more in each area that I list. Please keep in mind that we are not asking about the overall importance of the topic, but the importance that Missouri do more or better than it presently does in each area. Also keep in mind that asking for any increase in resources in one area requires either a decrease in resources another area or the need for the state to raise taxes to pay for it. [RANDOM START OVER TWO PAGES] [READ ITEM, THEN ASK] Would you say it is essential, very important, somewhat important, a little important, or not important that Missouri do more in this area?

Essential Very Smwht A Little Not Imp Imp Imp Imp a. Do more to maintain and improve the quality of transportation system in Missouri 19.3% 40.8% 28.8% 5.2% 6.0% b. Offer more or better bus services? 15.2% 30.8% 27.0% 8.8% 18.2% c. Provide more or better van services for senior citizens? 20.8% 40.3% 25.0% 6.2% 7.8% d. Provide more or better train or light-rail services? 13.6% 26.2% 27.4% 9.8% 23.0% e. Offer more alternative transportation options such as developing routes/trails for bicycles? 8.5% 19.5% 26.5% 14.1% 31.3% f. Pave more road shoulders on state roads 16.5% 33.5% 29.7% 8.2% 12.1% g. Reduce time spent in traffic jams 15.4% 35.2% 29.0% 6.9% 13.5%

Q7. Please rank the following from the highest to lowest priority. [ROTATE] Highest Middle Lowest a) Taking care of the existing highways and bridges 56.9% 31.6% 11.5% b) Expanding and building new highways 9.1% 25.0% 65.9% c) Improving highway safety 34.1% 43.4% 22.4%

Page 57 2007 Customer Satisfaction Survey Report MTI/UMR

Q8. Do you think MoDOT receives enough money at the present to take care of existing roads and transportation facilities and build new facilities? YES (skip to Q9) NO (Continue with Q8a) YES 59.9% NO 40.1%

Q8a. Which of the following measures would you vote to support to increase funding to MoDOT? [EXPECTING YES OR NO ANSWERS TO THE FOLLOWING] Yes No Skipped Question6 a) General sales tax 12.6% 9.0% 78.4% b) Increased fuel tax (user tax) 4.7% 16.9% 78.4% c) Toll roads (requiring a constitutional amendment) 10.7% 10.9% 78.4% d) Increase car registration and license fees 7.6% 13.9% 78.4%

Q9. Would you prefer Missouri give greater emphasis to constructing and maintaining the larger highways in the state system such as interstates and four lane divided highways or to the smaller mostly two lane roads that have official state highway numbers or letters but primarily carry local traffic (If Both PROBE: If you had to choose between these two choices which would you prefer?

a. Constructing and maintaining the larger highways...... 47.2% or b. Constructing and maintaining the smaller mostly two lane roads ...... 52.8%

6 781 people answered “No” on Q8 and were asked Questions 8a to 8d. Per MoDOT instructions, those who answered “Yes” on Q8 (1,168 people) were not asked Questions 8a to 8d. On their own judgment, the calling center also skipped questions Q8a to 8d for those who answered “Not Sure” on Question 8 (1,687 respondents). So the “Yes” and “No” calculations for the Q8a to 8d summary are calculated from the total pool of 3,636 respondents, of which 781 of whom answered these four questions.

Page 58 2007 Customer Satisfaction Survey Report MTI/UMR

[Questions 1-9 were those of direct interest to MoDOT. A few other questions were also necessary in order for us to ensure that the survey was indeed representative. These questions follow:] My last questions are so that we can group your answers with those in similar groups.

Q10. What is your age? AGE: ______

Q11. What is your zip code? ______

Q12. Which of the following best describes your ethnic background? • American Indian and Alaskan Native 1.4% • Asian 0.4% • Black or African American 5.2% • Hispanic or Latino 0.9% • Other 1.2% • White 88.9% • Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 0.1% • [Refused] 2.0%

Q13. Finally, if you combined the income for everyone living in your household last year, was it: • Less than $30,000; 36.5% • $30,000 to less than $50,000; 23.9% • $50,000 to less than $75,000; 15.2% • or $75,000 or greater? 11.6% • Refused 12.7%

[PROBE: DO NOT TAKE REFUSALS EASILY]

Page 59 2007 Customer Satisfaction Survey Report MTI/UMR

Questions and Results – Including “Not Sure” Respondents This section is included to allow MoDOT researcher to see how many people did not feel comfortable answering each question. We do not recommend the use of these numbers without first discussing it with Organizational Results. Instead we recommend using the numbers provided in the previous section.

Gender: Male: 48.5% Female: 51.5%

Very satisfied ...... 22.0% Somewhat satisfied ...... 48.3% Somewhat dissatisfied...... 11.7% Very dissatisfied...... 6.9% [NOT SURE] ...... 11.0%

Page 60 2007 Customer Satisfaction Survey Report MTI/UMR

Q2. I am going to read you a series of short statements about transportation in Missouri and about the Missouri Department of Transportation, that is MoDOT. Please tell me whether you agree or disagree with the statement I have just read. If you don't know how you feel about a particular statement, just say so and we’ll go on. Strongly Smwht Smwht Strongly [NOT Agree Agree Disagree Disagree SURE] a) MoDOT provides timely information to citizens about road projects, highway conditions, and work zones...... 30.0% 45.9% 7.6% 4.2% 12.2% b) MoDOT provides accurate information to citizens about road projects, highway conditions, and work zones...... 32.0% 41.2% 8.6% 4.8% 13.4% c) MoDOT provides understandable information to citizens about road projects, highway conditions, and work zones....32.8% 44.1% 8.0% 4.8% 10.3% d) MoDOT takes into consideration your needs and views in its transportation decision-making ...... 16.0% 33.2% 14.6% 14.4% 21.8% e) MoDOT is the primary transportation expert in Missouri ....34.2% 33.6% 6.2% 4.2% 21.8% f) Tolls are a fair way to pay for interstate highway and major bridge improvements ...... 21.0% 27.4% 12.2% 27.3% 12.1% g) You are satisfied with the transportation options available to you besides your own personal vehicle...... 24.4% 32.2% 9.4% 18.2% 15.7% h) MoDOT roadsides meet my expectations for mowing ...... 34.6% 40.4% 9.5% 9.7% 5.7% i) MoDOT roads meet my expectations for snow removal ...... 38.1% 40.8% 7.8% 9.3% 4.1% j) MoDOT roadsides meet my expectations for litter control...32.5% 43.7% 10.5% 8.5% 4.8% k) I believe there should be cameras at intersections that photograph people who run red lights...... 41.9% 22.6% 9.6% 19.8% 6.2% l) MoDOT needs to spend less money on roadsides and use the savings to build and maintain the roadways...... 29.6% 31.4% 14.5% 9.0% 15.4% m) MoDOT provides enough signs and directions in work zones ...... 53.6% 35.9% 4.4% 3.1% 3.1% n) Travel delays through MoDOT work zones are reasonable..36.8% 45.4% 7.0% 5.2% 5.6% o) MoDOT signs are big enough and bright enough for me...... 62.4% 31.1% 2.8% 1.9% 1.7% p) MoDOT stripes are bright enough for me ...... 49.9% 36.0% 7.3% 4.6% 2.1% q) After a traffic incident, traffic returns to normal in a reasonable amount of time...... 32.5% 45.4% 6.3% 5.2% 10.6%

Q3. When it comes to state highway projects in Missouri, which of these following statements comes closer to your opinion? [ROTATE]

a. Local communities should tax themselves to pay for a portion of the state highway projects that happen in their area...... 13.1% or b. All state highway projects should be paid for completely from statewide revenue sources ...... 63.3%

[NOT SURE]...... 23.7%

Page 61 2007 Customer Satisfaction Survey Report MTI/UMR

Q4. If more money were available for highways, would you rather [ROTATE] build more lanes and highways or do a better job of maintaining existing highways?

a. Build more lanes and highway …………………..19.0% or b. Do a better job of maintaining existing highways ...... 60.6%

[NOT SURE] ...... 20.5%

Q5. What is your primary source of transportation related news? None 4.2% Other 5.3% Print Media 9.3% Radio 26.7% TV 47.6% Word of Mouth 7.0%

5a.______

Essential Very Smwht A Little Not [NOT Imp Imp Imp Imp SURE] a. Do more to maintain and improve the quality of transportation system in Missouri 17.6% 37.2% 26.3% 4.8% 5.5% 8.7% b. Offer more or better bus services? 13.0% 26.5% 23.3% 7.6% 15.6% 14.0% c. Provide more or better van services for senior citizens? 19.1% 37.0% 23.0% 5.7% 7.2% 8.1% d. Provide more or better train or light-rail services? 11.6% 22.4% 23.5% 8.4% 19.7% 14.4% e. Offer more alternative transportation options such as developing routes/trails for bicycles? 7.8% 18.0% 24.4% 13.0% 28.9% 7.8% f. Pave more road shoulders on state roads 15.5% 31.6% 28.0% 7.8% 11.4% 5.8% g. Reduce time spent in traffic jams 13.6% 31.3% 25.7% 6.2% 12.0% 11.2%

Page 62 2007 Customer Satisfaction Survey Report MTI/UMR

Q8a. Which of the following measures would you vote to support to increase funding to MoDOT? [EXPECTING YES OR NO ANSWERS TO THE FOLLOWING] Yes No Skipped Question7 e) General sales tax 12.6% 9.0% 78.4% f) Increased fuel tax (user tax) 4.7% 16.9% 78.4% g) Toll roads (requiring a constitutional amendment) 10.7% 10.9% 78.4% h) Increase car registration and license fees 7.6% 13.9% 78.4%

a. Constructing and maintaining the larger highways...... 36.5% or b. Constructing and maintaining the smaller mostly two lane roads ...... 40.8% [NOT SURE] ...... 22.7%

7 781 people answered “No” on Q8 and were asked Questions 8a to 8d. Per MoDOT instructions, those who answered “Yes” on Q8 (1,168 people) were not asked Questions 8a to 8d. On their own judgment, the calling center also skipped questions Q8a to 8d for those who answered “Not Sure” on Question 8 (1,687 respondents). So the “Yes” and “No” calculations for the Q8a to 8d summary are calculated from the total pool of 3,636 respondents, of which 781 of whom answered these four questions.

Page 63 2007 Customer Satisfaction Survey Report MTI/UMR

Q10. What is your age? AGE: ______

Q11. What is your zip code? ______

Q13. Finally, if you combined the income for everyone living in your household last year, was it: • Less than $30,000 34.6% • $30,000 to less than $50,000 22.7% • $50,000 to less than $75,000 14.4% • $75,000 or greater 11.0% • [Refused] 12.2% • Not Sure 5.1%

[PROBE: DO NOT TAKE REFUSALS EASILY]

Page 64 2007 Customer Satisfaction Survey Report MTI/UMR

Appendix B: Additional Details on Transportation Related News Survey Question 5 asked respondents “What is your primary source of transportation related news?” In addition to asking respondents to select from one of the following options (Print Media, Radio, TV, Word of Mouth, Other, and None), respondents were then asked to provide additional detail. The results of those who did so appear in this section, segmented by District. Table 7: Primary Source of Transportation News D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 D7 D8 D9 D10 Total Print Media 35 31 36 18 37 32 49 36 30 34 338 Radio 110 127 109 98 106 109 69 98 85 61 972 TV 165 145 164 189 148 187 174 189 171 197 1,729 Word of 22 33 26 22 30 13 28 22 28 31 255 Mouth Other 16 20 22 19 22 17 20 15 21 19 191 None 14 19 11 12 22 12 20 13 15 13 151 Total 362 375 368 358 365 370 360 373 350 355 3,636 The total responses within the individual tables for each District may exceed the actual number of responses shown above. This is because we separated answers when possible. For example “Weather Channel and Channel 5” counted as two answers in our District tables. We did this to make the tables more useful. Other than tallying individual totals (that is, we show seventeen people said Channel 2 instead of listing Channel 2 seventeen times), we have kept the original responses as much as possible. Readers will note that some TV channels are listed under Radio and some radio stations are listed under TV as well as a few other oddities. This is correct; this is what the respondents said. Respondents sometimes have trouble with individual details over the phone, but their responses are all related to how they receive their transportation news.

Page 65 2007 Customer Satisfaction Survey Report MTI/UMR

District 1 Table 8: Print Media Options for District 1 Response Number NEWSPAPER - NO OTHER DETAILS 10 KANSAS CITY 1 MARYVILLE DAILY FORM 2 NEWS AND PRESS 1 REPUBLICAN TIMES AND SAINT JOSEPH 1 NEWS PRESS SAINT JOSEPH NEWS PRESS 16 ST JOSEPH 3 ST JOSEPH GAZETTE 1 TOTAL 35

Table 9: Radio Media Options for District 1 Response Number 61 3 68 1 88.5 1 91.4 1 92.6 1 92.7 9 93.3 1 93.7 1 94.9 2 95.5 5 95.7 3 98.1 1 98.9 2 100.7 1 101.7 2 105 1 106.5 1 680 2 105.5 KJO 2 106.5 THE WOLF 1 1270 AM 2 610 AM 1 710 KCMO AM 1 92.7 KQ COUNTRY 4 95.5 FM KAAN 1 960 AM 2

Page 66 2007 Customer Satisfaction Survey Report MTI/UMR

97 DIVILL 1 99 ROCK 1 AFEQ/ST JOSEPHS 1 ALL OF THE ABOVE 1 CARLTONKMZU 1 CB 1 CHANNEL 680 1 CHRISTIAN STATIONS 1 KAAM 7 KANSAS CITY 7 KATHY Q 1 KCXL/KCMO 1 KDUL K102 1 KFAQ 5 KKJO 1 KMA 4 KPRS 1 KPTN 1 KQED 1 KTTN 3 KXCV 2 LOCAL 6 MISC 1 OMAHA 999 1 PUBLIC 1 Q COUNTRY 1 RADIO AND TV 1 SAINT JOE CHANNEL 4 UNKNOWN 6 VARIOUS 1 TOTAL 117

Table 10: TV Media Options for District 1 Response Number 10KK 1 ABC 5 ALL CHANNELS 1 ALL OF THE ABOVE 1 AQTV 1 CBS 2 CHANNEL CNN 13

Page 67 2007 Customer Satisfaction Survey Report MTI/UMR

CHANNEL 10 7 CHANNEL 12 1 CHANNEL 2 30 CHANNEL 3 2 CHANNEL 4 27 CHANNEL 41 3 CHANNEL 5 18 CHANNEL 52 1 CHANNEL 8 3 CHANNEL 9 14 CHANNEL LOCAL 2 FOX 5 K22 2 KANSAS CITY 1 KCMO 1 KFEQ 2 KMBC 2 KQ 10 KT2 1 KTMO 1 KTTWO 1 KTU 1 KVSB 1 LOCAL 8 MSNBC 3 NEWS 3 NO CHOICE 1 TV 1 UNKNOWN 1 UNSURE 1 WDAF 1 WEATHER CHANNEL 1 WORLD NEWS 1 TOTAL 181

Page 68 2007 Customer Satisfaction Survey Report MTI/UMR

Table 11: Other Media Options for District 1 Response Number INTERNET 4 ALL OF THE ABOVE 4 (PRINT MEDIA, RADIO, TV, WORD OF MOUTH) DIFFERENT ORGANIZATION 1 ON THE ROAD 3 TELEPHONE HOTLINE 1 RADIO AND TV 2 WORK 1 TOTAL 16

Page 69 2007 Customer Satisfaction Survey Report MTI/UMR

District 2 Table 12: Print Media Options for District 2 Response Number CHILLICOTHE 1 COLUMBIA TRIBUNE 1 DES MOINES REGISTER 1 KANSAS CITY 2 KC STAR 1 KIRKSVILLE DAILY 1 LINN COUNTY LEADER 1 MACON HAROLD 1 MAKEN 1 MARSHELL DEMOCRAT NEWS 1 MILAN STANDARD 1 MOBBILY INDEX 6 MONITOR INDEX 2 NEWSPAPER - NO OTHER 6 DETAILS SAINT JOSEPH NEWS PRESS 1 ST LOUIS PAPER 1 ST LOUIS POST 2 WALL STREET JOURNAL 1 TOTAL 31

Table 13: Radio Media Options for District 2 Response Number 23 1 90.7 1 92.3 7 93.7 2 93.9 3 95.7 2 96.9 2 97.3 1 98.9 1 102.9 1 104.7 8 106.1 1 107 1 107.3 1 1230 1 1450 1

Page 70 2007 Customer Satisfaction Survey Report MTI/UMR

1470 1 1703 1 2222 1 1580 AM OUT OF COLUMBIA 1 92 FM 1 94.9 KCMO 1 96.7 KCMQ 2 99.3 1 A LOT 2 ATF KIRKSVILLE 1 BXR 1 CARLTON 2 CHANNEL 3 - KTVO 1 CHANNEL 8 1 CLEAR 99 2 CRESS 1 EAGLE 1 K TUFF 1 KAMZU 1 KCHI 1 KIRX 3 KMCU 1 KMEM IN MEMPHIS 1 KMMO 11 KMO 1 KMOX 1 KMZ 1 KMZU 7 KN RADIO 1 KNMO 2 KRES 6 KRX 1 KTTN 7 KTUF 2 KUDL 1 KWWR/KWIX 1 KZBK RADIO 1 LOCAL 5 MEXICO 1 MISC 2 MOBLIE 1 MOVERLY 1

Page 71 2007 Customer Satisfaction Survey Report MTI/UMR

QUICKS AND PRESS OUT OF MOBLEY 1 SATELLITE RADIO 1 SLOCAL 1 STATION PUBLIC RADIO 1 THE FARM 1 TRINTON 1 TV AND NEWSPAPER 1 UKNOWN 6 TOTAL 129

Page 72 2007 Customer Satisfaction Survey Report MTI/UMR

Table 14: TV Media Options for District 2 Response Number ABC 6 ALL LOCAL 7 ALL OF THE ABOVE 3 CABLE TV 1 CBS 3 CH 03 KTVO 15 CHANNEL 7 3 CHANNEL CNN 4 CHANNEL 10 2 CHANNEL 13 7 CHANNEL 17 5 CHANNEL 38 1 CHANNEL 4 9 CHANNEL 41 4 CHANNEL 5 5 CHANNEL 6 3 CHANNEL 8 20 CHANNEL 9 11 CHANNEL KAAN 4 CHANNEL KTVO 1 COLUMBIA 2 FARM STATION 1 FOX NEWS 5 JEFFERSON CITY 1 KCHI 98.5 1 KCMO 1 KLMU 1 KMBC 1 KMOU 3 KTTB 1 KTVO 8 NBC 3 NEWS 1 TV 2 UNSURE 5 WEATHER CHANNEL 1 TOTAL 151

Page 73 2007 Customer Satisfaction Survey Report MTI/UMR

Table 15: Other Media Options for District 2 Response Number ALL OF THE ABOVE 2 INTERNET 7 NEWSPAPER 1 ON THE ROAD 6 RADIO 3 SCANNER 1 SIGNS 1 TV 2 TOTAL 23

Page 74 2007 Customer Satisfaction Survey Report MTI/UMR

District 3 Table 16: Print Media Options for District 3 Response Number COURIER POST 1 HANNIBAL 12 JOURNAL 1 KANSAS CITY POST DISPATCH 3 LINCOLN COUNTY JOURNAL 1 MEDIA 2 MEXICO LEDGER 2 MONROE COUNTY APPEAL 1 NEWSPAPER - NO OTHER DETAILS 8 QUINCY HERALD WHIG 2 SALEMS POST 2 SENTINEL 1 ST LOUIS POST 1 VANDAILA READER 1 TOTAL 38

Table 17: Radio Media Options for District 3 Response Number 92.3 3 93.7 2 94.1 2 94.5 1 94.7 2 95.3 1 95.6 1 95.7 1 96.3 1 96.7 1 97.1 1 97.9 3 100.5 1 102.1 1 102.5 3 104.7 1 105.7 2 105.9 2 106.7 2

Page 75 2007 Customer Satisfaction Survey Report MTI/UMR

106.9 2 107.3 2 730 AM 1 ALL OF THE ABOVE 1 ALL OVER 1 CB RADIO 1 CHANNEL 94 1 1 CHANNEL FOX 1 COUNTRY 96 1 CRAFT 1 FM 901 1 FOX SPORTS 1 HANNIBAL QUINCY 1 KC 5 KEN 1 KFAV 2 KFAZ 1 KFCK 1 KGRC 1 KHMO 2 KHQA 1 KIOX 1 KIRXL 1 KJFM 1 KMAMEM 1 KMEM 6 KMOX 5 KRES 2 KRIS 1 KRXO 1 KSIV 1 KTUF KUSTVILLIE 1 KWRE 2 KWWR 3 KXEO 1 KXZO 1 LOCAL 2 MISC 2 NATIONAL WEATHER STATION 1 QUINCY 1 RADIO 1 SAINT LOIUS 1

Page 76 2007 Customer Satisfaction Survey Report MTI/UMR

SATILITE 1 THE BULL 1 TV 2 UNKNOWN 6 VARIOUS 1 WCOY 1 WEATHER CHANNEL 1 WGEM 3 WIL 1 TOTAL 113

Table 18: TV Media Options for District 3 Response Number 1660 1 ABC 2 ALL OF THE ABOVE 1 BEWS 1 CHANNEL 10 16 CHANNEL 11 2 CHANNEL 13 6 CHANNEL 17 2 CHANNEL 19 1 CHANNEL 2 27 CHANNEL 3 2 CHANNEL 4 12 CHANNEL 5 13 CHANNEL 7 19 CHANNEL 8 10 CHANNEL 9 1 CHANNEL ANY 1 CHANNEL ATVO 1 CHNL MISC 1 CNN 2 COLUMBIA STATION 1 HISTORY 1 KFSK 1 KHQA 10 KSB 2 LOCAL 5 MSNBC 6 NA 1

Page 77 2007 Customer Satisfaction Survey Report MTI/UMR

NEWS 2 QUINCIE 2 TV 1 UNKNOWN 4 WGEM 4 WGN 1 TOTAL 162

Table 19: Other Media Options for District 3 Response Number ALL OF THE ABOVE 5 INTERNET 4 KHUA:TV, 97.9 KISS RADIO 1 ON THE ROAD 4 RADIO AND TV 1 SCANNER 3 SIGNS 2 TELEPHONE HOTLINE 2 TOTAL 22

Page 78 2007 Customer Satisfaction Survey Report MTI/UMR

District 4 Table 20: Print Media Options for District 4 Response Number INDEPENDENCE 1 KANSAS CITY STAR 12 NEWSPAPER - NO OTHER DETAILS 5 TOTAL 18

Table 21: Radio Media Options for District 4 Response Number 10.33 1 88.5 3 89.3 3 94.1 2 94.9 7 99.3 1 99.9 1 101 3 105.1 1 106.5 2 107 2 107.3 3 710 2 810 2 980 3 ABC 2 ALL OF THE ABOVE 6 CBS 2 CHANNEL 12 1 CHANNEL 4 22 CHANNEL 5 9 CHANNEL 9 15 KCCB 1 KCCV 98 1 KCMO 4 KCR 1 KCUR 4 KDKD 1 KFKF 6 KLJC 1 KLOVE 1

Page 79 2007 Customer Satisfaction Survey Report MTI/UMR

KMBZ 9.80 1 KMZU 1 KPRS 1 KPRT 1 KTGB 1 KUDL 3 LOCAL 6 NBR 1 SEVERAL STATIONS 1 THE FOX 3 UNSURE 9 TOTAL 141

Page 80 2007 Customer Satisfaction Survey Report MTI/UMR

Table 22: TV Media Options for District 4 Response Number ABC 3 CBS 3 CHANNEL 10 1 CHANNEL 12 ABC 1 CHANNEL 13 4 CHANNEL 3 1 CHANNEL 3 1 CHANNEL 4 60 CHANNEL 41 3 CHANNEL 459 1 CHANNEL 5 22 CHANNEL 6 1 CHANNEL 9 13 CHANNEL NBC 1 CHANNELS FROM SPRINGFIELD, 1 AND KANSAS CITY CNN 1 CSPAN 1 KC5 1 KCMO 1 KNBC 1 LOCAL 10 NBC 5 NEW 1 PRT 1 TMBZ 1 TV 91 UNKNOWN 5 WDAS 1 TOTAL 236

Table 23: Other Media Options for District 4 Response Number ALL OF THE ABOVE 3 BIBLE 1 INTERNET 7 ON THE ROAD 6 SIGNS 2 TOTAL 19

Page 81 2007 Customer Satisfaction Survey Report MTI/UMR

District 5 Table 24: Print Media Options for District 5 Response Number AAA MAGAZINE 1 CITY PAPER 1 COUMBIA DIALY TRIB 4 ELDEN ADVERTISING 1 ENTERPRISE 1 JEFFERSON CITY 3 KANSAS CITY STAR 1 LAKESUN LEADER 2 NEWSPAPER - NO OTHER DETAILS 14 SAINT LOUIS POST 1 SEDALA DEMOCRAT 1 BELL BANNER 1 THE BOONEVILLE DAILY 1 THE GAZETTE 1 TIMES HERALD 1 TODAY DEM 1 TOTAL 35

Table 25: Radio Media Options for District 5 Response Number 13 1 90.7 1 92.3 1 92.7 2 93.5 1 93.9 3 94.3 4 95.1 5 96.1 1 96.7 4 97.1 2 99.3 1 99.3 8 100.1 2 105.7 3 106.1 1 106.1 3 107 1

Page 82 2007 Customer Satisfaction Survey Report MTI/UMR

107.1 1 107.7 1 107.9 1 AM RADIO 1 ARLL 1 CHANNEL 17 1 CHANNEL 8 1 CLEAR 99 5 EAGEL TALK 3 FOLTON STATION KKCA 1 H950 1 KBIA 2 KDO 1 KDRO 4 KFRU 9 KJEL 1 KLIK 1 KMMO 1 KOPM 1 KPLA 1 KPTK 1 KRLL 1 KS 95 3 KSFM 1 KSIS 1 KWF 1 KWOS 1 KWRT 3 LOCAL STATIONS 2 MEXICAN FM 2 MPR 102.3 1 PMR 1 RADIO 2 UNKNOWN 8 WKDRO 1 TOTAL 111

Page 83 2007 Customer Satisfaction Survey Report MTI/UMR

Table 26: TV Media Options for District 5 Response Number ABC 3 ALL OF THE ABOVE 3 ANY TV 2 CBS 5 CHANNEL 10 3 CHANNEL 13 24 CHANNEL 17 8 CHANNEL 18 1 CHANNEL 2 1 Channel 205 1 CHANNEL 3 9 CHANNEL 38 2 CHANNEL 4 2 Channel 47 1 CHANNEL 5 4 CHANNEL 56 1 CHANNEL 7 1 CHANNEL 8 15 CHANNEL 9 3 CHANNEL KOMU 1 CHANNEL LOCAL 8 CHANNEL MISC 3 CHANNEL PBS 1 CHANNEL15 KRCG 1 CNN 4 FOX 6 KAOU 1 KCMO 1 KMBC 1 KMO 1 KOMU 4 KRCG 8 KWRT 1 KY3 1 NBC 8 NEWS 3 SPRINGFIELD DAILY 1 WEATHER CHANNEL 1 TOTAL 144

Page 84 2007 Customer Satisfaction Survey Report MTI/UMR

Table 27: Other Media Options for District 5 Response Number ALL OF THE ABOVE 3 CB Radio 1 INTERNET 9 NEWSPAPER 2 ON THE ROAD 2 SCANNER 1 SIGNS 3 TELEPHONE HOTLINE 2 TOTAL 23

Page 85 2007 Customer Satisfaction Survey Report MTI/UMR

District 6 Table 28: Print Media Options for District 6 Response Number INDEPENDENT NEWS 1 JEFFERSON COUNTY JOURNAL 1 LOCAL PAPER EUREKA 1 MELLEVILLE COUNTY JOURNAL 1 NEWSPAPER - NO OTHER DETAILS 4 POST 23 STL TODAY NEWPAPER 1 TOTAL 32

Table 29: Radio Media Options for District 6 Response Number 90.7 2 92.3 3 93.7 3 95.5 2 96.3 3 97.1 4 97.7 1 98.2 1 98.5 1 98.7 1 100.7 1 102.5 1 103.3 4 104.1 1 104.9 4 105.7 2 106.05 1 106.5 3 107.7 2 183 1 515 1 590 1 1120 2 103 KLOU 1 550 AM 2 ALL CHANNELS 1 AMOX 1

Page 86 2007 Customer Satisfaction Survey Report MTI/UMR

BULL 1 CLEAR 94 1 KAMEL 7 1 KC 2 KMARTR 1 KMJN 1 KMOX 17 KSD 1 KTRS 2 KTU 1 KWMB 1 KWMU 2 KYOS 1 LOCAL 2 MJ107 1 PUBLIC BROADCAST 1 RADIO 2 SAM WORKS 1 SIRIUS 1 TALK RADIO FTRS 1 THE B 1 VARIOUS RADIO STATIONS 8 WIL 9 XM 1 Y98.1 1 TOTAL 111

Page 87 2007 Customer Satisfaction Survey Report MTI/UMR

Table 30: TV Media Options for District 6 Response Number 590 1 ABC 5 ALL OF THE ABOVE 1 CABLE CHANNEL 99 1 CBS 2 CHANNEL 11 1 CHANNEL 3 1 CHANNEL 4 34 CHANNEL 5 58 CNN 2 Fox 2 54 KFCK 1 KMOV 2 KSCK 2 KSDK 1 LOCAL 4 NBC 9 NEWS 5 VARIOUS TV CHANNELS 9 TOTAL 193

Table 31: Other Media Options for District 6 Response Number ALL OF THE ABOVE 3 CALL MODOT 1 CB RADIO 1 INTERNET 9 SIGNS 2 WORK 1 TOTAL 17

Page 88 2007 Customer Satisfaction Survey Report MTI/UMR

District 7 Table 32: Print Media Options for District 7 Response Number COUNTY PAPER 1 HUMAN EVENTS 1 JOPLIN GLOBE 26 KANSAS CITY STAR 2 MCDONALD COUNTY 1 MOONETTE TIME 1 NEWSPAPER - NO OTHER DETAILS 12 NONETT TIMES 1 SPRINGFIELD LEADER 2 TOTAL 47

Table 33: Radio Media Options for District 7 Response Number 10.4 1 14.15 1 92.5 1 93.1 1 93.5 1 94.7 3 95.1 2 95.1 1 95.3 1 95.5 1 96.5 1 96.9 1 97.9 1 99.7 1 102 1 102.5 7 103.5 1 103.9 1 104.1 1 104.3 1 105.1 1 105.2 1 107.7 1 710 1 990 1

Page 89 2007 Customer Satisfaction Survey Report MTI/UMR

1310 1 560 AM 1 ALL OF THE ABOVE 1 BUTLER 1 COUNTRY 1 COW 1 KBTN 1 KDDS 1 KDKD 1 KICKS 104 1 KIX 3 KKOW 1 KMBZ 2 KNEN 1 KOAM 1 KOBC 2 KSN 1 KTTS 2 KWSC 2 KWTO 2 KWTO 1 KY3 1 LOCAL 2 Q104 1 TALK RADIO 1 THE ROCK 1 TV 1 US97 1 VARIOUS RADIO STATIONS 5 TOTAL 75

Page 90 2007 Customer Satisfaction Survey Report MTI/UMR

Table 34: TV Media Options for District 7 Response Number ABC 7 ALL OF THE ABOVE 1 AND RADIO(KDKD) 1 CABLE 1 CCN 1 CHANNEL 10 13 CHANNEL 12 14 CHANNEL 14 1 CHANNEL 16 17 CHANNEL 2 1 CHANNEL 3 18 CHANNEL 33 1 CHANNEL 4 7 CHANNEL 5 4 CHANNEL 6 CBS 8 CHANNEL 7 17 CHANNEL 9 2 DEPENDS 1 FOX 7 JOB 1 JOPLIN CHANNELS 1 KCMO 1 KOAM 6 KODE 8 KOLR 8 KOM 1 KSN 3 KTTS 1 KY3 8 LOCAL 8 NBC 6 NEWS 2 PITTSBURG 1 PUBLIC TELEVISION 1 SPRINGFIELD CHANNELS 4 VARIOUS TV CHANNELS 9 TOTAL 191

Page 91 2007 Customer Satisfaction Survey Report MTI/UMR

Table 35: Other Media Options for District 7 Response Number ALL OF THE ABOVE 1 BARS 1 CB RADIO 1 HAM RADIO 1 INTERNET 4 ON THE ROAD 4 RADIO AND TV 1 SCANNER 1 SIGNS 5 TELEPHONE HOTLINE 1 TOTAL 20

Page 92 2007 Customer Satisfaction Survey Report MTI/UMR

District 8 Table 36: Print Media Options for District 8 Response Number BUFFALO REFLEX 1 CITY NEWSPAPER 1 DAILY RECORD 1 LEADER 4 LOCAL LEBINON 1 NEWSPAPER - NO OTHER DETAILS 9 SPRINGFIELD 18 THE MOUNTAIN GROVE JOURNAL 1 TOTAL 36

Table 37: Radio Media Options for District 8 Response Number 56 1 88.3 1 92 1 92.9 4 93.1 1 93.7 1 94.7 6 95.5 2 96.5 3 97.3 2 98.7 1 100.5 2 101.3 1 103.7 1 103.9 1 104.1 2 104.1 4 104.7 3 106 1 106.7 1 107.3 1 107.9 1 1260 1 83.3 WIND 1 92.9 KTTS 1 ALL OF THE ABOVE 1 ATTS 1

Page 93 2007 Customer Satisfaction Survey Report MTI/UMR

CB RADIO 1 CLASIC COUNTRY 1 KGBX 1 KJEL 103.7 3 KJR 1 KSGF 104.1 1 KSGS 1 KSMU 2 KTGF 1 KTLO 1 KTPS 2 KTT 2 KTTF 1 KTTN 1 KTTS 20 KTXR 1 KWSC 1 KWTO 2 LOCAL 3 Q102 1 SIRIUS SATELLITE 1 SKTTS 1 SPORTS 1 T V NEWS 1 UNKNOWN 3 US 97 1 TOTAL 101

Page 94 2007 Customer Satisfaction Survey Report MTI/UMR

Table 38: TV Media Options for District 8 Response Number ABC 5 CBC 6 CHANNEL 63 1 CHANNEL MISC 1 CHANNEL 10 28 CHANNEL 12 3 CHANNEL 27 3 CHANNEL 2KY3 1 CHANNEL 3 57 CHANNEL 33 6 CHANNEL 4 3 CHANNEL 5 3 CHANNEL KY3 32 CHANNEL KYD 1 LOCAL CHANNELS 8 CHANNEL NBC 1 CNBC 2 CNN 2 FOX 6 KN3 1 KSGS 1 KT3 1 KTTS 1 KYTV 1 NBC 9 NEWS 4 NONE 5 PBS 1 VARIOUS TV CHANNELS 2 WEATHER CHANNEL 1 TOTAL 196

Page 95 2007 Customer Satisfaction Survey Report MTI/UMR

Table 39: Other Media Options for District 8 Response Number ALL OF THE ABOVE 3 CB RADIO 1 INTERNET 7 ON THE ROAD 1 SIGNS 3 TOTAL 15

Page 96 2007 Customer Satisfaction Survey Report MTI/UMR

District 9 Table 40: Print Media Options for District 9 Response Number CNN 1 CURRENT WAVE 2 DAILY GUIDE 2 NEWSPAPER - NO OTHER DETAILS 6 NOT SURE 1 POST DISPATCH 1 PROSPECT NEWS 1 SAINT LOUIS POST DISPATCH 2 SPRINGFIELD 4 STEELVILLE STAR 1 SUMMERVILLE BEACON 1 THE DAILY JOURNAL 1 THE SALEM NEWS 1 TRENT 1 WEST PLAINS DAILY QUILL 1 TOTAL 26

Table 41: Radio Media Options for District 9 Response Number 5 1 89.1 1 94.7 1 95.1 6 97.4 1 98.5 1 99.3 2 99.7 1 101 1 102.5 2 104.9 1 105.3 5 106.9 1 107.1 1 107.5 1 107.7 3 100.9 SULLIVAN 1 102.5 (KDY) 1 92.1 SPIRIT FM 1

Page 97 2007 Customer Satisfaction Survey Report MTI/UMR

BASIC 1 BOTH TV AND RADIO 1 BULL 1 CB 2 CLEAR94 1 COUNTRY 99.9 1 FROGGY 98 RADIO 1 J98 3 K COUNTRY 95 FHAYER 3 KALM 1 KFVD 2 KJPW 4 KJTW 2 KKDY 2 KKTW 1 KMOS 1 KMOX 1 KTTR 3 KTTS 1 KTUI 1 KUMR 1 KWBM 1 KZNN 2 LOCAL 5 OUT OF MOUNTAIN VIEW MO 1 Q94 FM 1 SIRUS 1 SPIRITFM 1 ST ROBERTS 1 STATION 98.9 1 THE SOURCE 97.9 1 VARIOUS STATIONS 4 WIL 92 FM 1 TOTAL 86

Page 98 2007 Customer Satisfaction Survey Report MTI/UMR

Table 42: TV Media Options for District 9 Response Number ABC 5 ALL OF THE ABOVE 1 ALL OVER 1 CBS 4 CHANNEL 10 15 CHANNEL 11 2 CHANNEL 12 5 CHANNEL 13 3 CHANNEL 15 1 CHANNEL 16 2 CHANNEL 17 1 CHANNEL 2 14 CHANNEL 3 49 CHANNEL 33 1 CHANNEL 4 16 CHANNEL 5 7 CHANNEL 8 2 CHANNEL KSVS 1 CNN 2 ESPN 1 FOX 6 KFVS 3 KMOB 1 KRCG 1 KSBK 1 KSES 1 KW3 1 LOCAL 5 MSNBC 6 NA 1 SPRINGFIELD NEWS 1 SPRINGFIELD 3, NBC 1 ST LOUIS 1 ST LOUIS CHANNEL 4 1 VARIOUS TV CHANNELS 4 TOTAL 167

Page 99 2007 Customer Satisfaction Survey Report MTI/UMR

Table 43: Other Media Options for District 9 Response Number ALL OF THE ABOVE 1 INTERNET 8 ON THE ROAD 5 RADIO AND TV 2 SCANNER 1 SIGNS 3 THROUGH THE MAIL 1 TOTAL 21

Page 100 2007 Customer Satisfaction Survey Report MTI/UMR

District 10 Table 44: Print Media Options for District 10 Response Number COUNTY COMISSIONER AND MODOT MAILS THEM 1 INFORMATION DAILY AMERICAN REPUBLIC 5 DAILY DUMPLIN DEMOCRAT 1 DAILY STANDARD 1 FOX DAILY 1 NEWSPAPER - NO OTHER DETAILS 8 POST DISPATCH 1 READERS DIGEST 1 SOUTHEAST MISSOURIAN 10 ST FRANCES COUNTY DAILY JOURNAL 1 ST GENEVIVE HEROLD 1 STANDARD DEMOCRAT 1 SYKSTO 1 TOTAL 33

Table 45: Radio Media Options for District 10 Response Number 90.3 1 93.9 1 94.5 1 94.7 1 95.5 4 102.9 1 103 1 104.9 1 105 1 106 1 106.1 1 107.5 1 550 1 100.7,98.1,97.1 1 102.5 J98 1 93.7 THE BULL 1 930 AM 1 960 OR K103 2 CHANNEL 2 1 CHANNEL 4 1 CLEAR 94 1

Page 101 2007 Customer Satisfaction Survey Report MTI/UMR

J98 1 K103 2 KARI 1 KBBC 93.1 1 KBOA 1 KCRV 1 KKLR 1 KLOU 1 KMOX 3 KRCU 2 KSJM 2 KTJJ 2 KYLS 2 KZIM 4 LOCAL 2 NONE 1 STORM 97.5 1 THE BULL 1 TV AND RADIO 1 VARIOUS RADIO STATIONS 11 WIL 1 TOTAL 67

Table 46: TV Media Options for District 10 Response Number BBS 1 CBS 18 CHANNEL 12 59 CHANNEL 120 1 CHANNEL 13 1 CHANNEL 15 2 CHANNEL 17 1 CHANNEL 2 6 CHANNEL 23 1 CHANNEL 4 17 CHANNEL 44 2 CHANNEL 5 11 CHANNEL 7 5 CHANNEL 8 2 CHANNEL CNN 1 CHANNEL KFES 1

Page 102 2007 Customer Satisfaction Survey Report MTI/UMR

CHANNEL KFS 12 1 CHANNEL KFVS 1 CHANNEL KFZS 1 CHANNEL KSD 4 1 CHANNEL LOCAL NEWS 1 CMT 1 CNN 3 COURT 1 FOX 4 KBS 1 KEFSTV 1 KFBS 5 KFDS 6 KFES 1 KFVF 1 KFVS 9 KFZS 1 KSBS 12 2 KSCS 1 KSDS 12 2 KSF12 1 KSVS 3 KSZ12 1 KXOP 1 LOCAL 7 NBC 4 NONE 2 REPUBLIC MONITOR 1 VARIOUS TV CHANNELS 3 WEATHER CHANNEL 1 TOTAL 197

Page 103 2007 Customer Satisfaction Survey Report MTI/UMR

Table 47: Other Media Options for District 10 Response Number AAA 1 ALL ABOVE AND THE INTERNET 1 INTERNET 8 NEWSPAPER 1 ON THE ROAD 2 SIGNS 4 TV AND NEWSPAPER 1 WORK 1 TOTAL 19

Page 104

Missouri Department of Transportation 573.526.4335 Organizational Results 1 888 ASK MODOT P. O. Box 270 [email protected] Jefferson City, MO 65102 www.modot.org/services/rdt